CBF Boat Runs Aground, Injures Farmers

No, they didn't hit farmers on the land: Lancaster Farming, Farmers Injured in Chesapeake Bay Foundation Boat Accident

A Chesapeake Bay Foundation vessel carrying a group of farmers from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, ran aground Oct. 9 on Grey’s Inn Creek off the Chester River in Maryland. 
“We had three employees down in Chesapeake Bay with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,” Lancaster County Conservation District Manager Chris Thompson said shortly after the incident occurred.

U.S Coast Guard officials confirmed receiving a call that the 42-foot vessel Marguerite was stranded with 22 people on board. My the time the agency was able to dispatch assistance from Annapolis, Maryland, the aluminum hull jet boat was back at the dock under its own power. The incident is still under investigation.

“They had several Plain Sect members and conservation consultants with them for an educational meet and greet, trying to show them the big picture of conservation and how it impacts areas outside of the county,” Thompson said.

Several people were knocked down when the vessel hit a sandbar, he said, citing information he had received while waiting for a report from the hospital regarding an injured employee early Thursday evening. Although several people received scrapes and bruises from the accident, those willing were seen by a doctor and released, Thompson said Oct. 10. “All are home now, sore and stiff but seem to be suffering no long-term issues.”

“Two adults reported minor injuries following the boat’s grounding,” read a prepared statement released the day after the incident from Chesapeake Bay Foundation Vice President for Education Tom Ackerman. “One person sought additional medical attention as a precaution. CBF staff accompanied that participant to the hospital, where they were discharged that same day.”

I assume by "plain sect" they mean Amish, Mennonite or some similar sect, which have large numbers of farms in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Getting them to agree with Bay diet restrictions is a significant problem. I wonder if they are allowed to use a boat with a gas motor themselves? 

A few years ago, a CBF boat carrying school kids ran into one of the submerged tanks off Bloodsworth Island and sank, requiring rescue. Boat long enough and something like this is likely to happen. I ran aground in the Anacostia years ago. To be fair, I was trying not to run across the fisherman's lines from shore. 

TU Trying to Bring Back WV Brookies

 CBF, Bringing Back Brook Trout

Bringing brook trout back to their native waters in eastern West Virginia isn’t just a job for Brandon Keplinger. It’s a mission.

Like many West Virginians, Keplinger feels a personal connection to the only trout species native to his home state. As a district fisheries biologist with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, he is dedicated to rebuilding brook trout populations in the Eastern Panhandle where they once thrived.

Keplinger and his crew are hatching eggs of “heritage lineage” brook trout collected from brook trout native to the Potomac River headwaters. Partnering with Trout Unlimited and its Potomac Headwaters Home Rivers Initiative, they release the juvenile fish into streams with the right temperature, pH, and spawning conditions to support this sensitive cold-water species.

Improving water quality where the Potomac begins also helps boost water quality downstream all the way to where it empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The Potomac is the second-largest tributary of the Bay and an important source of fresh water.

Brook trout need cold, clean water to survive. That makes them an important indicator of stream health. Restoring naturally reproducing brook trout populations and expanding their habitat is one of the goals of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement signed by West Virginia, the five other states in the watershed, and the District of Columbia.

Brook trout are also vital to the region’s outdoor recreation economy, particularly in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York. While the colorful fish is popular wherever anglers cast a line for it, it is an icon in the Mountain State.

Keplinger hopes successfully reintroducing self-sustaining brook trout populations will inspire more West Virginians to be better stewards of the state’s invaluable natural resources—especially older folks who grew up catching brook trout in streams where they can no longer be found. “They wish [the brook trout] were there and it was more like things were when they were younger and the way they thought the better years of their life were,” Keplinger said.

Brook trout have existed in eastern West Virginia for at least ten thousand years, he noted. “They’re more native than we are. It’s a really cool, heritage-related organism to this area, especially in the mountainous areas where a lot of my family has grown.”

Working in a Wardensville, WV, hatchery leased from West Virginia University, Brandon and his technicians only use eggs hatched from brook trout taken from the Cacapon River watershed to reintroduce into Cacapon watershed streams. The Cacapon River is a tributary of the Potomac.

Reintroducing fish from the same genetic line gives the hatchery-raised fish a better chance of reproducing successfully than if they had come from the eggs of trout outside the region, according to Keplinger.
. . .
A mix of private and federal money funds Trout Unlimited’s work. The EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program provides matching grants because the project improves water quality and wildlife habitat in the Bay watershed. The Bay Program coordinates the state-federal partnership to restore the Chesapeake and major tributaries like the Potomac River.

Good. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Nothing’s Fishy ready at The Other McCain on time and under budget.

Bay NGO Seeks to Suck Up to Trump Admin

 WUSA9, One Chesapeake environmental leader's strategy to engage with new political reality

Former New York Rep. Lee Zeldin has been nominated to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a decision that has environmental leaders in the Chesapeake region considering new strategies for dealing with the incoming administration and its priorities, according to Kim Coble, the Executive Director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters.

"As most people who care about the environment, we are concerned," said Kim Coble, Executive Director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters.

Coble said she will be looking for common ground by working to demonstrate that environmental protection is frequently good for the economy in the Chesapeake region.

“There is no doubt about the link between clean water and shoreline stabilization and economics," Coble pointed out.

