MENU

Sections

  • Home
  • About
    • The Chestertown Spy
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising & Underwriting
      • Advertising Terms & Conditions
    • Editors & Writers
    • Dedication & Acknowledgements
    • Code of Ethics
    • Chestertown Spy Terms of Service
    • Technical FAQ
    • Privacy
  • The Arts and Design
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
  • Community Opinion
  • Donate to the Chestertown Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
  • Subscribe
June 24, 2025

Chestertown Spy

Nonpartisan and Education-based News for Chestertown

  • Home
  • About
    • The Chestertown Spy
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising & Underwriting
      • Advertising Terms & Conditions
    • Editors & Writers
    • Dedication & Acknowledgements
    • Code of Ethics
    • Chestertown Spy Terms of Service
    • Technical FAQ
    • Privacy
  • The Arts and Design
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
  • Community Opinion
  • Donate to the Chestertown Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy
Ecosystem Eco Notes

CBEC’s LIFE Adult Environmental Program to be Offered this Fall

July 4, 2022 by Spy Desk

Share

The Chesapeake Bay LIFE Program offers adult in-depth education and experience in Bay area ecology and restoration.

The Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center (CBEC) will offer its six-week environmental education program for adults, Legacy Institute for the Environment (LIFE), this fall, Wednesdays, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., September 21 through October 26, 2022.

LIFE is designed for adults interested in learning about the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay region and in becoming environmental stewards who share their enthusiasm and knowledge with others. Through classes “hands-on, feet-wet” activities – most offered at CBEC’s Education Center at 600 Discovery Lane in Grasonville — participants learn about the Bay region’s geography, geology, aquatic life and natural history of the Bay; the impact of human activity and climate change on the health of the Bay; plant and insect life at CBEC; birding and animal life in the region; and volunteer opportunities in the field of environmental protection.

LIFE is supported by grants from the Chesapeake Bay Trust, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United Way and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“We are very proud that since the program’s inception, more than 150 adults have attended the LIFE program,” said Anne Brunson, who with her husband Dave, serves as Volunteer Coordinator for CBEC. “LIFE brings together like-minded people in a mission to protect and preserve the Chesapeake Bay environment for future generations.”

The cost of the program is $150 per person and a commitment to devote 20 hours as a volunteer for CBEC.  To register, visit bayrestoration.org/LIFE/. For more information, contact the Brunsons,  [email protected]

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

Filed Under: Eco Notes Tagged With: Chesapeake Bay, Ecosystem, local news

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center Gears Up for Summer

May 6, 2022 by Spy Desk

Share

As warmer weather arrives on Delmarva, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center (CBEC) is planning a wide array of activities and programs. Trails and facilities, including a new pavilion, have been expanded and upgraded. CBEC Executive Director Vicki Paulas stated, “We are so excited to press forward on our mission – serving the needs of the community and being a convenient place for enjoying our natural world.”

All manner of school  groups (public, private, home-schooling) continue to book visits to CBEC, taking advantage of various environmental education programs,. Organizations like the World Leadership School also have used the grounds and facilities as part of their “preparing the next generation of leaders” programs.

“Our staff and volunteers have been busy this spring,” said Ashley Peris, CBEC Education Coordinator. “It’s been really exciting watching pre-schoolers through high school students enjoy CBEC’s ‘hands-on, feet-wet’ learning style. We’ve done everything from exploring marshes, woods and meadows, to dentifying birds, bugs, and plants, to building reef balls for oyster beds. At the end of the day, students leave here exhausted yet excited!”

Of note, Peris indicated that only a few spaces remain open for CBEC’s Summer Camp Programs.

Under the leadership of trained, experienced volunteers, CBEC is gearing up its guided kayak trips. Kayak and paddle boards are available for use by members free of charge, and can be rented by non-members for a nominal fee. Register for CBEC’s Guided Kayak Trips and for kayak/paddle board rentals online at www.bayrestoration.org.

With the help of a grant from the Mountain Club of Maryland, CBEC staff and volunteers have refurbished the North Point Trail, installing picnic tables and a kayak dock where the trail connects with the Marshy Creek shoreline.

“We are very proud of the expanded and improved nature hiking trails covering much of the CBEC property,” stated Executive Director Paulas. “We also are thankful to a small group of CBEC members, volunteers and partnering organizations who have installed signage identifying plants throughout the property.”

