Bay Journal

Picture of Chesapeake Microplastics Grows Clearer by Whitney Pipkin

June 13, 2021 by Bay Journal Leave a Comment

Scientists have long suspected that the tiny plastic particles floating in the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers — consumed by a growing number of aquatic species — are anything but harmless.

Now, studies by a regional workgroup are beginning to clarify the connections between the presence of microplastics and the harm they could be causing in the Bay region. This research, combined with international interest in microplastics, is setting the stage for more informed management decisions and a flurry of additional studies.

Globally, microplastics have been found in the air we breathe, the food we eat and in human organs — even in mothers’ placentas. It’s possible that humans are ingesting a credit card’s worth of microplastics every week. One of the ways people consume plastics is by eating seafood, though the tiny particles can also be swirling around in tap and bottled water. Assessing the risk of plastic consumption by humans is one important research goal.

In the Chesapeake Bay region, researchers also want to understand how microplastics could be impacting local ecosystems and aquatic species. A workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a state-federal partnership that leads the Bay restoration effort, identified microplastics in 2018 as a contaminant of mounting concern. A 2014 survey of four tidal tributaries to the Bay found microplastics in 59 out of 60 samples of various marine animals, with higher concentrations near urban areas. A Bay survey the next year found them in every sample collected.

Plastic microfibers, shown here under a microscope, often slough off from the washing of synthetic fabrics and make their way through wastewater treatment facilities to local waterways. Such fibers are thought to be among the most common plastics in many river systems. Ocean Wise

Microplastics are typically defined as plastic pieces between 1 micron and 5 millimeters in size. Smaller pieces are called nanoplastics.

Researchers classify microplastics in two ways.

“Primary” microplastics are tiny when they enter the environment. Examples include plastic pellets released by industrial facilities, synthetic microfibers in clothing released during wash cycles and tire fragments washed off of roads.

“Secondary” microplastics are created when larger plastic debris breaks down into smaller fragments as it’s battered by wind, sun and water over time. Polystyrene (often known by the brand name, Styrofoam) food containers, plastic grocery bags and plastic water bottles are in the secondary category. They easily break down into smaller pieces, making them priority targets for legislation that reduces their use.

Focus on striped bass

In spring 2019, the Bay Program convened a two-day workshop to evaluate what local experts did and did not understand about the impact of microplastics in the Chesapeake region.

The participants concluded in a follow-up report that microplastics “pose a potential serious risk to the successful restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.” They recommended developing an “ecological risk assessment” for striped bass — a key Bay species, known regionally as rockfish — to provide a detailed look at how a living organism ingests microplastics and what happens when it does.

In response, the Bay Program formed a plastic pollution action team to head the risk assessment effort and produce strategies for reducing plastic pollution, a goal seeing revived political interest recently. The group also compiled standardized terms and measurements for the region’s scientists to use as they study microplastics.

And, after dredging up more questions than answers about microplastics, the 2019 workshop led the EPA to contract with Tetra Tech Inc. to help produce a series of reports on the subject, including the risk assessment for striped bass.

Striped bass from the Potomac River were selected because, as one of the top predators in Bay tributaries, they consume and rely on other species and habitats whose progress is integral to the restoration effort. They are known to consume both blue crabs and forage fish. Once under a fishing moratorium, striped bass were considered a success story of the Bay because of their rebounding population. Recently, though, they have faced setbacks. Their habitat, preferred diets and populations have been well-documented, and striped bass continue to be closely monitored under a regional fishery partnership today.

Plastics in water — *Discarded plastic objects wash into waterways and break down over time into tiny particles called microplastics. Photo by Dave Harp*

The newly released risk assessment found a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, based on research involving other fish species, that microplastics could have harmful impacts on the Bay’s most iconic recreational species and, potentially, on the people who eat them.

The scientists did not open the bellies of local striped bass to look for plastic. Instead, they combed existing scientific literature — some of it coming out while the work was under way — to discern data gaps and identify where future Bay-region studies should focus their attention.

The assessment found that microplastics can harm fish in several ways.

Tiny plastic particles can physically block or fill up the animal’s gut, potentially reducing its ability or desire to feed.
Microplastics can cause behavioral changes as their presence changes a fish’s buoyancy or swimming behavior, which can make the fish more susceptible to predators.
Microplastics also can carry toxic chemicals into the fish’s body, which could bioaccumulate as the fish consumes other prey that have ingested plastics.

While striped bass migrate outside of the Bay, they tend to remain in the estuary for the first few years of their lives, making them “an organism that can reflect the potential impact of microplastics in a specific location,” the assessment states.

Martin Gary, executive secretary of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, advocated for focusing on striped bass rather than oysters or blue crabs, as had been originally suggested, because their lifecycle makes the fish a fitting indicator of their environment. Gary said the Potomac River is the second-most valuable spawning area for striped bass along the Atlantic Coast, behind the Susquehanna River.

“Pretty much all life stages of striped bass use the [Potomac] river at some point, even the larger animals that come back,” Gary said. “It’s not a species with specific outcomes in the 2014 Bay agreement, but its life cycle includes the health of crabs and oysters and sea grasses. Everything is interdependent.”

Also, because their numbers are once again in decline, striped bass also are “on everybody’s radar right now,” Gary said, as fishery managers consider whether to revisit an overarching management plan in light of recent declines in their population. If they do, microplastics could be a part of that conversation.

Eating plastic

Globally, researchers have found microplastics in the guts of enough aquatic species to assume they’re nearly everywhere, both in aquatic environments and in the creatures that inhabit them.

Eastern oysters, which live in the Chesapeake Bay, have been shown to confuse microplastic beads for food in a University of Maryland lab, taking the particles into their gut.

Floating plastics — *Plastic pieces float near a kayak in Virginia’s Occoquan River. Photo by Whitney Pipkin*

A researcher in Delaware Bay recently looked for microplastics in juvenile and adult blue crabs in two of the bay’s tidal creeks. Jonathan Cohen, an associate professor at the University of Delaware whose work has yet to be published, wrote in an email that his team found microfibers in 48% of crabs collected, mostly in their stomachs.

No one has done a survey on the stomachs of striped bass in the Potomac River yet, but evidence already exists that they would likely find microplastics. A study of microplastics uptake by species in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada found tiny plastic particles in the guts of striped bass there.

