Running Head
Reflections CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION · ANNUAL REPORT 2004
i The word “Reflection” has more than a dozen dictionary definitions, some common and others quite Chapter 1 arcane. Two are wholly appropriate to this report. A reflection is a refraction of light that casts a mirror image of a place or thing — a way to witness its very being and to understand its significance. A reflection is also a retrospective moment — a pondering of the past that can have bearing or influence on the future. For the Commission, 2004 was a very reflective year. ◗ We looked closely at our Bay and its 64,000-square-mile watershed and wholly agreed that we had something profoundly special — something deserving of nationwide recognition. The members urged President George W. Bush to proclaim the Bay as a national treasure. Making the case was easy; moving a nation is not. The persuasion must be ongoing. ◗ The year 2004 was also a time for the Commission to reflect back on its quarter century of effort. Has progress been substantial? The answer is surely “yes.” Has much been learned and accomplished?
Again, the answer can only be “yes.” But has it been enough? In good conscience, the response must be “no.” And so the Commission vows to continue its work, with diligent conviction and recognition of the political and financial challenges ahead.
ii Reflections CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION · ANNUAL REPORT 2004
Introduction The Role of the Commission · 3
Roster of Members · 5
Chapter 1 The Commission’s Work in 2004 · 7
Chapter 2 Reflecting on a National Treasure · 19
Chapter 3 Smart Investments in Clean Water · 33
Appendix I Quarterly Meeting Agendas · 41
Appendix II A Letter to the President · 45
Introduction The Role of the Commission
he Chesapeake Bay Commission is a tri-state legislative commission created in 1980 to advise the members of the general assemblies of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania on matters of Baywide concern. Issues addressed by its members are as wide-ranging and complexT as the Bay itself, delving into matters of air, land, water, living resources and the integrated management of all of them. Twenty-one members define the Commission’s identity and its workload. Fifteen are legislators (five each from Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania) who are responsible for identifying the needs of the Bay, hearing the wishes of their constituents and determining actions to make better stewards of all of us. Completing their ranks are the governors of each state, represented by their cabinet members who are directly responsible for managing their states’ natural resources, as well as three citizen representatives who bring with them a unique perspective and expertise. The Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC) was created in 1980 to coordinate Bay-related policy across state lines and to develop shared DAWN PATROL · PHOTO © DAVID HARP · PHOTO © DAVID PATROL DAWN
3 solutions. The year 2005 will mark the Commission’s twenty-fifth anniversary — a benchmark that often triggers reflection. With nearly a quarter-century of work behind it, the Commission has emerged as a regional, bi-partisan leader whose members possess both techni- cal knowledge and political savvy. It has made remarkable strides learning the complex workings of an enormous estuary, determin- ing the Federal and state actions that are needed to sustain its living resources, and persuading its colleagues in the general assemblies, the executive branches, and the Congress to take action. Today, despite nearly 25 years of effort, restoration continues to face daunting challenges with diminishing returns. Much has been accomplished. With the crafting of Chesapeake 2000 and new water quality standards that address the Bay’s water quality woes, there is a clear vision of “what we must do.” But if progress is to be made, sustainable funds must be garnered and political will amassed. Reflections provides an image of the Commission’s efforts to address the restoration needs. It demonstrates the long-term commit- ment that every member holds to bring back the Chesapeake Bay. All are sustained by their vision of a clean and healthy Bay. All believe that productive partnerships at the Federal, state and local level are a fundamental step toward attaining that vision. All know that without reliable funding and strong leadership, the job cannot be done.
4 Members and Staff of the Commission
The Hon. J. Lowell Stoltzfus, Chairman * ...... Maryland State Senate The Hon. Michael Waugh, Vice-Chairman * ...... Senate of Pennsylvania The Hon. Emmett W. Hanger, Jr., Vice-Chairman * ...... Senate of Virginia The Hon. Bill Bolling ...... Senate of Virginia (January-June) The Hon. Robert S. Bloxom ...... Virginia House of Delegates (Jan. 2004 — Jan. 2005) The Hon. John A. Cosgrove * ...... Virginia House of Delegates (May-) The Hon. Thelma Drake ...... Virginia House of Delegates (January-May) The Hon. Russ Fairchild ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives The Hon. Bernie Fowler ...... Maryland Citizen Representative The Hon. C. Ronald Franks ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Maryland The Hon. Brian E. Frosh ...... Maryland State Senate The Hon. Arthur D. Hershey ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives The Hon. Irvine B. Hill ...... Virginia Citizen Representative The Hon. James W. Hubbard ...... Maryland House of Delegates The Hon. L. Scott Lingamfelter ...... Virginia House of Delegates (May-) The Hon. Kathleen A. McGinty ...... Secretary of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania The Hon. W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia The Hon. Albert C. Pollard, Jr...... Virginia House of Delegates The Hon. Nick Rerras ...... Senate of Virginia (June-) The Hon. Michael H. Weir, Jr...... Maryland House of Delegates The Hon. Noah W. Wenger ...... Senate of Pennsylvania The Hon. George B. Wolff ...... Pennsylvania Citizen Representative The Hon. John F. Wood, Jr. * ...... Maryland House of Delegates The Hon. Peter J. Zug * ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives * Members of the Executive Committee Staff Ann Pesiri Swanson ...... Executive Director Thomas W. Beauduy ...... Pennsylvania Director (January-June) Melanie D. Davenport ...... Virginia Director (January-November) Marel A. Raub ...... Pennsylvania Director (September-) Patricia G. Stuntz ...... Maryland Director Paula W. Hose ...... Administrative Officer
5
Chapter 1 The Commission’s Work in 2004
ach year, the Commission looks back to reflect on its work and to assess its contribution to the health of the Bay. In 2004, funding, appropriately and necessar- ily, took center stage. Our work to support investment in the Bay restoration continued on parallel tracks: We laidE the groundwork for new programs and enhanced funding, while also analyzing where existing funds could be best directed to achieve maximum reductions in nutrients and sediments. At our four quarterly meetings, held in each member state and the nation’s capital, Commission members met with the region’s top scientists to garner advice and to translate scientific findings into policy recommendations. Condensed agendas of these meetings appear as Appendix I. In Washington, D.C., the Commissioners met with their Congres- sional colleagues and with the President’s top environmental advisors to promote the designation of the Bay as a “national treasure” and to strengthen Federal agency participation in cleanup and restoration efforts throughout the watershed. GREAT BLUE HUNTER · PHOTO © DAVID HARP BLUE HUNTER · PHOTO © DAVID GREAT
7 As our state partners worked to members supported the creation of a develop new water quality standards and dedicated fund proposed by Gover- the blueprints for each tributary to meet nor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., and passed those standards, the Commission stayed during the 2004 session. Funds from focused as well on the reduction of nutri- the “Sewer Surcharge” will be used to ent and sediment loads to the Bay. Chap- upgrade the 66 largest sewage treat- ter 3 offers a description of this work. ment plants in the state with enhanced This chapter is intended to illustrate nutrient removal (ENR) technology to Chapter 1 the breadth of the Commission’s work, address this problem. A combination addressing issues as wide-ranging as non- of user fees assessed to households, native oysters and acid mine drainage. businesses and multi-family dwellings, The Commission’s willingness to tackle as well as bond proceeds, will generate the full spectrum of Bay issues has ensured funds sufficient to upgrade these plants its role as one of the region’s principal by 2011. Fees are also assessed on users policy leaders. of septic systems or holding tanks, with proceeds directed toward failing septic systems as well as the Maryland State Legislative Activities Department of Agriculture’s cover crop cost-share program. The initiative is Commission members in 2004 sponsored recognized by all as a major stride in and supported legislation and budget the Bay’s restoration and will, upon full initiatives in all three states to improve implementation, result in the capture of the management of water, land, air and one-third of the state’s required nitro- living resources. The following are high- gen pollution load reduction. lights from each of the states’ legislative sessions: ■ To better address agricultural sources of pollution, the Maryland delegation MARYLAND supported legislation to change required ■ Agriculture and point sources remain nutrient management plan provisions the largest sources of nitrogen to seen as unduly burdensome by the farm the Bay. In Maryland, Commission community. The Commission members
Delegate John Wood, Jr. (D-Md.), Executive Director Ann Swanson, Delegate Albert Pollard, Jr. (D- Va.) and Senator Emmett Hanger (R-Va.) listen carefully as Chairman Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-Md.) discusses farm policy with the members of the Commission. and staff had participated in a series of ■ Through a referendum on the May meetings and summits to ensure that primary election ballot, Pennsylvania these provisions improved a farmer’s voters approved a $250 million bond ability to implement a plan while caus- issue to fund water and wastewater ing no additional harm to the Bay. improvements in the Commonwealth. A Water Supply and Wastewater Treat- ■ The Maryland delegation also ment Fund was established that will supported legislation to reaffirm the administer $200 million of grants and principles and intent of the Critical loans for water projects associated with Areas Law and increased penalties for The Commission’s economic development. The remaining critical area violations. They supported Work in 2004 $50 million will be forwarded to the the establishment of energy-efficiency Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment standards and renewable energy port- Authority (PENNVEST) for improve- folios for electricity suppliers. Mercury ments to existing systems. An additional labeling and disposal requirements were $50 million to $100 million indebted- also passed this session. ness is provided under a 1992 bond PENNSYLVANIA initiative for the improvement of exist- ing systems. ■ The Commonwealth, in 2004, became one of 18 states (along with Maryland) ■ Agriculture is the top source of both to enact an advanced energy port- nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in folio standard. In 15 years, eighteen Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth percent of the electricity sold by electric moved to strengthen its existing nutri- distributors and electric generators that ent management program by regulat- sell directly to retail customers must be ing both commercial manure haulers from alternative energy sources, includ- and brokers. The legislation requires ing solar photovoltaic energy, wind all commercial haulers and brokers to power, geothermal energy, biologically- undergo training and certification in derived methane gas, coal mine meth- nutrient management requirements. ane, waste coal and coal gasification, It also places a duty on commercial among others. haulers and brokers to comply with
Former Chesapeake Bay Program Director Bill Matuszeski, a consultant on the Commission’s cost- effectiveness report, confers with Delegate John Cosgrove (R-Va.).
