Lost On The Shore

Hot Enough For You?

The Baltimore Sun carries this article today on the predicted effects of climate change on Maryland.  The article describes a report by a group of scientists who have compiled the first comprehensive report on the potential effects of climate change on Maryland.  The report was prepared for the state by a committee of 19 scientists from five Maryland campuses, the U.S. Geological Survey and two environmental groups.  Among the findings:

• An increase in the average temperature in Maryland by about 3 degrees fahrenheit by midcentury is probably unavoidable.
• Many hardwood species in Maryland are likely to 'fade away' while pine trees more common in the south become more common here.
• A significant area will be inundated by the combination of rising sea levels and continuing land subsidence. Significant areas of wetland would be lost.
• Cool water species in the Chesapeake Bay such as soft-shelled clams, sturgeon and eelgrass will disappear, while warm water species, such as croaker, will become more prevalent.

Coincidentally, another article on climate change was published in the Washington Post today.  The article addresses the tendency of many to blame every hurricane, drought, heat wave, flood, frost or large cloud on global warming.  This, of course, just confuses the issue because weather is naturally variable.  If you attribute strong hurricanes to global warming then, when a year comes along without any strong hurricanes, people will logically say that global warming doesn't exist!

So let's look at some facts.  This graph [prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] shows the difference between the global average surface temperature from 1880 to 2006 and the average temperature during the period.

 

Note that the data displayed here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at reporting stations in and around cities. The average surface temperature has increased by about one degree fahrenheit since 1970 and, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is now increasing by about 3.2 degrees fahrenheit each century.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 - approximately a 36% increase according to NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory. They also publish this nice graph.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase at a rate of about 1.9 ppm per year.  According to the IPCC's 2007 report, all of this increase is due to human activity. 

Methane is more abundant in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years according to the IPCC report and are now 148% above pre-industrial levels.

Nitrous oxide levels have increased approximately 18% in the past 200 years and continue to increase.  Increases in nitrous oxide are primarily due to agricultural activity and the use of artificial fertilizers.

These gases contribute to the increase in the temperature of the earth's surface and lower atmosphere through a process called the 'greenhouse effect', which was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824.  Without the greehouse effect, the earth would be a cold and barren planet unable to support life. But there can be too much of a good thing.  The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased the greenhouse effect and caused the average surface temperature to begin rising.  Water vapor is also a major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

There are a variety of feedback mechanisms which have either a positive or negative effect on the increase in global temperature.  Increased evaporation due to higher temperatures increase water vapor in the air which increases the greenhouse effect.  On the other hand, clouds reflect solar energy back into space thus reducing the heating of the earth.  It's uncertain how much the increase in water vapor will effect cloud formation.  Reduced amounts of ice and snow increase absorption of solar energy by the earth's surface contributing to the increase in temperature.

One of the most pernicious effects of global warming is the increase in the mean sea level.  Water, like most substances, expands slightly as it becomes warmer.  In Maryland, and particularly on the Eastern Shore, this effect is increased by the slow subsidence of the land over a period of thousands of years.  Here is a graph of sea level changes at Baltimore.  It is prepared by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSML) at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory.

While there are significant year-to-year variations, the trend is unmistakable.  Much of Maryland, and particularly the Eastern Shore, is at a very low elevation and is very susceptible to inundation during periods of high tides and during storms.  The photo above shows storm surge flooding caused by Hurricane Isabel in Bowleys Quarters, MD in September of 2003.  With continued increases in sea level we can expect many more episodes like that.  Many of the islands that existed in the Chesapeake Bay at the time of the explorations by Captain John Smith are now gone, victims of rising sea levels.  We can expect more of the same. 

For barrier islands like Assateague and Ocean City, the prognosis is also grim.  The combination of rising sea levels and stronger storms made possible by increased ocean temperatures will make it increasingly difficult to maintain these islands in their current locations.  This photo of barrier islands in North Carolina breached by Hurricane Isabel is a good example of what to expect.

(photo by the US Geological Survey)

So what can we do?  I'll talk about that in my next post. 

