Environment and Transportation Committee Environment Subcommittee Agenda Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:00 A.M

Environment and Transportation Committee Environment Subcommittee Agenda Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:00 a.m. Virtual Briefing

I. Opening Remarks

Delegate Kumar Barve Chair, Environment and Transportation Committee

Delegate Dana Stein Vice Chair, Environment and Transportation Committee

II. State of the Bay

Alison Prost Vice President, Environmental Protection & Restoration, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Ann Pesiri Swanson Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay Commission

III. Q&A

IV. Closing Remarks and Adjournment Chesapeake Bay Blueprint What Maryland Needs To Finish the Job 2019 Snapshot of CBF Chesapeake Bay Blueprint How Far We Have Come! Watershed Progress Maryland Progress • Increased rainfall and more frequent severe storms create dangerous emergencies and nuisance flooding

• The effects of climate change will make Bay restoration harder, requiring additional reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution

• Maryland and other Bay jurisdictions must describe how to make these extra cuts by 2022

Photo Credit: Troy Wenger

Emerging Threat: Climate Change Sneak Peek | State of the Bay Sneak Peek | State of the Bay Trees filter pollutants from water and air and sequester carbon

They are one of the most cost- effective nutrient reduction strategies for agriculture

Trees slow and strain stormwater runoff, reduce power use, and cool urban heat desserts

Maryland’s forests capture 11.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year

2021 Legislative Priorities • In early September, CBF and partners filed a complaint against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to require Pennsylvania and New York to develop plans to sufficiently reduce pollution as was required by the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.

• Underscoring the damage this will cause for Bay restoration efforts, Attorneys General in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia filed separate suit in the same court.

• EPA’s acceptance of Pennsylvania’s and New York's plans last year was a violation of the agency’s responsibilities. EPA should either have required the states to design plans to fully meet the pollution reduction goals, or imposed consequences.

Holding EPA Accountable Priorities Include:

• Regulatory programs that should be overturned and/or strengthened

• Funding for Bay relevant programs

• Climate Change and Environmental Justice initiatives

• Faithful implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill & directing more resources to Pennsylvania

What Comes Next in D.C. Thank You.

Alison Prost, [email protected] Robin Clark Eilenberg, [email protected] Photo Credit: Luke Costabile Erik Fisher, [email protected]

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 1

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

CHESAPEAKE BAY

2020 State of the Blueprint

A healthy Bay, clean streams, and resilient rivers are in reach, but the road to finishing the job is steep.

The historic Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint is our last, best chance to save the Bay and achieve the fishable, swimmable waters guaranteed by the Clean Water Act. Its success is critical to our region’s health, economy, outdoor heritage, and quality of life.

But are the Bay states on track to reduce pollution by the Blueprint’s 2025 deadline? Our State of the Blueprint report looks at the progress made, and the progress still critically needed, in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, which together account for roughly 90 percent of the Bay's pollution.

Overall, Maryland and Virginia are currently on track to meet their pollution-reduction commitments. However, their progress to date has relied heavily on improvements at wastewater treatment plants, and they must accelerate efforts to reduce pollution from agriculture and urban and suburban areas to finish the job and maintain long-term water quality. Pennsylvania remains far off track largely because state lawmakers have not provided the resources necessary to help farmers implement conservation practices that reduce pollution, threatening the Blueprint’s success. The Bay jurisdictions and EPA must take action now if we are going to leave a legacy of clean water to future generations.

Read the State of the Blueprint press release.

About the Blueprint

The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint is the historic federal/state plan established in 2010 to restore the Bay’s water quality. Among other things, it outlines three very important requirements.

1. Pollution limits for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), known as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). 2. Plans to meet those limits developed by each of the six Bay states and the District of Columbia, known as Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) and referred to here as state Clean Water Blueprints. 3. Milestones—two-year, incremental goals to keep progress on track.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 2

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

The Blueprint calls for all Bay jurisdictions to have in place, by 2025, the practices and policies necessary to meet the Bay's pollution limits. The jurisdictions are currently implementing their final state Clean Water Blueprints (Phase III WIPs) to achieve the remaining pollution reductions.

The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint is working, and over the long term, polluted runoff in many areas is decreasing along with summer dead zones. But the road to finishing the job is steep.

What We Found

We assessed progress in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—the three states that account for roughly 90 percent of Bay pollution.

First, we used EPA’s scientific model to estimate pollution reductions made between 2009 and 2019. For each state, we assessed both the total pollution reductions made statewide, as well as the reductions made by each sector (i.e., agriculture, wastewater, etc.) to determine if current trends put them on track to meet the 2025 Blueprint goals. This is an important distinction. While significant progress in one sector may put a state on track to meet its total 2025 goals today, without progress in all sectors, states risk becoming off track in the future.

Second, we looked at how well the states implemented the practices and programs outlined in their two- year milestone goals for the 2018-2019 period—in other words, the specific actions they committed to take to get the job done.

While Maryland and Virginia are on track today, achieving the 2025 goals will require the states to accelerate pollution reductions from agriculture and urban and suburban runoff. Pennsylvania is far off track.

Maryland is currently on track to meet its overall pollution-reduction targets by 2025, due mostly to investments in better farm management practices and wastewater treatment technology. However, pollution from urban and suburban development and the impacts of climate change challenge the long- term health of Maryland’s waterways. To stay on track, the state must prioritize restoration efforts that are long-lasting, cost-effective, and geographically targeted where the investments will have the best water-quality results.

Pennsylvania is not on track to achieve its 2025 goals. Despite success in reducing pollution from wastewater treatment plants, it is not enough to make up for the massive need to reduce pollution from agriculture, which accounts for roughly 93 percent of the total remaining nitrogen reductions necessary to meet the Commonwealth’s commitments. The Commonwealth is significantly behind in helping farmers implement the practices necessary to reduce pollution. If there is any chance of success, this must change.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 3

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Overall, Virginia is currently on track to achieve its 2025 goals to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution due largely to reductions from wastewater treatment plants. However, it risks getting off track unless it accelerates efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural sources and urban and suburban development and continues to make additional pollution reductions from wastewater treatment plants. The Commonwealth has a strong plan to make these reductions, but the plan must be implemented.

Progress Toward Pollution-Reduction Goals

We used EPA's scientific model to estimate pollution reductions made between 2009 and 2019 and if those reductions are on a trajectory to meet the 2025 goals, both statewide and for each sector. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia's pollution-reduction progress is summarized in the table below. Together, the three states account for roughly 90 percent of the Bay's pollution.

Pollution-reduction progress is assessed with modeled estimates of the benefits from implemented practices such as upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, best management practices like cover crops and streamside forested buffers on agricultural lands, and stormwater practices, like rain gardens, in urban areas. The “Total” progress for each state is assessed against the overall pollution-reduction target EPA assigned each state in order to meet the Blueprint goals by 2025. Each state is responsible for dividing EPA’s total allotment among the various pollution sources (sectors) in their state Clean Water Blueprints (Watershed Implementation Plans, or WIPs). The progress for each sector (i.e. agriculture) is therefore assessed against the pollution- reduction target assigned to it in the states’ most recent Phase III WIPs.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 4

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

MARYLAND

MICHAEL HELLER/CBF STAFF Maryland’s Blueprint for Clean Water Is Maryland on track to meet its 2025 pollution-reduction commitments?

See where things stand in Maryland below, and learn about the current and future challenges we face.

Maryland’s Progress Toward Pollution Reductions

We used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) scientific model to estimate pollution reductions made between 2009 and 2019 to determine if current trends are on track to meet the 2025 Blueprint goals, both statewide and for each sector. Maryland’s pollution-reduction progress is summarized in the table below. Wastewater treatment plant upgrades are the main reason the state is on

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 5

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

track. Maryland needs to accelerate efforts in pollution reduction from agriculture and urban/suburban runoff.

Evaluating Maryland’s Milestone Commitments

After examining the results of EPA's scientific model to estimate pollution reductions statewide and for each sector (see chart above), we evaluated Maryland’s implementation of the programmatic commitments it made in its 2018-2019 milestone goals—in other words, the practices and programs the state will use to get the job done. The following is our analysis of key Maryland commitments.

WASTEWATER Maryland's updated Clean Water Blueprint (Phase III WIP) leans even more heavily on cuts to pollution from wastewater treatment plants. An exceptionally rainy period in 2018 and 2019 temporarily elevated phosphorus levels from wastewater, exposing how little margin for error exists in this sector. Pollution from septic systems remains a persistent problem.

Commitment: Upgrade nutrient removal technology at wastewater treatment plants to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

Progress: ON TRACK

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 6

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Steps Taken: The state and local jurisdictions have completed technology upgrades at 64 of Maryland’s 67 largest plants and are ahead of schedule working on smaller facilities across the state.

Steps Needed: Maryland must establish consistently lower phosphorus discharges at the newly upgraded Patapsco plant, one of the state’s largest. Increased investment in staffing and materials at plants across the state would help wastewater treatment operators optimize nutrient removal technology to reduce even more pollution.

Commitment: Improve programs to upgrade septic systems and extend sewer lines.

Progress: IN DANGER OF BEING OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: The state has established programs and funding sources for both efforts, but installation of Bay-friendly septic systems has slipped over the past few years. The state met only 57 percent of its installation goal for Fiscal Year 2020. Work to connect homes to sewer lines, however, is accelerating.

Steps Needed: Concrete plans are needed to upgrade or retire septic systems in neighborhoods struggling with this source of pollution. MDE and local governments should engage communities in conversations about phasing in and financing new sewer lines while controlling future growth.

URBAN/SUBURBAN POLLUTED RUNOFF Due to new development and lagging efforts to reduce pollution in established neighborhoods, polluted runoff from stormwater is increasing and will be Maryland’s second largest source of nitrogen pollution by 2025.

Commitment: Issue new permits with updated requirements to treat polluted runoff in urban and suburban areas.

Progress: OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: Polluted runoff from construction sites and developed areas is managed under permits issued by MDE. These permits expired in 2019 and contain outdated protection and restoration requirements.

Steps Needed: The state must issue new permits as soon as possible. These include: the permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), which should increase the use of natural filters like bioswales and tree plantings in developed areas, as well as replacing paved surfaces with pervious ones; the Construction General permit for stormwater from construction sites, which should include stronger protections for Maryland’s highest-quality creeks and streams; and the Industrial General permit for

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 7

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

stormwater discharged from industrial facilities, which should ensure vulnerable communities do not suffer disproportionately from toxics in industrial runoff.

AGRICULTURE Ongoing pollution-reduction efforts from farmers are a critical part of Maryland’s strategy to meet its 2025 goals. Success with in-field management practices, like cover crops, must be maintained, and installation of natural filters, like pastures and streamside buffers, must increase.

Commitment: Improve documentation and increase implementation of best management practices to decrease nitrogen pollution from farms.

Progress: IN DANGER OF BEING OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: The Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) checks nearly 20 percent of Maryland’s farms annually to see if they follow plans to manage fertilizer and manure, two big sources of nitrogen pollution. More farmers are using best management practices that reduce pollution, but it remains the primary source of pollution in some rural regions.

Steps Needed: MDA should accelerate long-term solutions, like cost-effective forested stream buffers and pastures that filter pollution before it reaches the water. The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation in 2020 to support installation of natural filters and practices to improve soil-health, which will help.

CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is a real and imminent threat to the Chesapeake Bay, bringing warmer water temperatures, rising seas levels, and more extreme rainfall. Maryland must reduce additional pollution to offset the impacts of a warming climate and ensure that management practices are resilient in the face of increasingly intense weather events.

Commitment: Coordinate education, funding, and regulations to address the harmful impacts of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay.

Progress: ON TRACK

Steps Taken: Maryland is working with EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program to update scientific models to predict climate change impacts on the Bay. The state initiated the Maryland Climate Leadership Academy to educate and train state and local leaders on climate issues, and the General Assembly authorized local jurisdictions to create Resilience Authorities to raise funds for climate change mitigation projects.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 8

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Maryland is also part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which aims to reduce emissions that drive climate change.

Steps Needed: Significant new initiatives to reduce pollution and moderate climate change will likely be needed, such as the interstate Transportation & Climate Initiative and a statewide tree-planting effort first proposed in the 2020 General Assembly session. The state’s regulations for controlling polluted stormwater runoff may also need strengthening to address new precipitation patterns brought on by climate change.

Finishing the Job in Maryland

Maryland’s record of dedicated funding, protective laws, and engaged communities puts the state on a trajectory to meet its 2025 pollution reduction goals. But these accomplishments will not be enough to sustain clean water over the long-term.

The impacts of climate change, along with continued deforestation due to land development, leave a gap in the state’s strategy to maintain progress over time. The state must prioritize restoration efforts that are long-lasting, cost-effective, and geographically targeted where the investments will have the best water-quality results. Action is needed now to protect forests and plant more trees, improve soil health on farms, and provide technical assistance to farmers and local governments to fully achieve Maryland’s clean-water goals.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 9

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

VIRGINIA

WILL PARSON/CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM Virginia’s Blueprint for Clean Water Is Virginia on track to meet its 2025 pollution-reduction commitments?

See where things stand in the Commonwealth below and learn about the current and future challenges we face.

Virginia's Progress Toward Pollution Reductions

We used EPA's scientific model to estimate pollution reductions made between 2009 and 2019 to determine if current trends are on track to meet the 2025 Blueprint goals, both statewide and for each sector. Virginia's pollution-reduction progress is summarized in the table below. Wastewater treatment

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 10

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

plant upgrades in Virginia have kept the state on track to meet its goals so far. But Virginia must accelerate efforts in pollution reduction from agriculture and urban/suburban runoff to stay on track.

Evaluating Virginia's Milestone Commitments

After examining the results of EPA's scientific model to estimate pollution reductions statewide and for each sector (see chart above), we looked at how well the states have implemented the programmatic commitments they made in their 2018-2019 milestone goals—in other words, the practices and programs they will use to get the job done. The following is our analysis of key Virginia commitments.

WASTEWATER The wastewater sector accounts for more than 25 percent of Virginia’s nitrogen pollution overall. It makes up an even larger share of pollution in the James and York river watersheds, where wastewater treatment levels lag behind other tributaries. Virginia must continue cutting wastewater pollution to achieve its 2025 pollution reduction goals.

