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

98–185 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–794 

EXAMINING THE STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING 

THE GOALS OF THE NEW VOLUNTARY 

CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED AGREEMENT 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 

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

( 

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 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

WITNESSES 

Dipasquale, Nick, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 24 

Robertson Peyton, Director, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office ................................ 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

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

Ward Hon. Molly, Secretary of Natural Resources, State of Virginia ................. 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Miller, Hon. Ronald , Representative, Pennsylvania House of Representatives 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Lisanti, Hon. Mary Ann, Councilmember, Harford County Council ................... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Hershey, Hon. Steve, Senator, Maryland Senate .................................................. 87 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING 

THE GOALS OF THE NEW VOLUNTARY 

CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED AGREEMENT 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 

U.S. SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in the Joint 

Committee Hearing Room of the Legislative Services Building, 

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Cardin (presiding). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN: Well, let me welcome you all to the hearing of 

the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Environment and 

Public Works Committee. 

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

and ranking Republican member of the Environment and Public 

Works Committee, for authorizing this hearing in Annapolis of the 

subcommittee. And I thank Senator Boozman, my ranking Republic 

member on the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, for the cooperation in allowing this hearing to take place. 

Very important subject. And that, of course, is the Chesapeake 

Bay Agreement. This is an issue that we have been working on together for a long, long time. 

And it’s great to be here in this particular hearing room. As I 

think most of you know, I’m a former Speaker of the State Legislature, so I have very fond memories of Annapolis and my time in 

Annapolis. 

But, I think top on that list would be working with then Governor Harry Hughes in the late 1970’s, early 1980’s, when we really started the Chesapeake Bay program. With our friends from Virginia and Pennsylvania, we initiated efforts, studies were had. And 

Senator Mac Mathias, of course, played a critical role in getting 

Federal funds for the initial study that led to the first Chesapeake 

Bay agreements. And I remember working very closely with Governor Hughes, and was amazed at the formula that was used back 

then for the Chesapeake Bay program, which basically was: let’s 

get all stakeholders—all stakeholders together, let’s listen to everyVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:18 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98185.TXT VERN
2 

one, let science be our guide, and let’s include not just our partners 

at the governmental level, which was the Federal, State, and local, 

but also the private sector. And, of course, over that period of time, 

with the help of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and other 

groups, we have made tremendous progress on the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

So, I start by saying that, but for that work, we would be in 

much worse shape today than we are. We’ve made a lot of progress. 

And when we look, the look of the Chesapeake Bay, the whole atmosphere around the Bay has paid off great dividends for landowners and those who use the Bay for commerce, and certainly for 

tourism and the way of life here in our State. 

So, we come to this hearing recognizing that we have made a lot 

of progress, but also recognizing there are significant challenges 

ahead of us and that we need to look forward and modernize what 

needs to be done on the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. That’s why 

I’m particularly pleased that we have the panel that we have before us today. 

So, today the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee is convening a 

field hearing to examine the newly signed Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, signed by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed partners on June 16th of this year. This new agreement represents the 

next chapter in the longstanding effort of the Chesapeake Bay 

States and the District of Columbia, local communities across our 

region, Federal Government, and dozens of stakeholder organizations that are all working together to improve the health and resiliency of the Chesapeake Bay. 

It started with Senator Mac Mathias, one of my predecessors in the U.S. Senate, who sponsored the congressionally funded $27 million, 5-year study to analyze the Bay’s rapid loss of wildlife and 

aquatic life. The study, which was published in the early 1980’s, 

identified excess nutrient pollution as the main source of the Bay’s 

degradation. These initial research findings led to the formation of 

the Chesapeake Bay program as the means to restore the Bay. 

A lot has changed since Mac Mathias commissioned that study. 

What remains true today is that the Bay’s watershed spans 64,000 

square miles across six States and the District of Columbia, and 

it’s comprised of 150 major rivers and almost 12,000 miles of shoreline. The Chesapeake Bay region continues to represent one of the 

most biologically diverse ecosystems in the country, and, sadly, the 

Bay continues to face enormous pollution challenges, due in large 

part to the change that we’ve seen in the last 40 years. 

The main change that we’ve seen in the last 40 years is population growth. More people live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 

We’ve doubled the population in the last 40 years to 17 million people. The economic value of the Chesapeake Bay has grown and is 

linked to the nearly $1 trillion to our economy. The Bay is still, and 

will always be, an intangible cultural symbol for Maryland and the 

region as a whole. Generations of families across Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have grown to identify their lifestyle and build livelihoods around the bounty of the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the northern hemisphere. The largest. There was a time not too long ago that the Bay 

3 

was the most productive estuary in the world, but physical changes 

in the region’s landscape resulted from population growth and economic progress has changed the hydrological composition of the 

Bay and its tributaries. A balance can and must be found. Part and 

parcel to achieving this balance of economic and population growth 

with a sustainable and healthy Bay is the plan put forward in the 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement. 

The development of sound policies to restore the Chesapeake Bay 

has been a top priority of mine over the course of my career in the 

U.S. Congress. I’ve been fortunate to have great partners in Congress representing the base States. And I want to underscore that. 

We are very blessed, in all of the States that are in the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed, to have partners in both the House and Senate 

who have made a priority of the Chesapeake Bay and have initiated a lot of programs and opportunities along the way to supplement the Chesapeake Bay program. Whether it’s in the water resources bill or whether it’s in the farm bill, we have found ways 

to buildupon the tools available to help in the Chesapeake Bay. 

President Obama’s May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 

recognized the national interest in restoring the Chesapeake Bay 

and improving coordination and restoration efforts because of the 

wide-ranging involvement of different departments and agencies of 

the Federal Government. The coordination of the seven jurisdictions, hundreds of local communities, seven Cabinet-level Federal 

departments, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and stakeholders of 

all stripes have necessitated the development of the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed Agreement to affirm the conservation goals of everyone involved in this effort. 

I want to stress the importance of the broad involvement of all 

stakeholders. The key to this is that all stakeholders need to be involved. We have to have a transparent process. And we have to be 

balanced in the way that we go about dealing with the problems. 

There is no one answer to the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Nutrient pollution and sediment and agriculture activities in the 

rural parts of our region need to be better controlled. As well as 

storm runoff from lawns and roads, nutrients and treated wastewater and the general loss of impervious surfaces in urban areas 

also need to be better controlled. In other words, there’s not one 

single source. We need to have a coordinated program. 

The Bay Agreement outlines a comprehensive approach to continuing the efforts to restore the Bay. The Agreement is an outline 

of goals and outcomes that complement and establish regulatory requirements and will help all responsible parties meet their obligations. The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership was formed in 

1983, when the Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and the mayor of the District of Columbia, the chair of the 

Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the EPA signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. For more than 30 years, these entities have 

remained committed to the goal of restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

As the science has determined and the interest in the Bay’s stewardship has broadened, this partnership has expanded to a 

basinwide effort, where all six States of the Basin are now parties 

to the Agreement. Working together to achieve the various goals of 

4 

the agreement is what will help ensure the Chesapeake Bay we’ll 

leave for our children is healthier tomorrow than it is today. 

The Agreement does not—does acknowledge that the Partnership 

cannot address every goal in the Agreement immediately. Certainly, some of these goals will take longer to realize, but all goals 

are achievable. The Agreement wisely suggests that action be 

taken in a strategic, inclusive, and cost-effective manner. That’s 

very important. The principles laid out in the Agreement, I want 

to acknowledge the Partnership’s commitment to transparency and 

consensus-building. The goals of the agreement deal with issues 

like natural land preservation, blue crab management, nutrient 

pollution reductions, and others. These aren’t easy subjects, but we 

have to use transparency, and we have to try to develop consensus. 

Stakeholders must be involved in achieving these goals, need to 

feel the process and the weight of actions are being prescribed in 

a fair and open manner. 

Restoring the iconic Maryland blue crab is important, for so 

many reasons. Unfortunately, this year’s crop population is stunningly low. The Agreement sets the goal of maintaining a population of 215 million female adult crabs through 2025. Blue crabs 

are a vital part of the food chain throughout the Bay’s ecosystem, 

and they are at the heart of the Mid-Atlantic multibillion-dollar 

seafood industry. 

Wetland restoration is also critically important for flood protection and water quality improvements. And I’m glad to see that the 

Agreement has several specific aspects in regards to wetland conservation. Reauthorizing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act would also help, which recently received a unanimous support in the Environment and Public Works Committee. 

And programs like the Corp’s Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Programs, the farm bill’s Regional Conservation Partnership Programs all help in the effort. 

The Agreement is—aims to open up an additional 1,000 stream 

miles for fish passage. That’s also an important thing. There are 

many, many other provisions in the Agreement that’s pretty specific. There are some areas that are not as specific, and I’m going 

to have a chance, I hope, to question as to why are we specific here, 

but not specific there? Again, fairness and balance is important in 

order to get the type of universal support that we need to move 

this agreement forward. 

There are many other important components. And again, we’ll 

touch on them during the hearing. But, last, I want to express my 

appreciation for the final Agreement’s inclusion of two separate 

sets of goals and outcomes related to toxic contaminants and climate change. Reducing the presence of—or improving the secure 

storage of toxic chemicals that are in use around the watershed is 

a growing problem. Now, I know that the problem in West Virginia, 

Charleston, was not in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, but it did 

highlight the danger that we have in watersheds due to chemical 

storage. And I was glad to see that the Agreement did include the 

toxic issues. 

Adapting to the effect of climate change needs to be a priority in 

our region. Rising sea level poses a threat to the hundreds of 

5 

Chesapeake Bay communities and millions of people that live on 

the shores of the Bay. 

So, all these issues are critically important. We must adapt our 

water infrastructure to handle the effects of more intense weather. 

We know that’s a reality. And, quite frankly, there seems to be 

more bipartisan agreement in Congress on adaptation, and that’s 

an area where I hope we can make some progress. 

The Agreement is an important step forward in restoring the 

Chesapeake Bay. Billions has been spent and progress has been 

made, but a resource as large and fragile that faces unprecedented 

pressure is going to continue to take increased resources and attention to restore and protect for future generations. 

My commitment to the Bay has never been stronger and will continue to work for the people of my State to protect this incredibly 

important resource for Maryland. 

We are really pleased to have a distinguished panel with us who 

can, I hope, help us better understand the new agreement and how 

we can all work together to improve the Bay. 

First, there is a statement from Senator Vitter, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. And, 

without objection, since there’s no one else here to object, that will 

be made part of our record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling today’s hearing. I would also 

like to thank our witnesses for testifying before the Subcommittee on Water and 

Wildlife. 

Standing alone, the June 16, 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (Agreement) appears worthy of celebration. The Agreement establishes several laudable 

principles that are intended to serve as a framework for the continued work on the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. These principles include collaboration, transparency, 

science-based decisionmaking, and a pledge to work closely with local governments 

in pursuing Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Given these commitments, it may 

be difficult to imagine anyone having reservations about the Agreement, especially 

when one also considers that the Agreement is apparently a voluntary accord between the Chesapeake region states and the Federal Government. 

However, the Agreement before the Subcommittee today cannot be examined in 

a vacuum. If we are to understand helpful ideas or potential hurdles to achieving 

the goals of the 2014 Agreement, we should be mindful of the history associated 

with past Chesapeake Bay agreements. In my opinion, and in light of the regulatory 

developments which occurred after the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, any strategy 

regarding the 2014 Agreement deserves caution and careful deliberation. 