Susanne Brander, a researcher at Oregon State University studying how microplastics impact black sea bass, spoke via video at the 2019 workshop about her findings, which could have some correlations to the Bay’s striped bass. While at the University of North Carolina, Brander found microplastics in 60% of black sea bass she sampled in the wild during a two-year project. This important East Coast species also visits the Lower Bay.

Because striped bass consume a broad array of other species over the first three years of their lives, their diet alone — a major focus of the risk assessment — illuminates the many ways they could be consuming microplastics in the Potomac River. Striped bass could be exposed to microplastics via their gills or by skin contact in addition to consuming them. But the assessment assumes, based on existing research, that “trophic transfer” — eating other species that have eaten microplastics — is a major mechanism of exposure.

How microplastics get into the fish matters. Studies cited in the assessment show that mysids, small, shrimplike crustaceans that striped bass regularly consume, can contain large amounts of microplastics. The same research shows that fish that consume mysids tend to bioaccumulate those plastic particles — storing them in higher and higher concentrations — and transfer them to fish tissue.

The assessment did not focus on which types of microplastic striped bass would likely be consuming. Preliminary evidence suggests that microfibers, like those that are shed by synthetic clothing or fishing nets, could be more abundant than disintegrating plastic in river systems.

As researchers were working on this assessment, microplastics research continued to be published. One study came from students at Susquehanna University in Pennsylvania, who found microplastic particles in the stomachs of smallmouth bass taken from the mainstem of the Susquehanna River in 2019. Each of the 89 bass contained an average of 29 pieces of microplastics, predominantly fibers.

Overall, the striped bass assessment is a starting point for further research, its authors said.

“This is a framework that starts showing the potential of different sources of microplastic contamination … to striped bass,” said Kelly Somers, physical scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and co-chair of the Plastic Pollution Action Team. “Naturally, it will inform us of other species on that pathway, like blue crabs or [underwater grasses]. This is the first iteration — that necessary groundwork we need to lay to better understand that.”

Human impact

More information also is needed about threats posed to humans who eat the Bay’s fish, including striped bass.

“Given that striped bass are a popular recreational and commercial fishery species, there is potential for humans to become contaminated with microplastics from eating striped bass,” said Matt Robinson, environmental protection specialist for the District Department of Energy and Environment and a co-chair of the Bay Program’s plastic pollution action team.

Granted, he said, research is pointing to a growing number of ways humans could be consuming plastics already. “Still, we are very concerned here in DC about people eating plastic when they eat fish.”

Despite the ubiquity of microplastics, researchers and advocates are far from throwing in the towel. The plastic pollution action team also published in May a document that lays out what future microplastic monitoring should look like in the Bay watershed — and potential strategies for curbing sources of plastic pollution closer to the source.

*“COVID trash” is now a common element in waterborne debris. Masks and gloves are among the types of litter that degrade into microplastics. Photo. by Robbie O’Donnell*

The report suggests an overarching monitoring program for microplastics that dovetails with existing monitoring programs and falls under the purview of the Bay Program. A subset of fish monitoring programs that collect and analyze stomach contents, for example, could also be used to garner microplastic ingestion data. The report also suggests collecting enough microplastic data that the Bay Program could set a related pollution reduction goal for the region or states could use it to inform their own policies and practices.

Globally, the production and disposal of plastics has continued to skyrocket in recent decades, with an estimated 33 billion pounds of plastic entering the marine environment from land-based sources every year, according to the nonprofit Oceana. The group says that’s roughly the equivalent of dumping two garbage trucks full of plastic into the ocean every minute.

Despite growing awareness about plastic pollution in recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have temporarily cemented reliance on certain plastics. A data analysis published in ScienceDirect indicated that the pandemic would “reverse the momentum of a years-long global battle to reduce plastic waste pollution.” Another study found the virus triggered an estimated global use of 129 billion face masks and 65 million gloves every month, enough to cover the landmass of Switzerland over the course of a year.

Volunteers who clean up trash along the Anacostia River had to create a new category for the sudden uptick in masks, gloves and other “COVID trash” they were finding floating in the water and stuck to the shorelines.

“That was one of the main things people picked up,” said Robbie O’Donnell, watershed programs manager for the Anacostia Riverkeeper.

Katie Register, executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways at Longwood University, said that, in some ways, 2020 felt like a lost year in plastics advocacy. But, in other ways, a lot of ground was gained.

“People used to sit in a restaurant eating off plates, and then for a year all that food has been in single-use plastics, for the most part,” Register said. “But, in spite of that, we’ve seen some real changes.”

Some are driven by new legislation.

New laws

Even as the research continues, recent legislation is attempting to reduce sources of plastic pollution.

Plastic bag — A plastic grocery bag floats across a sidewalk in the District of Columbia. The District was one of the first localities to pass a 5-cent fee on the use of plastic bags. Photo by Whitney Pipkin

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam issued an executive order in March that lays out a plan for state government facilities — including state universities — to stop by midsummer the use of plastic bags, straws, cutlery and other items. The order, which cites concerns for the health of the Bay and wildlife, also includes a plan to phase out use of all nonmedical single-use plastics and polystyrene objects by 2025.

Virginia also approved in March a plan to end the use of polystyrene cups and food containers. Food chains with 20 or more locations will not be able to package food in such containers as of July 2023 without being fined, while remaining vendors have until July 2025. The bill also restricts nonprofits, local governments and schools from using polystyrene takeout containers after the 2025 deadline.

The state also passed a local option to add a 5-cent tax on plastic bag use at grocery, convenience and drug stores as of this year. In May, the Roanoke City Council was the first to approve a local version of the tax.

Maryland lawmakers did not act this year on a proposed ban of plastic bags, but they did join Virginia and become the sixth state in the country to ban intentional balloon releases. Pennsylvania authorities completed a littering study in 2020 and began work in May on a Littering Action Plan intended to curb trash closer to its source.

At the federal level, California and Oregon lawmakers reintroduced an expanded federal bill called the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act. The bill would require producers of plastics to help fund recycling programs while banning certain single-use plastics nationwide, placing a moratorium on new plastics production facilities and calling for additional research, among other measures.

“I credit a lot of this to growing concerns among people of all ages,” Register said. “People are more aware that plastic pollution is increasing, and it’s got serious impacts.”

Whitney Pipkin is a Bay Journal staff writer based in Virginia. You can reach her at wpipkin@bayjournal.com.

New Hearing Ordered on Lakeside Wastewater Discharge Permit

May 17, 2021 by Bay Journal

Those worried about the potential for water pollution from a massive residential and commercial development planned in Trappe will get another chance to voice their concerns.

