MENU

Sections

More

June 10, 2023

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

Ecosystem Eco Lead

Conservation Group Study Questions Need for Extra Bay Bridge Span

by

A transportation consultant hired by an Eastern Shore environmental group said the state has not justified its pursuit of a third Bay Bridge crossing, concluding that the current spans are likely to last several more decades.

AKRF, a Hanover, Md.-based environmental planning and engineering services firm, also questioned the traffic projections the state used in launching its bid to build a new span across the Chesapeake Bay.

Numbers used by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) over-stated future growth in the number of vehicles that will be crossing the water, analysts concluded. The authority owns and operates the bridge, and is leading the Hogan administration’s push for a third crossing.

The review of MdTA’s methodology was commissioned by the Queen Anne’s Conservation Association, an environmental group opposed to sprawl. The AKRF analysis, which was presented to the association in December, was provided to Maryland Matters this week.

The report comes amid a delay in the release of a key document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a review required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The delay has prompted speculation about the state’s commitment to the project.

Using a “Life Cycle Cost Analysis” that MdTA conducted in 2015, AKRF engineers determined that the existing bridge spans “can be safely maintained through 2065 with currently programmed and anticipated rehabilitation and maintenance work.”

Beyond 2065, the authority found, the bridge may require major rehabilitation but would not be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

“Based on the conclusions of AKRF’s study of traffic congestion and operations on the bridge, and MDTA’s Life Cycle Study of the bridge’s structural integrity, there will not likely be a need for a replacement bridge by 2040 for either traffic or structural purposes,” the firm concluded.

Shortly after Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) announced plans to pursue a third span in 2016, the state’s analysts predicted that weekday traffic would increase 23% by 2040 (from 69,000 vehicles to 84,000) and that summer weekend traffic would increase 14% (from 119,000 vehicles per day to 135,000).

But AKRF called the state’s analysis into question.

“The MDTA model starts with existing traffic count data from 2017 that leads to biased findings because it only captures one day of weekend traffic from August, which was much higher than an average summer weekend day,” analysts said.

“Our estimates rely on historic growth trends over more than 15 years for summer weekend traffic and the last five years for weekday traffic to present an independent traffic growth forecast,” they added.

MdTA spokesman John Sales said the state data was collected over a two-week period.

“The average weekday data was collected in late April; the summer weekend day data was collected in early August,” he said in an email.

AKRF estimated that bridge traffic would increase only modestly over the next two decades, though the firm conceded that multiple issues — including the growth in telework, the rate of development on the Eastern Shore, and future dips in the economy — make it difficult to project with confidence.

Jay Falstad, executive director of the Queen Anne’s Conservation Association, said the report reinforced his belief that the state’s traffic projections are “over-inflated.”

“The numbers that the state is using are just exaggerated,” he added.

Decision to delay bridge study raises questions 

MdTA was scheduled to release the draft environmental report for the bridge project last fall, but the authority quietly pushed that back to December. Officials then decided to keep the DEIS under wraps even longer.

An agency spokesman told the Capital Gazette in January that officials delayed the the release of the study due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Proceeding with publishing the DEIS and scheduling public hearing would not have been a safe choice while health officials were telling Marylanders they would be safer at home,” Sales told Maryland Matters on Tuesday. “This led us to revisit our roll-out schedule with our federal partners at the Federal Highway Administration.”

That rationale appears to contradict the practice the Maryland Department of Transportation has used on other projects.

The State Highway Administration, an MDOT sub-unit, held a series of public hearings on the I-495/I-270 road-widening project last year. Some were held virtually, others were held in large hotel ballrooms, where staff and the public could maintain proper distancing.

And on Jan. 15, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Maryland Transit Administration (another MDOT unit), the Maryland Economic Development Corporation and Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail released a draft environmental statement for the Super-Conducting Magnetic Levitation train — known as MAGLEV — despite the pandemic.

An MdTA spokesman declined to explain the inconsistency.

He said the authority expects to release the Bay crossing DEIS and open the public comment period in late February, with both virtual and in-person hearings.

Queen Anne’s County Commissioner James Moran (R)

“I don’t believe it, honestly,” said Queen Anne’s County Commission chairman James Moran (R) of the reason for delaying the study. “What that means is Hogan’s going to be able to get out of office without funding Phase 2 of the [National Environmental Policy Act study]. My opinion.”

Moran has advocated for a westbound, beach-season toll, which he maintains would raise enough money to fund the study and reduce summertime backups at the existing bridge.

“I hate to say it’s smoke-and-mirrors,” he said of the authority’s explanation. “We’re trying to be constructive in our dialogue, but it’s a struggle.”

Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman (D) also questioned the delay.

“I assumed that the reason was that the governor doesn’t have a plan to fund a third span and that the public doesn’t support spending some $7 billion on a third span after having cut the Red Line in Baltimore, which was less than half [the cost],” he said.

“When you look at the way they came up with their projections of future traffic on the bridge, it was based on a projection of sprawl development on the Eastern Shore,” Pittman added. “Most residents of the Eastern Shore like being a rural area, and they don’t want their farms turned into suburban developments.”

Although the state initially studied 14 potential bridge crossing sites, Hogan declared in 2019 that the site adjacent to the currents spans is “the only one option I will ever accept.”

Pittman, who opposes a third span, said even if in-person public hearings have to be delayed due to the pandemic, MdTA should release its report now. “If the study is done, they should show it to us,” he said. “Nobody likes to have multi-million dollar, taxpayer-funded work by consultants hidden from public view, so let’s see it.”

Policy consultant Gary V. Hodge, a former elected official in Southern Maryland, said the impact of the pandemic on toll revenues and the lack of traffic congestion at the Bay Bridge — thanks in part to the administration’s transition to all-electronic tolling — has taken the wind out of the project’s sails.