The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was similar to the 2014 Agreement before the 

Committee today. Like the 2014 Agreement, the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement contained voluntary commitments and goals for the protection and restoration of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Following this agreement, EPA in 2003 developed regional criteria 

guidance for water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay. These criteria led 

several Chesapeake Bay states to adopt new water quality criteria, and between 

2004 and 2006 the seven Chesapeake watershed jurisdictions committed to ‘‘Tributary Strategies’’ so that the Chesapeake Bay could meet water quality goals. Thanks 

to these cooperative efforts, which were supported by environmental groups, local 

governments, agricultural organizations, and other stakeholders, the Chesapeake 

Bay was well on its way to achieving the goals that had been established in the 

Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. In fact, as we know from U.S. Geological Survey research on the time lag between taking conservation measures and seeing water 

quality changes, the improvements we are seeing today are as a result of those voluntary efforts taken years ago. 

But this collaborative progress was interrupted in 2009, when the Chesapeake 

Bay Foundation and other plaintiffs sued EPA, claiming that progress was too slow 

6 

and the voluntary goals in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement were in fact mandatory 

duties under the Clean Water Act. In other words, rather than a mutual commitment to work together on Chesapeake Bay restoration issues, the lawsuit painted 

the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement as containing inflexible standards which bound the 

Chesapeake states to a nonnegotiable mandate. 

Unfortunately, even though the scientific evidence undercut the claims of lack of 

progress, the Obama administration acquiesced to this counterproductive approach. 

In a highly questionable 2010 ‘‘sue and settle’’ agreement that ended the CBF litigation, EPA agreed to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL) for nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment flow into the Chesapeake Bay. But when EPA finalized the Bay TMDL later in 2010, the final product was an unprecedented Federal 

regulation that could not have been envisioned when the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was signed. EPA’s TMDL is a costly command and control mechanism that 

deprives State and local governments of their traditional land use decisionmaking 

authority. EPA has purported to dictate not only the total amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that can flow into the Chesapeake Bay, but, by allocating 

those loads in excruciating detail and crediting only the load reduction actions that 

are included in its Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, EPA also dictated the manner in which individual companies and sectors within the economy must comply 

with the total load limitations. 

EPA’s Bay TMDL has enormous repercussions for private landowners, small businesses, and local governments throughout the Chesapeake Bay region. According to 

the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, implementation of the Bay 

TMDL could cost as much as $50 billion between 2010 and 2025. Left unchecked, 

the TMDL could represent a national precedent that would force State and local officials across the country to cede their land use authority to EPA. These concerns led 

me to sign on to an amicus brief with several other Members of Congress urging 

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to invalidate this intrusive regulation. 

The lesson of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and Bay TMDL is that certain 

groups and organizations are all too willing to turn a cooperative agreement into 

a Federal mandate, by whatever means necessary. As Peyton Robertson, the Director of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s Chesapeake Bay Office 

who is here as a witness today, once said, the Bay TMDL ‘‘fundamentally altered 

the nature’’ of the Chesapeake Bay Program, noting that ‘‘[y]ou can’t reasonably 

argue that it is a voluntary approach anymore.’’ 

Thus, although the June 16, 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement is nominally voluntary, certain questions must be asked with the understanding that history tends to repeat itself. For example, by establishing the Agreement, have the 

states inadvertently laid the groundwork for a future lawsuit against EPA? Would 

EPA settle such a future lawsuit by forcing State and local officials to devote more 

of their limited resources toward unfunded Federal mandates? To what extent does 

this Agreement impede current voluntary efforts toward Chesapeake Bay restoration? 

I am glad there will be a robust discussion of these issues, and I appreciate Senator Cardin holding this hearing today. I also would like to thank Maryland State 

Senator Stephen Hershey for serving as a minority witness. Senator Hershey understands firsthand how Federal regulation can affect the land use decisionmaking authority of State and local officials. I look forward to the testimony of Senator Hershey and our other witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Today the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee is convening a field hearing to examine the newly signed Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement signed by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Partners on June 16, 2014. This new agreement represents 

the next chapter in the longstanding effort of Chesapeake Bay States, and the District of Columbia, local communities across our region, the Federal Government, and 

dozens of stakeholder organizations that are all working together to improve the 

health and resiliency of the Chesapeake Bay. 

In the late 1970’s, U.S. Senator Charles ‘‘Mac’’ Mathias (R-MD), sponsored a congressionally funded $27 million, 5-year study to analyze the Bay’s rapid loss of wildlife and aquatic life. The study, which was published in the early 1980’s, identified 

excess nutrient pollution as the main source of the Bay’s degradation. These initial 

research findings led to the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Program as the means 

to restore the Bay. 

7 

A lot has changed since Sen. Mathias commissioned the study and yet still a great 

deal remains the same. 

What remains true today is that the Bay’s watershed spans 64,000 square miles 

across six states and the District of Columbia and is comprised of 150 major rivers 

and 11,684 miles of shoreline. The Chesapeake Bay region continues to represent 

one of the most biological diverse ecosystems in the country. And sadly, the Bay continues to face enormous pollution challenges, due in large part to what’s changed 

in the last 40 years. 

While we have made great strides to improve pollution reduction from point 

sources of pollution, non-point sources of pollution remain a major challenge. That 

stems in large part from the fact that the population in the region has more than 

doubled over the last 40 years and is now home to 17 million people. The economic value of Chesapeake Bay has grown and is linked to nearly $1 trillion for the Mid-Atlantic region. 

The Bay is still and will always be an intangible cultural symbol for Maryland 

and the region as a whole. Generations of families across Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Pennsylvania have grown to identify their lifestyle and built livelihoods 

around the bounty the Chesapeake Bay has to offer. 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the Northern Hemisphere. There 

was a time, not too long ago, that the Bay was the most productive estuary in the 

world, but physical changes to the region’s landscape resulting from population 

growth and economic progress has changed the hydrological composition of the Bay 

and its tributaries. A balance can and must be found. Part and parcel to achieving 

this balance of economic and population growth with a sustainable and healthy Bay 

is the plan put forward in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. 

The development of sound policies to restore the Chesapeake Bay has been a top 

priority of mine over the course of my career in Congress. I have been fortunate to 

have great partners in Congress representing the Bay states. Together we have 

worked to develop effective conservation and ecosystem restoration programs in the 

Farm Bill, WRDA, the Clean Water Act and elsewhere in law supporting a variety 

of conservation and ecosystem restoration approaches across multiple sectors. 

The Army Corps, USDA, and EPA are not the only Federal agencies doing important Chesapeake Bay restoration work. NOAA, USGS, The US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the National Park Service are also important Federal partners in the 

broader effort to restore the Bay. 

President Obama’s May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order recognized the national interest in restoring the Chesapeake Bay and improving coordination of restoration efforts because of wide ranging involvement of different departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. 

The coordination of seven jurisdictions, hundreds of local communities, seven cabinet level Federal departments, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and stakeholders 

of all stripes has necessitated the development of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Agreement to affirm the conservation goals of everyone involved in this effort. 

I want to stress the importance of broad involvement of all stakeholders in the 

effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The populations living and working in the Bay 

watershed must realize that we are all in this together whether we like it or not. 

Nutrient pollution and sediment from agricultural activities in the rural parts of 

the region need to be better controlled, just the same as stormwater runoff from 

lawns and roads, nutrients in treated wastewater, and the general loss of pervious 

surfaces in urban areas also need to be better controlled. In other words no one 

source or single sector bears all the blame for degraded water quality in the Bay. 

If we all do our part we will see progress. 

The Bay Agreement outlines a comprehensive approach to continuing the efforts 

to restore the Bay. The agreement is an outline of goals and outcomes that compliments established regulatory requirements and will help all responsible parties 

meet their obligations. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership was formed in 1983 when the Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the mayor of DC, the Chair of the 

Chesapeake Bay Commission and the EPA signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. For more than thirty years these entities have remained committed to the 

goal of restoring the Chesapeake Bay. As the science has determined, and the interest in Bay stewardship has broadened, this partnership has expanded to a basin 

wide effort where all six states of the basin are now party to the agreement. 

This watershed approach is incredibly important, because as I mentioned before, 

there is no single source, no single state, no single sector that bears sole responsibility for restoring the Bay. Working together to achieve the various goals of the 

agreement is what will help ensure that the Chesapeake Bay we leave for our children is healthier tomorrow than it is today. 

8 

The Agreement does acknowledge that the partnership cannot address every goal 

in the Agreement instantly. Certainly some goals may take longer to realize than 

others. All the goals are achievable. 

The agreement wisely suggests that action be taken in a strategic, inclusive and 

cost effective manner. 

Of the principles laid out in the Agreement I want to acknowledge the partnership’s commitment to transparency, and consensus building. The goals of the agreement deal with very sensitive issues like natural land preservation, blue crab management, nutrient pollution reduction and others. 

Stakeholders must be involved in achieving these goals need to feel the process 

and weight of the actions being prescribed is fair and open. 

Restoring the iconic Maryland Blue Crab is important for so many reasons. Unfortunately, this year’s crab population is stunningly low. The Agreement sets the goal 

of maintaining a population of 215 million female adult crabs through 2025. Blue 

Crabs are a vital part of the food chain throughout the Bay’s estuarine ecosystem 

and they are at the heart of the Mid-Atlantic’s multi-billion dollar seafood industry. 

Wetlands restoration is critical to flood protection and water quality improvement 

as well as providing important duck habitat and fish spawning habitat. Reauthorizing the North American Wetland Conservation Act, that I am a cosponsor of and 

was happy to see the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported 

with unanimous support, will provide additional financial and technical assistance 

to help achieve improved wetlands conservation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Programs like NAWC, the Corps’ Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Program, and the Farm Bill’s Regional Conservation Partnership Program along with 

numerous State efforts to restore hundreds of thousands of wetland habitat acres 

across the region. 

The Agreement aims to open up an additional 1,000 stream miles to fish passage. 

The revisions to the Continuing Authorities Program in WRDA will help fund critical dam removal projects around the watershed that will improve fish passage. If 

the decisions to remove dams and other barriers to fish passage are strategically 

made this goal could be far exceeded. 

The Agreement sets the goal of restoring 900 miles of riparian forest per year and 

expand the urban tree canopy by 2,400 acres by 2025. I think we should strive to 

exceed this goal. To put it in perspective, the MS4 area of Washington, DC is about 

12,000 acres, and there is a requirement in its MS4 permit for an average of 4,150 

trees to be planted annually in that area. That means that in DC’s MS4 area alone, 

about 755 acres of tree coverage will be accomplished per year. Increasing the number of trees in urban areas help improves the quality of life and character of urban 

communities and trees’ are so important to reducing stormwater runoff in urban 

areas. 

The agreement sets the goal of protecting an additional two million acres of lands 

throughout the watershed. This is critically important to stem poor land-use planning and sprawl while also establishing lands that serve as critical water quality 

improvement mechanisms. 

There are many other important components to the Agreement that we will touch 

on during this hearing, but Last I want to express my appreciation for the final 

Agreement’s inclusion of two separate sets of goals and outcomes relating to toxic 

contaminants and climate change. 

Reducing the presence or improving the secure storage of toxic chemicals that are 

in use around the watershed is a growing problem. While the January chemical spill 

in West Virginia was not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the incident shone a 

spotlight on the risk facilities like the one that failed in Charleston pose to our great 

water bodies. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed there are dozens of chemical storage facilities, and industrial activities that use toxic chemicals on a regular basis. 

I am so glad that improving the security and reducing the contamination risks from 

these facilities are parts of the agreement. 

Adapting to the effects of climate change needs to be a priority for our region. Rising sea levels pose threats to the hundreds of Chesapeake Bay communities and 

millions of people that live on the shores of the Bay. 

Aquatic acidification poses a long term threat to all aquatic species including Blue 

Crabs, Oysters, Rockfish, Sturgeon, Menhaden and other hallmark species of the 

Bay. If the fish and shellfish go so does a way of life for many thousands of families. 

And we must adapt our water infrastructure to handle the effects of more intense 

weather events in the Bay region to reduce the water quality impacts of these 

events and to protect individuals’ property. 

The agreement is an important step toward to restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Billions have been spent and progress has been made, but a resource a large and fragVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:18 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98185.TXT VERN
9 

ile that faces unprecedented pressures is going to continue to take increased resources to restore and protect for future generations. 