A Talbot County Circuit Court judge has ordered the Maryland Department of the Environment to hold another hearing and give the public another opportunity to comment on sewage discharge plans for Lakeside, a proposed community of 2,501 homes and apartments plus a shopping center, in the small town of Trappe.

The April 27 ruling by Judge Stephen Kehoe came in a case filed by ShoreRivers, which had appealed the groundwater discharge permit the MDE had issued to Lakeside’s developer, Trappe East Holdings Business Trust. Development plans called for discharging treated wastewater by spraying it on fields of orchard grass in a corner of the 860-acre tract near the headwaters of Miles Creek, a tributary of the Choptank River.

Lawyers for the developer and the town of Trappe had filed a joint consent to ShoreRivers request that the permit be sent back to the MDE for further review.

State regulators originally granted the project a wastewater discharge permit in 2005, around the time Trappe voters approved annexing the undeveloped land into town limits. Development plans stalled after that, but the MDE tentatively approved a new permit in 2019 and finalized it in December 2020.

ShoreRivers contended that the final permit was different in key respects from the version MDE asked the public to comment on in 2019. The final permit was based on a nutrient management plan that spells out the terms and limitations of the treated wastewater spraying — but that plan was submitted after the public comment period had ended, and the MDE refused ShoreRivers’ requests to reopen the case.

“The nutrient management plan is a core component of the permit,” said Matt Pluta, the Choptank Riverkeeper. “Whether or not the details in [the plan] are adequate in protecting water quality warranted a review from the public.”

The final permit required the developer’s proposed sewage treatment plant to use enhanced nutrient removal, significantly lowering the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the wastewater before spraying it on up to 88 acres of grassy fields. The developer also was directed to build a lagoon to store wastewater for up to 75 days during winter and other times of the year when it’s raining or too windy to spray.

Pluta conceded that those changes could reduce chances of degrading nearby waterways. But he and others still question whether the system would prevent pollution from getting into the creek or the Choptank, both of which are already impaired by nutrients.

MDE spokesman Jay Apperson said the state regulatory agency will comply with the court order. But he added that the MDE “has not yet determined when the public comment period will open, and we have not yet scheduled a public hearing.”

The ruling put on hold a separate lawsuit filed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation challenging the MDE’s approval of the Lakeside discharge permit. CBF spokesman AJ Metcalf said the environmental group would pause its litigation while new comments are taken on the permit.

“We welcome this additional opportunity for the public to weigh in on the nutrient management plan associated with this project’s discharge permit, as well as another chance to comment on the terms and conditions of the permit,” said Alan Girard, CBF’s Eastern Shore director.

Lawyers for the developer of Lakeside and for the town of Trappe did not respond to emails seeking comment.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Tred Avon Oyster Sanctuary Work To Resume After Years Of Delays

April 20, 2021 by Bay Journal

Photo by Spy Agent 7

Work is resuming this month on the protracted restoration of oyster reefs in Maryland’s Tred Avon River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District announced that it has awarded a $3.8 million contract to a Florida company to construct 34 acres of reefs in the river.

The Tred Avon is one of five Maryland waterways targeted for large-scale oyster restoration. With Bay oyster populations depleted to 1–2 percent of their historic abundance by pollution, overfishing and disease, Maryland and Virginia have each pledged as part of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to rebuild oyster populations and habitat in five of their Bay tributaries by 2025.

The other Maryland tributaries targeted for large-scale oyster restoration are Harris Creek and the Little Choptank, St. Mary’s and Manokin rivers. Work has been completed in Harris Creek and the Little Choptank, with the St. Mary’s getting under way and the Manokin still in planning.

The Tred Avon project has suffered repeated delays since it began in 2015. It became a battleground of sorts, as watermen objected to the materials and methods used to rebuild reefs and repopulate them with oysters.

Watermen complained that granite rocks used to build reefs in the Tred Avon and Harris Creek snagged crabbing gear and that improperly constructed granite reefs in Harris Creek had damaged boats. They also argued that oysters would not thrive on the granite, contending that oyster shell is the only suitable surface on which spat, or baby oysters, can settle and grow.

Research has shown, however, that juvenile oysters will do well on other hard surfaces in the water, and monitoring of the granite reefs built in Harris Creek found oysters in great numbers on them, and even at higher densities than on reefs rebuilt with shells.

Acting on watermen’s concerns, the Hogan administration placed a hold in 2016 on Tred Avon reef construction, though it later relented. But further delays and cost overruns ensued because of the state’s insistence at that time that no more granite be used in the reef construction. By the time the state withdrew those conditions, federal funding from past budgets had been depleted.

A three-year funding drought followed, easing last year, when the Army Corps included $5 million for Bay oyster restoration in its work plan.

Allison Colden, a fisheries scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said she was glad the Tred Avon project is moving forward. She noted that the Annapolis-based environmental group had joined others in urging Congress to provide the federal funding needed to finish the restoration project.

The company selected for the Tred Avon project, BlueForge LLC of St. Petersburg, is to build 12-inch high stone reefs on 21 acres of river bottom, plus 13 acres of reefs only 6 inches high to avoid navigation problems. All will be built of stone in waters that will be at least 6.75 feet deep at mean low water.

“Our team is excited to begin the final portion of restoration work in the Tred Avon River, which will bring us to a total of 130 acres restored in the oyster sanctuary,” said Col. John T. Litz, Baltimore District commander.

To date, 92.5 acres of reef have been completed, with 440 million hatchery-spawned seed oysters planted.

The work had been expected to be done earlier to avoid potential impacts on striped bass spawning in the spring, but unspecified contractual issues delayed the award until now, said Cynthia Mitchell, a Baltimore District spokesperson. The Army requested and obtained regulatory approval to do the work through April, she said, with the construction completed by May.

“We’re thrilled that funding has been allocated to complete the final stages of reef restoration in the Tred Avon River,” said Ward Slacum, executive director of the Oyster Recovery Partnership.

A 2019 monitoring report found that more than 95% of all restored reefs to date in Harris Creek, Little Choptank and Tred Avon Rivers had at least the minimum acceptable density of oysters, which is set at 15 oysters per square meter over 30% of the reef area being measured. More than 80% of the reefs monitored had ideal densities of at least 50 oysters per square meter.

By Timothy B. Wheeler, Bay Journal News Service

Contractor Named, Work to Resume on Tred Avon Oyster Sanctuary

March 17, 2021 by Bay Journal

Work is set to resume by early April on the protracted restoration of oyster reefs in Maryland’s Tred Avon River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District announced Wednesday that it has awarded a $3.8 million contract to a Florida company to construct 34 acres of reefs in the river.

