Scaling Up CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION · ANNUAL REPORT 2007 Chesapeake Bay Commission Policy for the Bay Scaling Up CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION · ANNUAL REPORT 2007

Introduction A Baywide Leader · 3

Roster of Members and Staff · 5

Chapter 1 The Commission’s Work in 2007 · 7

Chapter 2 Investing in Agriculture · 23

Chapter 3 Opting for Better Biofuels · 29

Chapter 4 Funding for Blue Plains · 35

Chapter 5 Confronting Climate Change · 41

Tribute to a Retiring Member · 44

Honoring a Bay Advocate · 46

Introduction A Baywide Leader

he Chesapeake Bay Commission is one of six signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreements and a member of the Chesapeake Executive Council. The Commission represents the General Assemblies of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylva- nia, and promotes Baywide laws, policies and programs at the state and Federal level. TTwenty-one members define the Commission’s identity, strategic focus and issues. Fifteen are legislators — five from each state — who represent both political parties and the full range of urban, suburban and rural life found within the watershed. Each of the three governors is a Commission member, represented by the cabinet member who is directly responsible for managing their state’s natural resources. Three citizen representatives round out the Commission’s member- ship, one from each state. As a leader in the Bay Program, the Commission addresses a broad range of issues and policies that reflect countless pollution sources, land uses and human impacts in a region spanning six states,

WALLOPS ISLAND AQUACULTURE · PHOTO © DAVID HARP a 64,000 square-mile watershed, and 180,000 miles of tributaries

3 Introduction and coastline. Commission members craft to meet the full set of challenges facing the and work to secure passage of policies Bay. that must balance many ecological, soci- Thus, the theme of this Annual Report etal and economic concerns. — Scaling Up — addresses the central, The Chesapeake Bay Commission is largest issues that are preeminent in the also a leader in the enormous effort to protection and restoration of the Bay as secure funding for full Bay restoration. a whole. These include current efforts None of the members of the Bay Program to control nutrients and pollutants, such has the financial resources or critical as promoting agricultural conservation capacity to address the entire range of practices and upgrading sewage treatment issues affecting the Bay. In the short run, plants. These also include emerging, major our success will continue to depend on issues that will have a huge impact on the focusing strategic attention on policies Bay such as biofuels and climate change. that will deliver the greatest restoration The pages that follow report on the results for the least cost. In the long run, progress made on these significant Bay however, Bay Program leaders recognize issues in 2007, and the steps taken to that our success depends on scaling up to secure more progress in 2008 and the a new level of funding and commitment years ahead. ■

4 Members and Staff of the Commission

The Hon. James W. Hubbard, Chairman * ...... Maryland House of Delegates The Hon. John A. Cosgrove, Vice-Chairman * ...... Virginia House of Delegates The Hon. Arthur D. Hershey, Vice-Chairman * ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives

The Hon. Michael W. Brubaker ...... Senate of Pennsylvania The Hon. Preston Bryant ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia The Hon. Russell H. Fairchild ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives The Hon. Bernie Fowler ...... Maryland Citizen Representative The Hon. Brian E. Frosh ...... Maryland State Senate The Hon. John R. Griffin ...... Secretary of Natural Resources, Maryland The Hon. Emmett W. Hanger, Jr...... Senate of Virginia The Hon. Irvine B. Hill ...... Virginia Citizen Representative The Hon. Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr...... Virginia House of Delegates The Hon. L. Scott Lingamfelter ...... Virginia House of Delegates The Hon. Kathleen A. McGinty ...... Secretary of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania The Hon. Thomas McLain (Mac) Middleton ...... Maryland State Senate (beginning Aug. 2007) The Hon. Nick Rerras* ...... Senate of Virginia The Hon. Edward G. Staback ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives (though Oct. 2007) The Hon. P. Michael Sturla ...... Pennsylvania House of Representatives (beginning Nov. 2007) The Hon. J. Lowell Stoltzfus* ...... Maryland State Senate (through Aug. 2007) The Hon. Michael L. Waugh* ...... Senate of Pennsylvania The Hon. Michael H. Weir, Jr...... Maryland House of Delegates The Hon. George B. Wolff ...... Pennsylvania Citizen Representative The Hon. John F. Wood, Jr...... Maryland House of Delegates Rear Admiral Frederic R. Ruehe ...... Naval Liaison * Executive Committee Member (two from each state)

Staff Ann Pesiri Swanson ...... Executive Director Patricia G. Stuntz ...... Assistant Director/Maryland Director (through Sept. 2007) Suzan Bulbulkaya ...... Virginia Director Marel A. Raub ...... Pennsylvania Director Matthew P. Mullin ...... Maryland Director (beginning Nov. 2007) Paula W. Hose ...... Administrative Officer

5

Chapter 1 The Commission’s Work in 2007

caling Up is about recognizing the need to respond faster and more efficiently to the challenges facing the Chesa- peake Bay. It is about meeting these challenges head on — focusing our policy work on targeting, on innovation, and on those conservation practices that can either prevent further degradation or trigger pollution reduction. SIn 2007, the Chesapeake Executive Council (EC), including Chesapeake Bay Commission Chairman Jim Hubbard, determined that the water quality goals set in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement would not be met by the 2010 deadline. While the modeling efforts predict that actions already taken should achieve 44 percent of the nitrogen and 60 percent of the phosphorous goals, water quality monitoring indicates little significant change in the actual amount of nitrogen entering the Bay. Phosphorus levels have indeed decreased. The EC members acknowledged that the rigorous and challeng- ing nutrient and sediment reduction goals set forth in the agreement are still appropriate. Rather than weakening or abandoning the

CREEKSIDE MOORING · PHOTO © DAVID HARP water quality goals, the EC members vowed to scale up their efforts,

7 zeroing in on new policies and funding retreat in order to provide focused policy sources to accelerate progress. guidance and administrative oversight to Thus, the Commission centered its the group. Leadership of the Commission attention in 2007 on those actions that is noted in the Roster of Members and could most effectively deliver nutrient and Staff on Page 5. sediment pollution reduction results — The Commission maintains its head- namely agricultural conservation practices quarters in Annapolis, Maryland, with and advanced sewage treatment. At the additional staff located in Harrisburg, Chapter 1 same time, it also focused new attention Pennsylvania and Richmond, Virginia. on two huge, emerging issues that will Financial support is provided via the complicate — if not eclipse — the restora- general funds of each member state and tion progress being made if not handled through grant support for special projects. correctly: biofuels and climate change. Individual states periodically appropriate These seminal issues all represent additional funds to support state-specific an important shift in the Bay Program efforts. toward larger-scale, increasingly complex All agendas, reports and materials issues that require much greater and related to the Commission’s work are longer-term commitments than ever available at www.chesbay.state.va.us. before. The theme of this year’s annual report — Scaling Up — represents this emerging trend in the Bay restoration STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES effort, and the challenge that the Commis- The Commission serves as the legislative sion and its fellow EC members have leader of the Chesapeake Bay Program taken on. partnership, working to ensure that poli- This chapter summarizes the Commis- cies adopted by the Program have the sion’s work in 2007 concerning this set of complement of Federal and state laws, issues, as well as other state initiatives that regulations, budgets and policies to benefit Bay restoration. support them. Highlights of the legislative activities in each state during 2007 are provided below: ADMINISTRATION Each calendar year, the chairmanship of Maryland the Commission rotates among the states. Creating a new fund to put Maryland’s Outgoing Chairman Senator Emmett Tributary Strategies into action was the Hanger of Virginia turned the gavel over focus of much discussion throughout to Maryland Delegate Jim Hubbard at the 2007. During the regular session, the January meeting in Annapolis. In 2008, Chesapeake Bay Green Fund was intro- the chairmanship will rotate to Pennsyl- duced as a dedicated funding source for vania. Bay restoration efforts, particularly those The Commission met four times in practices that abate non-point source 2007, with individual state delegations pollution. While the bill did not pass meeting more frequently throughout the during the regular Session, it did create year. The Commission’s six-member Exec- sufficient momentum for the General utive Committee held a special day-long Assembly to take up the initiative again

8 in November, during a history-making per year by 2027. However, in December, Special Session designed to exclusively the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency address budget issues. did not approve the California Federal Renamed as the Chesapeake Bay preemption waiver request for stricter 2010 Trust Fund, the dedicated fund was auto emission standards, triggering a approved in the final hours of the Special logjam for implementation in the remain- Session. A portion of the existing gasoline ing 11 states. Maryland, Pennsylvania and car rental taxes will be dedicated to and New York, the three Bay states that paying for pollution reduction efforts have adopted Clean Cars legislation, have The Commission’s contained in the state’s Tributary Strate- united with the remaining eight states in Work in 2007 gies. About $50 million a year is expected seeking EPA approval through the courts. to be generated for rural agricultural Also adopted, the Stormwater Manage- conservation practices, urban stormwater ment Act of 2007 raises the standards for management, and suburban smart growth new development in Maryland by requir- practices. Funding to reduce these non- ing developers to address runoff during point pollution sources will help Mary- construction, as well as after development. land tackle the largest inputs of nitrogen, The goal of the program is to maintain phosphorus and sediment and move closer the existing hydrology of a site to prevent, to achieving its 2010 Bay restoration minimize, and mitigate runoff during rain- goals. fall, not just to plan for managing large The General Assembly is expected storm events. The Act will decrease the to take up an expenditure plan for the amount of runoff to the Bay by mandat- 2010 Trust Fund during its regular 2008 ing environmental site design techniques, Session. The Maryland Delegation will such as low impact design to reduce the play a lead role in these discussions. amount of impervious cover, maintain Sponsored by Commission Chair natural vegetation, and reduce pollution. Delegate Jim Hubbard along with Sena- Incorporating green systems that mimic tor Brian Frosh, the Clean Cars Act the natural world into the initial designs passed during the 2007 Regular Session. for stormwater management is much more It strengthens the standards for car emis- cost effective than relying solely on struc- sions that cause smog and other pollution tural methods. harmful to human health and the environ- In an effort to assist wastewater treat- ment, including nitrogen oxides, which ment plants in cutting the costs of phos- contribute nutrient loads to the Bay. The phorous removal, legislation was passed Act adds carbon dioxide, the main cause prohibiting the sale of home dishwashing of global warming, to the list of pollutants machine detergent containing over 0.5 that are covered by vehicle emission stan- percent phosphorus in Maryland. Prior dards. It also requires that a percentage to this, the ban only applied to laundry of new cars sold each year are advanced and liquid dishwashing detergents, like technology vehicles, such as hybrids. those used at the kitchen sink. The ban, By joining the 11 other states that have which will go into effect on January 1, adopted these stricter automobile stan- 2010, will apply to all detergents used in dards, Maryland expects to reduce nitro- home dishwashers. It is expected to reduce gen air pollution from cars by 1,500 tons overall phosphorous loads in Maryland by