My commitment to the Bay has never been stronger and will continue to work 

for the people of my State to protect this incredibly important resource. 

Senator CARDIN: We are pleased—and let me just introduce you 

in the order that I would ask that you would make some opening 

statements. Your entire statements will be made part of our record. 

You may proceed in the manner in which you wish. And we will 

leave time for questions in regards to matters from the Chair. 

We have Mr. Nick DiPasquale, the director of the Chesapeake 

Bay Program at the Environment and Public—in the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. 

Nick, thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. Peyton Robertson, the director of the NOAA Chesapeake Bay 

Office, a frequent visitor to us in Annapolis. 

And we appreciate very much having you here. 

The Honorable Mary Ward, the Secretary of Natural Resources 

of the State of Virginia. And we very much appreciate Virginia’s 

participation in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. 

The Honorable Ronald Miller, a Representative from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania. 

It’s wonderful to have you here. 

And the current chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, I 

know Ann Swanson is also here, the executive director of the 

Chesapeake Bay Commission. 

The Honorable Mary Ann Lisanti, councilwoman from Harford 

County. I know very well the former chair of the local government 

advisory committee, and hopefully will give us the view from local 

government. 

It’s a real pleasure to have our local host here, The Honorable 

Steve Hershey, a Maryland Senator in the Maryland State Senate 

representing the Upper Shore, his district. 

But, thank you for your hospitality in allowing us to use your facilities today. 

We’ll start with Nick DiPasquale, the director of the Chesapeake 

Bay Program at the Environmental Protection Agency. 

STATEMENT OF NICK DiPASQUALE, DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE 

BAY PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. DIPASQUALE: Good afternoon, Senator. And I appreciate the 

opportunity to talk before the subcommittee today. 

My name is Nick DiPasquale, and I’m director of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office here in Annapolis. 

The—Section 117 of the Clean Water Act actually created—was 

created by Congress in the Chesapeake Bay Program. It is a comprehensive, cooperative effort by Federal, State, local governments, 

nongovernmental organizations, academics, and other entities that 

share the mission of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay 

and the Watershed. 

And I was struck by your comments with regard to Senator Mathias and the tenets that were set out: being inclusive, having all 

partners at the table, using science. Those are the same principles 

that guide us today in the restoration effort, so they live on 30 

years later. 

10 

The partnership includes original signatories to the Chesapeake 

Bay Agreements: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of 

Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a triState legislative 

assembly representing Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and 

the EPA on behalf of the Federal Government. With the signing of 

the new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement in June, I’m 

pleased to say it now includes the headwater States of Delaware, 

New York, and West Virginia as full partners in the Agreement. 

In 2011, both the Chesapeake Executive Council and the Federal 

Leadership Committee acknowledged the need to integrate the 

goals, outcomes, and actions of the Chesapeake Bay Program, as 

detailed in Chesapeake 2000, the previous agreement, with those 

set forth in the Federal 2010 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 

Strategy, which was the outgrowth of the President’s Executive 

Order 13508. The partners also recognized a new agreement was 

needed to reflect improvements in our scientific knowledge, 

changes in laws, regulations, and policies over the past decade and 

a half, and the evolutions that have taken place within the partnership, including the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load 

and the watershed implementation plans, the development of those 

plans. 

Beginning in 2012, the partners set the course for a new watershed agreement that would be developed through an open, cooperative, and collaborative effort. The partnership goal implementation 

teams and workgroups comprised of State, Federal, and local representatives from all jurisdictions in the Watershed began developing draft goals and measurable outcomes for the partnership. 

Each goal and outcome was developed using the best data and 

science available, including past and current performance. 

Simultaneously, internal workgroups and the partnership’s principal staff committee developed a core of—a core set of principles 

by which the program will operate and be accountable for its work 

and its progress. Justification documents that explain the importance of each outcome, how it was developed, how baselines were 

determined, and who was involved in the development of the outcome are available on our Website and are really there to inform 

the public on how we came to the outcomes that we developed. 

To ensure transparency and receive valuable input from citizens 

of the Watershed, the partners held public meetings and published 

two draft documents. One was a framework document that laid out 

the basic structure for the agreement. And then, the second public 

document was a full written text document, both of which were put 

out for public review and comment. And the comments that we received from the public had a direct impact on the final outcome of 

the agreement. 

The new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement was signed on 

June 16th. It’s the most comprehensive, inclusive, collaborative, 

and goal-oriented agreement the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has 

ever had. And witnessing the process myself, it was heartening to 

see that people came to the table informed and ready to have discussions and ready to come to compromise on issues that were difficult to achieve. 

It identifies the Partnership’s collective commitments for restoring and protecting the Watershed through a set of 10 overarching 

11 

goals and 29 specific outcomes. The goals articulate the high-level 

aspects of the partners’ vision, while the outcomes express specific 

time-bound, measurable targets that directly contribute to achieving each of those goals. These goals and outcomes are clearer and 

better defined than in previous agreements and allow for greater 

flexibility through the adoption of an adaptive management decisionmaking process, one that’s based on the application of scientific 

process and continual analysis of monitoring data. 

The goals and outcomes address the partners’ continuing efforts 

to improve water quality as well as to promote sustainable fisheries, vital habitats, healthy watersheds, stewardship, land use and 

conservation, as well as public access. In addition, the goals also 

deal with a variety of other issues, such as environmental literacy, 

toxic contaminants, and climate resiliency for the Bay ecosystem as 

they buildupon the strength of our diverse citizenry and support of 

local governments, a call to action to nearly 18 million people in 

the Watershed that they call home. 

The partners agreed to develop and finalize management strategies for each of the outcomes within 1 year. The strategies, to be 

developed by the goal teams, will articulate the overarching and 

specific actions necessary to achieve the goals and outcomes by 

2025. That happens to coincide with the deadlines that are contained in the Total Maximum Daily Load. They will also summarize the means for accomplishing each outcome, as well as the 

methods for monitoring, assessing, reporting and coordinating actions among the partners and stakeholders. 

Each management strategy is expected to include key elements 

or sections that provide details on outcomes and baselines, factors 

influencing the ability to meet the goal, current efforts and gaps, 

management approaches, plans for local engagement, programs for 

monitoring and assessing progress, and a plan for managing restoration efforts adaptively. Each strategy will include a 2-year 

work-plan section that succinctly summarizes for each partner and 

select stakeholder the specific commitments, actions, and resources 

to reach the 2-year target for that particular outcome. Together, 

these elements comprise the adaptive management system that the 

partnership will use to ensure implementation, measure progress, 

make adjustments when and where they are necessary and appropriate. 

The goal teams are expected to submit draft strategies to the 

management board in early 2015. To help ensure progress remains 

on track, the goal teams are expected to reevaluate every 2 years 

and update strategies, as necessary, with attention to changing environmental and economic conditions. Partners may identify the 

policy changes to address these conditions and minimize obstacles 

to achieve the outcomes. 

The public will be able to hold partners accountable for their actions due to a high level of transparency that hasn’t been seen in 

previous agreements. The signatory partners agree to identify their 

intent to participate in the development of each management strategy within 90 days of the Agreement signing. On September 16th, 

the partnership will publish a table that identifies the signatory 

partners who have committed to the development of the 29 manVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:18 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98185.TXT VERN
12 

agement strategies. We will also provide information on how the 

public and interested parties can participate in the process. 

To ensure broad public input and support, the partners agree to 

conduct outreach to stakeholders, to engage them in the development process, and to make information about the management 

strategy development available online and through public meetings, including stakeholder input periods for the final adoption of 

each of the management strategies. This information, likewise, will 

be posted on the Websites, and we’re providing a process where 

folks can sign up to receive information on each of those outcomes. 

In closing, EPA and the Chesapeake Bay program partners remain committed to working collaboratively with all stakeholders as 

we begin to implement the new agreement and develop the management strategies. The new agreement really represents a nextgeneration agreement that builds upon previous agreements and 

moves our restoration efforts aggressively ahead. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I 

welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DiPasquale follows:] 

13 


98185.001
14 


98185.002
15 


98185.003
16 


98185.004
17 


98185.005
18 


98185.006
19 


98185.007
20 


98185.008
21 


98185.009
22 


98185.010
23 


98185.011
24 


98185.012
25 


98185.013
26 

Senator CARDIN: Mr. DiPasquale, thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

We’ll now go to Mr. Robertson. 

STATEMENT OF PEYTON ROBERTSON, DIRECTOR, NOAA 

CHESAPEAKE BAY OFFICE 

Mr. ROBERTSON: Good afternoon, Chairman Cardin. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. My name is Peyton Robertson, and I’m the director of NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office. 

NOAA is the Federal lead for several goals and outcomes of the 

new Agreement. NOAA envisions a healthy, sustainable, and resilient Chesapeake Bay with thriving commercial and recreational opportunities and habitats to provide a range of benefits for fish and 

wildlife. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement will drive this vision toward reality. Today, I will highlight several areas where we’re already making progress. Continuing to achieve measurable results 

under the agreement will only happen with sustained support from 

Congress. 

First, I’d like to speak about the blue crab population. The blue 

crab is an iconic species in Chesapeake Bay. And, while blue crab 

populations can be highly variable from year to year, over the last 

decade populations in the Bay reached some of their lowest numbers ever, due in part to over-exploitation and habitat depletion. 

Through the Chesapeake Bay Program, NOAA chairs the Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team. In 2008, the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, a workgroup of the Goal 

Team, recommended female-specific harvest regulations to begin 

rebuilding the blue crab population. Provision of this population 

target began in 2011 with the NOAA-funded Benchmark Stock Assessment, resulting in new female-specific reference points that 

drive crab management decisions today. This year, the population 

of 69 million adult female blue crabs is below the 70 million threshold set by State fishery managers, and, as a result, Bay jurisdictions agreed to a 10-percent harvest reduction and established a 

July to-July fishing season. 

However, fishing pressure is not the only challenge affecting blue 

crabs. Over-wintering mortality, predation, cannibalism, poor water 

quality, and habitat loss are all factors that affect crabs. NOAA’s 

Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System observed lower water 

temperatures from February to March of this year, and this overall 

persistence of colder water could partly explain the estimated blue 

crab over-wintering mortality. 

Next, I’d like to speak about our efforts to support tributary-scale 

oyster restoration. The native eastern oyster has declined dramatically over the past century due to over-fishing, habitat loss and 

degradation, and disease. Oyster populations are currently estimated to be at less than 1 percent of historic highs, baywide, and 

substantial restoration efforts are necessary for population recovery 

and improving the Bay’s fish, habitat, and water quality. 

In Maryland, three tributaries and oyster sanctuaries have been 

selected for restoration, including Harris Creek, the Little 

Choptank, and Tred Avon Rivers. In Harris Creek, 377 acres are 

currently being restored, making this the largest single oyster resVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:18 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98185.TXT VERN
27 

toration effort ever undertaken. We expect to finish that first tributary by the end of 2015. In Virginia, the Lafayette, Elizabeth, and 

Piankatank Rivers have similarly been targeted for restoration efforts. 

The initial results of these efforts are very promising. The survival rate of oysters just after being planted has increased 100 percent. We have—attribute this marked improvement to better site 

selection informed by NOAA’s C–4 habitat mapping and assessment products. NOAA and the State of Maryland recently found 

oyster population densities on restored sites of 49 oysters per 

square meter, a level consistent with success metrics developed by 

NOAA and our partners. NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers 

invested over $14 million in Fiscal Year 2014 to restore these tributaries. 