To learn more about CBEC, visit www.bayrestoration.org, or come visit the Center at 600 Discovery Lane, Grasonville, MD.

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

Filed Under: Eco Notes Tagged With: Chesapeake Bay, Ecosystem, local news

Congressional Redistricting: A History of Jumping the Bay

December 4, 2021 by Maryland Matters

Share

The Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission, created by legislative leaders to draw up congressional and legislative maps for the General Assembly to consider, proposed a 1st Congressional District that would cross the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to include portions of Anne Arundel County with the Eastern Shore.

The 1st District currently loops north through Harford County, but crossing the Chesapeake Bay in congressional maps is nothing new. Prior to the current maps, the 1st District crossed the bay into either Anne Arundel County or southern Maryland for decades.

Proponents of such a configuration argue the Eastern Shore and Anne Arundel County are intrinsically connected via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, since many commute daily between the two regions for work and shopping.

“Both regions have the same economic and environmental interest in protecting the Bay,” Anne Arundel County resident Marnette Finn said at a Nov. 15 Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission virtual hearing.

Many who testified at that statewide virtual public hearing in November also urged lawmakers to draw a more competitive 1st District to challenge incumbent Rep. Andrew P. Harris, the state’s lone congressional Republican, citing his vote against certifying the 2020 election results after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Republican former congressman who represented the 1st District from 1991 until 2009, said the 1st District proposed by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission is “very similar” to the districts he represented, which also included parts of Anne Arundel County.

“I think they’re connected by the Chesapeake Bay Bridge,” Gilchrest said, “And yes, they are contiguous if you want to look at it that way.”

Gilchrest noted that the Eastern Shore of Maryland doesn’t have a high enough population to justify its own congressional district.

He was ousted by Harris in the 2008 primary elections. Harris subsequently lost to Democratic contender Frank Kratovil, but ran again and won in 2010 by a wide margin.

The 1st District was redrawn to be more solidly Republican in 2012, with Democratic lawmakers opting to draw a Democratic-leaning 6th District in Western Maryland at the time to achieve a 7-1 advantage. Harris has handily won reelection in the current 1st District since.

Under the congressional map proposed by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission, however, the 1st District is slated to become significantly more competitive, though it doesn’t favor Democrats as much as another configuration the panel was mulling. According to the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which gave the map an “F” grade, the proposed 1st District favors Democrats by a thin margin, roughly 51% to 49%.

In the congressional map proposed by Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was created by Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R), the 1st District does not cross the Bay at Anne Arundel County but instead includes Harford County and northern Baltimore County.

Here’s a brief history of the 1st Congressional District’s boundaries and when they’ve crossed the Chesapeake Bay in the past. All maps were provided by the Maryland Department of Planning.

1966-1970: The first crossing

The 1966 congressional map marked a shift away from districts that strictly adhered to county boundaries in Maryland following Maryland Citizens Committee for Fair Congressional Redistricting v. Tawes, a court case influenced by the 1964 Wesberry v. Sanders U.S. Supreme Court case, in which justices ruled that U.S. House of Representatives districts need to be roughly equal in population.

Congressional districts had been held steady for decades before that court case. The 1st District had long included only the Eastern Shore, starting with Cecil County in the north and extending south to the border with Virginia. In the consequential 1966 map, the Eastern Shore was kept whole but a large portion of Anne Arundel County, alongside all of Calvert and St. Mary’s counties, were added to the 1st District.

1972-1990: Southern Maryland with the Eastern Shore

In the two subsequent rounds of redistricting, Anne Arundel County was kept with portions of Prince George’s County and the 1st Congressional District crossed at Calvert County rather than at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

Between 1972 and 1990, Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s counties were kept whole and included with the Eastern Shore. Harford County was entirely included with the Eastern Shore in the 1972-1980 map, while just roughly the western half of the county was included in the 1st District between 1982 and 1990.

1992-2000: Crossing returns to Anne Arundel County and parts of Baltimore City

In 1992, Democratic U.S. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer’s 5th District began to take on its current, familiar shape, encompassing all of southern Maryland and looping up to include the area around College Park in Prince George’s County. It also took in large portions of western Anne Arundel County and parts of southern and eastern Prince George’s County.

