Lost On The Shore

Some Nuclear Issues

'TJH' has added an excellent comment to my recent post on nuclear energy options and raised some issues which I think need to be explored a bit more.  Basically, he makes three points:

• The nuclear waste disposal problem is not being solved,
• the cost of new nuclear generation is not competitive with coal without massive government subsidies, and
• the comparison of deaths due to nuclear energy to deaths due to coal is not a valid measure of nuclear safety.

He also asserts that carbon sequestration is likely to be available before the solution to nuclear waste disposal problem.  Let's look at each of these.

Nuclear Waste It's true the nuclear waste disposal problem has not been solved - at least in the United States.  The problem seems to be as much a political problem as an engineering problem.  Currently the standard which the engineers are supposed to meet would limit radiation exposure to 350 millirem for ONE MILLION YEARS taking into account the effects of climate change, earthquakes, volcanos, asteroids falling from the sky and other, unknowable, factors.  It's worth noting in this context that the entire recorded history of the human race is about four thousand years.  If such a standard were applied to other kinds of industrial waste, including carbon dioxide, most modern industry would shut down immediately.

Other countries seem to have solved the problem.  Canada has developed a system for burying nuclear wastes in batholiths some 500 to 1000 meters beneath the surface within the Canadian Shield - one of the most geologically stable formations on Earth.  The batholiths were formed some one to two billion years ago and have been stable since then.  Sweden has developed a method called KBS-3 which, after some interim storage during which the radioactivity is sharply reduced, buries the waste in bentonite clay some 500 meters beneath the surface.  The Finnish government has begun building a similar site.  France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Russia reprocess spent fuel.

Cost What will be the cost of electricity from a new generation of nuclear plants?  No one can say for certain.  The primary difficulty in estimating the cost is that a large part of the eventual costs are the up-front capital costs of the plant, and that depends largely on how long it takes the plant to be built.  The nuclear power industry does not have a good record in this regard.  They argue, however, that with standardized designs which are pre-approved, the time required to build new nuclear plants will be shorter and more predictable. 

The evidence is mixed.  A plant being built in Finland is significantly behind schedule and over budget.  Several others under construction in Japan, however, are both on time and under budget.  A study completed by MIT in 2003 found that nuclear power would be about 60 percent more costly than coal or natural gas power.  Another, by the Royal Acadamy of Engineering in 2005 put the cost of new nuclear energy at 2.26 pence per kilowatt-hour vs. 3.64 for natural gas power and 3.33 for coal.  This report has been disputed by many, though who argue it doesn't account for government subsidies to the nuclear industry and understimates disposal costs.  Nuclear power does receive some subsidy from the government.  Of course, coal, natural gas and renewables all receive signifianct government subsidies.

I believe that with experience, problems with the construction of nuclear plants will be resolved and the construction period will become shorter and more predictable leading to a cost per kilowatt that is competitive with coal.  Of course I have no data to back that up, but neither do those who say the cost will be much higher.  We won't know until we build a few plants.

Safety Of course, the number of deaths is only a rough indicator of the relative safety of nuclear power vs. coal.  And certainly, as TJH points out, the accident at Chernobyl devastated a significant amount of land.  But coal mining devastates a significant amount of land every year.  And coal is not only unsafe to mine, it's unsafe to burn.  Coal-fired power plants spew out an amazing amount of pollutants - 59% of total US sulfur dioxide pollution, 18% of total nitrogen oxides, 50% of total particulate pollution and 40% of total US carbon dioxide emissions.  These pollutants contribute to smog that threatens the health of tens of millions. According to the Sierra Club, particle pollution from power plants alone causes some 30,000 deaths a year in the US.  Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution.

There's lots else I could say about coal.  Sure, nuclear power has safety issues but they pale in comparison to what we're doing now.  We need to stop building new coal plants and get rid of the ones we have.  The only feasible alternative at the moment is nuclear.  Effective carbon sequestration from coal plants is making little progress- the Department of Energy recently pulled the plug on the FUTUREGEN demonstration project saying it did not make fiscal sense.

