U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

97–800 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–761 

FINDING COOPERATIVE SOLUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITH THE CONOWINGO 

DAM TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF THE 

CHESAPEAKE BAY 

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 

MAY 5, 2014—CONOWINGO, MD 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 5, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 26 

WITNESSES 

Jordan, Colonel J. Richard III, Commander and District Engineer, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers—Baltimore District ............................................................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 15 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 23 

LaRouche, Genevieve Pullis, Field Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service—Chesapeake Bay Field Office ............................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 35 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 42 

Boesch, Donald, Ph.D., President, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science ...................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 59 

Will, Vicky, Vice President, Environment and Safety, Exelon Corporation ....... 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 77 

Gray, Hon. Richard, Mayor, City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania ............................. 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Gill, Hon. Joe, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources ............. 124 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 132 

(1) 

FINDING COOPERATIVE SOLUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITH THE 

CONOWINGO DAM TO IMPROVE THE 

HEALTH OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, 

Conowingo, MD. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:57 a.m., in the 

Conowingo Visitors Center and Recreation Office, Hon. Benjamin 

L. Cardin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. I’m going to do something which is unheard of 

in the U.S. Senate. We’re going to start a few minutes early. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. So just don’t tell my colleagues that we did that, 

because I know our first panel is ready to go, and I very much appreciate everyone that’s here. 

This is a particularly glorious day. So it’s nice to be able to be 

up here on the Susquehanna on a beautiful day. 

I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter, the chair and 

Republican leader on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for allowing us to have a field hearing. I thought it was important to have the hearing here right at the dam site on the Susquehanna in order to provide the best setting and the most convenient setting for a public hearing as it relates to two very important 

goals that we have in our country, and that is energy supply and 

environment, and the two are very much related to our discussion 

today. 

Senator Boozman, who is the lead Republican on the Subcommittee on Wildlife and Water, is recovering from a serious condition. I hope I’ll see him this week in Washington. He’s the lead 

Republican on the subcommittee that I have the opportunity of 

chairing. 

So with all of those preliminaries out of the way, welcome, everyone. And as I said, this hearing is scheduled because there’s two 

very important goals that we have. This dam provides an incredible 

amount of carbon-free energy to our country, which is very important—1.6 billion kilowatt hours of zero-carbon energy annually. 
2 

That’s very important. It’s been here since 1928, so it’s been here 

for a long time. 

The energy needs are clear. My staff tells me this is the second 

largest production of hydroelectric power on the East Coast of the 

United States, second only to Niagara. So this is a significant facility as it relates to power. It supports a 9,000-acre reservoir that I’m 

sure that we will be talking about today. 

The Susquehanna River is critically important to the Chesapeake 

Bay and to our environment. It is the largest source of fresh water 

going into the Chesapeake Bay, starting at Cooperstown, New 

York, which I’ve had the opportunity to personally visit. So it’s an 

important environmental issue. 

The upstream pollution is not healthy for the Bay. We know 

that. The sources of the pollution is not the dam. The sources of 

the pollution is upstream, and we know about the sediment and 

the issues of the sediment. We also know that there are other pollutants, including the nutrient levels of the Bay. It can be devastating to the aquatic life, the degradation of our oysters, our 

crab, our rockfish, and hundreds of species are very much impacted 

by the sediment and nutrients that flow into the Susquehanna and 

into the Chesapeake Bay. 

The environmental problems are well known on the Bay. We’ve 

been talking about this for a long time. I started on the Bay program when I was in the State legislature, when Harry Hughes was 

Governor of Maryland. So it goes back a long time, our efforts to 

try to deal with the Bay. 

The reservoir that was created as a result of the dam provides 

a trapping source for a lot of those pollutants. They’re held in the 

reservoir. That’s a good thing. But now we’re talking about reaching the capacity of what the reservoir can handle from the point 

of view of the sediment control. 

Therefore, we’re going to talk about a term of dynamic equilibrium. The first time I heard that term was when I was reading 

the material for this hearing. So we’d like to know what that 

means and what the impact of dynamic equilibrium is on the 

Chesapeake Bay and what happens during scouring events, when 

we have an extreme condition. 

I was here a little bit early, so I drove across the dam just to 

take a look at it. We couldn’t help but notice the incredible amount 

of debris that’s being held by the dam today. What impact do scouring events have on this dynamic equilibrium and on the Bay itself? 

We’ll have a chance to talk about that and other issues during this 

hearing today. 

Colonel Jordan, it’s a pleasure to have you here. The Army Corps 

has completed a study, and we thank Exelon and the Nature Conservancy and the State of Maryland for helping facilitate that 

study. That study dealt with the sediment issue, a very important 

part of it, and we’ll have a chance to review the impact of that 

study on our work today. 

We know that there is a responsibility of all the stakeholders. I 

want to emphasize that. It’s not just one stakeholder, but all the 

stakeholders. Clearly, what happens upstream and how we handle 

our waste, how we handle farming operations, how we handle de-
3 

velopment upstream all affect the quality of the Bay and the effectiveness of what can be done here at this dam. 

Exelon clearly has a responsibility as the operator of the dam. 

We’ll be able to talk about that. Vicky Will, we thank you very 

much for being here today. She will be on the second panel. 

We have government partners. I particularly appreciate Mayor 

Gray from Lancaster being here to talk about what you can do at 

the local level. Secretary Joe Gill from the State is here—we thank 

him—with the State of Maryland and the impact it has. 

This is not the only source of fresh water going into the Chesapeake Bay. How about the other sources and the watershed areas, 

their responsibility? And, of course, there are other dams on the 

Susquehanna in addition to here at Conowingo. 

All of our policies should be based upon best science, and that’s 

going to be a theme that we’ll talk about during today’s hearing. 

Dr. Don Boesch, who is here, is a frequent witness on Chesapeake 

Bay issues and has been extremely helpful. We very much appreciate your presence here today. 

And Genevieve LaRouche is here from the Fish and Wildlife. 

There are other issues here that we are concerned about, including 

the fish habitat issue. I’ve seen the fish passage facility before, and 

it’s very impressive. We’ll have a chance again to take a look at it 

today. But are we doing the best we can for fish habitat? What is 

the status of that? We’ll have a chance today to talk about that 

issue in addition to others—what impact the sediment has on fish 

habitat. 

And the operation of the dam, which operates two peak periods 

daily to maximize the energy production—does that have an impact 

on the health of the fish habitat? That’s an issue that we will want 

to pursue during today’s hearing. And are there other steps that 

can be taken that are appropriate? 

We all know that this dam was certified by the FERC process in 

1980. FERC certification expires later this year. We’re now in the 

process of the 401 certification mandated by the Clean Water Act. 

How does that provide us an opportunity to directly deal with some 

of those issues? I hope that will come out at today’s hearing. 

We also need to be mindful that there is the State watershed implementation plans and the TMDLs. How does all this fit into those 

programs that are also clearly aimed at dealing with the health of 

the Chesapeake Bay, generally? 

I hope as a result of today’s hearing we’ll have a better understanding of the circumstances as to how this hydroelectric dam impacts the issues that we’re talking about both on energy and on the 

environment. What is our overall strategy for dealing with both energy production and environment? How does it affect the surrounding communities? And what are the stakeholders’ responsibilities? 

The bottom line is we need to work together on this issue, and 

I’m completely convinced about that. How can all the stakeholders 

continue to work together to do what’s best for our energy needs 

and our environment? 

One last point before I introduce formally our first panel. I really 

want to thank the staff—they’re sitting behind me, the staff from 

the EPW Committee, both the majority and the Republican staff 
4 

people—for the work that they did in making this hearing possible. 

It’s a very busy time for the EPW Committee. We’re in the midst 

of a conference on the Water Resources Development Act. We hope 

to complete that as early as this week. And yet we’re here in Maryland for a field hearing, and I particularly thank them for the work 

and time that they put in to make this hearing possible. 

On a personal note, I thank Josh Klein on my staff who has 

made the effort to pull all of us together. 

One last apology. Obviously, we needed a larger room. I apologize 

for that. I don’t mind people coming in here and sitting if you can 

find places. So if we can just give you a chance to get to get in here 

and find a place that’s a little bit more convenient for you, that’s 

fine. We have a little bit more room on the sides up here. 

I might also put out that the Environment and Public Works 

Committee is also busy working on a reauthorization of our surface 

transportation. So this is a very busy time for our committee, and 

this, obviously, is a very important subject. 

So on our first panel, we’re very pleased to have Colonel Richard 

Jordan, who is the Commander and District Engineer, United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, in a key position, and Ms. Genevieve Pullis LaRouche, the Field Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Chesapeake Bay Field Office. 

We’ll start with Colonel Jordan. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

I want to thank our witnesses for their willingness and interest in testifying at 

today’s hearing. 

The Susquehanna River and its tributaries is the single largest freshwater river 

in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Just 10 miles downriver from where we are 

today, the Susquehanna opens up to become the Chesapeake Bay, the United States’ 

largest estuary. 

Where we are today stands the Conowingo Dam—an 86-year-old marvel of engineering (for its time). 

The Conowingo Dam is a merchant power production facility that generates 1.6 

billion kilowatt hours of zero-carbon energy annually in the State of Maryland, powered by the magnificent public resource that is the Susquehanna River. The Philadelphia Electric Company, now a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, completed construction of the dam in 1928. PECO and Exelon have sold power and profited from 

the energy generated by the Susquehanna at this dam for nearly 90 years. 

The Conowingo Dam, and the series of dams just upriver from Conowingo on the 

Lower Susquehanna, effectively control the rate and volumes of water that flow 

down the river, which has an enormous effect on the river’s ecosystem. Some of 

these effects have been positive, like reducing the flow of sediments and nutrients 

into the Chesapeake Bay. Others harm the river ecosystems, like restricting the replenishment of natural sediments to the river bed immediately downstream. 

The dam’s operational procedures that simulate twice daily drought and flood 

events that are timed based on peak energy demand also affect the health of the 

river as well as restrict recreational opportunities immediately downriver. 

It is incumbent upon the operators of the dam, as well as State and Federal regulators, to ensure that the important public resource powering this dam is also cared 

for and protected while also meeting our region’s energy needs. 

It is this fresh water that creates the brackish marine environment that supports 

Maryland blue crabs, Chesapeake Bay oysters, rockfish, shad and hundreds of other 

aquatic species. 

