MENU

Sections

More

July 23, 2021

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

Ecosystem Eco Homepage

Top Developer Submits Bid for Second Phase of Offshore Wind Project in Maryland

by

The Danish offshore wind developer Ørsted announced Wednesday that it has submitted a bid to generate up to 760 megawatts of power with a proposed second offshore wind project off the coast of Maryland. 

The project, called Skipjack Wind 2, is in response to the Maryland Public Service Commission’s call for proposals for a second round of offshore wind projects in federal waters off the Maryland coast. 

The Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2019 expanded Maryland’s renewable portfolio standard to require that utilities get 50% of the electricity they sell to consumers from renewable sources by 2030. More specifically, it directed the Public Service Commission — which regulates the state’s energy utilities — to find “Round 2” offshore wind projects that could provide at least 1,200 megawatts of power by 2030. 

The application period for this round closed on June 21, and the PSC’s consultant, ICF, has 30 days to review applications. The bids are confidential until then, according to Tori Leonard, spokeswoman for the PSC. It is unclear if any other companies besides Ørsted have submitted a bid for this round of offshore wind projects. 

After the consultant reports to the PSC, the commission will review all applications and award offshore renewable energy credits to a project or projects for this round by Dec. 18, Leonard said. 

Ørsted’s new project proposal would power over 250,000 homes in the Delmarva Peninsula, according to the company’s announcement. 

“Ørsted is privileged to already be a long-term partner to the state of Maryland as it works to meet its offshore wind goals,” David Hardy, CEO of Ørsted Offshore North America, said in a statement. 

“We are proud to build, own, and operate wind farms across the world and will bring that same approach to Maryland. As such, these at least 30-year commitments we are making to the state are designed to provide long-term benefits to all of the communities that will be home to our facilities. In continuing to deliver on our commitments now, and well into the future, we will ensure that Maryland’s offshore wind industry will thrive for decades to come,” he continued. 

In 2013, the General Assembly passed legislation enabling offshore wind development and the Maryland PSC was designated by the federal government to award leases for offshore wind developments in federal waters. The commission finally approved two projects off the coast of Ocean City in 2017. 

Ørsted is in the middle of developing one of these projects, called Skipjack Wind 1, which is to the north of Ocean City and about 19 miles off the coast. It could power 40,000 homes in the Delmarva Peninsula and is slated to start operating by 2026, company officials have said. 

This project is currently under review for final approval by the federal government, as is the MarWin project by US Wind, which would generate 240 megawatts of power — enough to power almost 80,000 for a year. It is 17 miles off the coast of Maryland and tentatively slated to start operating in 2024. 

These projects would run cables under the ocean, connect to the electric grid on land and provide electricity to Maryland utilities, helping the state depend less on fossil fuels and reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. 

Both projects have generated controversy in Ocean City, particularly among political and business leaders who believe views of wind turbines from the beach could hurt tourism and the real estate industry. But many other leaders in Delmarva believe the wind industry could be a powerful economic driver for the region.

Ørsted said it would host a virtual open house on its proposal to build a second phase of the offshore wind project on the evening of July 19.

By Elizabeth Shwe

Chesapeake Bay’s ‘Dead Zone’ to be Smaller this Summer, Researchers Say

by

The Chesapeake Bay’s “dead zone,” the oxygen-starved blob of water that waxes and wanes each summer, is forecast to be smaller than average for a second consecutive year.

A consortium of research institutions announced June 23 that it expects the volume of this year’s dead zone to be 14% lower than average. In 2020, the zone was smaller than 80% of those monitored since surveying began in 1985.

The size of the summer dead zone is driven largely by how much excess nutrients flow off lawns and agricultural fields into the Bay during the preceding January to May, researchers say. Those nutrients — nitrogen and phosphorus — fuel explosive algae growth, triggering a chemical reaction that robs the water of oxygen as it dies back. The area is dubbed a “dead zone” because of the lack of life found within it.

This year, those first five months were slightly drier than usual, causing river flows entering the Bay to be 13% below average. As a result, the Chesapeake received 19% less nitrogen pollution compared with the long-term average at monitoring stations along nine major tributaries.

Efforts to curb nutrient pollution in the Bay’s 64,000-square-mile watershed also appear to have played a role in shrinking this year’s dead zone, scientists say. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has joined with Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia to implement a “pollution diet” for the Bay and its tributaries by 2025.

