MENU

Sections

More

October 2, 2023

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

News News Homepage News News Portal Highlights

Getting to Know Serena McIlwain: New Secretary of Maryland Department of the Environment

by

Serena McIlwain, secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment, discusses the Chesapeake Bay and other topics during a Bay Journal interview in June. Photo by Dave Harp

When Serena McIlwain was appointed to lead the Maryland Department of the Environment earlier this year, she took charge of an agency at a crossroads.

Under Republican Larry Hogan’s governorship, which ended after eight years because of term limits, the department made several important strides toward restoring the Chesapeake Bay. But it was hobbled by a shrinking workforce and bruised by legal fights with environmental groups seeking better enforcement of pollution controls.

The new governor, Democrat Wes Moore, reached across the continent to hire McIlwain.

She had served for four years as undersecretary of California’s Environmental Protection Agency. That was after a short stint at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC, as director of the Office of Continuous Improvement during the Trump administration.

The veteran bureaucrat has worked in various roles across much of the federal government going back to 2003.

During an interview with the Bay Journal, McIlwain was quick to dispel any notion that she is merely a hired gun. She was born and raised in the Chesapeake Bay region, and she still considers it her home.

Below are excerpts from the interview, which took place in mid-June at MDE headquarters in Baltimore. It has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: You’ve moved across the country a couple of times now. Why did you want to come back to Maryland for this position?

Answer: I wanted to come home. And the more important reason is when I met with the new governor, Gov. Wes Moore, we talked about climate change. We talked about some of the issues in Maryland, and when we spoke, I saw the passion he had and the support that he would have for me and MDE, I was ready to pack up right then and there and leave my job and come here.

Q: What’s your favorite image when you think of the Chesapeake Bay?

A: My favorite image is really just the water. I love water. Water is my middle name. Not literally. But yeah, it’s just the image of the water and seeing the boats and people out there enjoying themselves.

Q: The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Bay report card recently gave the Bay ecosystem a C grade. Despite 40 years of effort, the big lift in aquatic health seems to elude us. Why haven’t we been able to overcome this?

A: It’s called climate change. Things keep changing. Every time we come up with goals that we think are suitable for restoring the Chesapeake Bay, more things are happening. And it’s just hard. We’re relying on other states that contribute [pollutants] to the Chesapeake Bay. We don’t really control that. We rely on the EPA to control those other states. It’s a constant battle challenge, but we’re making progress nonetheless.

Q: The biggest pollution reductions for the Bay need to come from the agricultural sector. That’s not news to anybody. But, so far, efforts such as cost sharing and best management practices haven’t been nearly effective enough. What can be done to get at this problem?

A: There’s a lot of nonpoint sources of pollution. I will tell you, as new secretary, I’m working very closely with the new [Department of Agriculture] Secretary Kevin Atticks on trying to really look at ways that we can do things differently in the agricultural area. It’s agriculture. We need it. But at the same time, you cannot pollute the environment. It’s a constant thing that we try to deal with and work with.

Q: The Chesapeake Bay program from the beginning has largely been based on reducing nutrients to reduce the size of the “dead zones” in the deep channel. With the 2025 deadline approaching to put actions in place, is it worth rethinking what those goals should be?

A: I think we’re at a good moment where we can start to reimagine how we’re going to restore the Bay. There was a recent report out [the Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response report], and it has a lot of recommendations in there as well. In that report, they’re talking about ways to start thinking differently. I know there’s a lot of hype about, “Oh, we’re not going to meet the 2025 TMDL [total maximum daily load].” I will tell you, that might be true. But Maryland — we’re on target to meeting it. We’re doing our part.

Q: Your agency is working on releasing an implementation strategy for the Climate Solutions Now Act, which calls for 60% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2031. How do you see the state reaching this goal?

A: It hasn’t been released yet. But I do have an idea of what it’s going to take. And it is going to take a lot of coordination and partnership with state agencies. I will tell you this: It is possible to meet the 60% goal by 2031. We can do it, but it’s going to be a real heavy lift. That includes continuing the efforts that we have now with zero-emission vehicles and building more infrastructure [to support EVs].

MDE secretary roundtable
MDE Secretary Serena McIlwain, seated beside Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, speaks during a climate roundtable on April 3.

Executive Office of the Governor

Q: What about the gas stoves?

A: Yes, the gas stoves loved by chefs and cooks at home. But it is part of the solution that we need to be able to convert appliances to electric. It’s better for pollution, and it will definitely help us meet our climate goals. We plan to really look into changing appliances and making them cleaner.

Q: When you look at any environmental justice screening tool — University of Maryland’s, for example — you see different places light up in the DC suburbs and Baltimore, but also in rural places like Hagerstown and the Eastern Shore. What can this administration do over four or eight years to get wins when it comes to environmental justice?

A: I will be looking at everything that we do from an equity lens. And that’s from permits, to regulations, everything.

Q: The Climate, Labor and Environmental Equity Act did not pass this last legislative session. It would add more teeth to the idea of equity and permitting. Is that something you would support going forward?

A: I absolutely need it. I supported it. I want it badly. If it’s never passed, are we still going to move forward? I am. That bill was really important to me, and I hope to see it continue on [in next spring’s session].

Q: What other justice-related goals do you have in mind?

A: I have started listening sessions throughout Maryland. I started with Curtis Bay. And it was really enlightening for me. We’re starting to listen more. And it’s no longer rhetoric, as far as I’m concerned. So, I’m listening to their needs. We’re coming back here, and I’m keeping it at the forefront of all that we do.

Q: What was so enlightening about the Curtis Bay listening session? [Editor’s note: Curtis Bay is a majority Black community in Baltimore that neighbors several industrial sites.]

A: They brought up issues like, we have to continue to get our tires changed on our cars because of all the trucks going through. We [at MDE] don’t regulate the streets. But that was a concern to them. And it was a concern to us. They talked about the coal that’s in those trains that are right there, and I was able to go and see the dust. They were talking about how they can’t keep their windows open. That really resonated with me. I felt helpless because I can’t do anything about that coal. And that did not make me feel good. So, what I told them was, “It’s not my area, but I will partner with whoever I need to, to bring awareness to this issue.” That means talking to federal Department of Transportation, speaking with Maryland Department of Transportation, and I already have it scheduled to meet with them.

Q: This administration’s first state budget includes funding for 43 new positions at about $3.7 million to help clear the backlog of stormwater discharge permits that have expired but been allowed to continue standing. Why did this administration want to address that right out of the gate?

A: The public is really concerned about it. We need to make sure that everyone is in compliance. We need to do our jobs. I get reports weekly. I’ve made it clear that it’s a priority.

Q: It very much echoes another situation that involves your department. MDE and the Department of Health share oversight of septic permitting, where another backlog is occurring, particularly for the Eastern Shore. What can you tell folks who are saying, “Why can’t I get my darn permit?”

A: We are working with the Health Department. We’re going to be looking at making sure that the people who need the permits are getting five-star customer service. People are waiting for responses. That’s unacceptable. Period. So we’re going to correct it, we’re going to clean it up.

Q: Can you provide an update on the Conowingo Dam license negotiations with its owner, Constellation Energy, in the wake of the federal court ruling last year that nullified the 2018 agreement for it operating license? Do you see significant changes to those provisions in that settlement?