For many years the dam has provided ‘‘incidental’’ benefits to the Bay of trapping 

upstream sediments and nutrients that were flowing downstream. These contaminants travel as far away as Cooperstown, New York, and as close as right here in 

Harford County from Broad Creek. 
5 

While the containment of excess nutrients and sediments is significant, the evidence that this benefit is ‘‘incidental’’ is evidenced by the fact that the reservoir is 

reaching maximum storage capacity because it has not been maintained as if it were 

a purposeful sediment and nutrient control measure. The accumulated sediments 

behind the dam are not regularly dredged the way a nutrient and sediment detention basin would be. 

Frankly, this isn’t surprising. The dam is a hydropower plant, not a stormwater 

detention basin. But I raise this point because now that the dam is reaching its storage capacity, a better understanding of what a ‘‘full reservoir’’ means is necessary. 

Fortunately, Exelon, The Nature Conservancy, and the State of Maryland came 

together to provide matching and supplemental funds necessary to commission the 

Army Corps of Engineers to study the effect of the loss of additional capacity of sediment detention behind the dam. 

I am looking forward to Colonel Jordan’s testimony on the preliminary findings 

of this study. The Watershed Assessment should help inform the scope of the problem and the feasibility and practicality of ‘‘solving,’’ as some have characterized 

what is necessary, the conundrum of Conowingo Dam. 

I think it is important to note, however, that the scope of this study and the models that were run to generate the data were limited to examining sediment. A more 

complete understanding of the extent of the impact this loss of storage will have 

on Bay water quality must also assess nutrient pollution. 

Maryland has begun the process of developing a section 401 certification for the 

dam. 401 certification is a regulatory compliance authority delegated to the States 

by the Clean Water Act that must be completed for any facility requiring a Federal 

permit or license to operate. In the case of Conowingo, it would be FERC license 

which is scheduled for relicensing in 2015. 

While the Corps’ completion of the Lower Susquehanna Watershed Assessment 

will inform the 401 cert process, Maryland needs more information on scoured nitrogen and phosphorous behind the dam and what continues to come down the Susquehanna is having on Bay water quality. 

Maryland and other stakeholders, including Exelon, are interested in helping fund 

this supplemental study on nutrients. I greatly appreciate this good faith effort on 

the part of Exelon to help ensure that the 401 certification, and ultimately the 

FERC license, are informed by the best available science. These regulatory decisions 

need to be driven by the best science. 

Many strong opinions have been expressed on the impact the dam is having on 

Bay water quality. 

Some have said that there is no point in doing anything to address water quality 

issues on other tributaries of the Bay watershed until Conowingo Dam is ‘‘fixed.’’ 

Some who hold those opinions also strongly oppose the TMDL and the State Watershed Implementation Plans. 

I’ve also heard Exelon’s company line that it does not feel that it is responsible 

for the pollution that’s accumulated behind the dam since Exelon didn’t produce it. 

Frankly, I take issue and would challenge both of these perspectives. I strongly 

believe that all stakeholders in the watershed have responsibilities to meet in order 

to restore water quality to the Bay. 

I believe it is irresponsible for one set of stakeholders to point their fingers at 

Conowingo as an excuse not to make contributions to clean up their part of the watershed. While the Susquehanna may be the largest single source of freshwater into 

the Bay, the rest of the tributaries combined surpass the volumes of fresh water 

that flows down the Susquehanna. 

The fact is, the excess nutrient and sediments coming down the Susquehanna and 

are occasionally scoured from behind the dam by events like the storms we experienced in the region last week. But that same storm event caused the fresh water 

rushing down the Shenandoah, the Monacacy, the Potomac and other rivers of the 

Chesapeake watershed to run milky brown with sediment and nutrients, and no 

‘‘fix’’ at Conowingo Dam would’ve changed the excess nutrient and sediment levels 

of these rivers. 

The point is, we all have a shared responsibility to work within the our portions 

of the watershed to improve water quality locally which in turn will improve water 

quality downstream in the Bay. This is about taking local responsibility for the 

problems in our communities and avoiding claims of innocence and finger pointing 

as if the solution or panacea to these problems rest in one place—we share this responsibility. 

I want to make it clear that I support the continued and lasting operation of the 

Conowingo Dam. I believe that there is a balance that must be struck between energy production and environmental stewardship that I want to discuss in this hearing. 
6 

Exelon and all stakeholders in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have a responsibility to be good stewards of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. 

The reason I invited Mayor Rick Gray to testify today is that he exemplifies a 

community that accepts its responsibility in the watershed, and I think there are 

important lessons that we should learn from his efforts and experience. And Lancaster City does not even reap the direct benefits of the Bay that many of Maryland’s communities are so fortunate to have. 

The recovery of the Chesapeake Bay is a tremendous undertaking that we all 

must work together to accomplish. The States have developed Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) that show a basin-wide commitment to restoring the basin’s 

water resources. The WIPs spread the burden across all sectors. 

The pollution reduction targets set in the WIPs help improve local water quality 

that in turn results in improved water quality downstream and in the Bay. Because 

there is no panacea to solving the Bay’s water quality challenges. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ testimony and asking them questions on 

what responsibilities and actions should be taken not only to address the challenges 

with a ‘‘full’’ dam but also where the dam fits in the larger basin-wide effort to restore the Bay, and what responsibilities all stakeholders have to reduce the nutrient 

and sediment pollution to the Bay. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL J. RICHARD JORDAN III, COMMANDER AND DISTRICT ENGINEER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS—BALTIMORE DISTRICT 

Colonel JORDAN. Chairman Cardin and members of the subcommittee, I’m Colonel J. Richard Jordan, III, Commander of the 

Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today about our organization’s role in addressing the issues of sediment transport along the Susquehanna 

River and specifically to discuss the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment. 

Throughout this entire process, we have worked with a variety 

of Federal, State, and local agencies that have been crucial in the 

assessment’s development, as well as various agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders that have provided 

feedback and information throughout the assessment process. The 

completion of this assessment would not have been possible without this diverse and vast team. 

The Corps of Engineers is a unique organization with a diverse 

military and civil works mission. Included in our mission is our 

role in watershed planning, which is more than individual project 

planning. It is, instead, a more comprehensive strategic evaluation 

of an entire watershed. This process, starting with an assessment, 

makes for a more complete range of potential solutions. 

In 2011, the Corps partnered with the State of Maryland through 

its Departments of Environment and Natural Resources to conduct 

an assessment of the Lower Susquehanna watershed. This watershed assessment, which will be released for public view later this 

year, will characterize the very complex relationships between river 

flow, sediment, and ecological resources in the Lower Susquehanna 

River system, including the series of hydroelectric dams along the 

river that routinely trap sediment. 

The Conowingo has the largest storage capacity of the dams in 

the series and is closest to the Chesapeake Bay. The effects of sediment on the Chesapeake Bay have been researched, but past studies have not examined from a watershed perspective how dams impact sediment transport from the Lower Susquehanna River to the 

Chesapeake Bay. Previous studies indicate that the dams have his-
7 

torically acted as sediment and associated nutrient traps, thus reducing the amount of sediments and nutrients reaching the Bay. 

To conduct this watershed assessment, we used mathematical 

modeling and watershed data to analyze sediment management 

and strategies, as well as examine how the series of dams functioned under various scenarios. These models represent the best 

tools currently available for evaluating sediment and nutrient dynamics in the Lower Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay watershed and have been used extensively with good results. These 

models have been peer reviewed during previous studies, and their 

application in this assessment will be peer reviewed again. 

When this assessment started in 2011, the concern of the stakeholders was that as the reservoirs behind each dam filled, they 

would capture no sediments and associated nutrients. Historical 

records indicate that the trapping of sediments at the Conowingo 

is limited compared to decades ago. But trapping of more than half 

of the sediment coming down the river still occurs. 

At the current time, each reservoir has reached a state of dynamic equilibrium. This means that after large storm events when 

mass scour occurs, sediment storage capacity will temporarily increase. Sediment is then deposited again, reducing the overall storage capacity until another mass scour event occurs. As a result, we 

expect to continue to see periods of trapping followed by scour 

events. But, overall, the storage capacity of each reservoir is cyclical, and the inflow of sediment will, in the long term, equal the 

outflow. 

The assessment also considered the increased health impacts to 

the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The impacts would be primarily 

due to attached nutrients, not necessarily the sediment itself. After 

a mass scour event, estimates showed that the sediment settles 

quickly and is not the major threat to aquatic life. 

Sources to include the watershed and scour from other reservoirs 

upstream of the Conowingo Dam were also considered. During 

Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, the Susquehanna River watershed 

above the Conowingo Dam provided approximately 80 percent of 

the sediment load delivered to the Bay, only 20 percent scoured 

from the trapped sediment. These sources deliver more sediment 

and nutrients and, therefore, more impacts on the Bay ecosystem 

than do the scoured sediment and associated nutrients from the 

reservoir behind the Conowingo Dam. 

As such, analysis done by the Environmental Protection Agency 

indicates that the implementation of watershed implementation 

plans, or WIPs, is estimated to have a far larger influence on the 

health of the Bay. WIPs manage watershed loads and detail how 

and when Bay States will meet nutrient load allocations as part of 

the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs. 

In fact, we’ve already seen this positive impact. And over the 

past 30 years, due to regulatory and voluntary nutrient and sediment reduction strategies, nutrient and sediment loads to the 

Lower Susquehanna River are already significantly lower than 

they were in the mid-1980s. 

The assessment considers a variety of sediment management 

strategies, including dredging behind the Conowingo Dam. Please 

note that the assessment does not assign responsibility for imple-
8 

menting those strategies to any party and does not recommend a 

future Corps project. The implementation of any of these strategies 

by the Corps would require a specific feasibility study. 

Maintenance dredging with upland sediment disposal would be 

required annually or on some regular cycle to achieve any sustained improvement to the health of the Bay and would likely cost 

$50 million to more than $250 million for each maintenance cycle 

with costs continuing to increase as placement sites become less 

convenient. Further, the positive impacts of dredging may produce 

are significantly minimized due to the fact that the majority of the 

sediment during a scour event is coming from the watershed. 

Where do we go from here? We’re going to continue to work with 

the report. The report will undergo a series of internal and external 

reviews, including a public comment period. We remain committed 

to working in partnership to address the watershed planning needs 

of the Susquehanna River Basin, and we expect the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment to provide useful information 

to help stakeholders and decisionmakers better understand the 

very complex relationships between the river flow and sediment 

and ecological resources in the Lower Susquehanna River. 