“Best to leave the Sturm und Drang over a new Bay Bridge for the next governor,” Hodge said. “There won’t be any groundbreaking or ribbon-cutting on it in the next two years anyway.”

John B. Townsend II, director of media and government affairs for AAA Mid-Atlantic, also said he was “astonished” by the delay.

“We live in a Zoom world,” he said. “I think you could have held the public hearings that way.”

Townsend said it’s important that the state move forward with plans for a third span, noting that a major bridge collapsed in Minnesota in 2007. “How long do we forsake infrastructure like that? Any span that size, over a body of water like the Chesapeake Bay, cannot last forever.”

Townsend noted that MDOT officials have been consumed with the controversy over delays and cost overruns associated with the Purple Line light rail project, and with the selection of a private-sector partner for the I-495/I-270 project, which is expected to be announced in the coming days.

“I wonder if there is some kind of fatigue going on,” he said. “Just to save the Purple Line took an all-out effort. I think it was demoralizing for the whole department because it was a signature project.”

By Bruce DePuyt

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

Chesapeake Bay Receives D+ for Second Year in a Row

by

The health of the Chesapeake Bay remains poor, due in part to insufficient management of the Bay’s rockfish population, according to a recent report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Out of the 13 health indicators, the rockfish score alone declined by 17 points, which is “the largest decline in any indicator in more than a decade,” the foundation said in its report, which was released Tuesday.

The Bay’s rockfish population began declining in the 1970s and 1980s from overfishing, but returned to healthy levels by the early 2000s, thanks to conservation efforts. However, the rockfish population has been under threat again within the last few years. The presence of adult female striped bass dropped by 40% from 2013 to 2017.

In response, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission required Maryland and Virginia to reduce their striped bass, or rockfish, harvest by 18%, and restricted the catching of menhaden, which is a primary food source for striped bass, in 2019.

Still, there need to be stronger actions that help stimulate stiped bass’s population growth, according to the report — especially in Maryland.

“The state needs to take more effective measures to stem the decline in striped bass. While other states chose to close the striped bass fishery during key times when the species is most threatened, Maryland took a piecemeal approach that we believe had limited effectiveness,” Alison Prost, the vice president for environmental protection and restoration of CBF, said in a statement.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been releasing biennial reports since 1998, relying on 13 health indicators, including water clarity, forest buffers, blue crabs and oyster populations.

The bay’s health remained at a D+ since its last report in 2018. It scored 32 on a 100-point scale, one point lower than in 2018. If the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, which calls for six Bay states and the District of Columbia to meet pollution-reduction targets by 2025, is successful, then the Bay’s health should reach a score of 40 by 2025, according to the report.

A score of 70 would represent a “saved” Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said, and a “saved” Bay would provide $130 billion a year in natural resource benefits to the region.

Not all health indicators were negative this year. For instance, the Bay witnessed lower nitrogen and phosphorus pollution over the last two years, which decreased the size of dead zones, or areas of water that have little to no oxygen. This year, the Bay had the seventh smallest dead zone in the last 35 years.

However, forest buffers, which help slow down nutrient runoff into waterways, are still low, partly due to changes in federal law that used to help fund many of the buffers in the Bay region. The health of underwater grasses, which provide food and habitat for fish, also declined because of heavy rainfall from the last two years, which affects water clarity.

The Bay can be restored by enforcing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, CBF representatives said, but this heavily relies on Pennsylvania, which has lagged behind other Bay states, to meet its share of pollution reduction goals.

“If Pennsylvania does not meet the obligations it’s promised to meet by 2025, there is no doubt that the Chesapeake Bay will never be saved. It’s that basic,” William Baker, the president of CBF, said during a news conference Tuesday.

Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia and several organizations sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in September, accusing the federal government of failing to hold Pennsylvania accountable for its portion of the Bay cleanup.

“The stagnating score shows that we are witnessing apathy take hold and political will wane,” Baker said in a statement. “We can still save the Bay and deliver the promise of clean water to the next generation, but only if our elected officials redouble their clean water commitments and invest in finishing the job.”

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) lambasted the Trump administration for failing to hold Pennsylvania accountable.

“While Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has increased the federal resources available to protect the Bay, the Trump Administration has refused to hold Pennsylvania more accountable for failing to meet their pollution reduction targets under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “Everyone needs to work together and I look forward to working with the incoming Biden Administration EPA to meet our mutual goals of Clean Water in the Chesapeake Bay by 2025 by holding all partner states accountable.”

What will be most important for Maryland, however, is to make sure that lawmakers continue to allocate enough money in the budget for the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, Prost said. Investment in pollution controls for agriculture will also be important, since it is one of the areas that Maryland is relying on the most to reach its pollution reduction goals by 2025, CBF officials said.

Another priority for the upcoming General Assembly legislative session will be the Climate Solutions Act, which is a multifaceted bill that addresses the intersection between climate and water quality, Prost said.

By Elizabeth Shwe

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

More Than 50 Acres of Tree, Shrub, and Meadow Plantings Underway in Several Maryland Eastern Shore Jurisdictions

by

A late fall groundbreaking is underway at 13 sites in six jurisdictions on Maryland’s Eastern Shore as part of work to add more than 50 acres of new trees, shrubs, and meadows to improve water quality.

The ongoing construction is happening due to collaboration between six Eastern Shore local jurisdictions, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), and others to identify environmental improvement projects and provide the support needed to fund and install the projects.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) provided a grant to kickstart the partnership, which enabled CBF to hire a staffer, known as a “circuit rider” to work on behalf of the localities. The staffer prioritized the jurisdictions’ potential projects and then sought out funding for them.