The Tred Avon is one of five Maryland waterways targeted for large-scale oyster restoration. With Bay oyster populations depleted to 1% or 2% of their historic abundance by pollution, overfishing and disease, Maryland and Virginia have each pledged as part of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to rebuild oyster populations and habitat in five of their Bay tributaries by 2025.

A three-year funding drought followed, easing last year, when the Army Corps included $5 million for Bay oyster restoration in its work plan.

To date, 92.5 acres of reef have been completed, with 440 million hatchery-spawned seed oysters planted.

“These reefs provide habitat and water quality benefits for the ecosystem,” said Sean Corson, director of the Chesapeake Bay office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which contributes funding and monitoring of the restoration efforts. “They also will benefit the economy through increased harvest of commercially important species — like blue crab — that use reefs for habitat.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Zoning Change Denied for Eastern Shore Salmon Farm

November 13, 2020 by Bay Journal

A Norwegian company’s plans to bring land-based salmon farming to Maryland’s Eastern Shore hit a snag Thursday night when one of the sites it had chosen for raising the commercially valuable fish failed to gain needed local approval.

The Dorchester County Board of Appeals denied AquaCon Maryland LLC a special zoning exception that would have allowed it to build a massive indoor hatchery and fish grow-out facility on a defunct golf course bordering the Choptank River.

The board’s decision came at the end of a 3.5-hour meeting where neighboring residents and others suggested the industrial-scale aquaculture operation would be unsuitable in the still largely rural area just west of Cambridge. Some also voiced concerns that its wastewater discharges, though treated to a high level, might hurt the Choptank River’s water quality, undermining recent signs of improvement.

“Is there a better location?” Choptank Riverkeeper Matt Pluta asked at one point.

The 114-acre site, formerly home to the Cambridge Country Club, is one of four locations AquaCon has selected for its planned facilities on the Shore, each expected to produce up to 15,000 metric tons of salmon annually.

AquaCon had previously declared its plans to build a facility on the outskirts of Federalsburg, a small town in Caroline County on a tributary of the Nanticoke River. The other two sites are in Cambridge and Denton, also in Caroline County, company representatives told the board.

Ryan Showalter, an Easton lawyer representing AquaCon, said it is pursuing multiple sites at the same time with the intent to start construction next year on whichever one first receives regulatory approvals. AquaCon is one of several mostly European companies rushing to build land-based salmon farms in the United States that use new developments in recirculating aquaculture technology.

Showalter touted the economic benefits for largely rural Dorchester County, noting that the company plans to invest $300 million in each facility and that each would create 150 jobs, a number of them high-paying profession and technical positions.

“When constructed, this will be an industry-changing, world-leading facility,” he said.

Bob Rauch, the company’s Easton-based engineering consultant, stressed that each would be an “all-green” facility. Unlike most open-water salmon farming operations in Europe, these fish would be raised indoors in tanks, with nearly all of the water recirculated and filtered to remove waste. They would not be fed antibiotics or be at risk of escape into the wild, two issues with pen-reared fish.

Solar panels would be placed on the rooftop of the massive 27.5-acre buildings to help offset the facilities’ energy needs. The solid waste produced by raising 3 million fish a year would be converted to energy-generating biogas via anaerobic digestion.

Showalter acknowledged that the size of the building — the largest on the Shore — was daunting. But he said the company pledged to plant a thick buffer of trees around it that in about 12 years should have grown tall enough to hide it from view from the road or neighboring properties.

Several of those attending the meeting praised the company’s efforts to minimize environmental impacts, but they voiced concerns about the wastewater it would generate. The facility would use 70,000–80,000 gallons of groundwater daily and pump an equivalent amount of pretreated wastewater to Cambridge’s sewage treatment plant.

The proposed Dorchester facility would also have withdrawn up to 2.3 million gallons of water daily from the Choptank and discharged the same amount back into the river. That water would cycle through tanks where the salmon would be held just before being harvested so they can be purged of naturally occurring microbes that can give their flesh an unappetizing musty odor and taste.

Rauch said the Choptank water would be treated before being returned to the river, with the discharge meeting the state’s limits for nitrogen and phosphorus.

Tom Fisher, a professor at the Horn Point laboratory of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, which is next door to the proposed country club site, expressed some concerns about the potential impact on the lower Choptank. The river is suffering from excess nutrients from agricultural runoff and wastewater, but Fisher said it has shown water quality improvements recently in the wake of an upgrade of the treatment plant in Cambridge.

While the added wastewater coming from the municipal plant and the aquaculture facility’s direct discharge to the river would be treated to reduce nutrient levels, Fisher said he was concerned that the Choptank’s recovery might be undermined by the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus remaining in those additional discharges.

“Even if there’s a tiny concentration of something in that water, it’s going to contribute to the impairment,” warned Fred Pomeroy of Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth.

Pomeroy suggested the company focus first on developing its site in Cambridge, which has industrial land in need of redevelopment. Showalter, the company lawyer, said the city site isn’t suitable at this time because it doesn’t have access to the Choptank for purge water. The company is working on a way to eliminate the musty odor in the fish without needing river water, but that’s not ready yet.

Alan Girard of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation questioned how the facility would manage the stormwater runoff coming off the 27.5-acre rooftop. Rauch said the company has at least at least three different approaches in mind, including possibly using the old golf course’s irrigation system to cycle the runoff back into the ground. That portion of the property borders the river, though, where land use is strictly controlled by the state’s Critical Area law, and company representatives said they were still working out how to meet those requirements.

County appeals board members voiced some doubts about the stormwater and the municipal treatment plant’s ability to handle the aquaculture facility’s wastewater, even though company representatives said it had ample capacity to do so.

In the end, though, the appeals board decision seemed influenced most heavily by nearby residents’ complaints about the impacts on their quality of life of such an operation.

“It’s quiet, it’s peaceful, and that’s the way we’d like to keep it,” said David Rineholt, who said he and his wife Kathleen had built a home next to the old country club 25 years ago.

The site is accessed by a narrow two-lane road, which company representatives acknowledged might need some upgrading to handle 30-35 trucks per week. Otherwise, they said, the traffic generated by the 150-person workforce would be roughly equivalent to what the country club had experienced.

“It will tax traffic,” said board member Charles Dayton, Jr., a sentiment echoed by the rest of the board.