9 3 percent. Similar initiatives are expected for a Special Session on Energy which to pass in Pennsylvania, Virginia and the began in September; suites of bills from District of Columbia in 2008. the House Democrats and Senate Republi- cans helped frame the debate. Pennsylvania Included in these proposals were Agriculture and energy were the primary mandates and incentives for the use and legislative themes for the Pennsylvania production of alternative fuels, includ- Delegation during the first half of its ing ethanol and biodiesel. In light of Chapter 1 two-year, 2007/2008 Session. Summer the release of the Commission’s report marked a major victory for agricultural Biofuels and the Bay: Getting it Right to funding with the passage of the Resource Benefit Farms, Forests and the Chesa- Enhancement and Protection Program peake, several amendments were offered (REAP). Sponsored by Senator Mike to promote the development and eventual Waugh and co-sponsored by fellow use of cellulosic biofuel technologies. Commission members Representatives Art Senator Waugh sponsored Special Session Hershey, Russ Fairchild and Mike Sturla, SB 25, which would expand the existing REAP provides $10 million in tax credits definition of biomass to include lignins annually to farmers for implementation (the cementing substance, along with of certain best management practices. cellulose, that makes up the plants cell Support ranges from 25 to 75 percent walls) from wood processing, and reclas- of costs, depending on the practice. sify these substances from Tier II to Tier Additionally, the tax credits are I under the Alternative Energy Portfolio transferable, encouraging investment Standards. Additionally, Senator Waugh from non-farm businesses and providing a introduced Special Session SB 41, which source of up-front funding. Administered would provide incentives for farmers to by the State Conservation Commission, grow switchgrass and other cellulosic REAP applications will be accepted feedstocks. Incentives for their production beginning January 2008. are needed to overcome the multi-year Recognizing the important role time period these plants need to establish that conservation districts play in the a harvestable crop. Senator Brubaker implementation of best management was named to the Senate Special Session practices, the General Assembly held Committee to consider these and other hearings on SB 1020, co-sponsored by Special Session bills. Senator Waugh and fellow Commission Regarding point sources, Commission member Senator Mike Brubaker. The staff continued to participate in the Joint legislation would amend the Conservation Legislative Conservation Committee’s District Law to enhance the effectiveness Sewage Task Force. Created in 2005, of Districts and the State Conservation the Task Force has been identifying Commission. wastewater infrastructure needs statewide Also at the forefront of legislative and is beginning to develop legislative action this year were Executive and Legis- proposals to address funding for those lative proposals to promote energy conser- needs. Similarly, Commission staff vation and energy independence in the served on workgroups related to the Commonwealth. Governor Rendell called implementation of the Commonwealth’s

10 Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy and tives were examined by legislators in order nutrient trading program. to determine how best to scale up funding. Legislatively, the Pennsylvania Delega- Most notably, $250 million in bonds tion took action to reduce the phosphorus was authorized through the Water Quality flowing into sewage treatment plants by Improvement Fund for upgrading waste- introducing bills in both the House and water treatment plants. This will ensure Senate. Similar to Maryland’s phospho- that local governments in Virginia will rous detergent ban, Senate Bill 1017, receive state funding for the installation of sponsored by Senator Brubaker and co- enhanced nutrient removal technologies at The Commission’s sponsored by Senator Waugh, and House publicly owned sewage treatment plants. Work in 2007 Bill 1875, sponsored by Representative By January 1, 2011, it is expected that Hershey and co-sponsored by Representa- Virginia will achieve its nutrient goal for tive Fairchild, would prohibit the sale of point sources, which will mean a reduc- household dishwasher detergent contain- tion in delivered loads to the Bay of three ing phosphorus. Passage of this legislation million pounds of nitrogen and 125,000 is expected during the remainder of this pounds of phosphorus from 2005 levels. two-year Session, sometime in 2008. In Virginia’s ongoing efforts to achieve The General Assembly also considered its land conservation goal under Chesa- bills related to land use and municipal peake 2000, a new proposal was enacted planning, including proposals for to assist localities. The bill, patroned by acquisition of property for flood Senator Emmett Hanger and Delegate control purposes, implementation of Lynwood Lewis, expands the Virginia temporary development moratoriums by Resources Authority (VRA) to provide municipalities, and amendments to the cost-effective financial solutions for locali- Municipalities Planning Code that would ties that have land conservation programs. facilitate Traditional Neighborhood The VRA offers revolving fund loans Development. Similarly, bills were at below-market interest rates, thereby introduced to promote environmentally- reducing borrowing costs and decreasing sensitive design and construction of the financial burden to local taxpayers. publicly-funded buildings. Finally, a four-day sales tax holiday Recognizing the importance of was created for the purchase of Energy mapping and geospatial information in Star efficient appliances. Virginia Delega- land use planning, Representative Fairch- tion Chairman Delegate John Cosgrove ild introduced legislation to create the introduced legislation to raise awareness Pennsylvania Geospatial Coordinating of energy consumption and encourage its Council. It will facilitate the sharing of efficient use. Reductions in energy use will technical information among government lessen air pollution and greenhouse gas agencies. emissions. Discussions continued throughout Virginia the year over Virginia’s management of Finding additional funds was a priority of the menhaden fishery. During the 2007 the Virginia General Assembly in 2007. Session, at long last, consensus was Funding mechanisms as diverse as bond- reached to establish an annual menha- ing, revolving fund loans and tax incen- den harvest limit of 109,020 metric tons

11 for the Virginia portion of the Bay. If an Farm Bill and enhanced funding for Blue annual harvest falls below the cap, credit Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant via will be applied to the next year’s harvest. reauthorization of the Water Resources Conversely, if a year’s harvest exceeds Development Act. Taken together, these the limit, a deduction will be applied to two initiatives could account for more the following year’s cap. The fishery will than half of the nutrient and sediment continue to be monitored and studied as reductions needed Baywide to clean the the provisions of the bill expire at the end Bay. The Commission also weighed in on Chapter 1 of 2010. both global and local issues, with climate The unnecessary loss of a huge percent- change and John Smith Water Trail- age of the crab population is a grow- related legislative initiatives. ing concern of the Virginia Delegation. As is tradition, the Commission trav- Evidence presented to the Commission in eled to Washington, D.C. in May 2007 to 2006 suggests that there are thousands of meet with members of its Congressional old abandoned crab pots in tidal waters Delegation to discuss these issues: continuing to capture and kill blue crabs as well as other marine life. Delegate Scott Federal Farm Bill Lingamfelter patroned a Joint Resolution Every five years Congress produces the directing the Virginia Institute of Marine nation’s flagship legislation on farm Sciences (VIMS) to assess the scale of this policy. The last bill, passed in 2002, Baywide problem, and propose mitigating had a five-year price tag of nearly $250 solutions. The VIMS report was issued in billion, of which $100 billion contributed December 2007. payments of one kind or another to farm- Shellfish aquaculture is a growing ers — for commodity support, insurance, industry in Virginia. In recognizing the disaster relief and notably, conservation. potential economic and environmental With the 2002 bill set to expire in benefits associated with increased shellfish 2007, the reauthorization of the Farm Bill production, a law was enacted requiring has been the Commission’s top Congres- the Virginia Marine Resources Commis- sional priority. Without question, it repre- sion (VRMC) to develop a general permit sents this region’s best opportunity to for the placement of temporary shellfish- substantially scale up agricultural conser- growing enclosures in state waters. vation activities through increased finan- cial support and technical assistance. During 2007, Commission members U.S. CONGRESS and staff determinedly made the region’s By law, the Commission serves as the interests known. Staff frequently met with region’s liaison to Congress; Congres- their Congressional counterparts to draft sional members and staff rely on the policy, rank priorities and develop strate- Commission for information, policy and gies to deliver the necessary dollars. The drafting advice. Congressional activities Commission also crafted a strategy for the in 2007 demanded the lion’s share of the region’s governors to persuasively commu- Commission’s staff time. Working as the nicate their support for improving the region’s leader, the Commission spurred conservation, forestry and energy provi- both the reauthorization of the Federal sions of the Farm Bill.