“This year’s forecast suggests a smaller dead zone than is typical because the river flows that carry nutrients to the Bay were slightly lower than normal,” said Jeremy Testa, a researcher with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. “But the amount of nutrients carried to the Bay by a given amount of flow has lessened over time due to effective nutrient management in the watershed. This is an example of a positive trajectory for the Bay.”

Oxygen is measured in the Bay throughout the year by the Chesapeake Monitoring Program, an effort involving several federal agencies, 10 academic institutions and more than 30 scientists. The dead zone forecast is produced by UMCES, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the University of Michigan and the U.S. Geological Survey.

The dead zone is typically biggest in summer, when temperatures are their hottest and oxygen is at its lowest.

Water is considered “dead” to marine life when the concentration of dissolved oxygen falls below 2 milligrams per liter. The average Chesapeake dead zone measures between 0.7 and 1.5 cubic square miles of water, the equivalent of 280,000–600,000 Olympic-size swimming pools’ worth of water, according to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

This year’s dead zone began forming earlier than normal because of warming temperatures in May, according to real-time estimates produced by VIMS and Anchor QEA.

Beth McGee, director of science and agriculture policy with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the smaller area of low or no oxygen is good news for crabs, fish and other creatures that dwell in the Bay. But it shouldn’t obscure the fact that the states and federal partners are struggling to meet the pollution-reduction targets they set for 2025, she added.

Noting that 40% of the nitrogen that causes dead zones can be traced to Pennsylvania, McGee said: “The U.S. Department of Agriculture must provide more funding for conservation and technical assistance, and the Pennsylvania legislature should establish a state agricultural cost-share program. At the same time, EPA must hold the states, especially Pennsylvania, accountable to meet pollution-reduction requirements from all sources. Without those federal efforts, the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint will be yet another in the history of failed Bay restoration efforts.”

By Jeremy Cox

New Md. Hearing Planned for Discharge Permit for Lakeside Project in Trappe; Petition Asks County to Revoke Sewer Plan Approval

by

As supporters and opponents of the Lakeside development in Trappe await a new state hearing on the project’s wastewater discharge permit, Talbot County is being asked to revoke its approval of changes to the county sewer plan related to the project.

Petition 21-01 would rescind Resolution 281, which primarily amended the county water and sewer plan to:

• reclassify and remap certain areas of the Lakeside property from W-2 to W-1 and from S-2 to S-1. W-1 is immediate priority status for water; S-1 is immediate priority status for sewer and

• add the Trappe East water and sewer systems to the list of capital improvement projects.

The petition notes that the discharge permit for the wastewater treatment plant that will serve Lakeside has been sent back to the state environment department for additional public comment and a public hearing.

The proposed resolution included with the petition would not allow the county to consider any changes to its water and sewer plan related to the Lakeside project until after the state issues a final discharge permit, the final permit’s terms and conditions have been reviewed by the county planning commission and public works advisory board, and ShoreRivers’ case regarding the permit has been “fully resolved.”

ShoreRivers Inc. had sought judicial review of the final discharge permit issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment for the Lakeside project. The environmental group asked the court to send the permit back to MDE for additional public comment and hearing. (The Chesapeake Bay Foundation had filed a separate case also seeking judicial review of the permit.)

In seeking a remand to MDE, ShoreRivers said the final permit issued by the state differed substantially from the draft permit that had been the subject of public comment and a public hearing. The group also said the nutrient management plan for the project also had not been available for review and comment.

Lawyers for the property owner and the town had agreed with the request to send the issue back to MDE and Talbot’s circuit court judge entered an order April 27 remanding the permit to MDE for “… a public comment period of not less than 30 days and a public hearing to hear comments on, and any objections to, the nutrient management plan and the final terms and conditions of the (p)ermit….”

An MDE spokesman said Friday that the department has not yet finalized the opening date for the public comment period and has not scheduled the public hearing.

The petition notes the arguments in the ShoreRivers case, suggesting that the council’s approval of Resolution 281 relied on recommendations from the county planning commission and the public works advisory board that were based on a review of the draft permit.

A lawyer for Lakeside’s owner, Trappe East Holdings Business Trust, said it “strongly disagrees” with the premise of Petition 21-01.

