|
House Appropriations Committee
Education and Economic Development Subcommittee
March
17, 2005
Senate Budget and Taxation Committee
Capital Budget Subcommittee
March 21, 2005
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
FY 2006 Operating Budget
Testimony by
Donald F. Boesch, President
|
I am pleased to present for the General Assembly's consideration the
FY 2006 Capital Budget request for the University System of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science. First, I want to express appreciation for the General Assembly’s steadfast support
for significant facility improvements at each of our three laboratories across the state
during the nearly 15 years I have served as the Center’s President. The modern research
laboratories that we have built at the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Southern Maryland,
the Appalachian Laboratory in Western Maryland, and the Horn Point Laboratory on the Eastern
Shore have allowed us to compete at the leading edge of environmental research. This, I
believe, has brought great returns to Maryland, not just in the external research funding
we have been able to attract, but, more importantly, in the knowledge that has been
generated pertinent to the effective protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
and its watershed.
The two requested capital projects before the Subcommittee are not
major new laboratory facilities, but timely and essential “value-added” additions to
our infrastructure.
Truitt Laboratory Extension,
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory.
In order to alleviate a critical shortage of laboratory space equipped
with running seawater that is needed for experimental research at the Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, we are planning a cost-effective extension of the Truitt Laboratory. This laboratory
is named in honor of the Center’s founder, the legendary Chesapeake Bay scientist and coach
of a two-time national champion lacrosse team for the University of Maryland, Reginald V. Truitt.
This will provide an additional 8,500 net assignable square feet of space for research and
graduate student training. This research will focus primarily on the sustainable use of
Maryland’s fishery resources and the restoration of the habitats on which these resources
depend. We are fortunate to have secured $449,000 in federal funds to contribute to the
total cost of $3.275 million for planning, construction and equipment. The federal funds
have allowed us to advance the planning of this facility. We are very pleased that the
Regents and the Administration are supporting this request for the construction funds needed
for project completion at this time. I appreciate the positive recommendation of the
Department of Legislative Services for this project and respectfully request the General
Assembly’s inclusion of the Truitt Laboratory Extension in the Capital Appropriation.
Oyster Production
Facility, Horn Point Laboratory.
This is a late, but very important addition to the Center’s
capital improvement plan. With the completion of the Aquaculture and Restoration
Ecology Laboratory (AREL) at Horn Point it has become clear that this new facility
could play a key role in the needed expansion of the State’s efforts to restore
native oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay. AREL has research shellfish culture
facilities of a scale used in the oyster aquaculture industry on the West Coast.
While our old culture facility could grow one-quarter of a billion oyster larvae
per year, the new facility is equipped to produce at least 2 billion larvae per year.
The limiting factor now is the capacity to set those larvae on shells and to sustain
the young oyster spat until they are ready for planting out in the estuary.
Recognizing this, the Department of Natural Resources approached
the Center regarding the construction of a pier-side oyster production facility at Horn
Point that, in an efficient partnership, takes advantage of the substantial capacity for
larval culture in the new AREL facility to catalyze the needed expansion of Maryland’s
native oyster restoration efforts. Because the facility would be located on University
property, it was agreed among the Department of Budget and Management, DNR and the
University System to request the capital appropriation to the Center. Planning was
advanced in short order, yielding the current plan for a 3,375 gross square foot
facility on a concrete pier adjacent to the site of the existing Horn Point pier.
This would support setting tanks with associated heaters, pumping systems and aerators.
This makes great sense because a good part of the seawater supply infrastructure is
already in place at that site and transport vessels and barges can easily navigate in
and out of the site.
While I realize that there is much worthy competition for
General Obligation bond funding under consideration by the General Assembly, I
respectfully submit that this is a very critical time for a strategic investment
in oyster restoration. First, despite the dismal situation concerning oyster
populations and harvests in the Bay, scientifically designed restoration projects
initiated since 2001 have shown very encouraging results, even with the challenge
of disease epidemics. Restored oyster bars in the Chester River and elsewhere are
now over 4 years old and three-dimensional reefs, teeming with life, have been created
by the growing oysters. Some of these sites were treated as managed reserves and
opened to bountiful harvest last fall. With proper management, large areas with
mid-range salinities could be brought back into production. Innovative approaches
to native oyster restoration in Virginia waters are also yielding positive results
through the use of disease-resistant strains developed through a partnership of
universities in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey.
Over the past four years, the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science has produced over 400 million juvenile native oysters for planting
on sanctuaries and managed reserves. With funding provided in the FY 2006 operating
budget request and the Horn Point production facility proposed in the capital request,
we should be able to increase that production to 750 million per year! This is important
because, as we carefully weigh the risks and benefits of an introduction of a nonnative
oyster over the next few years, the potential for recovery of native oyster populations
will undoubtedly be a key factor. We simply will not know what that potential is unless
we scale-up our restoration efforts.
Thank you for your continued support of the Center and consideration
of this request.

BACK TO MAIN PAGE
|