12 In the closing days of the Congres- advice to the Senate during its investiga- sional Session of 2007, the U.S. Senate tions of global climate change and the joined the U.S. House in passing its own Chesapeake Bay. At the request of Sena- Farm Bill and the two versions were put tors Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and John Warner forward for reconciliation. The Confer- (R-Va.), Commission staff prepared a ence Committee, which will determine its briefing paper summarizing the key issues final content, is expected to convene in and the research necessary to prepare us the first quarter of 2008. Both versions to make science-based policy decisions. contain Chesapeake Bay-specific provi- Shortly thereafter, Senators Warner The Commission’s sions, making the Chesapeake the only and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined forces Work in 2007 region across the nation singled out to introduce landmark legislation that for substantially enhanced conserva- would, for the first time, set mandatory tion support. While the details of these U.S. limits on emissions of greenhouse efforts are summarized in Chapter 2, the gases. The Senate Committee approved final story remains to be told in the 2008 the measure in December with full cham- Annual Report. ber debate, and a companion House version is expected in 2008. Water Resources Development Act Thanks in large part to Senator Cardin, A huge gain for the Chesapeake occurred the legislation provides a revenue stream, with the overwhelming passage of the by way of the EPA and the Army Corps of Water Resources Development Act Engineers, to address the effects of climate (WRDA) of 2007. Although initially change on natural systems and explicitly vetoed by the President, the bill was singles out its application to “large- enacted into law when both the House scale estuarine ecosystems,” such as the and Senate voted to override the veto. Chesapeake and Long Island Sound. The WRDA now authorizes hundreds of Commission will keep close watch on the millions of dollars for Army Corps of proposal in 2008 as it could translate to Engineers projects in the Bay from oyster millions of new conservation dollars for restoration to construction of a protective the Chesapeake. seawall on Tangier Island. The Commission was instrumental Captain John Smith National Historic in ensuring that WRDA also contained Water Trail authorization for funding both upgrading If 2006 was the year that Captain John nutrient removal at Blue Plains Wastewa- Smith’s epic voyages on the Chesapeake ter Treatment Plant and retrofitting Wash- were memorialized by the U.S. Congress ington, D.C.’s Combined Sewer Overflows via legislation establishing the nation’s (CSO). See Chapter 4 for further informa- first water trail, then 2007 was the year tion on Blue Plains. the concept became a reality. In May 2007, as the nation celebrated the 400th Climate Change anniversary of the settlement of James- The Commission joined Maryland Gover- town, Chairman Jim Hubbard joined nor Martin O’Malley, Virginia Governor Virginia Governor Kaine and National Timothy Kaine and the Chesapeake Bay Park Service Director Mary Bomar for the Foundation in September to offer expert dedication ceremony.

13 That same day, a group of 15 set out (all Executive branch), the Commission is by oar and sail in a replica of John Smith’s the only representative of the Legislative wooden shallop to reenact his 1,700-plus- branch. This makes the Commission’s mile route, explored in 1608. Paralleling perspective unique in three ways: his expeditions, the crew journeyed to the ■ First, the Commission members are the fall line of almost every sizable tributary least parochial, since they collectively in Chesapeake Bay, landing in dozens represent the broadest geographical of ports along the way. They melded expanse of any signatory. Chapter 1 ceremony with lessons of history and conservation. In June, when the shallop ■ Second, our members are the most docked in historic Mount Vernon, Senator locally anchored since they individually Warner was joined by Virginia Delegates represent the smallest geographic areas John Cosgrove and Scott Lingamfelter to of any signatory. welcome the crew and tour the interac- ■ Finally, the Commission itself is the tive exhibit tents. In July, Chairman Jim most enduring since it is not subject to Hubbard was there to greet Governor the term limits that complicate Execu- O’Malley and the crew members, as they tive Branch leadership. landed the shallop together in Annapolis. To enhance a boater’s journey along These assets were put to the test in the trail, the Commission worked with 2007 when the Commission staff was Congress to fund the National Oceanic asked to represent the region in a number and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of national forums focused on large- to develop “talking buoys.” These state- scale ecosystem restoration. In speaking of-the-art, interactive buoys mark signifi- engagements too numerous to count, the cant points along the trail and provide Commission was able to speak broadly real-time meteorological, oceanographic, about Bay restoration while getting historical and current water-quality infor- specific about the facts and political mation. They are accessible through the conditions that drive policy development. internet and phone by calling 877-BUOY- Beginning in 2006, Federal staff was BAY. The FY 2008 Federal Consolidated charged by the U.S. Congress to conduct Appropriations Act includes $446,500 for a number of substantive reviews of the NOAA’s continuing work on this project. Chesapeake Bay Program. The highly publicized reports, including those of the Government Accountability Office, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM the Inspector General and the National LEADERSHIP Academy of Public Administrations, As one of six leaders in the Federally- reviewed all aspects of the Bay funded Chesapeake Bay Program, the Program. The Commission staff’s broad Commission is involved in all aspects of understanding of Bay science and policy its policy development and restoration lent an inter-jurisdictional and legislative activities. Working in partnership with the perspective. All of these reviews are now Administrator of EPA, the Governors of available at www.chesapeake.net. Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia and Based on its involvement in crafting the the Mayor of the District of Columbia Chesapeake Bay Program’s 2006 Forest

14 Conservation Directive, the Commission understood this challenge and has contin- remained a partner throughout 2007 to ued to support efforts to reduce nutrients agree on region-wide, quantitative forest at Blue Plains. As the largest wastewater conservation goals and the policies needed treatment plant in the Bay watershed, to achieve them. The agreement, which even small reductions in nutrient concen- was adopted by the Program’s Chesa- trations achieved at the facility will be peake Executive Council in December, will amplified many times over. The Commis- accelerate protection of our most valuable sion believes that it is critical to reduce forest lands throughout the watershed and nitrogen discharge there from its current The Commission’s will advance sustainable forestry prin- permit goal of 7.5 mg/L down to at least Work in 2007 ciples among private forest landowners. 4.2 mg/L. This unique regional opportu- In 2007, Chairman Jim Hubbard repre- nity is further described in Chapter 4. sented the Commission at the EC meeting held on December 5. The Commission Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds and its staff played a central role in shap- Grant Program ing the agenda, preparing the background Early in this decade the Commission briefing materials and presenting its work worked closely with Senators Paul on biofuels. Each of the EC members Sarbanes (D-Md.) and John Warner (R- agreed to “champion” issues or programs Va.) to establish the Chesapeake Bay with the goal of gathering information Targeted Watersheds Grants Program. The that could be used by others to advance goal of the program is to expand collec- achievement of the water quality goals. tive knowledge on the most innovative, Chairman Hubbard agreed that the sustainable and cost-effective strategies Commission would: for reducing excess nutrient loads within specific tributaries to the Chesapeake ■ Continue to lead the region’s efforts to Bay. Funded by the EPA, the program has improve the Federal Farm Bill. awarded over $13 million in grants in its ■ Sponsor a “cellulosic biofuels summit” first two years, while leveraging an addi- in 2008 in partnership with Pennsylva- tional $10.1 million in local matches. nia Governor Rendell. Grants awarded in 2007 include: improving manure and pasture manage- ■ Lead the region’s efforts to secure ment on small horse farms; creating a Federal funding for Blue Plains Waste- diversified system for composting and water Treatment Plant. marketing livestock manure; implement- ing innovative, farmer-friendly practices to keep livestock out of streams and off PARTNERSHIPS/ KEY ISSUES streambanks; demonstrating the wide- spread potential for continuous no-till Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant and other conservation cropping prac- From the beginning of the Bay initiative, tices; establishing a dairy certification and Blue Plains has served as the prime exam- marketing program for milk produced in ple of what is at stake if we fail to upgrade a manner that minimizes impacts to the our largest point source facilities. The Chesapeake; and, demonstrating the value Chesapeake Bay Commission has long of stream restoration and low impact

15 development practices to reduce pollution rately integrated into the assumptions runoff in urban and suburban settings. used in the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Executive Director Ann Swanson has computer model. served on the grant selection Committee Results from these ongoing projects for the past three years. will provide information on the Innovative Technology effectiveness and feasibility of expanded use of these practices throughout the In 2007, the Pennsylvania Delegation watershed. Chapter 1 supported several unique projects that foster innovative and cost-effective pollu- Blue Crabs tion reduction, including: The Commission is well known for its ■ A pilot test of the Cove Area Regional leadership work on the blue crab, having Digester, a multi-stage methane diges- convened and chaired the Bi-state Blue tion and wastewater treatment project Crab Advisory Committee from 1996 to using cow manure from several local 2003. Regardless of significant manage- dairy farms. Results from this test are ment changes, over-fishing has occurred in showing increased efficiencies of the six of the past nine years and in 2007 the treatment beyond what was proposed, Baywide catch is expected to be less than and will help to refine the project as it 50 million pounds, making it one of the moves to the implementation phase. smallest since 1945. With 2007 juvenile crab populations the lowest in recorded ■ A Duncannon Borough study into the history, the Commission necessarily refo- feasibility of developing the Common- cused on the resource. wealth’s first commercial-scale electric- Virginia actively reached out to its ity generation facility fueled by poultry neighboring states of Maryland and North litter. Preliminary results of this study Carolina to over-haul Virginia’s existing have provided important information blue crab regulations. This Blue Crab on the poultry litter inventory and Regulatory Review Committee began by potential nutrient reductions that could assessing current regulations to question be achieved from such a facility in the what is working, what is not working, watershed. and what can be done to coordinate multi- ■ An Enhanced Nutrient Management state efforts to increase the fishery. Among Pilot Program led by the IPM Insti- the management measures under review tute and American Farmland Trust to are: provide data on new practices included ■ Increasing the size of required cull rings, in the Commonwealth’s Chesapeake which allow undersized crabs to escape, Bay Tributary Strategy. making the size uniform in all states; ■ Research by Pennsylvania State Univer- ■ Expanding the spawning sanctuary in sity to determine the sediment load- Virginia to include the migratory deep ings from dirt and gravel roads and water channel to Maryland’s state line; the effectiveness of their maintenance and, practices. The goal is to understand these practices so that they can be accu- ■ Instituting a crab pot tagging program.