Beyond this assessment, monitoring, research, and further modeling by involved parties can help us understand nutrient processes 

and their impacts on the Chesapeake Bay and its ecological resources. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify here 

today. This concludes my testimony. I’d be happy to answer any 

questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Jordan follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Colonel Jordan. I should 

have mentioned in the beginning that, without objection, all the 

written testimony of the witnesses will be made a part of the 

record. So you may proceed as you wish. 

I also would like to place in the record the statement of Senator 

David Vitter, the Republican leader on the Environment and Public 

Works Committee, in regards to this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter 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 this morning. 

The policy questions and potential solutions related to Conowingo Dam, environmental concerns, and energy production are important and deserve the subcommittee’s attention. As we continue to examine these issues, it is critical that we understand the various legal, environmental, and economic challenges and opportunities 

associated with Conowingo Dam and its relicensing. 

The Conowingo Dam is just 10 miles upstream of the Chesapeake Bay, a body 

of water that has significant historical, ecological, and environmental value for people throughout the United States, especially those who reside in the mid-Atlantic 

States. I applaud the cooperative and voluntary efforts undertaken by many officials 

and stakeholders in recent years to protect the Chesapeake Bay. 

At the same time, we must recognize that environmental policies and programs 

related to the Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere must be based on sound science and 

law and accomplished in a manner which does not jeopardize the livelihoods of hard 

working Americans. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) represents a dramatic expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

authority under the Clean Water Act and threatens State and local land use authority throughout the country, as evidenced by the numerous States that have expressed opposition to the precedent the TMDL could set. As we consider concerns 

and possible solutions related to the Conowingo Dam, the issues related to the Bay 

TMDL offer a lesson to policymakers and should lend caution to any top-down regulatory approach. 

I appreciate the public and private officials and academics that are here today to 

provide us with their expertise on these issues. I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony and again thank Senator Cardin for holding this important hearing. 

Senator CARDIN. Ms. LaRouche. 

STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE PULLIS LaROUCHE, FIELD OFFICE SUPERVISOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE— 

CHESAPEAKE BAY FIELD OFFICE 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Good morning, Chairman Cardin. I’m Genevieve 

LaRouche, Chesapeake Bay Field Office Supervisor with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and an Annapolis resident. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today on the Conowingo Dam. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge your leadership on conservation of the Chesapeake Bay over the years. You were Speaker 

of the Maryland House of Delegates when the first Bay agreement 

was signed 30 years ago. You have been an ardent supporter of 

conservation of the Chesapeake Bay and a foundational leader for 

Maryland’s legislative agenda and support of the Bay. Thank you 

for your continued support. 

I also want to thank some of our other partner agencies, including the National Park Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources. 
27 

My written testimony provides the Service’s views on the importance of the dam and its impact on migratory fish, as well as the 

impact of water flow on wildlife resources. The Service recognizes 

a balance is needed between hydropower, fish passage, and improving the health of the Susquehanna River system. We have a unique 

opportunity to work together to strike this balance and restore this 

mighty river. My oral remarks will provide some quick highlights, 

and I ask that my written statement be submitted for the record. 

It’s important to remind ourselves that the Susquehanna River 

is one of America’s largest rivers, beginning in central New York 

and flowing over 400 miles through central Pennsylvania to Maryland. The largest tributary to the Chesapeake Bay, the Susquehanna River provides over 60 percent of the fresh water to the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

The Susquehanna River was once home to large numbers of migratory fish, including American shad, river herring, and American 

eel. These fish played a vital role in the Chesapeake region’s history. During the Revolutionary War, American shad were described 

as a savior fish that saved George Washington’s troops from starvation after the harsh winter of 1778. Today, as yesterday, shad are 

essential to the region’s economy, supporting one of the most valuable fisheries in the region and providing recreation and tourism 

opportunities that support local communities throughout the region. 

Ecologically, the American eel plays a crucial role as a host fish 

for the freshwater eastern elliptio mussel. This mussel filters gallons of water daily and is a key element to improving water quality 

in this heavily populated watershed. Populations of American shad, 

river herring, and American eel have been reduced or essentially 

eliminated in the Susquehanna River and other Chesapeake Bay 

tributaries by dams. 

On the Susquehanna River, the American shad population upstream of the Conowingo Dam is at historically low levels, and population estimates downstream below the dam have shown a decrease since 2001. Despite this decrease, population estimates suggest American shad are present downstream of the dam, and more 

fish would be passing upstream if more suitable conditions were 

available. While the American shad population below the 

Conowingo Dam is currently estimated at about 100,000 fish, only 

12,733 American shad passed the Conowingo Dam in 2013. 

After taking into account the dams upstream of Conowingo Dam, 

only 2 percent of the American shad attempting to migrate up the 

Susquehanna River actually made it to their spawning grounds. 

That translates into only 200 fish passing all the Lower Susquehanna River dams in 2013. The fish passage goal for adult American shad passing into that spawning habitat is 2 million fish. 

The day-to-day operations of the Conowingo Dam affect wildlife 

and habitat downstream. Rapid cycling of rising water during 

power generation, followed by falling water levels after generation, 

creates unnatural river conditions. This flow regime creates 

drought and flood regimes of record proportion and degrades the 

aquatic habitat downstream for many species, including migratory 

fish, mussels, and map turtles. 
28 

Fish passage technology has improved in recent years. The fish 

passage facilities at Conowingo Dam can be upgraded to provide 

the efficient fish passage we need. By building and maintaining 

fully functioning fish lifts on both sides of the river, our data indicate that we can pass the numbers of fish needed to restore migratory fish populations to the Susquehanna River. 

Conowingo is currently undergoing Federal relicensing, which 

means we have a rare opportunity that happens only once every 30 

to 50 years to modernize the fish passage at Conowingo and advance restoration of American shad and river herring at the Susquehanna River. Through this relicensing, the Service works with 

license applicants, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

other agencies, and the interested public to ensure that hydropower 

projects operate in an environmentally sound manner and the Nation’s natural resources are protected. 

We recognize and understand there is a balance to strike between energy production and fish passage, and we engage in ongoing conversations with the hydro operator, Exelon, to find that balance. This is a once in a generation opportunity to improve fish 

populations and habitat in the Susquehanna River, its tributaries, 

and the Chesapeake Bay. 

By applying the best available science and upgraded engineering 

techniques at Conowingo Dam, we will not only improve fish populations but help to ensure their sustainability for future generations. We believe that all of these goals are not only possible but 

also realistic and within reach. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance 

of the dam and its impact on migratory fish. I’m happy to answer 

any questions and look forward to working with the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. LaRouche follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank both of you for your testimony, and, particularly, let me also thank you for what you do 

every day to help in regards to these issues. 

Colonel Jordan, I’m going to have some questions for the record 

because they’re kind of technical as to the manner in which the 

study was done. As I understand it, it was limited to sediment 

issues. It didn’t deal with all of the potential pollutants that are 

dealt with in the Bay. 

I just want to make sure that we understand the methodology 

that was used and, particularly, how it affects unusual conditions. 

You already talked about scour events and this dynamic equilibrium, which I want to get a little bit more into. But it seems to 

me that there are seasonal issues here, and they’re becoming more 

extreme. 

Therefore, I want to know how confident we are on your findings 

as we go to more extreme weather conditions as a reality of where 

we are as a community. If you want to comment on that now, fine, 

but I will be asking you some questions for the record. 

Colonel JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to say that we’re very 

confident because we have used models that have been developed 

over the last 20 to 30 years, specifically, one of them with regards 

to the Chesapeake Bay. We can talk about the future projections 

in your further questions, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. So let me talk about dynamic equilibrium. I think I understand it to mean that the typical flow of 

sediment coming from upstream to downstream will be as if the 

dam was not there on a typical amount of flow since it has reached 

its maximum capacity of storage in the reservoir. During a scour 

event, there will be a disruption of that, but within a relatively 

short period of time, we get back to that equilibrium. Am I describing that right or not? 

Colonel JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I would offer that 100 years ago, 

the system was in equilibrium. It was without any dams, and there 

was a certain amount of sediment flowing down the river, on average, every year. In the intervening 100 years, we’ve placed, in this 

case, four dams across the river, and they have trapped more sediment than would normally have gone down the river in the 1800s. 

Around the year 2000, give or take a little bit, the dams got full. 

So about every 4 or 5 years, when a major storm event happens, 

that scour would occur and would reduce the amount of sediment 

that was trapped behind the dam. So, as you just stated, it gave 

another 4 or 5 years of somewhat—of trapping capacity. And that’s 

the dynamic nature of the equilibrium. 

So we’re back at steady state where we were 100 years ago. But 

you still have these big scour events that are happening down the 

Chesapeake Bay, which did not happen necessarily 100 years ago, 

because there weren’t all these trapped sediments behind the 

dams. 

Senator CARDIN. So how would you characterize what happened 

this past weekend on the amount of rainfall that we received? 

Would that be considered one of these 4-year scour events, or is 

that just the new reality that we have to confront? 

Colonel JORDAN. In Baltimore, it felt like the event from 2011 or 

1996, because we had six inches. But if you looked upstream 
45 

throughout the Susquehanna River Basin, there was actually minimal impact. The average daily flow for the Susquehanna River 

right here is 40,000 cubic feet per second. We think that a major 

scour event occurs at about 10 times that or 400,000 cubic feet per 

second. We did not reach anything like that this past week. 

Senator CARDIN. So when we see all that debris that’s being 

trapped, that’s nothing of major concern? 

Colonel JORDAN. I am not concerned about that at all. I see that 

routinely down in the Baltimore harbor and in my dams that are 

up and down this river system. 

Senator CARDIN. It just doesn’t look very nice. 

Colonel JORDAN. It doesn’t. If I could offer, the main concern is 

the sediment, which is actually not right in front of the dam here. 

It’s about a mile upstream. 

Senator CARDIN. So the reservoir today, as we speak, is at capacity, and we have this dynamic equilibrium occurring on a daily 

basis right now? 

Colonel JORDAN. That is correct, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. LaRouche, let me talk a little bit about the impact of a scour 

event. It’s not just the sediment being released from the reservoir, 

so you’ve got more sediment than would normally flow into downstream. You get a surge of pollutants, more than would happen 

even during a scour event. But you also get an incredible amount 

of fresh water that’s coming down, which also has an impact on the 

environment. 

Can you just tell us, in your view, how the fact that the dam is 

here so you get the unusual amount of sediment coming from a 

scour event plus the increased amount of fresh water—how does 

that impact the habitat? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Well, our primary concern is with the high flow 

events that come with the dam’s operation. 

