Ecosystem

Critical Conservation Work Planned by ShoreRivers Throughout the Eastern Shore

January 20, 2020 by Spy Desk Leave a Comment

Beginning this month, ShoreRivers will begin implementing a suite of conservation projects on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, including multiple installations on farmland to improve soil health, stormwater action plans to modernize outdated municipal systems, partnerships with congregations to put projects on four faith properties, and pollution reduction from a golf course community. This work is made possible through eight grants from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Chesapeake Bay Trust. Projects will begin in 2020 and culminate in 2022.

Farmland: Agriculture is the primary land use and a large economic driver of the Eastern Shore. In collaboration with the Maryland Department of Agriculture, ShoreRivers will work with local farmers to improve soil health through cover crops and conservation tillage practices. A series of innovative conservation drainage practices will also be implemented to increase crop productivity while reducing sediment loss and nutrient pollution. Two agricultural projects located in the Chester River watershed will be designed to filter runoff from over 500 acres of cropland and to restore wetland habitat for native species.

Saturated buffer installation

Stormwater: Wye Mills, located in a sub-watershed of the Wye River, has poor water quality and experiences frequent flooding. ShoreRivers will complete a thorough assessment to identify pollution sources, flood reduction opportunities, and potential restoration project sites. Similarly, Chestertown has an outdated stormwater system; ShoreRivers will develop a comprehensive stormwater action plan with stakeholder input to improve water quality. The ultimate goal is to create an innovative, modern stormwater system for this historic town.

Community: Environmental conservation efforts thrive thanks to partnerships with strong community organizations such as Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake (IPC). To reduce harmful runoff on church properties, ShoreRivers will host two workshops to engage and inform congregations on restoration strategies and develop a plan to implement at least four restoration projects on faith properties.

Homeowners: To improve the health of the Wye River, ShoreRivers’ River-Friendly Yards program staff will work with homeowners in Queenstown near Greenwood Creek to install rain gardens and plant trees. Additionally, ShoreRivers will partner with Prospect Bay Country Club on multiple efforts to reduce fertilizer and herbicide use on its golf course in order to minimize harmful runoff.

ShoreRivers is thrilled to bring significant state and national resources into the region to support integral work for healthy rivers on behalf of our communities. Follow the progress of these projects:@shorerivers on Facebook; @shoreriversorg on Instagram; or subscribe to the e-newsletter at shorerivers.org/subscribe.

ShoreRivers protects and restores Eastern Shore waterways through science-based advocacy, restoration, and education.

shorerivers.org

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here

Can the EPA enforce the Chesapeake Bay’s ‘Pollution Diet’?

January 14, 2020 by Bay Journal Leave a Comment

TMDLs are required for any “impaired” waterbody — one that does not meet standards set by a state to ensure a waterbody is safe for people and aquatic life.

A TMDL sets the maximum amount of a pollutant that the waterbody can receive and still meet those standards. The Bay TMDL maximum “loads” are established for the pollutants nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

The TMDL, often called the Bay’s “pollution diet,” allocates those loads among the states and major rivers that drain into the Bay. It also establishes specific limits for entities with a discharge permit.

But, in a strict sense, it is not the TMDL that enforces those numbers for individual dischargers. The permits do that job — but they must be consistent with the TMDL.

“TMDLs are not self-implementable,” said Mike Haire, who helped manage the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s TMDL program for years, and now teaches environmental science at Towson University. “But,” he added, “the bottom line is you can’t write permits that aren’t consistent with the TMDLs.” And if water quality standards are not being met after those permit limits are in place — possibly because unregulated sources of runoff are not meeting their goals — the limits “might have to become more stringent than the requirements in the TMDL,” Haire said.

Likewise, rules governing TMDLs do not establish deadlines, they only state that goals should be achieved in a “timely manner.”

But courts have held that water quality standards are to be met “reasonably promptly,” and the Bay cleanup could face a court-imposed deadline if the effort continues to fail, said Ridgeway Hall, an environmental attorney who has worked on Bay issues and written about its TMDL. (See the related article, MD threatens to sue EPA, PA over lack of action as regional tensions rise.)

While the Bay TMDL sets limits as all TMDLs do, it has several unique aspects. It includes an “accountability framework,” developed by the EPA and the states in the Bay watershed that goes beyond what TMDLs traditionally require. The framework includes a 2025 cleanup deadline that was agreed upon by the state-federal Bay Program partnership in 2007.

The accountability framework also requires states to write plans showing how they will meet cleanup goals, setting two-year milestones to provide “reasonable assurance” that they will meet their goals. Those milestones were suggested by the states.