A: As part of the court decision, we are required to start the reconsideration process again. We’re going to reconsider whatever [Constellation’s representatives] bring forward. Once that process is over, then we will make a decision on what we need to do with the water quality certification.

We’re going to be and we have been very transparent. We’re letting the public be a part of it. We’re just trying to do the right thing by Marylanders.

Q: Under the 2018 agreement, Exelon (the dam’s owner at the time) was on the line to pay $200 million to address water quality concerns, and $700 million if you count in-kind projects. Do you see that amount changing much going forward?

A: I’m not sure about how much more money we will get, if any, because now we have to start all over. There are a lot of court cases and different things that have happened over the years. Because this case was drawn out too long, we’re not in a position as we could have been to be more forceful with the enforcement, or the amount. We’ve got court cases [released since 2018] saying we can’t do this and we can’t do that, in terms of asking for more money when it comes to fines.

[As for the original settlement payout], I think people on the outside thought, “That’s nothing. You could have gotten billions.”’ Honestly, there was a chance that we could have gotten zero. When I did start, I asked what happened with Conowingo Dam, what happened with the settlement. When I looked at everything, I understood why we decided to settle for $200 million. That was good for what we knew and what was in front of us.

Q: A timely question: Our region was literally choking on smoke caused by Canadian wildfires widely attributed to climate change. You lived in and worked in California, where wildfire fires have sadly become part of life. What was your takeaway from this latest experience?

A: My mind went to California. I thought, “Oh, communication.” When I was in California, we were very good at communicating to the public where we are and what does this mean. We didn’t really have that system in place here.

As we were getting through it [here], I saw misinformation. [Misinformation was spreading that said] it was getting worse. We were looking at the data, and it was going down. So, I made a decision that, “Hey, we need to get out there and get the message out correctly.”

By Jeremy Cox

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Supreme Court Wetlands Ruling ‘Serious Setback’ for Bay

by

With a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision sharply curtailing federal oversight of streams and wetlands, environmental groups working to restore the Chesapeake Bay say they’re worried about gaps in state laws and enforcement practices that now leave those waters vulnerable to unrestricted development and pollution.

In a May 25 ruling the nine justices unanimously agreed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in declaring part of an Idaho couple’s home site wetlands and demanding that they get a permit to fill it.

But the court’s majority went further in Sackett v. EPA and, with a 5–4 vote, drastically redefined which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. In doing so, it sought to settle decades of debate by removing federal regulation of activities affecting isolated wetlands and tiny streams that flow with water only after heavy rains.

“I’m not aware of anyone who predicted this,” said Peggy Sanner, Virginia executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

She called it a “serious setback” for environmental protection efforts in general, as well as for the Bay restoration effort.

Wetlands and those periodically dry stream beds help keep water-fouling nutrients and sediment from reaching the Bay while also providing critical habitat and soaking up floodwaters.

Farmers, developers and other business organizations welcomed the ruling. The Virginia Farm Bureau’s blog called it “a major victory for farmers and property rights,” while the chair of the National Association of Home Builders dubbed it a win against “federal overreach” and for “common-sense regulations and housing affordability.”

Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act gave the federal government jurisdiction over “navigable waters” and set up a permitting program to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States,” including wetlands.

A legal and political dispute has flared on and off since then about how far upstream that authority applies. Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1977 to specify that it also covered wetlands “adjacent” to navigable waters, but that hasn’t quelled the controversy. The Supreme Court has weighed in repeatedly since the 1980s, with shifting and conflicting opinions.

In 2015, the Obama administration sought to clarify what’s regulated with a rule that protected isolated wetlands and “ephemeral” streams with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters.

That drew fierce backlash from farmers, developers and energy companies. The Trump administration repealed it and proposed a much narrower rule that applied federal regulations only in cases where surface water contributes to the wetland or waterway in question. States and environmental groups sued.

A court threw out the Trump rule, and the Biden administration has been working on another, more expansive version.

Environmental lawyers say the Sackett ruling appears to restrict federal jurisdiction even more than the Trump regulation. The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the two agencies that regulate activities affecting wetlands and waterways, had estimated that the Trump regulation would have stripped federal protection from more than half of the nation’s wetlands and roughly one-fifth of its streams.

Bob Dreher, legal director for the Potomac Riverkeeper Network, estimated that the recent court decision removes protection from as much as 65% of wetlands nationwide and more than 80% of the streams.

In the Bay watershed, the impact is somewhat muted. Five of the six states and the District of Columbia provide at least some protection under their own laws for wetlands and streams now removed from federal jurisdiction. Delaware is the only outlier, one of 24 states nationwide that rely entirely on the Clean Water Act for safeguarding their waters, according to the Environmental Law Institute.

Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia each have comprehensive state laws that provide protection from disturbance for their wetlands and all waters, even groundwater, noted the Bay Foundation’s Sanner.

West Virginia law also contains a broad definition of “waters of the state” but, according to the law institute’s James McElfish, the state has not always required permits for activities in wetlands and streams that fall outside the federal interpretation.

New York last year strengthened its protections for freshwater wetlands, but the state only requires permits for activities affecting wetlands larger than 7.4 acres, unless they’re deemed to be of “unusual importance.”

David Reed, executive director of the Chesapeake Legal Alliance, foresees trouble, even in states with strong legal protections on the books. State and federal agencies have jointly reviewed applications for permits to disturb a wetland or stream. Now, with the federal role shrinking, he said, there won’t be a backstop for state regulators facing intense pressure to look the other way.

“It will push them inevitably toward laxer enforcement,” Reed said of the states. “It will be this insidious direction toward less and less protection.”

Before the court’s ruling narrowing federal jurisdiction, Virginia, for instance, had relied on the Army Corps to review developers’ delineations of wetlands and surface waters when they were seeking permits.

In late June, the state’s Department of Environmental Quality announced that it would take over that task and would prioritize those applications where the delineations are performed by certified private wetlands professionals.  The agency said the change would “restore certainty in the permitting process and allow projects to move forward in a timely manner.”

The Bay Foundation’s Sanner said she was encouraged by DEQ’s “thoughtful” process for continuing to protect wetlands while ensuring efficient permitting.  But she cautioned that “many questions remain” about the state’s response to the court ruling.

Another major concern is that most states do not offer their citizens the same right to go to court to enforce their laws as the Clean Water Act does. The federal provision for “citizen suits” has allowed environmental groups to go after polluters in federal court and often prod state regulators to act when they haven’t before, Reed said.

Environmentalists say the Supreme Court decision also puts a cloud over the section of the Clean Water Act that establishes federal and, by extension, state authority to regulate discharges of stormwater and other pollutants into dry stream beds or isolated wetlands.

Activists say the Supreme Court’s ruling means they’re going to have to press for stronger state laws and for staffing and budget increases for regulatory agencies to enforce them.

“If we’re going to have hope for states to be a little of a backfill here, we’re going to have to help states get up to speed,” said Betsy Nicholas, the Potomac Riverkeeper Network’s vice president of programs.

by Tim Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Debate Resumes on Conowingo Dam Pollution Problems

by

Conowingo was built in 1928 to generate electricity, and it inadvertently acted as a trap for nutrient and sediment pollution flowing downstream to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the years, sediment buildup behind the dam has reduced its pollution-trapping capacity. Photo by Dave Harp

The long-running and litigious debate over Conowingo Dam’s impact on the Chesapeake Bay has resumed, with all sides still entrenched, at least for now.