Senator CARDIN. The normal operations. 

Ms. LAROUCHE. The normal operations, yes, and that has a big 

negative impact on the habitat immediately downstream. It scours 

it. It’s not good for the underwater grasses, which we need for all 

kinds of underwater organisms, such as oysters and rockfish, and 

it’s also not good for organisms such as map turtles. 

It also disturbs the fishes’ migratory cues that they need to migrate upstream and displaces them and impedes migration. So 

we’re hoping that we can work with Exelon to create a safe zone 

of passage, so to speak, for fish to migrate safely upstream and 

downstream. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to get to that in one moment. But the 

dam has been here for almost 90 years. So the fish don’t remember 

when there wasn’t any dam here. So tell me—just explain to me 

how the—if we’re dealing with such a longstanding flow of how the 

water has operated, including the daily surges, the fish never adapt 

to that? Is this not the new norm for the shad? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. We have evidence that they’re hanging around, 

kind of looking to migrate upstream, and time is an issue. We need 

to get them—if they’re going to breed successfully, we need to get 

them to their spawning habitat as quickly as possible. And although the dams have been there for 90 years, the fish have been 
46 

migrating upstream for about 10,000 years, and studies show that 

they do want to go. 

If we can direct them—and there’s all kinds of great new technology that directs them to fish passage ladders, et cetera, that can 

safely move them upstream. But they do get confused when the 

water stops and they kind of have to move back, and then move 

around tomorrow, the next day, that kind of thing. 

Senator CARDIN. So they haven’t adapted even though it’s been 

a long time? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. No, not American shad and not river herring and 

not eels. 

Senator CARDIN. And they’re the three species that you’re most 

concerned about as far as passage? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Yes. They’re the ones that are not doing particularly well with the dams, and they’re also the most important economically and ecologically. 

Senator CARDIN. So we have these fish lifts that are there. 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. You seem to say that that can work. That’s 

working well. 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Yes. Well, it can work. They very much need to 

be upgraded and improved. 

Senator CARDIN. What do you mean by that? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Well, right now, they’re at capacity. There’s a lot 

of fish in the river called gizzard shad which like the Conowingo 

pond. They like to breed in there, so we’ll be getting higher and 

higher populations of them. They tend to fill up the fish passage 

facilities. So we need to make it so we can get more fish in the elevator, so we can get all the American shad that want to pass above 

stream so we can meet our fish passage goals. 

Senator CARDIN. So we have greater capacity than—greater need 

than capacity? Is that what you’re saying? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. We need greater capacity. We need more room 

in the fish passage lifts to lift them up. You’ll see when we go up 

there that it can get pretty crowded, and we don’t have enough volume. We can’t get the amount of fish we need in there to get the 

fish that we’re trying to get. 

Senator CARDIN. I’ve been there before. I’ve seen the flow. It’s an 

incredible sight. I’m looking forward to again seeing it today. I was 

always amazed at the number that are there. So you’re suggesting 

that it’s too crowded and some don’t make it? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Yes. There’s a lot of—when I’ve been up there, 

I’ve seen like 90 percent gizzard shad, they’re called, and they’re 

native fish and they’re fine. But they’re not, you know, something 

that’s very desirable for fishing or for the economy, and they’re 

doing fine. But the American shad, which need to reach their 

spawning grounds upstream, are not making it. 

Senator CARDIN. And you think that’s a capacity issue? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. It’s not so much that it’s not—— 

Ms. LAROUCHE. An efficiency issue, capacity and efficiency. 

Senator CARDIN. An efficiency issue. Is that also true with the 

eel? 
47 

Ms. LAROUCHE. We have a different tactic with the eel now 

where we trap and transport them. We trap them and then transport them up above all the dams. 

Senator CARDIN. Is that adequate today? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. We think it’ll do the trick for now. In an ideal 

world, we’d have natural passage for them over the dams. But 

we’re not thinking about that in this relicensing right now. 

Senator CARDIN. Because they don’t particularly like the fish 

lifts? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. They’re not—they need their own eel way to go 

up. We’re hoping by 2030 that we’ll be building passage for eels. 

Senator CARDIN. And what—can you just—can you get that up 

by yourself? 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Hi. Dave Sutherland, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Senator CARDIN. Would that be a similar type of a lift, or would 

that be—how would you get past—— 

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Actually, I’m not the eel expert. I’m right next 

to the eel expert, though. 

Sheila, would you like to—— 

Ms. EYLER. Hi. I’m Sheila Eyler. The eels that come upstream 

are small eels, usually about six inches long, and they require a 

whole different kind of facility. The lifts that you see are for much 

bigger fish. They actually require a different method of passage. So 

it’s like a ramp they have to climb up on—a different structure. 

Senator CARDIN. Like the traditional type of a—— 

Ms. LAROUCHE. They go up a ramp. 

Senator CARDIN. More like an elevator—no, more like an escalator than an elevator. 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Right. 

Senator CARDIN. OK. I got you. 

Colonel Jordan, some have suggested that the most effective way 

to solve this problem of what happens during a scour event is to 

just dredge and give greater capacity to trap more even in a scour 

event. Your thoughts on that? 

Colonel JORDAN. Effectiveness can be measured in a variety of 

ways. If we’re just focused on the amount of sediment trapped behind the dam, we’ve looked at multiple ways of limiting the impacts of that sediment. But I’d remind anybody listening that 80 

percent of what’s going down and reaching the Bay is coming from 

upstream. So focusing on the 20 percent that’s being scoured from 

behind the dam during a major storm event will get you some benefit, but not nearly as much as dealing with the first 80 percent. 

The benefits of dredging on the overall impact of the health of 

the Chesapeake Bay are rather limited. The amount of effort that 

we’d need to put into removing some of the materials behind the 

dam will get you very little bang for your buck downstream. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand what you’re saying as far as the 

amount of pollution that goes in upstream. I didn’t quite understand what you meant by dredging upstream. 

Colonel JORDAN. Dredging upstream of the dam itself—so we 

have 80 years of trapped sediment. If I might, there’s about 80 football stadiums filled worth of sediment trapped up there. To dredge, 

even back to the 1996 levels, about 15 percent of what’s been 
48 

trapped up there, we estimate would cost somewhere between a 

half and $3 billion, and that’s not just a one-time deal, because you 

need to continually maintain that level of dredging for the years to 

come at $50 million to $250 million a year. 

So when you look at the terms of the cost of removing that material that’s upstream of the dam, I can do it much, much cheaper 

as far as my Federal navigation mission downstream in the Federal channels that I’m required to maintain. 

Senator CARDIN. OK. Now I think I understand what you’re saying. So you’ve estimated an initial cost of somewhere between a 

half a billion to $3 billion to get the capacity back to where it was 

in the mid-1990s, and that would require maintenance dredging in 

order to do that. The effect would be to trap the sediment even during scour events upstream rather than letting it come downstream. 

But the cost-benefit issues is a matter that makes that difficult to 

justify. 

Colonel JORDAN. That’s a fair statement. You would get some 

benefit in terms of creating more capacity behind the dam to trap 

sediments if you dredged it out. You’re still going to get some of 

the scour happening because you still have another—if you dredge 

it back to 1996 levels, you’ve still got stuff that’s below there—85 

percent of the original material that still could be scoured would 

be less scoured. 

Senator CARDIN. So the advantage is you trap the sediments 

from ever getting downstream if you have capacity upstream, and 

you minimize the impact of a scour—lessen the impact of a scour 

event. 

Colonel JORDAN. You will trap some of the sediments. Currently, 

today, we’re trapping somewhere between 55 percent and 60 percent of the sediments on a given day, a day like today. 

Senator CARDIN. I thought we had reached this dynamic equilibrium. I thought that meant that it was basically equal to—as if 

we didn’t have a dam there. 

Colonel JORDAN. And we’re in the period now—the last major 

storm event was 2011. 

Senator CARDIN. Oh, so you’re still rebuilding—— 

Colonel JORDAN. So you’re rebuilding a little bit, and then, presumably, in 2016, the next storm will come, thereabouts. 

Senator CARDIN. But if the storm doesn’t come in 2016, you will 

have reached that point where, on a daily basis, the sediment flow 

downstream would be equivalent—if the dam were not there. 

Colonel JORDAN. Almost, yes. I can’t say with 100 percent everything will flow over. Some will probably drop out. 

Senator CARDIN. Sure. 

Colonel JORDAN. And my smart folks are saying that there will 

always be some sediment that spills over the dam, regardless of 

how empty the dam is. 

Senator CARDIN. Oh, that I understood. What I’m trying to 

judge—I understand the cost-benefit clearly has to be discovered. 

I’m trying to get the benefit if we were to increase the capacity at 

the reservoir on a normal basis, so you don’t reach capacity. You 

don’t reach that dynamic. What happens there is that in the normal flow, you reduce significantly the amount of sediment that 

would go downstream, because it would be trapped in the reservoir 
49 

on a more permanent basis. You’re not just refilling. You have basically unlimited capacity if you continue to dredge. But you will still 

get some sediment, but not as much going downstream. 

Colonel JORDAN. That’s correct. 

Senator CARDIN. And what you’re doing now is that you’re dredging downstream, as you said, because you’ve got to keep channels 

open. 

Colonel JORDAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. So you’re doing it as it relates to navigation as 

well as doing it in a way that’s friendly toward the environment 

downstream. 

Colonel JORDAN. That’s a fair statement. 

Senator CARDIN. And that’s less costly than dredging the reservoir capacity. 

Colonel JORDAN. Extremely less costly. If you’re interested in figures, I spend about $10 per cubic yard currently to maintain the 

Federal channels. If you were to do the same up here, upstream 

of the Conowingo Dam, the cost is somewhere between $20 and $90 

a cubic yard, depending on where you put it once you’ve taken it 

out. 

Senator CARDIN. And since I’ve looked at your budgets recently, 

I know that you’re not just sitting there with bank accounts ready 

to spend. It’s been a struggle to get you the dollars that you need. 

Colonel JORDAN. Well, we have adequate funds to maintain the 

Federal channels if we stretch our dollars as far as we can. But we 

don’t have funds to—nor the mission to deal with sediments that 

are trapped behind the Conowingo or any other dam. 

Senator CARDIN. So let me just ask you a question about pollutants other than sediment that the study, as I understand, didn’t 

really focus on. Can you just comment at all about the risk factors 

we have on nutrient levels and toxics and others? 