“The County Public Works Advisory Board, Planning Commission and County Council reviewed complete information regarding the pending resolution and further considered the resolution after the County Council introduced Amendment No. 1,” attorney Ryan Showalter said in a statement. “One of the principal reasons the applicants initiated the Resolution 281 amendment was to update the provisions of the County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan to provide for current, state-of-the-art ENR wastewater treatment technology, rather than the BNR specification that has been in the County Plan since 2002.

“Contrary to TEHBT’s intention, the draft MDE discharge permit was written for BNR-level treatment, not the ENR treatment the developer intends to utilize,” he said. “If there was any inconsistency between MDE’s discharge permit actions and Resolution 281, it was the draft discharge permit, not the final permit, that was inconsistent.”

“The wastewater plans for Lakeside remain entirely consistent with Resolution 281, as adopted,” Showalter said.

The Talbot County Council discussed the petition during its May 11 meeting, with Vice President Pete Lesher seeking clarification on the process. Lesher was the only council member to vote against Resolution 281, which was approved 4-1 on Aug. 20, 2020.

Acting County Attorney Patrick Thomas said the council’s rules of procedure, Section VI, B, say that “once a petition has been presented to the secretary, it shall be certified, presented to the Council and numbered, and the secretary shall maintain a file on the petition.

“Pursuant to section nine of the rules, the secretary shall read the petition by name and title, as she has. And then at that point, the Council may, but is not required, to consider the petition and take any appropriate action,” he said.

Thomas said the petition was asking the council “to adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution Number 281 without prejudice. And under the Council’s rules of procedures, in order to initiate legislation, a member of the council would need to direct the county attorney to prepare” the legislation.

Councilman Corey Pack expressed concern about rescinding Resolution 281, suggesting that doing so could open the entire Lakeside property to immediate development.

“I think we worked very diligently with both the Trappe Planning Commission and the developer to come to a consensus on how the parcel will be built out. And 281 did that,” he said. “It split it up so that one-half will be developed in S-1 and the back half in S-2.

“Removing 281 and opening up that entire parcel up to S-1 development zoning is something that I dread,” Pack said. “I do not think that is advantageous to do that.”

During the process of reviewing Resolution 281 in 2020, the planning commission was told by County Engineer Ray Clarke that the Maryland Department of the Environment considered the entire Lakeside parcel suitable for S-1 designation. The parcel was given the W-2, S-2 designation in 2002, meaning it was suitable for development in three to five years.

Clarke also said during the 2020 review that while MDE put water and sewer plans in the county’s hands, the state agency has final approval. Even if the county had rejected Resolution 281, the town of Trappe could have gone directly to MDE and asked for its approval of the W-1, S-1 designations.

Thomas, in response to a question from Lesher, said a council member could tell him to prepare a resolution based on the petition or the council could gather additional information first.

Councilwoman Laura Price said additional information was needed.

“I think it makes sense for us to gather our own information and make sure that everything is fact based,” she said. “And I think we also understand that this is remanded back to MDE to look at this permit again. So I think it would make sense to wait and see what happens with that and meanwhile gather our own information and we’ll go from there.”

In public comments, Dan Watson, who initiated the petition, said it had been signed by more than 60 people, along with the Talbot Preservation Alliance, as of mid-afternoon May 11.

Watson said he had asked to present the petition to the council, in addition to the secretary’s reading of the short title, but that request was ignored.

While the petition involves the Lakeside project, Watson said “I’m not here to try to stop it, but to see things go right. This petition is about protecting the integrity of Talbot County and its review processes.

“So the purpose is to introduce the resolution so that, in Ms. Price’s words, we can get the information and look into it,” he said. “It isn’t the case that one gets information and looks into it and analyzes it and talks with the planning commission and hears from the public and the public works advisory board in order to determine whether or not to introduce a resolution. It is a resolution is introduced and sets in motion that process.”

In a subsequent letter, Watson said the county council had mishandled the petition by not allowing him to present it.

The council’s rules of procedure (at Section XIII, C) say “When petitions are made to the Council, the persons or parties presenting same shall have the opportunity to state their case by presenting witnesses, exhibits, and other evidence.”