Oil Follies

Certainly one of the issues on everyone's mind these days is the price of gasoline and the price of oil.  The runup in the price of both over the past couple of years has everyone wringing their hands and looking for solutions.  Every politician from the local dogcatcher to the President of the United States (and more importantly, the King of Saudi Arabia) has either come up with a plan to address the 'oil crisis' or is working on one. 

Andy Harris, the Republican nominee for Congress in Maryland's First District recently released his plan.  As I understand it, the plan includes:

1. Temporarily suspending the Federal and state gasoline taxes from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
2. Temporarily reducing the 40+ gasoline blends used in the United States to four blends in an effort to simplify refining and improve the efficiency of refining and transporting gasoline.
3. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, the Aleutian Islands and the US continental shelf to oil and gas production.
4. Increase long-term oil refining capacity by establishing fast track approval for new and expanded refineries.
5. Provide incentives for technological innovations in alternative forms of energy such as nuclear, solar, geothermal, and cellusolic ethanol.

Before analyzing the plan, let's take a look at the background of the problem. 

World Petroleum Production and Consumption (Millions of BBL/day)

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Production	79.6	83.1	84.6	84.6	84.6
Consumption	79.6	82.3	83.7	84.6	85.4

These figures are from the US Energy Information Administration.  Note that production has stagnated since 2005 while world consumption has continued to grow.  Consumption by industrialized countries (OECD members) in 2007 was basically the same as it was in 2003 - a little under 49 million barrels a day.  Consumption in other countries, however, increased from about 31 million barrels a day in 2003 to 36.4 million barrels a day in 2007.  Every indication is that the demand from non-OECD members will continue to increase.  Demand in China, with its 2 billion citizens and India with its billion or so will continue to grow at a rapid rate.  Demand in the former USSR is also growing. 

Production, on the other hand, isn't increasing at all.  While new fields are coming on line, in the Caspian Sea area for example, and new discoveries are being made, they are insufficient to overcome the long-term decline of three to four percent in the production of existing fields.

Many blame speculators for increasing the price of oil by driving up demand and, in fact, they do contribute to some of the wild fluctuations and instability in the market, but they never actually take delivery of the oil and thus don't contribute to the ultimate demand.  So what we really have is a growing imbalance between a static supply and a growing demand that is driving prices higher.

With that in mind, let's take a look at Andy Harris's proposed energy plan.

First he proposes eliminating the gasoline tax - both Federal and state - between Memorial Day and Labor day.  This will have the effect of increasing demand but will do nothing to boost supplies.  In addition, of course, hundreds of millionss of dollars that should be used to ease traffic bottlenecks, maintain roads and expand mass transit will be lost.  Sure the price might drop a bit initially, but will creep back up as demand returns and we'll have nothing to show for it.  I've written about it before, but I have to say it again - this is a bad idea.

Second, he wants to reduce the 40 or so different gasoline blends in the United States to 4 - he doesn't say how.  The reason these different blends exist is to mitigate air quality problems in many large metropolitan areas around the United States.  They are designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds which, combined with sunlight, produce ozone.  Some also are formulated to reduce emission of nitrogen oxides which pollute air and waterways and can contribute to acid rain.  Certainly a reduction in the number of blends will reduce transportation and storage costs for the oil companies.  The effect on consumer costs is uncertain.  Many of the blends cost more to produce than conventional gasoline but pollute less.  It's hard for me to see how this will save money for consumers without increasing ozone pollution in our metropolitan areas.  I don't see any additional production or reduced demand from this.

Third, he wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), the Aleutian Islands and the US Continental shelf to exploration.  The US Geological Survey estimates that there are between 7 and 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR.  The Energy Information Administration estimates that opening ANWR to production would result in a peak production of 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 which would reduce the price of a barrel of oil by about 75 cents - not quite two cents per gallon. 

I have no idea how much recoverable oil is in the Aleutian Island area - I haven't been able to find much about it.  It appears certain there are significant amounts of recoverable crude oil in the unexplored parts of the US continental shelf - perhaps more than exist in ANWR.  Americans need to decide what kinds of risks they want to take to obtain additional domestic oil supplies - even if they are small compared to our imports.  It's worth noting, though, that we seem unwilling to allow even wind turbines to be built offshore, much less oil platforms, pipelines, etc. that would come with significant oil production.  This proposal does add something to production, albeit not for ten or fifteen years at the earliest.  