Pennsylvania Representative Russ Fairchild (R) and Maryland Delegate 9 Jim Hubbard (D) consider regional air pollution strategies as they seek common solutions across state lines. requirements of Pennsylvania’s Nutri- ■ Virginia’s stormwater management ent Management Act and to maintain programs will be improved through appropriate records of land application. legislation which consolidates activi- ties into one agency, the Department ■ The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Educa- of Conservation and Recreation. tion Program within Pennsylvania’s Additional legislation requires agency Department of Education was created personnel who inspect for compli- in 2004. The program is authorized to ance with the Erosion and Sediment provide grants up to $5,000 per school Control Law and stormwater manage- Chapter 1 to promote the teaching of watershed ment permits to hold valid certificates education and provide students with the of competence, as required of local opportunity to participate in meaning- government personnel. ful Bay or stream outdoor experiences. ■ VIRGINIA Legislation was also approved autho- rizing a study by the Joint Legislative ■ In Virginia, large expanses of Bay and Administrative Review Commis- bottomland is state-owned and avail- sion (JLARC) on the effectiveness of able for lease. In 2004, the Virginia the implementation, performance and delegation sponsored legislation autho- enforcement of Virginia’s nutrient rizing the Virginia Marine Resources management plans. The Commission Commission to lease the water column will assist JLARC in gathering the infor- above certain bottomlands for aquacul- mation that it needs. ture purposes. Commission members also supported the establishment of the ■ In September, the Executive Director Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Virginia Director spoke at the and assessment of permit application joint meeting of the Virginia House and fees, annual fees and permit mainte- Senate committees covering natural nance fees that will generate approxi- resources and appropriations. Their mately $6 million for the funding of air, presentations addressed the role of the water and waste permit programs at the Commission and its activities in the Department of Environmental Quality. Bay Program and the Virginia General
Known for his environmental leadership, Senator Brian Frosh (D-Md.) considers the pros and cons of introducing a non-native species of oyster into the Chesapeake.
As the chairman of the Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and a farm-operator 10 himself, Senator Mike Waugh (R) knows that farmers must be part of any water quality solution. DAVID HARP DAVID Assembly, the nutrient and sediment government’s commitment to the Bay reduction strategies of Maryland and restoration and identify the Bay as a Pennsylvania, and the Commission’s “national treasure.” The Commission work to identify the relative cost effec- also provided an outline of the key tiveness of different nutrient control points such an Order would include. options. The information shared Details of these meetings are provided contributed directly to the waste treat- in Chapter 2. ment funding proposals submitted for ■ Commission staff worked with the General Assembly consideration in The Commission’s [House] Congressional Bay Task Force 2005. Work in 2004 to develop Federal budget requests based, in part, on the findings of the Congressional Activities Commission’s 2004 cost effective- ■ In May 2004, the Commission met with ness report. Staff also served as a lead its Congressional colleagues for indi- witness when the Task Force convened. vidual state hearings on the condition of ■ Negotiations began in 2004 for the the Bay and the status of the restoration reauthorization of the Water Resources effort. Earlier in the day, Commission Development Act (WRDA), the broad members met with: Chairman James authorization for the work of the Connaughton of the President’s Coun- Army Corps of Engineers nationwide. cil on Environmental Quality; Acting The Commission worked closely with Assistant Secretary Benjamin Grumbles the U.S. Senators from the region to of the U.S. Environmental Protection ensure that Corps funding would track Agency, Office of Water; and Maggie closely with Bay region priorities. The Grant, Special Assistant to the President Committee was urged to make perma- on Intergovernmental Affairs. nent the pilot program established in ■ The Commission presented a letter to Section 510 of WRDA 1996 known Chairman Connaughton, addressed to as the Chesapeake Bay Environmental President Bush, seeking issuance of an Restoration and Protection Program Executive Order to reaffirm the Federal and to raise the authorized funding
Senators Noah Wenger (R-Pa.) and Nick Rerras (R-Va.) and Delegates Mike Weir, Jr. (D-Md.) and Jim Hubbard (D-Md.) concentrate on the facts in an effort to translate science and economics into environmental policy. from the current level of $10 million to expenditures to public health and safety $1 billion. Section 510 authorizes the threats. Army Corps of Engineers to provide ■ design and construction assistance In August, the U.S. House of Repre- to state and local authorities in the sentatives Committee on Government environmental restoration of the Reform conducted a full committee Chesapeake Bay. In addition, we further field hearing on the health of the Chesa- requested the establishment of a new peake Bay at Fort Monroe in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Both Congressmen Chapter 1 small-grants program for local govern- ments and non-profit organizations to Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Ed Shrock (R- carry out small-scale restoration and Va.) were present. The Commission’s protection projects in the Chesapeake testimony, as requested by the Commit- Bay watershed. The reauthorization did tee, addressed the current state of the not pass in 2004 but will be reconsid- Bay and the role of the Commission ered in 2005. in bringing together the three state legislatures to jointly address Bay ■ Continuing the work it began in 2003, issues. Representative Davis expressed the Commission continued to advocate particular interest and concern about revisions to the Federal Abandoned the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant. Mine Reclamation Fund (Fund) estab- As a result of this hearing, the Commis- lished under the Federal Surface Mining sion formed a subcommittee to focus Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 on the political and financial obstacles that would reauthorize fee collections preventing the upgrade of the plant to into the Fund for an additional 25 full nitrogen removal. years and modify the Fund’s allocation formula to better direct resources to ■ Finally, in the late fall of 2004, the U.S. states based upon historic production. Senators from our region requested The Commission has pressed Congress that the Government Accounting Office to continue to allow the use of Fund (GAO) conduct an audit of the Bay monies to address water quality prob- restoration program to ensure that lems, notwithstanding pressures to limit benchmarks used to indicate progress
The 2004 leadership of the Commission included senators from all three states: Chairman J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R) of Maryland’s Eastern Shore is flanked by Vice-Chairmen Emmett Hanger (R-Va.) and Mike Waugh (R-Pa.). were providing the clearest picture During subsequent meetings, Gover- possible of the Bay’s health. The audit nors Rendell and Warner outlined their is to determine if the investment of priorities and discussed their strategies Federal funds is resulting in the greatest for achieving their goals. possible environmental improvement. ■ Because cost-effectiveness has also been The Virginia Director served as an a central focus of the Commission’s appointee to the State Advisory Board work, the GAO will rely upon CBC as on Air Pollution, which provides techni- cal and legal analysis on policy issues a key information source. The audit The Commission’s to the Virginia Air Pollution Control is expected to conclude in August of Work in 2004 2005. Board. The Advisory Board prepared white papers on two issues in 2004: 1) analysis of air quality trends in Virginia Executive Branch Partnerships and recommendations for enhance- In 2004, the Commission worked closely ments to the air quality monitoring with the administrations in all three states. network, and 2) emerging control In fact, each of the governors — Robert technologies for power generating units L. Ehrlich (R- Md.), Edward G. Rendell and options for the control of mercury (D-Pa.) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) emissions. These were presented to the — attended meetings of the Commission Air Pollution Control Board at a public in 2004. meeting in November 2004. ■ At the Commission’s January meet- ■ Commission staff served on the ing, Governor Ehrlich unveiled his Technical Advisory Committee proposal for a Bay Restoration Fund (TAC) of the Virginia Department of to upgrade the state’s major sewage Environmental Quality that assisted treatment plants. Commission staff in developing the regulation that worked with the Governor’s office to sets permit limits for the amount of address technical issues and stakeholder nutrients that can be discharged by concerns raised during the debate on point sources. This regulation estab- the bill in order to ensure its passage. lishes technology-based numerical
Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-Va.) and Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Program Coordinator Pat Buckley ensure that the interests of the Commonwealths, both north and south, are addressed.