Sure, nuclear power is dangerous.  The eventual costs are only rough estimates and the waste disposal problem has not been resolved.  But where are the alternatives to generating the reliable quantities of electricity we need to allow us to retire the coal plants that are killing us.

[The photo is of the Bruce Nuclear Plant in Canada - the second largest in the world]

Those Pesky Nukes

This is the second part of my two-part post examining energy options for reducing Maryland's greenhouse gas emissions.  In my previous post we looked at a variety of energy alternatives available to replace the large, base-load coal plants that generate so much greenhouse gas (and other pollution) in Maryland.  We looked at 'clean coal' natural gas and fuel oil generation.  In addition, we looked at renewable technologies such as wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, hydro and biomass.  Today we're going to look at nuclear energy.

The map above shows the location of nuclear generating facilities in France, which generates about 80 percent of its electricity at nuclear facilities.  France is also the world's largest exporter of electricity, due, in part, to it's relatively low cost.  Japan is another country with a large nuclear generating capacity with some 55 units generating around 30 percent of Japan's electricity.  Five new plants are under construction in Japan.  Nuclear power accounts for about 19 percent of the electricity generation in the United States.  In Maryland, the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Lusby accounts for about 14 percent of the state's generating capacity (but a higher percentage of the total electricity generated because it operates for a higher percentage of the time.)

Like every other source of power, nuclear energy has its problems and concerns.  Let's take a look at them.

Many people believe nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, that is an accurate assessment.  There are a number of things that can go wrong and lead to release of radiation or much worse. Since commercial generation of nuclear power began in the 1950's there have been twenty or so significant accidents.  Three of those are well known.

1. In March of 1979 near Middletown, Pennsylvania, equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.  The reactor was extensively damaged, but on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (about one year's natural exposure) and some two million people in the vicinity received about 1 millrem.  There were no reported fatalities although statistical estimates indicate that there may be one fatality due to the excess radiation.
2. In April of 1986 near Pripiat, Ukraine, worker error led to an uncontrolled power excursion, a steam explosion, partial core meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.  There were approximately 50 fatalities during and immediately after the disaster.  The explosion and subsequent burning of the graphite core reactor spread radioactive material over much of Europe.  Hundreds of thousands were evacuated from the immediate vicinity and downwind.  While estimates vary widely, the UN has estimated that some 4,000 additional premature deaths will result from radiation exposure.
3. In September of 1999 at Ibaraki prefecture in Japan, workers at a reprocessing facility accidentally added enough uranium solution to a precipitation tank to achieve a critical mass.  The resulting radiation killed two workers and exposed more than 100 others to higher than normal radiation.

These are the only civilian nuclear power accidents I've been able to find which led to fatalities.  Let's contrast this briefly with the safety of coal power.  Since the 1950's when commercial nuclear generation of electricity began, there have been several thousand fatalities in coal mines.  In addition, around twenty thousand miners are injured each year.  Further, tens of thousands have been crippled and or had their lives markedly shortened by black lung disease.  Worldwide, the number of deaths and injuries is staggering.  In China alone, more than 4,000 were killed in 2006.  Thousands more fatalities can reliably be attributed to the environmental effects of buring coal to produce electricity.

Critics of nuclear power point rightly to the fact that our country has been unable to come up with a method for the long term disposal of high level nuclear wastes.  High level nuclear wastes amount to 5 percent or less of the total radioactive wastes produced by commercial nuclear reactors.  Low level and mid level nuclear wastes have been disposed of safely without a problem.  High level nuclear wastes are the products of the fission of uranium which include radioisotopes which can emit ionizing radiation.  Some of the fission products can remain dangerously radioactive for thousands or millions of years.

In the United States geologic disposal is the disposal method which has gained the most favor.  This involves sealing the wastes into very strong casks and burying it deep underground.  The Department of Energy has been developing a waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.  It is not operational yet, however due to a variety of engineering and political issues. 