Six months after a federal appeals court vacated Constellation Energy Corp.’s license to generate hydropower at the dam on the lower Susquehanna River, the Maryland Department of the Environment has called a parley with representatives of the company and of the environmental groups that successfully challenged the license. The initial meeting of the parties was June 21.

At issue is what the state will require of Constellation to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution flowing downriver through the dam to the Bay. In a letter inviting lawyers for the other two parties to meet, MDE officials said they were going to resume reconsideration of a tough water quality certificate, or permit, for the dam that it had issued in 2018, triggering a legal donnybrook in which both the company and environmental groups filed lawsuits.

“We’re not sure how this is going to go for all of us,” said Betsy Nicholas, a consultant to Waterkeepers Chesapeake, a coalition of 17 riverkeepers around the Bay watershed which with the Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, had sued. MDE has never dealt with a situation like this before, she said.

Completed in 1928, the 94-foot-high dam straddles the Susquehanna about 10 miles upriver from the Bay. Until about a decade ago, it captured a portion of the nutrients and sediments washing down the river. But now its 14-mile reservoir is mostly filled, and those pollutants from farm runoff, municipal wastewater and stormwater flow through Conowingo and into the Chesapeake, where they contribute to algae blooms and other water quality woes.  Storms or heavy rains also flush a surge of pollution, trash and debris from behind the dam into the Bay.

Five years ago, after years of studies, MDE had ordered the company, as a condition to keep operating the dam, to either deal with that untrapped pollution or pay the state $172 million a year to have it done. The federal Clean Water Act effectively gives states veto power over federal licenses or permits for construction projects or facilities like the dam that may affect states’ waters.

But Constellation, then a part of Exelon Corp., sued MDE in response, contending that Maryland was placing an “unfair burden” on the company to address  pollution its dam did not generate.

In 2019, MDE and the company reached an out-of-court settlement, under which it agreed to provide more than $200 million to rebuild eel, mussel and migratory fish populations in the river. It also offered help with nutrient and sediment pollution flowing into the Bay, though much less than the state had initially required. In turn, the state waived its right to impose its previous conditions on the dam’s operating license.

Environmental groups and others objected to the deal. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates hydropower facilities, issued a new license for Conowingo with no other conditions. The waterkeepers groups then sued, and in December 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the commission should not have accepted the deal and vacated Constellation’s license to run the dam. The court said Maryland could either uphold its original certification or toss it and have the company apply for a new one.

After first engaging in private talks with Constellation, MDE wrote the company and environmental groups on June 1 inviting them to present any new or previously overlooked information they believe is relevant to assessing the dam’s impact on water quality downriver and in the Bay.  MDE also is inviting public feedback on the issue, with Aug. 1 set as the deadline for all comments and new information.

“Ensuring a revitalized Chesapeake Bay for the benefit of all Marylanders is a top priority,” MDE Secretary Serena McIlwain said in a statement issued by the department. “As we move ahead with the reconsideration of the 2018 Water Quality Certification, we will be transparent, we will welcome input and we will work collegially with all parties for a healthier and more vibrant Bay.”

Environmentalists want MDE to stick to its original requirements.

“We’re hoping that they see at the end of the day that they made the correct choices in 2018,” said Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Ted Evgeniadis. MDE “provided a water quality certificate that was adequate to protect water quality,” Evgeniadis said, “and we hope they uphold that … without any changes.”

A Constellation spokesman indicated the company wants MDE to honor the deal they negotiated.

“While we believe another round of comments is an unnecessary step,” spokesman Bill Gibbons said in an email, “Constellation will participate in the re-opened reconsideration process to support the long-term future of the state’s largest source of renewable energy and to demonstrate that our settlement agreement with Maryland offers the best possible outcome for the state and the Bay.

Gibbons urged MDE to “come to a speedy conclusion” so the company could carry out the cleanup measures it agreed to in the deal, which it values at $700 million. Meanwhile, Constellation continues to generate power under a temporary extension of its expired license.

But MDE’s review may just be the opening round in another legal bout that could take several more years to conclude. Betsy Nicholas, a consultant to Waterkeepers Chesapeake, said if MDE sticks by its earlier requirements or substantially reduces them, one side or the other is sure to demand a “contested case hearing.” That is a trial-like process at which all sides can present evidence and testimony and cross-examine witnesses. And if anyone disagrees with the outcome of that hearing, they can then file a lawsuit in state court, with appeals possible all the way to Maryland’s Supreme Court.

Evgeniadis and Nicholas say that while they want to see MDE stand by the water quality requirements  it originally set, they hope an acceptable compromise can be negotiated among all parties, one that deals with the pollution while perhaps adjusting Constellation’s financial burden.

One possible framework for a new deal is a plan Bay watershed states developed in 2021 for dealing with the pollution impacts of the dam.  It calls for reducing the annual flow downriver of nitrogen by 6 million pounds and of phosphorus by 260,000 pounds. The estimated price tag: $53 million, only part of which the states have pledged so far to cover.

Alison Prost, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s vice president for environmental protection and restoration, said she believes Constellation has a role to play in reducing that pollution.

“I don’t believe they should take up the entire burden, Prost said. But, she added, “this is an opportunity to bring them into the fold.”

By Tim Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

The Chesapeake Bay Loses Best Friend Scientist Beth McGee

by

 

Beth McGee, senior scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, walks along a Maryland shoreline in August 2020. Photo by Dave Harp

Beth McGee, a longtime senior scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation whose work is reflected in some of the most widely used reports detailing the Bay’s health and value, died June 4 after a long battle with cancer.

“The Chesapeake Bay lost a giant,” said Alison Prost, CBF vice president for Environmental Protection and Restoration.

“Few have contributed as much to the science and policy of Bay restoration as Dr. Beth McGee,” Prost said. “Her love and connection to the watershed and the Bay drove her. And her intellect never let her settle for the status quo. When Beth talked, the Bay restoration community listened and acted on her advice.”

Many people in the general public are familiar with her two decades of work at CBF, even if they do not recognize her name. She oversaw production of the organization’s State of the Bay reports, one of the most widely cited assessments of the Chesapeake’s well-being.

McGee was also a lead author of a 2014 study that established a value on the natural benefits of the Bay ($107 billion a year) and how those would grow (by another $22.5 billion annually) if cleanup goals were met — figures still widely used today.

The breadth of McGee’s work over the years encompassed everything from agriculture, fish health and nutrient trading to the Conowingo Dam, toxic contaminants and much more.

“Beth was able to become an expert on this or that aspect of science, whether it was economics or agricultural restoration tools,” said Roy Hoagland, a retired CBF vice president who worked with McGee for years. “She had a mind that was able to understand, grasp and articulate practically any subject matter.”

Prior to 2010, when the region was developing its latest cleanup plan — the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, which limits the amount of nutrients states can send to the Bay — McGee was instrumental in developing new approaches that would provide more accountability than previous plans.

“She wanted to make it actually mean something,” Hoagland said. “That was consistent with her being a really smart, thoughtful, creative, passionate advocate.”

McGee was a fixture at meetings of the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program, and colleagues there cited her ability to synthesize complex scientific issues and recommend how that could inform the many policies related to restoration efforts.