Secretary W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., strongly urged his Virginia colleagues to establish a state funding mechanism to upgrade wastewater treatment plants, the major contributor of nitrogen loads to Virginia waters. limitations for the discharge of total national level, serving as a knowledge- nitrogen and total phosphorus within able source of leadership and restoration the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake information. In 2004, Ann Swanson Bay watershed. In addition, staff represented the Bay region in the plenary attended meetings of the Technical sessions of three large gatherings of Advisory Committee that developed the national environmental leaders: The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Stan- National Science Teachers Association dards for dissolved oxygen, submerged Convention, Restore America’s Estuaries Chapter 1 aquatic vegetation and chlorophyll a. 2004 Conference, and the First National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration. ■ The Executive Director delivered the More than 50 smaller speeches and work- keynote address at the 2004 Virginia shops were presented in 2004. Environment Conference. The confer- ence represents the largest annual ■ The very structure of the Commission gathering of environmental profession- is often of interest to others seeking als in the Commonwealth. In addi- to improve their restoration efforts tion, the Virginia Director spoke at or to start new ones. In 2004, the the annual training conference of the Commission served as a lead witness Army Regional Environmental Office in a meeting of the Ohio River held at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Valley Water Sanitation Commission Maryland. The focus of the conference (ORSANCO) in Williamsburg, was to provide Department of Defense Virginia. ORSANCO was examining staff with a better understanding of the effectiveness of its current state legislative operations. A briefing interstate compact and looking to was also offered to the new members of better understand the success of the Maryland’s Critical Areas Commission. Chesapeake Bay Commission and the broader Bay Program. The staff also provided a briefing to the Rhode Island National and International Relations General Assembly, which is establishing The Commission continues to play a a legislative and citizen committee to prominent role on the national and inter- focus on Narragansett Bay.
Delegate Mike Weir, Jr. (D-Md.) listens carefully as Senator Nick Rerras (R-Va.) queries the drafters of the cost-effectiveness report.
14 Maryland Director Pat Stuntz discusses Federal funding for agricultural practices with members of the U.S. Congress. ■ Visitors from across the globe travel to Bay Program, contributing policy our region to examine how the Chesa- and budget guidance. In 2004, staff peake effort has achieved all that it participated on the: Principal’s Staff has. Despite the fact that we have not Committee, Budget Steering Commit- reached our goals, our efforts remain tee, Implementation Committee, Nutri- unmatched at the national and interna- ent Subcommittee, and Water Quality tional level. In 2004, the Commission Steering Committee. members and staff provided overviews ■ Staff served on the ad hoc panel estab- and briefings on Bay issues to visitors lished under the Chesapeake Bay Policy The Commission’s and consultants representing China, for the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Work in 2004 Japan, Italy and Australia. Aquatic Species. The panel reviewed the Virginia Seafood Council’s request to modify its permit for conducting large- Chesapeake Bay Program Leadership scale aquaculture tests on Crassostrea ariakensis, the Asian oyster. ■ As the 2004 Chairman of the Commis- sion, J. Lowell Stoltzfus served as a member of the Chesapeake Executive Key Issues Council. At its 2004 annual meeting, Senator Stoltzfus briefed the members Blue Crabs on the Commission’s analysis of cost- ■ The Commission continued its role effective nutrient and reduction control in coordinating bi-state scientific and strategies. Chairman Stoltzfus signed policy activities centered on manage- four directives on the Commission’s ment of the blue crab. Meetings of the behalf, which addressed fish passage, Commission’s Bi-State Blue Crab Tech- education, native oyster restoration, nical Advisory Committee (BBTAC), and the recommendations of the Blue held in June and October, were attended Ribbon Finance Panel. by scientists, fisheries managers, legisla- ■ Commission staff held positions on tors and interested public. The review all leadership committees within the of blue crab harvest and population
With a total price tag topping tens of billions, Pennsylvania Representatives Art Hershey (R) and Pete Zug (R) know that any funds available to restore the Bay must be carefully targeted. 15 DAVID HARP DAVID status will be incorporated into the Non-Profit Partnerships second annual Blue Crab Status Report ■ In order to encourage the financial in the spring of 2005. support of the private sector, the Financing the Bay Restoration Commission partnered with the Chesapeake Bay Trust and an advisory ■ Delegate Jim Hubbard served on the panel of private philanthropic Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, which was foundations to launch the Bay Area created at the request of the Execu- Funders’ Network in 2002. Since tive Council to identify mechanisms Chapter 1 that time, the Network has met twice to finance Bay restoration. The Panel, a year to review grant strategies chaired by former Virginia Governor and collaborate on projects where Gerald Baliles, met five times in 2004 to members can pool their funds and discuss key funding needs, constraints strategies toward the common good. and opportunities. The Commission’s The Commission continues to serve as Annapolis office helped staff the Panel, an information source and advisor to and its Executive Director addressed the group. In 2004, the Commission the Panel members on cost of the Bay worked to connect the Federal grant restoration at their first meeting. The making agencies with the Bay Area Panel developed a set of recommenda- Funders in order to better leverage the tions that were released in a final report resources of both. The Commission also to the Executive Council in December played a prominent role in establishing 2004. the Waterkeepers’ Alliance, Inc. in our ■ The Commission’s report, Cost-Effec- watershed to serve as a coordinating tive Strategies for the Bay: Smart force for the growing number of Investments for Nutrient and Sediment Riverkeepers who focus on the Reduction, was a major focus of our conservation of the tributaries of our work in 2004. At the Commission’s watershed. September meeting in Harrisburg, staff ■ The Commission staff sat on the Chesa- and its consultants briefed members peake Bay Trust’s Advisory Committee on the top practices identified as part to assist in development of a Targeted of an analysis of both cost-effective- Watershed Initiative Proposal. Staff will ness and the potential for nutrient and continue to serve on this committee to sediment reduction opportunities in review proposals and provide oversight each of the three states. Commission and guidance. members formed a steering committee which assisted staff in developing a final ■ The Commission has always recognized report which was presented to members effective communication and education at its November meeting and published as central to the Bay’s restoration. To in December 2004. More than 4000 further this commitment, the Pennsyl- copies of the report have been distrib- vania Delegation to the Commission uted, accompanied by dozens of provided funds for production of a one- briefings. Chapter 3 provides a more hour documentary on the Susquehanna thorough review of this work. River by television station WVIA Chan-
16 The Commission’s Work in 2003
FRONT ROW: Paula Hose, Ann Swanson, Marel Raub, Russ Baxter, Melanie Davenport, Pat Buckley, Pete Jensen, Albert Pollard, Jr., Nick Rerras, Tom Beauduy, Barbara Sexton, John Cosgrove, Mike Weir, Jr., Art Hershey. MIDDLE ROW: Pat Stuntz, Emmett Hanger, J. Lowell Stoltzfus, Mark Bundy, Mike Waugh, Scott Lingamfelter, John Wood, Jr., Jim Hubbard, Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Noah Wenger BACK ROW: Steve Turcotte, Pete Zug, Russ Fairchild.