A third area I’d like to note is NOAA’s support of large-scale research to assess how different shoreline types, such as rip rap, 

bulkheads, or natural shorelines, affect adjacent coastal ecosystems. An important goal of the agreement is to better inform decisionmakers and provide them the tools they need. And NOAA is 

doing that in the Bay region. Our coastal zone managers can utilize 

this new science to more thoughtfully evaluate shoreline alternatives, including the use of more comprehensive ecosystem-based 

approaches. The new agreement also supports NOAA’s priority to 

provide the intelligence community’s need to ensure preparedness 

and resilience, allowing them to withstand adverse impacts from 

changing climate conditions. 

Now let me highlight our work addressing critical habitats for 

Bay species. Dams and other obstructions in the Bay Watershed 

block the natural migration of fish to historic spawning habitats. 

By removing these physical obstacles and increasing river 

connectivity, keystone species like American shad and river herring 

are able to return to their native spawning grounds. Since 1988, 

NOAA and our partners have opened 2,807 miles of habitat to migratory and resident fishes in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Finally, I’d like to note that NOAA’s Bay Watershed Education 

and Training, or BWET, program is also instrumental to realizing 

the Agreement’s goals. NOAA is ensuring that students graduate 

with the skills necessary to protect, restore, and conserve the Bay, 

and launch them into successful science-and math-related careers. 

NOAA’s modest investments of approximately $2-and-a-half million 

annually for education in the Chesapeake Watershed have reached 

almost a half-million students and created model programs. 

NOAA’s science, service, and stewardship mission touches the 

lives of every American. We’re proud of our role of conserving and 

protecting natural resources in the Bay through the Chesapeake 

Bay Agreement. Continued support for the programs to strive in 

this testimony is critical to achieving measurable results for the 

Agreement’s goals. 

And so, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I’ll 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:] 

28 


98185.014
29 


98185.015
30 


98185.016
31 


98185.017
32 


98185.018
33 


98185.019
34 


98185.020
35 


98185.021
36 


98185.022
37 

Senator CARDIN: Well, thank you, Mr. Robertson. 

We’ll now go to The Honorable Molly Ward. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MOLLY WARD, SECRETARY OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES, STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Ms. WARD: Good afternoon. On behalf of Governor McAuliffe, 

thank you for inviting me to be part of this hearing on the 2014 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement. My name is Molly Ward, and I’m the 

Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Virginia has been an active partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program since its establishment in 1983, and for good reason. Of the 

almost 12,000 miles of tidal shoreline that surround the Bay and 

its tributaries, Virginia is home to 7,000 of those miles. Upon taking office in January 2014, Governor McAuliffe appointed a Deputy 

Secretary specifically for the Chesapeake Bay, Russ Baxter, and 

the administration immediately began the review of the new Agreement. Even before the end of the public comment period, Governor 

McAuliffe committed to including new goals for toxics and climate 

change. 

The Bay is a highway for commerce and a draw for recreation 

and tourism that is very important to the Commonwealth’s economy. Just 2 weeks ago, Governor McAuliffe announced the establishment of the Virginia Oyster Trail that will promote Virginia’s 

oysters industry along the—along with Virginia wineries and businesses along the trail. We harvested over a half-million bushels of 

oysters in the Commonwealth last year, up from 23,000 bushels in 

2001. 

On the point-source side, we have invested over 1.6 billion in 

State and local money on nutrient upgrades to sewage treatment 

plants in the Bay Watershed. We established an innovative nutrient trading program that provided for load caps for each facility 

and each river basin 4 years before the establishment of the 

TMDL. 

On the agricultural side, over $200 million in State, Federal, and 

agricultural funds have been invested. In 2011, the General Assembly passed legislation that authorized our new Resource Management Program, which became effective just this past July 1st. The 

State/Federal agencies, the agriculture community, and conservation groups worked together to develop the implementing regulations. The program, while voluntary, contains rigorous conservation 

standards and oversight while provide a safe harbor from additional regulatory requirements during the effective period of each 

plan. 

On August 25th, Governor McAuliffe visited a farm in the Shenandoah to promote the RMP program. He was joined by a bipartisan group of members of the General Assembly, leadership from 

the major agricultural and agribusiness organizations in Virginia, 

soil and water conservation districts, and environmental organizations, demonstrating the wide, strong support for this initiative. 

We are hopeful our proposals for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and the critical conservation area components of 

the farm bill will be favorably reviewed and provide needed resources to help fully realize the potential of this program. We remain committed to land conservation in Virginia, and particularly 

38 

with regards to water quality and Bay access. Despite budget difficulties, we have maintained a $100 million land conservation tax 

credit program, and the Governor has been personally committed 

to pursuing the Rivers of the Chesapeake proposal, together with 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and our Federal and conservation partners. We pledge the full attention of the administration to the 

needs of Bay restoration and to be a full and productive partner in 

this new agreement to truly restore and protect this national treasure. 

My submitted testimony further details our conservation efforts. 

And I want to thank you for having us here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ward follows:] 

39 


98185.023
40 


98185.024
41 


98185.025
42 


98185.026
43 


98185.027
44 


98185.028
45 

Senator CARDIN: Thank you very much, Secretary Ward. 

We’ll now turn to The Honorable Ronald Miller. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD MILLER, REPRESENTATIVE, 

PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Rep. Miller: Good afternoon, Chairman Cardin and members of 

the subcommittee. I am State Representative Ron Miller, of York 

County, Pennsylvania, and I thank you for the opportunity to 

speak to you today as chairman of the TriState Chesapeake Bay 

Commission. 

The Commission is primarily comprised of State legislators from 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The Commission has been 

a signatory to all of the Chesapeake Bay agreements since the first 

one was signed in 1983. In fact, the Commission hosted that meeting at which that first agreement was signed. Our Commission, 

and later the Bay Program, was created because my predecessors 

knew it would take participation and coordination across the larger 

watershed and between the State and Federal Governments to 

clean up the Bay. Without Federal support and vigilance, the 

Chesapeake Bay Program would not be the premier restoration effort that it is today. The establishment of the Bay Program Office, 

under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, and the appropriations 

of funds for operations and implementation are critical. We applaud the recent and proposed increases in this funding and thank 

you, Senator Cardin and other leaders of our congressional delegation who have consistently supported the Bay Program’s work. 

A key strength of the Bay Program is the reliance on science and 

data to guide our work. Indeed, more data has been generated on 

Chesapeake Bay than any other estuary. Experts from the State 

and Federal Government, universities, private industry, and others 

share information, ask questions, coordinate their work, and leverage resources. Each of our Bay agreements have influenced, and 

were influenced by, this scientific work. The 1987 agreement set 

broad nutrient-reduction goals. Now, through improved modeling, 

monitoring, and a better understanding of how each tributary impacts the Bay, we have specific nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment goals for our rivers and State-specific watershed implementation plans. 

The Commission’s 2013 annual report highlights a few of the 

many legislative victories for the Bay that have been accomplished 

in our three member States as a result of Bay agreement commitments. This latest agreement acknowledges that we cannot do everything at once, and focuses on key actions that will achieve the 

greatest benefits. It also recognizes that participation across the 

entire Watershed, at all levels of government, is necessary to 

achieve our goals. If we are to be truly successful with restoration 

of the Bay, it will only be through the collective efforts of local 

towns and neighborhoods across the Watershed, as well as the 

whole range of local organizations that play a role in educating, advocating, and implementing for positive change. 

The role of the Federal Government is no less critical. The 

Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund and Clean Water State Revolving Fund support local efforts across the Watershed. Farm bill programs help our farmers implement cost-effective best-management 

46 

practices. And the Chesapeake Bay Gateway Program helps connect our citizens with the national treasure of the Bay and its tributaries. These programs continue to be enormously helpful, and we 

thank you again for your support. 

Looking forward, we call your attention to the opportunity to designate the rivers of the Chesapeake as a funded, large landscape 

initiative under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know 

that you, Senator Cardin, and Congressman Moran have been leading the fight for this, and we thank you. 

Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a key partner 

in oyster restoration, wetlands protection, and other restoration activities. Recently developed—the Corps has recently developed a 

comprehensive Bay management plan, and we thank the Senate for 

recognizing that the Corps authorities in the Water Resources Development Act should be amendment to—amended to align with 

this plan. NOAA’s Bay Watershed Education and Training Program and EPA’s Environmental Education Program face funding 

threats, and the Bay Program itself, within EPA and under NOAA, 

need reauthorization. We also look forward to the opportunity to 

discuss how a reauthorized transportation bill can promote better 

storm water management and improve fishing and boating access. 

The Federal Government has also been a key voice in the call for 

improved transparency and verification of our work, and this new 

Agreement is a response. Through the development of management 

strategies, specific implementation actions will be identified as well 

as the partners who have committed to them. This can include 

local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private 

businesses. It will also include our agency partners across the Federal Government. But, it is equally important to assure that agency 

budgets and authorizations provide the tools and resources that our 

Federal partners need to carry out their commitments under this 

new Agreement and Presidential executive order. 

In summary, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a premier estuary 

restoration effort in the Nation because of its science-based approach to policymaking and the strong partnership between State 

and Federal Governments. The new 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement seeks to enhance this partnership through better 

engagement with local governments and organizations and improved accountability for our work. 

I would like to thank you, Senator, for this opportunity, and look 

forward to being able to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Rep. Miller follows:] 

47 


98185.029
48 


98185.030
49 


98185.031
50 


98185.032
51 


98185.033
52 


98185.034
53 


98185.035
54 


98185.036
55 


98185.037
56 


98185.038
57 


98185.039
58 


98185.040
59 


98185.041
60 


98185.042
61 


98185.043
62 

Senator CARDIN: Well, thank you, Representative Miller. 

We’ll now turn to The Honorable Mary Ann Lisanti. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY ANN LISANTI, COUNCILMEMBER, 

HARFORD COUNTY COUNCIL 

Ms. LISANTI: Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for the opportunity 

to lend my voice to this effort and share my experience with local 

government for the record. 

I offer this testimony today as a legislator, a former city manager, and a member and past chairman of the Local Government 

Advisory Committee to the Executive Council, representing 1800 

units of local government in the Chesapeake Bay region. 

At this pivotal moment in the Bay’s future and during the most 

challenging of economic times, we have worked to advise the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the mayor of D.C., and 

the administrator of the EPA on policy matters related to the 

Chesapeake Bay, and most recently provide input to the development of this new—newly signed Bay Agreement. 

Developing one message from the diverse communities has been 

a daunting task. We have fully engaged in this agreement and the 

creation of community-based plans for water quality improvement. 

Our local plans will guide future decisions and help each community meet our 2025 goals that have been established. 

Overall, we are pleased with the New Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, but, notably, we are grateful for the acknowledgment of the vital role the local government plays in achieving the 

vision of an economically and environmentally sustainable Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 

This Agreement does a good job of acknowledging local governments’ role in watershed protection and restoration; but for implementation to be successful, this simple acknowledgment must be 

translated into effective engagement of local government. We must 

now go beyond acknowledgment and focus on achieving outcomes. 

We must work together to develop management strategies that 

identify the actions, tools, and technical support needed to empower local governments. Success really depends on all of us approaching this as true partners. 

Although the task of implementation seems complex, our message has been simple and united: Let us focus on our waters and 

our towns with projects we know that will produce desired outcomes. We, in local government, recognize that Bay restoration begins by cleaning every stream, creek, and waterway in the Chesapeake Bay region. Clearly, we, as elected leaders of counties, cities, 

townships, and boroughs, are the ones who engage the public, direct our staff, and make the decisions necessary to improve 

stormwater management systems and sewer treatment plants. 

To better engage local government, Federal, State—Federal and 

State partners must also better understand what drives local implementation efforts. For example, in some communities, watershed 

protection and restoration may be driven by the simple need to provide—to protect their drinking water. In others, it may be the desire to restore a freshwater stream in order to boost their local 

economy or provide recreational opportunities. Linkages must be 

drawn between the local driver and the Bay. 