“She did not lead with that advocacy side. She was an advocate, absolutely. But she was advocate that had a strong, strong scientific foundation,” said Rich Batiuk, the retired associate director for science with the EPA’s Bay Program Office. “I found myself, probably 99% of the time, ending up agreeing with her, even when I started that conversation thinking, ‘Let me see if I can turn about her around.’ It was usually Beth who ended up turning me around and having me understand the science implications.”

Because of her ability to translate science into potential policy solutions, she was frequently asked to make presentations to the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a panel of Bay state legislators who work to turn such advice into laws.

“Beth was, for many of us, our ‘go-to’ person,” said Ann Swanson, who recently retired as the commission’s executive director. “She was a gifted conservation policymaker with a strong science background. She was most interested in getting it right, with little need for fanfare or credit. Her wit provided well-timed humor, and all of us will remember her laugh. So many of us relied on her. So many of us will now miss her.”

Kim Coble, who hired McGee at CBF in 2003, recognized early that the scientist had a gift for communicating and tapped her to help persuade lawmakers on key legislation.

“It was fun to see somebody with her scientific skills, intellect and personality, lobby,” recalled Coble, who is now executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. “As you can imagine, she was very effective at it. I don’t think she really enjoyed it, but she was very good at it.”

McGee often took the lead in creating forums to advance knowledge of Bay issues that were not always front-and-center in the public eye.

When fish diseases were turning up everywhere, from the open waters of the Bay to headwater streams in its watershed, she led efforts to organize a workshop that for the first time brought together biologists from across the region, many of whom had never met.

She was particularly proud of the development of a nitrogen footprint calculator on CBF’s website, which helps individuals estimate their contributions to the Bay’s nutrient problems and learn how they could be reduced. A link to the calculator was always in the signature line of her emails.

In more recent years, her title expanded to encompass “agricultural policy” as she took a greater role in addressing the largest source of nutrient pollution to the Bay.

The work included addressing state and federal policies, identifying ways to better target funding and programs, trying to accurately assess nutrient contributions from the growing number of chickens in the watershed and, most recently, crafting approaches to address both climate change and nutrient runoff on the region’s farms.

That’s an evolution even McGee didn’t envision when she started working on the Bay. “If you had asked me 10 years ago whether I would have agricultural policy in my title, I would have said you were crazy,” she told an interviewer from the Peal Center for Baltimore History and Architecture in 2020. “I’m actually an aquatic toxicologist by training.”

Indeed, prior to joining CBF in 2003, she worked on chemical contaminant issues with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Annapolis. Previously, she worked with the Maryland Department of the Environment.

McGee had a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Virginia, a master’s degree in ecology from the University of Delaware, and a Ph.D. in environmental science from the University of Maryland.

She was an outdoor enthusiast, kayaking the Bay, hiking the region’s trails and taking long bicycling trips both here and abroad, often organizing trips for friends and colleagues.

In 2011, she and another CBF staffer made a 1,200-mile bike trip that roughly followed the perimeter of the Bay watershed to raise funds and awareness for the Chesapeake, conducting media interviews in areas far from the estuary.

She once said, “Find your passion, make it your job, and you’ll never work another day in your life!” In her Chesapeake work, McGee found her passion, continuing to push for solutions to complex problems years after her cancer diagnosis. Indeed, no matter how difficult the issue, McGee always described herself as an “eternal optimist.”

“Not only was Beth incredibly smart, thoughtful and passionate in her work for clean water, she was also known for her kindness, affability and warmth,” said Mariah Davis, acting director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents more than 200 organizations in the watershed. “We will miss Beth and hope to honor her legacy by leaving clean rivers and streams for future generations.”

By Karl Blankenship

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Consumer Guide Criticized for Saying ‘Avoid’ Chesapeake Oysters

by

The Chesapeake Bay’s oyster population is still a long way from what it once was, but lately it’s shown signs of a rebound. Maryland and Virginia watermen harvested more of the bivalves in the most recent season than they had in more than three decades.

So why is Seafood Watch, a widely consulted guide to sustainable seafood, recommending that people avoid eating wild-caught oysters from the Bay?

The Monterey Bay Aquarium, which produces Seafood Watch, isn’t saying. A spokesperson for the California aquarium declined a request for an interview to answer questions about its draft report, which includes a recommendation to shun oysters from Maryland or Virginia.

“At this time, we are not able to comment on the draft assessment as the report may change based on feedback we receive in the public comment period,” the spokesperson said by email.

The aquarium was taking feedback through May 22. Since making its draft report public in April, it has received an earful from watermen, fishery managers, scientists and even other conservationists. Critics contend it erroneously portrays the Bay’s oyster population as overfished and poorly managed, a characterization they say even in draft form is hurting the region’s seafood industry.

“They have no idea what they’re doing,” said Robert T. Brown Sr., president of the Maryland Watermen’s Association, “… and they’re interfering with people’s livelihoods.”

Since 1999, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program every few years has been offering what it says are science-based recommendations on which fish and seafood across the United States are sustainable “best choices” or “good alternatives” — and which should be avoided because of the risk of that species’ depletion or of harm to the marine ecosystem. It distributes about 2.5 million printable online guides every year aimed at influencing the purchasing decisions of nonprofit organizations, businesses and consumers.

Based on its last assessment in 2018, Seafood Watch currently rates oysters from Maryland and Virginia a good choice, despite some concerns, for those who care about sustainable seafood.

The new draft assessment downgrades those recommendations, citing “high concern” for the abundance of oysters in both states and deeming their public fisheries management ineffective. It even finds fault with the methodology Maryland has used in assessing the abundance of its wild oyster stock and whether it’s being overharvested.

Officials with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources say no one from the aquarium contacted them in developing the new assessment, and they were stunned to learn of the “avoid” recommendation.

“There’s missing information, there’s outdated information. They have misinterpreted information, and they have failed to live up to their own standards of using the best science and collaborating,” said Kristen Fidler, assistant DNR secretary for aquatic resources.

Agency officials defended the state’s oyster management, which they say is based on a science-driven stock assessment that has been reviewed favorably by a panel of outside scientists.

Mike Wilberg, a fisheries scientist with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science who led the development of DNR’s stock assessment, said he thought the Seafood Watch drafters applied an overly broad and uneven brush when rating the sustainability of oyster stocks along the East Coast. He said they failed to appreciate the complexities of the Bay’s oyster population and how it varies from one place to another.

“Some of the things we were criticized for [by Seafood Watch] are things we were praised for in the expert review of our stock assessment,” he noted.

“I applaud their efforts to get consumers to make conscious decisions [about sustainability],” Wilberg added. “Unfortunately, with all this stuff, the devil is in the details.”

Roger Mann and Mark Luckenbach, a pair of veteran oyster biologists with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, likewise contend that the Seafood Watch ratings of their state’s fishery are “based on old data and are entirely inappropriate.” The data cited by the report’s drafters in deeming oyster abundance “a high concern” was more than a decade old, they pointed out.

JC Hudgins, president of the Virginia Waterman’s Association, said that the Virginia Marine Resources Commission and members of the seafood industry “do a lot to keep the Eastern oyster a sustainable species,” even as the state’s harvest from public fishery areas in the 2022–23 season topped 300,000 bushels for the first time in 35 years.

