Bay Daily

Bay Money in Virginia Budget

Virginia is well on the way to approving critically needed funding for Chesapeake Bay restoration.

Late last week, Gov. Bob McDonnell released his proposed amendments to Virginia’s new two-year budget adopted earlier by the Virginia General Assembly. This was the next step in approving a budget that includes $87.6 million to help Virginia localities pay for upgrades to their sewage treatment plants, among the larger sources of pollution plaguing the Bay.

While the Assembly will have the last word on the governor’s amendments, it’s likely the Bay funding will remain intact. That’s very important for the Bay, local rivers, and local governments.

Carbon Dioxide Pollution Bulks Up Blue Crabs

Acidification of the world’s oceans by carbon dioxide pollution could destabilize an age-old evolutionary arms race between predators and prey. Blue crabs could grow larger, while they creatures they eat, including oysters and clams, could have weaker shells and slower shell growth, according to Dr.Justin Ries, a marine geologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“One of the oldest predator/ prey relationships in the ocean is between shell crushers and shell builders --for example, between lobsters and crabs, and their prey, clams, oysters, and mussels,” said Ries, author of reports on the impact of acidification on marine life.

“My experiment suggests that the predators are going to become stronger from the C02 based ocean acidification…while the prey become weaker,” Ries said in a recent interview.

The background is this: The world’s oceans are changing, with waters today about 30 percent more acidic than they were two centuries ago, before the Industrial Revolution, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Scientists say this is because the burning of coal, oil, and gas released a huge amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that was absorbed by the water.

The Economic Case for Cleaning Up the Chesapeake Bay

Why invest in pollution reduction projects to meet new EPA pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay?  Because it is essential for our region’s economy, as well as the Bay’s ecology. 

Here are some facts about the economic value of the Chesapeake Bay and cleanup projects that you might not know:

• The commercial seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia contributes more than $3 billion in a year in sales, $890 million in income, and almost 34,000 jobs to the local economy.

State Cleanup Plan Gets Public Scrutiny

It’s your turn now.

The six Bay states and the District of Columbia recently completed their individual plans for cleaning up their part of the Chesapeake Bay and submitted them to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) March 30.

If you live in Virginia, it’s now your turn to say what you think about Virginia’s Bay cleanup plan, starting next week at a series of public meetings kicking off in Chesapeake, Va.

Like the other state cleanup plans, Virginia’s is intended to be a fundamental blueprint for how, where, and when the Commonwealth will reduce pollution to achieve the Bay pollution limits by 2025.

The pollution limits –- scientifically derived pollution thresholds that will restore the Chesapeake, its streams and rivers, and the critters in them -- are very similar to those called for by the states several years ago in plans called “tributary strategies.” The difference now is that EPA and the Bay states are serious about implementing the plans.

Smallmouth Bass Epidemic Highlights Need for Pollution Limits in Susquehanna River

Pennsylvania’s top fishing manager recently wrote an impassioned letter to the head of the state’s pollution control agency. The fish expert called for urgent state action to address wide-spread disease and death among smallmouth bass in the Susquehanna River, the largest tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. 

“In the autumn of 2011…these outbreaks were so severe that approximately 40 percent of the adult smallmouth bass surveyed had extensive lesions and open sores,” John A. Arway, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, wrote on April 4th to Michael Krancer, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Examples of lesions on young fish are shown in the picture above.

 “We need to move beyond research and begin some action such as (creating pollution limits for the river) before the entire fishery of the river collapses and the time for action is too late,” Arway wrote.

His concerns are not speculative. Disease among smallmouth is already taking a toll on recreational anglers and the fishing guide and tackle industry.  Yesterday, for the first time in more than a decade, Pennsylvania imposed a ban on fishing for smallmouth bass from May 1 to June 15 in much of the Susquehanna River.  In a rare move, the state outlawed even the possession of the fish. The ban is intended to protect the troubled fish during spawning season, and help the species recover.

Efforts to Control Suburban Sprawl Spark Fierce Backlash in Southern Maryland

Clean water activists won a major victory recently when they defeated a highway project in southern Maryland that would have brought sprawling development to the wetlands and forests around Mattawoman Creek, one of the most fertile fish breeding grounds in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

But efforts to stop sprawl in Charles County also triggered a payback from the development lobby, whose allies on the county commission voted on April 10 to strip power from conservation-minded Commission President Candice Quinn Kelly (above).

“There has been considerable backlash. It’s been very, very difficult,” said Kelly, a champion of well-planned growth.  She was targeted with political attacks because she endorsed a state bill to control sprawl, and supported a proposed local zoning law that would have protected more farmland and rural areas from development.