Commitment: Virginia did not set new milestone goals for the wastewater sector in 2018 because, by that time, the pollution-reduction targets for that sector had already been met. Still, the midpoint analysis of progress released by EPA in 2018, the shortfalls in other sectors, and local water-quality conditions suggest more pollution reductions are needed from wastewater to achieve the Commonwealth’s goals.

Progress: IN DANGER OF BEING OFF TRACK

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 11

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Steps Taken: Virginia has made substantial progress in the wastewater sector and identified initiatives to achieve additional reductions in its Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), also known as the Virginia Clean Water Blueprint.

Steps Needed: Virginia must finalize updates to the Watershed General Permit that will establish new pollution limits for wastewater plants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This action will incentivize further pollution reductions from wastewater plants directly and through Virginia’s strong nutrient trading program. Innovative technology, including an initiative in Hampton Roads to use treated wastewater to recharge groundwater, provides exciting potential. Related milestone goals to connect more homes to sewers and address pollution from septic tanks still need to be achieved.

URBAN/SUBURBAN POLLUTED RUNOFF Growing urban and suburban areas contribute new polluted runoff to Virginia’s waterways, offsetting most of the progress made to control polluted runoff from existing cities and neighborhoods.

Commitment: Revise and reissue important permits to control polluted runoff from developed areas, including the Arlington Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, Phase II MS4 General Permit, and the Construction General Permit.

Progress: OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: The Commonwealth reissued the Construction General Permit, which regulates polluted runoff from construction sites, and the Phase II MS4 General Permit, which sets requirements for controlling polluted runoff from smaller urban areas. The Virginia State Water Control Board also directed the Department of Environmental Quality to establish measurable standards for water clarity that are needed to protect Virginia waters from sediment pollution.

Steps Needed: Virginia needs to promptly revise and reissue all 11 Phase I MS4 permits—which are issued to cover stormwater systems in localities with more than 100,000 people. Virginia has not reissued the Arlington MS4 Permit, which sets new, more stringent polluted runoff requirements for Arlington County, despite a commitment to do so by June 2020. Further, four other Phase I MS4 permits have been administratively continued, meaning the existing permits were allowed to extend beyond their expiration because the Commonwealth did not reissue new permits. This is a substantial and unacceptable delay to addressing Virginia’s 2025 pollution-reduction commitments, and the Commonwealth must avoid further delay.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 12

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Commitment: Issue Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF) grants to provide money to municipalities to address polluted runoff.

Progress: ON TRACK

Steps Taken: In early 2020, Virginia made a historic step to support the SLAF program by approving an appropriation of $50 million in cost-share dollars, although the 2020 pandemic has created uncertainty regarding that full appropriation. Pollution reductions from urban and suburban runoff must accelerate in coming years, and this funding will be critical to the success of local governments.

Steps Needed: Virginia must continue robust support for the SLAF program in the future. Further, the SLAF guidelines should be revised to allow support for grantees’ removal of nitrogen (as well as phosphorus) pollution as part of the evaluation criteria for funding.

AGRICULTURE Agriculture represents nearly 70 percent of the remaining pollution reductions Virginia must make to meet its Blueprint goals.

Commitment: Track and report progress to keep livestock out of streams.

Progress: ON TRACK

Steps Taken: Virginia passed legislation that sets a clear goal to exclude cattle from all perennial streams and established an approach to evaluate the remaining work. Virginia farmers continue to implement livestock exclusion practices, such as fencing and streamside buffers, that are critical for improving water quality and stream health.

Steps Needed: Virginia must increase funding for agricultural best management practices and accelerate efforts to achieve its goals for excluding livestock from streams and planting streamside buffers.

Commitment: Evaluate farms where poultry are raised in confinement—known as Poultry Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)—and issue individual permits for facilities that need enhanced oversight due to polluted runoff violations.

Progress: OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: Virginia has taken steps through the reissuance of the statewide general permit for confined poultry operations to improve reporting of poultry waste by end-users, who store or utilize the waste for fertilizer or other purposes. However, the permit has not been finalized. Virginia also issued individual permits for two facilities within the Bay watershed that were discharging pollution in violation of the general permit.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 13

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Steps Needed: Virginia failed to complete an evaluation of AFO facilities or provide an update on progress in its final report on implementation of the 2018-19 milestone goals. Increased inspections and monitoring are needed to adequately determine if facilities are discharging pollution and need enhanced oversight. Further, Virginia still has not addressed ammonia emissions—a source of nitrogen pollution— from the growing poultry industry. Through the general permit, Virginia should require poultry operations to report their use of materials added to poultry manure and other waste, known as litter additives, that can reduce ammonia emissions and begin addressing this substantial threat to water quality.

PLANNING AND GROWTH Providing a clear plan to address growing sources of pollution represents a critical component of Virginia’s Clean Water Blueprint (Phase III WIP) to achieve water- quality goals.

Commitment: Virginia did not set any specific milestones related to growth.

Progress: IN DANGER OF BEING OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: Virginia’s Blueprint considered forecasted growth and established several goals related to accounting for additional pollution. Specifically, Virginia committed to re-evaluate post-construction standards to control polluted runoff from new development, although this has not been initiated.

Steps Needed: Virginia should establish milestones that specifically contemplate growth. Poultry facilities, new urban and suburban development, and solar power expansion all represent growing sources that need specific regulatory attention to ensure sustainable growth. An evaluation of new post- construction standards should be undertaken and promptly completed.

CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is a real and imminent threat to the Chesapeake Bay, including warmer water temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme rainfall. These changes will make Bay restoration harder, requiring additional reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution by 2025.

Commitment: Virginia did not issue any specific climate change milestone commitments.

Progress: ON TRACK

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 14

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Steps Taken: While it did not set a specific milestone commitment for the 2018-2019 period, Virginia did plan for the additional pollution that will result from climate change in its final Virginia Clean Water Blueprint (Phase III WIP). Virginia has also taken important steps by joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to reduce emissions that drive climate change and establishing funds to help communities prepare for floods. Still, more work is needed.

Steps Needed: Runoff standards need to address new precipitation levels, water-quality standards need to incorporate new conditions and Virginia needs to ensure our restoration effort will be effective in a changing climate.

Finishing the Job in Virginia

Virginia’s Clean Water Blueprint (Phase III WIP) is a strong roadmap for getting the job done by 2025. The plan calls for comprehensive efforts to address agricultural pollution, including increased and more effective financial and technical support for farmers, as well as future requirements to exclude livestock from streams and improve fertilizer and manure management. The plan also proposes to address polluted runoff through improvements to post-construction standards for new developments. Finally, the plan identifies a clear pathway to reduce pollution from wastewater treatment facilities across the Commonwealth, providing reasonable assurance that the 2025 goal will be met.

The key is implementation. Virginia took some critical steps in the past two years by passing legislation to support agricultural best management practices and appropriating significant funding for all sectors. Still, important steps remain, including developing regulations that ensure future wastewater reductions, establishing dedicated funding for all sectors, and protecting and restoring natural filters such as forests and wetlands in a changing climate. Virginia has made tremendous progress towards improving its rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, but decision makers and the Bay partnership need to finish the job.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 15

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

PENNSYLVANIA

WILL PARSON/CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM Pennsylvania’s Blueprint for Clean Water Is Pennsylvania on track to meet its 2025 pollution-reduction commitments?

Pennsylvania is not on track to achieve its 2025 goals. Despite success in reducing pollution from wastewater treatment plants, it is not enough to make up for the massive need to reduce pollution from agriculture, which accounts for roughly 93 percent of the total remaining nitrogen reductions the Commonwealth must make to meet the Blueprint goals. The Commonwealth is significantly behind in helping farmers implement the practices necessary to reduce pollution. If there is any chance of success, this must change.

See where things stand in Pennsylvania below and learn about the current and future challenges we face.

Pennsylvania's Progress Toward Pollution Reductions

We used EPA's scientific model to estimate pollution reductions made between 2009 and 2019 to determine if current trends are on track to meet the 2025 Blueprint goals, both statewide and for each sector. Pennsylvania's pollution-reduction progress is summarized in the table below. Wastewater

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 16

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

treatment plant upgrades are on pace to meet pollution-reduction goals for that sector ahead of schedule. But the Commonwealth is significantly behind in implementing the practices necessary to reduce pollution from urban and suburban stormwater runoff and agriculture, the latter of which accounts for the vast majority of the pollution it must reduce.

Evaluating Pennsylvania's Milestone Commitments

WASTEWATER Pennsylvania is on pace to meet its 2025 Blueprint goals for wastewater ahead of schedule, largely by installing better technology at treatment plants or purchasing credits that reduce their contribution to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

Commitment: Include pollution limits, called cap loads, for permits issued to wastewater treatment plants under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Progress: ON TRACK

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 17

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Steps Taken: Pennsylvania achieved this milestone by including pollution limits for the 190 publicly- owned wastewater treatment plants in their NPDES permits, which regulate water pollution.

Steps Needed: Expanding Pennsylvania’s existing program to help wastewater plants optimize the practices and procedures they use to remove nutrients would help further reduce pollution. While the approach can vary depending on the plant, some examples of optimization techniques include changes to computer programming and more precise regulation of water temperature at key points of the treatment process.

URBAN/SUBURBAN POLLUTED RUNOFF Many of Pennsylvania’s small, local stormwater systems—called Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)—have undersized and aging infrastructure. As more land is developed, polluted runoff is increasing. Existing developed areas in urbanized communities continue to contribute polluted runoff to streams and rivers. Finally, while many communities aren’t big enough to require an MS4 permit, collectively they make up a large part of the pollution load from this sector.

Commitment: Complete initial reviews of Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plans, submitted by municipalities in September 2017, and ensure they are implemented.

Progress: IN DANGER OF BEING OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) required roughly 360 municipal stormwater systems to produce Pollutant Reduction Plans that address water-quality problems in local streams and the Bay—a substantial step toward meeting Blueprint goals. By the end of 2019, DEP had completed the initial review of all the submitted plans. However, the agency considers many of the plans to be deficient and is awaiting updates from the municipalities.

Steps Needed: The Commonwealth must not only ensure the plans are sound, but also ensure they are implemented.

Commitment: Provide guidance to encourage collaboration among and between municipal stormwater systems to achieve economically efficient pollution reductions in localized areas.

Progress: ON TRACK

Steps Taken: In the summer of 2019, Pennsylvania produced updated guidance to help municipalities meet their pollution-reduction goals through collaborative efforts with neighboring communities or nearby farmlands. The success of the guidance will likely be determined in the next few years.

Steps Needed: So far, most municipalities continue to address pollution independently, forgoing opportunities for cost-savings and coordination with neighboring local governments. There are a few

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 18

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

notable exceptions, as in Luzerne and Blair Counties, and the Williamsport area. Utilizing the guidance, municipalities should actively seek collaboration and coordination with neighboring communities and landowners.

AGRICULTURE Agriculture dominates much of Pennsylvania’s land in the Bay watershed, and the sector accounts for roughly 93 percent of the total remaining nitrogen reductions the Commonwealth must make to meet the Blueprint goals. Efforts to reduce pollution from farms continue to be significantly off track.

Commitment: Implement Agricultural Compliance and Enforcement Strategy to inspect farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and ensure they have plans to limit pollution from erosion, manure, and fertilizer.

Progress: IN DANGER OF BEING OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: In 2018-2019 the Commonwealth verified that 2,951 farms, representing about 10 percent of agricultural lands, had the required plans in place to control pollution from erosion, manure, and fertilizers. DEP’s Agricultural Planning Reimbursement Program has helped farms develop plans.

Steps Needed: The Commonwealth’s plan for a pilot project to assess if farms are fully implementing their plans is delayed. Many farms now require financial and technical assistance to establish the practices outlined in the plans. While farmers and conservation districts have made some progress, state lawmakers need to establish a dedicated, stable, state agricultural cost-share program to help farmers invest in conservation practices.

Commitment: Help farmers implement crop and soil management practices that improve long- term soil health.

Progress: ON TRACK

Steps Taken: Organizations working throughout Pennsylvania are helping farms increase soil organic matter and enhance soil structure in order to reduce erosion, nutrient and pesticide loss, and runoff to local streams draining to the Chesapeake Bay.

Steps Needed: Farms need dedicated, stable funding sources and practical information adapted to their region and production system to increase adoption of cover crops, conservation tillage, managed grazing and other practices.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 19

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

GROWTH The loss of forests and farmland to development, additional livestock and poultry farming, and increased vehicle emissions all add pollution to Pennsylvania’s local streams and the Bay.

Commitment: None

Progress: OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: Pennsylvania did not establish a stand-alone milestone to account for growth. Although the state has a nationally recognized farmland preservation program, managing growth and land use is especially challenging because these decisions are made by the more than 1,100 municipal governments in Pennsylvania’s portion of the Bay watershed.

Steps Needed: Local governments should update planning and zoning policies to preserve sensitive landscapes, like forest buffers; adopt ordinances that limit sprawl outside of towns; limit land disturbance and the creation of hard surfaces; and manage stormwater with green infrastructure practices. Climate change, particularly extreme rainfall, makes it imperative to address these challenges.

CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change will make the difficult job of restoring the Commonwealth’s rivers and streams and meeting its pollution-reduction commitments for the Bay even harder. Climate change in Pennsylvania likely will increase and intensify precipitation and runoff, and warm waters.

Commitment: None.

Progress: IN DANGER OF BEING OFF TRACK

Steps Taken: Pennsylvania did not establish a stand-alone 2018-19 milestone for climate change. In its final Pennsylvania Clean Water Blueprint (Phase III WIP), the state projected approximately 4 million pounds of additional nitrogen and 140,000 pounds of additional phosphorus pollution from climate change, largely due to increased runoff. The plan does outline a strategy to address it.

Steps Needed: Complete the process for joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an interstate effort to reduce carbon emissions from power generation that contribute to climate change. Additionally, updates to the state stormwater management manual, local ordinances, pollution-reduction plans for permitted municipal stormwater systems, and county stormwater plans will need to reflect the impacts of climate change.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 20

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Finishing the Job in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is on pace to achieve pollution-reduction goals for wastewater treatment plants. But to meet its overall Blueprint goals and improve local rivers and streams, the Commonwealth must fully address pollution from agriculture first and foremost, as well as urban and suburban runoff.