The portion of the 1st District on the western shore was drastically reduced, including parts of central and northern Anne Arundel County and a small portion of far southern Baltimore City. This configuration included Harford County with the 2nd District as opposed to with the Eastern Shore.

As recently as 2000, this map resulted in a 4-4 partisan breakdown, with the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th districts electing Republicans.

2002-2010: The most recent crossing at Anne Arundel County

The 2002 map included even less of Anne Arundel County with the 1st District. The 1st District also began to take in more of northeastern Maryland, snaking through central Harford County and reaching portions of Baltimore County, where Harris resides.

This map favored Democrats 6-2.

2012-present

The current map is the first to not cross the Chesapeake Bay at Anne Arundel County in decades, and instead includes a larger portion of northeastern Maryland. A large portion of Harford County, parts of Baltimore County and the northern and eastern portions of Carroll County are all included in the 1st District as it is currently drawn.

This represents the state’s current 7-1 partisan breakdown after the 6th District was redrawn to favor Democrats.

Bonus: Every congressional map in Maryland’s history

Here’s every congressional map Maryland has ever had. Note that the number of U.S. Representatives has varied over the years.

By Bennett Leckrone

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

Filed Under: 3 Top Story Tagged With: Chesapeake Bay, Congress, congressional, crossing, districts, Eastern Shore, map, Maryland, redistricting

Report: Majority of Md. Poultry Farms Failed Inspections But Faced Few Penalties

October 28, 2021 by Maryland Matters

Share

Eighty-four percent of poultry farms in Maryland failed their first state inspection over the last several years, most due to inadequate waste management and failure to keep records — but the state rarely penalized poultry farms for their violations, according to a recent report by an environmental watchdog organization.

Out of 182 poultry farms that were inspected, 153 failed their initial inspection and 78 failed follow-up inspections from 2017 to 2020. Two thirds of the inspected poultry farms failed due to waste management problems and 95% failed to file annual reports to the state or maintain records about their operations, the report by the Environmental Integrity Project on Maryland’s poultry industry found.

Despite the failed inspections, the report found that the Maryland Department of the Environment, which is responsible for issuing water pollution control permits for animal feeding operations and for enforcing the federal Clean Water Act, imposed fines on only eight of the 78 facilities with repeated violations, and collected fines from only four poultry farms.

Jay Apperson, a spokesman for MDE, said he could not comment on the report’s findings because MDE has not seen it. But, he said, “The Maryland Department of the Environment, in coordination with the Maryland Department of Agriculture, maintains a strong program to enforce environmental regulations pertaining to poultry operations. A high percentage of violations that are found are associated with record-keeping requirements, as opposed to water quality issues. Where we do find environmental concerns we focus on returning facilities to compliance with regulations, but we will go after polluters and impose financial penalties when needed.”

The Environmental Integrity Project report is based on public records obtained from MDE and MDA from Maryland’s Public Information Act law. For the last nine months, EIP reviewed more than 5,000 pages of poultry operation inspection reports and other state records to evaluate how much oversight there is of the state’s poultry operations.

The state has limits on how much manure farmers can apply to fields that already have high soil phosphorus levels. Adding manure to fields can help provide nutrients for crops, especially when soils are low in phosphorus. However, excessive phosphorus on fields can get into waterways after storms, which risks algal blooms and sucks up the oxygen needed by fish.

According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, agriculture runoff is the largest source of pollution into the Chesapeake Bay, contributing to 40% of the nitrogen and 50% of phosphorus in the Bay.

Twenty-nine of 57 poultry farms that EIP reviewed reported to the state that they had been applying illegal amounts of animal manure on their crop fields in 2019. Most farms are required to have nutrient management plans when fertilizing crops and managing animal manure in order to prevent excess nutrients going into waterways, and the Maryland Department of Agriculture is responsible for enforcing these plans.

But MDA has not issued any fines on poultry farms for spreading excess poultry manure, according to Jason Schellhardt, the spokesman for the agency.

Currently, there are 553 permitted poultry concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and Maryland animal feeding operations (MAFOs) in Maryland, according to Apperson. In 2019, Caroline County had 108 poultry farms that produced almost 50 million birds, the highest number in any county, according to the report. Dorchester County had 45 poultry farms in 2019, which yielded 28 million birds.

