I am pleased to present for the General Assembly's consideration the FY 2005 Operating Budget of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. I am now back in full-time service as the Center’s President after a period of double-duty as Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the University System of Maryland. It was a great privilege and learning experience to work closely with Chancellor Brit Kirwan during one of the most challenging times in the System’s history. I hope that just some of his passion, commitment and wisdom wore off on me. Sometime during FY 2005, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the founding of its Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL) by Maryland Agricultural College Professor Reginald Truitt. Truitt, who coached two national champion lacrosse teams at College Park, fought a nearly three-decade long battle with Coach, Athletic Director, then-President Curley Byrd, over the funding and status of the laboratory at Solomons. As I pointed out to our current Regents, some things never seem to change! As best as I can determine from his records, Truitt felt the reason for the feud was that Byrd never forgave Truitt for giving up coaching lacrosse to pursue marine biology. The rest is history and in 1962-after Byrd's departure from the university, I should point out-the General Assembly placed CBL and its satellite facilities throughout the state back into the University of Maryland. Through various name changes and laboratory consolidations the now-University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science has since been a separate institution administered at the university system level. Through streamlining and reorganization in the 1970s, the Center reduced its scope from five laboratories to the present three-the Horn Point Laboratory on the Eastern Shore and the Appalachian Laboratory in Western Maryland, in addition to the original Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Additionally, the Center administers the Maryland Sea Grant College Program for the System. Can We Restore the Chesapeake Bay? 
Most of the research and advisory services the Center performs focuses in one way or another on the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The summer of 2003 will go down as the "summer of our discontent" regarding our efforts to restore the Bay. Although the 20th anniversary of the first multi-state-federal Chesapeake Bay Agreement was marked last year, writers bemoaned the lack of significant progress in Bay restoration. Naval Academy political scientist Howard Ernst's book Chesapeake Bay Blues concludes that the political process has worked against the interests of science, the public, and the environment to stymie progress. Sun columnist Tom Horton's revision of Turning the Tide similarly criticizes the lack of real progress. The summer-time "dead zone" in the Bay was of record size during the early part of the summer, until strong winds followed by the storm surge from Hurricane Isabel breathed life-giving oxygen back into bottom waters. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation reduced its State-Of-The-Bay score down to 27-out of a possible 100!
A December Washington Post editorial noted the shortcomings on the 20th anniversary of the Bay restoration program and blamed them in part on "overly optimistic" scientists. I don't think that this is an accurate characterization because the causes of the problems faced by the Bay and their solutions were well articulated by regional scientists--largely led by the efforts of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, I should point out--twenty years ago. It is political will and concerted action that have been insufficient. Furthermore, we have grown a bureaucratic technocracy that emphasizes process rather than real achievement, oftentimes painting for the public a too rosy picture. Nonetheless, university scientists have continued to help move the ball toward the goal, recently providing new practical insights on recovery goals and management requirements. In his State of the State address, Governor Ehrlich spoke of a number of initiatives to address the shortcomings in restoring the Bay. The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science is playing a pivotal role in most of these, for example:
It's All About the Future
Although we have proud history of nearly 80 years of research, education and service on Maryland's environment and natural resources, the Center is very much about looking toward the future rather than just to the present or past. Increasingly, environmental science must provide not only diagnoses, but also prognoses and prescriptions for achieving a desirable environmental future. Last year, Maryland Sea Grant communicator Jack Greer and I completed a large effort to develop plausible, science-based scenarios about what the possible futures for the Chesapeake Bay may be. Our report, Chesapeake Futures, and a related MPT video production, have had a remarkable effect not only on Bay policy, but also on how scientists and citizens, alike, perceive future possibilities, from good to bad. The Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee has adopted it as a road map to guide its efforts, a network of undergraduate students is promoting it as a text in universities and colleges throughout the region, and other organizations are concentrating their efforts to implement many of the report's recommendations. The Center is also thinking about its future by continuing to:
With regard to our important, but commonly overlooked role in providing instruction and research mentoring for graduate students receiving masters and doctoral degrees from College Park and other USM institutions, we recently researched where our students go in their careers. Although almost half of our Ph.D. students go on to careers in teaching and research, the largest share of our graduates move on to work in state and federal research agencies and industry. Thus we are producing the next generation of problem solvers as well as research scientists. The Center is also looking forward in the science that it does. We are national leaders in coastal environmental forecasting, which requires linking real-time observations with complex computer models-much like the National Weather Service does with weather forecasts. Through the Alliance for Coastal Technologies, we lead a national coalition of universities and research institutions in the development and testing of new environmental sensors that can be deployed in these real-time, coastal observing systems.