As finalized, the Commonwealth’s final Pennsylvania Clean Water Blueprint (Phase III WIP) falls roughly 27 percent short of its goal to reduce nitrogen pollution and has a self-identified $324 million annual funding shortfall.

The poor agricultural economy is a significant barrier that is hindering farms from adopting the conservation measures needed to reduce pollution. Despite dire need for a dedicated state cost-share program to help fund the design and implementation of farm conservation practices, the Commonwealth currently only has the Conservation Excellence Grant Program to support farms in York and Lancaster Counties. If there is any chance of success, this must change.

If it does not, Pennsylvania runs the risk of increased federal enforcement, such as increased regulations for livestock operations, industrial and municipal stormwater sources, and wastewater treatment plants. EPA could also shift or withhold grant funding for Pennsylvania, among other actions.

Keystone 10 Million Trees Partnership

Streamside forested buffers, with native trees and shrubs planted along waterways, are one of the most cost-effective practices for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution in both rural and urban landscapes. Pennsylvania committed to plant 95,000 acres of forested buffers by 2025. To reach this ambitious goal, CBF is coordinating the Keystone 10 Million Tree partnership, which galvanizes the expertise, experience, and muscle of national, regional, state, and local agencies; conservation organizations; outdoor enthusiasts; businesses; and citizens committed to improving Pennsylvania's communities, economy, and ecology. These buffers will support natural ecosystems, provide wildlife habitat, stabilize streambanks, improve soil health, and draw carbon from the atmosphere, in addition to capturing nutrient and sediment runoff before it reaches the water. Find out more at TenMillionTrees.org.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 21

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

J. PAUL WELCH Current and Future Challenges The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint is working, and over the long term, polluted runoff in many areas is decreasing along with summer dead zones. But the road to finishing the job is steep.

In addition to the unique challenges each state faces to meet the Blueprint goals, climate change threatens the Bay’s recovery, rollbacks of federal regulations hamper progress toward clean water and air, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has failed to hold states accountable to their Blueprint commitments.

At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic is an unparalleled challenge. The pandemic continues to impact our personal and professional lives and is straining local, state, and federal budgets. However, it also underscores the irreplaceable value of our natural resources, as people turn to the outdoors for both mental and physical health.

Taking action to reduce pollution now is more critical than ever. It not only helps ensure these resources are protected and improved for future generations, but also supports local businesses, creates jobs, and provides additional environmental and public health benefits. This is the final and most important phase of the clean-up effort. The Bay partnership must finish the job.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 22

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Federal Regulatory Rollbacks

Piece by piece, the Trump administration is quietly unraveling protections for our water and air by rolling back federal environmental regulations. Numerous changes have been proposed that will affect the Chesapeake Bay and the implementation of the Blueprint. Actions taken by the federal government in the past year alone will strip protections from thousands of miles of wetlands and streams across the watershed, allow more air pollution that harms our health and our climate, and create a rulemaking system for environmental protections that limits the consideration of science and doesn’t consider climate change at all. CBF is actively monitoring these developments and is opposing any rollbacks that will impede efforts to restore the Bay.

Climate Change

Climate change is a real and imminent threat to the Chesapeake Bay. Water temperatures are warming. Sea levels are rising. Record levels of rainfall, like those in 2018, are expected to become more regular.

Scientists agree these changes will make Bay restoration harder, requiring additional reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution by 2025. By 2022, all Bay jurisdictions must describe how they will make the extra cuts. They should plan now and follow the lead of Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, which included measures to achieve the additional pollution reductions due to climate change in their latest state Clean Water Blueprints (Phase III WIPs).

EPA Accountability

With only five years to go until the Blueprint’s 2025 deadline, the final pollution- reduction plans submitted to EPA by Pennsylvania and New York do not meet their clean water commitments. Despite its responsibility and legal authorities under the Clean Water Act, EPA took no steps to hold either state accountable. EPA is the only independent party that can hold states accountable, and it must exercise its authority under the Clean Water Act to ensure that all Bay jurisdictions develop plans that meet their commitments for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution in waterways that feed into the Bay by 2025.

2020 CHESAPEAKE BAY STATE OF THE BLUEPRINT | PAGE 23

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION | CBF.ORG

Ann Swanson, Executive Director Chesapeake Bay Commission Environment and Transportation Committee Environment Subcommittee December 3, 2020 Tri-state Legislative Commission ❖Assist MD, VA and PA legislatures in evaluating and responding to mutual Bay concerns

❖Translate science Into coordinated federal and state policy

❖Enhance the functions and powers of existing offices and agencies

❖Coordinate the region’s policy and funding interests with the Congress Established by state law in 1980s

Governor of MD Governor of VA Governor of PA Only the CBC represents the state legislatures

Chair of Chesapeake EPA Administrator Bay Commission Executive Council

Mayor of DC Governor of NY

Governor of DE Governor of WV 1960s •1960s-70s Visible decline in Bay resources •1976-1982 EPA conducts 5-year Bay study •1980 Chesapeake Bay Commission established •1983 First Bay Agreement - Bay Program created •1987 Second Bay Agreement – WQ Goals: 40% reduction •1992 Amendments to Agreement – Tributary Strategies •2000 Third Bay Agreement – Water Quality Focus •2008 Acknowledged Regulatory Approach (TMDL) needed •2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL established •2014 Fourth Bay Agreement – Verification & Accountability •2017 60% of the practices in place to deliver clean water 2025 •2025 TMDL to be achieved – 100% of practices TIMELINE 2010: Established 2017: 60% Practices in Place 2019: Phase III WIPs 2025: 100% Practices in Place

A TMDL calculates the maximum amount of a specific pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards.

Percent of Nitrogen Goal Achieved (2009 – 2019)

100%

90% 2019 Target

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% MD PA VA WV NY DE DC CBW Agricultural Conservation Practices & Programs

60% of future Nitrogen reductions planned will come from 8 BMPs -- the same that have delivered the reductions to date:  Animal Waste Management Systems  Nutrient Management Core Nitrogen  Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plans  Tillage Management (Continuous High-Residue)  Forest Buffers  Forest Buffers (Streamside with Exclusion Fencing)  Grass Buffers  Cover Crops (Traditional) 2025 Nitrogen Goals for Clean Water

52.5 M lbs. Remaining N Reductions + 5.0 M lbs. Climate Change + 6.0 M lbs. Conowingo 63.5 M lbs. Revised N Reductions

Maryland: 6.2M + 1.142M + 0.18M = 7.5 M lbs.

• CWIP = 6M lbs. N • FINANCING STRATEGY

 Passed GA in 2017  Started as an Administration bill  Heavily amended by General Assembly  Expanded use of Bay Restoration Fund (BRF) to allow “purchase” of nutrient load reductions based solely on a $$/pound basis  $4 m FY 2018, $6 m FY 2019, $10 m FY 2020 and 2021

OPPORTUNITY: Sunsets June 2021. 1) Extend sunset to 2030 = change in BRF fees. 2) Increase BRF funding to $20M annually. 3) Focus on N reductions. 4) Remove exclusion of agriculture. 5) Create sector-based set-asides 6) “Credit” sector with load reduction – no trading 7) Ag reductions must be “permanent” practices. 8) Add CBC and EJ reps to BRF Advisory Committee.  Dedicated Funds

▪ BRF ▪ Clean Water Commerce ▪ Trust Fund ▪ Program Open Space  Ag Technical Assistance and Cost-Share  Climate Change & Stormwater ANNIVERSARY ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENTARY FILM Celebrating 40 years of Policy for the Bay

9-Minute Documentary Film By Sandy-Cannon Brown Dave Harp Tom Horton

Visit chesbay.us to read and watch Chesapeake Bay Commission QUESTIONS? Ann Swanson, Executive Director 410-507-0857 [email protected]

Mark Hoffman, Maryland Director

Marel King, Pennsylvania Director

MD HOUSE MEMBERS: Dana M. Stein Sara Love Tony Bridges STATE STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT: EMBRACING OUR DIFFERENCES

MARYLAND PENNSYLVANIA VIRGINIA

47 Senators 50 Senators 40 Senators Each representing Each representing Each representing Members of Senate approx. 128,000 people approx. 254,000 people approx. 212,000 people 4-year term 4-year term 4-year term

141 Delegates 203 Representatives 100 Delegates Each representing approx. Each representing Each representing Members of House 43,000–128,000 people approx. 63,000 people approx. 85,000 people 4-year term 2-year term 2-year term

House districts are House and Senate districts House and Senate districts District Boundaries coterminous with Senate are geographically distinct are geographically distinct districts

November 2021 November 2022 November 2020 (House only) Upcoming (All members of (All members of House, half November 2023 General Election House and Senate) of Senate) (All members of House and Senate)

60 Days (Even years) Length of Session 90 Days 2 Years 45 Days (Odd years)

Number of Approx. 3,000 Approx. 4,000 Approx. 3,000 Bills per Session 28% became law in 2018 6% became law in 2017–18 33% became law in 2018

Budget Annual Annual Biennial

24 Number of Counties 67 95 (including Baltimore City)

2,560 Number of 157 228 Cities, boroughs, towns and Municipalities Cities, towns, villages Cities and towns townships

State Population 6.0 million 12.8 million 8.5 million

Percent of Population 99% 30% 80% Living in the Watershed

Percent of State 94% 50% 54% in the Watershed

SOURCE: CHESAPEAKE LEGAL ALLIANCE (1955-2014) ” — Senator Mike Waugh (Pa.) Waugh Mike — Senator At the Commission At table, I cannot tell who is tell cannot I table, who is a and a Republican Democrat. “ s r 0 a

e CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION 2020 y 4 RICH RICH L. ALLOWAY, II · BORTNER L. E. MICHAEL RAY · BOLLING ASHWORTH BILL · · JR. MARK BLOXOM, S. BELTON · ROBERT · ROBERT BLOXOM BRUBAKER · PRESTON BRYANT · DAVID L. BULOVA · JOHN A. CADE · CLAGETT · KENNETH VIRGINIA COLE P. · HOWARD E. COPELAND · JOHN · JR. CROSS, G. ELMO · COY W. JEFFREY · COULTER B. JAMES · COSGROVE BETTY · DEBENEDICTIS NICHOLAS · DAVIS A. ARTHUR · DANIELS W. JOHN DUNLOP NORTON BECKY · DRAKE THELMA · DOMENECH DOUG · DIENER J. FRANKS RONALD C. · FOX CHARLES J. FOWLER · BERNIE · FAIRCHILD H. V. GARTLAN, JR. · JOE GILL · KEITH J. GILLESPIE · JOHN R. GRIFFIN RICCIO · RONALD HAMM · JOHN HANGER · EMMETT W. HANGER, JR. · ELIZABETH HESS E. · IRVINEHASKELL H. D. HERSHEY · · ARTHUR DAVID B. HILL · JAMES HUBBARD W. · JERRAULD C. JONES · NANCY J. KING · MICHAEL KRANCER · STEPHEN LAFFERTY · LYNWOOD W. LEWIS, JR. MCCLELLAN JAMES · E. CHARLES · A. MARTIN PATRICK · MCCLENAHAN MCDONNELL · KATHLEEN A. MCGINTY · MAGGIE MCINTOSH · THOMAS POLLARD, C. ALBERT · O’DONNELL W. ROBERT · JR. MURPHY, TAYLOE W. NICK · REDMER W. ALFRED · RANSONE MARGARET · QUIGLEY JOHN · JR. · ROWE B. MAURICE · RILEY I. CATHERINE · REYNOLDS R. JOHN · RERRAS SIMPSON C. JAMES · SEIF M. JAMES · SHOWERS JOHN · RYMER THOMAS J. MATTHEW · STOLTZFUS LOWELL J. · STIEFFEN WALLACE S. · STETLER HENRY W. · TAYLOR-ROGERS J. SARAH · STURLA MICHAEL P. · STRICKLER · · PETER A. BOZICK · TONY BRIDGES · TORREY C. BROWN · MICHAEL W. · SARAH K. ELFRETH · G. WARREN · ELLIOTT D. GARTH EVERETT · RUSS · BRIAN E. FROSH · BARBARA FRUSH · TAWANNA GAINES · JOSEPH · RON GUNS · NANCY D. GUY · GUY GUZZONE · JEANNIE HADDAWAY- · L. · SCOTT LINGAMFELTER JOSEPH J. LONG, SR. · SARA LOVE · SCOTT “MAC” MIDDLETON · RONALD MILLER · THEODORE MORRISON, V. JR. · H. STEPHEN · STEIN M. DANA · STABACK EDWARD · SMITH S. ELIZABETH ·

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PAPER RECYCLED ON PRINTED

DAVID HARP/CHESAPEAKEPHOTOS.COM DAVID

chesbay.us · chesbay.us

chesbay.us

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE COSGROVE · JAMES B. COULTER · JEFFREY W. COY · ELMO G. CROSS, JR. · c/o Senate of Pennsylvania B-63 Main Capitol JOHN W. DANIELS · ARTHUR A. DAVIS · NICHOLAS DEBENEDICTIS · BETTY Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-772-3651 J. DIENER · DOUG DOMENECH · THELMA DRAKE · BECKY NORTON DUNLOP

VIRGINIA OFFICE · SARAH K. ELFRETH · G. WARRENAt the Commission ELLIOTT · GARTH D. EVERETT · RUSS 900 E. Main Street, 11th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 H. FAIRCHILD · BERNIE“table, FOWLER I cannot · J. CHARLES tell who FOXis · C. RONALD FRANKS 804-786-4849 · BRIAN E. FROSH · BARBARAa Republican FRUSH and ·who TAWANNA is a GAINES · JOSEPH www.chesbay.us V. GARTLAN, JR. · JOEDemocrat. GILL · KEITH J. GILLESPIE · JOHN R. GRIFFIN Ann Pesiri Swanson Executive Director · RON GUNS · NANCY D. —GUY Senator · ”GUY Mike GUZZONE Waugh (Pa.) · JEANNIE HADDAWAY- [email protected] RICCIO · RONALD HAMM · JOHN HANGER(1955-2014) · EMMETT W. HANGER, JR. · Mark L. Hoffman Maryland Director ELIZABETH H. HASKELL · ARTHUR D. HERSHEY · DAVID E. HESS · IRVINE [email protected] B. HILL · JAMES W. HUBBARD · JERRAULD C. JONES · NANCY J. KING · Marel King Pennsylvania Director MICHAEL KRANCER · STEPHEN LAFFERTY · LYNWOOD W. LEWIS, JR. [email protected] · L. SCOTT LINGAMFELTER · JOSEPH J. LONG, SR. · SARA LOVE · SCOTT Adrienne Kotula Virginia Director MARTIN · JAMES E. MCCLELLAN · CHARLES A. MCCLENAHAN · PATRICK [email protected] MCDONNELL · KATHLEEN A. MCGINTY · MAGGIE MCINTOSH · THOMAS Jennifer Dieux Administrative Officer “MAC” MIDDLETON · RONALD MILLER · THEODORE V. MORRISON, JR. · [email protected] W. TAYLOE MURPHY, JR. · ROBERT W. O’DONNELL · ALBERT C. POLLARD, JR. · JOHN QUIGLEY · MARGARET RANSONE · ALFRED W. REDMER · NICK RERRAS · JOHN R. REYNOLDS · CATHERINE I. RILEY · MAURICE B. ROWE · Chesapeake Bay Commission Policy for the Bay THOMAS RYMER · JOHN SHOWERS · JAMES M. SEIF · JAMES C. SIMPSON · ELIZABETH S. SMITH · EDWARD STABACK · DANA M. STEIN · STEPHEN H.