16 A final report will be issued in 2009. pated in the Environment Virginia Sympo- However, in 2007, the Commission began sium, attracting a crowd of nearly 800. to discuss whether further interstate The Commission sponsored three repeat- action must be taken even before then. ing sessions on the impending reauthoriza- tion of the Federal Farm Bill, involving the Blue Ribbon Oyster Panel Natural Resources Conservation Service In a grave effort to restore the native Eastern Regional Assistant Chief, Virginia oyster in Virginia, the VMRC assembled Secretary of Agriculture, and Executive a 20-member team of stakeholders. The Secretary of the Virginia State Dairymen’s The Commission’s Blue Ribbon Oyster Panel met to study Association. Framed by what has already Work in 2007 native oyster restoration efforts, identify been accomplished in the 2002 Farm Bill, new and innovative methods to advance the speakers outlined new opportunities ecological restoration of the fishery and for improving Federal agricultural conser- restore the economic stability of the indus- vation programs. try. Virginia Director Suzan Bulbulkaya represented the Commission on this panel. Water Quality Trading Involving more than ten months of inten- The Commission participated in a series sive work, the Panel recommended that of meetings and discussions in Wash- the VMRC should expand oyster produc- ington, D.C. hosted by Forest Trends, tion and habitat for the commercial fish- an organization involved in develop- ery, including aquaculture, and implement ing market-based ecosystem trading rotational harvest areas and permanent programs worldwide. Staff served on a sanctuaries in the Rappahannock River. steering committee, (including representa- The Panel steered away from introduc- tives from U.S. EPA, NRDC, U.S. Forest tion of non-native oysters, as that issue Service, state agencies and NGO’s) to is included in the Federally-sponsored explore the potential for establishing a comprehensive oyster restoration Envi- Chesapeake Bay water quality trading ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) due out program. Consensus on such an effort in 2008. The VMRC will reconvene the was not reached by year’s end, but a 2008 Panel upon completion of the EIS. national conference on ecosystem market opportunities is being planned by Forest Environment Virginia Trends, followed by a second-day meeting In the spring of 2007, Senator Hanger and on specific Chesapeake Bay water quality members of the Commission staff partici- trading issues and opportunities. ■

17 Commissioners at Work

BELOW In December, the Chesapeake Executive Council wrestled with the fact that the 2010 water quality goals would not be met. The members resolved to stay the course, acknowledging that more time, new sources of funding and the strategic investment of all available dollars are critical.

COURTESY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF MARYLAND

GENE LEVINSON DAVE HARP ABOVE With wild crab populations far below average, Commission members consider the ABOVE Walking the talk. Chairman Jim Hubbard thanks viability of juvenile crab stocking efforts underway at the Center of Marine Biotechnology in U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (Md.) for his steadfast leadership on Baltimore. Chesapeake Bay issues. BELOW Former House of Delegates member, BELOW From the northern reaches of the Preston Bryant now serves as Virginia’s Susquehanna watershed, Representative Secretary of Natural Resources. Russ Fairchild embodies the long-term and long-distance commitment of the Pennsylvania Delegation members.

DAVE HARP

DAVE HARP DAVE HARP

GENE LEVINSON TOP The Maryland Delegation meets with U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (Md.) to strategize about new sources of funding for Bay restoration.

ABOVE What’s for dinner? Deputy Secretary Cathy Curran DAVE HARP DAVE HARP Myers jokes with Representative Art Hershey about the ABOVE Senator Mike Waugh listens to ABOVE Visits with the region’s Congressional spartan diet served up to juvenile crabs by the Center of disturbing reports about a continuing lack of Delegation are an important tradition for the Marine Biotechnology. improvement in the Bay’s water quality. The Commission each May. In the Capitol Rotunda, Commission has joined with other Chesapeake Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes joins (from left) 2000 signatories to scale up efforts in 2008 Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources Jeff Corbin, and beyond. Delegate John Cosgrove and Senator Nick Rerras. Commissioners at Work

BELOW With a focus on state legislation, much of the Commission’s work takes place at the state level. Here, Delegate Lynwood Lewis joins the Virginia Delegation for the traditional, quarterly breakfast meetings.

DAVE HARP DAVE HARP ABOVE Yes! Congressman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) describes his success in leading the House effort to establish Chesapeake Bay provisions in the U.S. Farm Bill to Delegates John Wood, Jr. and Jim Hubbard. LEFT Translating the Bay’s complexities into a clear message is of paramount importance to Citizen Representative Irv Hill, a communications expert from Norfolk, Virginia. BELOW Senator Emmett Hanger (Va.) considers the process being used to assess the risks of introducing a non-native oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis to the waters of Chesapeake Bay. DAVE HARP

DAVE HARP LEFT While scientists carefully fine tune their ability to grow algae for fish food, Senator Mike Brubaker, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture Committee and an agronomist by trade, considers its potential as a biofuel. Per acre, algae can yield an astonishing 5000 gallons of biodiesel. BELOW Executive Director Ann Swanson highlights the Commission’s top Farm Bill priorities to U.S. Senator Bob Casey (Pa.). As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Casey was instrumental in securing Chesapeake Bay-specific funding in the Senate’s version of the bill.

GENE LEVINSON DAVE HARP

DAVE HARP ABOVE The Commission’s Biofuels and the Bay report has resulted in a new emphasis on cellulosic-based biofuels that can both reduce nutrient loads to the Bay and have significant economic benefit to the region. Here, members consider the negative water quality implications of corn ethanol. LEFT Four hundred years later, crew members gather in Jamestown to launch their replica of Capt. John Smith’s wooden shallop. Chairman Hubbard wishes them “God Speed,” as they set out to retrace Smith’s 3,000-mile route, first explored in two principal voyages during 1608. MICHAEL C. WOOTTON

Chapter 2 Investing in Agriculture

ith attainment of the Bay Agreement 2010 water quality goals already in doubt, the need to acceler- ate nutrient reductions took on increased urgency in 2007. In response to that pressure, the Commission led

efforts to find additional funding and focus on those Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania are all areas where the greatest nutrient reductions could be relying on agricultural conservation achieved for the least cost. practices to achieve the majority of their As highlighted in the Commission’s 2004 report, Cost-Effective nutrient and sediment W reductions. Yet dollars Strategies for the Bay, full implementation of several agricultural to conduct outreach, offer technical practices have the potential to achieve 75 percent of the nitrogen assistance and help farmers put practices reductions needed for just 25 percent of the total cost. Consequently, in place are all woefully inadequate. the Commission has devoted most of its attention to the creation of The Commission is leading the campaign the next generation of agricultural conservation programs across the to more than double agricultural funding watershed. Baywide to fulfill this obligation under the At the Federal level, the Commission continued its leadership Chesapeake 2000 agreement. on behalf of the region’s governors to secure new funds through the Conservation, Forestry and Energy Titles of a reauthorized Farm

FARMING THE LOWER SHORE · PHOTO © DAVID HARP Bill. The early part of 2007 saw much activity in the form of several

23 “marker bills” introduced in the U.S. tance as well as regional conservation House. Rather than final form legislation, practices to lessen the environmental marker bills are essentially intended impact of biofuel production. Only the to “stake a claim” for funding needs CHESSEA bill, however, was exclusively and to propose new programs to the focused on the Bay region’s priorities. Congressional Agriculture Committees. The Commission’s annual May visit Commission staff worked with the to the region’s Congressional Delegation region’s Congressional Delegation and emphasized the critical need for new Chapter 2 other environmental and agriculture orga- funding and the importance of the nizations to draft language and recruit co- various marker bills. By the end of the sponsors for four notable marker bills: day’s visits, Commission members had secured sponsorships from 17 Delegation ■ Healthy Farms, introduced by members. Congressman Ron Kind (D-Wis.); This amplified voice from the region ■ EAT Healthy, introduced by Congress- paid off in July when the House passed man Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.); a Farm Bill with unprecedented levels of conservation support. In addition to ■ Farm, Nutrition, and Community significant increases in existing programs Investment (the “Northeast Bill”), such as EQIP, the House bill also created introduced by Congresswoman Rosa a new Regional Water Enhancement DeLauro (D-Conn.), and Congressman Program that would include the Chesa- Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.); peake as a priority region, and two new Chesapeake-specific programs — the ■ And, most notably for the Bay region, Chesapeake Bay Program for Nutrient the Chesapeake Healthy and Envi- and Sediment Reduction Control and the ronmentally Sound Stewardship of Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Conser- Energy and Agriculture (CHESSEA), vation Planning Program. introduced by Congressmen Chris Van If passed, and if the funding is appro- Hollen (D-Md.) and Bobby Scott (D- priated, these and other programs would Va.). A Senate version was sponsored provide over $100 million annually in by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). new funding for agriculture conservation All four bills reflected, to some degree, programs. Much credit must be given to the Bay region’s call for expanded national Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), conservation programs such as the Envi- chief patron of CHESSEA, as well as ronmental Quality Incentives Program Congressman Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Vice- (EQIP) and the Conservation Security Chair of the House Agriculture Commit- Program (CSP). The bills created new tee, and Congressman Bob Goodlatte national programs to foster large-scale, (R-Va.), Ranking Minority Member of the regional stewardship efforts, such as Committee, who championed the region’s “Regional Stewardship” or “Coopera- priorities within the Committee. tive Conservation,” to leverage state and With passage of the House bill, the private dollars for focused conservation Commission’s attention then turned to practices. Additionally, they called for the Senate. Highlighting the significant increased investment in technical assis- new funding levels the House was able