He and a couple of other board members seemed to suggest they might reach a different conclusion if presented with additional information and studies to address concerns raised at the meeting.

Afterward, though, AquaCon representatives indicated they wouldn’t try to win the board over but instead focus on getting regulatory approvals to go forward in Federalsburg and Denton.

“We have other sites,” said Showalter. “We redirect.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Oyster Farming in Maryland Might Get Harder

November 10, 2020 by Bay Journal

DNR to propose rule that could reduce areas for aquaculture leasing

The Hogan administration is moving to block Maryland oyster farmers from leasing spots in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries where there’s still a smattering of wild oysters — a step that aquaculture advocates warn will stifle the state’s small but growing industry.

The Department of Natural Resources has announced that it plans to propose a regulation that would enable it to deny a lease application wherever it finds even a very low density of wild oysters on the bottom or when “physical, biological and economic conditions” warrant reserving the area for the public fishery.

The move comes in response to complaints from watermen, who contend that their livelihoods are threatened by having any more potentially productive oystering areas leased to private shellfish cultivation.

“We’ve given up enough bottom already,” Queen Anne’s County waterman Troy Wilkins said at a recent virtual meeting of the DNR Oyster Advisory Commission.

Watermen have long chafed over the state’s move a decade ago to greatly expand its oyster sanctuaries, which put some reefs off-limits to wild harvest. They also have repeatedly protested aquaculture lease applications, citing potential conflicts with crabbing or wild oyster harvests.

DNR officials say they want to establish a process for creating or expanding Public Shellfish Fishery Areas, which are reserved exclusively for wild harvest.

“There are occasions — and they’re rare — when a lease application comes forward, and there are populations of oysters [there that] the fishery has been working on or could be working on,” said Chris Judy, director of the DNR shellfish program.

But oyster farmers contend that the DNR has already been withholding approval or forcing changes to some lease applications when watermen or others object. The rule will only make it easier, they say, for watermen to block them from leasing good spots for cultivating shellfish.

“This is basically a big land grab to the detriment of aquaculture,” said Tal Petty, owner of Hollywood Oyster Co. in St. Mary’s County, where he raises bivalves in cages in a creek off the Patuxent River.

There are already 180,000 acres of the Bay and its tributaries that since 2009 have been officially designated as Public Shellfish Fishery Areas. There are another 110,000 acres that are unclassified but still open to wild harvest.

In comparison, about 325 leases encompassing about 6,500 acres have been issued over the past decade, according to the DNR. A few are used for raising clams or scallops, but the vast majority is for farming oysters. There are about 100 applications pending with the DNR seeking to lease another 2,000 acres. Protests have been filed against awarding about 15 of those pending leases.

Petty, a board member of the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, said the rule would severely limit the state’s aquaculture industry, which has grown since 2010 and produced about 60,000 bushels of oysters in 2019, according to DNR figures. The wild harvest during the 2018-2019 season was 145,000 bushels, though it nearly doubled in the most recent season ending in March.

“The tragedy is that Maryland is about to significantly reduce the leasable area for aquaculture, using nonscientific methods and measures,” Petty said.

Oyster density debate

DNR officials say they’re not expecting to create vast new areas off-limits to aquaculture but want to correct a regulatory imbalance. Under current rules, oyster farmers may petition to declassify a Public Shellfish Fishery Area so that it can be leased, but there is no comparable procedure for creating new or expanding one.

Judy said the DNR was considering denying a lease application if a survey it conducts finds as few as 5 wild oysters per square meter on the bottom. But watermen have insisted that the threshold for denying a lease be set even lower, to block a lease for a site if there is even one oyster per square meter on the bottom.

Some watermen who use power dredges or patent tongs to harvest oysters contend they can get their limit of 10 to 24 bushels per day, depending on the number of license holders on a boat, even if there are fewer than 5 oysters per square meter on the bottom.

“If you give me 2 or 3 oysters a meter, I’ll put a deck-load on my skipjack,” said Russell Dize, a skipjack captain from Tilghman. Skipjacks, which use sail or motor power to haul dredges, are allowed to harvest up to 100 bushels a day.

Watermen also complain that letting oyster farmers lease areas that already have some wild oysters effectively gives them a windfall, allowing them to make some quick money harvesting and selling those bivalves. But oyster farmers point out that they’re required by state regulations to plant and cultivate far more oysters in the leased area, which requires substantial investment up front in gear and supplies. It takes at least two to three years before they realize any income from raising those planted oysters large enough to harvest.

Two DNR advisory panels dominated by watermen and their supporters have voted to endorse the watermen’s position that leases should be denied if there is even one wild oyster per square meter on the bottom. An aquaculture advisory commission urged the department to set the lease denial threshold much higher, at 25 oysters per square meter.

“It appears to be a one-sided proposal to increase the oyster harvest at the expense of restoration and aquaculture efforts that are helping to bring Maryland’s oysters back,” said Allison Colden, a fisheries scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Though outvoted, several members of the DNR Oyster Advisory Commission argued that the DNR should hold off on the rule and include it as part of a broader effort by the commission to forge a consensus among watermen, oyster farmers and environmentalists over how the state’s oysters ought to be managed.

Tom Miller, director of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, questioned the scientific basis for the rule. Miller, a fisheries scientist, said it’s the DNR’s purview to decide where to allow commercial harvest, but he said research shows that oyster populations need to be much denser than even 5 oysters per square meter to be likely to reproduce successfully and sustain themselves.

Ann Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, pointed out that experts working to restore the Bay’s severely diminished oyster habitat only consider a reef capable of sustaining itself when it has at least 50 oysters per square meter of varying ages and sizes covering at least 30% of its surface.

Long history of friction

The friction between watermen and oyster farmers in Maryland has a long history.

“Watermen have wanted all of the Bay bottom from the time the first lease law was passed in 1830,” said Don Webster, a Maryland Sea Grant aquaculture specialist and advocate for the industry.

Watermen, who once wielded considerable political clout, succeeded in getting laws passed that from the early 1900s until the early 2000s severely restricted leasing. All a waterman had to do to block a lease then was to swear that he had harvested oysters there sometime in the previous five years.

That changed in 2010, with the passage of a new law that made large areas available for leasing. The Bay’s oyster population had been decimated by then by diseases, overharvesting and habitat loss. A study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that there were only 36,000 acres of productive oyster habitat left in Maryland’s portion of the Bay.