“The goal of this program is to help local governments grow the capacity they need to achieve the 2025 pollution reduction goals,” said Alan Girard, CBF’s Eastern Shore Director. “This collaboration empowers Eastern Shore counties, cities, and towns to put more projects in the ground at reduced cost to local governments. It demonstrates a cost-effective way to stop polluted runoff from entering streams, rivers, and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.”

Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources subsequently awarded $300,000this summer to the collaboration to pay for the initial projects. Tom Leigh, the circuit rider, is now working with the contractor, Cambridge-based Delmarva RC&D, to install the vegetation, trees, and other projects that improve water quality.

The long-term goal is to build the collaboration to continue to reduce costs and time related to staffing and grant applications. By working together, Leigh and the jurisdictions were able to use one application, one grant manager, and one contractor to apply and plan for the projects—a process that if done individually by each jurisdiction would have taken significantly more resources.

“This ground-breaking circuit rider strategy is a great way to protect the Bay at the local grass roots level, greening and growing strong partnerships with communities through teamwork, trust, and technical assistance,” said Maryland Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles. The Maryland Department of the Environment matched funding provided by participating counties and towns and NFWF to get the partnership underway.

Few of these models have been attempted in the region, but the effort builds on increasing interest in working across traditional boundaries to clean up the Bay. The projects being installed now help the jurisdictions reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution, which is required as part of Maryland’s commitment to the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. The Blueprint is the multi-state effort to reduce pollution across the Bay watershed by 2025. Trees and other vegetation planted near farm fields and along streams are among the most cost-effect practices to filter and reduce Bay pollutants. Pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus fuel agal blooms in the Bay, which reduce water clarity and lower dissolved oxygen levels that fish and crabs need to survive.

During a virtual press conference Tuesday, several elected and government officials discussed the value of the circuit rider effort.

“This really is a win-win for the Eastern Shore,” said Talbot County Councilmember Pete Lesher. “By working together Talbot County and its neighbors will have more trees, meadows, and other vegetation throughout the landscape. The new additions will beautify our communities and help improve the Bay’s health.”

The circuit rider collaboration was one outcome of the Healthy Waters Round Table, which in 2015 first brought together Eastern Shore government officials and environmental organizations to identify shared restoration needs and how to address them.

The following projects are now being constructed or are in the pipeline through the circuit rider collaborative effort:

Queen Anne’s County

  • Lining 12 acres along Price Creek in the Blue Heron Nature reserve with a grass buffer
  • Planting trees near the entrance of the public Blue Heron Golf Course driving range
  • Planting trees and shrubs around a portion of the perimeter of Grasonville Park
  • Transforming turf grass areas in Whitemarsh Park with trees, shrubs, and meadows
  • Adding a new meadow at Batts Neck Park near a stormwater pond overflow

Talbot County

  • Adding trees and shrubs around the perimeter of Cordova Community Park
  • Expanding a riparian forest buffer near the biosolids spray irrigation facility northeast of Easton
  • Planting a newly created ditch near the recently expanded Goldsborough Neck Road with shrubbery to reduce runoff to Goldsborough Creek

Easton

  • Planting trees, shrubs, and meadows at Moton Park and RTC Park
  • Adding seven acres of new meadow next to the Easton Airport

Oxford

  • Using reclaimed sediment to create a large berm that will be graded into an outdoor amphitheater at Oxford Central Park. The area will also be planted with trees, shrubs, and meadow and new bioretention areas will be created.

Cambridge

  • Planting trees in Great Marsh Park to reduce flooding during high water events that have become more frequent

Salisbury

  • Undertaking an urban tree canopy study to assess and recommend ways to increase the city’s tree cover

Note: Funding provided to CBF by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction program includes funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and its funding sources. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government, or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or its funding sources.

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

Md. Could Reach Bay Health Goal by 2025, But Success Hinges on Curbing Runoff

by

Maryland is on track toward reaching its Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction goals by 2025, but advocates say the state needs to plant more trees to address stormwater runoff from farms and land development. 

The majority of the state’s pollution reduction has come from modifying wastewater treatment plants, while pollution from agriculture and urban and suburban storm water runoff remain relatively high, Alison Prost, vice president of environmental protection & restoration for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, told members of the House of Delegates Environment & Transportation Committee Thursday. Sixty-four of 67 wastewater treatment plants in Maryland have been upgraded already, she said.

“In the future, we really don’t have a lot more to gain from wastewater treatment. Where the lion share of the opportunity is in agriculture,” Ann Pesiri Swanson, executive director of Chesapeake Bay Commission, told state lawmakers. “Agriculture is very, very challenging, requires a lot of technical assistance and a lot of cost-share as well.”

Agriculture cost-share programs provide federal and state funding to help pay farmers’ costs for installing conservation practices, such as planting forested buffers or fencing livestock out of streams.

In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollutant reduction target, which requires six Bay states and the District of Columbia to implement plans that would reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution into the Bay by 2025. The goal is not to have clean water by 2025, but to have all the proper practices that will deliver clean water by 2025.

Between 1985 and 2018, total nutrient pollution in the Bay declined by 83 million pounds. But to reach pollutant reduction goals by 2025, an additional 52 million pounds of pollution must be eliminated, according to Swanson.

Although the Conowingo Dam, a 90-year old hydroelectric dam in the lower Susquehanna River in Maryland, was expected to continue trapping nutrients and sediment behind the dam until 2025, water has been running over the dam and into the Chesapeake Bay, even in low-flow storms, Swanson explained.

That adds 6 million pounds of pollutants. And climate change has added another 5 million pounds.

“This is like new calories coming into the body and you’ve got to incorporate them into your diet,” Swanson said, causing Maryland’s share to reach the 2025 pollutant reduction goal to rise from 6.2 million pounds to 7.5 million pounds.