24 to adopt, the Commission coordinated Farmers often have limited tax liability. a series of letters to the editor across the This program allows them to use the region and a letter from each of the three credits over a 15-year period or sell them governors to the region’s six Senators, to another business that can use them. calling for similar support. Led by Senator Businesses can also sponsor a conserva- Bob Casey (D-Pa.), the region was able to tion practice up front. Consequently, achieve a Bay-specific program within the the program is seen as a unique way to Senate bill — the Chesapeake Watershed increase non-farm participation in agricul- Conservation Program. Significant addi- tural BMP implementation. Investing in tional funding was also provided through REAP reserves the highest level of tax Agriculture expansion of CSP, now known as the credit, 75 percent of BMP cost, for basic Comprehensive Stewardship Program. practices such as conservation planning, The Commission coordinated a second nutrient management planning, improve- letter to the Senate Delegation, which ments to animal concentration areas was signed by all State and District of (ACAs) such as barnyards or heavy-use Columbia members of the Executive pastures, or establishment of 50-foot Council at its December 5 meeting. The riparian forest buffers. A 50 percent credit bill was passed the following week, and is available for other BMPs, equipment includes over $40 million annually to the purchases to implement those practices, region beyond existing funding. and establishment of 35-foot riparian As we went to press, the Farm Bill forest buffers. However, before these addi- remained in Conference Committee. Our tional practices can be eligible, the farm conferees include Congressmen Holden must be in compliance with conservation and Goodlatte, who coincidentally repre- planning, nutrient management planning, sent the farmers of the Lebanon and and ACA requirements. Shenandoah Valleys, among the most Funded at $10 million for fiscal year intensively farmed regions in the water- 2008, the State Conservation Commission shed. The Commission will continue to will begin accepting REAP applications in stress the region’s priorities and assist the January on a first-come, first-served basis. conferees with their work to complete the In Maryland, many months of discus- Farm Bill in 2008. sion over a proposed “Green Fund” In a complemenary effort, the ultimately led to passage of the Chesa- Commission members explored significant peake Bay 2010 Trust Fund during a new funding sources in each state. rare November Special Session. The $50 In the lead was Pennsylvania, with million Trust Fund will be supported creation of the Resource Enhancement through a portion of the existing gasoline and Protection Program (REAP). First and car rental taxes. Although general in championed by then-Commission member its conservation scope, a portion of the Senator Noah Wenger in 2006, legislation Trust Fund will be targeted to agriculture. sponsored by Commission member Sena- However, the exact amount of the dedica- tor Mike Waugh was ultimately adopted tion is yet to be determined. during July of 2007. REAP features a In Virginia, as the Commonwealth system of state tax credits for agricul- looks beyond achievement of its point tural best management practices (BMPs). source goals by 2010, the agricultural

25 Agriculture Funding Initiatives

Federal Federal Farm Bill (Pending) Chapter 2 ■ Proposed expansion of existing Farm Bill programs such as EQIP and CSP. ■ Proposed creation of new national programs such as the Regional Water Enhancement Program. ■ Proposed creation of Chesapeake-specific programs. ■ Potential for $100 million new dollars annually to the region.

Pennsylvania Resource Enhancement and Protection Program (2007) ■ Creation of a new $10 million agricultural conservation practice funding program. ■ Provides transferable tax credits to spur non-agricultural investment in agricultural BMPs. ■ Emphasizes conservation and nutrient planning as well as other basic cost-effective practices. ■ Received 254 applications for over $10 million in the first 10 days of sign-up, leveraging an additional $8-9 million.

Maryland Chesapeake 2010 Trust Fund (2007) ■ Created a $50 million annual dedicated non-point source fund. ■ Focuses a portion of this new fund to agricultural BMPs. ■ Favors cost-effectiveness, targeting and performance-based approaches.

Virginia Targeted Non-point Source Funding (pending) ■ Proposed $20 million for agricultural BMPs in Governor’s FY 2009 budget. ■ Prioritized five most cost-effective practices via DCR agency policy. ■ Focused BMP spending on five priority practices.

Regionwide Cellulosic Summit ■ Promotion of cellulosic biofuels as both a source of economic growth for agriculture and a cost- effective means for nutrient and sediment reduction.

26 portion of its Tributary Strategy is gaining FIGURE 1 renewed interest. By autumn a coalition of State Tributary Strategy agricultural and environmental interests Agricultural Funding Gap joined forces to pursue large increases in agricultural conservation funding. A ������������������� proposed $100 million program funded ��� ������������ by directing one-tenth of one cent of exist- ��� ing sales tax revenues started the early ��� ����� discussions. ������� Investing in In his budget proposal, Governor Agriculture Kaine included $20 million for agricul- ��� �������� tural BMPs statewide, with two-thirds dedicated to the Chesapeake watershed. �������� ��� The Commission believes that significant nutrient and sediment reductions could result if these new funds are focused on �� the five most cost-effective practices, iden- tified by the Kaine Administration earlier in the year. They are: � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��������� ��������� ��������� 1. cover crops; 2. stream fencing; 3. riparian buffers; Senator Waugh sponsored a bill during 4. conservation tillage; and their Special Session that would promote the planting of perennial grasses, such 5. nutrient management planning. as switchgrass, that have the potential New agreements with the poultry to significantly reduce nitrogen loadings industry to increase litter transport and compared to traditional row crops. More use of the feed additive phytase promise to information on the region’s options achieve even further reductions. regarding biofuels can be found in Regionwide, the promotion of Chapter 3. cellulosic biofuels is gaining traction Despite these recent improvements to as a new and economically viable way agricultural programs, a significant fund- to achieve high levels of nutrient and ing gap remains in all three states (see sediment reductions while promoting Figure 1). Consequently, continued scaling sustainable agriculture. Made from up of innovative and cost-effective agri- perennial grasses, woody debris and other cultural programs will be required, and sources of biomass, cellulosic biofuels the Commission will keep this issue as one present an alternative to the less desirable of its highest priorities through 2010 and corn-based ethanol. In Pennsylvania, beyond. ■

27

Chapter 3 Opting for Better Biofuels

nterest in biofuels has been both rapid and widespread, garnering headlines worldwide for their potential to address both energy independence and greenhouse gases. In the U.S., the effort to date has focused largely on producing ethanol from corn, but

biofuels and their organic feedstocks are actually far more diverse Biofuel production is here. Last year Iand each has very different energy, economic and environmental alone, the land in corn production effects. The choices are being widely debated in Congress as part of skyrocketed as farmers anticipated efforts to enact comprehensive legislation for both agriculture and new demand for biofuel feedstocks. energy. This trend, if not handled carefully, In 2005, Congress set a domestic production goal of 7.5 billion could wipe out 25 years of conservation gallons of biofuel by 2012, a goal that was met in less than two years. efforts to keep sediment and nutrients By January 2007, President Bush responded by calling for production out of the Bay. But all biofuels and all of 35 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels by 2017 as a means feedstocks are not the same, with some of reducing U.S. dependence on imported gas and oil. far more energy efficient and friendly In the Chesapeake Bay region, biofuel demand has already to the environment. Bay region leaders changed the mix and volume of crops grown by farmers and will must help lead our Nation toward likely impact forest practices. Driven by public policies, subsidies energy security while continuing our efforts

FARMS AS FUEL · PHOTO © DAVID HARP and venture capital investment, biofuels could bring about the most to restore clean water.

29 profound changes in regional agriculture to date has been corn-based ethanol; yet, and forestry in the past hundred years. It corn is able to produce less energy than could also have major effects on the health other feedstocks. Meanwhile, Europe is of the Bay and on prospects for its recovery. investing heavily in biodiesel technolo- In 2007, the Commission undertook a gies, using crops such as soybeans and detailed analysis of these issues and their canola. Over time, the U.S. anticipates a implications. The report, Biofuels and the shift to cellulosic feedstocks such as trees Bay: Getting it Right to Benefit Farms, and plant wastes because they promise to Chapter 3 Forests and the Chesapeake, summarized yield even more ethanol, use less energy in the major types of biofuels, their likely their production and cause fewer adverse appearance in the Chesapeake watershed, environmental impacts. Figure 2 shows an and the estimated impacts they would estimate of the anticipated U.S inventory have on farming, forestry and the waters of biomass by 2030 — corn and other of the Bay. grains will comprise only about 5 percent The main conclusion of the report was of the total. that if handled correctly, biofuels have the The pace and direction of biofuel potential to provide new and permanent investment will be heavily influenced by income sources for farmers and forest- a diverse array of factors. Private sector ers while reducing greenhouse gases and investment decisions, technological break- helping to control nutrient runoff to the throughs, Congressional actions regarding Bay and its rivers. The report warned, subsidies and production incentives, inter- however, that if handled poorly, biofuels nationally-set commodity prices, powerful could create an uncertain future for farm- Midwest-based political forces and even ers and foresters and substantially worsen international trade negotiations will play a the overload of nutrients and sediments to the Bay.