State lawmakers decided it was time to encourage aquaculture to take harvest pressure off the struggling oyster population, and they also expanded Maryland’s network of oyster sanctuaries, which now cover about 250,000 acres. Watermen have since complained that the expansion took away many productive harvest areas. Though some may have once brimmed with oysters, a review of DNR data show that only about 10% of the state’s overall wild harvest came from those new sanctuaries in the year before they were set aside.

At the same time it moved to boost aquaculture and enlarge sanctuaries, the DNR also established Public Shellfish Fishery Areas that would be reserved for wild harvest. Those areas encompassed three-quarters of the remaining productive oyster habitat, according to a DNR report.

While harvests have rebounded some in the past decade, they remain well below their historic level, and watermen have pressed to get at least some of the sanctuaries reopened. The DNR in the Hogan administration attempted to do that but was blocked by the legislature amid an outcry from environmentalists.

Oyster farmers say the DNR has been conferring for a year or two with watermen and advocates for waterfront property owners to address their complaints about aquaculture. Meanwhile, they say they have had a harder time getting leases when watermen or property owners object.

JD Blackwell sorts through baby oysters at his aquaculture operation on the Potomac River is St. Mary’s County. Photo by Dave Harp

“DNR has decided to kill oyster aquaculture,” contended JD Blackwell, an oyster farmer who leases sites in St. Mary’s County. “The excitement that existed in 2011 and 2012 to give birth to a new industry is gone. Oyster aquaculture will wither and die from this point forward. Opportunity missed.”

Critics of the rule also say it’s self-defeating for watermen, because a growing number of them are getting into aquaculture to supplement or replace wild harvests.

One of those is Rachel Dean, a Calvert County waterwoman. She applied more than three years ago to lease 26 acres in the Patuxent River to raise oysters on the bottom. At least one waterman and a homeowner objected, she recalled. And when the DNR sampled the bottom there, it found “at least some” oysters on half of the proposed lease site, with an overall density of about 2 bivalves per square meter, according to a 2019 DNR memo.

The memo, signed by the DNR’s Chris Judy, proposed roughly halving the size of the lease to exclude what it called a “functional oyster bar.” Dean said the reduction would diminish the viability of the site for raising oysters, so they resisted it. The application remains on hold, and Dean said the department has not responded when she has asked whether it was formally denying the application.

Neither Judy nor Karl Roscher, head of the DNR’s aquaculture division, responded to requests for interviews or information.

“We’ve got to find a balance,” Dean said, between oyster farming and the wild fishery. “If this regulation goes through,” she added, “there will be no more bottom leases.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Congress Extends Bay Program, Related Conservation Efforts

October 8, 2020 by Bay Journal

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a sweeping conservation measure that provides continued support for several key Chesapeake Bay initiatives and creates a new program to support fish and wildlife habitat restoration efforts in the watershed.

The America’s Conservation Enhancement Act provides support for two dozen conservation initiatives around the nation that were rolled into a single piece of legislation and overwhelmingly approved by the House on Oct. 1.

The Senate had already approved the bill without controversy, and it is expected to be signed by President Trump.

The bill authorizes the continuation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program, which has coordinated the state-federal Bay restoration effort since 1983. The program supports research, helps assess cleanup progress and provides grants to states, local governments, nonprofits and others.

The legislation reauthorizes the Bay Program for another five years at up to $92 million annually. Congress had allocated $85 million for the current year.

The bill also reauthorizes the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails Network. Administered by the National Park Service, the network includes more than 200 state parks, museums and historic sites that provide access to waterways and highlight the region’s natural, historic and cultural heritage. The legislation reauthorized that program for five years. It received $3 million in the most recent year.

Reauthorization does not guarantee future funding, but it makes Congressional support more likely.

The legislation also creates the Chesapeake Watershed Investments for Landscape Development Program — dubbed WILD — within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The program is authorized to provide up to $15 million annually in grants that support fish and wildlife habitat projects in the Bay region. That could include things such as forest buffer plantings, wetland restoration, initiatives that improve stream health, removal of barriers to fish migration and efforts to improve habitats for species such as black ducks and brook trout.

Environmental groups praised passage of the measure, which had been in the works since last year.

Noting that outdoor activities generate millions of dollars for the region’s economy, Joel Dunn, president of the Chesapeake Conservancy, said “the conservation and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay’s waters and wildlife habitats is essential for our region’s economic resilience and growth, and the ACE Act will greatly enhance these conservation efforts.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers helped craft different elements of the Bay-related portions of the legislation, including Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen Tom Carper, (D-DE), and Reps. Elaine Luria (D-VA), Bobby Scott (D-VA) and John Sarbanes (D-MD).

“We’re pleased to see the overwhelming and bipartisan support for the America’s Conservation Enhancement Act,” said Jason Rano, who works on federal legislation for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “Legislators from both parties recognize the importance of clean water and a healthy environment.”

Besides the Bay-specific initiatives, the bill reauthorizes a number of national programs that benefit the region, including the North American Wetlands Conservation program, which helps promote wetland restoration, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which oversees several grant programs that support Bay initiatives.

It also creates a National Fish Habitat Partnership program to provide funding and technical resources to local public-private partnerships to conserve fish habitats.

The final legislation reflected some compromises. For instance, it prohibits the EPA from regulating lead content in hunting and fishing gear for the next five years. Some had pushed to permanently ban the EPA from such action.

By Karl Blankenship

Groups Fight for Maryland Forest on Chopping Block

September 29, 2020 by Bay Journal

Lawsuits seek to block business park on 326-acre wooded tract in Harford County near Bush River tributary

The forest teems with wildlife behind Michael and Lisa Lyston’s home in Abingdon, MD. Over the years, they’ve been visited by foxes, opossums, deer, raccoons, owls and woodpeckers — not to mention turtles, toads and “tons of butterflies.”

“They just come up here and go back home,” Lisa Lyston said. “They know they’re safe here.”

But barring a reprieve from the courts, the neighborhood is destined to become a lot less wild. Most of the woods near their home are to be bulldozed for warehouses, shops, restaurants, a hotel and a gas station.

A developer plans to build Abingdon Business Park on the wooded 326-acre tract, one of the largest patches of forest left in this heavily developed part of Harford County near the head of the Chesapeake Bay.

Opponents say if that happens, it shows how both Harford County and the state government are failing to safeguard Maryland’s shrinking supply of ecologically important forestland. “I feel so bad for all these birds and everything that lives back there,” Lisa Lyston said, choking back tears. “It kills me.”