Fourth, he wants to increase long-term refining capacity in the United States, presumably by eliminating some of the environmental and safety reviews that are now required.  Refining is an interesting problem.  Over the past year, the price of oil has increased much faster than the price of gasoline, sharply reducing the profits levels of refineries.  Oil companies like Valero and Sunoco which refine oil but don't produce it have dropped sharply over the past year.  As a result refiners are shifting their operations to produce more distillate (diesel and heating oil) which has a relatively high price and less gasoline from each barrel.  

Harris's proposal ignores the real problem with refining - it's not consistently profitable.  If companies can't earn a reliable and fair return on investment in new refinery capacity, none will be built, regardless of any loosening of regulations.  I don't see anything here which will alter the supply/demand relationship.

Fifth, he wants to provide incentives for technological innovations in alternate forms of energy.  I'm all for this, provided the incentives don't turn into long-term subsidies.  We need to find alternatives and, in the long run, this will help to reduce demand for petroleum and all that comes with it.

So what does all this do for Marylanders and the voters of the First District?  Not much in the short term except for the ridiculous and self-defeating gas tax holiday.  But maybe there's not much that can be done in the short term.  I do note that Harris's proposals contain nothing about mass transit or public transportation, nothing about smart growth that would reduce transportation needs, nothing about increasing corporate fleet mileage requirements and nothing about alternative fuels such as the plug-in hybrids being developed by General Motors and Toyota and the hydrogen fuel cell car recently introduced by Honda, but that may be too much to ask.

[The photo (click on it to see the large version0 is of the Thunderhorse production platform built by BP at a cost of about $1 billion.  It was struck by hurricane Dennis in 2005 before it was in production and partially capsized due to a construction error.  It's a reminder that there are risks to offshore drilling and production that need to be balanced against the potential rewards]  

 

Bay Update

 

I have a few notes and comments on some recent items affecting the Chesapeake Bay.

Crabs

It looks as though the new crab regulations proposed by the state are going to stick.  While there have been lots of complaints by watermen, particularly those on the lower Shore where female crabs predominate late in the summer, the state seems to be standing its ground.  There have even been a number of calls to ban all harvesting of female crabs, rather than just restricting it as the regulations do. 

I think the state is right in this case and I'm hoping that the combined actions of Maryland and Virginia result in a noticable improvement in the number of surviving and spawning crabs in the next year or so.  Of course, the restrictions on crab harvest do nothing to address the root cause of the problem, which is declining water quality in the Bay.

Phosphorus Ban

The Governor has signed a bill pushing back the effective date of the ban on phosphorus-containing dishwasher detergents.  The ban, on nearly all phosphorus, was to have been effective in January of 2010.  A number of other states passed similar laws, but theirs are all effective in July of 2010.  At the request of Proctor & Gamble and some other companies, the General Assembly passed a bill to delay the ban for six months to allow the companies more time to make the switch. 

I don't really have a problem with the six month delay.  I would be happier if the companies had kicked in couple hundred thousand dollars to help clean up the Bay, but it seems like a reasonable accomodation to me and it makes sense to coordinate with the other states.

Cleaning Up the Bay

An interesting survey by a couple of environmental groups revealed that Baltimore area people are willing to do more to help stop polluting the Bay and harbor, but aren't willing to pay additional taxes for Bay cleanup.  Interestingly, more than 80 percent said that it would make a big difference in the quality of the Bay and harbor if they picked up litter and kept storm drains clear of trash.  A majority said it would make a big difference if people cleaned up after pets and didn't overfertilize their lawns.  But yet, people don't pick up litter, many don't clean up after their pets and overfertilization of lawns is a major source of pollution in the Bay. 

People complain about environmental regulations and paying taxes to clean up trash, but those are the inevitable result of not doing what they know they should be doing.  I guess I expect too much.

The Farm Bill

Congress finally passed the farm bill this week.  While it's an awful piece of legislation, it does include some $690 million in funding for Chesapeake Bay cleanup over the next ten years.  The President vetoed the bill today, but it's likely that Congress will override the veto.  The money will be used to reduce agricultural runoff through buffer zones and the like.