The TMDL also outlines steps the EPA can take if states fall short of their goals for reducing pollution, including unregulated discharges from sources such as farms. Those “consequences,” such as forcing further reductions from regulated sources, are grounded in the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act.

“The contingency actions were set up to get people’s attention and to recognize that there is a limited set of actions that the agency can take under the Clean Water Act,” said Rich Batiuk, retired associate director for science with the EPA Bay Program Office and a key architect of the Bay TMDL. “If states want to control their own destiny, we are saying great, but you need to hold up your end of the bargain or there is a price to be paid,” he said.

The Bay TMDL is also unique because its goals were adopted into the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement signed by the EPA and Bay states.

Section 117g of the Clean Water Act, which creates the state-federal Bay Program, includes a requirement that the EPA administrator “shall ensure that management plans are developed and implementation is begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement to achieve and maintain … the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay agreement …”

In terms of TMDL authority, “I think 117g presses EPA into a different place than other TMDLs in other places,” said Jon Mueller, vice president for litigation with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

About Karl Blankenship

Karl Blankenship is editor of the Bay Journal and executive director of Bay Journal Media. He has served as editor of the Bay Journal since its inception in 1991.

By Karl Blankenship

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

Energy & Environment Hogan Eyes Suit Against Pa., EPA to Protect Chesapeake Bay

January 10, 2020 by Maryland Matters News Service Leave a Comment

Hogan made the request in a Wednesday letter. He also asks Frosh to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which Hogan says has failed to ensure Pennsylvania’scompliance with a 2014 federal water improvement plan.

“Pennsylvania and the EPA must hold up their end of the [clean-up] bargain,” Hogan wrote. “We have a generational obligation to protect the bay, and we simply cannot fall short of these shared obligations.”

Pennsylvania does not border the Chesapeake Bay, the vast estuary in Maryland and Virginia with headwaters in the Susquehanna River. But it’s the source of half of the bay’s freshwater and much of its pollution.

In 2014, six states and the District of Columbia signed an agreement to restore water quality in the bay by reducing agricultural, industrial and residential runoff by 2025.

Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia had the most aggressive pollution reduction goals, but the Keystone State’s progress has lagged far behind its neighbors.

The Commonwealth currently faces a $324 million funding gap to complete its water improvement plan by 2025.

In his letter, Hogan said the EPA has “made excuses” for Pennsylvania as it fell short of its targets. Federal regulators also appeared unconcerned by the “obvious inadequacy” of Pennsylvania’s water improvement plan for the next five years.

In a brief interview, Frosh said he has sued EPA for failing to prevent cross-state pollution and for drastically scaling back the Waters of the U.S. Rule, enacted by the Obama administration to expand protections of the Clean Water Act. While both those suits address pollution that impacts the Chesapeake Bay, this would be the first suit that directly targets shortcomings of the multi-state agreement to protect the bay.

In a statement Thursday, Kim Coble, executive director of the League of Conservation Voters, applauded Hogan and Frosh for contemplating legal action against Pennsylvania and EPA.

“If EPA continues to abdicate its responsibility to restore the Chesapeake, Marylanders need to know that our elected leaders will respond appropriately,” she said.

The news of the potential lawsuit came on the same day that Pennsylvania lawmakers received a briefing on bay cleanup efforts at the Pennsylvania Farm Show, an annual agricultural convention in Harrisburg.

There, the state senator in charge of environmental legislation told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star that the commonwealth’s chances of meeting the EPA’s 2025 bay cleanup goals “are not likely.”

State Sen. Gene Yaw (R), who chairs the state Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, said Pennsylvania would not create new fees to fund bay conservation efforts, as Maryland and Virginia have.

Yaw also said that “nobody knows what the EPA will do” if Pennsylvania blows past its 2025 pollution reduction deadline.

But as Hogan wrote in his letter, “the EPA currently appears to have no intention of taking the necessary action to ensure Pennsylvania’s compliance with its commitments.”

J.J. Abbott, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, responded to the lawsuit on Wednesday, telling the Baltimore-Sun it would divert resources from Pennsylvania’s pollution reduction efforts.

He added, “Governor Hogan’s time would be better spent convincing his Republican counterparts in Pennsylvania to support Governor Wolf’s plan” to raise new revenue for environmental projects.

Wolf administration officials who testified at the Senate hearing Wednesday said the governor’s ambitious Restore PA plan could provide crucial funds for water quality projects.