Nearby residents and environmental advocates have been trying since last year, so far unsuccessfully, to save “Abingdon Woods,” as the tract was once known.

But the property by Interstate 95 has long been zoned for commercial and industrial development. The county even placed it in an “enterprise zone” to encourage economic activity there.

Harford County is still mostly rural. But only about a third of its land is forested, according to data from the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program. Development pressure has been intense along I-95 and, according to the Bay Program, and the county could lose nearly 2,300 acres of woodlands between 2013 and 2025.

“We’ve been opposed to the development on the grounds of loss of forest and wetlands areas so close to the Bay,” said Tracey Waite, president of Harford County Climate Action and head of a coalition opposed to the business park. “Also, in this time of climate change, we don’t believe there should be this level of deforestation in our county.”

Harford County Executive Barry Glassman declined to discuss the project in detail. Instead, he pointed to the efforts his administration has made to preserve about 3,500 acres of farmland – including the recent addition of 347-acre Belle Vue Farm on the Bay between Havre de Grace and Aberdeen.

But Waite contended the county hasn’t put as much money or effort into preserving forest or green space in the southern portion of the county, which she said has a greater proportion of people of color and low-income families. Nearly half of the students attending William Paca/Old Post Road Elementary School, which abuts the business park site, are African Americans and nearly 15% are Hispanic, according to Schooldigger.com. Nearly three-fourths are eligible for free lunches because they’re from low-income families.

Bonita Holland-Buchanan, vice president of the African American Democratic Club of Harford County, said she’s concerned about children at the school having to breathe air laced with vehicle exhaust from business park traffic.

“There’s already a problem of so many kids having asthma now,” she said, adding that “our children deserve better than to breathe poisonous fumes from diesel trucks.”

Opponents of the business park have gone to court. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and four neighbors of the woods filed suit earlier this year challenging Harford County’s approval of the developer’s forest conservation plan. The Gunpowder Riverkeeper and other neighbors have filed two suits challenging the Maryland Department of the Environment’s permit allowing the developer to build roads across streams and take out some wetlands.

The developer’s plan calls for clearing 220 acres of forest to make way for more than 2 million square feet of warehouses plus other commercial buildings and pavement. The remaining 95 acres of woods would be placed under a protective easement meant to prevent further disturbance. As mitigation for removing so much forest, the county is requiring the developer to plant new trees on 8 acres onsite.

Like most localities in Maryland, Harford’s forest conservation ordinance mirrors the state Forest Conservation Act, which requires counties and municipalities to protect important woodlands from development or have trees replanted onsite or elsewhere. Environmentalists contend the state law isn’t strong enough, in part because the state exercises little oversight of how localities enforce it. Recently, though, a few counties have beefed up their laws beyond what the state requires.

Opponents of the Abingdon project argue that Harford County isn’t even following state law in approving that development. For instance, they note that county officials granted the developer a waiver from the law’s requirement to minimize loss of large “specimen trees,” authorizing cutting down 49 of the 85 largest trees identified in Abingdon Woods.

“It’s just so obscene,” said Jeanna Tillery, another local resident. “I can’t imagine why anybody would think to do something like that, especially in an area like this where we have many warehouses already, many of them unoccupied.”

Jim Lighthizer, managing partner of the Chesapeake Real Estate Group, which is developing the business park, did not respond to requests for comment. In applying for needed permits, the firm said it chose Abingdon Woods for its proximity to I-95 and the Port of Baltimore. While acknowledging there are 18 vacant warehouses in the region, the developer said this is the only suitable site for such a large distribution complex.

County officials declined to answer questions about the project, citing the litigation.

“It is the county’s position that the development approvals for Abingdon Business Park were appropriate,” said Cynthia Mumby, a county spokesperson.

County officials have argued that their approval of the developer’s forest conservation plan is not appealable. A Harford County Circuit Court judge heard arguments on that point in August. A decision is pending.

The MDE permit for stream crossings and wetlands disturbance has drawn fire. Theaux Le Gardeur, the Gunpowder Riverkeeper, and residents near the site asked the Harford court to review the permit, which includes permission to bridge Haha Branch, which flows into the Bush River.

The Bush River is already impaired by nutrients and suspended sediments, Le Gardeur pointed out. Plus, he noted, some of the tree clearing would occur near Otter Point Creek, which the state has designated as a high-quality stream. To make up for clearing more than 5 acres of woods there, the MDE has required the developer to plant trees on half that many acres of farmland elsewhere in the watershed.

The MDE has previously bucked local approval of large-scale removal of forests. In 2019, state regulators denied permits for two large solar energy projects in Charles County that together would have cleared 400 acres of privately owned woodlands.

Asked if he’d join other county executives in seeking to strengthen the local forest conservation law, County Executive Glassman said he’s waiting for an update from the state Department of Planning on how much of the county is still forested. “We’ll take a look at those trend lines,” he said, “and see if we need to do anything else.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler

EPA hit with lawsuits over Chesapeake Bay cleanup

September 12, 2020 by Bay Journal

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.”

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said the Chesapeake Bay cleanup must be a collective effort. Photo courtesy of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

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.

At issue is the EPA’s duty to enforce a decade-old plan the agency drew up for restoring the Chesapeake to ecological health. The plan, known as a total maximum daily load, requires each of the Bay watershed states and the District to do what’s needed by 2025 to reduce their share of the nutrient and sediment pollution harming the Bay.

Progress has been made toward restoring the Bay’s water quality, though much more remains to be done. In particular, Pennsylvania and New York have fallen far behind in meeting their pollution-reduction targets, especially in curbing nutrient runoff from farmland.

All six Bay watershed states and the District were required to submit plans last year spelling out the measures each would take by 2025 to make the needed pollution reductions.

Most of the plans indicate that states will have to increase pollution-reduction efforts to unprecedented levels to reach their cleanup goals. But Pennsylvania’s and New York’s plans don’t even achieve their goals on paper. Pennsylvania’s falls short on curbing nitrogen, the most problematic nutrient, by about 25%, while New York’s was around 33% short. Pennsylvania’s plan also identifies an annual funding gap for cleanup activities of approximately $250 million a year through 2025.

The EPA cited those shortcomings for both states but hasn’t taken any action against them. The lawsuits contend that the federal government is abdicating its legal responsibility by accepting clearly inadequate cleanup plans with no reasonable assurance the two states can achieve their assigned pollution reductions.

Without responding directly to the lawsuits’ core complaint, an EPA spokesman issued a statement defending the agency’s role in the Bay cleanup.