�������� Background ����������������������������������������� The major biofuels under development �������������������������������������������� and production are ethanol, biodiesel, ����������������� and a variety of locally produced and �������� consumed combustion and gasifica- tion products. The feedstocks that make �������������� ����������� ���� these biofuels encompass a diverse group ����� of organic materials — grains, grasses, ������ ���� wood chips, plant oils, and animal and ������� plant wastes — that can be converted into ���� energy, many of which are abundant in ��������������� ������ ������ the Bay region. ����� ����� ������ The technologies for producing energy ���� from these feedstocks vary greatly in their stages of development and their cost. For ������������������������������������������������������������������ example, nearly all U.S.-produced biofuel �����������

30 role. This makes it difficult to predict how takes into account, among other things, biofuels will impact the Bay region. In the the likely price rise of alternative crops face of these unknowns, the Commission’s such as wheat and soybeans. report identifies where actions can be Figure 3 summarizes the modeled taken to maximize the economic benefits results of the analysis. Essentially, 300,000 and minimize the environmental damage new corn acres would add five million from biofuel production. more pounds of nitrogen to the Bay each The watershed’s landscape is already year, assuming current levels of conserva- showing signs of change. In 2007, an tion practices. In contrast, 300,000 acres Opting for additional 160,000 acres of corn were of new soybeans would add about half Better Biofuels planted across the Bay watershed in that. In even sharper contrast, 300,000 response to rising crop prices. Because acres of new switchgrass (a cellulosic corn requires heavy fertilization, and feedstock) would actually reduce loadings is a relatively inefficient user of these by 8.3 million pounds per year due to the nutrients, as much as 40 to 60 percent of ability of switchgrass to absorb nutrients. the fertilizer applied stays on the field as Clearly, these findings demonstrate the waste. If not absorbed by a winter cover advantages of moving from grain to cellu- crop, or held in the corn residue, the nutri- losic feedstocks as quickly as the technol- ents move into groundwater and streams, ogy allows us, likely still several years causing nutrient overloading in the Bay. away. Chesapeake Bay Program modelers In the interim, applying cover crops working with the Commission estimated to all corn acres (both the new acres and that the 2007 surge in corn acreage existing acres without cover crops) offers increased nitrogen loads to the Bay by great promise, resulting in a reduced load roughly 2.5 million pounds, which off- of 17 million pounds per year. Scenario sets the total reductions of nitrogen from after scenario showed that if grain-based all sources to the Bay achieved during the ethanol is to be produced, it must be prior year. coupled with aggressive BMPs on its feed- As part of the biofuels report, the stock crops. Commission asked the Bay Program to estimate the water quality effects of Key Findings of the Report growing a number of different feed- The Commission report looked at how stocks. Using 2006 as the baseline, the each of the biofuels was likely to play out. Commission’s Biofuels Technical Advisory To summarize: Committee offered the modelers a predic- tion of 300,000 new acres of corn in the ■ Corn and other grain-based ethanol watershed in the next three to five years. should be considered a short-term This estimate would serve as the basis for windfall for farmers and refiners, a the model runs, whether corn or other necessary step toward future develop- feedstocks. ment of a biofuel industry that includes As it turned out, the number is only cellulosic sources, and a stimulus for double the actual 160,000 acre increase in near-universal cover crops and other corn acreage witnessed between 2006 and agricultural conservation measures to 2007. It is a conservative estimate that prevent adverse effects on the Bay.

31 �������� ������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��

�

� ���� �������� ���� ����� �� ��� ��� ����������� ���� ����������� Chapter 3 �� ���� ����� ����� ����� ��� ����� ���

���

���

���

�������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������

■ Cellulosic biofuel (primarily from corn will become cost-effective at replacing roots and stubble, perennial grasses and traditional power sources for poultry wood slash) offers a promising source houses and other farm processes; opera- of additional income for farmers and tional technology and economics are a foresters beginning 2012-2015, and few years off. can be managed to help reduce nutrient overloads to the Bay. Recommendations of the Commission ■ Biodiesel is a potential but unlikely The report concludes with seven recom- source of future extra income for farm- mendations for the future of biofuel ers; its impacts on the Bay depend on production in the Bay region. Succinctly the feedstock used, the ability to use put, they are: conservation management practices to ■ The Chesapeake Executive Council reduce nutrient loadings, and the rela- should develop a comprehensive biofu- tive loadings compared to corn or other els strategy for the region to plan, site preceding uses of the acreage. and permit biofuel facilities and support ■ Combustion and gasification of state and regional environmental goals manure, grasses and other feedstocks while strengthening local economies.

32 ■ The states must ensure that the expan- Agriculture Caucus comprised of the six sion of corn production is accompanied state secretaries and commissioners of by conservation measures, such as cover agriculture in the watershed unanimously crops and other agricultural BMPs. endorsed the report and its recommenda- tions in a letter to the Chesapeake Execu- ■ The watershed governors should posi- tive Council (EC). At its December 2007 tion the region to lead the nation in the meeting, the EC spent a major part of its evolution from grain-based to cellulosic private session receiving a briefing on the biofuel. report and discussing the implications of Opting for ■ A policy watch should be put on biodie- its findings. Better Biofuels sel production as a long-term market for farmers' crops along with algae as a potential feedstock grown at municipal Subsequent Action treatment works. Legislative members of the Commission ■ Federal and state policies and funds are working with colleagues in all three should encourage the private sector to states on funding for cover crops and develop solutions to remove the techni- other management practices to offset the cal and infrastructure constraints on impacts of increased corn acres in the regional biofuel production. region. The Commission staff and others continue to press Congress to keep fund- ■ Congress should use the Federal Farm ing for Chesapeake conservation measures Bill to encourage conservation prac- in the Farm Bill (see Chapter 2). tices, perennial crops, and biofuels and There is intense commitment among energy efficiencies on farms. EC members to lead the nation in the move toward cellulosic biofuels. At the Public Reaction To The Report 2007 meeting of the EC, Council members offered resounding support when Chair- The Commission report on biofuels man Jim Hubbard and Pennsylvania experienced widespread exposure and Governor Ed Rendell announced their favorable reviews in the press. Articles joint intention to hold a “Cellulosic appeared in over 70 newspapers, includ- Summit” in September 2008. With a solid ing coverage in the region’s major outlets. recognition of the environmental and Editorial comment has been uniformly economic benefits from such a move, the supportive of the recommendations and Commission will be at the helm of this has praised the clarity and direction of the initiative. ■ analysis and recommendations. Demand for copies of the report, both printed and Our report, Biofuels and the Bay; Getting on-line, has been intense and nationwide. it Right to Benefit Farms, Forests and the Commission members have also found Chesapeake, is available on-line at the a positive response from their colleagues Commission’s web site, www.chesbay. in the state legislatures. The Chesapeake state.va.us.

33

Chapter 4 Funding for Blue Plains

ince its creation, a top priority of the Chesapeake Bay Commission has been to clean up the largest point sources of pollution in the Bay watershed. The states have made substan- tial investments to fund and regulate the region’s sewage

plants, but a substantial challenge remains: upgrading the Blue Plains is the largest wastewater Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant — one of the world’s treatment plant in the world, handling 20 Slargest wastewater treatment plants — located on the shores of the percent of the Bay’s total point source Potomac River in Washington, D.C. flow. The Commission is leading an effort Advancing wastewater treatment is a priority that makes solid to secure state and Federal funding to environmental and economic sense. First, it is far more efficient to fully advance the facility’s treatment remove nutrients and other pollutants before they are discharged to of both sewage and stormwater. The cost the Bay. Second, upgrading wastewater treatment plants is among the is high but the prize is significant. Based most cost-effective ways to reduce nutrient pollution. on the original permit limit of 7.5 mg/L, Thus, a principal element of the Bay region’s Tributary Strate- when Blue Plains is upgraded, half of its gies is to upgrade older plants with enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) nitrogen pollution will be prevented from technology. Each jurisdiction in the watershed has developed source- reaching the Potomac River and the Bay. specific nutrient reduction goals for all causes of pollution. Maryland

ADVANCED BLUETREATMENT AT PLAINS · PHOTO © DAVID HARP is relying on ENR improvements at Blue Plains to achieve 24 percent

35 FIGURE 4 of the state’s point source reduction goals �������� for nitrogen. Virginia expects to capture ������������������������������������The Sheer Size of Blue Plains (2005) 3 percent of its nitrogen reductions from � ���������� ����� �������� Blue Plains. With the District’s portion of ������������� �������� ������ ��������� Blue Plains making up 90 percent of the ����� ���������������� ���� ��������� city’s total nitrogen load, the District is ��������� ��� ���� ��������� heavily reliant upon upgrading Blue Plains ��������� ��� ���� ��������� to meet its nutrient reduction goal. ������ ��� ���� ���������� Chapter 4 In an effort to incorporate the three jurisdictions’ Tributary Strategies and nitrogen reduction goals, the U.S. EPA in from Loudoun and Fairfax counties in 2007 issued a new permit limit for Blue Virginia. Plains’ annual nitrogen discharge, limit- Because of its size and its location ing the amount of nitrogen that can be on the main stem of the Potomac River, discharged from the plant to an effluent every pound of nitrogen discharged from limitation of 4.2 mg/L. This new permit Blue Plains is delivered directly to the Bay discharge limit effectively cuts in half the with little time or distance to mitigate the amount of nitrogen that can enter the impact. Most wastewater plants located Bay from Blue Plains, from 8.5 million further upstream deliver only a portion of pounds per year to 4.7 million pounds per their nutrient loads to the Bay, with the year — a decrease of nearly four million remainder assimilated into the natural pounds annually. system upstream. The significance of this single decrease Blue Plains presents a unique set of of nitrogen entering the Bay cannot be challenges related to upgrading. Resi- overstated (see Figure 4). The upgrade dential and commercial sewage flows are of Blue Plains is comparable to the large, but confounding its flows are the entire statewide point source efforts of inputs derived from the District’s storm- Maryland or Virginia. For example, water sewer system. About one-third of within the next decade, the other 86 the District is still served by an antiquated significant wastewater treatment plants combined sewer overflow (CSO) system in Maryland are expected to reduce that conveys both stormwater and sewage their annual nitrogen discharges by in one set of pipes. During heavy rain a cumulative four million pounds. In events, flows to Blue Plains can increase Virginia, 124 significant wastewater dramatically and sometimes the combined treatment plants are in line to achieve slurry of stormwater and sewage must their nitrogen reduction goal of 3.2 bypass treatment and overflow directly to million pounds per year. the Bay. Blue Plains serves two million people Blue Plains is operated by the District residing in five jurisdictions in the Wash- of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ington region. Prince George’s and Mont- (WASA), which is under a judicial consent gomery counties in Maryland contribute decree to implement a CSO Long-Term the largest amount of sewage flow to Control Plan for the District to minimize Blue Plains at 46 percent, with 41 percent these overflows during storms. To comply, coming from the District and 13 percent WASA has begun designing a system of