The plan calls for the state to borrow $4.5 billion to fund infrastructure and environmental projects. It would pay the balance back over 20 years with a new tax on natural gas production.

The plan has been met with fierce resistance from Democrats who say a 20-year commitment to natural gas drilling would set Pennsylvania back in the fight against climate change.

Elizabeth Hardison is a reporter with the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, an affiliate of Maryland Matters. She can be reached at at ehardison@penncapital-star.com. Josh Kurtz of Maryland Matters contributed to this report.

By Elizabeth Hardison

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

Targeting Male Crabs for Harvest May Put a Slight Squeeze on Reproduction

January 8, 2020 by Bay Journal Leave a Comment

It turns out there could be a price to pay for eating all those “jimmies.” Scientists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have found that the focus of Chesapeake Bay commercial and recreational crabbers on catching male crabs is preventing some female crabs from having as many offspring as they could.

The Bay’s crab fishery is currently regulated to limit the harvest of female crabs, in a so-far successful effort to ensure that enough survive to reproduce and maintain the crustacean’s overall abundance — and sustain the estuary’s most valuable fishery.

But researchers have wondered — and even worried at times — if harvesting more male crabs (or jimmies, as watermen call them) than females could be having an impact on the population.

Smithsonian scientists set out several years ago to find out. They started with what was already known about crab sex and reproduction, explained Matthew Ogburn, an ecologist with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, MD. He was lead author of the study, which was published in October in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series.

Blue crabs mate from May to October in the brackish or slightly salty waters of the Bay. Maturing females can mate for about two weeks after they shed their shells for the last time. During that brief time, they may hook up with one or more males. But the sperm they receive then is all they’ll have to produce young for the rest of their lives.

A male crab can give a female up to 3 billion sperm in a single coupling. But it takes an average of four sperm to fertilize each egg produced by the female. Female crabs can crank out multiple broods in a year, and those that evade capture and survive can continue to spawn for a couple of years.

The question scientists wanted to answer was, are females — known as sooks to watermen — getting enough sperm during their brief mating window to maximize their reproductive potential?

The researchers paid watermen to bring them batches of female crabs that had recently mated but hadn’t produced eggs yet. The team took a small sample of those female crabs to count the sperm they were carrying. They tagged the rest and released them back into the Bay. The tags promised a reward to anyone who caught them a year later. Those who kept the tagged crab in a freezer until scientists could retrieve it got $15.

“We got a couple hundred back out of the thousands tagged,” Ogburn said.

After mating, female crabs carry the sperm with them to saltier water down the Bay. They don’t start fertilizing their eggs until months later — usually the next spring or summer. The spongelike mass of eggs they produce on the underside of their abdomen can hold anywhere from 750,000 to 8 million eggs.

But the research team found that before the females can produce those eggs, they often lose as much as 95% of the sperm they’re carrying within a month or so after mating.

“We don’t know why that happens,” Ogburn said. There’s a “sperm plug” the male leaves in the female that breaks down over time, he noted, but researchers aren’t sure if there’s something else going on.

Even so, of the tagged year-old female crabs that were recovered, researchers found they still had enough sperm to fertilize all of the eggs they could produce that first year.

To check how much spawning females did in their second year, the Smithsonian team obtained some from an annual crab sampling survey by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. To spot the second-year females, the team looked for big barnacles growing on their shells that are only found in the saltier waters of the Lower Bay.

Of those second-year females, researchers found that only about half still had enough sperm to produce multiple broods again, Ogburn said.

From those findings, Ogburn said researchers did a “back-of-the-envelope” calculation to get an idea of how “sperm limitation,” as they call it, could be affecting crab abundance. They estimate that it reduced the output of young crabs by 5–10%.

Given the overall fecundity of crabs, Ogburn said, that’s no big deal. Only about 15% of female crabs survive long enough to spawn for a second year anyway.

“We don’t see evidence that females are not finding a mate,” he said. “In fact, a lot of females are getting plenty of sperm to reproduce over two years, but not all of them.”

The most recent scientific assessment of the Bay’s crabs, released in June, found them in good shape, with nearly 600 million crabs of all sexes and ages

While there are no limits on how many male crabs can be caught, the experts on the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee have suggested curbs may be needed if more than 34% get harvested in any given year. The 2018 landings came close, just below that trigger.

Even so, Ogburn said, the Smithsonian research finds no cause now to mess with the Bay’s most lucrative fishery, only to keep an eye on that sex ratio to be sure it doesn’t get more out of whack.