Since 2018, when Seafood Watch rated Virginia oysters a good choice, the fishery has steadily improved every year, Hudgins said. Last year, he noted, reef surveys found oyster densities at levels not seen since before diseases struck in the late 1980s and triggered a catastrophic decline in population and habitat.

Brown, head of the Maryland watermen’s group, said he believed the Maryland oyster recommendation was also based on outdated information. In the six-month 2022–23 season that ended March 30, watermen harvested more than 600,000 bushels, the most since 1986–87.

In the recently ended season, Brown said, “a lot of people were still catching their limits [early] at the end of the season. That’s telling you we had plenty of oysters there.” He also noted that since the first stock assessment in 2019 that found widespread overharvesting, the state has reduced daily catch limits. “We’ve got a good management plan,” he said.

Even conservationists, who have at times voiced their own criticisms of oyster management in the Bay, have qualms about the draft Seafood Watch recommendation.

Allison Colden, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Maryland director and a fisheries biologist, said she thinks the aquarium may be jumping the gun because a fresh update of the state’s oyster population is due to be completed and released within a matter of weeks. She noted that conditions for oyster reproduction and survival have been on the upswing lately, with very low mortality rates from the once-devastating diseases MSX and Dermo.

Even so, Colden said, the Seafood Watch assessment “does highlight some of the lingering concerns CBF has had and still has with the fishery.” Though only a few areas are still experiencing overfishing, one of those is Tangier Sound, where the majority of Maryland oysters are harvested.

And while oyster reproduction has been good to excellent the last few years, Colden said, caution is warranted because the fishery has undergone boom and bust cycles in the past.

Colden said she was in wholehearted agreement with another Seafood Watch recommendation — a blanket endorsement of farmed oysters as a “best” choice for consumers concerned about the sustainability of the reef-building bivalves.

“We have long recommended that consumers choose farmed oysters from the Chesapeake Bay,” she said, “because that eliminates any possibility of concerns about sustainability or about oyster recovery.”

But even there, Maryland officials say, the Seafood Watch guides don’t make it clear enough that their “avoid” recommendation doesn’t apply to the state’s farmed oysters.

“We have a successful and growing oyster industry, both wild and aquaculture,” Fidler said. The “avoid” recommendation “could be incredibly damaging to the industry and really a major and unnecessary setback, especially with all the progress we’ve made.”

by Tim Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Maryland Court finds County Erred in Waiving Forest Conservation Law

by

An effort to prevent development of one of the last large, unprotected forests near the upper Chesapeake Bay has won a signal victory, but too late to spare some of its oldest trees from the bulldozer.

A Harford County Circuit Court judge ruled May 9 that the county’s planning and zoning officials improperly granted developers permission three years ago to remove 49 large “specimen” trees while developing a business park in a 326-acre tract known as Abingdon WoodsHarford Investors LLP and BTC III I-95 Logistics Center LLC received county approval in 2020 to clear 220 wooded acres for the construction of four large warehouses, restaurants, shops, a hotel and gas station. As part of the plan, the county also waived a requirement in its forest conservation ordinance that would have required the developers to preserve trees that were notable specimens because of their size and age.

The county allowed the removal of 49 of 85 such trees after the developers asserted that it would be a hardship to keep them.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and some residents living near Abingdon Woods filed suit in 2020, arguing that the county failed to follow the Forest Conservation Act, the 1991 state law on which the county’s ordinance was modeled. Harford Circuit Judge Diane Adkins-Tobin at first dismissed the case, ruling at the time that the county’s sign-off on a developer’s forest conservation plan could not be appealed until the entire project was approved.

But in 2022, Maryland’s highest court — now called the Maryland Supreme Court — ruled that a developer’s forest conservation plan could be challenged in court and sent it back for reconsideration. The Harford judge then ordered a temporary halt to construction until she could hear and decide the case, but clearing at the site had already begun.

In January, when the case came up for a hearing, the county — which had until then defended its decision — switched its position and asked the judge to send the issue back to the county to reconsider.

In her May 9 opinion, Adkins-Tobin did just that. She declared that the county had not made any findings of fact, as required by the law, to justify waiving the preservation of all specimen trees.

The Bay Foundation hailed the latest ruling as a “major victory.”

“The judge’s ruling sends a message to counties and developers that there must be a clear factual basis for granting waivers from the state’s requirements to protect forested land,” said Paul Smail, the organization’s attorney.

“Most developers won’t suffer hardship,” Smail added, “by preserving forests and large trees that benefit residents’ physical and mental health, the enjoyment of their property, and improve water quality.”

Tracey Waite, chair of the Save Abingdon Woods Coalition, said the rulings set important precedents for preserving trees and forests.

“These court actions and decisions have kept hope alive even as trees were being cut down,” she said.

Before work was stopped at the site, though, the developer felled 22 of the specimen trees.

“Families of turkeys were seen running out of the woods and through suburban neighborhoods looking for cover,” she said. Polluted runoff into the stream called Haha Branch also was observed after rainstorms, she added.

The Bay Foundation’s lawyer noted that project opponents had tried and failed to prevent the start of tree clearing until the case could be resolved. He said he and his clients are now weighing what recourse they have for the loss of those trees.

Meanwhile, the court has yet to rule on a separate related lawsuit challenging the Maryland Department of the Environment’s decision to let the developer build across wetlands and a stream.

Harford County spokesman Joe Cluster said officials are still reviewing the ruling in the Bay Foundation lawsuit and weighing their next step. That decision comes at a time when Republican County Executive Bob Cassilly, who took office in December, has expressed reservations about the environmental impacts of e-commerce-related warehouse development in the county.

At Cassilly’s behest, the county council in April approved a three-month moratorium on warehouse projects while officials weigh what if any new limits or requirements they want to place on them. That has at least temporarily held up another large warehouse project proposed on Perryman Peninsula near the Bush River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.

Waite said that during the moratorium, her group and others hope to persuade the county to alter its development laws to permit distribution centers larger than 200,000 square feet only on land zoned for industry — which would prevent construction of what she called “mega-warehouses” at Abingdon Woods and Perryman Peninsula.

“There’s every reason to keep fighting,” she said.

By Tim Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Leader Calls for Shifts in Bay Cleanup

by

Hilary Harp Falk, president and CEO of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Photo by David Trozzo

A little over a year ago, Hilary Harp Falk took over as president and CEO of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, becoming only the third leader of the group since its founding in 1967. Before joining CBF, she spent nearly 13 years with the National Wildlife Federation, where she rose to become chief program officer.

Falk has roots in the Bay watershed and history with CBF. A Maryland native, she says she developed a passion for conservation while exploring the Bay’s edges in her childhood with her father, photographer Dave Harp (who is the Bay Journal staff photographer). She began her career as a college intern for CBF and, after graduating, became an educator at its Port Isobel Education Center.

She took the helm at a time when it was becoming increasingly clear that the Bay restoration effort would likely miss many of its goals by the self-imposed deadline of 2025. Thirteen months later, she sat down with Tim Wheeler, the Bay Journal’s associate editor and senior writer, to talk about the future of the restoration effort and CBF’s role in it.

What follows are excerpts of the interview, edited for space and clarity.

Question: When you became president at CBF, were you surprised to find the Bay restoration effort, which is 40 years old this year, wasn’t further along?