“I am sure the Council will not argue that accepting an unannounced, time-limited phone call from me an hour later, during the public comment period of the meeting, fulfills that requirement,” Watson said in his May 21 letter.

He also suggested that “proper submission of a Petition in and of itself initiates a regular legislative action, and does not require the more familiar step of a Council Member introducing the proposal ….”

But the council’s rules of procedure do not seem to suggest that. Even if the rules did, the state constitution does not allow citizens to initiate legislation.

Section 216 of the Talbot County Charter would have allowed voters to put proposed legislation on the ballot via direct initiative, but the state’s highest court ruled that section unconstitutional in a 1988 case. The Maryland Court of Appeals has repeatedly ruled that voters may not initiate local legislation, including legislation disguised as charter amendments.

New Hearing Ordered on Lakeside Wastewater Discharge Permit

by

Those worried about the potential for water pollution from a massive residential and commercial development planned in Trappe will get another chance to voice their concerns.

A Talbot County Circuit Court judge has ordered the Maryland Department of the Environment to hold another hearing and give the public another opportunity to comment on sewage discharge plans for Lakeside, a proposed community of 2,501 homes and apartments plus a shopping center, in the small town of Trappe.

The April 27 ruling by Judge Stephen Kehoe came in a case filed by ShoreRivers, which had appealed the groundwater discharge permit the MDE had issued to Lakeside’s developer, Trappe East Holdings Business Trust. Development plans called for discharging treated wastewater by spraying it on fields of orchard grass in a corner of the 860-acre tract near the headwaters of Miles Creek, a tributary of the Choptank River.

Lawyers for the developer and the town of Trappe had filed a joint consent to ShoreRivers request that the permit be sent back to the MDE for further review.

State regulators originally granted the project a wastewater discharge permit in 2005, around the time Trappe voters approved annexing the undeveloped land into town limits. Development plans stalled after that, but the MDE tentatively approved a new permit in 2019 and finalized it in December 2020.

ShoreRivers contended that the final permit was different in key respects from the version MDE asked the public to comment on in 2019. The final permit was based on a nutrient management plan that spells out the terms and limitations of the treated wastewater spraying — but that plan was submitted after the public comment period had ended, and the MDE refused ShoreRivers’ requests to reopen the case.

“The nutrient management plan is a core component of the permit,” said Matt Pluta, the Choptank Riverkeeper. “Whether or not the details in [the plan] are adequate in protecting water quality warranted a review from the public.”

The final permit required the developer’s proposed sewage treatment plant to use enhanced nutrient removal, significantly lowering the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the wastewater before spraying it on up to 88 acres of grassy fields. The developer also was directed to build a lagoon to store wastewater for up to 75 days during winter and other times of the year when it’s raining or too windy to spray.

Pluta conceded that those changes could reduce chances of degrading nearby waterways. But he and others still question whether the system would prevent pollution from getting into the creek or the Choptank, both of which are already impaired by nutrients.

MDE spokesman Jay Apperson said the state regulatory agency will comply with the court order. But he added that the MDE “has not yet determined when the public comment period will open, and we have not yet scheduled a public hearing.”

The ruling put on hold a separate lawsuit filed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation challenging the MDE’s approval of the Lakeside discharge permit. CBF spokesman AJ Metcalf said the environmental group would pause its litigation while new comments are taken on the permit.

“We welcome this additional opportunity for the public to weigh in on the nutrient management plan associated with this project’s discharge permit, as well as another chance to comment on the terms and conditions of the permit,” said Alan Girard, CBF’s Eastern Shore director.

Lawyers for the developer of Lakeside and for the town of Trappe did not respond to emails seeking comment.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Enviro Congressional Scorecard: Good Grades for Dems, a Zero for Rep. Harris

by

The League of Conservation Voters released its annual congressional scorecard Thursday, and the Maryland delegation lined up about as expected:

Six House Democrats — Reps. Steny H. Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie B. Raskin, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, John P. Sarbanes and David J. Trone — received perfect 100% scores. Rep. Anthony G. Brown (D) got 95% on the scorecard, and the state’s two senators, Benjamin L. Cardin and Chris Van Hollen, both Democrats, scored 92% grades.

Rep. Andy Harris

The lone Republican in Maryland’s congressional delegation, Rep. Andrew P. Harris, got a zero.