"So one could say, 'the Trump administration doesn't prioritize the environment in a way that we would hope it would.' But if you look at the actions and say, 'these actions will protect the economy of our states around the Chesapeake,' then it becomes a better talking point with the Trump administration. We're hoping that that will be a key foothold in our conversations with them moving forward."

Zeldin is a staunch conservative with a track record of supporting fossil fuel development. He has vowed to reduce federal regulations on industry while simultaneously promising to protect the environment.

His nomination comes at a time when the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, setting the stage for a more industry-friendly approach to environmental policy.

"I will restore U.S. energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry, and position America as a global leader in AI, all while ensuring clean air and water for our citizens," Zeldin tweeted following his nomination. His remarks have raised alarm among environmental advocates, especially given his history of supporting policies that favor increased energy production and deregulation.

But Zeldin’s record also includes support for the restoration of Long Island Sound in his home region. He is also regarded as knowledgeable on climate issues, especially since he represents a coastal area vulnerable to flooding and rising sea levels.

I knew Kim a bit back in the day, when she was a young staffer at CBF. I'm pleasantly surprised that she is at least publicly calling for the Bay crowd and the Trump Administration to find some common ground, and not advocating joining the hell no, never, no way resistance movement. I hope she is sincere.

Forget It Jake, It's Baltimore

WIN Waste incinerator, Baltimore

Bay Journal, Baltimore incinerator draws fire for air pollution "Groups accuse city of civil rights violation for burning trash"

On May 28, the South Baltimore Community Land Trust filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that residents of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods nearby are disproportionately harmed by air emissions from the WIN Waste incinerator.

“Way too many of my family members and [high school] classmates … suffer from asthma and other respiratory problems made worse by air pollution,” said the land trust’s Carlos Sanchez-Gonzalez during a press release announcing the action.

The land trust, which grew out of a successful effort more than a decade ago to block the construction of another refuse-burning incinerator in South Baltimore, alleges that the city is violating the federal Civil Rights Act by continuing to rely on incineration to dispose of municipal garbage. Represented by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Environmental Integrity Project, the group is asking the EPA to investigate the health effects of the WIN Waste incinerator and require the city to divert municipal waste from it while increasing composting and recycling.

EPA spokesperson Dominique Joseph said the agency could not comment on a pending complaint. Under federal regulations, the EPA has 20 calendar days to decide if it will investigate.

The complaint focuses on the city’s 10-year solid waste management plan, which was adopted by Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott in November and subsequently approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment. The group contends that in developing the plan, the city’s Department of Public Works failed to map out a way to reduce reliance on the incinerator.

With its towering smokestack, the incinerator is a highly visible fixture on the southern edge of downtown Baltimore. Though just one of many industrial and waste disposal facilities in that part of the city, including a controversial coal loading pier, the incinerator is the largest stationary source of industrial air pollution in Baltimore.

Advocates contend that its emissions of mercury, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter contribute to respiratory issues, heart conditions and other serious health problems for residents of nearby neighborhoods, including Cherry Hill, Brooklyn, Curtis Bay and Westport.

The city has long contracted to send a large portion of its municipal refuse to the incinerator, which at one time operated as the Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Co. Advocates complain the city and state have effectively subsidized the waste-to-energy facility by making it eligible for lucrative renewable energy credits.

In 2019, under pressure from community and environmental advocates, the city imposed substantially tighter air pollution limits on the incinerator, only to have them struck down by a federal court. The incinerator’s owner subsequently agreed to upgrade pollution controls, but the complaint notes that the facility’s emission limits are far looser than what the EPA has recently proposed to require of municipal waste incinerators nationwide.

In 2020, the city also renewed a long-term contract pledging to send waste to the incinerator through 2031.

Mary Urban, a spokesperson for WIN Waste Baltimore, said that the company has spent $45 million to upgrade its pollution controls, making it “among the lowest-emitting waste-to-energy facilities in the world.” She cited a company-commissioned study finding that the incinerator has negligible impact on air quality and argued that it is reducing climate-warming emissions by burning rather than landfilling waste. She also noted that the city has estimated it could cost taxpayers nearly $100 million to stop incinerating trash and instead truck it to the landfill on Quarantine Road, also in South Baltimore.

My guess is that this will turn out to be environmentalist blackmail. Once WIN agrees to adequate ongoing payments to the Land Trust, the Bay Foundation, and maybe even the neighborhood, the matter will mysteriously settled.

CBF Wind Turbine Hit by Lightning

10 WAVY,  Wind turbine struck by lightning at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Brock Environmental Center. 

On Monday, a wind turbine at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Brock Environmental Center was struck by lightning.

The turbine caught on fire, but was extinguished due to the rain from the storm. Luckily, the building itself didn’t sustain any damage.

CBF Brock Center General Manager Chris Gorri issued the following statement:

 “At CBF’s Brock Environmental Center, we interact with nature every day. Unfortunately, today lightning struck the west turbine at CBF’s Brock Environmental Center. We are grateful to the Virginia Beach Fire Department for responding so quickly to this incident. We are thankful nobody at the Brock Center was harmed during this storm, which reverberated throughout northern Virginia Beach. CBF’s Brock Environmental Center and Pleasure House Point Natural Area did not experience any damage beyond the wind turbine. Our priority is always the safety of our staff, students, and visitors. CBF staff and its contractors are assessing the turbines and the property is still open for the public to access.”