nel 44, Pittston, Pennsylvania. In addi- provided by the EPA Small Watershed tion to broadcast on WVIA, copies of Grants program. the program will also be made available through community libraries and teach- Reflecting on Our Work ers in the region. As we set priorities for both short- and ■ The Delegation also provided funds long-term actions, our task remains to the Lebanon County (Pa.) Conser- daunting. Money is needed that is not vation District for its Quittapahilla there. Time is of the essence. And we, as Educational Wetland Preserve. These policy-makers, are confronted with the funds will be used to upgrade an exist- need to consider voluntary, regulatory and ing pavilion at the site to accommodate technical approaches that have never been an on-site water-testing facility and tried. What we are doing is most often the to construct boardwalks through the right thing. We simply need to do more of wetland area. The Commission worked it. The challenge is to find the necessary to ensure complementary funding was funding and will to expand our efforts.
17
Chapter 2 Reflecting on a National Treasure
hat is a “national treasure”? Why do we cherish places like Yosemite, Yellowstone and the Everglades? It isn’t just that they are national parks or that they have interesting histories or priceless natural resources. A Wplace is a “national treasure” when the very mention of its name to an American stirs the blood and paints a picture. The Chesapeake is defined by the constancy with which land meets water. Within its vast watershed, stretching across 64,000 square miles, water is everywhere. It riddles the landscape of its flat coastal plains, tumbles from its forested mountains ranges and nurtures its fertile, largely agricultural piedmont. Most of the Bay’s fresh water is delivered by 50 rivers and a seemingly endless array of smaller creeks, streams and rivulets that permeate its landscape. It is said that every resident living within the basin is within a 10-minute walk to a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Describing the landscape in the context of a watershed does not fully describe the land’s influence on its waters. The Chesapeake, MATTAPONI MORNING · PHOTO © DAVID HARP MORNING · PHOTO © DAVID MATTAPONI
19 compared to other water bodies, has landscapes of centuries past. In a Bay that a huge drainage basin for the water it is 200 miles long and a few dozen miles contains, a ratio of 2,743 square miles for wide, 11,684 miles of convoluted tidal every cubic foot of water. The principal shoreline provide refuge for wildlife, and reason is the Chesapeake’s extreme shal- for people. lowness. Its average depth is only 22 feet. On the Chesapeake, gentle shimmer- This shallow nature contributes to its ing waters reflect a low sun in an endless amazing productivity. The ability of the sky at the beginning and end of each day. Chapter 2 light to penetrate the depths of its waters There is no doubt; our Bay is a national provides welcoming conditions for the treasure. more than 250 species of fish, crabs, clams and oysters that live in the Bay — many in A Treasure in Need of Attention extraordinary numbers. For all the Bay’s productivity and spar- The word “Chesapeake” evokes a kling qualities, it is not without its woes. place where centuries of history have been The Chesapeake acts as a giant catch tied to the land and waters, from the earli- basin for everything that drains from its est settlements on America’s shores to the massive watershed. Much of the Bay’s daily harvest of blue crabs. It is a place watershed lies in some of the fastest devel- where the working landscapes of our oping regions of the country and is at the traditional industries — fishing, farming southern end of the urban megalopolis, and forestry — coexist and continue to stretching from Washington, D.C., to New thrive like nowhere else in the East, and in York and the northeastern United States. the face of an expanding population of 16 Thousands of municipalities, industries of million in the watershed every sort and farms use water from the Each year the Chesapeake gives up Bay and its tributaries to do everything over $1.5 billion worth of seafood, much from irrigate crops to cool nuclear reac- of it harvested by watermen who live in tors. They also use it as a place to dispose the villages of their forefathers and use of treated waste. traditional practices. Its farmland includes It would be impossible to restore the 4 million acres of row crops, some of Bay without addressing these human- them grown on the most productive non- induced influences. They permeate the irrigated land in the nation. Its forests ecosystem and help to define it. The include the largest fully mature stands of current restoration effort attempts to seek mixed hardwoods on earth. a balance whereby the human population But the Chesapeake is more than prod- can prosper in balance with the native fish ucts and harvests. It is also a place with a and wildlife. It is a daunting challenge that characteristic look that suggests timeless- can only be accomplished by a concerted ness. Its wide tidal rivers start in wooded and long-term effort of the states and the mountain hollows hundreds of miles Federal government. away. Its rich rolling farmland — studded with farmsteads, barns and outbuildings Characterizing the Federal Presence that comprise a vernacular architecture The American people have come to expect — induces a sense of peace. Its Eastern that places we collectively celebrate as Shore still boasts the signature working Text continues on Page 29
20 Chesapeake A ational reasure N T Running Head
21 The pastoral landscapes take different forms in different parts of the watershed. In the headwater reaches, the image is gently sloping fields, studded with cows, chicken houses and redChapter barns. 1 But closer to the Bay proper, the watermen become the working landscape, plying the water for their catch.
Within the boundaries of the Chesapeake Bay estuary exist a range of aquatic environments, from fresh water to nearly full-strength sea water, allowing a broad spectrum of organisms to flourish, such as these hibiscus.
22 The Bay’s shallowness contributes to its amazing productivity. It is the home for more than 3,200 species of plants and animals, from tiny creatures wallowing in theRunning marsh Head mud to giant bald eagles, which have made an awe-inspiring comeback.
23 In 1886, the year the skipjack Rebecca T. Ruark was launched, oysters were king. By 1976, when she was photographed coming home with her hundred-plus bushel limit, the oysterChapter sail 1 fleet numbered only in the dozens. Now depleted due to two centuries of overfishing and rampant disease, the oyster population is less than 1 percent of its historic abundance. Rebecca still sails, but mostly to carry tourists.
24 Running Head
25 What is the worth of the Bay? Fifteen years ago economists placed a value on the Bay of $678 billion. Today, inflation alone would likely push that number beyond the trillion dollar mark.Chapter 1 But to a boater or fisherman, it may be priceless. Considered to be a boaters’ Mecca, whether propelled by paddle, motor, or sail, the Bay watershed offers nearly 100,000 miles of streams and creeks within which to wander.
The surface area of the Bay and surrounding wetlands is more than 2,200 square miles, larger than the state of Delaware. This area doubles if tidal tributaries are included, creating an expansive aquatic labyrinth of rivers, marshes and creeks. Only a few plants can tolerate the salt and the flooding of the Bay’s marshy edges. Needlerush dominates the mid-Chesapeake and provides the traveler with a sense of endless space and tranquility.
26 The restoration of the Chesapeake Bay requires a balance, allowing the human population to prosper while the native fish and wildlife are providedRunning Head with ample habitat, clean water, and harvest restrictions sufficient to sustain their populations.
The Chesapeake is a place where our nation’s history and nature’s gifts intertwine — a place worthy of Federal funding and recognition.
27
PHOTOS BY DAVID HARP ©2005 CHESAPEAKEPHOTOS.COM Chapter 1
ABOVE The Chesapeake Bay is often referred to as the “crown jewel” of the United States’ 850 estuaries. It cuts across virtually the entire north-south length of two states — Maryland and Virginia — defining their landscapes, their cultures and their economies.