The report also found that 174 poultry operations on the Eastern Shore are within 400 feet of a house, which increases residents’ exposure to ammonia, dust and manure particles. Only 64 of these poultry farms had vegetated buffers such as a row of trees between the poultry house and residents’ homes, which is a way to divert emissions, the report said.

In 2016, Wicomico County residents formed Concerned Citizens Against Industrial CAFOs to oppose construction of what was going to be the largest poultry operation in the state near Salisbury, citing health concerns from air pollution and manure that could pollute drinking water sources. Two years later, the chicken farm operators canceled their plans.

During the 2020 legislative session, Del. Vaughn Stewart (D-Montgomery) introduced a bill that would have blocked the expansion of industrial poultry operations in the state by precluding MDE from issuing stormwater permits for any animal feeding operations producing more than 300,000 chickens annually. However, the bill never made it out of committee.

MDE has just three employees who perform in-person inspections at poultry farms and MDA has nine employees who oversee nutrient management plans of over 5,000 farms across the state. The report found that the number of poultry farms inspected by MDE fell by 40% since 2013.

To improve poultry farms’ compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and state laws, EIP recommends that MDE and MDA impose more penalties against poultry farms in violation with their nutrient management plans and water permits. The report also recommends that the state hire more inspectors, increase water and air monitoring near poultry farms and enforce the state’s new manure application rules for farms.

“MDA is failing to provide any reality-based ground-truthing or accountability for the largest single source of pollution in the Bay, the agricultural industry,” the report states. EIP also described state oversight over poultry operations as “an empty paperwork exercise that falls well short of what is needed to control agricultural runoff pollution or protect the Chesapeake Bay.”

By Elizabeth Shwe

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

Filed Under: Eco Homepage Tagged With: agriculture runoff, CAFO, Chesapeake Bay, clean water act, farms, inspections, Maryland, mde, nitrogen, phosphorus, poultry, records, waste management, water pollution

Major Pollution Violations Found at Maryland’s Two Largest Sewage Treatment Plants

September 2, 2021 by Bay Journal

Share

Baltimore has long been plagued by sewage leaks and overflows fouling its waters. Now, the city has a new pollution woe: poorly maintained municipal sewage treatment plants that for more than a year have been daily dumping millions of gallons of bacteria– and nutrient-laden wastewater into rivers that flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

Following a watchdog group’s discovery of high bacteria levels in wastewater coming from one of the city’s two sewage treatment plants, an inspector for the Maryland Department of the Environment has found “numerous deficiencies and violations” at both facilities.

In visits to the city’s Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant in May and to the Back River plant in June, the MDE inspector found operational and maintenance problems, with key treatment equipment malfunctioning or out of order, staffing shortages and botched sampling for toxic contaminants in the wastewater.

The laundry list of problems uncovered at Maryland’s two largest wastewater plants threatens Bay restoration efforts, environmentalists warn. It also raises questions, they say, about the diligence of state regulators in ensuring compliance with pollution limits.

City public works officials are scheduled to meet Friday with state regulators following an Aug. 23 letter from the MDE demanding immediate corrective actions and warning the city that it faces fines of up to $10,000 per day and possible legal action by the state attorney general.

“We’re going to hold [the Department of Public Works] accountable,” MDE Secretary Ben Grumbles said in an interview. “They have a lot of explaining to do.”

In response to press queries, a spokesman released a short statement from Public Works Director Jason Mitchell. He said that his staff “has developed a strategy to get back into compliance and will be providing a timeline for compliance to MDE.”

Alice Volpitta, the Harbor Waterkeeper, said she and her colleagues at the nonprofit watershed group Blue Water Baltimore were “pretty shocked” by the scope and severity of problems uncovered at the city’s wastewater plants after the group reported detecting high fecal bacteria levels in the Patapsco plant’s discharge in April and early May.

In prior years, Volpitta said, Blue Water Baltimore’s monitoring program had picked up occasional bacteria spikes at the Patapsco plant, usually when it was overwhelmed by inflows from heavy rains. But this past spring, she and her team detected “consistent ongoing high bacteria readings” unrelated to rainfall at the plant’s outfall just upriver of the Key Bridge.