COVER PHOTO: “SEPTEMBER MARSH” · DAVID HARP/CHESAPEAKEPHOTOS.COM · PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER SOURCE FOR ALL CHARTS AND GRAPHS: CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM (EXCEPT PAGE 14, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT) STETLER · S. WALLACE STIEFFEN · J. LOWELL STOLTZFUS · MATTHEW J. STRICKLER · P. MICHAEL STURLA · SARAH J. TAYLOR-ROGERS · W. HENRY s r 0 a

e CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION 2020 y 4 Bay prompted the General Assemblies of Maryland and Virginia to create create to Assemblies of Maryland and Virginia the General prompted Bay

ORTY YEARS AGO, THE DECLINING HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE THE OF PRODUCTIVITY AND HEALTH DECLINING THE AGO, YEARS ORTY the Chesapeake Bay Commission to lead and coordinate their joint efforts to restore restore to joint efforts their coordinate and lead to Commission Bay the Chesapeake Chesapeake

This report pays tribute and offers thanks to the 127 state legislators, cabinet legislators, the 127 state to thanks and offers tribute pays This report The year 2020 marks the Commission’s 40th anniversary, giving it an opportunity to 40th anniversary, the Commission’s 2020 marks The year The Commission’s charge is to address the breadth of issues that threaten the health of health the of issues that threaten breadth the address is to charge The Commission’s Composed of 21 members, seven from each state, fifteen of the Commission’s members of the Commission’s fifteen each state, from seven of 21 members, Composed

nation’s greatest estuary. estuary. greatest nation’s secretaries, and private citizens who have served on the Commission and given freely of freely and given on the Commission served who have citizens and private secretaries, of the — the restoration and essential cause in this noble their time, thought and initiative reflect not only on its history and accomplishments, but also on its future. future. but also on its and accomplishments, history on its not only reflect policy and budgetary matters related to the restoration of the Bay watershed. of the Bay the restoration to related policy budgetary and matters Program Partnership. The Commission also serves as a liaison to the U.S. Congress on the U.S. Congress as a liaison to also serves The Commission Partnership. Program serving as the legislative voice of the multi-jurisdictional, federal-state Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake federal-state of the multi-jurisdictional, voice serving as the legislative budgets that balance many competing interests. The Commission has been a signatory has been to The Commission interests. many competing that balance budgets Council, Executive and is a member of the Chesapeake Agreement Bay each Chesapeake the Bay watershed. Commission members craft and secure passage of laws, policies and passage of laws, and secure craft members Commission watershed. the Bay identity, determine its direction, and share its workload. its and share direction, its determine identity, state completes the membership. Collectively, these leaders define the Commission’s define the Commission’s these leaders Collectively, the membership. completes state identities. A cabinet member represents each governor. A citizen representative from each from representative A citizen each governor. member represents identities. A cabinet are state legislators, representing the diversity of the Bay’s people, places and political places people, of the Bay’s the diversity representing legislators, state are tri-state legislative body. legislative tri-state the ailing estuary. Pennsylvania joined as an equal member in 1985, forming the current the current forming joined as an equal member in 1985, Pennsylvania the ailing estuary.

40 YEARS OF POLICY FORTHE BAY F (1955-2014) ” — Senator Mike Waugh (Pa.) Waugh Mike — Senator At the Commission At “ who is tell cannot I table, who is a and a Republican Democrat. RICCIO RICCIO · RONALD HAMM · JOHN HANGER · EMMETT W. HANGER, JR. · ELIZABETH HESS E. · IRVINEHASKELL H. D. HERSHEY · · ARTHUR DAVID B. HILL · JAMES HUBBARD W. · JERRAULD C. JONES · NANCY J. KING · MICHAEL KRANCER · STEPHEN LAFFERTY · LYNWOOD W. LEWIS, JR. MCCLELLAN JAMES · E. CHARLES · A. MARTIN PATRICK · MCCLENAHAN MCDONNELL · KATHLEEN A. MCGINTY · MAGGIE MCINTOSH · THOMAS POLLARD, C. ALBERT · O’DONNELL W. ROBERT · JR. MURPHY, TAYLOE W. NICK · REDMER W. ALFRED · RANSONE MARGARET · QUIGLEY JOHN · JR. · ROWE B. MAURICE · RILEY I. CATHERINE · REYNOLDS R. JOHN · RERRAS SIMPSON C. JAMES · SEIF M. JAMES · SHOWERS JOHN · RYMER THOMAS J. MATTHEW · STOLTZFUS LOWELL J. · STIEFFEN WALLACE S. · STETLER HENRY W. · TAYLOR-ROGERS J. SARAH · STURLA MICHAEL P. · STRICKLER RICH RICH L. ALLOWAY, II · BORTNER L. E. MICHAEL RAY · BOLLING ASHWORTH BILL · · JR. MARK BLOXOM, S. BELTON · ROBERT · ROBERT BLOXOM BRUBAKER · PRESTON BRYANT · DAVID L. BULOVA · JOHN A. CADE · CLAGETT · KENNETH VIRGINIA COLE P. · HOWARD E. COPELAND · JOHN · JR. CROSS, G. ELMO · COY W. JEFFREY · COULTER B. JAMES · COSGROVE BETTY · DEBENEDICTIS NICHOLAS · DAVIS A. ARTHUR · DANIELS W. JOHN DUNLOP NORTON BECKY · DRAKE THELMA · DOMENECH DOUG · DIENER J. FRANKS RONALD C. · FOX CHARLES J. FOWLER · BERNIE · FAIRCHILD H. V. GARTLAN, JR. · JOE GILL · KEITH J. GILLESPIE · JOHN R. GRIFFIN · · RON GUNS · NANCY D. GUY · GUY GUZZONE · JEANNIE HADDAWAY- · · L. · SCOTT LINGAMFELTER JOSEPH J. LONG, SR. · SARA LOVE · SCOTT “MAC” MIDDLETON · RONALD MILLER · THEODORE MORRISON, V. JR. · H. STEPHEN · STEIN M. DANA · STABACK EDWARD · SMITH S. ELIZABETH · · · PETER A. BOZICK · TONY BRIDGES · TORREY C. BROWN · MICHAEL W. · SARAH K. ELFRETH · G. WARREN · ELLIOTT D. GARTH EVERETT · RUSS · BRIAN E. FROSH · BARBARA FRUSH · TAWANNA GAINES · JOSEPH

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PAPER RECYCLED ON PRINTED

DAVID HARP/CHESAPEAKEPHOTOS.COM DAVID

chesbay.us · chesbay.us

chesbay.us

chesbay.us chesbay.us Chesapeake Bay Commission Bay for the Policy Ann Pesiri Swanson Director Executive aswanson@ Mark L. Hoffman Maryland Director @ mhoffman MarelKing Director Pennsylvania mking@ AdrienneKotula Director Virginia @ akotula Dieux Jennifer Officer Administrative jdieux@ SOURCE FOR ALL CHARTS AND GRAPHS: CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM (EXCEPT PAGE 14, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT) OF DEPARTMENT MARYLAND 14, PAGE (EXCEPT PROGRAM BAY CHESAPEAKE GRAPHS: AND CHARTS ALL FOR SOURCE COVER PHOTO: “SEPTEMBER MARSH” “SEPTEMBER PHOTO: COVER HEADQUARTERS AND MARYLAND OFFICE AND MARYLAND HEADQUARTERS 406 Suite Street, 60 West MD 21401 Annapolis, 410-263-3420 PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE of Pennsylvania c/o Senate B-63 Main Capitol 17120 PA Harrisburg, 717-772-3651 VIRGINIA OFFICE 11th Floor 900 E. Main Street, 23219 Richmond, VA 804-786-4849 www.chesbay.us THOMAS · RICHARD A. TILGHMAN · DENNIS TREACY · FRANK W. WAGNER · PETER WHO WE ARE WHERE WE ARE FROM C. WAMBACH · JAMES WANSACZ · MOLLY WARD · MICHAEL L. WAUGH · MICHAEL H. WEIR · MICHAEL H. WEIR, JR. · NOAH W. WENGER · MARY MARGARET WHIPPLE N THE COURSE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY Commission’s 40-year history, 127 individuals · MARTIN E. WILLIAMS · TONY WILT · GERALD W. WINEGRAD · JACK F. WITTEN · have contributed a combined 813 years of GEORGE B. WOLFF · JOHNWe F. WOOD,are seeing JR. · multiple,JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR. · GENE YAW · Iservice to the Commission. This map shows the towns and cities represented by each of the “significant and persistent signs of Commission’s current and former members. PETER J. ZUG · RICH L. ALLOWAY, II · L. RAY ASHWORTH · MARK BELTON · ROBERT Multiple cabinet secretaries are represented bay and river restoration right now. by one symbol at each state capital. BLOXOM · ROBERT S. BLOXOM, JR. · BILL BOLLING · MICHAEL E. BORTNER · PETER A. CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIR VICE-CHAIR This is the time to jump on this Gene Yaw, Guy Guzzone, David Bulova, BOZICK · TONY BRIDGES · TORREY C. BROWN · MICHAEL W. BRUBAKER · PRESTON Williamsport Senate of Maryland State Virginia House of 1 8 progress with all the tools, people, Pennsylvania Senate Delegates Muncy BRYANT · DAVID L. BULOVA · JOHN A. CADE · VIRGINIA P. CLAGETT · KENNETH talent and resources that can be LEGEND COLE · HOWARD E. COPELAND · JOHN COSGROVE · JAMES B. COULTER · JEFFREY 2020 MEMBERS 2020 Members mustered and focus on the nutrient NUMBERS REFER TO STARS ON MAP PENNSYLVANIA W. COY · ELMO G. CROSS, JR. · JOHN W. DANIELS · ARTHUR A. DAVIS · NICHOLAS 1 The Hon. Gene Yaw, Chairman ✦ ...... Senate of Pennsylvania Past Members and sediment load reductions 2 The Hon. David Bulova, Vice-Chair ✦ ...... Virginia House of Delegates HARRISBURG DEBENEDICTIS · BETTY J. DIENER · DOUG DOMENECH · THELMA DRAKE · BECKY Watershed 16 3 The Hon. Guy Guzzone, Vice-Chair ✦ ...... Maryland State Senate Boundary still needed. Right here in the Chambersburg NORTON DUNLOP · SARAH K. ELFRETH · G. WARREN ELLIOTT · GARTH D. EVERETT 15 20 7 York 9 4 The Hon. Robert S. Bloxom, Jr...... Virginia House of Delegates Lancaster Chesapeake Bay, we are proving 5 The Hon. Tony Bridges...... Maryland House of Delegates · RUSS H. FAIRCHILD · BERNIE FOWLER · J. CHARLES FOX · C. RONALD FRANKS · 6 The Hon. Sarah K. Elfreth...... Senate of Maryland that with focus and a steady hand, 7 The Hon. G. Warren Elliott ...... Pennsylvania Citizen Representative MARYLAND BRIAN E. FROSH · BARBARA FRUSH · TAWANNA GAINES · JOSEPH V. GARTLAN, 8 The Hon. Garth D. Everett...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives Baltimore we can get the job done. The eyes Columbia 5 JR. · JOE GILL · KEITH J. GILLESPIE · JOHN R. GRIFFIN · RON GUNS · NANCY D. GUY 9 The Hon. Keith Gillespie ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives 3 18 10 The Hon. Nancy D. Guy ...... Virginia House of Delegates of the world are on us. Bethesda ANNAPOLIS 14 6 · GUY GUZZONE · JEANNIE HADDAWAY - RICCIO · RONALD HAMM · JOHN HANGER · 11 The Hon. Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Maryland 11 ✦ 12 The Hon. Emmett W. Hanger, Jr...... Senate of Virginia 2 — Walter” Boynton, Ph.D. Fairfax Station 13 The Hon. Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr...... Senate of Virginia EMMETT W. HANGER, JR. · ELIZABETH H. HASKELL · ARTHUR D. HERSHEY · DAVID E. 17 2017 Chesapeake Executive Council Meeting 14 The Hon. Sara Love ...... Maryland House of Delegates Waldorf 22 15 The Hon. Scott Martin ...... Senate of Pennsylvania Prince HESS · IRVINE B. HILL · JAMES W. HUBBARD · JERRAULD C. JONES · NANCY J. KING 12 Frederick 16 The Hon. Patrick McDonnell ...... Secretary of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania Mount Solon · MICHAEL KRANCER · STEPHEN LAFFERTY · LYNWOOD W. LEWIS, JR. · L. SCOTT 17 The Hon. Thomas McLain “Mac” Middleton ...... Maryland Citizen Representative VIRGINIA 18 The Hon. Dana M. Stein ✦ ...... Maryland House of Delegates 19 The Hon. Matthew J. Strickler ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia Hanover LINGAMFELTER · JOSEPH J. LONG, SR. · SARA LOVE · SCOTT MARTIN · JAMES E. Courthouse 4 20 The Hon. P. Michael Sturla ✦ ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives 21 Mappsville 13 21 The Hon. Dennis H. Treacy ...... Virginia Citizen Representative Accomac MCCLELLAN · CHARLES A. MCCLENAHAN · PATRICK MCDONNELL · KATHLEEN A. RICHMOND 19 22 The Hon. Bernie Fowler ...... Member Emeritus MCGINTY · MAGGIE MCINTOSH · THOMAS “MAC” MIDDLETON · RONALD MILLER · 23 Rear Admiral Charles W. Rock ...... Naval Liaison THEODORE V. MORRISON, JR. · W. TAYLOE MURPHY, JR. · ROBERT W. O’DONNELL ✦ Member of the Executive Committee Norfolk 23 · ALBERT C. POLLARD, JR. · JOHN QUIGLEY · MARGARET RANSONE · ALFRED W. 10 Virginia Beach REDMER · NICK RERRAS · JOHN R. REYNOLDS · CATHERINE I. RILEY · MAURICE B.