Who would have thought a giant windmill stuck way up in the air with a generator inside, and lines to carry away the power would be susceptible to a lightning strike? Apparently it's quite common:

• According to a German study, lightning strikes accounted for 80% of wind turbine insurance claims.
• During its first full year of operation, 85% of the down time experienced by one southwestern commercial wind farm was lightning-related. Total lightning-related damage exceeded $250,000.
• The German electric power company Energieerzeugungswerke Helgoland GmbH shut down and dismantled their Helgoland Island wind power plant after being denied insurance against further lightning losses. They had been in operation three years and suffered more than $540,000 (USD) in lightning-related damage.

CBF's Take On The Striper Problem

CBF, As Striped Bass Concerns Continue, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Plans Next Steps

As concerns about low striped bass numbers continue, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) on May 1 took additional steps to address the number of striped bass dying after being caught and released, as well as unsustainable commercial fishing rates.

The ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board voted to establish a workgroup to explore options to reduce the significant number of striped bass that die after being caught and released. The workgroup will explore the effectiveness of season closures, the impacts of different types of fishing tackle, and the reduction in fishing effort needed to reduce striped bass losses. Following the workgroup’s report, which is expected in October this year, further action on catch and release mortality will likely follow.

The Board also approved plans by Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission to reduce their commercial harvest. At the ASMFC’s January meeting these plans were found to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Striped Bass Management Plan.

This week’s actions are intended to get efforts to rebuild this iconic species back on track.

“We must all face the hard truth that striped bass are struggling,” said CBF Maryland Executive Director Allison Colden. “We’re seeing continued low juvenile striped bass numbers, dwindling commercial catch, and a trend of fewer large citation-sized fish caught by anglers. Without getting striped bass management back on track across all sectors – commercial and recreational – there might not be a striped bass fishery in the future.”

Recreational fishing harvest of striped bass increased in 2022 along the Atlantic Coast even as managers implemented new harvest regulations. This significantly decreased the possibility of the striped bass population recovering to sustainable levels by a 2029 goal. Compounded with low numbers of young striped bass, this rang alarm bells for anglers, watermen, and fisheries managers.

To meet an ASMFC requirement with a May 1 deadline, earlier this year all Atlantic Coast states including Maryland, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia implemented a one-fish limit for recreational anglers. In the Chesapeake Bay, fish kept must measure between 19 inches and 24 inches, while along the Atlantic Coast they must be between 28 inches and 31 inches.

The limits on bigger fish are especially important to rebuild the population as a recent Maryland DNR study shows that older, larger female striped bass produce far more eggs.

Maryland this year also implemented emergency regulations to prohibit fishing for striped bass during crucial spring spawning times between April 1 and May 15. The state has also closed fishing for striped bass during two weeks in late July, when stressed striped bass are most likely to die after being released. In Virginia, striped bass fishing is off-limits to anglers during spawning periods and between June 15 and October 4.

States also implemented a 7 percent reduction in the commercial harvest. Despite the commercial fishery comprising a smaller percentage of the total harvest, the dire status of striped bass requires conservation actions from all sectors who benefit from this shared resource. Commercial fishery reductions were necessary to ensure the greatest chance of achieving sustainable fishing rates.
 
Forty years ago, striped bass numbers reached a crisis point. Fishery regulators implemented a moratorium that shut down Maryland’s striped bass fishery from 1985 to 1989 and Virginia’s for one year in 1989. Striped bass numbers rebounded through the 1990s, and the 1980s moratorium is considered a major success story for fisheries management.

This year, the new striped bass limits intend to rebuild the striped bass stock before a moratorium becomes necessary.

There are many factors challenging the current recovery of striped bass, including overfishing, pollution and loss of habitat, climate change, and fish that die after being caught and released. New fishing limits are one of the most immediate, effective actions that can be taken to rebuild striped bass numbers.

A major concern has been the number of striped bass that die after they are caught and released, especially when the water is warm and holds less oxygen. When air temperatures are above 95 degrees, about 17 percent of shallow hooked striped bass died after being caught and released, according to a Maryland Department of Natural Resources study.

At its meeting this week, the ASMFC voted to form a recreational release mortality workgroup to develop possible solutions, including additional seasonal closures.

Anglers in Maryland and Virginia who care about the future of striped bass can take the following steps to ensure the future of Chesapeake striped bass:

• Avoid targeting striped bass during late June, July, and August, when high water temperatures stress fish and make them less likely to survive being caught. In Maryland, anglers can reference Maryland DNR’s Striped Bass Advisory Forecast to determine if it if air and water temperatures are safe to catch and release striped bass.
• Practice careful catch and release tactics to ensure fish survive, such as using barbless circle hooks, keeping fish in the water, and supporting fish with two hands if you must handle them.
• Fish for other species while striped bass stocks are low. The invasive blue catfish fishery is booming in Maryland and Virginia, as well as snakehead. The upper Bay and its tributaries are also prime for targeting pickerel, white perch, and yellow perch. In higher salinity areas, anglers can target cobia, red drum, speckled trout, Spanish mackerel, and many other species.

 Unless a miracle occurs, I see another moratorium in our future. 

Chesapeake Land Mark Burns

Just barely land, WBOC, Devastating Fire at Historic Fox Island Center

Nearly 100 years after it was first established, the Fox Island lodge and former education center between the Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds of the Chesapeake Bay has reportedly burned down. The island where the center was located sits just south of the Maryland-Virginia border off the Cedar Island State Wildlife Management Area south of Crisfield. 