I'll get back to more regular posts this week.

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.

 

This and That

No, the Manet painting has nothing to do with today's post, I just like it.  I just wanted to catch up on a couple of items.

CRABS

I think what the two Governors agreed upon was a sensible approach to trying to preserve the crab fishery in the medium term.  To do so in the long term will require some real progress on reducing the pollution levels in the Bay.  This won't be easy, particularly in the context of the growth expected in the region.  Stay tuned for more on this.

Growth

I see they have broken ground on new construction at Fort Meade for the new headquarters of the Defense Information Systems Agency.  More than 4,000 workers will fill this building when it is finished, most coming from Virginia.  The state needs to move quickly to ensure that the local infrastructure is ready for this and thousands of others that will move here as a result of the Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) program.  In that regard, it's worth noting that the Maryland Department of the Environment STILL has not completed implementing regulations for the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 and they don't expect to finish until December of this year - more than 18 months after the Act was passed.  We've got to do better.

Transportation

Many want to see Maryland take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.  A significant portion of those come from transportation, yet we seem to be making little progress on putting into place mass transit options and highway improvements that will allow us to reduce the time we spend in commuting as well as the gas we use and the carbon dioxide our cars emit.  Somehow, we have to make better progress on this.  We all want to see a clear return on our tax dollars.  This would be pretty clear.

Energy

With the passage of the bill to reduce our per capita electricity consumption by fifteen percent by 2015, we need to get moving.  Let's hope the Maryland Energy Administration and the PSC don't drag their feet the way MDE has done with the stormwater rules.  I know it's complicated, but it's also important to get it done. It's less than 7 years to 2015, we can't fritter away 18 months on figuring out how we're going to do it.

More later!

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'.

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.]

Is Planning a Joke in Maryland?

Two recent bits of news have caught my eye.  Last week the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision that master plans or comprehensive plans developed by local jurisdictions or growth management plans enacted by the state basically have no legal effect; counties can ignore them at will. 

The court was reviewing Allegany County's approval of a 4,300 home development in a rural area of the county near Green Ridge State Forest some 30 miles east of Cumberland.  The project was approved by the county despite the fact that it did not conform to the county's master plan or the existing zoning.  The Allegany County Board of Zoning Appeals ignored the question of whether the development was in compliance with the master plan, stating simply that it was 'in harmony' with the plan - a pretty loose standard.

The court also ruled that state laws requiring localities to develop and conform to master plans and steer new development to existing population centers had no effect.  The chief judge, Dale Cathell, said that the use of words 'conform' and 'vision' were never intended to impose strict requirements on localities in their decisions on land use.

The other bit of news was that yesterday, at Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Army began construction on the first major construction related to the Base-Realignment and Closing (BRAC) that will bring thousands of new jobs to Maryland.  The complex being built, which eventually will total twelve buildings on 250 acres will house 5,000 of the 10,000 new jobs coming to the base.  Thousands more jobs will be coming to Fort Meade and the DC suburbs under BRAC. 

To their credit, the O'Malley administration has been proactive in dealing with BRAC-related issues.  The Governor has created a BRAC Readiness Committee and placed Lt. Governor Anthony Brown in charge of it.  The Committee will focus on schools, housing transportation and other areas that will be affected by the thousands of families that will follow the jobs that are coming to Maryland. 

Without a comprehensive plan at the state level, the effect of this growth could easily overwhelm the existing infrastructure and sprawl could add significant further damage to an already damaged Bay and environment.  We'd end up with even more congested roads, failing water and sewer systems, inadequate schools and a more polluted Bay.  But, with the court decision, it seems like such a comprehensive plan would be just so much hot air.

So we need legislative action to establish an aggressive smart growth strategy that will focus growth in older areas with existing infrastructure and will provide an effective transportation system to meet the needs of both existing and new residents.  And the General Assembly needs to pass legislation that states unequivocally that local master plans must conform to smart growth principles, must be comprehensive and must be enforcable and enforced.  We're too small a state to allow uncontrolled development to degrade the quality of life for all of us.

[note:  the illustration is of the 'Phoenix Line Safety Coaches' which were used around 1830 to provide swift and regular 'mass transit' between Baltimore and Washington - only five hours!]

   

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."