“The place you’re going to find those additional pounds remain [in] agriculture, storm water, [and] septic because for the most part, we’ve addressed wastewater,” Swanson said.

Sixty percent of future nitrogen reductions planned will come from best management practices, tools that farmers use to reduce soil and fertilizer runoff, such as animal waste management systems and planting more trees as buffers, Swanson said.

Since the Bay states began working toward their own pollution reduction goals, Pennsylvania — home to most of the Susquehanna, which empties into the the Chesapeake at the top of the Bay — has consistently lagged in meeting its goals. That led the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other organizations to file a complaint in September against the EPA for failing to require Pennsylvania, as well as New York, to develop plans that sufficiently reduce pollution as required by the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.

“Unless Pennsylvania gets on track, we’re going to have a tough time meeting 2025,” Prost said.

Only 30% of Pennsylvania’s state legislators represent jurisdictions in the Bay watershed, and Pennsylvania’s political and philanthropic “power centers” are outside the Bay watershed, Marel King, Pennsylvania director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, told state lawmakers. The lack of support in Pennsylvania’s legislature explains the consistent lack of funding from that state to restore the Bay’s health.

Advocates also talked about the realities of climate change and impacts it will have on Maryland’s 2025 pollution reduction goals. Warmer water temperatures cause oxygen levels to decrease, which could expand the Bay’s dead zone areas, Prost said.

To start addressing that impact, Maryland’s legislature could push the Maryland Department of the Environment to update its permits to account for climate change. Currently, MDE’s calculations for storm water runoff are based on numbers from 15 years ago, Prost said. As storms are expected to get stronger and cause more flash flooding in the near future, there need to be stronger controls to prevent runoff from construction sites, Prost said.

It is important that the state have a multi-pronged approach and invest in strategies that address climate change, flooding and water quality together, rather than focus on water quality alone, advocates said.

The state should focus on planting trees as part of the climate solutions bill, Prost said. Not only can trees slow and strain storm water runoff into the Chesapeake Bay, but they can also capture and store carbon dioxide, reducing it in the air.

“The reality is for water quality, for climate, for community resilience, trees is where the investment needs to go,” Prost said. “It’ll help us meet our watershed improvement plan goals, and if we invest more in trees it’s going to help us with those additional pounds that Maryland now needs to find related to climate change.”

By Elizabeth Shwe

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

Congress Extends Bay Program, Related Conservation Efforts

by

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a sweeping conservation measure that provides continued support for several key Chesapeake Bay initiatives and creates a new program to support fish and wildlife habitat restoration efforts in the watershed.

The America’s Conservation Enhancement Act provides support for two dozen conservation initiatives around the nation that were rolled into a single piece of legislation and overwhelmingly approved by the House on Oct. 1.

The Senate had already approved the bill without controversy, and it is expected to be signed by President Trump.

The bill authorizes the continuation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program, which has coordinated the state-federal Bay restoration effort since 1983. The program supports research, helps assess cleanup progress and provides grants to states, local governments, nonprofits and others.

The legislation reauthorizes the Bay Program for another five years at up to $92 million annually. Congress had allocated $85 million for the current year.

The bill also reauthorizes the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails Network. Administered by the National Park Service, the network includes more than 200 state parks, museums and historic sites that provide access to waterways and highlight the region’s natural, historic and cultural heritage. The legislation reauthorized that program for five years. It received $3 million in the most recent year.

Reauthorization does not guarantee future funding, but it makes Congressional support more likely.

The legislation also creates the Chesapeake Watershed Investments for Landscape Development Program — dubbed WILD — within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The program is authorized to provide up to $15 million annually in grants that support fish and wildlife habitat projects in the Bay region. That could include things such as forest buffer plantings, wetland restoration, initiatives that improve stream health, removal of barriers to fish migration and efforts to improve habitats for species such as black ducks and brook trout.

Environmental groups praised passage of the measure, which had been in the works since last year.

Noting that outdoor activities generate millions of dollars for the region’s economy, Joel Dunn, president of the Chesapeake Conservancy, said “the conservation and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay’s waters and wildlife habitats is essential for our region’s economic resilience and growth, and the ACE Act will greatly enhance these conservation efforts.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers helped craft different elements of the Bay-related portions of the legislation, including Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen Tom Carper, (D-DE), and Reps. Elaine Luria (D-VA), Bobby Scott (D-VA) and John Sarbanes (D-MD).

“We’re pleased to see the overwhelming and bipartisan support for the America’s Conservation Enhancement Act,” said Jason Rano, who works on federal legislation for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “Legislators from both parties recognize the importance of clean water and a healthy environment.”

Besides the Bay-specific initiatives, the bill reauthorizes a number of national programs that benefit the region, including the North American Wetlands Conservation program, which helps promote wetland restoration, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which oversees several grant programs that support Bay initiatives.

It also creates a National Fish Habitat Partnership program to provide funding and technical resources to local public-private partnerships to conserve fish habitats.

The final legislation reflected some compromises. For instance, it prohibits the EPA from regulating lead content in hunting and fishing gear for the next five years. Some had pushed to permanently ban the EPA from such action.

By Karl Blankenship

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

Groups Fight for Maryland Forest on Chopping Block

by

Lawsuits seek to block business park on 326-acre wooded tract in Harford County near Bush River tributary

The forest teems with wildlife behind Michael and Lisa Lyston’s home in Abingdon, MD. Over the years, they’ve been visited by foxes, opossums, deer, raccoons, owls and woodpeckers — not to mention turtles, toads and “tons of butterflies.”

“They just come up here and go back home,” Lisa Lyston said. “They know they’re safe here.”