LEFT Some 250 types of fish, crabs, clams and oysters live in the Bay — many in extraordinary numbers. Together, they have a commercial value of more than $1 billion annually. Half of the national catch of Atlantic blue crab is harvested from Bay waters. Based on a catch of 50 million pounds in a good year, this equates to 163 million individual crabs. Of the nation’s soft shell crab catch, over half is taken from the Chesapeake.
Chesapeake Bay Commission Policy for the Bay 28
60 West Street, Suite 406 · Annapolis, MD 21401 · Phone: 410-263-3420 · www.chesbay.va.state.us Text continued from Page 20 units in the nation. The Environmental a part of our national consciousness are Protection Agency targets more funding protected and nurtured by our Federal to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup than to government. If they are degraded, our any other body of water in the country. citizens have supported the national The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is government’s work to restore them. The engaged in extensive restoration programs Chesapeake is no exception. in the Anacostia River, Poplar Island and There are many places in America many other locales where dredging issues where a single Federal agency, or even two are important. As another measure of or three, form a dominant presence in its its relative importance, three different protection and restoration. But nowhere regional offices of the Corps are involved else is the full range of Federal roles and in the Bay. responsibilities played out on the land- The U.S. Forest Service has used the scape as much as it is in the Chesapeake Chesapeake as the crucible to forge region. nationwide programs to restore forest The nation’s capital city and the largest buffers and to work with owners to coop- naval base on earth are on its tidal waters. eratively manage privately owned forest In fact, the Federal government is by far lands for water quality benefits. The first the dominant employer in two of the USDA Conservation Reserve Programs three major metropolitan areas on the Bay were here in the watershed. The Park (Washington, D.C. and Norfolk, Virginia). Service has developed a unique program Large parts of the shoreline of the Bay and of Chesapeake Gateways to help water- its tidal rivers are given over to defense side institutions of all types to provide facilities. Some of these, such as the Wash- access and education, an approach with ington Navy Yard, go back centuries to real potential for use in many other parts the founding of the Republic; others, such of the country. Now, there is an effort to as the Patuxent Naval Air Station are establish the nation’s first Historic Water recent additions. Their combined foot- Trail. Designed to follow the paddle path print (from Aberdeen Proving Ground in of Captain John Smith, it will expose the the north to the Langley Air Force Base in traveler to all the splendor and history the south) impacts an enormous area of that Bay country has to offer. land and water. While they restrict public The list goes on. The important access to large parts of the shoreline, they conclusion is that the large Federal also serve as remarkable natural habitats presence in the Bay has led to both for fish and birds, preserves that would local stewardship responsibilities and not likely otherwise exist. to innovative approaches with nation- Defense facilities are by no means the wide applicability. With the signing only Federal presence on the Bay. Because of the Chesapeake Bay agreements of so much history happened here, and 1983, 1987 and 2000, the Chesapeake because the Bay is centrally located on Bay cleanup became the most advanced the major Eastern Flyway for migrating example of state/Federal partnership birds, the Chesapeake region has one of in the country. Bolstered by efforts of the heaviest concentrations of National more than 700 local organizations and Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service philanthropic groups, it is an effort with
29 Proposed Presidential Executive Order Regarding the Chesapeake Bay
■ Recognize the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure, an extraordinary ecological, cultural, economic and recreational resource. n ■ Acknowledge that although EPA is a signatory to the Bay agreements, the easure Federal commitment to aid in the Bay’s restoration extends beyond one agency. ■ Affirm that all Federal agencies involved in Bay restoration will work to achieve the commitments contained in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement (C2K). ■ Instruct all involved Federal agencies to pursue targeted and sequential restoration efforts through better coordination in their programs and their budget initiatives and to coordinate their work with the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia and the District of Columbia to best utilize Federal resources in implementing the jurisdictions’ tributary strategies. ■ Encourage all involved Federal agencies, beginning in FY 2005, to pursue the financial resources necessary to fulfill the Federal commitments made in C2K and to identify and develop effective, innovative ideas that reduce the costs of healthier water quality and habitat. ■ Establish an annual briefing by all involved Federal agencies to the Intergovernmental Affairs Office of the White House on actions taken pursuant to this Executive Order. Proposed by the Chesapeake Bay Commission May 6, 2004
no rivals. With local communities and ment’s commitment to the Bay restoration states resolutely engaged, the Federal effort and designate the Bay as a national government has a large responsibility to treasure. support efforts to restore the Chesapeake. At a meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, CBC members Persuading a Nation met with the Chair of the President’s On May 6th, 2004, the members of the Council on Environmental Quality, Chesapeake Bay Commission arrived in the Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Washington with a letter to the President Environmental Protection Agency and seeking issuance of an Executive Order the President’s White House Special that would reaffirm the Federal govern- Assistant on Intergovernmental Affairs.
30 A key message was the need for a Following this meeting, CBC members dramatic increase in funding from all met with the Bay Congressional delega- levels of government, based on data from tions. Members voiced their support for the Commission’s Cost of a Clean Bay the letter sent to President Bush request- report. Members cited the EPA’s National ing $1 billion in the FY 2005 budget for Coastal Conditions Report which graded reducing nutrient pollution in the Bay. the Northeast Region, including the Chesapeake, “poor” for three out of five environmental indicators, the lowest Next Steps ranking in any part of the country. While a response from the President was The discussion then focused on key not forthcoming, the commitment of the elements of the proposed Executive Order. Chesapeake Bay Commission remains With 22 Federal agencies playing a role strong. At the time of this writing, the in the Chesapeake clean up, the Executive Commission’s 2005 meeting in Washing- Order would compel agencies to exam- ton is being planned. The case for national ine their current budgets as well as their treasure designation will be raised again spending priorities, and to better coordi- in the halls of Congress and in the offices nate, target and fund the actions needed of the Executive Branch. The governors to fulfill the Federal commitments to the of the Bay states must be effective in Bay restoration. On an annual basis, all persuading the President to consider and involved Federal agencies would brief the approve this request. The Chesapeake Bay White House on actions taken pursuant to remains worthy of such a title and worthy the Executive Order. of a strengthened Federal commitment.
31 n easure Chapter 3 Smart Investments in Clean Water
n December 2004, the Commission published a report that generated much discussion among key players in the Bay initiative. The report, Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay: Smart Investments for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction, effec- tively capped four years of intensive work by the Commission andI its partners to estimate the financial cost of reaching Bay goals, identify available sources of funding, and prioritize, to the best of our abilities, the actions that would put these much-needed funds to good use. This chapter summarizes the strategies, beginning with a look at how this effort evolved.
