I am pleased to present for the General Assembly's consideration the FY 2007 Operating Budget request for the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. In this written testimony I briefly highlight some of the Center’s accomplishments over the past year as well as offer specific comments on the Department of Legislative Services’ review. First, I want to express appreciation for the General Assembly’s steadfast support for the University System of Maryland, which undoubtedly contributed to the Governor’s proposal for an exceptional increase in the State’s investment in higher education. The increase in general funds is particularly important for the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, which has not been able to offset past budget shortfalls with increased tuition revenues and has also been faced with substantial requirements associated with the operation of new facilities and other mandatory operating costs. While we are most grateful for the requested increase of $1.5 million, I should point out that 96% of that increase is to meet mandatory costs, including salary and benefits of existing personnel, utility and other inflationary increases, and the operation of new and maintenance of existing facilities. Increases in utility costs alone consume 22% of the appropriation increase. There is an allowance of only $50,000 for programmatic enhancements—that to assist with our participation in the Capital Campaign. Highlights Maryland’s Natural Resources 
When I appear before the General Assembly committees to testify on our budget, questions inevitably gravitate to current concerns about our natural resources, particularly regarding the Chesapeake Bay, and what the Center is doing about them. Appropriately so! The Center celebrated its 80th Anniversary last year and throughout its rich history, research and analysis regarding Maryland’s natural resources have been front-and-center in what we do. UMCES scientists continue to lead the bi-state technical assessment of stocks of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay. Using diverse scientific and fisheries data, the latest assessment, released in October 2005, found that the blue crab stock remains at a low level of abundance. However, when compared to management reference points, agreed to by regional management agencies in 2001, the stock is no longer technically “overfished.” While the lack of recovery of stock abundance remains a concern, the exploitation rates (percent of the population harvested each year) declined from 2000 through 2003. For 2003, it was estimated that 46% of the available population was harvested. This is less than the maximum harvest level that is believed sustainable, but still greater than that level adopted by management agencies as safe for the fishery. This suggests that the management of fishing pressure is beginning to have the desired result, but that we must stay the course and be patient in order to witness recovery of the blue crab population. The Center’s work in restoring native oysters
and in evaluating the risks and benefits of the nonnative, Suminoe or Asian
oyster continues. Our Horn Point shellfish culture facility produced
over 200 million seed oysters last year for use in the native
oyster restoration programs of the state and federal agencies.
Our scientists are also engaged in monitoring survival and prevalence
of diseases in the restored oyster reefs. Some of the restored
bars have dense populations of large oysters five years after
planting. In addition, we have a large team of scientists conducting
research required to elucidate the risks and benefits of introduction
of the Suminoe oyster, the subject of a Return on Investment: Integration and Application Network During my 15-year tenure of service, only once has
the Center had an honest-to-goodness programmatic enhancement
in our state appropriations beyond the funding of mandatory costs
or operation of new facilities. In FY 2001 we used that opportunity
to create the Integrate
and Application Network (or IAN), designed to inspire, manage and
produce timely syntheses and assessments on key environmental issues
so that scientific knowledge may be applied more effectively. I
am delighted to report that IAN has been a smashing success thus far.
Among its Leadership: Regional, National, Global
The Center is building on its already excellent reputation for scientific leadership at the regional, national and global scales even beyond our successes with the Integration and Application Network. For example, Dr. Margaret Palmer, the new Director of our Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, has led the Ecological Society of America’s Ecological Visions initiative, which challenges ecologists to pursue creative approaches to solve or lessen the effects of the unprecedented environmental changes we are experiencing around the world. Dr. Palmer also led a national assessment of the success of stream restoration activities. I am also pleased to say that two of our women faculty members have won back-to-back Regents' Faculty Awards for Excellence in Scholarship, Research and Creative Activity. The Center’s reputation grows on national and international levels. UMCES ranked in tenth place among U.S. universities and research institutions in expenditures in Environmental Sciences in the latest NSF summary and fifth in the subcategory of Oceanography. The publications of our faculty members have brought international attention to Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay region as world leaders in science-based environmental restoration. Last fall, for example, a team of UMCES scientists published a paper featured in a top international journal that brought together, for the first time, information of the history and environmental consequences of eutrophication (or nutrient over-enrichment) on the Chesapeake Bay. Requests for this paper have been overwhelming and we are already hearing how our paper is inspiring scientists in the Baltic, Mediterranean and other regions of the world to undertake similar efforts. Natural Disasters and Coastal Environments
Issues in the Department of Legislative Service Analysis Measuring Performance