Answer: It’s been interesting to be away for a decade working on national issues and to come back and see both a lot of progress over the last decade and some of the same challenges. We’re all grappling right now [with] this big transition in the Chesapeake Bay movement, with new leaders, at a critical moment for the cleanup. I think there’s plenty to reflect on and consider, and a lot to be excited and optimistic about.

Q: Why do you think there hasn’t been more progress?

A: It’s really important to acknowledge that 2025 was an important deadline, but it was never going to be the finish line. While we’ve made significant progress in reducing pollution from wastewater treatment, we still have not made the reductions that we need in polluted runoff from farms, cities and towns. Certainly, the defining challenge of the Bay movement now is to address pollution running off farms.

Q: You have suggested that the restoration effort needs a dose of “integrity and honesty.” Can you elaborate?

A: We’ve been really focused on the Chesapeake Bay Blueprint [officially called the Bay’s total maximum daily load, or TMDL] and the numbers that we need to hit. What I get concerned about is, are we making meaningful progress and looking at what it’s really going to take to return clean water to the Bay?

I think we need to look at the quality of our plans as much as we need to look at the quantity behind our plans. We have some of the best science and the best modeling in the world. But how can we really couple that with a robust monitoring system and understand how to meaningfully verify progress?

Q: Some key elements of the restoration effort have been questioned, including how well some farm practices actually control polluted runoff. Do we really know what’s working and what’s needed?

A: Two thoughts on that. First, climate change changes everything…. We need to know a lot more about how climate change is impacting the Bay.

Second, we need to pay for outcomes, especially as it relates to polluted runoff from farms. We need to know through documented proof that the investments we’re making are going to have the desired outcome. And I think that is certainly a big gap in the Bay cleanup right now. We are investing an incredible amount of money into the cleanup generally [and] especially best management practices on farms. We need to know that they’re working and that we can see the benefits to local rivers and streams.

Q: Is reducing nutrient pollution really the most important part of restoring the Bay? The federal Clean Water Act calls for fishable and swimmable waters. How does reducing the Bay’s nutrient load make the water fishable or swimmable?

A: We need to focus more on people and communities. And when we do that, we know that the pollution to the Bay is not just [the nutrients] nitrogen and phosphorus, and sediment. It’s also legacy pollution, toxics and temperature. And those are the kinds of things that we need to focus on in addition to looking at the [nutrient and sediment] goals under the Blueprint.

Q: Not long ago, CBF didn’t pay much attention to toxic pollution. Is that changing?

A: Absolutely. The communities that have been left behind, the frontline and fence-line communities that regularly deal with environmental injustices, are very interested in knowing what’s in the water and what’s impacting their communities. And so, here at CBF, we’re very focused on making sure that the benefits of clean water and healthy communities are enjoyed by everybody.

Q: There is a lot of concern these days about PFAS [per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances], so-called “forever chemicals” in water supplies, streams and fish. Is CBF doing anything to be more of an advocate in that area?

A: We’re pretty concerned about PFAS too. Like other toxic chemicals, we know that we need to know a lot more. We just don’t know enough in order to advance advocacy for addressing them.

Q: You’ve talked about the importance of putting people and communities at the center of the Bay cleanup. What does that mean?

A: It means that we need to make sure that we’re looking at the siting of different energy sources, and we need to make sure that we’re not neglecting communities that have been left behind, by ensuring that they have the support they need to challenge the issues that they face.

Q: What has CBF been doing lately to make its leadership, staff and work more diverse and inclusive?

A: We’re really excited this year to bring on a vice president for diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. [Carmera Thomas-Wilhite, former director of urban conservation initiatives at the Conservation Fund, recently returned to CBF, where she began her career as the Baltimore program manager.] We’re focused on making sure that our organization is inclusive and equitable. And we’re working to build trainings and webinars so that our staff knows and can understand the history of this country and this movement, which includes racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of oppression. [It’s important that] we are advocating for the rights of everyone to have clean water and clean air, and that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with communities who have not enjoyed those benefits or are having issues with flooding or different environmental injustices.

Q: In discussing the Bay restoration, you said recently, “We’ll take a quick look back, but we also know in an age of climate change that we can’t go back. That Bay doesn’t exist anymore.” What did you mean by that?

A: A lot of times we evoke the Bay of 400 years ago, before colonialism. So much has changed during that time. The Bay watershed is now home to almost 19 million people. We’re in the age of climate change. That means we are not going back to that Bay. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t have a really bright future, because we have made so much progress on Bay restoration. We see some examples where we are improving water quality. We see the boom in oyster restoration and oyster aquaculture.

Q: What do you consider a restored Bay, then? Is it one full of crabs, rockfish and oysters or invasive blue catfish and snakeheads? Or all of the above?

A: I think a restored Bay is one where we have healthy habitat, we have resilient shorelines, we have healthy fisheries. And I think all of those things are absolutely possible.

Q: You’ve said you are among a new generation of Bay leaders, such as those at the Chesapeake Bay Commission and EPA Bay Program office. What do you bring to this effort that’s new or different?

A: Well, like many of the new Bay leaders, I’ve gotten to be part of and watch the last 40 years of effort, science [and] restoration. So, I’m pretty clear on the challenges that we face. But also we are optimistic, determined, and I think we also are collaborative. We’re all talking all the time, and I think that those relationships and collaboration will set us apart…. We all know that we stand on the shoulders of the first generation to really raise the alarms about the Bay. We are now taking the baton and need to look at new and creative ways of leading, trying different things, making new mistakes and really building a future that we can all be excited about.

Q: You’ve described Adam Ortiz, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrator, as a “wonderful partner.” What does that mean? CBF is part of a lawsuit accusing the EPA of not doing enough to get Pennsylvania on track with its share of pollution reductions.

A: It means that we’ve had really productive conversations about the current lawsuit…. I think the EPA is in good hands right now. I think they’re doing a lot of important work, specifically behind the scenes, talking with leaders in Pennsylvania and really understanding the problems that Pennsylvania faces. And I think that’s exactly what the EPA should be doing, in addition to holding the states accountable and making sure that the EPA is there to enforce the laws.

Q: After years of debate and inaction, Pennsylvania last year created the state’s first dedicated source of clean water funding. But it comes from federal money and isn’t nearly enough to close the state’s funding gap for Bay restoration work. What’s happened with that since?

A: The Clean Streams Fund was a really important down payment and a moment for leadership for Pennsylvania. But it was a down payment. There’s so much more that Pennsylvania needs to do. Pennsylvania is one of our biggest challenges.

But I also think it’s a huge opportunity, especially when Pennsylvanians are leading. And I see a lot of really great leadership in Lancaster County right now, building community-based plans that are defined by people who live there. Community based organizations, members of our team [and businesses are] all pulling together to figure out what Lancaster needs to do to protect its rivers and streams.

When we see that kind of effort, it gives me a lot of hope. That’s the way things are going to change.

Q: What would you put in a new Bay agreement if you were creating it? How would you craft it?

A: I’d make sure that it includes climate mitigation goals in addition to climate adaptation goals. We’re not going to save the Bay without addressing the climate crisis. I think we need to take a hard look at toxics and other chemicals of concern…. We need to really focus on growing the monitoring data. And we should really be focused on our biggest challenges and our biggest opportunities, which means a lot more thinking about agriculture and soil health.