Background
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement, signed by the Chesapeake Execu- tive Council in June of that year, set out a far-reaching agenda and goals for the Bay cleanup, extending through the decade and beyond. As a member of the Council, the Commission played a key role in drafting the agreement and in assuring its acceptance by Council members. A major impetus to the agreement was the commitment to EBBING TIDE · PHOTO © DAVID HARP EBBING TIDE · PHOTO © DAVID
33 de-list the Chesapeake from the Federal current agreements like Chesapeake 2000 “Impaired Waters” list by 2010. It would into account); and feasible alternatives take innovation, money and time. (using innovative technologies and aggres- Soon after, the Commission began a sive approaches). While the report did not series of analyses, often working with the deal directly with costs, it gave the clear states and others, to estimate the costs of message that a restored Bay would require achieving many of the key goals set out in achieving all goals of Chesapeake 2000 the agreement. During the course of 2001 and probably a lot more. By implication, and 2002, in particular, the Commis- it signaled that there could be no backing sion worked to develop cost estimates away from the levels of investment called for water quality and land preservation for in The Cost of a Clean Bay. goals. Much of this was accomplished Taking all these developments into by the “Lego Workgroup,” a coopera- account, in December 2003 the Chesa- tive effort of Bay Program leaders that peake Executive Council called for the focused on the building blocks of success- establishment of a Chesapeake Bay ful Bay restoration. It was chaired by the Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel Commission. to consider funding sources to achieve In January 2003, these analyses led the goals of Chesapeake 2000 and to to the publication of the Commission’s make recommendations in a report due report, The Cost of a Clean Bay, a by October 2004. The Panel was chaired comprehensive fiscal analysis of the cost by former Virginia Governor Gerald L. to fully implement Chesapeake 2000 for Baliles and included 15 distinguished the rest of the decade. The report found representatives of the public and private that the projected funding needs for the sectors appointed by the governors of decade were $18.7 billion, with the major all six states in the watershed (including portions going to achieving the water Delaware, New York and West Virginia), quality ($11.5B) and land preservation the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the ($4.2B) goals. Of the total needs, only Chair of the Commission and the Admin- $5.9 billion were covered by current or istrator of EPA. Delegate Jim Hubbard anticipated programs, leaving a funding (Maryland) represented the Commission gap of $12.8 billion. The report created on the Panel, providing keen insights a stir in the community; never before had into both the Federal and state political anyone placed the full price tag for resto- process. ration before the public of the Chesapeake The report of the Blue Ribbon Finance region. Panel, Saving a National Treasure: Financ- Further debate was generated by the ing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, publication in early 2003 of the long- noted the difficulty of estimating the full awaited report of the Bay Program’s Scien- costs of Bay restoration, while at the same tific and Technical Advisory Committee, time recognizing the immediacy of the Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st need to put programs in place to meet Century. Taking a longer view to 2030, the 2010 Bay water quality goals. The this report presented three alternative report also called for simplicity, efficiency scenarios: recent trends (essentially the and cost-effectiveness in the programs status quo); current objectives (taking developed to meet the goals. While the
34 new estimated cost of achieving all parts Achieving three-quarters of the phospho- of the nutrient and sediment reduction rus goal would cost an additional $322 goals was estimated at $28 billion, the million per year. Panel concluded that the most important Cost-Effective Strategies for the actions to benefit the Bay in the current Bay focuses on the 2010 water quality decade would cost about $15 billion plus goal to remove the Bay from the list of an additional $2.7 billion in recurring impaired waters under the Clean Water annual costs. The annual cost for capital Act. While an ideal approach might be to and recurring costs for the remainder deal with the health and recovery of the of the decade were calculated at $4.8 living resources of the Bay, the means and billion each year, far exceeding the current measures to do that are subject to high level of effort. The Panel recommended levels of speculation and debate. Water formation of a Chesapeake Bay Regional quality, on the other hand, is a necessary Financing Authority, to be capitalized by pre-condition for recovery of the living both Federal and state governments. resources of the Bay, as well as a measure of the effectiveness of upstream and land- Taking the Next Steps based actions. In addition, the water qual- Anticipating the cost estimates under ity goal is the basis of the state tributary development by the Blue Ribbon Panel, strategies, which set out the actions to be as well as the call of the Panel to find taken to reach the goal. They are there- the most cost-effective measures, the fore tied to clear targets, measurable and Commission decided to pursue the answer capable of being modeled with respect to to a fundamental question: With limited actions taken. dollars available and 2010 approaching, The water quality goals are tied to where should we focus available funds to oxygen levels, clarity of Bay waters achieve the most efficient use of taxpayer and chlorophyll levels. But the goals dollars? The Commission recognized the are reached by reducing the loadings immediate need to identify cost-effective of nitrogen, phosphorus (jointly called programs and build a compelling case tor nutrients) and sediment entering the Bay. their funding. These reductions, in turn, are measured The result was the Chesapeake Bay by estimating the effects of various Commission Report, Cost-Effective management practices. These management Strategies for the Bay: Smart Investments practices and their effectiveness in for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction, reducing loadings of nutrients and released in December 2004. The featured sediment are the focus of Cost-Effective cost-effective practices are widely appli- Strategies for the Bay. cable throughout the watershed. Even The Commission’s efforts to select the under conservative assumptions of their most cost-effective practices were both combined effectiveness, the six practices controversial and contributory. Contro- can achieve about three-quarters of the versial because, for the first time, a subset nitrogen reduction goal for 2010 for of the full suite of commonly applied about $623 million per year, or about 13 pollution control measures were selected percent of the annual costs of the cleanup for priority implementation and fund- estimated by the Blue Ribbon Panel. ing. Contributory because, with limited
35 taxpayer funds available, decisions must ness. Three parameters influenced the be made to target new dollars in order to selection process: 1) the efficiency of the maximize environmental gains. Where practice; 2) the cost of the practice per could we get the biggest bang for the pound of reduction; and 3) the appli- buck? cability of the practice watershed-wide. It was also controversial because five Preference was given to those practices of the six practices selected focused on a that prevented or reduced pollution rather single sector — agriculture. This presented than cleaning it up once it was released ments a possible, and certainly unintentional, into the environment. In some cases, such er suggestion that only farmers should be as air pollution controls, inadequate data required to make substantial sacrifices and limited tools to model transport and for the Bay. In fact, the Commission effects made it difficult to assess both the was suggesting where the least taxpayer effectiveness of reduction technologies and investment could yield the greatest water their cost. quality improvement. With 2010 quickly Despite these limitations, the analysis approaching, where should we focus new was able to isolate six key practices that and available funds to achieve the most are widely applicable throughout the efficient use of taxpayer dollars? watershed and are cost-effective under a As with any analysis, there are wide range of conditions. strengths and weaknesses. The strength 1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades is the report’s clear identification of six practices that could, if fully implemented, 2. Diet and Feed Adjustments get us most of the way toward restora- 3. Traditional Nutrient Management tion. However, by directing attention to the 2010 water quality goal, the report 4. Enhanced Nutrient Management does have the effect of down-playing some 5. Conservation Tillage practices which have delayed benefits, but are quite cost-effective in the long 6. Cover Crops run. Chief among these is the restoration of forest buffers along streams in both 1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades urban and rural areas, and the improved have the potential to reduce nitrogen management of growth. While trees by 35 million pounds per year, or about planted along streams are too slow-grow- one-third of the total Baywide reduction ing to provide much benefit by 2010 and goal of 103 million pounds, at an average changes in growth patterns will have a cost of $8.56 per pound. They can also long-term, cumulative effect, the study is contribute 3 million pounds of phospho- not intended to discourage such beneficial rus reduction to the overall phosphorus practices as part of the solution for the reduction goal of 6.7 million pounds enduring health of the Bay. per year at $74 per pound. These figures include both capital and operating and Summary of Results maintenance costs, amortized over 20 The Commission examined a total of 34 years. While they are higher than the costs defined practices with measurable benefits of other preferred practices, the effective- capable of being modeled for effective- ness of the reduction is the most reliable