Colonel JORDAN. The study is focusing mainly on sediments, but 

it does touch on nutrients, specifically the nutrients that are in and 

around the sediments that are collected. We estimate that—and we 

modeled the nutrients, the phosphorus and the nitrogen, that are 

churned up with this scour and how it impacts the Bay. However, 

the majority of those nutrient loads that are impacting the Bay are 

coming from upstream. 

So we looked at the—I believe it was the 1996 event, and we 

have the number of tons of nitrogen and phosphorus that were 

churned up from behind the dam and scoured and put down into 

the Bay. And we looked at the impacts on the environment, specifically the sediments that mainly went to the deeper parts of the 

Bay and settled out relatively quickly. The nutrients remained 

much longer and impacted the algal growth which tended to restrict the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water which impacted 

plants and fish habitat. 

Senator CARDIN. So let me just ask you, again, about the methodology that you used here. It seems to me when a scour event occurs, the season that it occurs has a direct impact. I think—1996 

occurred in the wintertime. If it had occurred in the summer or 

spring, it would have been a different impact. How do you account 

for the seasonal variations of these events in your study? 
50 

Colonel JORDAN. You’re exactly right. If an event happens in the 

winter months when the algae is not growing down in the Chesapeake Bay, there is much less of an impact as far as the nutrients 

on the health of the Bay. Our models, as we ran them—we made 

them run over a 3-year timeframe, so three seasons of growth and 

activities in the Chesapeake Bay. And we looked at events happening in the winter months as well as the summer months, and 

we looked at the impacts of how that would happen over a 3-year 

period inside the Bay. 

Senator CARDIN. So if these 3 years were not typical, the results 

would be different. 

Colonel JORDAN. And we varied the—we placed approximately 14 

different scenarios into this set of computer models. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to talk about worst case scenario. It occurs during the worst possible season, and it occurs more severely. 

What does that do to your theory of dynamic equilibrium? 

Colonel JORDAN. The time of year that the scour happens, the 

event happens, and the amount of the scour does impact how much 

is taken from behind the dam. The difference is what happens 

down in the Chesapeake Bay. So as we looked at the events—could 

you rephrase the question? 

Senator CARDIN. Well, my concern is if you’re going to have more 

nutrient as the result of a scour event that occurs in the spring 

rather than in another time of the year, your model is using average rather than using extreme, as I understand it, over the last 3 

years. What risk factors do we have if we don’t have a better way 

of dealing with nutrient release? And I know your study didn’t deal 

with nutrient release. 

Colonel JORDAN. Well, for the part of the model that looked at 

the Chesapeake Bay itself, we actually used the same model the 

EPA used in 1991 and 2000. So there was roughly 9 years of data, 

9 years of equations that were in there. So during that timeframe, 

it captured the 1996 event, which happened in the January timeframe. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. 

Colonel JORDAN. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that we looked 

at the average conditions. We consider all the conditions within 

that 9-year period. 

Senator CARDIN. There’s no such thing as average, which is also 

true. 

Colonel JORDAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. Now, the reason I’m asking these questions is 

that in regards to the Chesapeake Bay program, it depends upon 

confidence that all stakeholders are being treated fairly, and that 

what we’re asking someone to do on the Eastern Shore of Maryland 

is consistent with what’s happening on the Susquehanna. It’s important that we have the scientific information to reflect that we’re 

making these best policies on a fair sharing of the burden, on a fair 

cost-benefit analysis. 

So, obviously, when you see as much risk factors that are in the 

Susquehanna being trapped and could be released, it presents concern that—are the stakeholders on the Susquehanna doing everything they can to protect or to preserve the Chesapeake Bay. That’s 

the bottom line question, and your study helps. No question it 
51 

helps. It presents some findings that were not expected, and we 

know that there’s a lot of risk factors that are on the Susquehanna, 

and we know that there are extreme weather events. We just want 

to know that we’re as well prepared as we can be, based upon a 

reasonable cost-benefit and science, and I think your testimony has 

helped us try to put those pieces together. So I thank you. 

I want to ask one last question to the both of you, and that is 

the certification process under FERC. You mentioned that in your 

comments as an opportunity. Can you just, both of you, review as 

to how you look at the certification process as an opportunity to update and make more efficient and effective our strategies on the 

Chesapeake Bay? 

Ms. LAROUCHE. Well, as you know, at this time of year, many 

communities are enjoying, you know, shad planking and other seasonal rights of passage. So we see this as an opportunity to restore 

American shad and river herring and American eel to this great 

river and to the communities upstream and downstream of the 

river. We have the technology in hand, both on the new engineering techniques, which are very impressive, that we can make that 

passage much more efficient and much more cost effective than we 

have in the past. 

Other opportunities also exist besides improving fish passage. 

We know more about water flow, and if we can alter the regimes 

a little bit of how the dam operates, we can help improve habitat 

downstream for many wildlife species. 

There’s also a great opportunity in this relicensing that the National Park Service has been very engaged in. There’s a lot of— 

Exelon owns a lot of conservation land, and we’re in discussions 

about them providing access and trails, such as the Captain John 

Smith Trail, which will allow people to see as they’re hiking on the 

trail how the land looked 400 years ago when Captain John Smith 

was here. 

So there’s a lot of great conservation opportunities. I think by 

working hand in hand with Exelon and all the other partners that 

are here in this room, we can find a good balance here. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Colonel. 

Colonel JORDAN. Senator, what I would offer is that I’m not sure 

that the Corps of Engineers would look at this as an opportunity. 

I think what we enjoy is that the focus is on the health of the 

Chesapeake Bay, which has been stated by the President in an executive order, and a lot of great efforts that are going on throughout the Bay States on how this watershed system is operating. 

So whereas in earlier years we might not have had any interest 

in doing a study similar to the one we just did, there was enough 

interest and enough funding to help us better understand the system which should then lead to future actions taken by all stakeholders and partnership members, one of which is the Corps of Engineers, potentially. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank both of you for your testimony. It very much filled in a lot of the answers to the questions 

that I had. As I indicated earlier, there may be some questions, 

particularly, Colonel Jordan, to you in regards to the methodology 

used so that we can have a full record for our committee. 
52 

Thank you all very much. 

We’ll now move to our second panel. I welcome Dr. Donald 

Boesch, the President of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Studies; Ms. Vicky Will, Vice President, Environment 

and Safety, Exelon Corporation, our hostess for today. And we particularly want to thank Exelon for their cooperation in making this 

hearing possible. They worked with our committee very closely so 

that we could have the hearing during this time of the year when 

the fish lifts are working most effectively. 

We also have The Honorable Joe Gill, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, a person who has been very much 

engaged in the Chesapeake Bay program. We appreciate him being 

here. And we have The Honorable Richard Gray, the Mayor of the 

city of Lancaster. 

Mr. Mayor, it’s a pleasure to have you here. 

I will just note as a matter of historic accuracy that when Maryland started the Chesapeake Bay program back under Governor 

Hughes, the State that was the most cooperative of any State since 

starting the Chesapeake Bay program was Pennsylvania. I will always remember the legislators from Pennsylvania, because they 

don’t have the same direct site of the Chesapeake Bay that we 

have in Maryland, and yet their understanding of the importance 

of what happens in Pennsylvania on the Chesapeake Bay was very 

encouraging and has been one of the real cornerstones of the success of the Chesapeake Bay program. 

So it’s wonderful having all four of you here. The process that we 

will use, as I’ve indicated earlier, will be that you may proceed as 

you wish. Your full statements will be made part of the record, and 

then we’ll get into a dialog. We’ll start with Dr. Boesch. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD BOESCH, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCE 

Mr. BOESCH. Senator Cardin, thank you very much. I appreciate 

the opportunity to present perspectives on the solutions to the risk 

posed by infilling of the Susquehanna Reservoir. I am Donald 

Boesch. I’m a professor in and president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. 

Just as a bottom line conclusion, looking at the watershed assessment as well as other published information based on the 

available evidence and analysis, I would conclude that the infilling 

of the Conowingo Reservoir has created an additional burden of nutrients and sediment pollution to the Chesapeake Bay that requires 

mitigation as we go forward. However, this burden does not render 

ineffective or significantly compromise the watershed implementation plans that the State jurisdictions have developed, that, if fully 

implemented, would achieve the Chesapeake Bay Program’s restoration goals. 

Now, Colonel Jordan did an excellent job in his testimony and 

his answers to your question explaining dynamic equilibrium and 

the whole course of events that led to the present situation wherein 

this dam periodically discharges large amounts of sediments into 

the Bay. So I won’t go further into that. There’s more perspectives 

in my testimony. 
53 

But I’d just like to put it into context in terms of the issues about 

what this means downstream in the Bay. I’ll use the opportunity 

of a captive classroom here and give you a little understanding of 

the things that we know and the things that we have uncertainties 

about that we really probably should better know to understand 

this phenomenon. 

Now, the Colonel indicated that from at least a dredging perspective, the material that comes over the dam, the sediment that 

comes over the dam, mostly stays in the uppermost part of the Bay. 

So the sediment pollution, if you will, the additional burden, is an 

upper Bay issue. With respect to the dredging activities, the channel maintenance, it has to be dealt with. But with respect to water 

quality, it is not, under usual operations, a significant problem because the upper Bay is fairly turbid to begin with. 

Now, there are those situations where we have these floods, and 

you’ve seen these pictures of the satellite photographs showing the 

sediment plume going well down into the Bay, down to Virginia 

water. So is this a problem for the whole Bay? 

The issue, of course, is that, as was discussed, the real challenge 

is not just the sediment, but, particularly, the nitrogen and phosphorus, these two element nutrients which come over and stimulate excess algal growth, diminish the water quality, reduce the 

water clarity, deplete the oxygen in the Bay. So does that material 

get down that far, or is that picture we see from space really looking at the smoke from the muzzle of the gun rather than the bullet? 

Well, as it turns out, this requires a little understanding of the 

biology and chemistry of the Bay. And I want to introduce you to 

another friend of ours, another element, sulfur, which you have to 

understand to answer this question. Now, as opposed to nitrogen 

and phosphorus, which we’re putting in—it comes from the land, 

it comes from the sky—sulfur comes from the ocean. It’s part of the 

salt in sea water as we have the brackish Bay. 

So as the nitrogen and phosphorus comes over the dam, mainly 

in the form of particulate material, it’s associated with that sediment that’s being disrupted. The question is is that material released and it becomes available to the algae or not? Nitric phosphorus tends to bind very tightly to the sediment particles, and if 

it were not for a little bit of salinity that it could run into, it would 

probably do no harm. It would just be buried into the Bay. 