But barring a reprieve from the courts, the neighborhood is destined to become a lot less wild. Most of the woods near their home are to be bulldozed for warehouses, shops, restaurants, a hotel and a gas station.

A developer plans to build Abingdon Business Park on the wooded 326-acre tract, one of the largest patches of forest left in this heavily developed part of Harford County near the head of the Chesapeake Bay.

Opponents say if that happens, it shows how both Harford County and the state government are failing to safeguard Maryland’s shrinking supply of ecologically important forestland. “I feel so bad for all these birds and everything that lives back there,” Lisa Lyston said, choking back tears. “It kills me.”

Nearby residents and environmental advocates have been trying since last year, so far unsuccessfully, to save “Abingdon Woods,” as the tract was once known.

But the property by Interstate 95 has long been zoned for commercial and industrial development. The county even placed it in an “enterprise zone” to encourage economic activity there.

Harford County is still mostly rural. But only about a third of its land is forested, according to data from the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program. Development pressure has been intense along I-95 and, according to the Bay Program, and the county could lose nearly 2,300 acres of woodlands between 2013 and 2025.

“We’ve been opposed to the development on the grounds of loss of forest and wetlands areas so close to the Bay,” said Tracey Waite, president of Harford County Climate Action and head of a coalition opposed to the business park. “Also, in this time of climate change, we don’t believe there should be this level of deforestation in our county.”

Harford County Executive Barry Glassman declined to discuss the project in detail. Instead, he pointed to the efforts his administration has made to preserve about 3,500 acres of farmland – including the recent addition of 347-acre Belle Vue Farm on the Bay between Havre de Grace and Aberdeen.

But Waite contended the county hasn’t put as much money or effort into preserving forest or green space in the southern portion of the county, which she said has a greater proportion of people of color and low-income families. Nearly half of the students attending William Paca/Old Post Road Elementary School, which abuts the business park site, are African Americans and nearly 15% are Hispanic, according to Schooldigger.com. Nearly three-fourths are eligible for free lunches because they’re from low-income families.

Bonita Holland-Buchanan, vice president of the African American Democratic Club of Harford County, said she’s concerned about children at the school having to breathe air laced with vehicle exhaust from business park traffic.

“There’s already a problem of so many kids having asthma now,” she said, adding that “our children deserve better than to breathe poisonous fumes from diesel trucks.”

Opponents of the business park have gone to court. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and four neighbors of the woods filed suit earlier this year challenging Harford County’s approval of the developer’s forest conservation plan. The Gunpowder Riverkeeper and other neighbors have filed two suits challenging the Maryland Department of the Environment’s permit allowing the developer to build roads across streams and take out some wetlands.

The developer’s plan calls for clearing 220 acres of forest to make way for more than 2 million square feet of warehouses plus other commercial buildings and pavement. The remaining 95 acres of woods would be placed under a protective easement meant to prevent further disturbance. As mitigation for removing so much forest, the county is requiring the developer to plant new trees on 8 acres onsite.

Like most localities in Maryland, Harford’s forest conservation ordinance mirrors the state Forest Conservation Act, which requires counties and municipalities to protect important woodlands from development or have trees replanted onsite or elsewhere. Environmentalists contend the state law isn’t strong enough, in part because the state exercises little oversight of how localities enforce it. Recently, though, a few counties have beefed up their laws beyond what the state requires.

Opponents of the Abingdon project argue that Harford County isn’t even following state law in approving that development. For instance, they note that county officials granted the developer a waiver from the law’s requirement to minimize loss of large “specimen trees,” authorizing cutting down 49 of the 85 largest trees identified in Abingdon Woods.

“It’s just so obscene,” said Jeanna Tillery, another local resident. “I can’t imagine why anybody would think to do something like that, especially in an area like this where we have many warehouses already, many of them unoccupied.”

Jim Lighthizer, managing partner of the Chesapeake Real Estate Group, which is developing the business park, did not respond to requests for comment. In applying for needed permits, the firm said it chose Abingdon Woods for its proximity to I-95 and the Port of Baltimore. While acknowledging there are 18 vacant warehouses in the region, the developer said this is the only suitable site for such a large distribution complex.

County officials declined to answer questions about the project, citing the litigation.

“It is the county’s position that the development approvals for Abingdon Business Park were appropriate,” said Cynthia Mumby, a county spokesperson.

County officials have argued that their approval of the developer’s forest conservation plan is not appealable. A Harford County Circuit Court judge heard arguments on that point in August. A decision is pending.

The MDE permit for stream crossings and wetlands disturbance has drawn fire. Theaux Le Gardeur, the Gunpowder Riverkeeper, and residents near the site asked the Harford court to review the permit, which includes permission to bridge Haha Branch, which flows into the Bush River.

The Bush River is already impaired by nutrients and suspended sediments, Le Gardeur pointed out. Plus, he noted, some of the tree clearing would occur near Otter Point Creek, which the state has designated as a high-quality stream. To make up for clearing more than 5 acres of woods there, the MDE has required the developer to plant trees on half that many acres of farmland elsewhere in the watershed.

The MDE has previously bucked local approval of large-scale removal of forests. In 2019, state regulators denied permits for two large solar energy projects in Charles County that together would have cleared 400 acres of privately owned woodlands.

Asked if he’d join other county executives in seeking to strengthen the local forest conservation law, County Executive Glassman said he’s waiting for an update from the state Department of Planning on how much of the county is still forested. “We’ll take a look at those trend lines,” he said, “and see if we need to do anything else.”

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.