Geological disposal, however, is not the only option for disposal.  It is worth noting that other countries have made much more progress on the issue.  Sweden and Finland, for example are well advanced with geologic disposal and Canada is seriously considering a similar options.  Other countries such as France, UK, Japan, Russia and, recently, India, have nuclear fuel reprocessing plants which reprocess the spent fuel into new nuclear fuel.  Another option, which has not been used involves mixing the nuclear waste with tailings from uranium mines down to the level of radioactivity of the original uranium and then reburying it in the mines.

Disposal of waste from nuclear power plants is a problem that is being solved.  Disposal of waste from coal power plants, on the other hand, remains problematic.  The biggest waste product - carbon dioxide - is accumulating in our atmosphere and has the potential to create a global disaster in time on a scale unprecendented.

So, yes.  Nuclear power has its problems, but, to me at least, it looks like the least bad of all the options for electric power generation.  Governor O'Malley seems to have recognized this with his recent support for the additional plant that Constellation Energy proposes for Lusby.  The 4,000 megawatts of power that will be generated by this plant could replace all the electricity generated by the Chalk Point and Brandon Shores coal plants.  Together these two plants emit more than 14 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.  Another nuclear plant, perhaps located in Central Maryland, would allow the closure of all coal-fired plants in Maryland.

Nuclear power is already competitive with coal power on a cost basis.  With a modest carbon tax, nuclear power could easily displace the dirty coal plants that are polluting our air and water.  There would be no cost to Maryland consumers since all the proceeds from the carbon tax could be distributed to Maryland consumers on a regular basis.  Clean air, clean water, no cost...what more could we want? 

New Crab Regulations

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has released new crabbing rules for 2008.  In response to comments received on their original proposals, these rules are somewhat less restrictive.  They still could have a significant impact on Maryland watermen, particularly those on the Lower Shore.

There are three main elements to the proposed new regulations:

- A ban on taking female crabs (except for peelers) by recreational crabbers,

- A ban on harvesting female crabs after October 23, and

- limits on the quantities of females that commercial watermen may harvest during September and October.

The goal has been to reduce the harvest of female crabs by around 30 percent to allow more females to reproduce.  By September and October, most females have reached maturity and mated and are headed for the lower Bay to spawn.  Female crabs can account for 80 - 100 percent of the harvest in October and November by watermen in Dorchester and Somerset counties.  The proposed restrictions will have a significant impact on these watermen.

Of course, the Maryland regulations will have no impact unless Virginia also adopts strict regulations.  The blue crab, perversely, has no respect for state lines.  It will do no good to keep the Smith Islander from catching the crab in Maryland if the Tangierman scoops it up as it crosses the state line into Virginia as it migrates south. 

Of course, the impact of these restrictions falls primarily on the commercial watermen.  Some would like to blame them for overharvesting the crabs for the past several years.  But the reality is that the declining water quality in the Bay is having a significant impact on the crabs and other species.  Decreasing water clarity and higher water temperatures reduce the amount of submerged aquatic vegetation that is so important to the young crabs.  Excess nutrients flowing into the Bay trigger algae blooms that then decay, depleting oxygen levels to a point that marine life cannot survive. 

But no new restrictions on polluting the Bay were announced along with the crab harvest restrictions.  The watermen are a small group with little political clout and who mostly live on the Eastern Shore.  The Republicans they elect to represent them in Annapolis are vastly outnumbered by Democrats from the Western Shore and have little influence. 

Better to cause a little pain to the watermen than to risk offending those who are responsible for polluting the Bay.  Because requiring people to cut back on the artificial fertilizer they dump on their bright green lawns or to do something about the runoff from their houses, driveways, sidewalks and streets that carries excess nutrients and pollutants into the Bay might be bad politics.

We have this myth that we can help the Bay by placing all sorts of restrictions on new development - by requiring denser development in existing developed areas or by requiring better handling of storm water.  But it's those of us that are already here that have polluted the Bay so much already.  We need to address the fact that it's us that are polluting the Bay.  Then fix it.

 

Crabs and the Bay

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has released proposed new restrictions on crab harvests that are designed to help restore the crab fishery to its former size.  The move comes after several years of declining harvests and signs that the crab population of the Bay has fallen sharply.