Harris’ lifetime score from LCV is 3%, while the Democrats’ range from 82% (Hoyer) to 99% (Raskin).

“President Biden has wasted no time putting climate at the top of his agenda to protect our future,” Maryland LCV’s executive director, Kim Coble, said in a statement. “Thankfully we have representatives who have stood up for Maryland’s values and put our future first. But Representative Andy Harris continues to side with corporate polluters over Maryland’s health and environment.”

According to LCV, the scores were tabulated using 21 House votes that advanced pro-environmental and pro-democracy bills, provisions, and government funding. In the Senate, for the fourth year in a row, the majority of the 13 scored votes were based on nominations both to the federal bench and the Trump administration.

The scorecard also includes votes on removing public monuments to racism and policing and criminal justice reform. LCV leaders say racism and environmental justice issues are increasingly intertwined.

Nationally, the U.S. Senate, which was under Republican control in 2020, had a 46% score from LCV. The House, which was in Democratic hands, scored 59% collectively.

“In an incredibly difficult and unprecedented year and with the most anti-environmental president ever, pro-environment members of the 116th Congress paved the way for transformational action on climate and environmental justice,” said LCV Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Tiernan Sittenfeld.

By Josh Kurtz

Environmental Concern Joins Global Wetlands Celebration

by

The professionals at Environmental Concern work every day to advance wetland restoration and education in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. One of the many ways they do this is by raising awareness of the importance of wetlands for water quality and natural habitat within the watershed community.

On February 2nd, Environmental Concern (EC) joined more than two thousand Wetlands of International Importance in 171 countries as well as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Wetland Centers and environmental facilities across the US to celebrate World Wetlands Day.

World Wetlands Day commemorates the signing of the Convention on Wetlands on February 2, 1971, in Ramsar, Iran. The Convention on Wetlands is a global treaty supporting the conservation and wise use of wetlands, and the designation of ‘Wetlands of International Importance’ (“Ramsar Sites”). The Sites are recognized for rare and unique habitat, wildlife, and biological diversity. The United States has designated forty-one Ramsar Sites since 1986, covering more than five million acres of wetland habitat.

Photo: Front row – Chris Blizzard, Connor Burton, Chris Oakes, Marcia Pradines (refuge manager), Ashley Roe, Suzanne Pittenger-Slear (EC president); Back row – Lyndsey Pollock, John Sandkuhler, Sam Eisenhower, Joe Miller, Nick Sparacino, Anne Sindermann, Josie Aikey and Gene Slear.

The World Wetland Theme this year is Inseparable: Wetlands, Water and Life, which shines a spotlight on wetlands as a source of freshwater and encourages actions to restore wetlands.

“We are fortunate to have a Ramsar site here on Maryland’s eastern shore,” said EC president Suzanne Pittenger-Slear. The Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Complex, which includes Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, was designated as a ‘Wetland of International Importance’ in 1986. The refuge consists of more than 30,000 acres of tidal marsh, loblolly pine forests, and freshwater wetlands, and serves as an essential stopover for migrating and wintering waterfowl. The Wildlife Drive, which includes access to four trails, is open daily from sunrise to sunset. “The winter season offers amazing views of the vast wetland ecosystems and natural habitats,” said Pittenger-Slear. Learn about the importance of wetlands by planning a family outing to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge this month (check website for hours of operation). World Wetlands Day events continue through the month of February. The US activities are posted here:https://www.worldwetlandsday.org/events.

Each year, Pittenger-Slearcoordinates an annual trip to Blackwater NWRon World Wetlands Day with Refuge Manager, Marcia Pradines. This year, Pradines greeted 15 members of EC’s staff in front of the refuge Visitor’s Center before they started their journey on the four-mile Wildlife Drive. Pradines reported that just after sunrise, the refuge staff counted over twelve thousand snow geese (Chen caerulescens), three white pelicans (Pelecanuserythrorhynchos), and two hundred tundra swans (Cygnus columbiannus). Watching the white pelicans resting along the shoreline on the Blackwater River was an amazing sight. The group also observed two adult eagles in a nest in a loblolly pine tree (Pinustaeda) near the Wildlife Drive. “We were all so excited to see the majestic eagles in their natural habitat,” said Pittenger-Slear. The refuge is the center of the largest density of breeding bald eagles on the east coast, north of Florida.