The city has spent $1.6 billion since 2002 to comply with a state-federal consent decree requiring an overhaul of its sewer network to halt frequent overflows and leaks of untreated sewage. At the end of 2020, city officials announced the near completion of a $430 million “headworks” project at the Back River plant, which officials predict will eliminate 83% of the overflows. The city is also spending millions annually to curb polluted stormwater runoff from streets, parking lots and buildings.

But because those two plants treat a high volume of wastewater, their discharges of inadequately treated sewage threaten to offset those efforts, environmentalists contend. Back River discharges about 72 million gallons of wastewater daily, while Patapsco releases about 55 million gallons.

According to Blue Water Baltimore, the combined daily discharge of the two plants would fill a 2.5-foot deep wading pool the size of the city’s 155-acre Patterson Park. By sheer volume alone, not the amounts of pollutants, the plants’ daily combined discharge is on par with the cumulative amount of rain-diluted sewage that overflows each year across the city.

“If we can’t trust our wastewater treatment plants to actually treat the sewage,” Volpitta said, “it doesn’t really matter much what other … best practices we’re putting on land.”

Documented violations

The MDE inspection reports detail numerous violations at each plant, many of them similar.

At the Patapsco plant, the MDE inspector found it had repeatedly violated limits since July 2020 on levels of harmful bacteria, phosphorus, nitrogen and total suspended solids. Overall, the plant exceeded its total authorized nitrogen discharge for 2020 by nearly 140,000 pounds and surpassed its total phosphorus load by 47,800 pounds. Fewer than half the units used to screen incoming sewage were operational, and those were so clogged with trash and debris they couldn’t work properly, the inspector found.

Plant managers blamed the exceedances on equipment failures and on a worker shortage because of the coronavirus pandemic, the MDE report said.

But the MDE inspection found that the Patapsco plant also has failed to comply with a 2016 consent order requiring it to reduce discharges of fats, oils and grease into the river. The city had yet to upgrade or replace equipment needed to remove the pollutants, despite a 2018 deadline, and only 5 of 18 settling tanks to be used for the removal were working at the time of the visit. Some were so full of scum the inspector warned they would also fail soon without prompt maintenance.

At the Back River plant, the MDE inspector said the discharge exceeded permit limits on pollution every month but one from August 2020 through May 2021, with excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids and ammonia, and a couple of instances of elevated bacteria. Plant managers said there had been a malfunction of a key piece of equipment, a centrifuge used to separate solids from liquids. But the inspector noted that the exceedances began months before that breakdown and that managers had failed to report excessive discharges promptly to the MDE, as required.

During his June walk-through, the MDE inspector also found “malfunctioning equipment because of maintenance problems” and that only two of 76 plant operators had permanent licenses, an indication of their level of training and expertise to run and maintain the facility properly. Plant managers told the inspector that some staff had failed to pass the licensing test and others had declined to take it because there was no incentive to do so.

The inspection further found defective sampling at Back River for toxic contaminants, particularly for polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, which rendered the results useless in gauging how much is being removed or discharged into the river. Fish consumption advisories throughout the Baltimore area advise recreational anglers to limit their meals of locally caught fish because of the buildup of PCBs in them.

Oversight questioned

MDE Secretary Grumbles said it is a “high priority” for state regulators to quickly rectify the situation.

“We know how important of a partner the city is in reducing pollution and helping the state meet its [Baywide nutrient reduction] requirements,” Grumbles said. “When there are problems at a treatment plant [involving] operation and management of the facility, that’s a heightened concern for us.”

Volpitta praised the MDE for taking action but said she was perturbed that the agency didn’t catch the problems sooner. She noted that in the year before Blue Water Baltimore’s sampling, the city had been filing required monthly discharge monitoring reports with the MDE and EPA, which made it clear that some pollutants were exceeding permitted levels.

“That’s the big question,” she said. “Why did it take so long for anything to come of that self-reporting?”

Grumbles said that MDE staff started looking at the plants’ monthly reports and getting information from the city in March. At that time, he said, they saw a “trend that was totally unacceptable” and began preparing for inspections.

The first inspection took place the day after Blue Water Baltimore gave the MDE its water quality findings. At the time, Volpitta said, MDE officials didn’t give any indication they were already aware of problems at the Patapsco plant.

“I think there’s a lot of questions to be answered here,” she said. “We’re very concerned about the lack of oversight that appears to have occurred.”