The proposals sharply reduce the allowable catch of female crabs and a complete closure of the fishery for two weeks in October.  Recreational crabbers would be totally banned from catching females.  The Commonwealth of Virginia is also working up tighter restrictions on crab harvesting.

Watermen who earn their living catching crabs are up in arms.  Given the higher costs for fuel and bait, these restrictions will significantly hamper their ability to earn a living and will put many out of business.  Of course, the watermen might share some of the blame for overharvesting, but really, we all share the blame for so destroying the quality of the water in the Chesapeake Bay that the entire bay ecosystem is falling apart. 

Local newspapers recently carried an article about all of the bay tributaries in Anne Arundel county being highly polluted.  According to the same Chesapeake Bay Report Card nearly 88 percent of the Bay and its tributaries had summer oxygen levels too low to support marine life. 

So we pollute the Bay, destroy the last of its viable fisheries and then tell those that earn their living from the water that, sorry, you have to stop.  Of course, if the watermen were farmers, the story would be much, much different.  The Governor would be declaring a disaster and the Federal and state governments would be sending disaster aid, crop support payments and everything else to support them. 

And if we were dumping poisons on the farmers' fields, destroying their crops and telling them they need to stop harvesting for a while to let the land 'renew', there would be understandable outrage.  There would be lawsuits and jail terms and we'd be made to stop immediately. 

But none of us will be made to stop dumping their filth into the Bay; no one will goto jail and there will be no disaster relief for the watermen.  Our Governor and some others will make some announcements about making plans to put together a commission to do a study to serve as a basis for discussion of the problem.  And then we'll forget about it for a while so we can pay attention to the Orioles or the Nats or talk about American Idol.

And the watermen will struggle to survive and some will fail.

And the Bay will just get worse.

Because that's the way we do things here in the 'Land of Pleasant Living'.

A Growing Problem

Is this the future of the Eastern Shore?  The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) seems to be worried that it is.  In a report released yesterday, they point out some worrisome trends.  From 1973 to 2002, the Shore lost almost 45 thousand acres of agricultural land, 71thousand acres of forest and added almost 117 thousand acres of developed land.  They project an increase of 160 thousand people over the next twenty-five years.

MDP points out, correctly, that growth on the Shore has not been particularly well managed.  A lot of the growth has come on large lots, outside of developed areas and without a whole lot of planning.  This has resulted, as noted above, in the loss of large amounts of farm and forest land and has caused significant problems with water supply and quality and other infrastructure.  MDP says, and I agree, that the towns and counties need to do a better job of planning and focus the growth in or adjacent to developed areas.

There's no question that growth has changed the nature of many of the Shore's small towns.  The problem, of course, is that many jurisdictions on the Shore, counties and towns, see growth asa sort of holy grail that will bring new, wealthier population and will provide badly needed resources to fund strained county and town budgets.  In addition, given the nature of rural politics, many local governments are heavily influenced by the views of developers, builders and others who stand to gain by unbridled growth.  More state oversight and control might add some needed backbone to local politicians when they're faced with demands from developers.

That said, I don't think the situation is quite as bad as some news articles have made it out to be.  A big chunk of the growth projected by MDP is in Cecil county where there is going to be some impact from the expansion at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and near the Bay Bridge where there are some developments popping up for those who commute to the Western Shore to work.

The obvious additional question is what are all these new residents of the Eastern Shore going to do?  While the cost of living here is lower than on the Western Shore, wages here are considerably lower.  There's not really much in the way of significant new industry either. 

Of course, a lot of people buy second homes on the Shore, and that has contributed signficantly to development.  But the bay bridges are growing more and more congested and Maryland has failed so spectatularly at selecting a location for a new bay crossing that no one even talks about it any more. 

Of course, that leaves retirees; and there are more and more retirees coming here.  And they do contribute to the one industry that is showing strong growth here - the medical industry.  Almost every hospital on the Shore is in growth mode, and they employ a lot of people.  But I'd be surprised if that many retirees actually show up here, given the effort other states are making to capture them. 