The trip offered EC staff the opportunity to see firsthand the impact of their work for wetlands. Whether working in the nursery growing thousands of native plants, getting wet and muddy restoring living shorelines, or organizing events to educate the community –they all left the refuge with a heightened awareness of the significance of their work and the understanding that their work serves a broader purpose that goes far beyond the borders of EC’s campus.

For more information about World Wetlands Day, visit: www.worldwetlandsday.org. Free posters and activities are available to download from the site.

Environmental Concern is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation established in 1972 to promote public understanding and stewardship of wetlands with the goal of improving water quality and enhancing nature’s habitat. For the last 49 years, Environmental Concern has been working to restore the Bay…one wetland at a time.

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

Bay Foundation Challenges Wastewater Permit for Lakeside Development in Trappe

by

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) filed a lawsuit against the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) contesting the legality of the wastewater discharge permit it issued for Lakeside at Trappe. ShoreRivers also is challenging the discharge permit.

The permit, which MDE approved in December, allows the proposed 2,500 home and commercial development in Talbot County to use spray irrigation over farm fields to dispose of treated wastewater, CBF said in a press release.

Under the permit the development can spray up to 540,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day over the fields. The treated wastewater must contain no more than 3 mg/L of nitrogen and 0.3 mg/L of phosphorus on average before being applied to the fields.

While this is the standard for wastewater plants disposing of treated wastewater, the current assumption for wastewater disposed onto fields — as is proposed in this project — is no net pollutants once it leaves the field, according to CBF. Nitrogen and phosphorus from treated wastewater can fuel harmful algal blooms in local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay that create oxygen-deprived dead zones inhospitable to marine life.

In a press release, CBF outlined two primary concerns related to this method of wastewater disposal.

The first is that the department did not fully account for the connection between groundwater and surface water. Multiple studies have shown that even under the best conditions, nutrient pollutants applied to agricultural land can reach nearby streams through shallow aquifers under farm fields.

However, MDE asserted, without sufficient evidence, that the nitrogen and phosphorus in the wastewater will be taken up by crops in the spray field, according to CBF. MDE contends that this will effectively result in “zero net discharge” of pollutants to local waterways, which may enable the development and MDE to bypass requirements to reduce pollutants under the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, also known as the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load.

Neither the department, nor the developer has effectively proven that this plan to dispose wastewater won’t increase pollutants entering the Bay.

The second issue is that MDE did not publish the nutrient management plan for the project during the public comment period. The plan is intended to demonstrate how the proposed development would use specific crops to take up nutrients in the wastewater being sprayed on the field to prevent them from entering nearby waterways.

Instead, MDE accepted the plan after the public comment period was closed and deemed it “satisfactory” without providing the public with an opportunity to weigh in on it, CBF said in a press release.

The development is being built near Miles Creek and the Choptank River. The Lower Choptank River is already impaired by sediments, nutrient pollutants, and fecal coliform in its tidal portions.

“The department’s approval of this wastewater permit sets a risky new precedent enabling large developments to use spray irrigation to bypass Bay pollution reduction requirements,” Alan Girard, CBF’s Maryland Eastern Shore director, said. “We already know legacy pollutants such as fertilizer, manure, and chemicals can seep from the ground via groundwater and flow into nearby streams and creeks. However, by claiming the Bay TMDL that obligates Maryland to reduce pollution is not applicable to wastewater treatment plants that use spray irrigation, the department has basically ignored that fact.

“This appears to circumvent established state policy to manage water quality. The state must account for pollution from septic systems that discharge to groundwater, but by obtaining a state groundwater discharge permit to spray irrigate instead, developers will be able to ignore these limits,” Girard said. “We are deeply disturbed that the department will not close this loophole that allows the state to disregard Bay restoration requirements.

“MDE must also follow its own public notice regulations, which it did not do in this case. While the department did eventually make the nutrient management plan for this project available, it did not do so when the formal public comment period was open as required by law,” he said. “This is unfair to those who could be affected by the pollution that this project could generate, and we are asking the court to recognize this fact. There are substantive issues with the plan and its application here which could have been addressed through the public notice and comment process.”

Petition for Judicial Review 2-1-21

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

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

×

Make a DonationMaybe later