“As best we can tell, the population is doing relatively well under current management strategies,” Ogburn said, “so there’s no evidence that we need to jump to change that.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

ShoreRivers to Host Workshop on Building Resilient Eastern Shore Farms

January 8, 2020 by Spy Desk Leave a Comment

On February 5, ShoreRivers will host a free workshop in Princess Anne on building farm resiliency through improved water management and soil health. The workshop is open to the public and will focus on innovative practices that benefit both farm productivity and conservation efforts. Farmers, landowners, and agricultural professionals are encouraged to attend. View the full agenda at shorerivers.org.

Water availability and soil health have a big impact on farm productivity and resiliency. The workshop will feature presentations from ShoreRivers and University of Maryland Extension staff on innovative conservation drainage practices, the agronomic benefits of building healthy soils, and an overview of Chesapeake Bay water quality goals and how agricultural conservation practices can help meet them.

Following the presentations, attendees are invited to visit a nearby farm that uses cover crops and no-till, and where ShoreRivers partnered on a conservation drainage project that includes drainage water management and a structure for water control at the outlet.

This workshop is being held in partnership with University of Maryland Extension and will be held at their Somerset Office located at 30730 Park Drive in Princess Anne, Maryland. The workshop will run from 9am-2pm with lunch provided. For a full agenda or to RSVP, please contact Laura Wood at lwood@shorerivers.org or 410-810-7556 ext. 276.

Farmers located on the upper Eastern Shore can expect a similar event hosted more locally in late spring 2020 as a part of this series of workshops funded by Northeast Extension Risk Management Education.

ShoreRivers protects and restores Eastern Shore waterways through science-based advocacy, restoration, and education.

shorerivers.org

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here

Sea Levels Are Rising, and So Are Risks to Port of Baltimore

December 30, 2019 by Capital News Service Leave a Comment

Officials at the Port of Baltimore, one of Maryland’s biggest economic assets, have acknowledged that sea levels are rising, but their efforts toward combating climate change are a work in progress.

“We rely on the water,” said Kristen Fidler, director of the Office of Harbor Development at the Maryland Port Administration. She added that the administration realizes that with this reality “comes a lot of risks for the long-term viability” of the port.

The administration formally assessed its vulnerability to climate change in a 2010 report that was updated in 2017.

The assessment notes that some of the port’s facilities risk damage because of rising sea levels, storm surges and more frequent and severe storms.

The port focuses on flooding because of the assessment.

“It’s more of: How do we prevent flooding from impacting day-to-day business and preventing potential damage to people’s cargo,” said Jill Lemke, manager of strategic planning and special projects for the Maryland Port Administration.

Heat hasn’t been a problem for the port and therefore their climate change policies don’t focus on it, said Lemke and Richard Scher, spokesman for the Maryland Port Administration.

Though the port has policies in place for heat — supplying coolers for trucks, encouraging frequent breaks inside air conditioning and providing a public message board on the terminal that advises people if the heat index is above a certain level to stay hydrated — workers do not take days off for heat or any extreme temperatures.

“We are competing with other ports for cargo so we want to be sure that we are able to work in all type of weather,” Scher said.

The port created a climate resilience strategy in response to the climate change vulnerability assessment it conducted.

The strategy outlines how port officials plan to address climate change, including the projects they have already started working on and projects they would like to do in the future.

Lemke defines resilience as the port’s “ability to prepare for, adapt to and recover from significant climate-related threats or events with minimum damage and disruption to our operations, people inside and outside the port, the economy and the environment.”

The plan proposes a three-pronged model that includes either moving, elevating or strengthening structures and terminals.

So far the port has elevated some facilities as high as 10 feet to protect against flooding. The port also invested in an emergency generator, a forced main water vault, more durable concrete and a flood barrier system in an effort to manage flooding.

Lemke said these are “major climate resilience projects.”

Even though many projects have resilience benefits, the administration doesn’t have capital budget line items for specific climate resilience projects, Lemke said.

Before funds can be budgeted, the port has to analyze the cost associated with a particular project, she said.

“As a result we don’t have a figure to share,” Lemke said in an email to Capital News Service. “We recently submitted a Port Infrastructure Development Grant through the Maritime Administration of (the U.S. Department of Transportation), but nothing has been funded yet.”

Scher told CNS that there isn’t currently a “climate resilience” project that funds can be attached to.

“Right now we are building it into existing projects if we feel it’s necessary,” Scher said via email, “which would be reflected by added costs if there were any within a specific project but not a resilience project.”

Executive branch officials heaped praise on the port for its climate change efforts at the Maryland Board of Public Works meeting in October.

Maryland Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot (D) called the port an “unbelievable, thundering economic success.”