The real problem, I think, is up the road in Delaware where planning is virtually non-existent and growth controls are laughable.  The recently completed master plan for Sussex County, home to Rehoboth and Bethany, would allow ONE MILLION HOUSES in the county, far exceeding the capacity the infrastructure can support and destroying the natural beauty and rural character of the land.  That is the big threat we have to face here on the Shore.

 

Lack of Progress on The Bay

I thought I'd take a brief look at how well our leaders and representatives are doing in Annapolis and elsewhere in trying to restore the Bay.  I'll try and separate the talk from the action.  Here are some quick capsule summaries:

Storm Water

Storm water runoff contributes a substantial proportion of the nutrients and pollutants that flow into the Bay.  Last year the Governor proposed and the General Assembly enacted the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 which he signed into law on April 24, 2007.  However, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has not yet issued regulations to implement the law.  In fact, they don't expect to issue final regulations until December 31 of this year, more than 20 months after enactment of a bill proposed by the administration. 

Of course, this act addresses new construction only and does nothing to deal with existing storm water systems which are pouring pollutants and excess nutrients into the Bay and its tributaries every time it rains.  As far as I know, neither the Governor nor the General Assembly has proposed anything at all to deal with this problem.  So the verdict is - some talk, but no action yet.

Wastewater Treatment

Treated effluent from wastewater treatment plants is also a major contributor to nutrients and pollutants that flow into the Bay.  In 2004, Maryland created the Bay Restoration Fund, a dedicated fund, financed by wastewater treatment plant users to upgrade Maryland's wastewater treatment plants with enhanced nutrient removal technology.  The fund gets about $60 million a year from the $2.50 per month charge most Marylanders pay.

As of February 20, 2008, construction has been completed on 8 facilities, 9 more are under construction, 13 are in design, 27 are in planning and 9 in the pre-planning phase.  This sounds like good progress, but keep in mind that there are 66 major wastewater facilities in Maryland and most of the plants where construction has been completed or is underway are relatively small; there's been little or no progress on the biggest plants such as Back River, Patapsco or Blue Plains.  At the current rate of progress it will be very many years before all the plants are upgraded.  I've seen reports that the upgrade to Blue Plains alone may cost $4 billion.  Even though Maryland's share is only about 30% of that, it's still a lot of money to come from a $60 million a year fund.

Of course, Maryland is not the only state whose inadequate wastewater plants contribute to the Bay's problems.  In Virginia, the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) is making good progress using a mix of appropriations and bonds to fund wastewater plant improvements throughout the state.  About 20 improved plants are now in operation.  Further improvements are expected.

Pennsylvania, however, source of a large percentage of the pollution and excess nutrients entering the Bay, is not doing so well.  As I reported a while back, Pennsylvania municipalities are suing the state to avoid having to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants.  Apparently they feel there should be no limit to the amount of their waste they can dump into the Susquehanna river and thus into the Bay.  I guess since if flows downstream into Maryland and Virginia, they don't see why they should care.

So, a mixed review - some good action, but not enough...and Pennsylvania - what can I say.

Critical Areas  The Governor has proposed much needed improvements to the Critical Areas Act to protect the last few feet between the land and the Bay that perform vital filtering and provide habitat for many important Bay species.  Of course, local governments have protested that the improvements will diminish their authority to plant new development squarely where it shouldn't go, and it looks like the General Assembly might cave into them.  I'll have a report later on how this comes out.  But at least it looks like there will be some action.

Agricultural Runoff   The Maryland Department of the Environment finally decided to take some action and proposed new regulations for very large chicken farms.  Of course, the farmers are up in arms, but it looks like this might stick finally.  It's worth noting that the MDE has backed off before on this.  State Senator Pipkin has said that his support for additional funds for Chesapeake Bay restoration is contingent upon none of the money being used to enforce regulations!  Of course, if everyone complied, we wouldn't need regulations.  We're all responsible for what has happened to the Bay and for taking action to restore it.  I can't see why the farmers should be exempt.  I think it looks like we might have some action here.