One of our challenges is that we have really defined the Bay cleanup based on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Now we have an opportunity to look more broadly at a number of other issues. As we are updating the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, that’s a huge opportunity to look past nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment into other issues and really redefine what it means to save the Bay.

By Tim Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Maryland Approves Expansion of Eastern Shore Poultry Plant Despite Pollution History

by

Maryland state regulators have approved expansion of a controversial poultry rendering plant on the Eastern Shore that just four months ago settled lawsuits accusing it of polluting a Chesapeake Bay tributary for years.

The state Department of the Environment in late December renewed the discharge permit for the Valley Proteins Inc. rendering plant at Linkwood. The permit will allow a nearly four-fold increase in the amount of wastewater the facility can release into the Transquaking River, a nutrient-impaired Bay tributary in Dorchester County.

MDE spokesman Jay Apperson said the permit imposes “substantial reductions” in pollution levels in the discharges. Regulators have added more conditions beyond what had been initially proposed in 2021 in response to public comments, he said, including requiring more monitoring and adequate staffing of the company’s wastewater treatment operation.

Environmental activists, though, complained that MDE, in approving this permit, has put the company’s needs ahead of restoring water quality in the Transquaking.

“There may be some improvement here, but not enough,” said Fred Pomeroy, an oyster farmer who is president of Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth.  He said MDE was “blatantly wrong” to let Valley Proteins increase its maximum daily discharge from 150,000 gallons to 575,000 gallons, given the chronic pollution problems at the Linkwood plant. “They have not earned a fourfold increase,” he said.

Neighbors and environmental groups have complained for years about the Valley Proteins facility, which takes up to 4 million pounds of chicken entrails and feathers daily from poultry processing plants and renders them into pet food.

They also faulted the state for failing to address multiple violations at the plant over the past decade and for letting it continue to operate with an outdated wastewater treatment system under a discharge permit that expired in 2006. Those permits are supposed to be reviewed and updated every 5 years, but MDE had a backlog last year this time of nearly 200 so-called “zombie” permits.

The state and environmental groups sued the company in February 2022 after one organization, ShoreRivers, captured drone images showing a discolored discharge coming from Valley Proteins’ outfall into a waterway leading to the Transquaking. The visual evidence prompted MDE to inspect and briefly shut down the plant after finding more violations.

The company settled those lawsuits in a Sept. 12 consent decree, in which it promised to fix wastewater treatment violations and curb polluted runoff from the site. It also agreed to pay a $540,000 penalty to the state, plus another $160,000 to the environmental groups for water quality monitoring and restoration.

In a 2021 public hearing and through dozens of written comments, critics called for MDE to impose more stringent limits on the plant and not let it expand until it shows it can meet them. To their disappointment, MDE did not set any such conditions.

“There’s no stopgap or check in place where if noncompliance continues, should they still be allowed to increase their flow?” said Matt Pluta, director of riverkeeper programs at ShoreRivers.

MDE had put out a press release in September 2021 announcing its tentative decision to renew Valley Proteins’ permit with stricter discharge limits. The agency let its final decision be known by posting a pair of legal notices in the local Dorchester County newspaper earlier this month.

In a lengthy written response to public comments, MDE said the company’s request to expand met state regulations. The plant will have to meet “substantially stricter” pollution limits in its discharge following a three-year “compliance period,” during which it is expected to upgrade its treatment system. After that, MDE said the company may increase its discharge.

Doug Myers, senior Maryland scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said MDE had “thrown a bone or two” to critics in its final permit, notably by requiring fish-sustaining oxygen levels to be higher in the plant’s discharge. But other limits the company must meet are largely unchanged from what they had been in the old permit, he contended.

MDE’s permit does propose to lower overall nutrient discharges after the first three years.

Once the plant’s treatment system is upgraded, its annual discharge limits will be 44% lower for nitrogen and 79% lower for phosphorus, according to MDE. Those two nutrients are generally responsible for algae blooms, oxygen depletion and fish kills in the Bay and its tributaries.

The Transquaking, like most Bay tributaries, suffers from excessive nutrient levels, mainly from runoff or seepage from farmland. The Valley Proteins discharge flows downstream into a dammed stretch of the river known as Higgins Millpond.  Locals say the poorly flushed impoundment suffers from poor water quality, diminished fish and outbreaks of toxic blue-green algae, which have poisoned family pets and led to no-swimming warnings.

MDE said it was taking a closer look at water quality in the millpond and would modify the Valley Proteins permit if its assessment indicated tighter discharge limits are warranted. But it said its modeling at this time indicates the pond would be impaired even if the rendering plant wasn’t there.

Suann Guthrie, spokesperson for Darling Ingredients, the Texas-based company that bought Valley Proteins last year, said: “We are committed to continuing to work closely with the Maryland Department of Environment to ensure the Linkwood facility is in full compliance with all relevant rules and regulations.”

Pomeroy, the Dorchester group president, said the Transquaking is hurt not only by Valley Proteins’ discharges but also by the spreading of semi-solid sludge from the plant’s treatment system on nearby farm fields. One day last year, he said, “truck after truck” was spreading the material across a field close to the river while it was raining, conditions that make it likely to become runoff.

The MDE permit does say the company must report where its sludge shipments go and specifies that the nutrient-rich material must be applied “appropriately” so rain won’t wash it into nearby streams.  But ShoreRivers’ Pluta said that provision is toothless because MDE does not regulate the use of sludge on farm fields.

Environmental groups said they were weighing legal action to challenge the permit. Beyond that, they said, they hope the new administration of Gov. Wes Moore follows through on a campaign pledge to beef up enforcement at MDE.  In the budget he presented Jan. 20, Moore proposed adding 67 new positions at MDE to deal with wastewater and drinking water permitting and oversight.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Grades Chesapeake’s health a D-plus, Again

by

Low winter light filters through a marsh near the Chesapeake Bay. Photo by Dave Harp

The ecological health of the nation’s largest estuary remains stuck at a low level, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

The Annapolis, MD-based environmental group graded the Bay’s overall vitality a D+, the same lackluster mark it got in 2020.

In a note introducing its biennial State of the Bay report, CBF President & CEO Hilary Harp Falk said it “shows there is still a long way to go to create a watershed that works for all of us.”

CBF said that 7 of the 13 pollution, fisheries and habitat indicators it tracks remained unchanged, while three improved and three worsened.

The amount of water-fouling nitrogen and phosphorus flowing into the Bay in 2022 from its major rivers was below the 10-year average, CBF acknowledged. But the past two years saw no real progress in water quality, it said.  While phosphorus levels improved a bit, already poor water clarity declined, and nitrogen pollution stayed unchanged.

The nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus feed algae blooms that reduce water clarity and deplete the water of oxygen when they decompose, causing the Bay’s “dead zone.” The federal-state Chesapeake Bay Program has been struggling for decades to restore water quality, but recently acknowledged it was likely to miss a self-imposed 2025 deadline for reaching pollution reduction goals set in 2010.

The group’s assessments are a blend of science and policy, scoring not just the condition of the Bay and its resources but also the federal and state efforts to restore it.

“The state of the Bay is at a precipice,” said Beth McGee, CBF’s director of science and agricultural policy. “We need to accelerate our efforts at reducing farm pollution to ensure the watershed-wide restoration effort is successful.”