MILES ROWE · THOMAS RYMER · JOHN SHOWERS · JAMES M. SEIF · JAMES C. SIMPSON · ELIZABETH S. SMITH · EDWARD STABACK · DANA M. STEIN · STEPHEN H. STETLER · THOMAS · RICHARD A. TILGHMAN · DENNIS TREACY · FRANK W. WAGNER · PETER WHO WE ARE WHERE WE ARE FROM C. WAMBACH · JAMES WANSACZ · MOLLY WARD · MICHAEL L. WAUGH · MICHAEL H. WEIR · MICHAEL H. WEIR, JR. · NOAH W. WENGER · MARY MARGARET WHIPPLE N THE COURSE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY Commission’s 40-year history, 127 individuals · MARTIN E. WILLIAMS · TONY WILT · GERALD W. WINEGRAD · JACK F. WITTEN · have contributed a combined 813 years of GEORGE B. WOLFF · JOHNWe F. WOOD,are seeing JR. · multiple,JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR. · GENE YAW · Iservice to the Commission. This map shows the towns and cities represented by each of the “significant and persistent signs of Commission’s current and former members. PETER J. ZUG · RICH L. ALLOWAY, II · L. RAY ASHWORTH · MARK BELTON · ROBERT Multiple cabinet secretaries are represented bay and river restoration right now. by one symbol at each state capital. BLOXOM · ROBERT S. BLOXOM, JR. · BILL BOLLING · MICHAEL E. BORTNER · PETER A. CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIR VICE-CHAIR This is the time to jump on this Gene Yaw, Guy Guzzone, David Bulova, BOZICK · TONY BRIDGES · TORREY C. BROWN · MICHAEL W. BRUBAKER · PRESTON Williamsport Senate of Maryland State Virginia House of 1 8 progress with all the tools, people, Pennsylvania Senate Delegates Muncy BRYANT · DAVID L. BULOVA · JOHN A. CADE · VIRGINIA P. CLAGETT · KENNETH talent and resources that can be LEGEND COLE · HOWARD E. COPELAND · JOHN COSGROVE · JAMES B. COULTER · JEFFREY 2020 MEMBERS 2020 Members mustered and focus on the nutrient NUMBERS REFER TO STARS ON MAP PENNSYLVANIA W. COY · ELMO G. CROSS, JR. · JOHN W. DANIELS · ARTHUR A. DAVIS · NICHOLAS 1 The Hon. Gene Yaw, Chairman ✦ ...... Senate of Pennsylvania Past Members and sediment load reductions 2 The Hon. David Bulova, Vice-Chair ✦ ...... Virginia House of Delegates HARRISBURG DEBENEDICTIS · BETTY J. DIENER · DOUG DOMENECH · THELMA DRAKE · BECKY Watershed 16 3 The Hon. Guy Guzzone, Vice-Chair ✦ ...... Maryland State Senate Boundary still needed. Right here in the Chambersburg NORTON DUNLOP · SARAH K. ELFRETH · G. WARREN ELLIOTT · GARTH D. EVERETT 15 20 7 York 9 4 The Hon. Robert S. Bloxom, Jr...... Virginia House of Delegates Lancaster Chesapeake Bay, we are proving 5 The Hon. Tony Bridges...... Maryland House of Delegates · RUSS H. FAIRCHILD · BERNIE FOWLER · J. CHARLES FOX · C. RONALD FRANKS · 6 The Hon. Sarah K. Elfreth...... Senate of Maryland that with focus and a steady hand, 7 The Hon. G. Warren Elliott ...... Pennsylvania Citizen Representative MARYLAND BRIAN E. FROSH · BARBARA FRUSH · TAWANNA GAINES · JOSEPH V. GARTLAN, 8 The Hon. Garth D. Everett...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives Baltimore we can get the job done. The eyes Columbia 5 JR. · JOE GILL · KEITH J. GILLESPIE · JOHN R. GRIFFIN · RON GUNS · NANCY D. GUY 9 The Hon. Keith Gillespie ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives 3 18 10 The Hon. Nancy D. Guy ...... Virginia House of Delegates of the world are on us. Bethesda ANNAPOLIS 14 6 · GUY GUZZONE · JEANNIE HADDAWAY - RICCIO · RONALD HAMM · JOHN HANGER · 11 The Hon. Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Maryland 11 ✦ 12 The Hon. Emmett W. Hanger, Jr...... Senate of Virginia 2 — Walter” Boynton, Ph.D. Fairfax Station 13 The Hon. Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr...... Senate of Virginia EMMETT W. HANGER, JR. · ELIZABETH H. HASKELL · ARTHUR D. HERSHEY · DAVID E. 17 2017 Chesapeake Executive Council Meeting 14 The Hon. Sara Love ...... Maryland House of Delegates Waldorf 22 15 The Hon. Scott Martin ...... Senate of Pennsylvania Prince HESS · IRVINE B. HILL · JAMES W. HUBBARD · JERRAULD C. JONES · NANCY J. KING 12 Frederick 16 The Hon. Patrick McDonnell ...... Secretary of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania Mount Solon · MICHAEL KRANCER · STEPHEN LAFFERTY · LYNWOOD W. LEWIS, JR. · L. SCOTT 17 The Hon. Thomas McLain “Mac” Middleton ...... Maryland Citizen Representative VIRGINIA 18 The Hon. Dana M. Stein ✦ ...... Maryland House of Delegates 19 The Hon. Matthew J. Strickler ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia Hanover LINGAMFELTER · JOSEPH J. LONG, SR. · SARA LOVE · SCOTT MARTIN · JAMES E. Courthouse 4 20 The Hon. P. Michael Sturla ✦ ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives 21 Mappsville 13 21 The Hon. Dennis H. Treacy ...... Virginia Citizen Representative Accomac MCCLELLAN · CHARLES A. MCCLENAHAN · PATRICK MCDONNELL · KATHLEEN A. RICHMOND 19 22 The Hon. Bernie Fowler ...... Member Emeritus MCGINTY · MAGGIE MCINTOSH · THOMAS “MAC” MIDDLETON · RONALD MILLER · 23 Rear Admiral Charles W. Rock ...... Naval Liaison THEODORE V. MORRISON, JR. · W. TAYLOE MURPHY, JR. · ROBERT W. O’DONNELL ✦ Member of the Executive Committee Norfolk 23 · ALBERT C. POLLARD, JR. · JOHN QUIGLEY · MARGARET RANSONE · ALFRED W. 10 Virginia Beach REDMER · NICK RERRAS · JOHN R. REYNOLDS · CATHERINE I. RILEY · MAURICE B.

MILES ROWE · THOMAS RYMER · JOHN SHOWERS · JAMES M. SEIF · JAMES C. SIMPSON · ELIZABETH S. SMITH · EDWARD STABACK · DANA M. STEIN · STEPHEN H. STETLER · ESTABLISHING ROOTS

ROM THE TIME NATIVE AMERICANS FIRST correct these conditions for a watershed spanning settled on the shores of the Chesapeake, 64,000 square miles, six states and the District of the natural resources of the watershed have Columbia. Fprovided sustenance and shelter for countless Meanwhile, Maryland and Virginia state generations of humans. The first European legislators were exploring a bi-state partnership, explorers commented on the abundance of aquatic triggering a two-year effort to define how such an life — the oyster beds that impeded their navigation, arrangement might work. In 1978, legislation was the massive sturgeon pulled from the water. passed in both states to form the Commission’s This abundance of living resources is a precursor, the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory characteristic of estuaries, places where fresh Commission, to examine how to enhance the and salt water mix. The fundamental well-being of management of the Chesapeake Bay across state the Chesapeake watershed’s citizens was and is lines. inextricably linked to the health and vitality of this After examining models from around the country, estuary, its land, and the rivers that feed it. the conclusion was reached that the Bay region By the 1970s, disturbing trends had worsened and needed an entity focused on legislative action — reports of fish die-offs and crabs fleeing oxygen- laws and budgets. Thus, the raison d’etre for the starved water became common. Citizens and policy Chesapeake Bay Commission. leaders knew something was not right, but MICHAEL FINCHAM Bay science was still in its infancy. Maryland U.S. Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, whose Congressional committee oversaw the newly created Environmental Protection Agency, sponsored legislation initiating an in-depth study of the Bay. The EPA analysis confirmed the troubling conditions — low to no dissolved oxygen in the tidal waters every summer and poor water clarity. It also pointed to the cause — an overabundance of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, that led to oxygen- SENATOR BERNIE FOWLER (RIGHT) LEADS HIS FIRST ANNUAL PATUXENT RIVER WADE-IN depriving algae blooms. But the report TO MEASURE WATER CLARITY, JOINED BY FOLKLORIST TOM WISNER, SCIENTIST WALTER stopped short of recommending how to BOYNTON AND OTHERS.

2 TIMELINE 1975

HE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION HAS BEEN A U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee charges EPA “to conduct an in-depth catalyzing force for change in watershed policy. This study of the Chesapeake Bay which Twork has been done primarily through the passage of shall be applicable to other areas of the country.” state legislation, successful advocacy at the federal level, and

publication of policy reports that spur meaningful change. Chief Sponsor U.S. Senator Follow the history of the Chesapeake Bay Commission from Charles “Mac” before its founding to the present day through the timeline Mathias, Jr. (Md.) that runs along the bottom of the pages of this report. FORMING THE COMMISSION

N 1980, THE STATES OF MARYLAND AND Who’s at the table? Virginia established the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The enabling statutes clearly Three state articulated the fundamental mission of the aryland Delegations I M with seven Commission: members each: n to assist the legislatures in evaluating and responding to mutual Bay concerns; Two Senators

n to promote intergovernmental cooperation P Three House e members and coordination for resource planning; n n a i n s One Governor to promote uniformity of legislation where n y i or Cabinet lv g appropriate; a ir Secretary n V n ia to enhance the functions and powers of One citizen existing offices and agencies; and representative n to recommend improvements in the management of Bay resources. Not long after the Commission’s creation, Pennsylvania saw the synergies that were emerging Together, working across state and party lines, from the Maryland-Virginia arrangement. Pennsyl- the members of the Commission anticipate the vania joined in 1985, recognizing its critical role in needs and respond to the challenges presented the improvement of the Bay’s waters and the signifi- by the ongoing efforts to preserve and restore the cance of the Commonwealth’s water resources to its Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, its communities and people and economy. its economies. An incubator of and for environ- Over four decades, the socially diverse and mental leaders, the Commission’s members politically balanced membership of the Commission have over time evolved to become champions for has proven essential to its effectiveness. restoration. Members successfully balance the difficult Since the Commission’s inception, its members and entangled scientific, ecological, social and have led the legislative adoption of hundreds of laws economic concerns that challenge the Bay’s future. and policies designed to improve the health of the Despite a trend toward fractured government watershed (see pages 8–9). The pages that follow along political and ideological grounds, the provide some of the highlights of the legislative and Commission remains a unified voice for a unified policy achievements of the Commission during its purpose. first 40 years.

3 1978 1980 1981 Via legislation, Maryland and Virginia The bi-state Chesapeake Bay Commission hires staff and adopts form the Commission’s precursor, the Commission is established by law in bylaws. Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Maryland and Virginia. Commission, to begin a First Chairman two-year study. A bi-state Commission Senator Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr. (Va.)