EPA hit with lawsuits over Chesapeake Bay cleanup

by

Making good on threats issued months ago, three Chesapeake Bay watershed states, the District of Columbia and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation took the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to court Thursday for its failure to push Pennsylvania and New York to do more to help clean up the Bay.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia accused the EPA of shirking its responsibility under the Clean Water Act by letting Pennsylvania and New York fall short in reducing their nutrient and sediment pollution fouling the Bay.

“This has to be a collective effort,” said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. “Every state in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has to play a part, and EPA under the law has to ensure that happens.”

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said the Chesapeake Bay cleanup must be a collective effort. Photo courtesy of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, joined by the Maryland Watermen’s Association, a pair of Virginia farmers and Anne Arundel County, Md., made similar complaints in a separate federal lawsuit. Both were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where they’re likely to be consolidated into a single case.

“The courts must ensure that EPA does its job,’’ Will Baker, the Bay Foundation president, said in an online press conference held with attorneys general from Maryland, Virginia and the District.

At issue is the EPA’s duty to enforce a decade-old plan the agency drew up for restoring the Chesapeake to ecological health. The plan, known as a total maximum daily load, requires each of the Bay watershed states and the District to do what’s needed by 2025 to reduce their share of the nutrient and sediment pollution harming the Bay.

Progress has been made toward restoring the Bay’s water quality, though much more remains to be done. In particular, Pennsylvania and New York have fallen far behind in meeting their pollution-reduction targets, especially in curbing nutrient runoff from farmland.

All six Bay watershed states and the District were required to submit plans last year spelling out the measures each would take by 2025 to make the needed pollution reductions.

Most of the plans indicate that states will have to increase pollution-reduction efforts to unprecedented levels to reach their cleanup goals. But Pennsylvania’s and New York’s plans don’t even achieve their goals on paper. Pennsylvania’s falls short on curbing nitrogen, the most problematic nutrient, by about 25%, while New York’s was around 33% short. Pennsylvania’s plan also identifies an annual funding gap for cleanup activities of approximately $250 million a year through 2025.

The EPA cited those shortcomings for both states but hasn’t taken any action against them. The lawsuits contend that the federal government is abdicating its legal responsibility by accepting clearly inadequate cleanup plans with no reasonable assurance the two states can achieve their assigned pollution reductions.

Without responding directly to the lawsuits’ core complaint, an EPA spokesman issued a statement defending the agency’s role in the Bay cleanup.

“EPA is fully committed to working with our Bay Program partners to meet the 2025 goals,” the statement said. “We have taken and will continue to take appropriate actions under our Clean Water Act authorities to improve Chesapeake Bay water quality.”

The spokesman noted that in just the past year, the EPA and other federal agencies have supplied “nearly a half billion dollars” to support Bay watershed restoration efforts. The agency also has provided “thousands of hours” of technical assistance to the states, it said.

Those filing the lawsuits say that’s not enough. Unless the federal government holds the states accountable for doing their part to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution, the 37-year effort to restore the Bay’s water quality is likely to fail, they warn.

Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said that the courts must make sure the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “does its job’’ in enforcing Bay cleanup actions. Photo by Mike Busada, courtesy of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation

“When EPA uses its bully pulpit to tell a state that they’re failing to meet their obligations, action follows,” said the foundation’s Baker. “We’ve seen that with Pennsylvania in the past.”

The agency briefly withheld about $3 million in federal funds from Pennsylvania five years ago to prod it to come up with a plan for getting its cleanup back on track. Critics suggest the EPA also could leverage state compliance by threatening to block permits that are needed to build or expand businesses.

Environmentalists and Maryland officials have been complaining for some time that the EPA is not doing more to press Pennsylvania over its lagging cleanup pace. But discontent ramped up in January when Dana Aunkst, director of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program office, described the 2025 cleanup deadline as “aspirational” and said the Bay TMDL was “not an enforceable document.”

The litigants said they didn’t relish taking the EPA to court but felt they had no choice. They faulted the Trump administration, contending it had not only abandoned the federal government’s role as enforcer of the Bay TMDL, but had threatened the cleanup further by rolling back or weakening federal environmental regulations.

The Annapolis-based environmental group and the attorneys general had served the EPA formal notice in May of their intent to sue and followed up later with a letter offering to meet and discuss their concerns. The EPA did not respond, they said.

“We’re here to enforce the agreements,” said Karl Racine, the District’s attorney general. “It’s not unusual at all that when parties don’t do what they’re supposed to do by law, we go to court to have it enforce the remedy.”

Neither Pennsylvania nor New York are defendants in the lawsuits, though their alleged shortcomings are key issues. Deborah Klenotic, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, declined to comment on the litigation, saying, “We remain focused on our work to improve water quality here in Pennsylvania and in the Chesapeake Bay.”

But Maureen Wren, a spokeswoman for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, disputed assertions the state isn’t doing its part to help clean up the Bay.

“New York is fulfilling its clean water responsibilities under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and is a committed partner” in the federal-state Chesapeake Bay Program, she said.

State officials now expect to meet New York’s nitrogen reduction targets based on new information about Susquehanna flows and a change in the Bay Program’s computer model.

Maryland’s Anne Arundel County, which has more than 500 miles of shoreline on the Bay and its tributaries, joined the foundation in its lawsuit.

County executive Steuart Pittman of Anne Arundel County, MD, walks one of the shorelines in his jurisdiction that border the Chesapeake Bay. The county has joined the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in its suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Photo by Dave Harp, courtesy of Bay Journal News Service

“Anne Arundel County residents have invested far too much in the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort to watch from the sidelines as upstream states and the EPA abandon their obligations,” said Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman. The county has spent more than $500 million in the last decade on Bay protection and restoration, officials estimate.