63 

As local government officials, we are focused on the basics—protect our communities’ health, safety, and welfare, which, for some— 

sometimes is not apparent on how that connects to the Bay. But, 

when we talk about things that harm the Bay, like pollution and 

runoff and flooding, those—my colleagues and I in Pennsylvania, 

Virginia, Western Maryland, West Virginia, New York, and Delaware now understand what is good for the Bay is good for their 

residents, too. As we all know, it all has to go somewhere, and 

eventually somebody’s got to clean it up. 

The new Agreement sets goals for environmental literacy. Specific strategies must be developed, not only for students, but for the 

public at large, decisionmakers, and elected officials. Although we 

ask our citizens to fund this necessary endeavor, we have done 

very little to simply explain why. If you engage and educate Main 

Street, you will gain their support, influence growth patterns, and 

reduce pollution in our communities, which inevitably will improve 

the Chesapeake Bay. An effective watershed-wide environmental 

education program will ensure that environmental literacy outcomes will be achieved. If we are to be successful in this agreement, we must do a better job of communicating the vision as it 

relates to people in their daily lives. 

I live in Havre de Grace, Maryland, at the—at—where the Susquehanna River joins the Chesapeake Bay. It’s hard for me to 

imagine that others don’t have that deep connection that I do. But, 

as I have traveled the watershed from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the farmlands of Pennsylvania to Maryland’s Eastern 

Shore to the mountains to Washington, DC, I have witnessed that 

same deep-rooted commitment to protect those special places that 

we are responsible for. Many have pledged to do their part. Now 

we need your help. 

We are grateful for additional funding to implement the budget. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership and support. 

While I would hope the funding will continue in the future, I believe we can also do a better job using existing funds to achieve 

benefits. For example, in—well, I’ll give this example later. In—I 

believe that there are opportunities beyond environmental funding 

to align resources to multiply benefits of water quality. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here and 

provide a local perspective to this global issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lisanti follows:] 

64 


98185.044
65 


98185.045
66 


98185.046
67 


98185.047
68 


98185.048
69 


98185.049
70 


98185.050
71 


98185.051
72 


98185.052
73 


98185.053
74 


98185.054
75 


98185.055
76 


98185.056
77 


98185.057
78 


98185.058
79 


98185.059
80 


98185.060
81 


98185.061
82 


98185.062
83 


98185.063
84 


98185.064
85 


98185.065
86 


98185.066
87 

Senator CARDIN: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Lisanti. 

We’ll now turn to The Honorable Steve Hershey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE HERSHEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator HERSHEY: Thank you, Senator Chairman, fellow panel 

members and stakeholders. I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

with this committee on the recently signed Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. 

I am State Senator Steve Hershey. I represent the upper Eastern 

Shore of Maryland. And I certainly support the goal of restoring 

the Chesapeake Bay. However, because of Maryland’s experience 

with previous Chesapeake Bay agreements and the subsequent 

EPA 2010 Bay TMDL pollution reduction goals, I have two major 

concerns with this new voluntary agreement: 

First, the voluntary Chesapeake Bay agreements and the mandated EPA pollution reduction goals are regularly cited as motivation for advancing policy initiatives which previously were considered politically untenable. Both Maryland’s executive and legislative branches now craft policy and defend such policy as critical to 

the Bay restoration goals. Some have rightly questioned the necessity of these policies to achieve Bay cleanup goals, as policymakers 

have established new accountability mechanisms to measure success. While it is important to wonder how effective these policies 

may be, policy proponents unfairly dismiss such skepticisms, oftentimes accusing their authors of not supporting Bay cleanup efforts. 

My second concern focuses on the astronomical cost to achieve 

the goals and outcomes outlined in this Agreement. In 2012, Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services estimated that the Bay’s 

total cost for pay—Bay reduction efforts to be $14.7 billion through 

2025. Although this agreement asserts that progress must be made 

in a strategic manner, focusing on efforts that will achieve the most 

cost-effective results, our experience in Maryland confirms that 

these restoration efforts will have an enormous price tag with limited evidence that they may yield significant results. 

Forty-five years ago, when the Clean Water Act became law, the 

Federal Government provided 87.5 percent of the funding to help 

local governments pay for the massive investments. Since then, the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreements have been voluntary and 

generally independent of Federal assistance. Today, the EPA mandates exist, but the Federal funding does not. 

Forced to comply with these unfunded mandates, State policymakers have not just passed the financial obligation down to the 

local subdivisions, but they have also directed the manners in 

which those subdivisions are to meet the Bay objectives. While 

these mandated pollution-reduction goals have accelerated Maryland policy initiatives, such as centralized planning, tier water and 

sewer maps, and the usurping of local and zoning authority, efforts 

to achieve pollution-reduction goals focuses on four main areas, 

which are agriculture, septic-system regulation, stormwater management, and sewage treatment. 

Maryland’s agricultural regulations have tightened since 2010 in 

an effort to meet the Bay objectives. Demonstrating the agricultural communities’ commitment to Bay restoration, the Maryland 

88 

Farm Bureau reports that State farms have already reached their 

2017 watershed implementation plan. Farmers have worked to reduce the nutrient loading by implementing best management practices which—with limited State assistance. Nonetheless, the Department of Agriculture intends to promulgate further regulations 

by implementing a phosphorous management tool which could have 

a devastating effect on our region’s farmers. With little concern for 

cost implications, Maryland is now asking its farmers, who have 

done their part, to do more in the name of Bay restoration. 

In order to meet the Bay objectives, Maryland has directed its attention, enacted law, and promulgated regulations governing the 

use of conventional septic systems. It should be emphasized that 

Maryland’s septic systems discharge contributes 0.8 to 1.6 percent 

of the total Bay nitrogen load. Nonetheless, under the yoke of the 

Federal mandate, Maryland has enacted laws to restrict septic use 

in new developments. In rural areas, like the one I represent, this 

has stunned development, lowered land values, and dissuaded businesses from locating to rural counties. 

Maryland has certainly been the most aggressive in relationship 

to stormwater management. Maryland’s Department of Legislative 

Services reports that stormwater management initiatives will cost 

local governments $6.27 million over the next 15 years—I’m 

sorry—billion dollars. Since this mandate contains no funding, the 

Maryland General Assembly passed what is commonly known as 

the ‘‘rain tax,’’ which forces local governments to impose a tax on 

businesses, commercial industrial properties, and homeowners, 

based on the amount of their impervious surfaces. This tax has certainly not improved Maryland’s reputation amongst businesses and 

industry. The imposition of the—and uncertainty of each county’s 

implementation of the rain tax presents an additional impediment 

for businesses seeking to locate in Maryland. 

The fourth focus to reach the Bay cleanup objective has been for 

upgrading Maryland’s existing wastewater treatment plants. Maryland’s 67 major plants were the first to be updated with local funds 

in grants from the State’s Bay Restoration Fund. This special fund 

is financed by an assessment known as the ‘‘flush tax’’ on all property owners across the entire State. Maryland intends for its smaller plants to be updated in the coming years with enhanced nutrient-removal technology. While larger wastewater treatment plants 

this technology have reduced their nutrient output, smaller plants 

do not treat the same volume of waste, and the expensive upgrades 

create only a marginal environmental benefit when—one must consider the volume of waste processed through the treatment plant. 

Again, cost-effectiveness is of little concern. For a smaller municipality, the price tag for an ENR upgrade can be staggering. I 

represent the town of Betterton, in Kent County, which has a population of 339 people. Last year, Betterton approved an ENR improvement of its existing wastewater facility. The projected cost is 

between $5.5 million and $7 million. While Federal and State 

grants may reduce the total cost by about 3 million, the town may 

have to find a way to finance the remaining $2.5-to $4 million. For 

a town with such a small population, one can’t help to consider if 

such an upgrade is a worthwhile investment. 

89 

These major investments in wastewater treatment facilities and 

stormwater management projects on top of the regulations on our 

farming industry and restrictions on growth in our rural counties 

in the name of a healthy Bay come at a heavy cost without any 

guarantee that the investments will pay off. 

Consistently, Maryland’s executive and legislative branch policymakers along with environmental organizations have chosen to ignore the single largest point solution—point of pollution in the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed: the Susquehanna River and the discharge of nutrient and sediment that flows through the Conowingo 

Dam. This disregard is once again apparent as this agreement fails 

to mention either the river or the dam. 

All of the goals and the outcomes outlined in this agreement, 

along with the investments to achieve them, might be in vain as 

one major storm event in the Bay Watershed could wipe out any 

progress. Failure to address or assign responsibility to dredge and 

maintain the accumulated sediment behind the Conowingo Dam 

undermines the legitimacy of this new Agreement. 

I would urge other States considering voluntary pacts similar to 

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to enter such agreements with caution. In Maryland’s experience, non-adherence of 

such agreements have served as a basis for an EPA unfunded mandate. Similar agreements could provide the opening needed for EPA 

to force States to spend billions on unaffordable and largely ineffective efforts that may never reach their intended goals. As an outcome of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement or EPA mandates, improvements in the health of the Chesapeake Bay must be 

achieved in a prudent and fiscally conservative and responsible 

manner. We all want to save the Bay, but how to do so with limited 

Federal Government resources is still a point of discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hershey follows:] 

90 


98185.067
91 


98185.068
92 

Senator CARDIN: Senator Hershey, thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

Many of you mentioned additional Federal resources, which is 

something that is dear to all of our hearts on dealing with the 

Chesapeake Bay. And I could mention literally every member of 

the Congress from the Bay region who have been helpful to us in 

the Chesapeake, but let me just acknowledge Senator Mikulski, my 

colleague and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The two 

of us have had several discussions on how we can maximize the 

Federal resources in regards to the Chesapeake Bay. And it’s incredibly helpful to have Senator Mikulski as Chair of the Appropriations Committee, and I just really want to acknowledge that. 

Senator Hershey, you raise some very valid points in regards to 

how the plans are implemented. So, let me just back up. And you’re 

correct that the current enforceable program on the Chesapeake 

Bay comes under the Clean Water Act. The waters have been determined to be impaired, and there is certain science that base certain results and enforced an—and held—progress by the TMDLs, 

and we can judge where we are in regards to improvements. But, 

the Watershed Improvement Plans, the WIPs, are developed by the 

States, so the specifics are really a State issue, not so much a Federal issue, as to what is determined to be the priority of the State 

in reaching what science says that we can reach. And I understand 

some of the concerns you raise, but I think many of these are State 

issues more so than Federal, although I would like to get more 

Federal funds. I couldn’t agree with you more on that point. 

So, let me start, if I might, with Mr. DiPasquale. As—you were 

saying there’s accountability in the Chesapeake Bay programs. It’s 

a State—have signed on, but it’s voluntary. So, can you sort of reconcile how we have accountability in a voluntary agreement? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE: Sure. Well, I think, as you know, Section 117 

of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Agreement, and there are 

no enforcement mechanisms or enforcement provisions that are 

contained in them. So, it’s not like a law or regulation that would 

be implemented and then there would be consequences if a party 

didn’t comply. So, it has been the best-faith effort of the signatories 

to the agreement that have given us the progress we have achieved 

to date. 

There is a modest amount of funding to support the new agreement, and we’re working with the States and the District of Columbia to help provide support to them. I might also add that, under 

the TMDL, about—almost two-thirds of the funding that comes to 

the Bay Program ends up going back out to the States to help them 

implement their obligations under the TMDL. So, there is more 

support on that end. 

But, it is a voluntary agreement. The States will participate and 

contribute—all the signatories will, to the extent they can. I think 

we recognize that there are some goals and outcomes contained in 

the Agreement that aren’t really relevant or appropriate for some 

of the jurisdictions. Blue crabs, for example, probably are not a big 

concern in West Virginia. So, we know that they’re not going to be 

participating in that part of the agreement. 

But, the agreement does define what participation really—what 

activities constitute participation. And it’s a wide range of activiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:18 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98185.TXT VERN
93 

ties: contributing data, providing reports, sharing successful experiences in each of those jurisdictions. 