Treasurer Nancy Kopp noted the port’s participation in the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, adding that the state is a “model” for its work in that area.

But Kopp told CNS after a November Board of Public Works meeting that she was “surprised” to hear that the Maryland Port Administration doesn’t have a budget line item dedicated specifically to climate change resilience.

“There ought to be,” Kopp said.

She clarified, however, that she knows the port is aware of the impact that rising sea levels and storm surge will have on its plans, adding that this awareness needs to be “embedded in everything they do.”

“They’re right on the water after all,” Kopp said.

One project for which the administration has made environmental efforts is the Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility, which is the reason that port officials were at the Board of Public Works meeting in October in the first place.

Officials were seeking approval from the board to move forward with the third phase of the project.

Fidler was at the meeting. She said the facility receives sediment and other materials that are dredged from the shipping channels in the Baltimore harbor, which is “critical to the long-term sustainability of the harbor.”

Dredging is important to maintain the depth of the channels that ships use.

As part of efforts to mitigate the effects of the dredged material containment facility on the environment at Masonville Cove, Fidler said the administration “restored access to the water” for the community, created four acres of tidal wetlands and restored many more acres of marine habitats.

The efforts to clean up the cove were made in consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Army Corps of Engineers, she said.

The port is also replacing diesel engines in the port’s vehicles and equipment with more emission-efficient ones, according to the program’s website.

Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo (D-Montgomery) told CNS that he appreciates what the administration was doing with the program.

“I’m just sick of talking about clean coal, clean diesel,” Fraser-Hidalgo said. “… It’s all dirty.”

Scher said in an email that the program, which uses federal funds, covers forklifts, front loaders, trucks and other diesel equipment.

Fraser-Hidalgo, who is the chair of a transportation subcommittee on the House Environment and Transportation Committee, said that while he is not fully aware of what the Maryland Port Administration is doing in terms of climate change resilience, “everything should be on the table” with “all hands on deck.”

At the Board of Public Works meeting, Fidler said that the Masonville containment facility is just one part of the Maryland Port Administration’s 20-year plan for the “long-term placement capacity” of dredged materials.

She added, “It’s incumbent on us to be looking out beyond 20 years, with increased storm surges, storm events, potentially increased sedimentation, sea level rise, and those things.”

By JAZMIN CONNER and ELLIOTT DAVIS
Capital News Service/Howard Center for Investigative Journalism

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

Dirty Air and the Human Brain: Does Pollution Poison the Mind?

December 27, 2019 by Maryland Matters News Service Leave a Comment

Air pollution is known to be a serious health risk – a cause of asthma, heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and a factor, according to the World Health Organization, in an estimated seven million deaths worldwide every year. A growing body of research suggests air pollution may also be harming our brains.

Chalk Point Generating Station, Eagle Harbor, Maryland

In recent years, new areas of study have opened up into how air pollution might affect our minds and the way we think and feel. Epidemiologists and neuroscientists have found evidence linking long-term exposure to air pollution with increased incidence of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and other brain maladies. At the same time, behavioral and labor economists have published a series of papers about the effects of air pollution on cognitive performance.

Anthony Heyes, an economics professor at the University of Ottawa, has co-authored a number of such studies. One 2016 paper linked heavily polluted days in Los Angeles with upticks in violent crime; another from the same year found that on days with bad air quality in New York, returns on the S&P 500 stock market index were significantly lower. Heyes theorizes that pollution, like bad weather, “makes you blue, short sighted and risk-averse.”

“We’re gradually learning about the range of effects from air pollution on the human condition,” Heyes said. “We know there are physical effects. But your psyche is disturbed or influenced in many, many different ways.”

Prior research has shown that workers doing physical labor, such as picking fruit, are less productive on polluted days. Recent studies have found that air pollutants like ozone, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter affect the performance of highly skilled workers performing mostly cognitive tasks. One paper published this year and co-authored by Heyes showed that on polluted days, members of the Canadian Parliament spoke in less complex language, as measured by a formula that computes the length of sentences and syllables per word in speeches. Another study from 2018 found that on polluted days, Major League Baseball umpires make significantly more mistakes when calling balls and strikes, as measured by pitch-tracking technology used in major league ballparks.

James Archsmith, a co-author of that study, said its conclusions “make us think we should be concerned with other similar types of occupations, like air traffic controllers, where thinking and perceiving are much more important than physical activity.”

Studies in Israel and in China have shown both short-term and long-term exposure to air pollution can lead to lower standardized test scores. And a paper published in September of this year found that chess players in Germany make more mistakes, as measured by a computer program’s suggested moves, when there is more fine particulate matter in the air.