Planning and Smart Growth  A move backwards here as the Maryland Court of Appeals rejected the idea that developers have to comply with master plans developed by Maryland jurisdictions.  The Governor needs to propose and the General Assembly needs to enact legislation that puts some real teeth into smart growth and comprehensive planning.  So far what we have is talk and very weak laws.  Looks like we'll get more talk for at least a year.

Phosphorus Detergent  Maryland enacted a law a year ago to ban nearly all phosphorus in dish detergents.  Now, one year later, they are proposing to postpone the effective date of the legislation because corporate behemoth Proctor & Gamble is not pleased and feels they can't meet the current deadline.  Of course, their competitor, Colgate-Palmolive already has their phosphorus-free detergent on the market and other companies are expected to bring theirs out soon.  But I predict the General Assembly will cave in to P&G.  Looks like more dithering.

Federal Support  Eight years into the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement - a landmark agreement between the states of the Chesapeake watershed and the EPA, we have essentially no progress and more dithering.  The EPA has announced that what is needed to make this work is, get this, A PLAN!  And it will take three years to make the plan!  This is just about the most ridiculous nonsense I've heard in a while and EPA should be ashamed of themselves.  So - more talk, no action and our elected representatives do nothing.  Of course, under the Bush administration, the EPA has routinely acted as though their mandate is to destroy the environment, not protect it, so this should be no surprise to anyone.

In summary, while there's been some progress, much more is needed...but we're planning...and talking....and thinking about preparing draft regulations....and doing as little as possible.  But what's new?

[The image, which i've used before, shows sediment pouring into the Bay from the Susquehanna river.  We had another big sediment flow this month.]

Waste Flows Downhill

In the above image from NASA's Terra satellite you can see large amounts of silt pouring down the Susquehanna river into the Chesapeake Bay.  This gives us a rough idea of the large amount of nutrients and pollutants that pour into the Bay every day from upstream states, including Pennsylvania.

In fact, the Susquehanna contributes 60 percent of the total streamflow into the Bay and is the largest single contributor of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Bay.  Almost all of the 27,510 square miles of the Susquehanna basin lie in Pennsylvania, with a small part in New York and a tiny bit in Maryland.

I point this out because of recent news articles about dozens of Pennsylvania municipalities suing the state so that they won't be required to upgrade their sewage treatment plants.  The plants dump partially treated sewage into the Susquehanna and its tributaries and eventually that waste flows into the Bay.  In addition to demanding that the state not require the municipalities to upgrade their sewage treatment plants, the suit alleges that the state illegally agreed to reduce the amount of pollution flowing down the Susquehanna into the Bay.

Now both Maryland and Virginia have sewage treatment plants that discharge pollutants into the Bay or its tributataries.  Both of these states, however, have programs in place to upgrade these plants to the highest practical level of nutrient removal.  Now these programs are operating much too slowly for my taste, as I've written here.  But at least they're working and the local jurisdictions are cooperating.

But in Pennsylvania, for some reason, many people think they shouldn't be responsible for the treating their waste properly before sending it downstream to Maryland and Virginia.  And with the Susquehanna contributing such a large portion of the nutrient flow into the Bay (a significant part of Pennsylvania also drains into the Potomac.), without action by Pennsylvania, our good efforts may go for naught.

To be fair, not everyone in Pennsylvania is shirking their responsibility.  Some believe the time has come to do something.  For the rest, I think we need to do more than just beg Pennsylvania to do something.  Here on the Shore, Frank Kratovil, the Democratic candidate for congress in the first district has stated that, if elected, he will seek to have the Federal Government enforce strict pollution limits on the upstream states.  If Pennsylvania won't cooperate, I think that's the way to go.

[Note: the photo was taken by the Terra satellite on September 22, 2004.  There is a high resolution version available here.]

Crab Crisis

Recently, Maryland and Virginia have both expressed concern about the viability of the Chesapeake Bay blue crab fishery.  While the results of the winter dredge survey are not yet available, evidence points to continued deterioration in the number of crabs in the Bay and the annual harvest.  Both the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) are considering new regulations for 2008 in an attempt to preserve and improve the fishery.