But, we—the accountability really comes in the management 

strategies and the biennial reviews. And we will measure our 

progress. We will be held accountable by the public. We’re going to 

make all of that information available, at a click of a mouse, basically, or in any form that anybody needs to get it. But, the accountability really is in the management strategies and the 2-year reviews and progress updates. 

Senator CARDIN: Well, you know, and I applaud you for being 

very specific as to the goals in many different areas. I could talk 

about the number of oyster restoration projects in 10 streams. We 

could talk about some of the specifics in regards to acreage of wetlands that you intend to protect, the number of conservation acres 

in a State, the restoration of sea grasses and—I mean, there’s a lot 

of specifics in this Agreement. But, there is less specifics on dealing 

with agriculture, specifically. You don’t have the cover crops or 

things like that spelled out. There’s less specifics on storm runoff. 

Is there a reason why those two areas are not as specific as you 

have it on the fish habitat and on some of the other areas? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE: That’s a great question, Senator. And really 

the water quality goals essentially adopt the existing TMDL and 

Watershed Implementation Plan, so there’s no specific source sector 

that’s broken out. Those are already contained within the Watershed Implementation Plans, and those are the mandatory part of 

the program. So, it—there was some discussion early on about not 

including water quality, and specifically the TMDL, but the signatories felt that it was important to have water quality contained 

within the voluntary agreement, even though it was a regulated or 

mandatory program. 

Water quality works in conjunction with habitat and fisheries. 

And I think the signatories felt it was important to really deal with 

the entire restoration effort on an ecosystem basis, and water quality was included for that reason. 

Senator CARDIN: That’s helpful. And I understand the aspect of 

adopting what’s in the TMDLs. 

Let’s go to point source for a moment. Toxic. As I understand it, 

at least some of the original drafts did not have the toxic in there. 

It seems like it’s even less specific as to how we deal with point 

source problems. 

Mr. DIPASQUALE: Correct. The original document that was put 

out for public review did not contain a toxics goal and outcome. 

And there were some signatory members who felt that the existing 

programs would—were already doing an adequate job dealing with 

those issues. But, there were others who felt that, certainly, the 

partnership could provide a coordination effort that could look for 

gaps. We have a lot of emerging contaminants—for example, pharmaceutical products, estrogen disruptors, those sorts of things— 

that wastewater treatment plants don’t currently deal with. We’re 

also dealing with a lot of legacy issues; for example, from PCB contamination and mercury contamination. And those are pretty widespread in water bodies throughout the country. 

At the end of the day, after receiving public comment—we received 2400 comments, and many of those were focused on toxics 

94 

and climate change. And the signatories agreed that they needed 

to be included in the new Agreement. 

Senator CARDIN: Let me move to State and local for a little bit. 

I’m—Mr. Robertson, you’re not off the hook. We’re—I have some 

questions for you on specific issues. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN: But, let me—Senator Hershey, I want you to 

know that I did hold a hearing on the Conowingo Dam. So, we— 

our subcommittee held a hearing on that, because we are concerned 

about the impact it has on water quality. I learned a new term: dynamic equilibrium. I never knew that term before that hearing, 

dealing with sediment issues. And that—and there is a permitting 

process, as you know, in regards to the Conowingo Dam, that is 

currently being reviewed. 

So, the fish passageway that Mr. Robertson talked about is a 

major part of our effort on the Bay, so it’s not just the sediment 

and pollution that is blocked by dams that can be—cause surges 

that we’re not exactly sure of the total impact on the water quality, 

but it’s also fish passageways and fish habitat that’s affected by it. 

And if you’ve never seen the fish elevator that’s at the Conowingo 

Dam, it’s worth a visit just to see how the shad make it upstream. 

And eel have a little bit more problems. They have to—we have to 

use a car to take them up, or something. I don’t know how that 

all works, but it’s—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN:—it is a challenge to deal with the habitat issues 

whenever you have a blockage on the—on our rivers. 

I am amazed, Ms. Lisanti, that you’re dealing—you had to deal 

with 1800 units of local government. 

Ms. LISANTI: Yes. 

Senator CARDIN: That’s a challenge. I mean, there’s a lot of local 

governments, and they don’t have the same degree of flexibility 

that a State may have. 

Ms. Ward, I—we give the States flexibility so you have some way 

of judging what’s important for your State. 

But, if I could ask the two of you, How do you deal with the local 

governments, versus the State, in trying to put together your action plans and policies? And, Mr. Miller, you want to join us in this 

discussion? I’m just curious as to how the input from our State and 

local governments are handled to get into the Bay Agreement itself. 

Rep. Miller: It’s a good question, Senator. In Pennsylvania, as 

you know, we probably add to the—a huge amount to those numbers of local governments with our municipalities, boroughs, incorporated towns, townships. It’s difficult. It really is. But, we are 

making a very specific effort at the State to reach down to them 

and do an educational process. I will tell you that York County is 

at the forefront with stormwater planning, trying to come up with 

a coherent plan across the whole county that will work for 

stormwater management. 

But, you are absolutely correct, it is an educational process, it’s 

an outreach process that we need to continue to work on. 

Ms. LISANTI: From the Local Government Advisory Committee 

perspective, we have representatives from all of the signator 

States, and they’re a diverse group of elected officials. Some are 

95 

from municipalities of less than 300, others are from major subdivisions, others with strong county governments, some with very weak 

State governments. Very different forms of government in those 

1800 units. 

So, what we tried to do in providing comments that would be effective in the agreement was to look for commonalities. It’s very 

easy to get caught up in all the things that we disagree on, so we 

focused on the things that we agree on. And all of us, as elected 

officials, agree on one very specific tenet, and that is that we need 

clean water, whether it’s the Chesapeake Bay or Lycoming Creek 

or the Rappahannock or whatever wellhead that you get your community’s water from. Scientifically, we know that what happens on 

the land affects water quality. So, we started there. We started 

with the basic tenet that we’re looking for clean water. 

Second, our approach to the States and to EPA is to educate 

them on the capital budget investments that we are doing at a 

local level. Many of our public infrastructure investments are jointfunded with the State of Maryland and—with all the States, and 

sometimes with the Federal Government. So, we were looking for 

creative ways to leverage those funds so that we would have a 

water quality outcome. So, we tried to educate, if you will, our 

State and our Federal partners as to what we do on the homefront 

so that they can make better policy decisions. 

Senator CARDIN: I really do believe that the Chesapeake Bay 

strategies was bottom up. It came from the locals up to the Federal, and it was initiated by leadership in our State and our counties and private sector, and that’s how the Bay agreements came 

about. It wasn’t Washington saying, ‘‘Hey, why don’t we have a Bay 

agreement?’’ It was—— 

Ms. LISANTI: Right. 

Senator CARDIN:—basically, the locals saying, ‘‘We know we have 

to work together. And, by the way, we need the Federal Government, and we need your help in putting this together.’’ 

How did the Commission interact with the Bay Agreement? Was 

there an open process, here? Are you satisfied that local government got enough input? That’s to you, Representative Miller. 

Rep. Miller: From the Chesapeake Bay Commission—— 

Senator CARDIN: Yes. 

Rep. Miller:—perspective? 

Senator CARDIN: Yes. 

Rep. Miller: Senator, you know all politics is local. You need to 

work with your colleagues to get something passed. In Pennsylvania, we need to do the same. So, it becomes an educational process, working with everybody to try to convince them that this is the 

proper thing to do. But, since all politics is local, the point was very 

well made that it—we don’t have to focus on the health of the Bay, 

we have to focus on the health of individual rivers, watersheds. 

People get that. They understand. They want clean water in their 

creeks, they want clean water in their rivers, they want to be able 

to fish, they want to be able to recreate in those waters. So, we 

have to boil this down to a local issue. We have to sell the importance of this on ‘‘everything is local.’’ We address the needs in our 

own watersheds, and, by doing so, we will address the needs of the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

96 

Senator CARDIN: Senator Hershey, you and I are going to agree 

that our farmers have done a really first-rate job in trying—they 

want clean water, they want the Chesapeake Bay—they understand the importance of it. We’ve had programs in Maryland with 

cover crops and farming practices to try to deal with the challenges 

of the Bay. We also want to preserve farmland in our State. It’s 

far better to have farmland than developed space, and we want to 

maintain a strong agricultural base, particularly on the Eastern 

Shore, where it’s part of the life. 

There seems to be a lot of national interest on what’s happening 

in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which, at times, can cause it 

more difficult for us to have the type of relationship that we’ve had 

in Maryland with our agricultural community in trying to work together on the agreement. Do you have any advice for us as to how 

we can get greater confidence from the agricultural community 

that we are really balanced, and want to be balanced, in the way 

that we deal with the future of the Chesapeake Bay? 

Senator HERSHEY: Well, I think you said it. We certainly want 

to have more farmland, but we don’t want to continue having the 

farmlands being the target of the pollution that’s going into the 

Bay. And far too often, we’re seeing that some of our farmlands are 

being targeted with where the sediment is coming from, with having to do—more than just cover crops, but having to maintain 

ditches, having to maintain certain waterways. And we feel, over 

and over, that the farmers have done their job in doing this. 

As we said earlier, they’ve already reached their 2017 pollution 

reduction goals, and I think it’s about time that the farmers are 

given the opportunity to take a look at, and have more input into, 

what these different policies are. As I said before, a lot of my concerns on these things deal with cost-effectiveness. 

And last summer, we were meeting with the farmers in Easton. 

As I mentioned earlier, the State of Maryland is talking about putting a phosphorous management tool in place. There were over 500 

farming families that were at this location, up in arms about what 

these new regulations are going to do to their businesses. And I 

don’t think that we look at them enough, and I don’t think we get 

enough of their input on what the cost-effectiveness is what the 

cost-benefit is on these types of policies. We need to include them 

more. 

Senator CARDIN: Secretary Ward, I’ve mentioned, several times, 

the flexibility to the States. And I want to get Virginia’s perspective as to whether there is adequate guidance for you to make your 

local decisions, consistent with the overall strategies. And I would 

appreciate your comment on that, and then I’m going to get to a 

specific question on oysters, in a moment. 

Ms. WARD: Well, I have a local government background, as well, 

and I agree with what the other speakers have said, in terms of, 

you know, that is where the decisions really get made, and that 

really is where the rubber meets the road. And that’s our perspective, as well. And we’ve included the local planning district commissions, the soil and water conservation districts, and the people 

that really have their boots on the ground as we’ve gone through 

this process. We’ve thought it was very, very important to have 

them at the table the whole way along the route. 

97 

Senator CARDIN: So, let me talk about oysters for a moment. Virginia was a pioneer in looking at an Asian oyster, as to whether 

that could work. We’ve been pretty desperate to try to increase our 

oyster crop. We’ve seen some positive signs in the last several 

years. I appreciate what Mr. Robertson has said about that. So, let 

me get your view, and then I want to turn it over to Mr. Robertson, 

as to how he plans to implement this. 

It’s pretty specific about 10 restoration projects in—I think it’s 10 

streams. Are you confident that will be determined in a fair manner by the discussions you’ve had in the development of the Bay 

Agreement? 

Ms. WARD: Is this my question or—— 

Senator CARDIN: Yes. 

Ms. WARD:—Peyton’s question? 

Senator CARDIN: No, I’m getting to—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. WARD: I’m sure he’s confident as—— 

Yes, we are confident. We’ve had a great partnership, thus far, 

and had fair and open discussions. And we expect to continue to 

do so. And, you know, Virginia, as I stated in my comments, has 

had this very aggressive restoration program, in terms of oysters 

and oyster reefs. We’ve just laid some new concrete—concrete substrait reefs in Virginia and are taking it river by river. So, we— 

I don’t—we don’t always agree, but I believe that we do have a 

clear road ahead, a clear path ahead. 

Senator CARDIN: Well, OK. 