Co-Chairmen Senator Watershed Joseph V. boundary Gartlan, Jr. (Va.) and Eugene MD Cronin, Ph.D. (Md.) VA DRIVING COLLABORATIVE POLICY

HE MEMBERS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY represents the legislative branch of government Program Partnership, which now guides the and multiple jurisdictions. With a membership that restoration efforts under the 2014 Watershed transcends political boundaries, the Commission T Agreement, are the six Bay states, the District has always taken a broad, holistic view of Bay policy. of Columbia, the Commission and the EPA, repre- At a more detailed level, the Commission has senting nearly a dozen federal agencies. But at the tackled innumerable tasks such as chairing the time of the Commission’s creation this partnership drafting of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, drafting did not exist. policy statements and directives for the Executive As the first leg of this multi-jurisdictional Council, and managing dialogues. The relatively partnership, the Commission was and is instru- small size and lean staff of the Commission mental in formulating and guiding it. A signatory provide it with a nimbleness not found in a large to each Bay Agreement and a member of the bureaucracy. Program’s Executive Council, the Chair of the The Program is now very large with dozens of Commission is the only member of the Council who implementation teams, work groups and action

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM teams. Commission staff serve on many such groups, always on the lookout for potential policy changes that would require legislative action. BROAD CONSTITUENCIES But the real Bay partnership is not limited to the formal signatories of the Bay agreements. The input of citizens, local governments, and scientists is formally recognized through special Advisory Committees that are integral components of the Program’s management structure. The Commission worked hard to ensure their creation. The Commission also fostered the development of funding IN 2007, THEN-CHAIRMAN MARYLAND DEL. JIM HUBBARD (LEFT) ADDRESSES FELLOW CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE COMMISSION’S WORK TO INFLUENCE THE FEDERAL FARM BILL AND partnerships — like the Chesapeake Bay CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE BAY. Funders Network — to ensure the strategic

4 1982 1983 1984 Commission works to resolve the Commission sponsors the historic Maryland and Virginia Delegations exclusion of watermen from fishing “Choices for the Chesapeake: An support financial assistance and land across state lines and sponsors Action Agenda” conference to receive use legislation that enhance Bay reciprocity legislation one year later in the EPA study. Nearly 1000 attend. water pollution control both Maryland and Virginia. programs. Signing the first Chesapeake Bay Chairman Agreement Delegation Senator Chairmen Catherine I. Senator Thomas A. Riley (Md.) Rymer (Md.) Senator Joseph V. Gartlan (Va.) DAVE HARP annual Patuxent River wade-in, has inspired events throughout the watershed to celebrate the Bay and efforts to restore its health. And the Commission’s iconic “Entering the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” signs, that span the perimeter of the watershed, remind millions each year that they are in a special place. SCIENCE DRIVEN The benefits of the Commission’s involvement as a partner in the Program PENNSYLVANIA REP. MIKE STURLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ANN SWANSON, VIRGINIA DEL. SCOTT LINGAMFELTER AND MARYLAND DEL. MAGGIE MACINTOSH RUN A MODELING EXERCISE TO have been remarkable. The watershed ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION ON WATER QUALITY. is now the best studied estuary in the world. Data collection and analysis is application of private dollars. The Funders Network standardized, rigorous and transparent. Long-term provides a forum for the many philanthropic organi- monitoring stations track water flows and chemistry zations that support the restoration of the Bay to 24/7. This could only have been dreamed of in 1980. find synergies, thereby leveraging investments while The Program’s highly refined “bay model,” which avoiding competition. drives management objectives and assesses the Hundreds of organizations — like local farm impacts of on-the-ground action, is now in its sixth bureaus and watershed alliances — are critical to iteration. The model allows Program partners, the effort, as is the engagement of innumerable including the Commission, to test options for citizens in the watershed. Recognizing this truth, achieving improved water quality. Access to these the Commission members have sponsored dozens tools helps the Commission to focus its public policy of bills, some described in this report, prompting efforts. citizens to reduce their pollution and contribute When significant questions remain, the financially to Bay restoration. The passage of Commission supports the research to get them legislation in each member state to formally answered. As legislators, Commission members designate the second week of June as “Chesapeake are uniquely positioned to provide for the region’s Bay Awareness Week,” timed to coincide with academic institutions that have been so critical to Commissioner Emeritus Senator Bernie Fowler’s understanding the watershed and its complexities.

5 1985 1986 1987 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Commission introduces resolutions Commission signs the second joins the Commission by law as an in Maryland and Virginia to develop Chesapeake Bay Agreement while the equal partner. nutrient load limits for each tributary Congress amends the Clean Water Act to the Bay and to coordinate the to make EPA’s coordination of the Bay A tri-state Commission effort Baywide. Program a statutory responsibility.

Chairman Chesapeake Executive Council Watershed PA Delegate boundary Thomas A. Rymer (Md.) MD

VA IMPROVING WATER QUALITY

HE ORIGINAL EPA STUDY TO ANALYZE THE conservation practices to reduce both nutrient and Bay’s rapid loss of aquatic life identified sediment pollution. excess nutrient and sediment pollution as Tthe main source of the Bay’s degraded water 1987 quality. The significant improvements since then By this time, it was clear that the restoration of are best explained through the lens of the four the Bay required a more clearly defined set of Watershed Agreements and the legislation they goals and objectives rather than simply stating a inspired. general commitment to cooperative management. The 1987 agreement did just that, defining 32 1983 specific commitments, including an unprecedented The first Bay Agreement was a simple one-page commitment to reduce pollution by 40 percent by document, oriented to intergovernmental 2000. In 1992, amendments drafted by Commission management matters. It created the Chesapeake staff expanded this numeric target to the Bay’s Executive Council to facilitate leadership dialogue. largest tributaries. It created the Implementation Committee to On the legislative front, Commission-led action ensure collaboration among environmental agency continued unabated. Pennsylvania adopted a ban managers. It also created the EPA Chesapeake Bay on phosphorus in detergents, enacted agricultural Program Office to serve as a liaison among the Bay nutrient management legislation, and laid the partners. groundwork for its financing of environmental During those formative years, each signatory projects in Growing Greener. Virginia enacted the returned to its home turf to address issues raised landmark Water Quality Improvement Act, passed by the EPA study. What we now consider basic and the Poultry Waste Management Act, and established ordinary environmental laws and programs were its Land Conservation Fund. Maryland enacted the result. cutting-edge legislation on forest conservation and For example, both Maryland and Virginia smart growth. passed laws to reduce sediment pollution from construction sites and banned the use 2000 of phosphorus in detergents. Pennsylvania, Chesapeake 2000, or “C2K,” was the most where agriculture has always played a large role comprehensive agreement to date, committing as a source of excess nutrient and sediment the partners to an aggressive strategy for future pollution, adopted cost-share programs aimed at restoration actions. It established five broad goals incentivizing farmers to implement agricultural and an ambitious set of 102 commitments to reduce

6 1988 1989 1990 Commission leads drafting efforts Pennsylvania passes Phosphate Following extensive stakeholder for the Bay Program’s report, Laundry Detergent Ban, joining involvement, the Commission Population Growth and Development Maryland (1985) and Virginia (1987) in issues a report on recreational boat in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to a region-wide approach. pollution which results in revisions the Year 2020. to state and federal law. Laundry day is now phosphate-free Chairman Chairman Delegate W. Tayloe Kenneth J. Cole (Pa.) Murphy, Jr. (Va.) Where nitrogen reductions are coming from agreement spurred initiatives CHANGE IN NITROGEN LOADINGS, MILLIONS OF POUNDS PER YEAR that funded sewage treatment plant upgrades, installed baseline No net reductions . million lbs. in these sectors advanced septic systems, incentivized land preservation, and garnered never-before-seen Wastewater reductions – remaining to be achieved levels of federal dollars for Septic agricultural conservation Developed – practices. Wastewater Agriculture – 2014 Natural Agriculture faces largest share of remaining reductions When it became clear that the Undetermined – 2010 deadline would not be met, goal . million lbs. EPA in conjunction with the Bay – states developed and adopted a federal TMDL. This tool became the driver of water-quality pollution, restore habitats, protect living resources, improvement efforts across the Bay watershed. Its promote sound land use practices and engage the implementation led to the signing of the most recent public. The Commission took the lead in drafting Bay agreement. this groundbreaking agreement. Under the first three agreements, much had Most important was the water-quality section, been accomplished. While the population in the which became the dominant driver for the next watershed had doubled, the phosphorus pollution decade. Removing the Bay from the EPA list of levels had been cut in half, with nitrogen down by a “impaired” waters became the primary focus of quarter. The 2014 agreement reiterated the region’s the work of the Program. C2K acknowledged that if commitment to clean water, while enhancing the Program was unsuccessful in removing these commitments to land conservation, living resources waters from the impaired waters list by 2010, the and access. federal government would develop a cleanup plan Since then the Commission has championed known as a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL. legislation to fund land conservation, protect oyster In the legislatures of the Commission’s reefs, manage stormwater and provide regulatory member states as well as in the U.S. Congress, the certainty to farmers.

7 1991 1992 1993 Commission hires scientists to Pennsylvania Delegation explores Pennsylvania passes the Nutrient study the genetic composition of the use of phytase in the Netherlands Management Act, requiring large shad in the Bay; findings result to reduce phosphorus pollution, farms to control their pollution. in resolutions in all three states resulting in widespread use in the pressing hydroelectric plants to watershed. Chairman install fish passage at their dams. Representative Jeffrey Coy (Pa.) Phytase is an animal feed additive Policy Report Genetic Analysis of Shad Entering Chesapeake Bay LEADING THROUGH LEGISLATION

S STATE LEGISLATORS, CHESAPEAKE BAY PENNSYLVANIA Commission members have been instru- n Ag Non-Point Source Abatement Program mental in the passage of 40 years’ worth of n Farmland Preservation Program legislation and funding to support the Bay’s n Agricultural Nutrient Management A n restoration, from regulating paint on boat hulls to “Clean & Green” Preferential Tax Assessment appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars. Here n Growing Greener Grants are some of the measures they have championed: n Municipal Planning Code Omnibus Amendments n Wastewater Treatment Bonds FEDERAL n Manure Hauler & Broker Certification n EPA Chesapeake Bay Program n REAP Ag BMP Tax Credits n Bay Program Partners — USGS, NPS, NOAA, n Stormwater Authorities USFS, NRCS, USFWS, DOD, and USACE n Forest Buffer Offsets n Recreational Boat Pump-Out n Conservation Excellence Grant Program n Ballast Water Management n Keystone Tree Fund n Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant Funding n Farm Bills MARYLAND n Critical Area Program MULTI-STATE n Program Open Space n Tributyltin Bans n Chesapeake Bay Trust and License Plate Fund n Fishing Licenses & State Reciprocity n Stormwater Control and Utilities n Erosion & Sediment Control n Striped Bass Management n Non-Tidal Wetlands n Agricultural Nutrient Management n Blue Crab Targets and Thresholds n Sewage Treatment Plant Compliance n Striped Bass Moratoria n Forest Conservation n Environmental Education n Rural Legacy n Recreational Boat Pollution n Animal Waste Technology Fund n Brown Fields n Green Print n Fish Passage n Non-Native Species n Oil Spill Immunity n Smart Growth n Phosphate Detergent Bans n Bay Restoration Fund n Lawn Fertilizer Standards n Stormwater Management n Chesapeake Bay Awareness Week n Clean Cars

8 1994 1995 1996 Commission adopts a resolution Commission explores the impact Commission convenes the Bi-state calling for the Bay Program to develop of ballast water discharge into Blue Crab Advisory Committee a riparian forest buffer policy, focusing Bay waters, spurring state and (BBCAC), an eight-year interstate the region on the importance of trees. federal legislation. effort to develop scientifically based Chairman Policy Report targets and thresholds Senator Elmo The Introduction Baywide. Cross, Jr. (Va.) of Nonindigenous Species to the Chesapeake Bay BBCAC Co-Chairmen via Ballast Water Delegate Robert (1996) S. Bloxom (Va.) Delegate John F. Wood (Md.) The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership VIRGINIA n Water & Sewer Assistance Authority Governor of Pennsylvania n Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Governor Governor n of Maryland of Virginia Dredged Material for Beach Nourishment n Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas n EPA Wetlands Enforcement Administrator CBC Chair n Chesapeake Bay License Plate Of all the partners, n Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund only the CBC represents n Forestry Water Quality the state n Nutrient Management Certification legislatures. n Agricultural Stewardship n Agricultural BMP & Equipment Tax Credit n Water Quality Improvement Fund Governor Mayor of New York of D.C. n Poultry Waste Management n Land Conservation Foundation and Governor Governor of Fund of Delaware West Virginia n Land Preservation Tax Credit n Stormwater Program Consolidation n Nutrient Credit Exchange n Living Shorelines n Major Point Source Upgrades n Septic Tanks n Crab Dredging Ban n Clean Water Commerce n Resource Management Planning n Chesapeake & Coastal Bays 2010 Trust Fund n Alternative On-Site Sewage Systems n Agricultural Certainty n Public-Private Partnerships for Stormwater n Microbeads in Personal Care Products n Wasteload Allocation Review n Farms & Families Program n Combined Sewer Reporting n Organic Materials Recycling n Riparian Oyster Plantings n Forest Conservation Study n Firefighting Foam PFAS Prohibition n Oysters — Stock Assessment, Sanctuaries and n Stormwater and Wastewater Funding Needs Restoration Assessments

9 1997 1998 1999 Virginia passes the Water Quality The first of 14 Chesapeake Bay Pennsylvania passes “Growing Improvement Act providing significant Watershed boundary highway signs Greener,” establishing grant funding restoration funding. is erected, marking the farthest for environmental stewardship and reaches of the watershed in Maryland, watershed protection. Virginia Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Delegation Pennsylvania Chairman Boundary Marker, Ocean City, Md. Delegation Delegate W. Tayloe Chairman Murphy, Jr. Representative Arthur D. Hershey SUPPORTING AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION

URING THE COMMISSION'S 40-YEAR tenure, no subject area has dominated its attention, deliberations and action Dlike agriculture. The reasons are simple: agriculture is a dominant land use across the watershed, it is vitally important to each state’s economic and social well-being, and it is the most significant source of nutrient and sediment pollution. The Commission’s approach has always been to seek win-win solutions for the Bay and the dedicated farmers who work the watershed’s

landscape. As legislators, the Commission’s job SEN. EMMETT HANGER (VA.) HEARS FIRSTHAND FROM SHENANDOAH VALLEY has been to ensure the policies and budgets were in FARMERS ABOUT THE VALUE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. place — at the federal and state level —to support and leverage farmers’ existing efforts and new viable options to lessen this impact, such as using opportunities to reduce pollution. manure as a feedstock for energy generation. In the federal realm, the Commission’s advocacy In May 2015, the Commission released a report on the Farm Bills has ensured support for the Bay titled Healthy Livestock, Healthy Streams, highlighting region’s priorities. For example, the Commission’s the impacts of livestock pollution from direct stream 2005 report on potential enhancements to the Farm access and recommending simple policy solutions. Bill resulted in the creation of the Chesapeake Bay Subsequently, the Virginia Delegation spearheaded Watershed Initiative, delivering $260 million to Bay 100-percent cost-share funding for livestock stream farmers and targeting funding to areas of greatest exclusion in the Commonwealth. environmental concern. In 2014, the Farm Bill The Commission has always understood the expanded this concept to a new national Regional importance of technical assistance (TA), the Conservation Partnership Program. personalized assistance provided to implement Early on, the Commission identified animal agricultural conservation practices. Its salient manure as a major contributor to elevated levels policy report titled Boots on the Ground — Improving of nutrient pollution. Always looking for innovative Technical Assistance for Farmers, issued in 2017, solutions, the Commission sponsored scientific identified strategies to increase and enhance TA inquiry, public discourse, and policy analysis on capacity, watershed-wide.