36 >ÞÜ`iÊ ÌÀ}iÊ,i`ÕVÌÊ*ÌiÌ> ÀÊÌ iÊ-ÝÊ ÃÌÊ ÃÌ vviVÌÛiÊ ÌÀÊ*À>VÌViÃI
7ASTEWATER 4REATMENT 0LANT 5PGRADES
%NHANCED .UTRIENT -ANAGEMENT
#OVER #ROPS
4RADITIONAL .UTRIENT -ANAGEMENT
#ONSERVATION 4ILLAGE
$IET AND &EED !DJUSTMENTS DATA UNDER DEVELOPMENT .ITROGEN 2EDUCTION MILLION LBSYR
!LL OF THE PRACTICES AND ASSOCIATED PERCENTAGES HAVE BEEN ANALYZED AT THEIR MAXIMUM FEASIBLE IMPLEMENTATION LEVELS BASED ON A BASELINE 4HE REDUCTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO EACH PRACTICE MAY BE LESS WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER PRACTICES !LL REDUCTIONS EXCEPT 7ASTEWATER 4REATMENT 0LANT 5PGRADES AND $IET AND &EED !DJUSTMENTS ARE ESTIMATED FOR THE EDGE OF THE FIELD AND EXPERTS SUGGEST THEY SHOULD BE REDUCED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT LOADS DELIVERED TO THE "AY WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE M LB REDUCTION GOAL
and immediate. And the costs can be nitrogen and 40-60 percent for phospho- spread over a wide user base. rus, according to recent research studies. 2. Diet and Feed Adjustments generally 3. Traditional Nutrient Management plans reduce both manure production and the prescribe the amount and timing of nutri- nutrient content of manure, offering both ents applied to cropland as manure or water quality improvements and economic commercial fertilizer. They are intended savings for farmers. Excellent results have to reduce or eliminate excess application been achieved in the poultry industry for while assuring no loss of yield. Nutrient phosphorus reduction at essentially no management plans have already been writ- cost. The change there involved the addi- ten for about 85 percent of the cropland tion of the enzyme phytase, which has in Maryland, 45 percent in Pennsylvania reduced average phosphorus concentra- and 40 percent in Virginia. Completing tions in litter by 16 percent across the them for remaining cropland and carrying basin. The potential for expanded use them out would reduce nitrogen loadings in poultry, as well as application of the by an additional 13.6 million pounds per concept to other livestock is under inves- year for only $1.66 per pound, and an tigation. The combination of changes in additional 0.8 million pounds of phospho- the constituents of feed as well as reducing rus for $28.26 per pound. overfeeding of livestock have a potential 4. Enhanced Nutrient Management calls reduction benefit of 30-50 percent for for a further 15 percent reduction in nutri-
37 ents applied to cropland beyond tradi- planted after row crop harvest, up to 14 tional nutrient management. Incentive days after the average first frost date. and insurance payments provide a “safety Early cover crops are a newer concept; net” for farmers who may be reluctant they are sown by air or similar dispersal to employ the practice for fear of lower before row crops are harvested and more yields. The overall result in the watershed than seven days before the frost date. As would be to reduce nitrogen loadings by such, they have a longer time to establish an additional 23.7 million pounds per their root structure and absorb the left- ments year at a cost of $4.41 per pound. Phos- over nutrients. Use of cover crops in the er phorus would be reduced an additional report assumes a maximum of 50 percent 0.8 million pounds at a cost of $95.79 per of acreage is available each year due to pound. Despite the large potential bene- traditional crop sequencing in the region. fits, the infrastructure to support wide- Nevertheless, late row crops have the spread enhanced nutrient management potential to reduce nitrogen loadings by does not now exist, and would take some 15.2 million pounds for $3.50 per pound; time to put in place. Higher payments in early row crops can bring a further reduc- the early years may be needed to over- tion of 8.1 million pounds at $2.33 per come farmer resistance to the lower nutri- pound. Small reductions of phosphorus ent levels and potential risk to yields. and sediment loadings would result at no additional charge under each practice. 5. Conservation Tillage is a set of plant- As can be seen, the list of the most ing practices that minimize soil cultivation cost-effective alternatives includes a to reduce erosion and nutrient runoff. number of well-established and broadly Although in widespread use in the water- accepted measures. It also includes shed, its expansion to all feasible areas the area of diet and feed management, would reduce nitrogen loadings an addi- where more research is needed, as well as tional 12 million pounds per year at a cost enhanced nutrient management, where per pound of $1.57. Even more impor- supportive programs do not currently tant, remarkable reductions would occur exist. With 2010 closely approaching, a in phosphorus and sediment loadings strategy to apply these measures requires from this practice at no additional cost. both fast action and full funding of the Phosphorus would be reduced by 2.59 already accepted practices and strong million pounds — accounting for almost efforts to bring on line the new practices 40 percent of the total Baywide reduction as expeditiously as possible. goal. And the potential sediment reduc- The report makes a number of tion of 1.68 million tons per year from additional points related to the potential conservation tillage is 187 percent of the nutrient and sediment reductions. First, Baywide sediment goal. if more than one practice is carried out 6. Cover Crops are small grains planted on the same acreage, the reductions are in the fall to absorb leftover nutrients. not necessarily additive; that is, if one Unlike winter grain crops, they are not practice results in fewer nutrients placed fertilized and are turned under in the on the land, a subsequent practice to spring. Late cover crops are in use in reduce nutrient runoff will be less effective some areas of the watershed; they are since it will have fewer nutrients to work
38 with. The report used the Chesapeake costs of remediation are extremely high Bay Program model to calculate these and the effectiveness hard to measure. interactions in order to avoid over- The primary exception is the placement of counting the effectiveness of multiple forest buffers along urban streams, but as measures on the same acreage. If all noted, these will provide little benefit by practices were simply added, the potential the 2010 water quality deadline. reductions would be 72.6 million pounds of nitrogen and 4.85 million pounds In Conclusion of phosphorus. Using the model, and The report serves multiple purposes. It conservative assumptions, reduced these lays out the rationale for selecting the numbers to 53.6 million and 2.93 million most cost-effective measures to improve pounds, respectively. Still, the reductions the Bay’s water quality. It articulates the represent an extraordinary opportunity obstacles and opportunities for their wide- for clean water. spread adoption and funding. It provides Second, a section in the report deals food for thought to the states as they with the issue of use of excess animal develop and refine their tributary strate- manures. Since many of the identified gies for nutrient and sediment reduction. cost-effective management measures result And it serves the Commission members as in less placement of manure, the need they seek General Assembly and Congres- to develop and market alternative uses sional support for, among other things, becomes a priority. The report evaluates the point source and agricultural initia- the current state of technology and emerg- tives identified in the report. ing alternative uses. Most of our agricultural funding is Third, the Commission added a center provided by the Federal government. The section to the final report to explain Congress will reauthorize the Farm Bill the difficulties of estimating the cost- in 2007. Funding associated with this effectiveness of management practices program represents millions of dollars for to deal with urban stormwater runoff. our region. The conservation provisions These are of concern because urban and of the Farm Bill were firmly established suburban areas continue to grow, and in its reauthorization in 2002 and with remain the only land uses where nutrient proper guidance can grow. The Commis- and sediment loadings are on the increase. sion will work to ensure that the agricul- Even where cost and effectiveness tural measures and issues identified in our measures can be pinned down, despite report are addressed in Farm Bill propos- the complex and variable conditions, the als for the Chesapeake region.