If it gets down far enough so that the next year or the next season, as brackish water gets mixed into the situation, sulfur plays 

a role, because it fuels the decomposition of organic matter by certain bacteria in the sediment, and that really causes a release of 

a lot of phosphorus from the sediment. So that’s very important. 

The other issue we have to think about in the particulate nutrients is nitrogen. The models that the colonel referred to show that 

there was a down Bay, at least mid-Bay, reduction of water quality, 

because of when these periodic releases took place, manifest in 

lower oxygen levels in the deeper parts of the Bay, around Kent Island, you know, in that part of the Bay, and in the lower Chester 

and Eastern Bay, those areas, which would be slightly reduced in 

the oxygen levels. Below that, we think that we are on the pathway 

to attain. 
54 

So that pattern suggests to our scientists that that’s probably a 

nitrogen phenomenon, so there is an issue of whether that nitrogen 

associated with particles is also available. So we try to understand 

all of these complex phenomena and represent them. And, of 

course, these models that the Colonel talked about—and you’ll hear 

more discussion of—they’re really the state of the art. They’re the 

best in the world. 

But as the famous statistician George Box said, models are not 

perfect. All models are ultimately wrong. Some are useful. The Bay 

Water Quality Model is a useful model, so it could provide guidance. But when we have a special set of circumstances, like we’re 

talking about now, we need to better understand scientifically the 

processes going on so we can continue to improve our models and 

our use of them as we move forward. 

So we’re hopeful that we in the scientific community get the opportunity to help resolve some of these questions. We think there 

will be better assurance of exactly what we’re up against in terms 

of additional impacts and also what we need to do to mitigate the 

impacts by upstream source control. So thanks very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boesch follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for that testimony. 

I feel like I’m getting a continuing legislative credit for your presentation. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. Ms. Will, I want to once again thank you for 

your hospitality here and for making this possible. 

STATEMENT OF VICKY WILL, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT 

AND SAFETY, EXELON CORPORATION 

Ms. WILL. Thank you, Senator, for holding this hearing and inviting Exelon to provide this subcommittee with an overview of the 

licensing process for Conowingo Dam and certain related issues. 

Exelon Generation is one of the Nation’s largest competitive 

power generators with approximately 35,000 megawatts of owned 

generation. Our fleet is one of the Nation’s cleanest and low-cost 

generators of electricity. Included in that fleet is the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Dam and the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, 

which is about 12 miles upstream of Conowingo. The Conowingo 

Dam is the furthest downstream of the five hydroelectric projects 

in the Lower Susquehanna River. 

To us, Conowingo is more than just a power plant. It is an economic engine for the region, providing vital clean energy while protecting the air and the Bay. As outlined in the written testimony 

of Exelon, in 2013, Conowingo provided about $33 million in capital 

and operational spending and $3.9 million in Maryland property 

taxes. 

Conowingo and Muddy Run employ 62 full time employees and over 100 contracted workers annually. The projects inject $273 million into the local economy and create 298 local jobs. And through 

their recreational facilities, they attract more than 250,000 visitors 

to Cecil and Harford Counties annually. 

Environmentally, Conowingo is Maryland’s largest source of renewable energy, producing more clean energy than all other 

sources in Maryland combined. Conowingo electricity displaces generation from fossil fuel fired sources and prevents 6.5 million tons 

of greenhouse gases each year, which is the equivalent of taking 

1.2 million cars off the road. 

Conowingo has provided fish passage since 1972 and operates 

two fish lifts used for research and to pass American shad, river 

herring, and other migratory fish during the migration season. We 

share U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s interest in improving and enhancing fish passage at the dam. 

The current licenses for the Conowingo and Muddy Run expire 

in the third quarter of 2014, and Exelon formally initiated the 

FERC licensing process in 2009. Since then, we have conducted 32 

FERC approved studies relating to Conowingo and 15 related to 

Muddy Run. These license processes and associated studies have 

cost $34 million to date. Throughout this process, Exelon has engaged in extensive outreach to resource agencies and stakeholders, 

and we continue to work cooperatively to develop solutions and resolve differences. 

Earlier this year, Exelon reached a settlement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on the relicensing 

of Muddy Run. The settlement provides for trapping and trucking 
64 

of American eel from below Conowingo Dam to locations above all 

five of the hydroelectric projects on the Lower Susquehanna River, 

funding of over $8 million for fish habitat restoration and sediment 

mitigation, and establishing an eel passage advisory group which 

will include representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Maryland Departments of the Environment and Natural Resources. 

Exelon has also reached a settlement with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to address fish passage concerns at Muddy Run, 

which we anticipate will be finalized this quarter. Exelon has been 

and remains an active participant in the Lower Susquehanna River 

Watershed Assessment. 

Exelon’s written comments describe a number of significant licensing issues. In the interest of time today, I just want to talk 

about the sediment issue. The issue of Susquehanna sediment and 

its impact on aquatic wildlife and vegetation in the Chesapeake 

Bay has become a significant issue in the Conowingo licensing. 

Susquehanna sediment originates from upstream point and nonpoint sources, and the dam does trap some portion of the sediment 

and nutrients generated by these sources. It is estimated that 

Conowingo has trapped two-thirds of the sediment generated since 

Conowingo was constructed in 1928. The preliminary results from 

the Army Corps study indicate that the impacts of Conowingo 

scour on the Chesapeake Bay may have been overstated, the overwhelming impact of sediment on the Chesapeake Bay is from upstream sources, and that more study is needed to identify and understand better the nutrient loading aspect of storm scour, as well 

as feasible cost-effective solutions to address these impacts. 

As you’ve recognized by convening this hearing, the Susquehanna sediment issue is a complex problem, and identifying a practical and cost-effective solution is difficult. This is a basin-wide 

problem that demands that all of the Susquehanna River stakeholders work together, including Exelon, to reduce sediment from 

point and non-point sources and identify strategies to address. 

As a result, Exelon is working with the State of Maryland, U.S. 

EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers, 

and the University of Maryland on designing additional studies relating to the Susquehanna sediment and its impact on aquatic 

wildlife and vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. These additional 

studies will build on the significant work already done by these 

agencies and are anticipated to take several years at a cost of approximately $2 million, which will be funded by Exelon. 

Exelon recognizes that the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay are treasured environmental resources that need to be 

protected and preserved, and we commit to continue to collaborate 

with agencies and other stakeholders to do this. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Will follows:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mayor Gray. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR, CITY OF 

LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mayor GRAY. Thank you, Senator. My name is Rick Gray. I’ve 

been the mayor of Lancaster now—I’m in my ninth year as mayor 

of Lancaster. We appreciate you inviting us here today on an expert panel—I’m not sure I’m an expert—but to tell you what we’re 

doing in the city of Lancaster. 

First of all, we appreciate your efforts to improve public understanding of the environmental challenges presented by the 

Conowingo Dam. We look forward to working together to improve 

the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

This is not a new problem in Lancaster. In 1906, the city council 

debated whether or not to separate our stormwater and wastewater 

system and decided at that time that $2 million was too much to 

spend on it. Minutes from a 1927 Lancaster city council meeting 

noted that ‘‘The meandering course of the Conestoga Creek formerly was a source of pride and largely used for recreational purposes. The continually increasing discharges of untreated sewage 

and industrial wastes have polluted this stream to a serious degree.’’ 

The minutes cite sludge deposits, oil slicks, and other pollutants 

that ‘‘do not disappear’’ before reaching the Susquehanna River and 

flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. That was in 1927. No one did 

anything. 

Nationwide, industrial pollution has been largely eliminated because of the Clean Water Act. That said, stormwater continues to 

be the main source of pollution of the majority of the 40,000 water 

bodies that are documented as impaired. Our stormwater engineering practices have not changed in four decades since the Clean 

Water Act went into effect. It is time to rethink how we approach 

stormwater management and to protect our most precious resource, 

clean water. 

Today, the city of Lancaster is responsible for between 750 million and a billion gallons of polluted water flowing into the Conestoga River and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay. This is common in historic cities that rely on combined sewer systems to collect and transport both domestic sewage and rainwater flowing 

from downspouts, streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and over impervious surfaces into storm drains. 

There are 50 combined sewer communities in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed alone. Eighty-five percent of the time, the city’s 

treatment facility is able to manage and clean the volume of water 

flowing through this combined system. Still, during heavy rain 

storms and other wet weather events, the system becomes overwhelmed and, by design, untreated stormwater and sewage are allowed to overflow into the rivers. 

The problem of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflow 

is not going away, nor will our responsibility to help clean and restore the Bay. To address these issues, we began with two important questions: One, can the city realistically eliminate 750 million 

to a billion gallons of stormwater runoff in 25 years using green in-
82 

frastructure? Two, can this approach provide more benefits per dollar than traditional gray infrastructure alternatives? 

We’ve found that the answer to both questions is yes. Lancaster’s 

experience shows that green infrastructure can be used to manage 

and reduce stormwater runoff in a way that is both cost effective 

and responsible. Simply stated, green infrastructure prevents 

stormwater from entering the sewer system using natural systems 

such as absorption or infiltration into the soil or into the atmosphere. This allows stormwater to be treated as intended. 

Over the past 3 years, the city of Lancaster has invested in green 

infrastructure projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of this technology. Lancaster currently, per capita, has more square feet of 

green roof than any other city in the United States—advantage of 

being a smaller city with that type of statistic. Still, we’re there. 

Basically, green infrastructure lets the stormwater go where it 

would have gone prior to our paving the planet and preventing its 

absorption into the ground. Efforts are underway in our neighborhoods to engage the community, and the question is how do we pay 

for the green infrastructure. We’ve instituted a stormwater utility 

with a stormwater management fee. The fee is levied on property 

owners based on the amount of uncontrolled impervious area on 

their property. 

In closing, we can have clean water if we want it, not because 

of Federal mandates but because we have an ethical and moral obligation to do right by our children and grandchildren. I would say 

this, Senator. Maryland is extremely important to us from this perspective, those of us who want to do something about it in Pennsylvania. If the people in Maryland don’t indicate an urgency with the 

Chesapeake Bay, the people in Lancaster are not going to care at 

all about it. They really aren’t. 

So what happens in Maryland directly affects our political ability 

to do these things in Pennsylvania, and we look to Maryland for 

leadership and really being out in front on these types of issues. 