For the safety of its staff during the coronavirus pandemic in early 2020, the MDE cut back on physical inspections of facilities discharging into state waters. But even before that, it had begun conducting a growing number of compliance checkups without leaving the office, by reviewing plants’ self-reported data.

Before this year, the MDE had physically inspected the Patapsco plant twice in 2016 and once each in 2017, 2018 and in June 2020, according to a spokeswoman. The Back River plant was inspected once in 2016, five times in 2017, twice in 2018 and once in 2019, she said. Three of the 2017 inspections were in response to complaints, the spokeswoman noted, without providing additional information.

Mitchell, the city’s public works director, said in his statement without elaborating that “the root causes for the violations have been identified by DPW and will be addressed systematically to ensure we achieve 100% compliance.”

Grumbles said, “it’s a priority for us to get this resolved as quickly as possible.”

But Volpitta said that, given the findings of the MDE inspections, she doubts there’s a quick fix to all the problems.

Josh Kurtz, Maryland director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, called for swift enforcement action against the city, but also questioned the state’s oversight of such facilities.

“Marylanders depend on government agencies to be transparent and accountable when problems arise,” Kurtz said in a statement Tuesday. “In this case, it appears Baltimore’s Department of Public Works failed for years to address known problems at the city’s two wastewater plants, which led to months of partially treated wastewater flowing into the Baltimore Harbor and Chesapeake Bay during the previous year.”

And even if the MDE was investigating the plants before Blue Water Baltimore reported its findings, Kurtz found fault with the low-key way it was handled until this week.

“Neither DPW nor Maryland Department of the Environment, the agency tasked with enforcing state pollution regulations, publicly addressed these ongoing issues at the plants until the nonprofit Blue Water Baltimore issued their findings in a news release [on Monday],” he said.

The MDE has relied heavily on upgrading wastewater treatment plants to meet its nutrient reduction obligations under the Bay’s “pollution diet,” formally known as the total maximum daily load, which the EPA imposed in 2010.

“With such a heavy reliance on these upgrades,” Kurtz said, “the state must prioritize oversight of these facilities to ensure proper operation and impose penalties for violations.” Failures at large plants like Patapsco and Back River can undermine the overall Bay restoration effort, he added.

Kurtz also said the city and state owe more diligence to the health of Baltimore area residents. “Both plants serve and discharge into rivers and streams where underserved and frontline community members live,” he said. “These communities have suffered from a legacy of disproportionate impacts of dangerously high levels of pollution, especially harmful bacteria.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler

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

Filed Under: Eco Homepage Tagged With: Chesapeake Bay, environment, mde, pollution, wastewater treatment plant

Trends in U.N. Climate Report Point to an Altered Chesapeake Bay

August 30, 2021 by Bay Journal

Share

Climate change is clearly observable in every region of the planet, and the window is closing for nations to take actions that would stem the most severe future impacts, a global climate assessment concluded in August.

The report, compiled by more than 230 scientists who assessed more than 14,000 studies, cautioned that world leaders are rapidly running out of time to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels.

Many of the changes now observed are unprecedented in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years of climate records, said the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created by the United Nations in 1988 and is considered an authority on global climate issues.

Even with quick action, the panel warned, that changes already set in motion — such as sea level rise — are irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years because it takes so long to counter alterations already taking place in the oceans that cover three-quarters of the planet.

Still, the report said that strong and sustained actions to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would limit impacts of climate change, but it could take 20–30 years to see global temperatures stabilize.

“This report is a reality check,” said Valérie Masson-Delmotte, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group that released the report. “We now have a much clearer picture of the past, present and future climate, which is essential for understanding where we are headed, what can be done and how we can prepare.”

The Chesapeake Bay has seen rising water levels and temperatures for decades, and the report says continued rises in sea levels and temperatures are virtually certain for most of North America, including the East Coast.

This means, in all likelihood, that the Bay in coming decades will be unlike the Bay of the past. It will be both higher and warmer than it has been since it was created after the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

Water levels around the Bay have already risen by about a foot during the last century. That’s one of the fastest paces in the nation because the Bay is experiencing the dual effects of rising water and subsiding land.