10 2000 2001 2002 After leading an 18-month drafting Commission outlines land Commission launches the Bay process, the Commission signs the preservation policy options. The Funders Network, connecting Chesapeake 2000 agreement (C2K) region’s goal: to preserve 20 percent grantmakers across the watershed to and immediately launches an effort of the land in the watershed by 2010. learn, share and develop collaborative to find financial support for its strategies.

A report by the Chesapeake Bay Commission and implementation. TheTrust for Public Land Policy Report KeepingOur Keeping Our Contributes $45 million annually Commitment Commitment: to Bay restoration Chairman Preserving Land Preserving Land Senator Bill in theChesapeake Watershed in the Chesapeake Bolling (Va.) Bay Watershed

Chesapeake BayCommission Policy forthe Bay PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND FORESTS

ROM ITS BEGINNING, THE COMMISSION a concern that land conservation would lose its has appreciated, understood, and acted upon placement among restoration priorities. The the inextricable link between land use and Commission responded with the publication of Fwater quality. The Chesapeake 2000 agreement Crediting Conservation: Accounting for the Water (C2K) for the first time established a numeric land Quality Value of Conserved Lands Under the conservation goal: to conserve 20 percent of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, outlining the policy changes land within the watershed by 2010. needed to ensure land conservation remained a The Commission responded to this challenge high-value proposition watershed-wide. with a sense of urgency, forging a partnership During its tenure, the Commission has also with the Trust for Public Land to quickly pursued land conservation priorities on Capitol generate baseline data on the effectiveness of Hill. Realizing the importance of connecting people land conservation efforts and enumerate land to the Bay, the Commission helped Congress preservation opportunities tailored to each state. establish the National Park Service’s Chesapeake Guided by this landmark analysis, Keeping Our Bay Gateways and Watertrails program in 1998. The Commitment: Preserving Land in the Chesapeake program provides technical and financial assistance Watershed, in 2010 the Program met its goal. to communities and organizations to increase public Working with an expanded group of partners, access to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. the Commission then turned its attention to a new The Commission also promoted the establishment set of land conservation goals and the capacity to of the Captain John Smith National Historic Trail. achieve them. Conserving Chesapeake Landscapes: Protecting Our Investments, Securing Future Progress Land protection efforts and opportunities was released in December 2010, presenting state- specific recommendations for achieving the new Efforts so far have led to 22% of the watershed’s land being land conservation goals. 22% protected. Future opportunities At the same time, the Commission helped lead lie in the 65% of the watershed that is undeveloped. the creation of the Chesapeake Conservation Partnership, a coalition of diverse organizations Protected and agencies engaged in land conservation in the 65% 13% Unprotected Chesapeake Bay watershed. (developed) As the Bay Program transitioned to a more Unprotected regulatory framework under the federal TMDL, and undeveloped there was among the Commission’s members

11 2003 2004 2005 In The Cost of a Clean Bay, the Recognizing a huge shortfall in Realizing the importance of Commission estimates the actual funding, the Commission identifies agriculture, the Commission price tag for implementing C2K and the top cost-effective strategies while leads effort to expand funding for sets out to find the funding. pursuing passage of Maryland’s Bay conservation programs supported by Restoration Fund. the Federal Farm Bill. Chairman Representative Policy Report Policy Report Russ Fairchild (Pa.) Cost-Effective 2007 2007 Federal Farm Strategies for FEDERAL Bill, signed by five the Bay: 6 Smart FARM BILL governors. The bill Investments Concepts for passed in 2008. Conservation Reform in the for Nutrient Chesapeake Bay Region and Sediment Reduction SUSTAINING LIVING RESOURCES

BLUE CRABS for dialogue and coordinated management of the HE ICONIC CHESAPEAKE BLUE CRAB, THE fishery, the BBCAC brought together legislators, most commercially important fishery in the watermen, processors, scientists, and state agency Chesapeake, has been a focus of Commission representatives in a cooperative forum. During Taction since its beginning. As one of its its eight-year tenure, the BBCAC was chaired by first policy actions, the Commission worked to Commission members Delegate John F. Wood, Jr. of resolve concerns related to non-resident fishing Maryland and Delegate Robert S. Bloxom of Virginia. and crabbing in Maryland and Virginia. In 1982, A Technical Work Group, composed of 12 the Commission called for a Bay-wide fishery prominent scientists and economists, served as management plan and improved monitoring of the advisors to the BBCAC. Chaired by the Commis- stock, reflecting its 360-degree world view. sion’s Executive Director, Ann Swanson, the work The Commission’s most significant action on group provided ongoing analysis and issue identifi- sustaining the Blue Crab fishery was its creation of cation critical to ensuring the proper management the Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee (BBCAC) of the blue crab fishery. in 1996. Formed to provide an official structure BBCAC’s eight-year effort generated a new paradigm for crab management in the Bay, using the best science, transparent management Crab populations in flux objectives and measurable targets. BBCAC’s work MILLIONS OF SPAWNING FEMALE BLUE CRABS still impacts blue crab management today.

Target: At least 215 million OYSTERS A cornerstone species for the Bay, oysters uniquely do two things: They build three-dimensional reef structures, creating habitat for themselves and other aquatic species. And they filter gallon after gallon of Bay water, removing polluting nutrients. The Commission has always recognized the significance of this species, for both its ecological

and commercial importance. Commission members Threshold: 70 million (minimum sustainable level) have led numerous efforts to foster a sustainable oyster industry, honoring the traditions of the wild harvest while promoting modern day aquaculture.

12 2006 2007 2008 Commission helps to secure Maryland passes the Chesapeake Commission champions federal designation of the Captain Bay 2010 Trust Fund to advance Congressional action to establish the John Smith Chesapeake National progress in meeting nonpoint source Farm Bill Chesapeake Bay Watershed Historic Trail, promoting public restoration goals. Initiative, securing $260 million to access and recreation along 3,000 support agricultural nutrient and miles of waterways. Chairman sediment reductions. Delegate James Hubbard (Md.) Chairman Representative Arthur D. Hershey (Pa.) The provision of sufficient and suitable substrate, specific measurable goals in each Bay Agreement hatchery-produced “spat,” or seed oyster, and since 1987. The object has been to continually adequate enforcement have been important to the increase access to habitat to support sustainable Commission. Setting aside sanctuary areas to allow migratory fish populations. Achievement of the for long-term rebuilding of the reefs has also been goal will be realized by the consistent presence of a priority. alewife, blueback herring, American shad, hickory At the Commission’s urging, the various shad and American eel. Commission members Chesapeake Bay Agreements have incorporated have successfully advocated for the funding commitments to increasing oyster abundance and needed to remove dams and other obstacles to habitat. And at both the state and federal levels, fish migration in Bay-state budgets. Of particular the Commission has secured millions of dollars note, the Commission led early efforts to support a for large-scale reef restoration and sponsored significant fish passage and transport program at legislation to ensure the long-term protection of Conowingo Dam. these investments. STRIPED BASS In the early-1980s, declines in the striped bass populations resulted in the Commission calling for interjurisdictional responses, including increases in minimum catch size. Despite the adoption of several responses, the population continued to decline and in 1984 the Commission recommended a temporary moratorium on striped bass fishing in Maryland waters. This ban over time was key in the population’s recovery — a well-recognized conservation success story. FISH PASSAGE With historic spawning and nursery areas amputated by dams and culverts, the Commission

has long supported restoring access to those areas INTERACTIONS WITH SCIENTISTS AND WATERMEN IN THE FIELD GIVE COMMISSION MEMBERS for anadromous fish. It fostered the inclusion of FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCES THEY CAN DRAW FROM WHEN CRAFTING POLICY

13 2009 2010 2011 Commission completes a series of Commission proposes six regional Maryland and Virginia pass laws policy reports on biofuels, exploring strategies to improve land to limit the nutrient content in the co-benefits of bioenergy and conservation policy in the watershed. maintenance lawn fertilizer, reducing conservation. pollution from

ConseRving Policy Report developed lands. ChesApeAke Conserving Biofuels Policy Reports LAndsCApes protecting our investments, Chesapeake 2007, 2008, 2010 securing Future progress Landscapes: Delegation Chairmen Protecting Our Senator Thomas “Mac” Biofuels Chesapeake Middleton (Md.) And the Bay Biofuel Policies Investments, Getting It Right Next-Generation Biofuels Balancing Energy, Economy Senator Mary Margaret To Benefit Farms, and Environment Forests and the Taking the Policy Lead Securing Future Chesapeake for the Nation Whipple (Va.) A RepoRt by the ChesApeAke bAy Commission And ChesApeAke ConseRvAnCy Progress

CHESAPEAKE BAYA REPORT COMMISSION OF THE A REPORT OF THE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION September 2007 A REPORT OF THE JANUARY 2010 CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

SEPTEMBER 2008 EMPOWERING POLICY WITH FUNDING

ROM THE INCEPTION OF THE WATERSHED maximization has been a consistent consideration in restoration effort, the questions of cost and Commission decisions and actions. funding have always been paramount. During One year later, the Commission took an intensive Fthe Commission’s tenure, its membership follow-up look at a broad suite of pollution control has included many appropriators, including chairs options and for the first time assessed the benefits of state House and Senate budget committees. and costs of their widespread adoption. Cost This has helped provide the Commission with an Effective Strategies for the Bay identified six practices informed perspective on the relationship of the that provided “the biggest bang for the buck” fiscal demands of restoration within the context of and charted a path for implementation of these the much larger state and federal budgets. practices. These practices have driven much of the In 2003, the Commission published The Cost of water quality improvement that has been achieved a Clean Bay, the first attempt to objectively quantify to date. the financial needs of achieving the Chesapeake In addition, state legislative action championed 2000 goals. The report demonstrated the essential by Commission members has provided both the need for the targeting of financial resources to annual appropriations and dedicated accounts that maximize the value of each dollar spent. This value have supported restoration. Highlights include the following:

Bay Restoration Fund sees results MARYLAND MILLIONS MILLIONS OF POUNDS Technology upgrades at the state’s wastewater OF DOLLARS OF NITROGEN PER YEAR treatment plants (WWTPs) have been the main , source of nutrient pollution reductions achieved Annual nitrogen loadings thus far in Maryland. The Bay Restoration Fund, , from wastewater sector created in 2004, has served as the major source of funds for these upgrades. Commission members have led the efforts to secure some $1.6 billion for Bay Restoration Fund the fund. Other beneficial uses of the fund include outlays (cumulative) septic upgrades, septic connections to WWTPs, and cover crop plantings. Commission members recognized that Maryland

needed an analogous funding program to address nutrient and sediment pollution from agriculture

14 2012 2013 2014 Exploring the potential for cost Commission considers how to value Commission signs the 2014 savings, the Commission conducts a land conservation as a reliable tool to Chesapeake Bay Watershed study with RTI International examining reduce and control water pollution. Agreement, recognizing the need to nutrient trading. adapt management as new science

CREDITING CONSERVATIONCrediting Conservation 1 Accounting for the Water Quality Value of Conserved Lands Under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION · JUNE 2013 Policy Report emerges.

here is an undeniable link between the health of the waters of the Chesapeake Nutrient Credit Trading Bay and our stewardship of the huge area of land that comprises its watershed. The land- Crediting to-water ratio is larger than any other estuarine water body on earth. With a water surface for the Chesapeake Bay Policy Report Tfor the tidal Bay of only 4,000 square miles and a watershed of 64,000 square miles, land surface exceeds water surface by more than 16 times. How we treat the land profoundly influences the quality of the water. Thus, land-use decisions may well be the most important An Economic Study factor in the success or failure of our efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Keeping Our Commitment: Preserving Land in the Chesapeake Watershed Conservation: Nutrient Credit Chesapeake Bay Commission, February 2001 Chairman INTRODUCTION and conservation and sound land use are fundamental components of restoring and protecting Accounting for the resilience of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This is not a new concept. Land conservation Trading for the L has been supported throughout the history of the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership. The 1983 and 1987 agreements, Chesapeake 2000, and, most recently, the 2010 Watershed Representative Implementation Plans of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, all incorporate land conservation elements in their goals. Public support for land conservation throughout the region has resulted in not only the achievement of acre goals for land conservation but also the setting of new goals to Water Quality Chesapeake Bay: protect even more acres. The benefits of land conservation are numerous and multifaceted; no one denies the inherent value of preserved land to the achievement of a healthy Chesapeake Bay. However, even though 1 Ronald E. Miller (Pa.) land conservation is critical to protecting against water quality degradation, its specific role in water quality protection has not been recognized as a critically important tool for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution under the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Value Under the Load (TMDL). The simple reason is that conserving land doesn’t effectuate major reductions in An Economic Study pollution; rather, it prevents increases in pollution by precluding conversion. When the Chesapeake Bay Agreements were the primary driver behind Bay restoration efforts, land conservation received much attention. Now that the Bay TMDL has become the primary driver, its numeric nature of counting pounds of pollution entering the Bay from various sources has made Chesapeake Bay integrating the water quality values of conserving land an awkward fit – not unlike “fitting a square peg into a round hole.”

1. Forests account for approximately 60% of the land area in the Bay watershed and contribute only about 15% of the total load of nitrogen and 2% of the phosphorus load to the Bay. In addition, river basins with the highest percentage of forest cover have the lowest annual sediment yields in the Bay region. TMDL

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION MAY 2012 and stormwater runoff. In 2007, they moved EPA Chesapeake Bay Program funding legislation creating the Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY Fund, which has to date targeted $506 million on Authorized the most cost-effective on-the-ground pollution $85 million reduction projects for these sources, leveraging an in FY 2020 additional $225 million in matching dollars.

VIRGINIA Appropriated In 1997, Virginia members of the Commission led the creation of the Water Quality Improvement Fund. Its

initial funding priority was technological improvements to the state’s wastewater infrastructure.