Frank Pruitt, Crisfield Fire Department Chief, tells WBOC the building has burned down but no local fire departments were alerted Friday night. Crisfield has the closest fire boat in the area, according to Pruitt. “It’s very surprising,” Pruitt said.

The center first began as a hunting lodge in 1929. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation took ownership of the island and launched the Chesapeake Bay Foundation Fox Island Education Center in 1978. 

But the island and the Education Center would face a losing battle with rising waters in the Chesapeake. The Foundation bid farewell to the building in 2019 and ceased operations there, saying it would inevitably become unsafe conducting their education program at the Fox Island Center due to sea level rise and erosion. More than 70 percent of the island’s land area had washed away in the past 50 years the CBF said in their blog post in 2019.

“It’s hard to imagine CBF without it—Fox was our first residential education center,” the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said at the time.

The cause of the fire is currently unclear.

A Facebook video shows the center burning.  

Bay Hypoxia - Better than Average

 I guess it's better to be better than average. MDDNR, June 2021 Chesapeake Bay Hypoxia Report

Data collected by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Old Dominion University show that dissolved oxygen conditions in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem of Maryland and Virginia were better than average in June 2021. The hypoxic water volume — areas with less than 2 mg/l oxygen — was 0.21 and 1.28 cubic miles during early and late June monitoring cruises, compared to historical early and late June averages (1985-2020) of 0.89 and 1.31 cubic miles. The early June report ranks as the best on record, and late June was slightly better than average.

So the early June report really was much better than usual, but by late June the system had worsened to just barely better than average, not a particularly high bar. The nature of averages is that about half the years are better, and half are worse. The late June report looks pretty much like most years, very low oxygen in much of the deeper waters of the central channel of the upper and mid Bay:

From what I've seen at the beach, we have not had a severe "crab jubilee", which is caused by the wind transporting that deep, low oxygen water up into the shallow waters of the western or eastern shores. Usually, it takes a few days of strong southwest breeze to do that on our side. The conditions are primed for it, we just haven't had the right weather.

The Bay Foundation takes the shine of DNR triumphalism, and delivers a backhanded shot at Pennsylvania in the process: CBF Issues a Statement on the June Dead Zone Assessment

After reviewing the findings, Beth McGee, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Director of Science and Agricultural Policy, issued this statement.

“The smaller than average dead zone is an indication that efforts to reduce pollution are succeeding. However, that there is a dead zone at all underscores the need to accelerate efforts to reduce pollution across the region, and most importantly in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth is far off-track for meeting its 2025 commitment.

“The states have determined that more than 80 percent of that pollution reduction necessary to meet the 2025 deadline needs to come from agriculture. It is essential that the states and federal government increase investments in agricultural conservation practices that will not only reduce pollution, but help the region respond to climate change.”

Actually, there's no proof that there was ever a time in the recent period of the Bay that there was no hypoxia. 

Conowingo Dam Debate Settled for Another 50 Years

or should that be damn debate? Delmarva Now, Conowingo Dam relicensed for 50 years, settlement agreement with Md. finalized

A federal commission has granted the Conowingo Dam's operator a new 50-year license to continue producing hydropwer in a case activists say will have a profound impact on states' ability to regulate water pollution nationwide.

The approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday represents a ratification of a controversial settlement agreement between the state of Maryland and the Exelon Corp., which provides power to about 10 million customers in Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois.

The 90-year-old Conowingo Dam is located about 10 miles from where the mouth of the Susquehanna River opens to the Chesapeake Bay.

The Susquehanna funnels pollution that originates on farms, in urban areas, in mines and at wastewater treatment plants southward to the bay.

The settlement is "controversial" because Maryland didn't wring as much money or as many concessions out of Exelon as CBF and the EPA thought they deserved.

I, for one, think that the environmental community has shown far too little gratitude to the builder of the damn, and it's owners, for sequestering pollution coming down the Susquehanna into the Bay for the past 90 or so years.

Chesapeake Bay Gets Its Annual D+

 EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: Chesapeake Bay sees health score decline by one point, but retain D+ grade

Despite a one-point decline in the health of the Chesapeake Bay since 2018, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) President Will Baker believes, “this is a historic opportunity to demonstrate to the world that by following the science, we can save a national treasure”.

In its biennial State of the Bay Report, CBF graded the overall health of the Bay a D+, or a score of 32. CBF assigns the Bay’s grade based upon the best available information in three categories: pollution, habitat and fisheries. The foundation of this information primarily comes from monitoring data, supported by in-the-field observations. The three above categories contain 13 total indicators that are individually assigned a score, which are then averaged together and compared against the gold standard of Bay health: the pristine conditions that Captain John Smith encountered in the 17th century.

Which is a convenient standard, since we don't really have good records of what the state of the Bay was at the time, although Smith reported  "oysters "lay as thick as stones," and the Bay and its rivers contained more sturgeon "than could be devoured by dog or man  ... Of fish we were best acquainted with sturgeon, grampus, porpoise, seals, stingrays ... brits, mullets, white salmon [rockfish], trouts, soles, perch of three sorts." One suspects a bit of hyperbole was involved. The same kind that led the Viking merchants to name Greenland. 

Thanks to the pollution reducing practices put into place by each of the six states in the watershed (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia, as well as upgrades to wastewater treatment plants and favorable weather, all but one indicator—toxics—improved in the Pollution category. Historical contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may have been banned in the 1970s but are still prevalent throughout the Bay’s fisheries today. And emerging toxic contaminants, including those from microplastics, personal care products and pharmaceuticals, can now be found in every part of the ecosystem. Still, nitrogen and phosphorous pollution are down from 2018, with dissolved oxygen and water quality scores also improving.