More than 10 studies, meanwhile, have linked air pollution with a higher incidence of brain diseases, including dementia and Alzheimer’s.

The Environmental Protection Agency sets limits for fine particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide and other air pollutants. Millions of Americans live in areas that exceed those standards. But a growing chorus of scientists and advocates says that the standards aren’t strong enough. And some of the recent research suggests that levels currently considered “safe” by the EPA may still be harming our brains.

“The evidence is compelling, as far as I’m concerned, that there’s no safe level of air pollution, just as there is no safe level of cigarette smoking,” said Caleb Finch, a professor of the Neurobiology of Aging at the University of Southern California, though he cautions: “It’s a very young field. In comparison to [what we know about] cigarette smoke, we’re about one tenth of a percent of the way there.”

Not everyone is so convinced by the research – at least not yet. James Hendrix is the chief scientific officer for LuMind IDSC, a foundation that studies Down’s syndrome, and the former director of global science initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association. He said the recent studies, though intriguing, only show an association between air pollution and brain diseases, and do not prove causation.

“It’s really difficult to ascribe a cause and effect,” Hendrix said. “Often, exposure to pollution and environmental toxins can be a surrogate for low economic status, and we know that that’s a surrogate for poor access to health care. You may have untreated hypertension that can lead to dementia. Many of these things are so intertwined and mixed, it’s difficult to isolate one thing.”

He is similarly skeptical about the economics papers, like the umpire study.

“The umpire may be suffering from allergies caused by the pollution,” he said. “Their eyes may be watering. That’s not really about your brain functioning. It’s about your eyes.”

What’s needed, he said, are controlled, scientific experiments to discover whether pollutants actually damage the brain. That’s difficult to do with humans, since it would involve deliberately exposing them to harmful substances, although Finch points out that about 20 experimental studies have shown air pollution negatively affects animal brains.

“The great mystery,” Finch said, “is how does it cause damage that crosses into the brain. It’s likely that it causes an inflammatory response, but that’s a major unknown in the field.”

Researchers hope that the growing body of evidence will spur international action to reduce air pollution. Economists like Archsmith and Heyes, meanwhile, hope that their research will show the hidden toll air pollution takes on the economy, and thus the hidden benefits of eliminating it.

“If air pollution is negatively impacting worker performance, that’s basically a tax on every company,” Archsmith said.

“The assumption has always been that there’s this trade-off,” Heyes said, “that if you want cleaner air, you need more regulations, which hurts business. This is telling the opposite story.”

By Hillel Aron
Fair Warning

Feature photo: Codo via flickr

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

EPA Confirms Shortfalls in PA, NY Bay Cleanup Plans

December 20, 2019 by Bay Journal Leave a Comment

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency confirmed on Thursday that plans produced by Pennsylvania and New York fall far short of meeting Chesapeake Bay cleanup goals.

But the agency did not call for any new actions against the states, although their shortfalls — especially Pennsylvania’s huge gap — means the region would miss its 2025 deadline to put in place all actions needed to achieve the Bay’s clean water goals.

Instead, the agency asked the states to provide more details about the actions they would take during the next two years to get their programs back on track.

Meanwhile, the EPA’s evaluation of other state plans, which were submitted in August, found that they met goals, though the review found that most needed more detail to show how they would achieve the dramatically ramped-up rates of action needed to curb polluted runoff from farms and developed lands. The District of Columbia, though, has met its goals.

The EPA in 2010 established a new cleanup program called the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, or “pollution diet,” which set limits on the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that each state sends to the Bay. The nutrients spur algae blooms that cloud its water and fuel oxygen-starved “dead zones.”

Since then, the levels of the water-fouling nutrients have declined — and phosphorus goals likely will be met — but the region remains far off track for nitrogen. Nitrogen reductions are lagging mostly because of shortfalls in Pennsylvania, which is, by far, the largest source of nutrients reaching the Chesapeake, though it does not border the Bay.

The EPA required the new state cleanup plans to show how states will meet nutrient reduction goals by the TMDL’s 2025 deadline. Between now and then, states also must continue to submit additional plans showing the actions they will take in two-year increments to show they are making adequate progress.

“It is critical that we continue the momentum that has led to signature successes and positive signs of resilience in the watershed,” said EPA Regional Administrator Cosmo Servidio. “The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and its environmental, economic and cultural importance cannot be understated.”