The Maryland Watermen’s Association, which has been at odds with the Bay Foundation over the state’s management of oysters, also joined in the group’s lawsuit. Observing that “water runs downhill,” Robert T. Brown, Sr., the group’s president, said the nutrients, sediment and debris coming down the Susquehanna River from Pennsylvania and New York are having a devastating effect on watermen.

“So goes the health of the Bay, so goes [our] industry and seafood,” he said. “…We need to have the EPA do its job.”

Also suing are Robert Whitescarver and Jeanne Hoffman, who raise livestock on a farm in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. Whitescarver, a former Natural Resources Conservation Service representative, has long advocated for farm conservation practices. He said farmers have a stake in this issue.

“All jurisdictions need to do their fair share,” he said. “The efforts that Virginia and Maryland farmers have put into sustainable farming are harmed by EPA’s failure to require all jurisdictions to meet the commitments they agreed to.”

At least a couple of the states suing the EPA to put the heat on Pennsylvania and New York could find themselves on the receiving end of similar pressure if their lawsuit succeeds. Only the District of Columbia and West Virginia have met their 2025 goals ahead of schedule, according to recent data. None of the others are on track to reduce nitrogen by the needed amount.

“If any of the Bay states fall significantly short in implementation, CBF will call on EPA to take action,” Baker said.

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.

$18 Million in Grants Awarded for Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Projects

by

A record $18 million in federal grant money is heading to Chesapeake Bay watershed groups and local governments this year under a 20-year-old program that helps finance restoration projects in the estuary’s drainage basin.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the major funding source behind the Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund, which is managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in coordination with the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program.

Matching contributions bring the outlay’s total to nearly $37 million, the EPA announced Sept. 2.

The agency is working with six states — Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York and West Virginia — and Washington, DC, on a plan to clean up the Chesapeake. It has a 2025 deadline.

“EPA’s ongoing commitment and accountability to the restoration of the Bay is furthered by these grants that help address some of our most critical challenges, including reducing pollution from agricultural operations in Pennsylvania,” EPA Region 3 Administrator Cosmo Servidio said in a statement.

Of the funding going toward individual states, Virginia is set to receive the most, with approximately $5.5 million, followed by Pennsylvania at $5 million and Maryland at $3.4 million. Smaller amounts went to the other jurisdictions.

Fifty-six grants were awarded from the fund in 2020. Among them:

  • $975,000 to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to pave the way to create 360 acres of forested buffers along streams in Pennsylvania (Total project cost: $1.9 million)
  • $950,000 to Trout Unlimited to help install 15 miles of livestock-exclusion fencing around streams, establish 80 acres of forested buffers and stabilize 15 miles of streambanks in Virginia (Total project cost: $1.9 million)
  • $470,000 to the Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology to restore wetlands on 32 acres of farmland and map saltwater intrusion in Somerset and Dorchester counties on Maryland’s Eastern Shore (Total project cost: $631,000)
  • $1 million to the Chesapeake Conservancy to work with the Precision Conservation Partnership on projects at 25 Pennsylvanian farms where the greatest benefits to water quality can be realized (Total project cost: $2.1 million)
  • $500,000 to the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to work with dairy farmers that supply milk to Pennsylvania-based Turkey Hill Dairy to install conservation practices (Total project cost: $1 million)
  • $500,000 to the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection to construct a “green street” project in Silver Spring (Total project cost: $2.1 million)
  • $227,000 to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to plant 250 trees on city property and install flood-protection infrastructure on Richmond’s Southside (Total project cost: $309,000)
  • $50,000 to the Delmarva Poultry Industry to develop a website that helps connect farmers who have chicken manure to ship with those who need it to fertilize their fields (Total project cost: $59,000)
  • $50,000 to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to investigate river herring habitat upstream and downstream of stream blockages and propose passages for fish to get around them in Oxon Run and Lower Beaverdam Creek (Total project cost: $62,000)

By Jeremy Cox

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

Horn Point Laboratory Offers “Bay 101” Virtual Seminars

by

Every Wednesday from July 8 through August 5 from 5:00 to 5:30 pm you can join Horn Point Laboratory researchers and participate in a free, virtual seminar series about the science of the Chesapeake Bay. The thirty-minute programs will shed light into the mysteries of the Bay and highlight Horn Point programs working to improve the health of the Bay and its aquatic life. Questions and participation by all will be encouraged.

The Chesapeake Bay and its rivers are the lifeblood of the Eastern Shore, defining the region like no other water body in the world. While many easily recognize the natural beauty Bay country offers, the Horn Point Laboratory’s “Bay 101 – Science of the Chesapeake for Non-Scientists” will make the science of the Chesapeake Bay as accessible as its beauty.

Pour your favorite beverage, get comfortable, and dive in to science to see the Bay in a whole new way with Horn Point Lab’s – Bay 101.

To register, visit umces.edu/hpl or contact Carin Starr at cstarr@umces.edu.

Seminars include:

July 8:  “Chesapeake Bay’s currents and winds for sailors and water enthusiasts” Bill Boicourt

Beneath the sometimes hard-to-predict tides of Chesapeake Bay are remarkably dynamic motions. We will explore this classic estuary and the forces that drive it.

July 15: “News on living shorelines to protect our waterfronts” Cindy Palinkas

Living shorelines are a more natural way to protect shorelines from erosion and provide valuable coastal habitat. Learn about what happens after they are installed, both at the shoreline and in adjacent waters.

July 22:  “Bolstering the Maryland oyster aquaculture industry” Shannon Hood

Oyster aquaculture is a growing industry in Maryland, attracting people from diverse backgrounds. Learn about this industry which provides an opportunity to feed a growing population, while providing ecological benefits that can benefit all of us.