Let me turn to Mr. Robertson for a moment. I’ve been out in the 

Bay, I’ve been with watermen. I know the—a little bit of the politics of oyster restoration, and it’s pretty—can be pretty complicated. It’s not easy. You made a very general statement that 

you’re going to select the best locations from the point of view, I 

guess, of productivity. My guess is that was a little naive, that 

there will be some politics played on the 10 sites that you select. 

Can you give us a little bit more guidance as to how these selections will be made? 

Mr. ROBERTSON: So, from a NOAA perspective, of course, we’re 

talking about being in State waters. And so, our role as a Federal 

agency is really facilitating a process by, you know, trying to provide sound science and working with the States to bring that information to bear on their selection. 

In the State of Maryland, the State identified a variety of historic 

oyster bars, essentially looking at the historic habitat that had 

been most productive, looking at what available habitat was still 

there. NOAA’s support for that really has been to go out and confirm that the habitat that’s been identified for doing that restoration is the best available to do the work so that science essentially 

is contributing to where we focus the work. We’ve done a similar 

effort in Virginia. 

I appreciate your point that, with respect to affected interests, 

not all are necessarily appreciative of whatever designations 

those—have been made, in the case of Maryland’s so-called sanctuaries, which are off limits to fishing. But, I’d offer two hopeful 

outlooks for the future to try to reconcile those differences: 

98 

One, the point made earlier, not only that all politics are local, 

but Councilmember Lisanti talking about what’s meaningful to 

people on a local level. I think we’re finding that using a tributarybased approach, where the river system is named—and I’d use the 

Lafayette, in Virginia, as an example—looking at the way the community has come together around that river and how interested 

they are in oyster restoration really gives us signs that there’s a 

growing general public interest in these ecological relations, and 

they’re owned, really, by that community. Again, the Lafayette’s a 

great example. 

The other is that, with the gross of the—growth of the aquaculture industry, which has—is really taking off in Virginia and is 

following suit in Maryland, that there is now a bit of a bifurcation 

in the industry, and many are going—the entrepreneurs are essentially going after aquaculture, because it’s more cost-effective and 

effectively generates greater profits. And so, I think, as more 

watermen use—you know, move to that approach of growing oysters, whether they be on the bottom or in cages, we’re going to see 

a shift in pressure off of the wild fishery, and perhaps some of 

those conflicts that have existed with local watermen communities 

will be defused over time. 

Senator CARDIN: So, I think you’ve answered my question. I 

think you have. By saying ‘‘best available,’’ you’re talking about 

within the confines of the State’s interest. Is that a fair statement? 

So, you would evaluate applications through the States and then, 

within that, determine best available? 

Mr. ROBERTSON: That’s right. I mean, the way the work is actually done is an interagency workgroup that includes NOAA, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State management jurisdictions; 

in the case of Virginia, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; 

in Maryland, Maryland DNR; along with other partners, to look at 

exactly what you said, what are the States’ interests in areas that 

they would like to identify. And NOAA and the Corps are providing 

both the science and looking at the projected resources necessary 

so that we can support the effort both with science and implementation funding. 

Senator CARDIN: And there has been Federal interest in helping 

fund on oyster restoration. It’s—— 

Mr. ROBERTSON: Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN:—an area that there is a great deal of interest 

in trying to deal with. And, as I said, we’ve seen some encouraging 

signs. You know, I don’t want to get too optimistic, because we’re 

still only at 1 percent, but we have seen some encouraging signs. 

And there seems to be more community support for oyster restoration. So, it’s an area that we need to move forward. And I’m very 

interested in following up how the 10 sites are actually selected for 

this project. 

Let me turn to crabs for one moment. You mentioned a fact—you 

have an ambitious goal, I must tell you, considering the recent 

numbers—you mentioned the problem with the recent crab population was overexploitation and habitat degradation. I think they’re 

the two issues that you mentioned. So, how do we deal with the 

two problems in order to achieve our goals on adult female crabs? 

99 

Mr. ROBERTSON: So, going back to how that target was established—so, 215 million adult female crabs is the result of science 

continuing to evolve. We used to have a goal that was 200 million 

adult crabs. The last blue crab stock assessment said we really 

should focus on females. That science was used to apply by the 

States to setting that target. The point of your question is, you 

know, in terms of natural causes versus manmade causes or fishing 

mortality, as we call it, which is essentially watermen taking crabs 

out of the water, that’s something that, you know, we can manage 

that effort. Those are the so-called knobs that can be turned by 

managers. These other natural factors of mortality are ones that 

we have essentially theorized about. We have some good science 

that supports the suggestion that something like overwintering 

mortality or the temperature drop last winter was so severe as— 

a number of crabs died, and therefore the available female population to restock the next year, if you will, wasn’t available. But, 

frankly, that’s part of the road ahead, as well, to understand better 

what the range of these factors is. They’ve been theorized by everything from crabs eating each other to red drum coming into the 

Bay and consuming crabs in the lower Bay. 

So, there’ll be a continued need for science to inform that decisionmaking, but I would also offer that, in terms of the partnership 

between the jurisdictions that manage this fishery, being the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 

and all those fishery managers who were just together for a meeting of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, down on Tangier Island 

last week, there is great cooperation amongst those jurisdictions. 

There’s also a real sensitivity to the pain that’s caused when they 

do have to turn the knobs and ratchet down on the fishery. And 

there’s, I think, a sincere commitment to move forward and make 

sure they understand fully all the range of factors that are affecting blue crabs as they manage that fishery. 

Senator CARDIN: I want to get Senator Hershey into this discussion, if I might. And I want to come back to give you a chance, also. 

But, it seems to me this is a very sensitive issue. 

I think there’s an understanding that what we take out of the 

Bay affects the health of the Bay. I think there is an understanding. And we’ve gone through a long process on rockfish, and 

it’s a—it looks like it was—the results have been pretty positive on 

the rockfish population. But, one thing we learned from that is, to 

have a healthy industry in our State, they need some predictability 

as to what their season is going to look like. They just can’t—we 

can turn it on pretty fast and turn it off pretty fast. They can’t. So, 

how do we make these decisions in a way that’s sensitive to those 

that are in the industry? 

And, Senator Hershey, let me turn to you as to—am I correct, is 

this a concern that you hear about in regards to—— 

Senator HERSHEY: You’re absolutely correct. In fact, last session, 

we had legislation addressing that same issue, on how DNR is 

turning on and turning off, whether it be limits or whether it be 

the season, in itself. And what our commercial watermen are certainly asking for is predictability. They want to be able to know 

100 

that they have a certain season, that they go out and they can earn 

a living in doing so. 

I think what we also find in the differences between maybe what 

Mr. Robertson and I deal with on a different basis is, he certainly 

deals in the science end, and I certainly deal in the end of talking 

every day to the commercial watermen and what they’re doing. 

And there is a discrepancy there. There is a disconnect. 

So often in Maryland, we seem to believe that policy sometimes 

is driving the science, that, in a sense, the policy is being created 

on the—on, again, maybe in the interest of the Chesapeake Bay or 

in the interest of some type of act, but we’re not seeing whether 

or not the science came first or the policy came first. And the commercial watermen are definitely out there, along with our farmers, 

are saying that we see, over and over again, this policy comes first 

and then all of a sudden they dig up the science to back that up. 

And, you know, again, more and more, we need to get these groups 

involved. They are a tremendous industry in the State of Maryland. 

Agriculture, No. 1, farming—and, you know, commercial watermen 

are doing everything they can. It’s becoming tougher and tougher 

on these groups, and we really need to include them so we can find 

better ways to help them out. 

Senator CARDIN: Mr. Robertson, what type of assurance can you 

give on making decisions in a timely way for those that make their 

livelihood off of the harvest of the Bay? 

Mr. ROBERTSON: Well, I think, first, a cautionary note that providing predictability with respect to blue crabs is a big challenge, 

because they’re a—they’re not like striped bass or rockfish, they 

don’t run on 7-year recruitment cycles, they run on annual recruitment cycles. And so, these variety of factors that we think may affected them are very difficult to address in such a short timeframe. 

But, I would say that, with respect to predictability, there are a 

variety of good efforts going on, including, in the State of Maryland, something called the Blue Crab Design Team, which has been 

working with industry to try to provide both greater accountability, 

in terms of what watermen are out there catching, and, in return, 

provide greater predictability by trying to create some sort of understood allocation or basis for which the fishery is predicated on. 

In so doing, from an economic standpoint, if you’re a crabber, you 

actually have the better ability to get a more predictable price for 

your bushel of crabs when you bring it dockside. Right now, we’ve 

been in a cycle of boom-bust; whereas, abundance increase, fishing 

pressure increases, but the price that watermen get at the dock 

goes down. And so, that’s actually not in the interest of watermen 

in the long term. We’d like to see it become both more accountable 

and more predictable so that they actually get a much better and 

consistent price at the dock, and that’s going to contribute to their 

livelihood. 

Senator CARDIN: And I suppose the restoration of 185,000 acres 

of submerged vegetation will be well-received among those who 

make their living off of the crab crop, so that’s a—that’s certainly 

a very positive step. 

Mr. ROBERTSON: Certainly, habitat issues out there that we’d 

love to see—— 

Senator CARDIN: Yes. 

101 

Mr. ROBERTSON:—SAV come back. 

Senator CARDIN: Representative Miller, I want to talk about the 

upstream issue just for one moment. I was—in reading some material for today’s hearing, I read a lot about the brook trout. I was 

fascinated by it. It’s a beautiful species. It lives upstream. It lives 

in cold, clean water, which, to me, is somewhat like the canary in 

the mineshaft. If we have brook trout, then we’ve got healthy 

water. So, how do—I’ve always been amazed—not amazed, but, I 

guess, pleased by the leadership in Pennsylvania in understanding 

the importance of the upstream water supply in the Chesapeake 

Bay. Yes, the Bay is important to you, but it’s not as direct as it 

is to those of us who live on the shores. So, could you just give us 

a little bit of your views as to how we deal with the upstream 

issues which are so critical to the health of the Bay? 

Rep. Miller: Absolutely. Of course, trout fishing in Pennsylvania 

is very, very important. We have seen—actually seen more impact 

on the smallmouth bass in the Susquehanna River, and we’re trying to address those issues. One of the problems that we have is 

finding the scientific data to identify exactly what is causing the 

issues. It’s difficult to design a program to address anything if you 

don’t know what the cause is. So, there is a lot of study and effort 

going into finding out exactly what is causing those issues. 

But, we go back to the same thing that we’ve discussed quite 

often. It’s—you need to address it at the local level. I believe Pennsylvania is doing its fair share. One of the things we try to do is 

inform our decisions based on the data. If you look at it, Pennsylvania provides over 50 percent of the fresh water to the Chesapeake Bay. Our phosphorous loading is 20 percent of the loading 

to the Bay. Now, some people might make the argument that that’s 

because of the dams acting as the sediment points. But, if you look 

at a publication put out by the Chesapeake Bay Commission recently, it shows the trends for phosphorous and nitrogen in the 

States. And if you look at Pennsylvania, the trend for phosphorous 

at every monitoring point is down. We’re doing a good job of reducing the phosphorous loading coming off of the Pennsylvania areas 

in the watershed. There is one where it is not significant change, 

increase or decrease. I cannot say the same for all the spots in our 

neighboring States. But, we all have to address our own issues. 

I believe the dam—the issue of the two dams will be addressed 

as we go forward. But, what has to be realized, that probably without those two dams for the past 80 years or so, we might actually 

be looking at a Bay that right now is a dead zone. It really did help 

to save the Bay to the point it is now. We will continue to do our 

share, but we have to address it on the local watersheds. And 

you’re absolutely right, our fishermen demand it, we’ll take care of 

addressing the issues with the brook trout, even though I think 

they’re doing fairly well. We’ll continue to find the answer to address the smallmouth bass, and I think we’ll all be better for it. 