36 Evolving to Enhanced Nutrient Removal

n emerging technology known as Enhanced The Promise of ENR Nutrient Removal (ENR) will allow advanced wastewater treatment plants such as Blue Without advanced treatment, a typical wastewater treatment plant discharges nitrogen at a level of about 18 mg/L. Plants such Plains to remove nutrients from the waste A as these are focused more on removing solids than nutrients, stream at levels never before achieved. Once targeting materials that either consume oxygen or support Funding for installed at major plants across the watershed, organisms that potentially harbor disease. Now, it is possible to Blue Plains ENR will prevent millions of pounds of nitrogen reduce nitrogen discharges more than fivefold, to as low as 3 mg/L, and phosphorus from reaching the waters of the with the right technologies and favorable site conditions. Bay, year in and year out. In the 1990s, a technology called Biological ����������� Nutrient Removal (BNR) was considered to be state of the art. BNR adds a step in the ��������� traditional treatment process that employs microorganisms in low-oxygen basins to feed on the excess nutrients in wastewater. This biological process allows the plant to ratchet down nitrogen discharge levels to 8 mg/L or ������� less, with phosphorus down to 3 mg/L or even ��������� lower. ENR adds filters to the BNR process to further reduce the levels of nutrients discharged from a treatment plant down to an amazing 3 mg/L total nitrogen, with phosphorus going as ��������� low as 0.3 mg/L. An external carbon source, ��������� such as methanol, is added to foster bacteria growth and further improve treatment. ���������������� ������������������

������������������� ����������������� ������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������� �������������������������������������� ����������������� ��� ����������������� �� �������� ������������� �� ��������������� �� �������������������

�� ������������ ���������� ������������� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����� ����������

������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������

37 gigantic underground tunnels to tempo- by the water and sewer customers of the rarily store the stormwater and sewage District. Without some Federal support, mixture so that it can then be released this could impose a significant burden slowly for treatment at Blue Plains. Once of over $2.5 billion on these ratepayers, complete, heavy rains will no longer over- in particular the District’s economically whelm the system or discharge untreated disadvantaged households. sewage to Chesapeake Bay. The cost and Since the District is not a state, it is timeline associated with the CSO plan only eligible for small Federal grants but Chapter 4 exceeds $2 billion over 20 years. not the more sizable loans available to Achieving enhanced nutrient removal states via the Clean Water State Revolving at Blue Plains cannot be accomplished Loan Fund. As the only “Federal city,” without corresponding implementation of it also does not have state-level funding the CSO control plan to regulate the flow sources to offset costs such as Maryland’s of stormwater to the plant. Consequently, Bay Restoration Fund and Virginia’s EPA has proposed modifying the existing Water Quality Improvement Fund. judicial consent decree for fixing the CSOs Finally, the District does not have a sizable to include a schedule for completing ENR. population that is financially capable of By combining the two projects, WASA has shouldering significant rate increases (see developed a seven-year timeline that will Figure 5). result in the new ENR system coming on A third and very significant concern is line by July 1, 2014, at an estimated cost the possibility that the District will trigger of an additional $800 million. a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) under A number of complicating factors the Clean Water Act. Because of the enor- could delay the projected timeline for mity of the costs and potential burden on achieving ENR at Blue Plains. First, final- ratepayers, WASA could claim economic ization of the permit has been delayed by hardship and request a UAA. Such an objections raised by three different parties. assessment could lead to long delays and Pending resolution of these appeals, possible relaxation of the permit limits. the new nitrogen limit for Blue Plains In order to minimize the economic has been suspended. A hearing before hardship on the District and avoid relax- the Environmental Appeals Board was ation of any water quality standards, the held in November 2007 and a decision Commission is leading the region’s efforts is expected in early 2008. Despite this to persuade Congress to help share the possible set back, WASA has moved ahead cost of upgrading Blue Plains. There are and invested $2 million in a pilot to test several excellent reasons for securing a portion of the first stage of its proposed Federal support. First, the Bay has long ENR plan. been recognized as a national treasure and A second, much larger hurdle is it behooves Congress to continue to join securing funding for completion of the the states and the District in ensuring its combined CSO and ENR improvements. restoration — in particular, in helping to All of the costs of the CSO Long-Term achieve the scale and positive impact that Control Plan ($2.2 billion) and about 41 this upgrade represents. Second, this is an percent of the ENR costs ($325M of the interstate waters issue, for which Congress $800M needed) are expected to be paid often shares responsibility.

38 Third, and most importantly, a large FIGURE 5 part of the cost of wastewater treat- Funding Sources for Upgrading Blue Plains ment results from stormwater runoff and Wastewater Treatment Plant

sewage generated in our nation’s capital, ����������� ����������� ������������� including Federal government build- ������������ ������� ��� �������������� ings and Federal lands that cover a large �������� portion of the combined sewer region �������� ��������� ���� ������������ ������������ ��������������� of the District. Because most of the aged ���� ���� infrastructure was also installed when �������� ������� �������������� ������������ ������������ ��������������� Funding for Congress managed the District during the ���� ���� Blue Plains last century, there is a clear Federal obliga- ���������������������������������������������������������� tion to support the CSO plan and ENR ��������������������������������������������������� upgrades. In 2007, the Commission petitioned the Office of Management and Budget Revolving Loan Fund for construction to include $66 million in the President’s grants at Blue Plains. budget for Blue Plains. The Commission Both Maryland and Virginia have also worked with Congressional delega- funding in place to cover the ENR tion members to include Blue Plains fund- expenses at Blue Plains. The final piece of ing in the Water Resources Development the puzzle is the District. In 2008, Gover- Act of 2007. Under the leadership of nors O’Malley and Kaine and Mayor Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Eleanor Fenty, led by the Commission, will work Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), $65 million with our Congressional partners and the was authorized in the Water Resources President to continue to secure the neces- Development Act for WASA ($30 million sary funding for the District’s portion of for ENR and $35 million for CSOs). In Blue Plains. Such sure-fire, "silver bullet" 2007, WASA also received $5.2 million pollution control opportunities like these from EPA through the Clean Water State are rare, and should not be missed. ■

39

Chapter 5 Confronting Climate Change

e are already seeing the initial effects of climate change in the Chesapeake Bay system — rising sea levels, higher water temperatures, larger dead zones and oxygen-depleted areas and shifting composition of marine

communities. Along with these aquatic impacts, terrestrial International data overwhelmingly changes, economic implications and threats to human indicate that the world is warming and Whealth will add to the complexity of restoring an already stressed the global climate system is changing. ecosystem. These changes will likely have a Sea level rise may be the most immediate and apparent threat profound impact on the Chesapeake to the Bay. While many modeled scenarios vary in predicting global ecosystem and the region’s economy. sea-level rise, projections for the Chesapeake hover between 12 and Fortunately, leading Bay scientists have 35 inches, with an average of 24 inches anticipated in the 100 years already begun to analyze the between 2000 and 2100. One scientific study estimated that with implications of climate change. It will be the a sea-level rise of 28 inches, 420,000 acres of shoreline and tidal Commission’s goal to ensure that this wetlands would be submerged. Entire Bay communities, both natural science anchors future policy decisions. and man-made, would be lost. Consider for a moment the expansive, low-lying marshes and

LIVING ON THE EDGE · PHOTO © DAVID HARP flooded forests of the Bay’s lower Eastern Shore. Visualize what a

41 two-foot rise of water level will do to vast shown a steady rise in the Bay’s water acreages of marshes that now rise barely temperature over the last several decades a foot above mean high tide. When it (see Figure 6). The data shows the 1990s comes to the impacts of climate change, to be about 2°F (1°C) warmer than the the Bay shoreline — its extensive wetlands 1960s. Modest increases in water temper- and tidewater areas — may truly be at atures can cause big changes in the growth “Ground Zero.” rates of plankton communities, which Global air temperatures have risen 1° F choke waters of oxygen, modify vital food Chapter 5 (0.6° C) during this past century. These chains and increasingly trigger fish kills. global temperature changes track with Bay scientists have already documented those observed in the Chesapeake region. the effects of these higher water tempera- With IPCC models forecasting further tures on underwater grasses (submerged increases, the Bay’s scientific community aquatic vegetation, or SAV). In 2005, now agrees there will be significant conse- there was a significant die-off of eelgrass, quences for the restoration goals set by Zostera marina, a primary habitat of the Chesapeake Bay agreements. They cite the blue crab in saltier waters. This was higher carbon dioxide concentrations in attributed to higher water temperatures. the atmosphere, sea level rise, increasing Similar impacts to habitat are possible air and water temperatures, and potential in the upper watershed, where species changes in precipitation regimes among such as brook trout need cold, freshwater the reasons why we will need to recali- streams to thrive. brate our priorities and policies. Because of the interplay between Variations in precipitation affect the surface water and atmospheric carbon flow of freshwater to the Chesapeake dioxide (CO2), additional CO2 in the air Bay from its many tributaries. In the can also affect the carbonate ion concen- mid-Atlantic region, a predicted rise in trations in the Bay’s surface water. The precipitation combined with increases in result is an increase in the water’s acidity, impervious surfaces will increase runoff, thereby reducing carbonate ion concentra- adding to nutrient loads. These conditions tions that the Bay’s shellfish populations will worsen the hypoxic conditions that directly rely upon. One of many unan- create dead zones in the Bay. A moderate swered questions in the examination of increase in freshwater delivery is enough climate change impacts is the effect on to tip the scales. In the Bay region, some our shellfish populations if carbonate ion IPCC models predict an annual rainfall concentrations are permitted to fall below change of just 10-15 percent — sufficient critical levels. to exacerbate the Bay’s declining water In the near term, the effects of climate quality conditions. change may be minimal. But for the long Increasing atmospheric temperatures term, it will be important to incorporate also directly influence Bay water tempera- climate change factors into the assump- tures. Monitoring data collected at the tions that underlie our various Tributary Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Strategies. These factors will affect not Gloucester Point and at the pier of the only our efforts to reduce nutrients and University of Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay sediments, but our plans to maintain these Laboratory on Solomon’s Island have load reductions once they are achieved.