Since then, the Fund has spent $908 million on these improvements, resulting in significant nutrient pollution reductions to Virginia’s waters. To achieve necessary reductions in agricultural nutrient and sediment pollution, Commission Pennsylvania Commission members championed members led the creation of an income tax credit enactment of Resource Enhancement and for farmers who implement pollution-reducing Protection Tax Credits and Conservation Excellence conservation practices. Additional legislation Grants to farmers who implement on-the-ground created a tax credit for farmers who invest in practices that reduce pollution. equipment that achieve these necessary pollution reductions. FEDERAL As the Bay Program’s principal liaison to the U.S. PENNSYLVANIA Congress, the Commission has worked with the In 1999, the Commission’s Pennsylvania members Bay watershed’s Congressional members to ensure led passage of the Environmental Stewardship the strategic deployment of the full resources of and Watershed Protection Act, commonly known our federal government to Bay restoration efforts. as Growing Greener. The program addresses Significant milestones are many, including securing pollution reductions by funding local, watershed- $260 million in dedicated Farm Bill funding for based planning, restoration and protection efforts. agricultural conservation practices and building the To support agricultural pollution reductions, EPA’s Bay Program Office budget to $85 million.

15 2015 2016 2017 Chairman Scott Lingamfelter (Va.) Virginia passes legislation paving the Chairman Garth Everett (Pa.) focuses focuses the Commission on getting way for public-private partnerships for the Commission on ensuring technical livestock out of the Bay’s waterways, stormwater management, our most assistance is available to farmers triggering state and federal action. expensive challenge. across the watershed.

Policy Report Virginia Policy Report Healthy Livestock, BOOTS ON Healthy Streams Healthy Livestock, Delegation THE GROUND Boots on the Ground: Policy Actions To Healthy Streams Improving Improving Technical Promote Livestock Chairman Technical Assistance Stream Exclusion Delegate Scott for Farmers Assistance for Farmers Lingamfelter (Va.)

A REPORT OF THE A REPORT OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION MAY 2015 NOVEMBER 2017 LOOKING FORWARD

ESPITE THE WISDOM OF THE COMMISSION’S Changes in precipitation patterns increase the founders, it seems unlikely that they could potential for flooding everywhere. Responding to have anticipated 40 years of legislation, policy these direct results of climate change will drive new Dand budgets supporting not just improved policy and new action by the Commission. water quality and living resources in the mainstem Perhaps the greatest threat to the restoration of of the Chesapeake, but in the thousands of rivers, the Bay and its watershed is that the need for and streams and creeks that supply its lifeblood of fresh significance of restoration is not shared equally water. In the face of a population that has almost among all its citizens. During the 2020 Executive doubled, excess nutrients have been cut in half. It is Council meeting, with the Commission’s full a remarkable achievement and truly a world-class endorsement, the Bay Program adopted a Diversity, model for ecosystem restoration. Equity, Inclusion and Justice policy statement. But new and significant concerns increasingly The members of the Commission are steadfast impact the watershed. With thousands of low-lying in their commitment to address the impacts of acres and an enormous infrastructure dependent on discrimination and continuing environmental, the land-water interface, the Bay region is among economic and health disparities that disproportion- the most vulnerable in the world to sea level rise. ately burden underserved communities, including those of color, low-income status and indigenous populations. There is still a long way to go. Each marginal reduction of nutrient or sediment pollution is often more difficult, more expensive than the prior reduction. Commission members will remain committed and alert to those opportunities that will not only move the needle but also will do so in a cost-effective way. Policies to address stormwater runoff and agricultural pollution, along with the availability of financial resources, will Visit www.chesbay.us to see continue to be major concerns for the the Commission’s 40th Anniversary Film Commission as it works to stay true to its mission of a restored Chesapeake Bay.

16 2018 2019 2020 Commission champions eight new Pennsylvania passes the Conservation Commission successfully priorities in the Farm Bill, resulting in Excellence Grant Program designed to advocates for the reauthorization significantly improved opportunities fund agricultural practices. of the Chesapeake Bay Program at for restoration and funding. unprecedented funding levels. Pennsylvania CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION · MARCH 2019 Delegation FEDERAL AGENCY BUDGET REQUEST Chairman FISCAL YEAR 2020 Policy Report

Chairman he restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is at a critical juncture. Commission Priority Increases Senator Frank Positive signs of recovery have emerged Federal Agency across the watershed, proving that the ✶ Environmental Protection Agency: Geographic Programs — Chesapeake Bay: $90,000K collaborative effort is working. After (FY 2019 level $73,000K) Tthree decades, we are more than half way to These monies maintain the nucleus of the Federal-state Senator Gene achieving the shared goal of clean water by 2025. partnership to restore the Bay. Program funds are used But to complete the job, more resources must be to coordinate the complex science and monitoring W. Wagner (Va.) brought to bear. efforts that drive restoration. Budget Request The Bay’s Congressional delegation has As we near the 2025 deadline, both the challenge and urgency of our work grows. New research on the been steadfast in its commitment to restore the nutrient flows through the Conowingo Dam amplify watershed and its resources. Continued success the need for pollution reductions, but we lack funding Yaw (Pa.) depends on maintaining, and in some cases for implementation at the scale required. Priority areas enhancing, the Federal funding that provides are: 1) small watershed and innovative practices grants; the catalyst for the restoration efforts. Each 2) local government implementation; and 3) state-based FY2020 targeted and cost-effective solutions. Current programs Federal dollar spent leverages three more from are significantly over-subscribed and highly leveraged. state, local and private partners. Between now We are in the final phase and within sight of delivering and 2025, we all need to “double-down” on our clean water. commitment and capacity. ✶ National Park Service: Chesapeake Bay As Congress begins deliberations on the Gateways and Trails Program: $3,000K FY 2020 Federal budget, the Chesapeake Bay (FY 2019 level $2,000K) Commission offers this report to pinpoint the This program provides assistance for connecting people Federal funding required. We have highlighted with the heritage of the watershed. The increase will: 1) three opportunities where targeted increases will develop a core set of “visitor hubs” to expand Chesa- strategically advance our work (see box at right). peake tourism; 2) increase programming and projects that get children and visitors outside; and 3) advance Chesapeake conservation and access goals. Who We Are and What We Do ✶ US Army Corps of Engineers: The Chesapeake Bay Commission is a tri-state Construction — Chesapeake Bay Environmental legislative Commission with bipartisan Restoration and Protection (Sec. 510): $5,000K membership from Maryland, Pennsylvania (FY 2019 level $0K) and Virginia. We work to advance policy, at all The Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan provides a strategic roadmap for investments in aquatic ecosystem levels of government, to restore and protect the restoration. Under Section 510, USACE is provided Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Federal-state an enhanced opportunity to partner with non-Federal partnership is producing real results in cleaner sponsors to design and construct aquatic ecosystem water, healthier fisheries and greater economic restoration projects. All watershed jurisdictions have and environmental resilience. It is a model contributed to the Plan and would match federal funding. worthy of global recognition.

1 · FEDERAL AGENCY BUDGET REQUEST FY 2020 THOMAS · RICHARD A. TILGHMAN · DENNIS TREACY · FRANK W. WAGNER · PETER WHO WE ARE WHERE WE ARE FROM C. WAMBACH · JAMES WANSACZ · MOLLY WARD · MICHAEL L. WAUGH · MICHAEL H. WEIR · MICHAEL H. WEIR, JR. · NOAH W. WENGER · MARY MARGARET WHIPPLE N THE COURSE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY Commission’s 40-year history, 127 individuals · MARTIN E. WILLIAMS · TONY WILT · GERALD W. WINEGRAD · JACK F. WITTEN · have contributed a combined 813 years of GEORGE B. WOLFF · JOHNWe F. WOOD,are seeing JR. · multiple,JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR. · GENE YAW · Iservice to the Commission. This map shows the towns and cities represented by each of the “significant and persistent signs of Commission’s current and former members. PETER J. ZUG · RICH L. ALLOWAY, II · L. RAY ASHWORTH · MARK BELTON · ROBERT Multiple cabinet secretaries are represented bay and river restoration right now. by one symbol at each state capital. BLOXOM · ROBERT S. BLOXOM, JR. · BILL BOLLING · MICHAEL E. BORTNER · PETER A. CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIR VICE-CHAIR This is the time to jump on this Gene Yaw, Guy Guzzone, David Bulova, BOZICK · TONY BRIDGES · TORREY C. BROWN · MICHAEL W. BRUBAKER · PRESTON Williamsport Senate of Maryland State Virginia House of 1 8 progress with all the tools, people, Pennsylvania Senate Delegates Muncy BRYANT · DAVID L. BULOVA · JOHN A. CADE · VIRGINIA P. CLAGETT · KENNETH talent and resources that can be LEGEND COLE · HOWARD E. COPELAND · JOHN COSGROVE · JAMES B. COULTER · JEFFREY 2020 MEMBERS 2020 Members mustered and focus on the nutrient NUMBERS REFER TO STARS ON MAP PENNSYLVANIA W. COY · ELMO G. CROSS, JR. · JOHN W. DANIELS · ARTHUR A. DAVIS · NICHOLAS 1 The Hon. Gene Yaw, Chairman ✦ ...... Senate of Pennsylvania Past Members and sediment load reductions 2 The Hon. David Bulova, Vice-Chair ✦ ...... Virginia House of Delegates HARRISBURG DEBENEDICTIS · BETTY J. DIENER · DOUG DOMENECH · THELMA DRAKE · BECKY Watershed 16 3 The Hon. Guy Guzzone, Vice-Chair ✦ ...... Maryland State Senate Boundary still needed. Right here in the Chambersburg NORTON DUNLOP · SARAH K. ELFRETH · G. WARREN ELLIOTT · GARTH D. EVERETT 15 20 7 York 9 4 The Hon. Robert S. Bloxom, Jr...... Virginia House of Delegates Lancaster Chesapeake Bay, we are proving 5 The Hon. Tony Bridges...... Maryland House of Delegates · RUSS H. FAIRCHILD · BERNIE FOWLER · J. CHARLES FOX · C. RONALD FRANKS · 6 The Hon. Sarah K. Elfreth...... Senate of Maryland that with focus and a steady hand, 7 The Hon. G. Warren Elliott ...... Pennsylvania Citizen Representative MARYLAND BRIAN E. FROSH · BARBARA FRUSH · TAWANNA GAINES · JOSEPH V. GARTLAN, 8 The Hon. Garth D. Everett...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives Baltimore we can get the job done. The eyes Columbia 5 JR. · JOE GILL · KEITH J. GILLESPIE · JOHN R. GRIFFIN · RON GUNS · NANCY D. GUY 9 The Hon. Keith Gillespie ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives 3 18 10 The Hon. Nancy D. Guy ...... Virginia House of Delegates of the world are on us. Bethesda ANNAPOLIS 14 6 · GUY GUZZONE · JEANNIE HADDAWAY - RICCIO · RONALD HAMM · JOHN HANGER · 11 The Hon. Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Maryland 11 ✦ 12 The Hon. Emmett W. Hanger, Jr...... Senate of Virginia 2 — Walter” Boynton, Ph.D. Fairfax Station 13 The Hon. Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr...... Senate of Virginia EMMETT W. HANGER, JR. · ELIZABETH H. HASKELL · ARTHUR D. HERSHEY · DAVID E. 17 2017 Chesapeake Executive Council Meeting 14 The Hon. Sara Love ...... Maryland House of Delegates Waldorf 22 15 The Hon. Scott Martin ...... Senate of Pennsylvania Prince HESS · IRVINE B. HILL · JAMES W. HUBBARD · JERRAULD C. JONES · NANCY J. KING 12 Frederick 16 The Hon. Patrick McDonnell ...... Secretary of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania Mount Solon · MICHAEL KRANCER · STEPHEN LAFFERTY · LYNWOOD W. LEWIS, JR. · L. SCOTT 17 The Hon. Thomas McLain “Mac” Middleton ...... Maryland Citizen Representative VIRGINIA 18 The Hon. Dana M. Stein ✦ ...... Maryland House of Delegates 19 The Hon. Matthew J. Strickler ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia Hanover LINGAMFELTER · JOSEPH J. LONG, SR. · SARA LOVE · SCOTT MARTIN · JAMES E. Courthouse 4 20 The Hon. P. Michael Sturla ✦ ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives 21 Mappsville 13 21 The Hon. Dennis H. Treacy ...... Virginia Citizen Representative Accomac MCCLELLAN · CHARLES A. MCCLENAHAN · PATRICK MCDONNELL · KATHLEEN A. RICHMOND 19 22 The Hon. Bernie Fowler ...... Member Emeritus MCGINTY · MAGGIE MCINTOSH · THOMAS “MAC” MIDDLETON · RONALD MILLER · 23 Rear Admiral Charles W. Rock ...... Naval Liaison THEODORE V. MORRISON, JR. · W. TAYLOE MURPHY, JR. · ROBERT W. O’DONNELL ✦ Member of the Executive Committee Norfolk 23 · ALBERT C. POLLARD, JR. · JOHN QUIGLEY · MARGARET RANSONE · ALFRED W. 10 Virginia Beach REDMER · NICK RERRAS · JOHN R. REYNOLDS · CATHERINE I. RILEY · MAURICE B.

MILES ROWE · THOMAS RYMER · JOHN SHOWERS · JAMES M. SEIF · JAMES C. SIMPSON · ELIZABETH S. SMITH · EDWARD STABACK · DANA M. STEIN · STEPHEN H. STETLER · RICH L. ALLOWAY, II · L. RAY ASHWORTH · MARK BELTON · ROBERT BLOXOM · ROBERT S. BLOXOM, JR. · BILL BOLLING · MICHAEL E. BORTNER · PETER A. BOZICK · TONY BRIDGES · TORREY C. BROWN · MICHAEL W. HEADQUARTERS AND MARYLAND OFFICE 60 West Street, Suite 406 BRUBAKER · PRESTON BRYANT · DAVID L. BULOVA · JOHN A. CADE · Annapolis, MD 21401 410-263-3420 VIRGINIA P. CLAGETT · KENNETH COLE · HOWARD E. COPELAND · JOHN