“I've taken quite a bit of heat,"  Kelly said during a recent interview in her office.  "Nevertheless, I have signed up for this, and I’m going to do my best to serve our citizens.... We cannot develop every square inch of this county.  We must maintain and retain agricultural and forest lands.  And there are many, many scientific reasons for doing this, not the least of which is to protect the Bay.”

Norfolk Councilmembers Stand Against Coal Plant

Kudos to Norfolk City Councilmembers Tommy Smigiel, Andy Protogyrou, Barclay Winn, and Theresa Whibley, who put the health and well-being of Norfolk citizens ahead of corporate influence and political pressure.

At a meeting of the Norfolk City Council this week, the four voted in favor of a city resolution formally opposing a mega coal-fired power plant proposed in nearby Surry County. This despite considerable lobbying pressure from power plant supporters to dissuade the city from taking a position on the controversial project.

In the end, the resolution opposing the plant failed to win a majority of votes. An alternative resolution was adopted stating Norfolk is “provisionally opposed” because of a host of health, environmental, and economic concerns. The approved resolution suggests the city will revisit the issue after additional study and perhaps remove the “provisional” language.

Fertilizer Industry Lobby Points Finger at the Chesapeake Bay Oyster

Blame oysters for the Bay's troubles. Who would make such an argument?

Curiously enough, the Fertilizer Institute, a lobbying organization for the fertilizer industry. These Washington DC-based fertilizer lobbyists have joined with other agricultural and development industry groups in suing EPA to stop new pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay (also called the Bay Total Maximum Daily Load).

During a forum with farm radio broadcasters in Southern Maryland on Tuesday, Bill Herz, a vice president of the Fertilizer Institute, tried to muddy the waters about the significant role of fertilizer in the Bay’s health problems. Herz (shown above at right) claimed that the science is too uncertain, and the whole subject is so complex, these new federal pollution limits should be put on hold. His assertion is disputed by EPA, leading scientists, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which on Friday asked the courts to dismiss the Fertilizer Institute’s lawsuit.

One of Herz’ more curious suggestions was that EPA should not focus so much on fertilizer runoff pollution because of the Bay’s oyster problem.  (Fertilier pollution is also called "nutrient" pollution, because fertilizers nourish not only crops on farms, but also excessive growth of algae that chokes the Bay and other waterways).

“One of the complexities about nutrient pollution in general is that... there are many other factors that come into play,” Herz told about 40 radio reporters and others during a panel discussion. “And one of the complications in the Chesapeake Bay is these factors. It's the same in the Gulf of Mexico. As we change these ecosystems, we lose 90 percent of the filter feeding population in the Bay. If we have that oyster population back, what would that mean in terms of the nutrient load?”

A Perfect Storm for Blue Crabs

Here’s a paradox about the Chesapeake Bay.

A report by the University of Maryland revealed the Bay had the murkiest waters on record last year and declined in overall health to a grade of D plus. Heavy spring rains and Tropical Storm Lee in 2011 flushed tons of mud and pollutants into the estuary.

A second report, however, paints an entirely different picture. At press conference last week, Governor Martin O’Malley released the results of a scientific survey showing that blue crab populations have tripled over the last five years. Despite the polluted waters, the number of juvenile blue crabs last year set a record.

This was good news for the Bay -- but a challenge to logic.  How could the crabs do better when the water got worse?

Dr. Thomas Miller, Director of the Chesapeake Biological Lab, explained that water quality was not a factor in the crab resurgence of the last five years. The comeback of the once-troubled species was caused, he said, mostly by restrictions on catching female crabs imposed by Virginia and Maryland in 2008. The protection of mothers allowed more reproduction.

Will Norfolk Flip Flop on Coal Plant?

Norfolk City Council members have a great opportunity to do the right thing for Norfolk residents, citizens across Hampton Roads, and the Chesapeake Bay – provided they don’t cave in to pressure from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC).

Here’s the deal and how you can help. The City Council is poised to vote Tuesday on a resolution putting Norfolk on record opposing an ODEC coal-fired power plant proposed in nearby Surry County. If built, the ODEC plant would be the largest coal-fired power plant in Virginia and spew thousands of tons of additional pollution into the Hampton Roads environment, threatening public health, local rivers and the Bay, and jeopardizing future economic development.

That’s why numerous organizations and thousands of citizens, many of which reside in Hampton Roads, oppose the plant. These include the Consortium for Infant and Child Health (CINCH) at Eastern Virginia Medical School, which wrote a letter this week to Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim bluntly describing the plant’s threat to children, the elderly, and those with lung ailments.