Falk noted that much of the water quality gains to date came from upgrading wastewater treatment plants. To make further progress, she said, increased efforts are needed to reduce pollution from farms — especially in Pennsylvania — and to curb urban and suburban stormwater runoff.

In one of the few bits of good news, CBF upgraded the status of the Bay’s oyster population, citing record reproduction in both Maryland and Virginia in 2020 and 2021. But the group still didn’t give the keystone species a passing grade, saying more is needed to end overfishing and restore lost reef habitat.

CBF’s assessment of striped bass ticked up a point, crediting states with tightening catch limits enough to rebuild its population from dangerously low levels seen just a few years ago.

CBF downgraded the status of blue crabs more than any other Bay health indicator, though, citing the 2022 survey estimating the population at its lowest level in 33 years. Fishery managers in Maryland and Virginia tightened catch limits in response.

As for key Bay habitats, CBF rated conditions of underwater grasses, forest buffers and wetlands unchanged from 2020. But it downgraded slightly the status of “resource lands” — forests, natural open areas and farmland. It cited aerial surveys estimating that 95,000 acres of farms and forests had been lost to development across the Bay watershed over a five-year period ending in 2018.

“While we’ve made significant progress,” Falk said, “far too much pollution still reaches our waterways and climate change is making matters worse.”

Still, the CBF president saw reason for optimism.

“The good news is that the Bay is remarkably resilient and there is tremendous energy around the table,” Falk said. “With many new leaders taking charge — EPA administrators, governors, legislators, and within environmental organizations — we have an opportunity to prove that restoring clean water is possible.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Chesapeake loses a Champion, Nick DiPasquale

by

Nicholas A. “Nick” DiPasquale, who as director of the Chesapeake Bay Program oversaw creation of the agreement that guides today’s restoration efforts and sought to build broader support for that work, died Nov. 24 after a long battle with cancer. He was 71.

Born in Rochester, NY, on Nov. 7, 1951, DiPasquale became committed to environmental work after reading Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring as a teen. He later spent three decades working on environmental issues with state agencies, nonprofits and as a private consultant before becoming head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office in 2011. There, he worked with states and other partners to craft the expansive 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, which serves as the guiding vision for today’s Bay work, from water quality improvement to oyster restoration to land protection.

“The Chesapeake community has lost an incredible voice and advocate,” said Kristin Reilly, director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents nearly 300 groups in the region. “Throughout his entire career, Nick possessed an unflappable commitment to clean water and protecting our most precious natural resources.” She praised his “uncanny ability to bridge divides and build consensus, which played a critical role in moving restoration efforts forward for clean water in our region.”

Nick DiPasquale, retired head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program office, sits with his companion, Mac, along the waterfront in Chestertown, MD, in 2021. Dave Harp photo.

He served as Bay Program director for six and a half years before retiring at the end of 2017. His tenure was the second longest of any director in the Bay Program’s 40-year history. It coincided with ramped-up efforts to reduce nutrient pollution to the estuary, and he won praise from many for helping to refocus the state-federal partnership on issues related to fish and other living resources, habitat protection and stream health.

For several previous years, the Bay effort had been mostly focused on Chesapeake water quality and setting nutrient pollution reduction goals in the Bay’s total maximum daily load or “pollution diet.” The intense focus on nutrient reductions during development of the TMDL, which was implemented in 2010, caused some agencies and organizations that were focused on other issues to drift away from participating in the Bay Program.

Nick DiPasquale, then director of the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program office, speaks at Fletcher’s Cove in Washington, DC, in 2015. Jenna Valente/Chesapeake Bay Program

DiPasquale helped change that through the 2014 agreement, which he considered the highlight of his Bay career. That agreement contains objectives for restoring oysters, improving habitat for brook trout and black ducks, protecting land, expanding citizen stewardship and a host of other activities. It reflected his view that restoring the Bay is about more than cleaning its water. It laid out a vision for the future — and it increased the involvement of agencies and organizations in the Bay effort, including some that had never previously worked on Chesapeake issues.

“When it came to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, Nick really saw the forest for the trees,” said Joel Dunn, president of the nonprofit Chesapeake Conservancy. “Nick directed the Chesapeake Bay Program at a time when there was a particularly intense focus on the TMDLs, and he helped expand this focus to encompass other key areas like land management and conservation that also impact the health of the Bay watershed.”

Dunn praised DiPasquale for embracing new technologies to tackle environmental problems, including a new multi-year effort that secured imagery of the entire Bay watershed at one-square meter resolution to better identify where conservation work would be most effective and prioritize land for protection. “Although we have much work still before us, Nick’s leadership in his career and in his volunteerism resulted in major gains for the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort,” he said.

DiPasquale sought to expand the geographic reach of Bay efforts. The 2014 agreement was the fourth Bay restoration strategy to be signed by state governors and the EPA administrator, but it was the first to also include the upstream states of Delaware, New York and West Virginia. He also worked to increase the role of watershed residents by enlisting more people in monitoring efforts that could help inform decision making. He also advocated for greater outreach to underserved communities and to ensure they were benefitting from Bay-related work.

Nick DiPasquale, then director of the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program office, attends the Chesapeake Executive Council meeting in 2015. Steve Droter/Chesapeake Bay Program

Within the Bay Program, DiPasquale had to balance the longstanding tensions between the EPA, which often seeks to be more assertive in Bay Program oversight, and state partners. In meetings, he would present himself as representing the Bay Program, not the EPA.

“This, over the years, has been difficult to explain to the EPA — that while they pay my salary, I really work for the partnership and I have a responsibility to act on decisions that the partnership makes,” DiPasquale said in an interview with the Bay Journal when he retired.

More than once, this perspective led to conflicts with higher-ups in the agency. In his final months on the job, he became embroiled in a controversy with political appointees of the Trump administration over their abrupt decision to retract a grant that helped support the Bay Journal. He ultimately filed a complaint with the EPA’s Office of Inspector General, saying the action violated agency grant regulations. In an interview with Energy & Environment News shortly after his retirement, DiPasquale said the decision was “totally ideologically driven.” Among mounting criticism, the EPA reversed the decision.

DiPasquale was recognized with numerous awards, including being named Admiral of the Chesapeake by the governor of Maryland and receiving the 2018 Clean Water Champion award from the Choose Clean Water Coalition.

DiPasquale also was valued as a mentor for those getting started in environmental fields. “I had the pleasure of working with Nick early in my career, and I will personally remember his staunch support for young professionals making their way through our field,” said Reilly of Choose Clean Water. “The example he set of leadership and collaboration is one that should serve as an example to us all.”

“As we look to the future of Bay restoration efforts, we owe a debt of gratitude to the foundation Nick has laid and are well-served to follow in his footsteps as we work to leave a legacy of clean water to future generations,” she said.

After retirement, DiPasquale settled in Chestertown, MD, and continued his advocacy for the environment by serving on a variety of boards and through speaking engagements. He could be found navigating area waterways in his kayak with his wife, Becky.

Along with Becky, he is survived by his daughter, Laura DiPasquale, and her husband and children, Eric, Alex and Addie Zupan; his sister, her husband and their daughter, MaryEllen, Craig and Alexandria Colling; his brother and his two children, Jim, Danielle and Benjamin DiPasquale; and his stepdaughter, her husband and children, Jess, Simon, Caroline and Emily Nichols.

By Karl Blankenship

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.