Let's take a look at some numbers.  The DNR has reported that the estimated blue crab harvest in 2007 was 21.8 million pounds, approximately six million pounds below the 2006 figure and only slightly above the lowest recorded harvest of 20.2 million pounds in 2000.  This chart illustrates the harvest since 1945.

 

While the numbers fluctuate dramatically, the trend, particularly since the mid 1980s is unmistakeably down.  There were a number of factors in 2007 which depressed the crab harvest including poor reproduction in 2006, a dry summer which drove many crabs further north in the Bay, away from most of the commercial watermen and a reduced level of effort by the watermen due to low returns. 

Another indicator points to possible overfishing.  More than 60 percent of all the crabs in the Bay were caught last year, more than the 53 percent threshold for overfishing and far more than the target of 46 percent.  This leaves too few crabs to maintain the population in subsequent years.

Scientists have agreed that trying to increase the number of crabs (at least one year old) in the Bay to around 200 million will help buld a stable and profitable fishery.  There are a number of options to do this, but they require cooperation between Maryland and Virginia, since both share the same crab population. 

Maryland DNR and the Virginia VMRC have been working closely together on the issue.  Maryland DNR has made two presentations on the issue, the first, presented to the commercial crabbing industry can be found here.  The second, an update presented to the Tidal Fisheries Advisory Commision on February 28 can be found here.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, long resistant to calls to restrict the crab harvest there, has taken notice of the numbers.  This is important because some 70% of the female crabs are harvested in Virginia.  VMRC has already approved a number of restrictions, including capping the winter dredge season, when watermen dredge hibernating females out of the mud at the bottom of the Bay, requiring cull rings on pots to allow small crabs to escape and puttiing a minimum size on peeler crabs.  Depending on the results of the winter dredge survey they may consider banning or reducing the winter dredge season and limiting the harvest of female crabs to those under 6.5". 

In Maryland, restrictions under consideration include restricting the harvest of female peeler crabs during certain periods, placing a daily bushel limit on commercial harvests, putting a maximum size limit on harvest of female crabs (the largest are the most biologically valuable), and a 'holiday' when no commercial crabbing could take place.  Tighter restrictions on recreational crabbers are also being considered, including a licensing requirement, a prohibition on harvesting of females and a catch limit.

It's critical that both states take strong, coordinated action to try to restore the fishery.  Particularly important is protection of spawning females, since that's where the next generation comes from.  While all the proposals have merit, I think more of the effort should go to limiting recreational crabbing to limit the impact on commercial watermen who earn their living from the crabs.  But all of the proposals should be give serious consideration.

If you want to kick in your two cents worth, Maryland is accepting comments on the proposed regulations here until March 13.  Let's hope we get some solid, enforceable regulations out of this that will help bring the Chesapeake Bay crab fishery back to its former glory.  Because, in the words of Candy Thomson over at the Baltimore Sun: "steamed crabs, Old Bay and newspaper go together a whole lot better than just Old Bay on newspapers."

   

Critical Care

The Maryland General Assembly is considering legislation to update and strengthen the Critical Area Act first passed in 1984.  The intent of the Act was to limit development in the area within 1,000 feet of the Chesapeake Bay and later the Coastal Bays and especially the buffer area within 100 feet of the water.  The Act recognizes that the last few feet between the land and the water provide a vital filtering mechanism for runoff flowing into the water and serve as critical habitat for plants and wildlife.

The Act established a Critical Area Commission to administer the Act but gave it virtually no powers, instead leaving enforcement up to the 64 local jurisdictions that have critical areas within their boundaries.  The Commission did establish criteria which the local jurisdictions were supposed to follow in developing their regulations.

There have been several studies done of the effectiveness of the Critical Areas Act.  Basically, they have concluded that the Act has been largely ineffective due to weak and uneven enforcement and failure to understand the cumulative effect of violations on the Chesapeake and the Coastal Bays.