So, again, technology has given us the power to preserve our water 

resources and at the same time create a more livable, sustainable, 

and economically viable future for generations to come. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Gray follows:] 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 

Senator CARDIN. Mayor Gray, I particularly appreciate your testimony and your leadership on this issue. You’re absolutely right. 

Maryland is going to do what’s right, and what you’re doing in 

Lancaster is really commendable. So I’m glad I take my grandchildren there frequently to see Lancaster. 

Mayor GRAY. I’ll be sure to come downtown when you do so. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. Secretary Gill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE GILL, SECRETARY, MARYLAND 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. GILL. Thank you, Senator. I’m Joe Gill, Secretary of Natural 

Resources for the State of Maryland. I’m here with my colleague, 

Dr. Bob Summers, who is Secretary of the Maryland Department 

of the Environment. You can guess which one of us drew the short 

straw. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GILL. I’d like to provide a context and a framework and one 

closing remark on next steps. Here’s the context. I heard earlier 

that even during large storm events like Tropical Storm Lee, which 

occurred September 2011, even then, only 20 percent of the sediment that comes into the Bay comes from behind the dam, even 

during those large storm events. The rest of the sediment that 

comes into the Bay comes from the surrounding watershed. 

The land area that drains into the Chesapeake Bay, as we all 

know, is 64,000 square miles. Therefore, it is critically important 

that all of the jurisdictions and all of the counties move forward 

with their watershed implementation plans to address the very 

issue of upland sediment loading that contributes the majority of 

the sediment to the Bay. 

In my written testimony, I submitted a picture, which I think 

might illustrate the point. There’s a famous photo of the sediment 

plumes that occurred just after Tropical Storm Lee in the middle 

of the Susquehanna. This is a picture of sediment plumes occurring 

from the bottom up on the James River, on the Rappahannock, and 

on the Potomac. There are no dams on any of those rivers. 

This was not a major storm event. This was sometime in February 2013, after an ordinary storm event that occurred in the watershed. I think this picture shows that sediment loading is going 

to occur throughout the year, throughout the watershed, and that 

all of us must take steps to address that and not simply what’s behind the dam. 

You mentioned before about the opportunity that we have with 

respect to the relicensing process. It’s a great opportunity—not only 

issues involving migratory fish passage, recreation lands, minimum 

flow of waters, but also, of course, sediment and nutrient loading. 

One of the tools that the Clean Water Act provided Maryland 

with, along with other States, is something known as a clean water 

certification. Prior to receiving a license to continue to operate the 

dam for the next 46 years, the dam operator has to certify that continued operation will not impair Maryland’s water quality. 

The need for that certification is what has called into play the 

additional studies that have been done to actually quantify the nutrient loading that is occurring that must be addressed for contin-
125 

ued operation of this dam not to impair water quality. So we do 

have a very good opportunity here with the relicensing process that 

is now ongoing. 

Second, Exelon is correct. We are moving forward with some additional work to quantify the nutrient impacts, working with the 

Corps of Engineers and our other Federal and State partners. We 

are confident that that work will build upon what has been done 

in the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment Study, 

and that we will get to a place where we address these impacts 

while at the same time continue to implement our watershed plans 

to get the Bay back to the healthy position that we hope it will be 

1 day soon. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gill follows:] 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you all for your testimony. 

Secretary Gill, I want to start with the point that you made 

about the fact that most of the pollutants, whether it be sediment 

or whether it be the nutrients, are coming into the Bay not from 

behind the dam. They’re just coming into the Bay as a part of our 

way of life. 

Mr. GILL. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. And the weather conditions that we are now 

confronting, more extreme weather conditions. So the question is: 

How do we deal with nutrient planning and programs? How do we 

deal with our watershed improvement plans? How do we deal with 

the implementation of the Bay program under TMDLs? How is that 

fairly shared? And what impact do the Susquehanna and the dam 

have in regards to that overall strategy? 

I think that’s the real challenge that we have in dealing with 

this, so that all stakeholders are treated fairly. I think that was 

the point that you were stressing in your testimony. 

Mr. GILL. Yes. I think it’s actually interesting, when you look at 

the watershed plans, at least for Maryland, that basically assess 

across sectors, across agricultural, septics, stormwater, point source 

pollution. We basically assess responsibility for pollutant loading 

and responsibility for putting in place plans to reduce that loading. 

That is true of Maryland, and it is true of other jurisdictions as 

well. 

The real question is: What is the impact of the dam on all of 

this? The TMDL, the Total Maximum Daily Load, when EPA 

issued it several years ago, assumed that the dam would reach capacity in the year 2025. We know now that, basically, that has 

changed, that this notion of dynamic equilibrium has set in. 

So what do we do? Well, I think what we do is we adaptively 

manage by understanding what the impact of more frequent scouring is and by seeking to assess responsibility for that impact on the 

dam operator, where that’s the case, and upstream where it’s not 

the case. So I think that’s the process we’re in right now. 

Senator CARDIN. Will that require us, as we revisit the Bay 

agreement, to understand that the assumption on the capacity of 

the dam is different today than it was before? 

Mr. GILL. One of the elegant points of the way the whole TMDLs 

were put into place, however inelegant it may have seemed at the 

time, was that there is a midpoint assessment that will be done by 

EPA in 2017. And along with that midpoint assessment is ongoing 

assessment of how effective our water quality management tools 

are. So what I would suggest, Senator, is that this process of assessing and evaluating and making changes is already in place in 

terms of our managing our resources going forward. 

Senator CARDIN. So that’ll be part of that process in revising, 

perhaps, even the TMDLs. 

Mr. GILL. Yes, it will, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mayor Gray, your testimony is very compelling about the fact 

that if we can reduce the amount of pollutants going in upstream, 

the problems at the dam are going to be more manageable. 

Mayor GRAY. Absolutely. 
141 

Senator CARDIN. And it’s a lot more cost effective to do it at the 

local level than it is to try to figure out what happens now that 

we have all this trapped sediment. 

Mayor GRAY. Yes. On the other hand, Senator, it’s a cost that financially strapped cities and communities in Pennsylvania have a 

difficult time realizing. For example, in Lancaster County—and 

we’re considered one of the biggest polluters of the Bay, the county—the farmers will tend to point at the city and say the city is 

the problem. We’ve resisted doing the same. Rather than that, we 

say, ‘‘You have a problem. We have a problem. You deal with 

yours. We’ll deal with ours.’’ So rather than point fingers at people, 

let’s just take care of it and get it done. 

But other communities in Pennsylvania have looked at our green 

infrastructure plan, which is about 250 pages long. And it was developed with the idea in mind that smaller communities—not Pittsburgh and Philly, but the rest of our cities—could look at it and 

use it, not even just in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but in the 

entire State. 

We’re promoting that through the League of Municipalities in 

Pennsylvania. They’ve recently started a sustainability program 

that includes looking at green infrastructure and looking at 

stormwater disposal. So it’s happening upstream, but it’s a difficult 

battle. 

One final thing. We don’t talk about the Chesapeake Bay, generally, when we go out and talk to neighborhoods. If we green a 

park—at one park we have, almost 4 million gallons a year was put 

into stormwater—or with stormwater disposal underneath some 

basketball courts with a drain field. What we do is put a big sign 

up for the new park, ‘‘Green Infrastructure at Work,’’ so that people equate green infrastructure with a new park or a new intersection. 

We use what’s called integrated infrastructure. Any public improvement we do, we look at it from a green perspective. How can 

we incorporate greening into this? And again, even an intersection 

change—how can we make it green? So it’s been successful, and 

people see improvements in the community. They might not care 

about the Chesapeake Bay. They care about the park down the 

street. So it’s been working for us so far. 

Senator CARDIN. You’re absolutely right. People identify with 

their own community, and the way that you’ve done that is very 

successful. 

I should point out that when Colonel Jordan was talking about up to $3 billion for the dredge project, I was thinking of how we 

could use that money in the State revolving fund to help in regards 

to dealing with wastewater treatment or how we could perhaps put 

more money into the new regional conservation programs under 

the Farm Act that help the Bay farmers in dealing with their nutrient control issues. Putting money into those programs will help 

us a great deal in reducing the ingredients that are going into our 

fresh water that’s causing the problems on the Susquehanna as far 

as the dam is concerned. 

Dr. Boesch, I want to talk a little bit more about—I really do appreciate your explanation. As I understand it, we really don’t have 

good hard evidence on the nutrient issues coming in from the Sus-
142 

quehanna, particularly during scour events, as to the impact it has 

on the overall health of the Bay. At least, that was not the focus 

of the study that was done by the Army Corps. 

As I understand it, there are two factors here that seem to be 

coming into play. When you get a rush of fresh water, that sort of 

mitigates the negative impact of the nutrients. It doesn’t quite 

have the same negative impact because there’s not as much brash. 

Is that accurate, or am I saying that wrong? 

Mr. BOESCH. No. I think when you do have one of these floods, 

it introduces nutrients and it introduces sediments and fresh water 

into the Bay. That changes a lot of things. It moves the salinity 

down so that sulfur is pushed away that can release the nutrients, 

and it also is turbid so that the plant life that would photosynthesize and create the organic matter which degrades water quality 

is inactive. 

So that’s why in the analysis that EPA and the Corps did in 

terms of a winter flood—remember, that was one of the scenarios 

the Colonel put—it has much less of an impact than if it were a 

spring or summer flood, when conditions were right, just in terms 

of the temperature and the metabolic rate of organisms and so on. 

However, this doesn’t mean there isn’t—and this is where the 

important questions and unknowns come in. There is a residual effect. So if this material comes down, and if it’s nutrients associated 

with sediments and falls down and is deposited on the Bay, does 

it stay there? Or when it gets warm next year and it gets salty 

again, the salinity moves back up the Bay, is it released? So these 

are the questions that have to be addressed that aren’t yet adequately addressed in the level of detail necessary in the Bay model. 

I was just reflecting on your questions and the discussion thus 

far. The Susquehanna River is responsible for about 47 percent, on 

the average, of the fresh water coming into the Bay and about 41 

percent—slightly less but almost the same—in terms of the nitrogen. Nitrogen is more soluble. It goes where the water goes. But 

it’s only responsible for 27 percent of the sediment, total sediment, 

coming into the Bay and, therefore, only 25 percent of the phosphorus. 

So we have to look at these other sources. Secretary Gill showed 

you how the James and the Potomac can contribute particulate 

matter, the sediment. The other sources, of course, are local 

sources from erosion of soils that we don’t protect properly or urban 

runoff from Baltimore. If it runs down some of these streams, it 

just erodes the sediment from the stream bed, degrades the 

stream—and also shore line erosion as we have sea level rise. 