NASA, using modeling data produced for the report, launched a website predicting future sea level change in different places around the globe. It shows that sea levels near Norfolk could rise between 2 and 5 feet by the end of the century and between a foot and a foot-and-a-half by 2050.

Temperature rises will cause their own problems. Bay water temperatures have risen about 1 degree Celsius in the last 25 years. That has contributed to the loss of eelgrass in the Lower Bay — a critically important underwater habitat that scientists expect to largely disappear from the Bay in coming decades. Scientists also say the rising water temperatures have increased the prevalence of harmful algae blooms.

The Bay’s watershed has about 10% more precipitation on average than it did a century ago, and a 2017 federal climate report said more of that rain was coming during intense storms. The IPCC expects those trends to continue and will lead to an increased frequency of river flooding.

It also expects hurricanes along the East Coast to become more severe. The Chesapeake Executive Council, which includes the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, governors of watershed states, the mayor of the District of Columbia and the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which represents state legislatures, is expected to adopt a directive later this year affirming that climate change is affecting the Bay and its watershed and that urgent action is warranted.

By Karl Blankenship

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

Filed Under: Eco Homepage Tagged With: Chesapeake Bay, Climate Change, environment, NASA, temperatures, united nation, water levels

Report: Study Finds OTC, Prescription Drugs Flowing into Bay

August 18, 2021 by Spy Desk

Share

Dharna Noor, writing in Gizmodo, reports that “a study conducted by scientists with the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that tens of thousands of doses of pharmaceuticals are flowing into the Chesapeake Bay every year. They include everything from over-the-counter pain medicine to prescription antidepressants.”

Researchers took weekly water samples from six sites in a Baltimore watershed for a year and sent the samples to a Swedish chemist to test for certain “pharmaceutical chemical compounds,” Noor wrote.

“The compounds fell into 9 common classes of drugs: adrenergics (prescribed for asthma and other cardiovascular and respiratory issues), antibiotics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, antifungals, antihypertensives, urologicals, and painkillers separated into two categories, non-opioid and opioid analgesics. The authors found that all of these were present in varying degrees.

“The highest concentrations they found were of non-opioid analgesics like Tylenol, Advil, and Aleve…. But the most commonly found drug in their samples were antibiotics, especially trimethoprim, which is prescribed for kidney infections and urinary tract infections.”

Read the full study here.

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

Filed Under: Eco Portal Lead Tagged With: bay, Chesapeake Bay, drugs, over-the-counter, pharmaceuticals, sample, water, watershed

Senate Set to Vote on Funding for Reconstruction of Chesapeake Bay Islands

August 6, 2021 by Bay Journal

Share

The Senate Appropriations Committee has signed off on $37.5 million in spending that could launch the reconstruction of James and Barren islands in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Aug. 4 approval sets up a vote before the full Senate. The legislation will then undergo negotiations between the House and Senate to merge their differing versions of the measure, which is part of the $53 billion Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.

The current House bill does not include the James and Barren funding.

The $1.9 billion undertaking, called the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration, will rebuild two eroding islands off the coast of Dorchester County, MD. In all, it will create more than 2,100 acres of new land.

The fill will be dredged from the shipping channels for the Port of Baltimore, keeping the lanes open for cargo traffic.

The funding would cover the first year of planned construction. Critically, the move transfers the effort off the “new start” phase, where projects can languish for years, said Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland.

“The project will build the resiliency of Dorchester County communities, provide new habitats for a variety of fish and wildlife, support commerce at the port and enhance safety for boats and ships navigating the Bay,” Cardin said. “Having worked for years to make this vision a reality, I am heartened to announce that we are finally taking decisive steps toward giving the Mid-Bay Island Project what it needs to move forward in earnest.”

By Jeremy Cox

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

Filed Under: Eco Homepage Tagged With: bay, Chesapeake Bay, dorchester county, dredge, environment, eroding, erosion, fill, islands, port of baltimore, reconstruction

Infrastructure Bill would Boost Bay Restoration Funding, Senate Eyes $238M Funding Increase over Next Five Years

August 4, 2021 by Bay Journal

Share

The struggling Chesapeake Bay restoration effort stands to get a hefty infusion of funding from the ambitious $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal reached over the weekend in the U.S. Senate.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act calls for providing $238 million over the next five years to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program, which coordinates the state-federal restoration effort.