July 29:  “Modeling: what it is and how it helps predict the future of the Chesapeake Bay” Kenny Rose

Many large-scale restoration projects rely heavily on computer simulation models to determine the best ways to restore the system and how progress will track in time. Learn the basics of these types of models and how they are used, using Chesapeake Bay as an example.

August 5:   “Chesapeake Bay underwater grasses” Lorie Staver

Underwater grasses are an important component of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and an indicator of Bay health. Learn about what they are, why they matter, and about our role in their decline and recovery.”

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

The Horn Point Laboratory is part of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the University System of Maryland’s environmental research institution. UMCES researchers are helping improve our scientific understanding of Maryland, the region and the world through five research centers – Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, Appalachian Laboratory in Frostburg, Horn Point Laboratory in Cambridge, Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology in Baltimore, and the Maryland Sea Grant College in College Park. www.umces.edu.

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Talbot Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here

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

Jay Fleming: A Visual Storyteller for a Changing Chesapeake by Heather Hall

by

Exploring the photography of Jay Fleming is an evocative experience.

The eyes of a waterman invite you to sit awhile and listen to his story. Reflections of a lighthouse dance on the water, and you instinctively put out your hands for balance, as if you are in the boat, too. Above and below the waterline, Fleming brings a fresh perspective to the Chesapeake Bay.

Born and raised in Annapolis, Fleming credits his father – professional nature photographer, Kevin Fleming – with inspiring his passion from an early age. With the Nikon 90s his father gave him, the young Fleming won his first national photography competition at the age of 14.

Perhaps Fleming inherited his father’s eye for detail, but his love of the Bay and passion for the people, their culture, and environment are uniquely his own.

Fleming describes himself as a visual storyteller. He curates his images with text for exhibits and publications, noting, “You can’t have one without the other.” To be sure the stories of the Chesapeake’s watermen and seafood industry were preserved accurately, he self-published his first book, Working the Water.

He describes his second book, Island Life (due to be released in 2021), as “a visual narrative of life on Smith Island and Tangier Island and their future amidst environmental and cultural changes.”

At the March 6 preview for the Oxford Museum, the audience was appreciative of Fleming’s presentation and passion for the culture and environment he documents. Sarah Morgan Watters shared, “Jay really connects with his people. He’s like an anthropologist, but he does it in a modern way.”

Jack Turner, a friend from Annapolis, said, “Jay is a man of the people. He has access to these unseen communities because he respects them and understands the challenges they face. He’s a spokesperson for them, sharing his platform as an audience to help them tell their story.”

Turner describes his own photographic endeavors as a hobbyist, blessed to “be along for the ride” during some of Fleming’s photoshoots. He recalls: “Last summer, Jay called me one night – all excited – and asked, ‘Want to meet me at 4:30 tomorrow morning to document all the submerged grasses?’” Turner describes their field trip – complete with a drone, GoPro, underwater housing for cameras, and snorkeling gear – as if they were kids out for an adventure in their backyard. They spent two days documenting the abundance and clarity of the Severn River.

If you follow Fleming on social media, you’ll note that even “social distancing” doesn’t dampen his enthusiasm for the world around him. While unable to venture far, he treks through streams and turns over rocks to share the sights and sounds of springtime, reminding us what we too can find in our backyards. From croaking frogs to sprouting seedlings, his appreciation for the environment is infectious.

Another way Fleming engages others with the Chesapeake Bay is by leading photography workshops. His first was five years ago, and he recalls, “I hadn’t really planned it, but a waterman I know on Kent Narrows met two DC photographers and referred them to me, so I took them to Smith Island for a couple of days. It’s so close, as the crow flies, but something they wouldn’t otherwise have access to.” The following summer, he led three workshops, then four in 2017. He now offers 15-20 workshops each year. Open to photographers of all skill levels, groups are limited to six, and they spend their days on the water in a boat Fleming custom-built for this purpose.

On the job or during his free time, Fleming can usually be found in his kayak or his small craft, as he prefers to be low to the water for the best angles and reflections. But you’ll also find him walking through the marsh and making new friends wherever he goes. Turner reflected on an adventure last winter, where they came upon two muskrat trappers. Fleming’s newly made friends let them tag along and document their work.

Fleming notes, “My work as a visual storyteller would not be possible without the trust and generosity of my subjects. Subjects giving me access to document elements of their daily routines or their businesses allows me to bring that story to my work and to educate the people viewing my work. For example, with the seafood industry, by having access to the people who harvest the seafood and the process by which it is harvested, I can create a view of the supply chain that most viewers of my work would never be able to see.”

When asked about future projects, Fleming says that he’d like to continue documenting the seafood industry up and down the Atlantic Coast. For now, he hopes the spring projects resume after the COVID-19 emergency passes.

Fleming is still scheduled to have two exhibits in Talbot County this summer.

Images from Working the Water will be featured at the Oxford Museum. Stuart Parnes, President of the Oxford Museum, reached out to Fleming because his work is the perfect follow up to last summer’s WaterWays exhibit from the Smithsonian.

Images from Island Life will be featured at the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum. Jenifer Dolde, Associate Curator of Collections, shared that Mary McCarthy, who had put together an exhibit last year as part of the Eastern Shore Sea Glass Festival, mentioned Fleming would be their keynote speaker for this year’s festival.

Although both openings have been delayed due to COVID-19, they are anticipated later this spring. CBMM is working with Fleming on a virtual exhibit and planning to host him for an artist’s talk in a few weeks.

To learn more about Jay Fleming, sign up for workshops or purchase prints, visit his website.  Photos courtesy of Jay Fleming Photography.

Heather Hall is a Leadership Coach, Spiritual Director and Storyteller through arts and crafts. Born and raised in Maryland, she spent 22 years in Alaska, working in environmental service. She recently returned to the Shore and resides in Oxford.

 

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