39 ments er Appendix I Quarterly Meeting Agendas
ANNAPOLIS, MD An Urban Effort: Local Support for Financing Stormwater Nutrient Reduction January 8 & 9 Phil Davenport THURSDAY, JANUARY 8 Virginia Beach Department of Public Works Call to Order A Regional Effort: The Metropolitan Roll Call Washington Council of Governments (COG) Approval of Agenda Bruce R. Williams Adoption of November 2003 minutes Chairman, COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee; Mayor Pro Tem, City of Welcoming Remarks Takoma Park, Maryland Honorable Michael E. Busch Penelope A. Gross Speaker, Maryland House of Delegates Past Chairman, COG Chesapeake Bay Chairman’s Update Policy Committee; Member, Fairfax Executive Council Meeting Board of Supervisors MOVING FORWARD ON NUTRIENT • Addressing Point Source Pollution REDUCTION INITIATIVES: Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich TRANSLATING SCIENTIFIC ADVICE Governor Ehrlich joined with TO ACTION Commission members to unveil The November 2003 Commission meeting his proposal to raise $1 billion to involved some of the region’s top scientists fund advanced nutrient removal at and practitioners in a two-day discussion of Maryland’s wastewater treatment how best to accelerate progress in capturing plants. the nutrient load and restoring the living FRIDAY, JANUARY 9 resources. Breakfast Delegation Meetings • Building Accountability on a Tributary Scale: Chesapeake Waterways Report Cards Legislative 2004 General Assembly Sessions Dr. Bill Dennison Virginia University of Maryland Center for Delegate Robert Bloxom Environmental Science Senator Emmett Hanger Maryland • Refining Nutrient Reduction Efficiencies Senator Lowell Stoltzfus Tom Simpson Delegate John Wood, Jr. University of Maryland Pennsylvania Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Program Representative Russ Fairchild Nutrient Subcommittee Senator Noah Wenger • Reducing Nutrients Through Partnerships A CONTINUATION OF THE PREVIOUS A Rural Effort: Lessons Learned in Building DAY’S DISCUSSIONS ON NUTRIENT Support for Water Quality Improvements REDUCTION INITIATIVES J.D. Wilkins • Nutrient Limitations in Wastewater North Fork Watershed Association Discharge Permits: The Chesapeake Bay POKAMOKE SUNRISE · PHOTO © DAVID HARP POKAMOKE SUNRISE · PHOTO © DAVID
41 Foundation’s Petition to EPA FRIDAY, MAY 7 Theresa Pierno Breakfast Delegation Meetings Vice President, Environmental Call to Order Protection & Restoration, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Roll Call Roy Hoagland Approval of Agenda Virginia Director, Chesapeake Bay Adoption of January 2004 Minutes Foundation Review of Congressional Delegation and • How a Petition Works White House Briefings Bob Koroncai Region III, U.S. Environmental Chairman’s Updates Protection Agency • Status: Crassostrea ariakensis • Tributary Strategies Forging a Consensus on the Blue Plains Each of the states provided an update on the Wastewater Treatment Plant: A Dialogue development and progress of their Tributary Among Stakeholders Strategies Tom Simpson University of Maryland Reports From the General Assemblies Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Program Legislation and Budget Impacts Nutrient Subcommittee Pennsylvania: Senator Michael Waugh David W. Lake Virginia: Senator Emmett Hanger, Jr. Montgomery County Department of Maryland: Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus Environmental Protection; D.C. Water REDUCING AIR-BORNE NITROGEN and Sewer Authority (WASA) Board of DEPOSITION Directors • Nitrogen oxide emissions from power Allison Wiedeman plants and motor vehicles and ammonia Technology Coordinator, EPA Chesapeake emissions from agriculture and urban Bay Program sources. Election of the 2004 Commission Officers Maggie Kerchner Outgoing 2003 Chairman’s Remarks Air Coordinator, National Oceanic Delegate Robert S. Bloxom (Va.) and Atmospheric Administration; Chesapeake Bay Program Office Incoming 2004 Chairman’s Remarks • A description of how the Clean Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus (Md.) Smokestack Act caps nitrogen oxide and New Business sulfur dioxide emissions to achieve about 75 percent reduction by 2013. WASHINGTON, DC Brock M. Nicholson Deputy Director, North Carolina May 6 & 7 Division of Air Quality; N.C. Department of Environment and THURSDAY, MAY 6 Natural Resources The Commission met in Washington, D.C., New Business with White House officials to present a letter to President George W. Bush, signed by all members, seeking issuance of an Executive HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA Order to reaffirm the Federal government’s commitment to the Bay restoration effort and September 9 & 10 recognize the Bay as a “national treasure.” THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 The Commissioners also met with their Welcoming Remarks Congressional colleagues in the Chesapeake Senator Mike Waugh Bay watershed region to both provide and seek Chairman’s Welcome information.
42 Call to Order II. THE INVADERS Roll Call Zebra Mussel: Dreissena polymorpha Approval of Agenda Tony Shaw Water Pollution Biologist, Pennsylvania Adoption of November 2004 Minutes Department of Environmental Protection COST- EFFECTIVENESS REPORT Snakehead: Channa argus A Review of the Draft Report, Steve Early Smart Investments for a Clean Bay Assistant Director, Fisheries Service. How can you get the largest nutrient and Maryland Department of Natural sediment reductions for the least cost? Resources The Commission members reviewed the analytical process and data used to select 5-8 III. THE INTRODUCED practices as the most cost-effective nutrient Asian Oyster: Crassostrea ariakensis control strategies. Jamie King, Ph.D. Drafters Panel Associate Research Scientist, University Melanie Davenport of Maryland; Non-native Oyster Rep., Bob Hoyt National Oceanic and Atmospheric Contractor: Ecologix Group Administration Bill Matuszeski Pete Jensen Contractor: Funded by Keith Associate Deputy Secretary, Maryland Campbell Foundation Department of Natural Resources Pat Stuntz New Business Ann Swanson Adjourn The Commission called for modifications and further review before publication and distribution. A subcommittee was estab- RICHMOND, VA lished to finalize the report for re-consider- ation at the November meeting. November 4 & 5 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4 Delegation Breakfast Meetings CALL TO ORDER Chairman’s Update Roll Call • Presidential Executive Order Approval of Agenda • Blue Ribbon Panel update Adoption of September 2004 Minutes • Blue Crab Technical Advisory Committee CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME Report • 2005 Meeting Schedule WELCOMING REMARKS • Announcements by Commission members The Honorable Mark R. Warner Governor of Virginia Welcoming Remarks The Honorable Edward G. Rendell TRIBUTARY STRATEGIES: The Most Governor of Pennsylvania Significant Practices, Their Cost and New Policy Needs LIVING RESOURCES: CURRENT SPECIES • What are the top several nutrient control IN DISCUSSION measures on which their strategies rely? I. THE NATIVE • What practices are in their tributary strate- Atlantic Menhaden: Brevoortia tyrannus gies in addition to those practices accepted Bob Wood, Ph.D. by the Bay Program model? Acting Branch Chief, Cooperative Oxford • What new local, state or Federal policies Laboratory; National Oceanic and would help ensure implementation? Atmospheric Administration • What legislative and/or funding initiatives will be proposed in 2005?
43 Overview Melanie A. Davenport Chair, Tributary Strategies Workgroup, Nutrient Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program Virginia Russell W. Baxter Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources eting Maryland Mark Bundy Assistant Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Pennsylvania Cathy Curran Myers Deputy Secretary, Office of Water Management, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5TH Delegation Breakfast Meetings Call to Order Chairman’s Update COST-EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR THE BAY: Identifying Smart Investments for Nutrient Reduction Cost-Effectiveness Report Subcommittee Chair Senator Emmett Hanger reviewed the revisions to the cost effectiveness report and recommended approval. The report was endorsed unanimously, thereby authorizing its printing and distribution. • Recommendations Of The Blue Ribbon Finance Panel The Hon. Gerald L. Baliles Former Governor of Virginia and Chairman, Blue Ribbon Panel • Innovative Practices to Reduce Urban Nutrient Pollution A presentation of the various engineer- ing options for incorporating low-impact development designs in urban and suburban construction. John Tippett Executive Director, Friends of the Rappahannock Member Announcements and New Business Adjourn
44 Appendix II A Letter to the President
45 46 47 CREDITS t Reflections, the 2004 Annual Report of the Chesapeake Bay Commission was prepared by Commission staff with the assistance of William Matuszeski and Pat Herold Nielsen. Design: Peter M. Gentile, CartaGraphics Inc. ([email protected]) Photography: David Harp ([email protected])
Commission Member photography: Jen Jones, ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER Republican Public Relations, Pennsylvania House of Representatives Dave Harp is no stranger to the outdoors. A native Marylander, he saved to acquire his first Cover Photo: Loblolly Copse, Island Creek, camera at the age of 12 and has been taking Maryland © David Harp pictures ever since. In a photographic career Back Cover Photo: © David Harp that has taken him from the wilds of Alaska to the reefs of Australia, the Chesapeake Bay remains Harp’s favorite subject. He has produced three books on the Bay and is widely known for his support of protection and restoration initiatives.
This report was printed on recycled paper.
48 CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS & MARYLAND OFFICE Running Head The Chesapeake Bay Commission is a policy 60 West Street, Suite 406 leader in the restoration of the Chesapeake Annapolis, MD 21401 Bay. As a tri-state legislative assembly repre- Phone: 410-263-3420 senting Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, Fax: 410-263-9338 its mission is to identify critical environmental E-mail: [email protected] needs, evaluate public concerns and ensure state and Federal actions to sustain the living VIRGINIA OFFICE resources of the Chesapeake Bay. 502B General Assembly Building P.O. Box 406 The Commission maintains offices in Mary- Richmond, VA 23218 land, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Commission Phone: 804-786-4849 staff are available to assist any member of the Fax: 804-371-0659 general assembly of any signatory state on E-mail: [email protected] matters pertaining to the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay Program. PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE c/o Senate of Pennsylvania Room G-05 North Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: 717-772-3651 Fax: 717-705-3548 E-mail: [email protected]
WEB SITE www.chesbay.state.va.us
49 Chapter 1
Chesapeake Bay Commission · 60 West Street, Suite 406 · Annapolis, MD 21401 · 410-263-3420 · www.chesbay.va.state.us
50