42 FIGURE 6 Rising Mean Annual Water Temperature (Mid-and Lower Chesapeake Bay)

���������������� ��

�������� �� ��������� �����������

�� Confronting Climate Change

��

��

�� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

SOURCE: G. ANDERSON, H. AUSTIN AND VIMS SCIENTIFIC DATA ARCHIVE (VIMS PIER); D. SECOR AND R. WINGATE (CBL PIER); D. JASINSKI AND CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM OFFICE (BAY AVERAGE).

Similarly, the strategies and plans must implement approaches to sequester carbon incorporate adaptive approaches to including the Regional Greenhouse Gas accommodate change, which it appears is Initiative, in which Maryland is a member. happening ever more quickly. While all of these initiatives are admirable If we have learned anything in our 25 and necessary, it is likely that they are years of crafting policy for the Bay, it is insufficient to meet the climate challenge. that scattershot approaches to fixing our These efforts must be integrated and environmental problems do not work. the Bay Program must estimate — and Instead, we must recognize the interre- support — the value of their collective lated aspects of this problem and pursue efforts. solutions that are well coordinated and Two things are certain in 2007: The complimentary, both within our region Chesapeake’s health continued to decline and beyond. despite years of restorative efforts, and Fortunately, our member states are climate change will only complicate the beginning to address climate change. The situation. There is a lot at stake. The states are examining ways to reduce green- Chesapeake Bay Commission has only house gas emissions, invest in renewable begun its examination of the implications energy sources and green building design, of global warming and is resolved to meet promote increases in energy efficiency, and the challenge. ■

43 A Fond Farewell

A Fond Farewell ne of the Commission’s long-standing members stepped down in 2007, leaving behind an eleven-year legacy of thoughtful and effective contributions to the Bay Program. Maryland Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus brought to the Commis- sion a lifetime of experi- ence on the Bay and a Ovigilant commitment to protect his Eastern Shore constituents. In ordinary life, Stoltzfus is the largest cabbage farmer north of Georgia. Every year, he sends 30 million cabbage plants to the northern states and Canada, most ultimately destined for sauerkraut. A Mennonite and a former choir director, he is deeply committed to conservative values and honesty. More than anything, he is just plain nice. As extraordinary as his life is, so is his legislative career. During the session, he finds time to juggle leadership demands with the

44 management of his year-round farming Ehrlich to establish a “Sewer Surcharge” J. Lowell Stoltzfus operation. His goal: to be the best conser- to upgrade Maryland’s 66 largest sewage vative, rural legislator in Maryland and treatment plants with enhanced nutrient the best darn cabbage plant grower in the removal technology. Upon full imple- nation. mentation, the initiative will single-hand- As a fiscal conservative, Stoltzfus is edly accomplish one third of the state’s keenly focused on budget expenditures, required nitrogen pollution load reduc- both internal and external, which greatly tion. The new law met the Stoltzfus stan- sharpened the Commission’s work. Behind dard: it is cost-effective and directed at the his legislative efforts lies his fervent belief local level. that state government dollars should be When asked about his interest in the spent wisely and that those expenditures Chesapeake Bay, he cannot help but tell should, in his words, “be closer to the stories of his childhood and family days, people.” and the enjoyment he derives now, reliv- Throughout Stoltzfus’ time on the ing those days with his grandchildren. Commission, his focus was dollars; in For Stoltzfus, the Bay conjures up an particular, how available funds could best emotional and spiritual commitment. be spent. “How can we get the most bang He remarks, “Golly, it’s a cultural thing. for the buck?” he was known to ask. As It’s an economic thing. It’s an emotional Chairman of the Commission in 2004, thing. It’s an environmental thing. It’s a he oversaw the publication of its well- wonderful thing. It’s just a treasure.” respected study, Cost-Effective Strategies Senator Stoltzfus had to make some for the Bay, which identified those prac- tough personal decisions of late, deci- tices that provide the most effective use of sions that required him to scale down taxpayer dollars in Bay restoration. Two his demanding leadership schedule and major issues featured in this annual report focus closer to home, on his constituents — agricultural conservation practices and his family. In recent years, he has and wastewater treatment plant upgrades stepped down as Minority Leader and as — are right at the top of that list. a member of the Executive Nominations Following publication of the cost-effec- Committee and more than a half dozen tiveness study, Stoltzfus had the oppor- other committees. In his own words: “The tunity to put these findings to work with Commission was the last big committee the establishment of the Bay Restoration that I stayed with. I just hated to let it go.” Fund. Serving as Senate Minority Leader, Senator Stoltzfus, thank you for stick- Stoltzfus partnered with then-Governor ing with us all these years. ■

45 Bay Advocate Extraordinaire

Bay Advocate ew people are as skilled and determined as Charlie Extraordinaire Stek when it comes to advancing complex efforts to benefit the Chesapeake Bay. In May, as he stepped down after more than 25 years as advisor to U.S. Senators and Congressmen, his colleagues came together to honor his legacy. FT h e C h e s a p e a k e B a y Commission held a gala cele- bration with The Conservation Fund (TCF), the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Local Government and Citizens Advi- sory Committees to the Chesa- peake Bay Program, to recognize Stek, who most notably served on U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes’ (Md.) executive team from 1985 until the Senator’s retirement in early 2007. Over the course of the evening — we were at least 80 strong — speaker after speaker marveled at Stek’s vision and follow-through.

46 After all, he is directly responsible for Smith Chesapeake National Historic Charles A. Stek managing and bringing to fruition an Trail, the first of its kind in the country. enormous number of projects and legis- Still, a list of accomplishments cannot lative initiatives considered vital to the capture the essential leadership that Stek Chesapeake Bay region. Most notable provided to the Bay community. Yes, he among them: was an employee of a United States Sena- ■ The $307 million Poplar Island Project, tor representing the state of Maryland. which recycles clean dredged materials But Stek knew that what was good for from the Port of Baltimore’s shipping Maryland would be good for the Bay and channel to create the largest habitat seized every opportunity he could, work- restoration project ever undertaken in ing on most of the major Federal environ- the United States; mental, transportation and public works ■ New funding for alternative statutes. His efforts have influenced the transportation systems on Federal Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Water lands that resulted in a reduction of Resources Development Act, SAFETEA- congestion, improved public access, LU, and the 2002 Farm Bill, for which he reduced air pollution and increased successfully led efforts to increase conser- protection of natural resources in and vation funding. around national parks and wildlife On May 10, 2007, his grateful refuges. colleagues at TCF, CBF and the Commis- sion presented Charlie Stek with a pair ■ Creation of the Chesapeake Bay Gate- of bronze blue-winged teals to remind ways Network, linking interpretive him of their appreciation for a job done programs in local, state and Federal well, comforting themselves with the parks throughout the watershed; and knowledge that, though he may be taking most recently, a hiatus, we all still have his cell phone ■ Establishment of the Captain John number! ■

47 CREDITS

Scaling Up was prepared by Commission staff with contributing writer Bill Matuszeski. Pat Herold Nielsen (1948-2008) Gifted writer, director, producer and conservationist, Pat Nielsen contributed her editorial magic to the Commission’s publications — including this annual report — for the last decade. Her creativity led to a lasting improvement in the clarity and persuasiveness of our communications. Pat died on February 28 after a long battle with cancer. This annual report is dedicated to her unforgettable spirit. Photography: David Harp, chesapeakephotos.com Design: Peter M. Gentile, petermichael.net Cover Photo: Egrets over Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge © David Harp DAVE HARP CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION STAFF From left: Virginia Director Suzan Bulbulkaya, Maryland Director Pat Stuntz, Pennsylvania Director Marel Raub, Executive Director Ann Swanson, and Administrative Officer Paula Hose.

This report was printed on recycled paper.

48 CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS & MARYLAND OFFICE 60 West Street, Suite 406 The Commission maintains offices in Maryland, Annapolis, MD 21401 Virginia and Pennsylvania. Commission staff is Phone: 410-263-3420 available to assist any member of the general Fax: 410-263-9338 assembly of any signatory state on matters E-mail: [email protected] pertaining to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, as well as the Chesapeake Bay VIRGINIA OFFICE Program. General Assembly Building Room 270 910 Capitol Street Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: 804-786-4849 Fax: 804-371-0659 E-mail: [email protected]

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 Chesapeake Bay Commission · 60 West Street, Suite 406 · Annapolis, MD 21401 · 410-263-3420 · www.chesbay.state.va.us