PCBs are "prevalent" virtually everywhere on earth at this point, and only a long period of no release and continued degradation is going to fix that. 

The Habitat category told a less-promising story, with two indicators—forest buffers and underwater grasses—declining and wetlands and resource lands (conserved areas) having no change. These decreases are believed to be the result of climate change, development and the easing of federal regulations.

But most concerning is the decline of the striped bass fishery. Chris Moore, CBF’s senior regional ecosystem scientist laments that “adult female striped bass, widely used to gauge the overall health of the population, have dropped approximately 40% from 2013 to 2017.” The fishery has seen below-average spawning activity over the past two years, prompting the Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission to take stronger management actions, such as reducing the annual catch by 18%. As for the other indicators that make up the Fisheries category, shad declined, while the progress of oysters and blue crabs increased.

I don't feel strongly about the annual grading of the Bay; I think there's a lot of self-serving going on. What would happen to CBF's donations if they were to suddenly announce one year that the Bay was just fine, thank you? On the other hand, I think the sense of this grade is about right. Any improvement in the Bay's health is incremental, and the continued decline of the Striped Bass certainly counts against it, although no obvious way to combat this is obvious. The stripers will not be recovering until we have one or more years with very good recruitment, and three years for the fish to grow. And water quality improvements, while important, are not what is causing poor recruitment. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Rep. Lauren Boebert up and running. 

Bay Foundation Sues EPA Bay Program

CBF, CBF to Sue EPA over Failure to Hold Pennsylvania and New York Accountable for Not Meeting Clean Water Act Obligations

Today, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and its partners will file a complaint suing the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for abdicating its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. The agency has failed to require Pennsylvania and New York to develop plans to sufficiently reduce pollution as was required by the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint, established in 2010, and re-confirmed in the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The suit will be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

CBF’s partners in the suit are Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the Maryland Watermen’s Association, and Robert Whitescarver and Jeanne Hoffman, who operate a livestock farm in Virginia.

Underscoring the damage this will cause for Bay restoration efforts, Attorneys General in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia will also file a separate suit in the District of Columbia Federal District Court.

“This is the moment in time for the Chesapeake Bay. If EPA fails to hold Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent New York, accountable the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint will be yet another in a series of failures for Bay restoration,” said CBF President William C. Baker. “It doesn’t have to be this way. Under the Blueprint we have seen progress. But unless pressure is brought to bear on Pennsylvania, we will never get to the finish line.”

In the past dozen years, CBF has been successful in litigation to support Bay restoration. First, to have EPA commit to the science-based pollution limits that EPA then agreed to issue with the Blueprint in 2010. And second, to help defend the Blueprint from attacks by the American Farm Bureau Federation and its allies in federal court.

The Bay Journal, the EPA Bay Program's house organ reports with glee, EPA hit with lawsuits over Chesapeake Bay cleanup

Making good on threats issued months ago, three Chesapeake Bay watershed states, the District of Columbia and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation took the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to court Thursday for its failure to push Pennsylvania and New York to do more to help clean up the Bay.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia accused the EPA of shirking its responsibility under the Clean Water Act by letting Pennsylvania and New York fall short in reducing their nutrient and sediment pollution fouling the Bay.

“This has to be a collective effort,” said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. “Every state in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has to play a part, and EPA under the law has to ensure that happens.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, joined by the Maryland Watermen’s Association, a pair of Virginia farmers and Anne Arundel County, MD, made similar complaints in a separate federal lawsuit. Both were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where they’re likely to be consolidated into a single case.

“The courts must ensure that EPA does its job,’’ Will Baker, the Bay Foundation president, said in an online press conference held with attorneys general from Maryland, Virginia and the District.

My guess is they're trying to set the stage for a "sue and settle" lawsuit in case Biden wins. 

Pennsylvania and New York have very little interest in investing in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, since they have no shoreline on the Bay. Until we find some way to incentivize them, they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to spend money to clean the Bay. It's not like they don't have their own priorities. 

CBF to Sue EPA to Sue PA Over Bay Diet

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Preparing To Sue EPA Over Lack Of Enforcement Over PA Progress In Cleanup Plan

On January 27, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation announced it is preparing to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the lack of enforcement action over the progress Pennsylvania is making in reducing nitrogen pollution.

“The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is preparing a Notice of Intent to Sue EPA for failing to enforce the Clean Water Act," said CBF Vice President for Litigation Jon Mueller. "We are currently in discussion with a range of potential partners concerning the legal strategies we can use to force EPA to comply with the law.

‘For CBF, litigation is a last resort. However, with Bay restoration and clean water for future generations at risk, we have no alternative due to EPA’s failure to act. We must hold EPA accountable now if we are going to save the Bay,” Mueller added.

"That EPA is abdicating its responsibility under the Clean Water Act is a tragedy. Failing to hold Pennsylvania accountable undermines the success we have seen in recent years. It is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," said William Baker, CBF President. "Agriculture is the largest source of pollution from Pennsylvania.

"While farmers and Conservation Districts have demonstrated their willingness to install practices that reduce pollution, the Commonwealth’s elected officials have failed to provide sufficient cost-share funding to achieve the goals that Pennsylvania has repeatedly promised to reach by 2025," explained Baker.