Economic Development
Every year when I testify I hear my counterparts talk about how important their institutions are for the economic development of Maryland. There is this new gizmo, this new patent, and this dream. While all of this is important, of course, I do not think that the contributions of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science to Maryland's economy are fully appreciated. Maybe it is because our contributions are less glamorous and more "blue collar." Based on their speeches during the opening days of the Session, Governor Ehrlich and Speaker Busch seem to agree on at least one thing. Both acknowledge that the Chesapeake Bay is a great economic engine for Maryland as well as an environmental treasure. Our scientists are the mechanics under the hood trying to fix that engine. We are also directly helping important economic sectors achieve viability and success. For example, we are helping the Port of Baltimore stay in business and competitive by working with multiple agencies to find scientifically sound solutions for the beneficial use of dredged material and for ballast water treatment to avoid disastrous introductions of nonindigenous species. We are helping foresters in Western Maryland, through the Allegheny Forests Products alliance, transition to sustainable timber management-by using the same technologies and insights I discussed earlier-to improve their recovery of economic benefits while, at the same time, minimizing undesirable consequences to water quality of the Bay or to biodiversity. Finally, we too are also helping with new business creation. For example, Chelsea Instruments of Weymouth, England, has decided to locate its U.S. offices in Solomons, Maryland, because of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies that I mentioned earlier. Budgetary Challenges
Let me now say a few words about the budget request and address the issue raised by the legislative analyst. First, while the Governor's Request for level support from State General Funds may seem generous during these difficult fiscal times, it presents the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science with problems quantitatively more difficult than faced by the instructional institutions. We have had to budget for mandatory increased costs for merit pay, 401A Plan reinstatement, and property insurance totaling $306,019. Additionally, we are told to anticipate an increase in health insurance benefits contributions of approximately $250,000. But, we have no increased tuition revenues to offset any of these increased costs. We will have to absorb these mandatory expenses through a combination of additional lay-offs and reductions in supplies, contractual services and equipment purchases. In practical terms, we will have to deal with an additional half-million dollar cut in state support in FY 2005. To make matters worse, as the analyst pointed
out we have a major shortfall in the state portion of the operating
costs of the new Aquaculture
and Restoration Ecology Laboratory at Horn Point-the very facility
on which so much is riding for Chesapeake Bay restoration, particularly
with regard to oyster restoration and Asian oyster research. Initially
we received an appropriation equaling only about twenty percent
of the anticipated state support for operations of the facility.
Together with some funds that we reprogrammed within the Center's
budget and help provided by the If I could reallocate the additional funds required from other parts of our budget I would, but we have already gone to that well and will have also had to accommodate three years of devastating budget reductions through FY 2005. We have no other choices. The AREL facility is up and running and is already a vital addition, but the costly culture facilities that generate little external research support, yet are expected to make important contributions to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, will be operating at half capacity or less. Closing
Despite this significant fiscal management challenge--the most daunting in my career, really--I remain optimistic. The environmental research, education, and service work that we perform is needed more than ever within the region, nationally and globally. The Governor and General Assembly are as committed as ever to restoring the Chesapeake and we're a crucial part of that. The Center is well positioned to take advantage of emerging scientific needs and opportunities. I appreciate this Subcommittee's continued support and encouragement.
|
Upgrading sewage treatment.
We are
applying sophisticated chemical measurements of stable isotopes
of nitrogen to track nitrogen pollution emanating from treatment
plants out in the Bay. The diagram in the written testimony
shows large proportions of sewage nitrogen in the lower Choptank
River.
Sustainable fisheries management.
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory scientists once again led the
bi-state effort to determine the stock recovery and sustainable
harvest requirements for blue crabs. Their latest findings and
recommendations were included in the Chesapeake Bay Commission's
A number of high-level assessments and commissions,
notably the 
Chancellor
and Regents to meet the new facility operating shortfall, we are
still approximately $600,000 short of meeting the full-year operating
costs for the facility. We have moved programs and people into the
new facility. It is largely operational and is already making a
big difference in our research programs. The engineers and contractors
are still, however, working out bugs in the very complex and sophisticated
culture support system. But, when this is accomplished we will only
be able to operate the culture facilities, which are energy-hungry
and labor intensive, at partial capacity. We are working hard to
meet the shortfall from other sources of funding. Most importantly,
we are completing an agreement with the Department of Natural Resources
wherein the Department is moving resources from less capable hatchery
facilities and providing them to us for partnership operation of
our culture facilities. We have had some success in attracting philanthropic
support, but these investments have appropriately gone mainly for
equipment and further capital improvements rather than ongoing operating
costs. Expanded research will also generate more indirect cost recoveries,
but these were already factored in our operations plan because more
research activity also generates more, very real, indirect operating
costs. 