“EPA is fully committed to working with our Bay Program partners to meet the 2025 goals,” the statement said. “We have taken and will continue to take appropriate actions under our Clean Water Act authorities to improve Chesapeake Bay water quality.”

The spokesman noted that in just the past year, the EPA and other federal agencies have supplied “nearly a half billion dollars” to support Bay watershed restoration efforts. The agency also has provided “thousands of hours” of technical assistance to the states, it said.

Those filing the lawsuits say that’s not enough. Unless the federal government holds the states accountable for doing their part to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution, the 37-year effort to restore the Bay’s water quality is likely to fail, they warn.

Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said that the courts must make sure the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “does its job’’ in enforcing Bay cleanup actions. Photo by Mike Busada, courtesy of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation

“When EPA uses its bully pulpit to tell a state that they’re failing to meet their obligations, action follows,” said the foundation’s Baker. “We’ve seen that with Pennsylvania in the past.”

The agency briefly withheld about $3 million in federal funds from Pennsylvania five years ago to prod it to come up with a plan for getting its cleanup back on track. Critics suggest the EPA also could leverage state compliance by threatening to block permits that are needed to build or expand businesses.

Environmentalists and Maryland officials have been complaining for some time that the EPA is not doing more to press Pennsylvania over its lagging cleanup pace. But discontent ramped up in January when Dana Aunkst, director of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program office, described the 2025 cleanup deadline as “aspirational” and said the Bay TMDL was “not an enforceable document.”

The litigants said they didn’t relish taking the EPA to court but felt they had no choice. They faulted the Trump administration, contending it had not only abandoned the federal government’s role as enforcer of the Bay TMDL, but had threatened the cleanup further by rolling back or weakening federal environmental regulations.

The Annapolis-based environmental group and the attorneys general had served the EPA formal notice in May of their intent to sue and followed up later with a letter offering to meet and discuss their concerns. The EPA did not respond, they said.

“We’re here to enforce the agreements,” said Karl Racine, the District’s attorney general. “It’s not unusual at all that when parties don’t do what they’re supposed to do by law, we go to court to have it enforce the remedy.”

Neither Pennsylvania nor New York are defendants in the lawsuits, though their alleged shortcomings are key issues. Deborah Klenotic, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, declined to comment on the litigation, saying, “We remain focused on our work to improve water quality here in Pennsylvania and in the Chesapeake Bay.”

But Maureen Wren, a spokeswoman for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, disputed assertions the state isn’t doing its part to help clean up the Bay.

“New York is fulfilling its clean water responsibilities under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and is a committed partner” in the federal-state Chesapeake Bay Program, she said.

State officials now expect to meet New York’s nitrogen reduction targets based on new information about Susquehanna flows and a change in the Bay Program’s computer model.

Maryland’s Anne Arundel County, which has more than 500 miles of shoreline on the Bay and its tributaries, joined the foundation in its lawsuit.

County executive Steuart Pittman of Anne Arundel County, MD, walks one of the shorelines in his jurisdiction that border the Chesapeake Bay. The county has joined the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in its suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Photo by Dave Harp, courtesy of Bay Journal News Service

“Anne Arundel County residents have invested far too much in the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort to watch from the sidelines as upstream states and the EPA abandon their obligations,” said Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman. The county has spent more than $500 million in the last decade on Bay protection and restoration, officials estimate.

The Maryland Watermen’s Association, which has been at odds with the Bay Foundation over the state’s management of oysters, also joined in the group’s lawsuit. Observing that “water runs downhill,” Robert T. Brown, Sr., the group’s president, said the nutrients, sediment and debris coming down the Susquehanna River from Pennsylvania and New York are having a devastating effect on watermen.

“So goes the health of the Bay, so goes [our] industry and seafood,” he said. “…We need to have the EPA do its job.”

Also suing are Robert Whitescarver and Jeanne Hoffman, who raise livestock on a farm in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. Whitescarver, a former Natural Resources Conservation Service representative, has long advocated for farm conservation practices. He said farmers have a stake in this issue.

“All jurisdictions need to do their fair share,” he said. “The efforts that Virginia and Maryland farmers have put into sustainable farming are harmed by EPA’s failure to require all jurisdictions to meet the commitments they agreed to.”

At least a couple of the states suing the EPA to put the heat on Pennsylvania and New York could find themselves on the receiving end of similar pressure if their lawsuit succeeds. Only the District of Columbia and West Virginia have met their 2025 goals ahead of schedule, according to recent data. None of the others are on track to reduce nitrogen by the needed amount.

“If any of the Bay states fall significantly short in implementation, CBF will call on EPA to take action,” Baker said.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Hogan Administration Backs Down in Md. Poultry Fee Fight

September 10, 2020 by Bay Journal

Maryland poultry and livestock operations will soon begin paying a fee for water-pollution permits after a nearly year-long battle between its executive and legislative branches.

The Hogan administration initially balked at a law passed last year requiring the largest farms to pay a $2,000 application fee every five years as well as an annual charge of $1,200. Smaller operations would also begin paying, but the General Assembly delegated decisions over how much and how often to the Department of the Environment.

Such concentrated animal-feeding operations, known as CAFOs, have been spared paying the fees for more than a decade, a decision that dates to then-Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration. The goal was to encourage farmers at the more than 500 operations statewide to participate in a program aimed at preventing routine animal waste spills, officials said.

In response to the 2019 measure, MDE initially proposed a fee structure that wouldn’t have covered the program’s costs. Environmentalists and key lawmakers disputed the decision, pointing to a longstanding regulation that mandates that application fees must be “designed to cover the cost of the permit procedure.”

In a July 17 memo, Matthew Standeven, the attorney general’s office lawyer assigned to the MDE, agreed, warning officials that the agency would be treading into “unlawful” territory if it moved forward with its plan.

MDE Secretary Ben Grumbles has conceded to his counsel’s position. He said in a Sept. 3 memo that in addition to the fees prescribed for the largest farms in the law, the department would begin charging the rest of the state’s CAFOs between $120 and $1,200, depending on their size.

He added that the agency has begun contacting CAFO operators about the new fees. Officials will make sure the correct fee amount is collected in each case before issuing a permit, “as required by law,” Grumbles wrote.

By Jeremy Cox

Sections

More

Focus on striped bass

Eating plastic

Human impact

New laws

DNR to propose rule that could reduce areas for aquaculture leasing

Lawsuits seek to block business park on 326-acre wooded tract in Harford County near Bush River tributary