Senator CARDIN: Well, we very much appreciate the leadership of 

you in Pennsylvania in this area. It’s been—— 

Rep. Miller: Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN:—the Susquehanna is critically important. And 

New York’s also a critical State for us on our freshwater supply. 

So, it is a huge part of the Bay initiative. 

102 

Mr. DiPasquale, I was recently on the Eastern Shore with the 

Coastal Storage Program at Assateague. I had a chance to meet 

with some students as they were spending their summer learning 

about the challenges of the—of water quality in the Bay. And, I’ll 

tell you, it was just encouraging to meet with these individuals. 

And my thoughts were, you know, how do we capture that, how do 

we make sure that training is not lost and that we have a better 

environmental education literacy program? It’s part of the Bay 

Agreement. My colleague in the House, John Sarbanes, has taken 

a leadership on No Child Left Inside, that we’ve got to get children 

much more sensitive. There is no question that the environmental 

literacy and access to the Bay are two areas that are in the Bay 

Agreement, the new Bay Agreement, that are aimed at helping future sensitivities to preserving the Bay. Can you just tell us a little 

bit more how that discussion took place and how the agreement is 

framed in that regard? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE: I’d like to. So, the executive order that was 

issued in 2009 actually contained a number of goal and outcome 

areas, environmental literacy and public access. One of the objectives of the new Agreement was to try to better integrate the efforts of the—under the TMDL, under the executive order, and to 

incorporate those into the new Bay Agreement. So, now we have 

a separate environmental literacy goal and outcomes. A lot of work 

has already been done in that area. Maryland certainly has been 

one of the leaders in environmental literacy and very much supported by the administration here. NOAA has actually led the effort in the work that’s been done under the executive order. And 

public access is the—is a program that the National Park Service 

has been working on to increase the number of public access sites 

by 300 sites throughout the watershed. There are some areas in 

the watershed where there are 50 or 60 miles of shoreline without 

public access. And so, they’re looking for opportunities to site new 

public access sites. 

But, it’s important, I think, for citizens, both young and old, to 

understand the value of the Chesapeake Bay and the water—the 

tributaries, actually, throughout the watershed, and to try to learn 

about them and protect them. 

Senator CARDIN: And, Mr. Robertson, of course, you have the 

BWET program. My predecessor, Senator Sarbanes, was critically 

important in establishing that program. We’re very supportive of it. 

Does the Bay Agreement tie into the work that you’re doing? 

Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes, I think, directly. I mean, it’s really building 

off the success of that program, the idea of providing a meaningful 

experience for students at least once—the previous commitment of 

the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, to provide that experience once 

during their high school or entire school career, grade school career. Now, in the new agreement, being, let’s try to make sure they 

have one of those types of experiences in both elementary, middle, 

and high school. So, I think it’s building on the idea that we know 

those experiences have an impact on students. It sounds like, perhaps, some of the ones that you interacted with. And that if we can 

continue to expand that, we’ll see great results, going forward. 

I might also just add that, you know, it’s not just taking them 

out to a place, it’s not just what they learn, it’s now they learn it, 

103 

and that this sort of integration of literacy—environmental literacy 

into school systems and into the curriculum is really becoming a 

way of teaching that I think is understood to have a bigger impact 

than just teaching the subject, so to speak. 

Senator CARDIN: Thank you. 

I should point out, as I did a little bit earlier, there are many 

different programs that feed into the work of the Chesapeake 

Bay—in the Water Act and recently in the farm bill with the Regional Conservation Partnerships—and we’re very interested to see 

how that is moving along, since that is brand new. The Bay was, 

of course, designated as one of the critical areas in the country, so 

they’ll be allowed to qualify for two sets of funds under that program. So, that’s—gives us another source of funds that go into the 

Bay. 

I will be talking with—I already talked to Secretary Jewell in regards to the designation under the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. We think it is absolutely wrong that there is no waters on 

the East Coast, other than the Everglades, that have been designated under that program. So, we are going to push hard to try 

to get funding. 

The State Revolving Funds, of course, are used to help deal with this. The President included in his budget $70 million for the Bay 

Agreement. The markup in Senator Mikulski’s committee includes 

that $70 million. So, there are funds that are available to try to 

help deal with these problems. 

So, let me, finally, ask about one area in the agreement that 

seems like it could consume every dollar you have there and then 

some, and that’s resiliency, dealing with the realities of the challenging climate that we have. 

So, I just really want to know, To what degree to you expect resiliency to be advanced in regards to this chapter of the partnership among the States? What can we expect? I—again, I—the challenges of dealing with the unpredictable has been very, very difficult for all of us. So, how is that worked into the agreement? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE: I’ll take the first shot at it and then turn to 

Peyton. NOAA has a specific role in that effort. 

So, you’re aware that there is a separate goal and two outcomes 

dealing with climate resiliency and adaptation. And I think there’s 

been a recognition over the last several years that needed to be 

front and center in all of our efforts because of the impact that climate change can have on the work we’re doing to try to restore the 

Bay. So, if we have higher temperatures in water, for example, that 

could actually reduce dissolved oxygen, which is an important part 

of the TMDL. It’s all really connected. 

A lot of the States have already started moving ahead with adaptation plans. We’ve seen Hurricane Sandy have a tremendous impact, and the Corps has done a—along with NOAA—has done a 

terrific job in identifying opportunities to make waters more resilient to those kinds of impacts. We’re going to be hiring a climate 

change coordinator, in fact, in the next few months, and that individual not only is going to be responsible for assisting us in updating the Bay model to deal with climate change impacts, but also 

working across all of the goal implementation teams to show them 

areas that potentially could be impacted by the effects of climate 

104 

change. And NOAA is at the front and center of that. In fact, we’ll 

be executing an interagency agreement with NOAA to bring on 

that coordinator. 

Senator CARDIN: Peyton. 

Mr. ROBERTSON: So, I think that’s one piece of it, is bringing a 

focal point to it, right, is an issue that’s so pervasive, is to try to 

create a point of contact and a means for which the issue can be 

addressed across all of these goals. Climate is understood to be a 

factor that’s going to affect our ability to achieve every one of these 

goals. And so, it’s a crosscut that way, and we’re going to take a 

look at it that way. 

My full written testimony includes some specific examples of the 

kind of work NOAA’s doing. But, in essence, you know, as has been 

referred before, we’re really a science agency with service built in, 

in terms of the ways we can bring that science to bear for other 

decisionmakers. And so, that’s effective, because what we’re trying 

to do is both understand what’s happening here with respect to 

change and setting up a sentinel site cooperative to look at that, 

look at monitoring sites, and actually see what’s happening to sea 

level and coastal inundation over time, looking at things like frequency of severe storms and the impacts that has on, not just the 

environment, but on coastal communities, and ultimately make 

that information and tools available to local communities, because, 

as you’ve heard on this panel, that’s where the action is. So, we 

really want to make sure the preparedness and the resilience is 

housed at that level, and the ability to drive decisions is there 

where the action is. 

Senator CARDIN: I appreciate your response. So, it seems like 

what you are suggesting is that it’ll be informational so that we understand what is happening in the risk factors. Obviously, there 

are two ways to deal with this. One is to try to deal with the 

causes of climate change, which is not in the Bay Agreement. I understand that. That’s a separate debate that’s taking place in this 

country and globally. The other is dealing with adaptation, which 

is an area that we can deal with. And it is a real challenge, because we’ve looked at some of the cost issues on infrastructure, for 

example, or for beach renourishment or—you could just go through 

the different areas. And they are pretty—it’s pretty steep, the cost 

in regards to dealing with adaptation. The truth is, we have to deal 

with both. And it’s—I—it’s important that it’s part of the agreement, because there’s no question it has a direct impact on the future and quality of the Chesapeake Bay. So, I’m pleased to see that 

is part of the agreement, but I—it’s—you’re just starting us down 

that path. We’re going to have a much more serious discussion on 

those issues. 

I don’t know if anyone else wants to make any comments before 

we wrap up. 

Ms. LISANTI: If I may, Senator. I just want to leave you—you 

asked some of the—you asked how do we—what would be advice 

for moving forward? And I think that, very often—we were talking 

just a few minutes ago about environmental literacy, and we always focus that on our children, which is very, very important, because it is their lifestyle that changes and their connection with naVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:18 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98185.TXT VERN
105 

ture that will help these policies move forward in future generations. 

But, for the immediate short term, one of the things that I think 

is lacking—and we talk about this a lot in our Local Government 

Advisory Committee—is boiling all of this down to very simple 

steps, very simple outcomes. I—particularly the Chesapeake Bay 

Program, NOAA does a fantastic job of doing, you know, major reports on each one of these sectors and their effect. But, how we 

communicate that—I think Senator Hershey said that—as local 

government—I know, Representative Miller, you’ve had the same— 

you have the issue—we are the people that meet Main Street. And 

to explain some of these very highly technical matters to the average person, or us, as lay people—you know, as elected officials, 

we’re expected to know a little bit about everything in—we think 

we do. We try, as—and some do it better than others. But, it— 

these are very difficult times, these are very difficult concepts. This 

is very difficult science. So, to have that global education is so important. 

I think back, as a child, to programs that the Federal Government did, advertising, like Smokey the Bear. Smokey the Bear is 

something that I connected with as a child and guided my decisionmaking without me even realizing it. I also remember there was 

another national—I think it was a National Park Service advertisement that showed an American Indian on the—on a riverbank with 

debris and litter floating by, and they went to him, and he had a 

tear in his eye. That was—that impacted me as a child, that made 

me think of the world in a different way. And I think we get so 

bogged down in all of the details and, you know, in all of the 

science, but we forget to communicate to the average person on the 

street what this is about. 

You know, that’s why we have issues like—you know, in the 

State of Maryland, we have a debate on whether we tax the rain, 

or not. Taking that issue, as a legislator, and explaining to the people that I was federally required to impose a tax on, and explain 

to them, ‘‘We have a stormwater fee that you are paying out of 

your general fund.’’ We are now, in our county—we were different 

than a lot of the jurisdictions, but we removed that from our general fund and made an enterprise fund so the—so it was a direct 

cost for direct service. We also allowed people to opt out. In Harford county, you don’t have to pay the fee if you take care of your 

own stormwater. It was a very simple step, but it took a lot to be 

able—for all of us to be able to explain that. 

So, I can’t let environmental literacy on a global level go without 

emphasis. 

Senator CARDIN: Thank you. 

Well, let me thank you all. This hearing has been, I think, very 

helpful in trying to understand the new Chesapeake Bay Agreement. As President Obama joined a list of Presidents who have declared the Chesapeake Bay a national treasure, this is of importance to our entire country, not just the States and the region in 

which it is physically located, because of its richness and its biological diversity. So, this is a national issue. 

But, also, what’s being done in the Bay is being looked at nationally for other great water bodies, which my—the subcommittee I 

106 

chair has jurisdiction over. So, whether we’re talking about 

Naragansett or we’re talking about the Great Lakes or we’re talking the San Francisco Bay or Puget Sound or the Gulf of Mexico, 

they’re looking at what worked in the Chesapeake Bay and trying 

to duplicate that so that they can also have a game plan that will 

help future generations. 

So, this hearing has been helpful, not only in better understanding of our committee in the U.S. Senate on the Chesapeake 

Bay and the evolution of the agreements to where we are today, 

a voluntary agreement that is consistent with the actions under the 

Clean Water Act to try to bring it in a consistent way. It is also 

helpful for us to look at what works and doesn’t work in our country so that we can have the most cost-effective, efficient, scientificbased plans so that we can lead the Bay in a better State to our 

children and grandchildren. That’s our goal. 

And we know that this is a long-term effort. When we started 

this 35 years ago, we knew it would be—need the attention for a 

long time. And it has had that attention, and, in part, because of 

the people that are here testifying today. 

And we thank all six of you for your being here today, but, more 

importantly, for the role that you have played in the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

And, with that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned. Thank 

you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