But the agency’s failure to announce any actions against Pennsylvania — whose plan fell 25% short of its nitrogen reduction goal and had an annual funding shortfall of more than $300 million a year— was a disappointment to some.

“EPA has failed to fulfill its obligation to be the referee of the multi-state partnership. It has not held Pennsylvania accountable,” said William Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “Rather, it has once again kicked the can down the road, abdicating its Clean Water Act responsibilities and putting the Bay restoration in jeopardy.”

He said the environmental group was considering suing the EPA for not using its regulatory oversight authority to enforce cleanup goals.

The agency has the ability to take a variety of actions against states failing to meet their goals, such as increasing oversight, extending regulatory authority over more entities, and requiring more pollution reductions from dischargers with permits, such as wastewater treatment plants.

In its evaluation, though, the EPA focused on providing assistance rather than meting out punitive measures, pledging to provide Pennsylvania with more technical support, continued grant funding, and help identifying places where runoff control measures would be most effective in meeting Bay goals.

As written, Pennsylvania’s plan would be about 9 million pounds short of its nitrogen reduction goal. New York’s plan was about 1 million pounds a year short.

That gap is more than a fifth of the 47 million pounds of additional annual nitrogen reductions the region needs to achieve to meet Bay water quality goals.

Most of the nitrogen reaching the Bay from Pennsylvania — and all of it coming from New York —flows down the Susquehanna River, the Bay’s largest tributary. Nutrients from the river, which empties near the head of the Bay, have an enormous impact on the Chesapeake’s water quality. Failure to come close to meeting nitrogen goals in the Susquehanna means that most of the Bay would be unlikely to meet clean water objectives.

Achieving nutrient reductions in Pennsylvania has been a struggle because most of its nitrogen comes from agriculture and stormwater runoff — sectors that all Bay states grapple to control. Pennsylvania has far more farms — 33,000 — than the other states, though, and most are small, making both oversight and outreach difficult.

Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia have made progress largely because they have reduced nutrient discharges from large wastewater treatment plants, and Pennsylvania has few of them. Since the TMDL was established, 85% of the nitrogen reductions in the Bay watershed have come from upgrading wastewater treatment plants across the region. But there are few plants left that need upgrades.

All states must now significantly ramp up efforts to control runoff from farms and developed lands at rates far beyond what they have demonstrated they can achieve in recent years. From now to the end of 2025, state plans cumulatively call for about 82% of the remaining nitrogen reductions to come from agriculture and 5% from developed lands.

While plans from other states generally described programs that would reach their goals, the EPA said more details are needed to boost confidence in that outcome. Its analysis said that states should provide estimates about the number of on-the-ground nutrient control actions they plan to take during the next two years.

In some cases, state plans call for the implementation rates of runoff control practices to be increased tenfold beyond recent levels. In comments submitted earlier this year about state plans, many local governments and conservation districts expressed skepticism that such an aggressive ramp-up could be achieved.

By Karl Blankenship

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

Save the Bay: Eat Invasives!

December 19, 2019 by Bay Journal 1 Comment

Biologist holds blue catfish caught by electrofishing, courtesy of Branson D. William

Maryland’s infamous invasive fishes — blue catfish, northern snakehead, and flathead catfish — were introduced to bay waters without Maryland Department of Natural Resources authorization. These species now pose an array of potential problems for the ecosystems of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

Even with increased fishing pressure, controlling the abundance of invasives after they’ve become established can be difficult. While the department is investigating other ways of controlling the spread and abundance of these fish, we encourage the method that has been tried and true for centuries – eating them! And the good news is that the illegally introduced invasive fishes in Maryland are not only edible but delicious!

How do these invasive fish affect the Bay?

An invasive species is a non-native species that cause or will likely cause either ecological or economic harm to an environment. In some cases, invasive species cause ecological harm by preying on other species and causing changes in communities.

Both blue and flathead catfish were introduced into the Chesapeake Bay in the 1960s through the 1980s to create new recreational fisheries, a common practice at the time. After their introduction, they quickly spread into Maryland waters. Blue catfish can now be found in several major rivers of Maryland, including the Potomac River, Patuxent River, and Nanticoke River. Flathead catfish primarily occupy some areas of the Potomac River and lower Susquehanna River (above and below the Conowingo Dam). The first reported sighting of the northern snakehead in Maryland was reported in 2002 in Crofton. It was also illegally introduced to Potomac River and Nanticoke River, and has since spread throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Maryland’s invasive fishes affect the Chesapeake Bay in different ways depending on their abundance and location. Many invasive species do not have natural predators in their new habitats, so their numbers can increase rapidly. These invaders eat native fish, although blue catfish tend to also eat a lot of macroinvertebrates, like blue crabs and mussels. Invasive species can also spread viruses or disease. Potentially fatal pathogens such as largemouth bass virus and mycobacteria are found in parts of the Chesapeake Bay, but these pathogens could expand their ranges by hitchhiking along with the highly mobile northern snakehead. When a new species enters a complex ecosystem like the Chesapeake Bay, the ecosystem can change in ways that threaten ongoing conservation or management efforts.