"If EPA does not fulfill its responsibilities to the region’s residents and the American public by holding the Commonwealth accountable, Pennsylvania’s local waters and the Bay downstream will never be saved,” Baker said.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been concerned about the lack of progress in reducing nitrogen pollution in Pennsylvania. That concern was heightened when Pennsylvania released its plan for reducing pollution between now and the 2025 deadline.

The plan has a funding shortfall of more than $300 million annually. And even if the money were allocated, the plan falls 25 percent short of the nitrogen goal.

In 2009, CBF and partners sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency for its lack of enforcement of the Clean Water Act in the Chesapeake Bay region. A year-long negotiation between CBF and EPA ensued.

It culminated with the Obama Administration’s EPA developing a Bay watershed-wide Total Maximum Daily Load, a limit on the pollution the Bay can withstand and remain healthy.

CBF agreed to drop the suit and the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint was launched, with a goal of having the programs and practices in place by 2025 that will lead to a restored Bay.

In the good old days of "sue and settle" I would be pretty confident that the fix was in, and EPA would settle, and then sue PA for noncompliance. These days, under the Trump administration, I'm not so sure.

I still say Maryland and Virginia have to find more incentives for Pennsylvania to clean up the waters that drain into the Bay. Pennsylvania stands to pay a hefty price and reap very little of the benefit. Unfortunately, I don't know what those would be.

Bay Foundation Loses Research Center to Poor Planning

Sea Level Rise Leads To Fox Island Education Center’s Closure In Chesapeake Bay, Foundation Says

An environmental group says sea-level rise and erosion are bringing an end to the use of an education center on an island in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Capital Gazette reports the Chesapeake Bay Foundation recently announced that this fall is the last season for its Fox Island Education Program.

Educators with the foundation say sea level rise and erosion are destroying the protective salt marshes surrounding the island located in Virginia waters between the Tangier and Pocomoke sounds.

They say that’s making the educational center that served teachers and students unsafe.

The foundation says in a blog post that more than 70 percent of the island’s land area has washed away over the past 50 years.

It calls the center’s closure an example of the “real and immediate threat” climate change poses.

What they won't tell you, of course, is that sea level at that site, as well as at all monitored sites around the Chesapeake  Bay, has been taking place at the same rate (with minor site to site differences) since we started monitoring it  in the early 20th century.

They're losing the use of the island to sea level rise and erosion that could have been predicted the day they bought the old hunting lodge. And if they really valued the island, they could build sea walls, and bring in fill. I'm sure the Port of Baltimore would be more than happy to sell them some dredge spoils from Baltimore Harbor.

Bay Foundation Proposes Liberal Oyster Harvesting

from my point of view: Bay foundation: DNR oyster limits 'halfhearted'

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation wants the state to take a different tack in regulating the wild oyster harvest to better preserve the population.

In advance of the oyster season’s Oct. 1 opening, the Department of Natural Resources issued this year’s harvest regulations with the expectation of a 26% reduction in the number of oysters caught.

The efforts include barring commercial oyster harvesting on Wednesdays. There also will be temporary closures of areas where oyster populations are low. Recreational harvesting will be allowed only on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, with a 50% reduction in catch limits.

On Sept. 16, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation stated that it does not believe this year’s reductions will result in a harvest decrease, nor will they protect the oyster population. The foundation stated that the DNR’s own analysis presented in April confirms reducing one harvest day a week “if implemented alone ... would have little conservation impact.”

“The other regulations — slightly reducing bushel limits and banning harvest above the Bay Bridge — are expected to reduce the overall harvest by 4% and 1%, respectively, according to DNR. These reductions offer little benefits for oyster conservation, especially considering market sized oysters above the Bay Bridge planted previously will remain available to harvest under the new regulations,” states a news release from the foundation.

Allison Colden, Maryland fisheries scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, issued a statement saying the DNR is obligated to use “the best available science to protect and conserve the state’s resources.”

“Their own analysis shows this proposal will have little, if any, impact to conserve oysters. These are halfhearted attempts that fail to address overfishing or the systemic and chronic decline of Maryland’s oyster population. We can’t keep putting off this problem,” Colden said in a statement.

According to the DNR, this year’s limits seek to put the oyster fishery on a path to rebound sustainability over the next decade.

“With an 8-10 year timeframe set as our goal, it is important that we begin implementation as soon as possible. If we combine sustainable fishing practices with other measures such as strategic investment, habitat restoration and sanctuaries, the result will be real, long-term solutions for the resource,” said Natural Resources Secretary Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio in a news release announcing this year’s limits.

As the DNR stated when releasing this season’s limits, the oyster population is affected by a number of issues, including disease, pollution and the demands of the seafood industry. Two years of heavy rains have changed salinity levels in parts of the Bay, impacting the oyster population.

DNR scientists reportedly used models, stock assessments and stakeholder input when preparing this year’s oyster regulations, with the information “scoped” in a public meeting with a number of fishery-related commissions.

Chuckie White, president of the Kent County Waterman’s Association, said last week that most of his fellow watermen are fine with this year’s limits. He said the price watermen are receiving for oysters helps offset the catch limits.
. . .
The foundation wants the DNR to set total allowable catch limits, taking population estimates and setting harvest numbers for specific areas. When watermen hit a limit according to their catch reports for a harvest area, it would then be closed for the season.

In addition, the foundation is seeking a better “abundance target” from the DNR than the department’s general goal of a “sustainable oyster fishery.”

