MD oyster power dredging proposal withdrawn amid opposition
A Maryland proposal to expand the power dredging of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay has been scuttled because of opposition from environmental groups and some scientists.
Instead, the state Department of Natural Resources will ask for permission to study whether power dredging hurts the oyster population and other species, as some scientists have warned since the power dredging expansion was proposed in August.
“While we support our proposal—it was based on best professional judgment and scientific expertise of a DNR manager with decades of experience—it’s clear that there was mixed opinion in the remainder of the scientific arena,” said Mike Slattery, assistant secretary for the DNR.
The oyster population in the Bay is at a near-record low. State records indicate that less than 33,000 bushels of oyster were harvested last season—down from more than a million bushels a year as recently as the 1980s.
In an effort to boost the catch, the DNR in August proposed expanding by 10 percent the areas in the Bay where power dredging could be used, from 30 percent to 40 percent of the Bay. Current power dredging areas are in the Lower Bay, in areas with saltier water and lots of young oysters, such as Tangier Sound.
Watermen wanted to see more areas opened to power dredging, saying they cannot survive on current low catches and arguing that power dredging doesn’t kill too many oysters to endanger the species. Environmental groups warned there was no proof the power dredging wouldn’t hurt the oysters. The DNR now plans a larger study on power dredging to see who is right.
“Everybody wants to see the Bay full of oysters, but I think a lot of people have different opinions on how that could best be accomplished,” said Bill Sieling, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries Association. He supported the bigger power dredging zone and warned that oystermen don’t have time to wait for a study.
Stephanie Reynolds, a fisheries scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said it was better to study the effects of power dredging because the plan “could just turn out to be a short-term harvest gain at the long-term expense of the recovery of the oyster population.”
Reynolds said the CBF wanted to see more countermeasures—such as more sanctuary areas where oyster taking would be completely off-limits—if the power dredging expansion was approved.
Pennsylvania releases policy to guide nutrient trading
Pennsylvania in September announced a nutrient and sediment trading policy aimed at helping to meet goals set for the Chesapeake Bay. “Nutrient trading provides an environmentally creative and cost-effective way to tackle water quality issues in the commonwealth,” said Gov. Ed Rendell in announcing the policy.
Officials expected the policy to be published in the Oct. 1 Pennsylvania Bulletin, after which they would take comments from the public for 45 days.
The policy creates a structure where environmental improvement credits would be traded to help meet nutrient reduction obligations or goals in a more cost-effective manner.
The framework would allow trading by both point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants, and nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff.
The policy sets out the conditions that must be met before trades can take place, and where trades may take place.
The policy said the Department of Environmental Protection, which will oversee the program, is particularly interested in trades that would promote forest riparian buffers, cover crops and advanced nutrient management.
“Harnessing market forces is an effective way to achieve environmental regulatory goals at less expense than traditional command and control regulations,” said DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty at a recent General Assembly hearing. “Market-based programs such as trading provide incentives for entities to create credits by going beyond statutory, regulatory or voluntary obligations and goals.”
Warner announces purchase of Gloucester site for state park
Gov. Mark R. Warner in September announced the first step in establishing a new state park on Virginia’s Middle Peninsula. The nonprofit Trust for Public Land, working on behalf of the commonwealth, acquired 438 acres of property on the York River in Gloucester County for a future state park.
The state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation is working with the TPL to transfer the title and reimburse them for the $3.9 million cost of the property using general obligation bond funds.
“This is a tremendous first step in acquiring property that has the potential to be a first-class state park,” Warner said. “The Trust for Public Land was able to work with a willing landowner to expedite the sale and deliver this property to the people of Virginia. TPL has been a tremendous partner in this project.”
The property, located in southern Gloucester County, features three-quarters of a mile of frontage on the York River.
The terrain is a mix of open fields and hardwood forests. It also joins a deep-water creek and features several marshlands.
The 2002 Parks and Natural Areas bond referendum called for the acquisition of land for a state park on the Middle Peninsula. The purchase followed a lengthy search for properties in the area bounded by the Rappahannock and York rivers.
There are no immediate plans to develop the property as a state park. The first step will be DCR’s development of a master plan for the park.
VA agency’s board endorses wildlife protection plan
The board of the state Department of Game and Inland Fisheries endorsed a plan in August that calls for better protection of 925 imperiled animal species.
In the first-of-its-kind report, the department listed species that are declining in Virginia, including the peregrine falcon, the loggerhead sea turtle and hundreds more.
The reasons for the declines: habitat destruction; disturbance of habitats, for instance, by new road construction; and water pollution that hurts fish and other aquatic animals.
Many of the animals already reside on federal and state lists of endangered or threatened species. They include the loggerhead sea turtle, which is imperiled by coastal development that destroys its nest sites, and the piping plover.
The report calls for such actions as protecting wild lands, reducing pollution and increasing funding to aid wildlife.
The staff prepared the report with the help of experts from other state and federal agencies, universities and nonprofit groups.
The 900-plus-page report is 3 inches thick and took 18 months to compile.
All of the states are preparing similar reports to continue receiving certain federal wildlife-protection grants.
The grants have totaled $1 million to $1.5 million a year for Virginia since 2001.
Disconnect found between environmental concern, voting
A new survey helps to explain why environmental issues such as cleaning the Chesapeake Bay score high with the public, but not always with lawmakers who set policy.
A survey conducted for Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions found that 79 percent of voters surveyed nationwide favored “stronger national standards to protect our land, air and water,” but only 22 percent said environmental concerns have played a major role in determining whom they voted for.
The survey of 800 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46 percent.
“These results are a wake-up call, but they also represent an important opportunity,” said Tim Profeta, director of the institute. “They help us understand what we need to do to build public consensus and break down barriers to environmental progress.”
The reasons include the fact that environmental issues are wide-ranging—from global warming to water pollution—and few voters care about them all.
Another reason is that voters tend to vote according to more immediately relevant concerns, such as taxes, health care or jobs.
“There is a clear disconnect here,” said former EPA Administrator William Reilly. “Seventy-four percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Democrats say they support stronger environmental standards. Yet when it comes time to vote, they rank the environment low on their list of priorities.”
The people surveyed ranked as their most important environmental issues: energy conservation and the need for alternative fuels; the pollution of rivers, lakes, streams and coastlines; and air pollution and smog.
The research also tested 13 different factors that voters could use to judge environmental policy. Fifty-one percent rated a desire to protect the environment for future generations as the most important factor, and 47 percent rated the effect an environmental proposal has on human health as the second most important factor.
Those surveyed also indicated that they had a hard time identifying trustworthy sources of environmental information. They tended to view universities and research institutes as the most credible sources of information.