Studies have shown that almost all violations of the Act are subsequently sanctioned by issuing local variances or retroactive permits.  This is understandable.  It's easy to argue that one more garage, one more house, one more driveway or one more development will not kill the Bay.  And the people doing the building are local constituents or are bringing valued, taxpaying development. 

The reality, of course, is that the impact of all the exceptions and variances is cumulative and enormous.  Runoff is one of the biggest contributors to pollution and excess nutrients in the Chesapeake and the Coastal Bays.  Shoreline development destroys wetlands which are vital to the local ecosystems.

Governor O'Malley has proposed legislation to strengthen the Critical Areas Act.  The legislation would increase the buffer area from 100 feet to 300 feet, limit the ability of local governments to issue variances and provide stiffer penalties for those who violate the restrictions.  The measure faces stiff opposition from, surprise, property developers, and from local officials worried that their powers will be reduced.

The reality is, though, that local jurisidictions do not have the will or the resources to enforce the Critical Areas Act.  A survey by the Abell institute didn't find any local jurisdictions that owned a boat from which to identify construction along the shoreline.  Many local jurisdictions are also reluctant to enforce the law because they're afraid they'll be hit with expensive lawsuits that they can't afford to defend.

Giving the authority to approve exceptions and variances to the State Critical Areas Commission rather than the local jurisidictions is a step in the right direction.  Call or write your state delegate or senator and tell them to support the Critical Areas legislation as proposed.  Do your part to Save the Bay.

        

The Wrong Approach

State Senator Paul Pinsky has introduced legislation that would put into place a 'cap and trade' system to limit the amount of greehouse gases emitted by Maryland industry and eventually reduce them by 90%.  The legislation has the support of Governor O'Malley and many others.  Under the proposal the state would use a system of rewards and penalties to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Generally, under a cap and trade system, companies and other polluters are issued emission permits and are required to hold allowances which represent the right to emit a specific amount of of pollution, such as carbon dioxide.  If the company wants to emit more, it must purchase more allowances from some other company which needs less.  Thus, heavy polluters are penalized while those that reduce pollution are rewarded.  In theory, those who can reduce the pollution easiest will do so, thus reducing overall pollution at the lowest possible cost to society.

There are a number of problems with this approach.  It's bureaucratically cumbersome, requiring a system of monitoring, trading and management, it creates a potentially unstable market making investments riskier, it is prone to corruption, particularly in the allocation of credits and, to the extent that it involves allocating permits based on current emissions, it provides incentive to increase emissions in the short term.  Further, it's not clear what would happen to such a state system once a national greenhouse gas policy is put into place.

I prefer a carbon tax.  It has the advantage of simplicity - everyone understands it and it's transparent.  It's easier to administer.  The predictability of such a tax encourages businesses to invest in a way that minimized emissions and it can easily be merged into a national system when such a system is established.

A carbon tax recognizes and places a price on external costs and, by doing so, levels the market in a way that encourages cleaner forms of energy.  Let me explain.  A significant cost of generating electricity from coal is the air and water pollution that are a by-product of the generation.  Since the generating facility doesn't pay for these, the cost is not included in the price of electricity.  Thus, electricity from wind power, solar power and other, cleaner technologies can't compete on price.  If the price of electricity generated by coal included the cost of the pollution it caused, the cleaner technologies could compete very effectively.

Such a tax would raise a significant amount of money on an annual basis, allowing the state to reduce or eliminate other taxes such as the sales tax or the corporate income tax. 

Most of us are concerned with global warming.  We want to do something.  But let's not jump into this so fast that we use the wrong tools to attack it.  A carbon tax is the way to go.

[The photo shows breaker boys at Breaker #9 in Pittston, PA around 1911.  Boys as young as eight were employed by the coal companies to separate out bits of shale from the mined coal which flowed by in chutes under their feet.  They weren't allowed to wear gloves.  When they grew older, they became 'door boys' who controlled the doors that helped control ventilation in the mines.  Later they became miners themselves.  When black lung disease affected them so they could no longer mine, they went back to being breaker boys.  Click on the photo to see a larger version.]