But then, remember my preferred oyster restoration plan is to ban fishing on any "wild" oysters for 5-10 years to allow the population to recover itself. If it can't recover in that amount of time (given that each adult oyster releases millions of eggs), we can be reasonably certain that oysters are no longer capable of sustaining harvest-able populations in the Bay as it currently exists. In the meanwhile, free aquaculture for oysters from some of the regulations that limit it in the Bay, to encourage watermen to adopt it.

CBF Unhappy with Bay Diet Progress

Report on Chesapeake Bay clean-up effort: States not on track

A new Chesapeake Bay Foundation report examining the state of the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint found good and bad news.

The report claims that no state is completely on track to meet the 2025 goal to restore water quality, but Virginia and Maryland are close to being on track. Pennsylvania, however, never met its nitrogen reduction targets and its current plan to achieve the 2025 goal is woefully inadequate, detailing only two-thirds of actions necessary to achieve its goal.

“A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and that is also true for the partnership working to restore water quality across the region,” CBF President William C. Baker said. “Today, unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s link is not only weak, it is broken.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation assessed Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia’s milestone progress and whether or not states are implementing the pollution-reduction commitments they made. Together, those three states are responsible for 90 percent of the pollution fouling the Bay and its rivers and streams.

Virginia is on track to achieve its 2025 goals, provided it accelerates efforts to reduce pollution from agricultural sources and growing urban and suburban areas while continuing progress in the wastewater sector. Virginia has a strong roadmap for success; the key is implementation.

In order for Virginia to stay on track, the report claims Virginia needs to further cut wastewater pollution. Innovative technology, including an initiative in Hampton Roads to use treated wastewater to recharge groundwater, provides exciting potential.

The Blueprint said grasses are increasing, the dead zone is getting smaller, and blue crab populations are rebounding, however, recovery is fragile.

The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint was developed in 2010 and a deadline for full implementation was set for 2025. Experts around the world agreed it's our best, and perhaps last chance for success.

As I've noted before, it is the job of the Bay Foundation to be unhappy with the progress towards the Bay goals. Otherwise, they'd have to make plans to shut down the organization when it's finally accomplished. And you and I know that's not going to happen; there's too much money floated through the system.

As for Pennsylvania's go slow approach, remember, they have no shoreline on the Bay, only the Susquehanna River. They have relatively little to gain, and are being expected to shoulder a disproportionate  share of the costs of the cleanup. If Maryland and Virginia were smart, they'd try to find some way to compensate, at least in part, Pennsylvania's efforts. If they were smarter, they'd try to persuade the Feds to do so.

Rain Causes Chesapeake Bay Downgrade

From WaPoo: Chesapeake Bay’s health receives D-plus on foundation’s report card

Scientists rated the health of the Chesapeake Bay a D-plus in a report released Monday, the first time in a decade that the health of the bay has decreased.

Officials at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which issues a report card every two years, cited record regional rainfall as the cause of increased pollution and poor ­water clarity in the bay, which had seen substantial improvementsto its health in recent years.

“Simply put, the bay suffered a massive assault in 2018,” William Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said in a news conference Monday. “The bay’s sustained improvement was reversed in 2018, exposing just how fragile recovery is.”

 Baker, and WaPoo's mandatory, and largely irrelevant Trup bashing cut.

Marks for nitrogen and phosphorous pollution declined in this year’s report, compared with 2016, when the last report was released. The bay received a ­C-minus rating then.

Baker said severe pollution in Pennsylvania’s portion of the Susquehanna River, which supplies 50 percent of the bay’s fresh water, contributed to its declining health. He said there are 19,000 miles of streams and rivers in Pennsylvania that are polluted and suggested that the state must find the “political will” to fully fund efforts to bring them back to health.

Wow. A full grade point lower? I haven't seen that much degradation here in the middle of the Maryland portion of the Bay, but certainly the upper was more impacted by the stormwater, sediments, and just plain dilution by freshwater, which can impact the more salt loving animals (like oysters) and plants (SAV).

Pennsylvania, which has no shoreline on the Bay, but is the source of much of the freshwater discharge is a reluctant player here. Somehow, Maryland and Virginia need to find a way to sweeten the pot, and encourage Pennsylvania to do better.

Maryland also needs for bite the bullet on Conowingo Dam, and find the money to dredge the pool behind it to make more room for new sediment to settle out. I'd rather have my money spent on that than purchasing or condemning more private land for the state to sequester away from the people.

Can Natty Boh Save the Bay?

Natty Boh ‘Tabs for Crabs’ nets $10K for Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Baltimore’s hometown beer, National Bohemian Beer Co., has donated $10,000 to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation after its summer long “Tabs for Crabs” promotion.

Natty Boh rolled out its second-annual Tabs for Crabs program in July, promising 10 cents for each red, crab-etched can tab collected and returned to the company from consumers across the Mid-Atlantic. Oct. 1 was the deadline.

This year it collected more than 90,000 crab tabs, 5,000 more than the program’s inaugural year, but just shy of the 100,000 goal. Natty Boh donated the full target amount of $10,000 anyway.

 Hey, big spender!

The donation will support the Foundation’s mission to Save the Bay and its work to protect blue crab habitats by improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.

“We love that the community again embraced Tabs for Crabs and came together for a fun, easy way to do good and protect the beauty of our beloved regional landmark, the Chesapeake Bay,” said C-Mo Molloy, National Bohemian brand manager.