The Bay restoration effort is among $21 billion in environmental remediation projects that would be funded under the bill. The 2,702-page measure also includes money for physical infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, transit and rail, airports and ports, power and water systems, waterways, broadband access and electric vehicle charging stations.

Hammered out by a bipartisan group of senators, the infrastructure bill is much smaller than the $2.6 trillion plan that Biden proposed in March. Many Republicans had criticized that plan because it included funding for things not traditionally deemed as infrastructure, such as workforce training and care for the elderly and disabled.

Those are now to be included in a separate $3.5 trillion spending bill that Democrats are working on, which faces an uncertain future in the closely divided Congress.

The bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is expected to pass the Senate with the backing of Republican leaders, also slashed funding for clean energy tax credits intended to help fight climate change.

But the bill increases spending overall on environmental remediation above what Biden had proposed. It would provide funds for cleaning up abandoned mine land and Superfund sites, as well as for improving the resiliency of degraded ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes, Puget Sound and Gulf of Mexico.

The Chesapeake restoration effort also could get additional help from the bill’s proposal to boost funding nationally for water and wastewater infrastructure. Two EPA programs that provide loans to states for upgrading sewage and stormwater treatment facilities and for enhancing drinking water systems each would get an additional $14.7 billion over the next five years. That would more than double the current annual level of funding for such projects.

The Chesapeake Bay Program received $87.5 million for fiscal year 2021, and President Biden has proposed increasing that by $3 million for fiscal year 2022, which starts Oct. 1. The House has already approved that level of funding. The infrastructure measure, if passed, would boost that by roughly 50%, providing an additional $47.6 million a year.

“As we work to modernize our infrastructure and tackle climate change, it’s crucial that we’re investing in protecting our watersheds,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “That’s why we fought to include funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program in the bipartisan infrastructure deal.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) cited the Bay Program funding as one of the reasons he supported the infrastructure bill. “Marylanders will be pleased to see this includes funds for ecosystem restoration,” he said in a statement.

The bill’s text doesn’t say how the EPA is to use the additional money. The Bay Program typically funds research and helps assess cleanup progress, but nearly two-thirds of its money also goes to states, local governments and nonprofit groups for on-the-ground projects.

Even without such details spelled out in the bill, Bay advocates hailed the proposed funding increase. Kristin Reilly, director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, called it “a shot in the arm” for the states and federal government, which could help them get closer to putting all needed pollution reduction practices in place by their 2025 deadline.

“While currently there is ambiguity on the exact allocation of this funding, we are heartened to see the restoration of our waterways is recognized as a national priority,” Reilly said in a statement. “This investment will not only help provide all the benefits clean water brings, but the many on-the-ground restoration projects this funding supports will also deliver good jobs and stimulate local economies.”

With just four years to go to meet the deadline of the “pollution diet” that the EPA set for the Bay in 2010, advocates and state and local officials have been urging Congress to boost funding for the restoration effort, which remains far short of many of its goals.

At least one-third of the outcomes pledged in the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement are lagging badly or in limbo. An internal Bay Program review found that seven, including the key goal of meeting nutrient and sediment pollution reduction targets, are unlikely to be met by the 2025 deadline.

In May, governors of the six Bay watershed states, the mayor of the District of Columbia and the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative advisory body, wrote Congress seeking an additional billion dollars for the effort. They didn’t specify how the extra money could be spent.

The Choose Clean Water Coalition, representing dozens of environmental and community groups across the six-state watershed, also wrote congressional leaders that month asking in part for a $132 million boost in Bay Program funding. It proposed distributing the increased funding in grants to states and local governments to support their restoration efforts.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

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

Filed Under: Eco Homepage, Eco Portal Lead Tagged With: bay, Chesapeake Bay, cleanup, environment, infrastructure, restoration

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

July 1, 2021 by Bay Journal

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeremy Cox

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

Filed Under: Eco Homepage Tagged With: algae, bay, Chesapeake Bay, dead zone, environment, nitrogen, nutrients, oxygen, phosphorus, summer

Next Page »

Copyright © 2025

Affiliated News

  • The Cambridge Spy
  • The Talbot Spy

Sections

  • Arts
  • Culture
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Health
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Spy Senior Nation

Spy Community Media

  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Underwriting

Copyright © 2025 · Spy Community Media Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in