The DLS analysis flags several points on which I would like to comment. The first concerns the shortfall in number of grants in excess of $300,000 awarded in FY 2005. While these results are what they are, I point out that the total value of new research awards continued to grow, despite the fact that we have had a number of unfilled faculty positions. Furthermore, based on awards to date, we are confident that we will meet this Managing for Results FY 2006 goal. I am pleased to see highlighted that the Center has exceeded its ambitious goal for participation in our programs by K-12 teachers. I was specifically asked to comment on the challenge of measuring performance in comparison to peer institutions. The difficulty in such peer comparisons stems from the fact that the University System Office and the Department of Budget and Management relies on independent, national databases for academic performance indicators. For most of our peers, their performance data are embedded within the aggregates of their parent institution and are not available from such third-party sources. Consequently, for such comparisons we must rely on information that we request directly from these institutions (typically a school or a college within a university) or information periodically gathered by national associations of one kind or another. Such data often suffer from inconsistencies of inclusions (for example, expenditures for physical plant operations and maintenance may be in the general budget of the parent university) and specific metrics. Nonetheless, we access and use such data whenever we can. I would like to point out that Chancellor Kirwan commissioned an independent peer-review of the Center in 2004. In a nutshell, the review committee reported that UMCES is in the top tier of research institutions of its kind and that its efforts in the application of science exceed all of our peers. I believe that we have achieved this high level of performance in an efficient manner, as well. For example, our nearest and, in many ways, organizationally most comparable institutional peer, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, has a state-funded budget of $18 million for the present fiscal year (for UMCES it is $14 million). VIMS has a nearly equal number of faculty members, but receives less external support for its research than UMCES. I believe that UMCES has a more prominent reputation nationally and am quite sure that we have a greater impact on Chesapeake Bay policy. I should also point out that the Virginia General Assembly is considering its Governor’s budget requesting $1.8 million in program enhancements for VIMS to ensure adequate scientific monitoring of the Commonwealth’s investments in cleaning up the Bay. With all of this in mind, I believe that a thorough analysis, based not just on a few metrics, would show that our Maryland program is more efficient and effective, but that it also runs the risk of falling behind our competitors in lower Chesapeake Bay. Efficiency Initiative
As the DLS report indicates, the Center has continued to do its part to achieve cost savings in the USM Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative. The report also indicates that after a review of organizational structure, the Chancellor recommended and the Regents agreed that the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science should remain as a separate institution within the System. I think it is fair to say that they concluded that there have been distinct advantages and no serious problems developing from this structure over the years. I look forward to working with the Chancellor to develop an appropriate model for assessing and funding our budgetary requirements. Personnel Studies
As the DLS report indicates, the Center has managed the total number of positions assigned to it to maximize the outcomes of its mission: research, education and public service. As we have achieved administrative and operational efficiencies, we have used any freed positions to meet new operational needs (e.g. opening of major new facilities) or support faculty lines. Many faculty positions are partially or totally supported by research grants and contracts attracted to the Center. Audit Findings
The Center prides itself in its record of effective management and relatively clean audits. Those audit findings that we do receive are typically due to our lean administration and dispersed management staff, which presents a challenge in maintaining appropriate controls and separation of duties among a staff with little or no redundancy. We had one repeat finding from our October 2003 Legislative Audit regarding adequate accountability and control of equipment at two of our laboratories. Despite the fact that we take equipment over the world, we have never had a problem with significant loss of this equipment. Nonetheless, at these two laboratories we have now implemented the inventory control system that has been successful elsewhere in both the Center and USM.
|
many
accomplishments, it has responded to the need for better indicators
for measuring progress in Chesapeake Bay restoration by leading
efforts to develop more timely report cards based on real data rather
than model estimates. It has also produced a report on the current state
of Maryland’s
Coastal Bays. At the national level, IAN has become a “go-to” organization
for federal agencies in their efforts to synthesize and communicate
issues ranging from nutrient pollution in U.S. coastal waters to
natural resource monitoring in National Parks. IAN has just received
a major grant from the Packard 
Foundation
to facilitate regional syntheses and produce reports for the central
California coast, Gulf of California and the Western Pacific. The
Integration and Application Network helps the Center’s scientists and
others within the region inform scientifically sound environmental and
resource policy. It is also bringing attention and credit to the University
System of Maryland from around the world, consistent with the Center’s
goal of being globally eminent, but locally relevant
The last 16 months have brought to our attention the risks posed to those of us who live in coastal regions due to hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters. As a native Louisianan, this was a most poignant lesson. Over the last few months, I led the effort of a group of 19 nationally prominent scientists and engineers to develop a 