In March, Natty Boh released Crab Shack Shandy, its first new beer in 30 years.

Woo hoo! Ten Thousand (that's thousand with a "T") dollars! The estimated cost of the Chesapeake Bay clean up is approximately 25 billion (that's billion, with a "B"), which leave us only $24,999,900,000 left to pay!

Wombat-socho has Rule 5 Sunday: Salma Hayek up and collecting clicks.

Using Oysters to Mix Up the Dead Waters of Chesapeake Bay

Reef balls out of water, compared to one standard girl

Oyster reef installed in Severn River could break up dead zones

Chesapeake Bay Foundation scientists put reef balls laden with oyster spat into the Severn River on Wednesday — not to grow oysters, but to see if they might break up dead zones of low oxygen.

It’s an experiment. Can man made oyster reefs create enough turbulence in the water to improve oxygen levels in the water column?

The deepest areas of a waterway lose oxygen first because the waters are heaviest due to higher salinity content and cooler temperatures. Layers of water nearer the surface tend to have higher dissolved oxygen needed for aquatic life to survive.

Deployed reef balls with organisms growing on them

Marine life will not survive in low oxygen conditions. But if the water column is mixed it helps distribute what oxygen is left, improving conditions for fish and other species.

“We know historic oyster reefs grew up in to the water column. They looked more like Manhattan skylines than the flat oyster beds we think of today,” said CBF Maryland Fisheries Scientist Allison Colden. “This project will test whether man made oyster reefs with vertical structure agitate currents and break up dead zones.”

If the experiment proves successful, that the agitated water flow helps increase oxygen, it could provide even more reason to accelerate oyster restoration efforts in the bay region.

On Wednesday the researchers and crew of CBF’s oyster restoration vessel, Patricia Campbell, placed 120 of a planned 240 reef balls in an area called the Winchester Lump, a rise in the river bottom where a large oyster reef existed, about a half mile north of the Severn River Bridge. . . 

Regardless of the presence of oysters, such large obstructions place in an area with good flow should make a lot of turbulence. My question is how much homework they did to find whether the spot they put them in will benefit, or is it already pretty well mixed by currents. It should become a pretty good fishing spot in time. Pete's mantra is "current plus structure equals fish."

Wombat-socho has "Rule 5 Sunday: Bikini Barrel Racing?" up and running at The Other McCain.

Baltimore Tries New Method to Fund Stormwater Runoff Pollution

City to issue $6.2 million in ‘environmental impact bonds’ to finance runoff-reducing green infrastructure

Baltimore is slated to be the second city in the Chesapeake Bay region to try a novel way of financing its costly water pollution reduction projects under a plan announced Monday by city officials and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

City officials said that with assistance provided through the Bay Foundation, they expect to issue up to $6.2 million in “environmental impact bonds” later this year to help pay for green infrastructure projects aimed at managing stormwater in more than three dozen neighborhoods.

“Baltimore can and, we predict, will be a model for innovation in pollution reduction,” declared Bay Foundation President Will Baker at a news conference announcing the deal in West Baltimore by the site of one of the planned projects. “It’s a partnership with nature to save dollars and reduce pollution.”

So, just what is an "environmental impact bond" and how does it differ from normal municipal bond?

Environmental impact bonds are a variation on “social impact bonds,” which are familiar to charity-minded investors who focus on issues like chronic homelessness and prison recidivism. These bonds are meant to attract investors who not only expect a modest financial return, but also want to support environmental improvements.

As with conventional municipal bonds — which fund schools or roads, for instance — the bond issuer (the borrowing municipality) makes periodic interest payments on the amount invested, at an agreed rate, until the bond’s maturity date, at which point the borrower pays back the entire principal.

But environmental impact bonds differ from traditional bonds: The municipality and investors share the risk of the investment to some degree, because the payback of the bond is based on the relative success or failure of the project. Given that setup, they are often called “pay for success” bonds.

If the project simply meets expectations, the investor will receive interest payments at the agreed-upon rate. If the project fails to meet expectations, the terms of the bond help the municipality recoup some of the cost by specifying that the investor earns little or no interest. This allows the city to protect its budget and likely channel the money held back from investors toward additional projects that help meet regulatory requirements.

So, it's a bond with an added risk of failure. Pardon me if I don't run to include them in my portfolio. Especially when I would be relying on Baltimore to carry out its promises.

Tempting

Bay Bridge sunrise

Chesapeake Bay photo contest offers cash prizes

Shutterbugs who love nature can win cash prizes in the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s 13th annual Watershed Photo Contest.

Photographers of all skill levels are encouraged to participate to win cash prizes of from $100 to $500, and to have their photos featured in CBF’s award-winning publications.

Submissions are being accepted between now and April 6.

Images depicting people, wildlife, recreation, and farms within the watershed will all be considered. All photos must include water from the Chesapeake Bay or a river, stream, creek, or other body of water in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Sunset in Mattawoman Creek

All winners will receive a one-year membership to CBF and winning photos may be displayed on CBF’s website, in a CBF e-newsletter, in CBF’s 2019 calendar, and in CBF’s award-winning magazine, Save the Bay.

Judging will be conducted by a panel of CBF employees on the basis of subject matter, composition, focus, lighting, uniqueness, and impact. The public will also be able to vote online for their favorite photo in the Viewers’ Choice Gallery, starting April 16.

Goodness knows I have enough photos to comb through. Some of them must be suitable. Except for the cash, though, I'm not exactly impressed with the prizes.