The department has launched many campaigns over the past fifteen years to encourage the public to fish and harvest these invasive fish. As with other predator fish populations, imposing greater fishing pressure on these species will cause their numbers to decline. However, both recreational anglers and commercial markets can be slow to develop an affinity for these ugly fishes and spreading the word of their tastiness takes time.

Blue catfish is now on the menu at most state institutions that have food service. Schools, universities, hospitals and prisons are serving up blue catfish to help reduce their population. The state initiative is twofold: reduce the number of invasive species and provide Maryland citizens a locally sourced and healthy meal option. In addition, introducing blue catfish into the state’s public institutions also creates jobs and supports educational opportunities on invasive species.

To help educate the public on invasive species and as an alternative food source, the department routinely donates northern snakehead and blue catfish to local food banks and public and private events.

How can I help?

Photo by Stephen Badger

Fish and eat; then repeat. Unlike other fish species in the state, there are very few rules for harvesting invasive species. These invasive fish can be harvested any time of year, at any size and in any number. Anglers must use legal fishing gear and have a current fishing license. Anglers should remember that it is illegal to have a live northern snakehead in their possession.

Once you buy a fishing license, not only will you be permitted to fish for these very tasty fishes, but you will support department efforts to engage more of the public, conduct research and share information. The department has online tools to assist you in how to catch and fillet invasive fishes.

If you fish alone or are going for the first time and need some advice, there are a lot of resources available to you. Visit the public access page to find locations to fish, or search the Maryland Angler’s Log for helpful tips from other anglers. If you want to fish with professionals, find a licensed charter boat guide or find a fishing tournament to join. The department maintains a list of some licensed charter boat guides on its website.

Finally, spread the word; share your fishing experiences with others. If you don’t fish, share the story of these invasive fish so that our society can prevent more of them. Are you a photographer and nature lover? Share your photos with the department. Or, if you just like to eat, ask your local restaurant or store for locally caught blue catfish. Increased demand drives product delivery. Tell them you want to help the bay by eating invasive fishes.

How do you like your snakehead?

Snakehead may not be winning any beauty contests, but they’ll serve you well in a cooking contest. The fillets from these species are mild, flaky and generous. These fish are prized as food sources in their origin countries, so it should be no surprise that there are lots of recipes and recommendations for cooking the fillets.

Before cooking snakehead, people usually strip the fillet from the body of the fish. This can be a challenge for folks who are not familiar with the process. First, we recommend buying or borrowing a fillet knife that has a thin, sharp and long blade that can be easily worked through a fish. Use a towel or glove to hold onto the fish’s head, making the fish easier to control during the filleting process. Find a clean space with easy access to a garden hose or other water source. Having the water nearby aids in clean up and will allow for easy rinsing of the fillet. For more information on how to fillet a fish, please visit the department’s website for snakeheads.

Once they fillet the fish, cooks can get creative. We’ve seen the fillets served many ways, including fried and baked, sautéed and grilled, even as ceviche. One of the best ways we’ve tried it is simply cooking it in a lemon-infused olive oil. Top if off with fresh cilantro and a zesty lemon wedge. What’s your recipe? Visit the Maryland Angler’s Log and send us an email with a photo of your prized catch!

For more information on invasive fish in Maryland, please visit our website and search for “invasive.” The department has just updated content and videos regarding northern snakeheads and is in the process of doing the same for invasive catfish.

The department works with Maryland Department of Agriculture’s Seafood Marketing program to help enact the control strategy. While the Department of Natural Resources sets the reasons and rules for harvesting invasive fishes, the Seafood Marketing program helps promote sale and consumption of invasive fishes in commercial markets. For more information on how to harvest invasive fishes, contact the Department of Natural Resources at 1-877-620–8DNR. And for more information on where to buy fillets, contact the Maryland Department of Agriculture.

dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries

Joseph Love and Eric G. Wilson work for the department’s Fishing and Boating Services, as a biologist and public affairs officer, respectively. Appears in Vol. 22, No. 4 of the Maryland Natural Resource magazine, fall 2019.

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

Follow Us