That’s causing more sediment to come into the Bay from eroding 

shore lines. 

So the challenge is that we can’t just look at one source. We have 

to look at all of these sources. So a place like the Choptank or the 

Patuxent is not going to attain its water quality from managing the 

Susquehanna. It requires work in the watershed improvement 

plans around those tributaries. So all of those tributaries need to 

work to achieve their goals. Surely, they’re influenced by the open 

Bay itself, but the primary outcomes, not only oxygen but also 

water clarity, submerged vegetation, harmful algal blooms is going 
143 

to be determined by the actions taken on the subwatersheds 

around the tributaries. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I think you’re right. I think the watershed 

improvement plans are going to be critical in the TMDLs as to how 

we manage the most effective, most efficient, most cost-effective 

plans based upon best science to achieve our objectives. 

I started the hearing by saying we’re very much interested in expanding, not only maintaining, but expanding clean energy sources. 

That’s good for our energy. It’s good for our environment. But we 

also need to have the most cost effective and efficient way to deal 

with the Bay, and there’s so many stakeholders that deal with it. 

Let me just relate that on Friday, I was in Frostburg. I mention 

that because there’s two things they’re doing there. First, they’re 

building some new buildings for the university, for the college, and 

they’re doing it in a way that will do exactly what Mayor Gray was 

talking about, with the living roofs and trapping water and dealing 

with our runoff as, particularly, a public partner should do when 

they do their construction. 

I will be urging as we reauthorize the Surface Transportation to 

have more sensitivity to our transportation construction as it relates to the runoff issues that we’re talking about. 

But second, they have a sustainable agricultural project that 

takes a former strip mine site and is converting it into agriculture, 

which is very interesting. They have no water, they have no power, 

and they have no soil, and they’re turning it into agriculture. 

The way they’re doing it is they’re trapping the water, using the 

water. Rather than having it run off and having to have supply 

water, they’re using nature, using that water in a more constructive manner. They’re using solar power for the power that they 

need, and they’re composting the soil from waste. 

Mr. BOESCH. Senator, about the ability of natural systems to 

help us, you know, we tend to be focused on problems. And so that 

we not be discouraged, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that just 

downstream here, not far, where the Susquehanna flows into the 

Bay, is a remarkable success story, and this is the resurgence of 

submerged aquatic vegetation on the flats at the mouth of the Susquehanna. 

In 1972, the storm of record, Tropical Storm Agnes, basically destroyed them—it was such a large event—both the fresh water as 

well as the sedimentation. It was almost 30 years when there was 

no vegetation there, very little vegetation. 

Now, in the last several years, it’s come back remarkably well, 

and it’s withstood the kinds of stresses that took place, like, for example, Tropical Storm Lee. It managed to survive and keep on ticking, because it’s now built enough inherent resilience because of 

the density of those plants that it can still the water, you know, 

keep the light—cause the sediment to fall out and keep light intensity. 

So we should be thinking of recovering the Bay, not like you 

were titrating it, you know, in a chemistry experiment, but rebuilding the natural system that has the capacity to basically take a 

licking and keep on ticking, if you will, and to have that inherent 

resilience back into the system. That’s what we’re trying to achieve, 

and I think as scientists, we have confidence that if we can achieve 
144 

the water quality over the years, this resilience will improve and 

return. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes, I agree. 

Ms. Will, you talked pretty freely about the FERC process and 

how Exelon has assumed responsibilities to do certain improvements, particularly to fish passageways during the FERC reauthorization process or recertification process. It’s interesting that when 

the dam was originally built, there was very little done for fish passage. Over time, that’s been changed and modified. Obviously, we 

want this based upon best science and cost-benefit analysis. 

Can you just tell us how you look at the recertification process 

and the Clean Water Act as to the areas that Exelon would be interested in working with the community, working with us, in order 

to take advantage of this recertification to make our community 

stronger? 

Ms. WILL. Certainly. There are numerous issues. We initiated 

the process, actually, in 2007. We started preparing for our filing 

in 2009, to notice our intent to relicense Conowingo and Muddy 

Run. And we identified stakeholders and had a number of stakeholder meetings. 

First of all, we know what the water quality issues are and fish 

passage and such, and we designed studies with stakeholder input 

that we conducted over a 3-year period to understand the current 

impact and what the opportunities are for improvement. But then 

during the course of discussions with stakeholders, other areas of 

interest have come up, such as land conservation and such. 

So it is our desire to come up with a comprehensive settlement 

that factors in all the information our studies have provided to us, 

as well as new information we get as additional studies are completed, to help enhance the environmental and recreational benefits 

provided by the dam. 

Senator CARDIN. I think it’s absolutely key that we have the best 

science judge what we can do. The cost issues are clearly going to 

be a dominant issue. We understand that as one of the realities of 

limited budgets, generally, for everyone. But the best we can do on 

science would be helpful. 

As I listened to Dr. Boesch, it points out the advantage of the 

Corps study but also that additional information is needed, that we 

don’t have all the technical information necessary. And we know 

the Bay is complex. We know that. We know that it’s a national 

treasure, but it’s complicated to figure out how we provide the best 

protection for the Bay for future generations. We know some of the 

things that work, but there’s still a lot of mysteries out there. 

So I just would encourage you and thank you for supporting as 

much of the science information as we can get so that we can make 

the right decisions. We like to focus on it every year. We do have 

a Bay program. We do have watershed implementation plans. But 

this recertification gives us another tool in our toolbox to try to advance this process forward. 

Ms. WILL. We agree, and we are committed to funding the study 

that you heard Secretary Gill and the University of Maryland discuss to inform the 2017 EPA midpoint assessment for the TMDL. 
145 

Senator CARDIN. Secretary Gill, on the recertification process, 

how do you see the State of Maryland in regards to the Clean 

Water Act with the recertification of this plant moving forward? 

Mr. GILL. Well, Exelon filed its water quality certification application at the end of January, this past January. The State has a 

year from now to decide whether or not what’s been filed is complete or incomplete or what-not. We’re in the process of reviewing 

all of that in discussions. So that’s the process. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I would appreciate it if you would keep us 

informed on that. We’re very interested, and we have an excellent 

relationship with the State and with Exelon on this issue. 

Mr. GILL. Certainly. 

Senator CARDIN. Dr. Boesch, what other types of studies would 

you like to see in regards to the—— 

Mr. BOESCH. Never ask a scientist that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. No, I understand. I’m trying to help you. 

Mr. BOESCH. I think we’ve tried to think through the issues and 

think through where the question marks are, and we’ve done this 

in a way with partnering with the State agencies and with EPA 

who have the responsibility of converting complex science, as you 

said, to management decision tools. But there are some things that 

we can point to and say, ‘‘Well, you know, that would make a big 

difference if we knew that better.’’ So that’s what we’re trying to 

focus on. 

I spoke mainly about the downstream impacts and understanding them better. But if you think about it, and you pivot, this 

is really an upstream problem. So there are all sorts of questions 

here about our most effective land management practices. 

The other thing I think we should point to—and Secretary Gill 

made the point of having—this is just one more speed bump, if you 

will, in the road, and we’re going to have many more. Even if we’re 

successful and by 2025 achieve the reductions of nutrient inputs, 

pollutant inputs, that we want, there’ll be some surprises. You alluded to one in your questioning, that is, climate change. 

You know, we don’t know fully what it is. We know the Bay is 

going to be warmer, and it’s going to have more volume because 

sea level is going to rise. But we don’t know that much about the 

changing in the rainfall regime, the precipitation, and the net result in terms of downstream flow. So I think as we look down the 

horizon in managing the water resources that we have, but also the 

pollutant loads we have, that’s, I think, a critical question that we 

should be addressing as well. 

Senator CARDIN. It’s an interesting point. I hadn’t focused on 

that when the original projections were—as to how long the reservoir would be able to sustain the sediments. It was for a lot 

longer period of time than it was able to do. So those projections 

clearly were not accurate, didn’t prove to be accurate in reality. As 

we are seeing more extreme weather events, they may not hit the 

flow levels that the Colonel was talking about, but we are seeing 

a lot of extreme conditions. 

Mr. GILL. And that’s actually part of what we found that has led 

to the conclusion of dynamic equilibrium, that the dam is scouring 

at lower level storm events. Formerly, the thought was that the 
146 

dam would scour when the rate of velocity of water reached 

400,000 cubic feet per second. We now know that the dam scours 

at much lower rates of 100,000 to 200,000 cubic feet per second. 

So we’re in the process of measuring what the impacts are from 

those lower level, more frequent scouring events to understand the 

impact downstream. That’s the nature of the change. 

Senator CARDIN. So here’s the challenge on the recertification 

process. We get this chance every 40-something years. Is it—— 

Mr. GILL. Forty-six. 

Ms. WILL. I can explain the rationale for that, actually, and that 

is because there’s five hydroelectric projects on the Lower Susquehanna River. Three of them are up for relicensing now. The two between—the ones just above Conowingo are not up until 2030. But 

if you really want to address the sediment and fish and eel passage 

in the river holistically, it would be very helpful to have all five 

dams working in concert. So their relicensing—a 46-year license for 

us, plus a 30-year license for them would put us all on the same 

schedule. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. That was explained to me once before, 

and I appreciate you explaining it for the record, because I had lost 

that concept. And Exelon has proven to be a very sensitive partner 

in our community, as far as community needs. I say that as a compliment to the commitments that they made in regards to the 

merger, and carrying out those commitments have been of the 

highest caliber, and we thank them. We know that they want to 

do what’s right for the community. 

But I also point out that when you only have a certification process every 30 years, and this is an opportunity to do something in 

regards to clean water, we want to make sure it is visionary and 

it takes into consideration what we know are challenges, and that 

we now have an opportunity to deal with it, so let’s take advantage 

of it and get it done right. So the fish passages—absolutely. This 

is a chance for us to upgrade and to take care of those shad that 

are particularly important to Maryland’s history. 

So, once again, let me thank you all. The record will be open for 

questions for the record if there’s any to be asked. And if we do, 

if you would respond, we would appreciate it. 

And once more, I want to thank the Environment and Public 

Works Committee for allowing us to bring the hearing here in 

Maryland so that we could make it convenient for the people that 

are here to talk about an issue, where, as Mayor Gray said, the 

more information people know about, the more they understand 

what they’re doing, and the more they understand how it affects 

their lives, the better the policy will be. And I think this hearing 

has helped us achieve those objectives. 

With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