The weakening of environmental regulations is often too technical and eye-glazingly bureaucratic for most average folks and reporters to care about.  But this kind of lobbying wizardry can mean big bucks to developers and have a huge impact on our natural world.

The most recent example: The Bush administration has been quietly carving looholes in a fairly obscure but important 1970 law called the National Environmental Policy Act, according to the online journal Environmental Science and Technology.  The article raises an alarm: "Environmental Magna Carta under siege."  The change means corporations and the government have less of an obligation to study the environmental impact of their projects and report their findings to the public.

Meanwhile, another public disclosure law established after the catastrophic chemical leak in Bhopal, India (pictured above), is also being weakened by the Bush administration, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The federal Toxics Release Inventory law for two decades has allowed people to access data about hundreds of chemicals used and released in their communities. Seeking to ease the burden on industry, the EPA last December scaled back disclosure requirements for some small-scale facilities, the LA Times reports. This week, California and 11 other states sued to try to stop the blackout on public health information. 

Like the Toxic Release Inventory, the National Environmental Policy Act was created because of an environmental disaster.  Congress passed the environmental impact reporting law after Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught on fire, and a 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, according to Environmental Science and Technology.

But with the spotlight elsewhere, companies have been quietly over the years lobbying to weaken these requirements.

"In an attempt to curtail environmental assessments for oil exploration, timber extraction, and grazing on public lands, the Bush Administration is sidestepping one of the nation's first environmental laws," the journal reports. "Environmental assessment in the U.S. was enshrined in law for the first time when President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on January 1, 1970. Since then, however, the U.S. has slowly cast aside its role as a leader in the field of environmental assessments, as successive administrations have chipped away at the scope of NEPA, experts say. The cuts have reached a crescendo with President George W. Bush's administration, and proponents of these assessments worry that pressure to develop natural resources with little oversight of the consequences will lead to an unsustainable future for the U.S."

If anyone out there knows of impacts on the Chesapeake Region from these changes, please let me know at tom.pelton@baltsun.com.

 

Posted by Tom Pelton at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
                    

I did a post two days ago saying that Maryland's Department of Natural Resources had changed the rules for oystering in their managed reserves -- those oyster bars that the Oyster Recovery Partnership is planting with hatchery seed from U. of Maryland's lab.

It turns out that, while the rules were changed back in 2004-2005 during the reserves' experimental phase, they have remained the same since. Oystermen may take out 3-inch oysters until they catch their limits when the oyster bar either had half of its oysters at 4 inches, or when there's enough disease to justify taking them out, says shellfish guru Chris Judy.

DNR's notice did not say anything about each eligible bar already having half its oysters at four inches. The reason Judy said, is because the notice was written for oystermen, and oystermen don't care about that. They only want to know which bars are open, what's the size limit, and how many they can catch.

Makes sense. But that omission is causing some confusion.

ORP Bill Goldsborough noticed the mistake on the blog and called me -- I thank him for that, because we do strive for accuracy here at bayblog...and here's what he says about the ecological value:

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

Watch for Gov. Martin O'Malley to propose tightening state laws regulating shoreline development along Chesapeake Bay and the removal of trees when the General Assembly convenes in January. Those were among the more concrete pledges the governor made when he spoke last night to an enthusiastic crowd of environmentalists and smart-growth advocates at the 10th anniversary gala of 1000 Friends of Maryland.

"Our Critical Area law was the best thing we could do," O'Malley said of the shoreline development regulations pushed through in 1984 by Gov. Harry Hughes.  As with most legislation, O'Malley added, it was "a product of consensus and compromise.  Our people expect a lot more than a law that was the product of the 1970s can provide."   (I think he meant to say 1980s; or maybe I misheard him - a momentary hallucination from hunger, having been obliged to sip water while others dined, for eithical reasons.)

O'Malley also vowed to propose changes to the Forest Conservation Act, a law pushed through by another of his predecessors, William Donald Schaefer.  O'Malley said the law needs tightening "to replace what we've lost through sprawl."
The governor said his administration is working on a "sustainable forestry" initiative, and he signaled his willingness to push for more state actions to combat climate change.

"Things have to change," he said.  "It's not true that all growth generates needed tax revenue .... It's not true we have to grow or die. It's not true that undeveloped land is just a waste."

Such rhetoric was music to the hundreds of activists, officials and developers (yes, some of the 1000 Friends are builders and developers.)

Interestingly, though he was speaking to the converted in decrying the ills of sprawl, one pledge O'Malley didn't make last night was to propose specific revisions to the state's 10-year-old Smart Growth laws.  He's previously said they need tightening.  He even invited Smart Growth's architect, former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, to arrange a two-day, closed-door skull session with his cabinet on how to do a better job of managing growth.

O'Malley did vow last night to "stop making state investments that actually chase bad local decisions." And he suggested that "we need to do a much better job of calculating the true costs of growth," to identify what's economically sustainable and what's not.  

In almost the next breath, he mentioned the "opportunities" presented by military base realignment, which by some projections could bring upwards of 45,000 jobs and 28,000 families to Maryland.  He's expected to propose new funding and legislation to pave the way for that influx, though in this case economists have projected that the new jobs and people will more than refill the state and local tax coffers in years to come.

An O'Malley administration official said later that he is still committed to Smart Growth reform, but intends to put off pushing for it until 2009 - to give officials more time to flesh out proposals.

Whatever the case, he said enough of what the crowd wanted to hear to get a standing ovation.  He also got a plaque honoring what he's done so far to push environmental protections and reinvigorate the state's Smart Growth efforts, which many activists believe had been all but abandoned under O'Malley's immediate predecessor, Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.

Missing amid all the praise for O'Malley was any mention of the Inter-County Connector, the controversial Washington area highway that galls so many environmentalists and smart-growth advocates.  For all his other green cred, O'Malley has been a staunch supporter of the highway, and joined with the federal government in defeating a lawsuit by environmentalists seeking to block the project.

Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends, said she had planned to make a wisecrack about the connector in her remarks last night before the governor's speech, but thought better of it.

"I know there are many here that disagree with me on that," O'Malley said of the ICC when approached after his speech.   Asked how he squared the highway with his support of Smart Growth, he paused, then said, "It's more in the spirit of catching up on the mistakes of the past." Asked if he'd stuck with the project because he felt it would be too difficult to back out of the state's commitment to the project, revived by Ehrlich, he paused again, and said, "Yes."

O'Malley did say he expected to steer more funding to mass transit, thanks to the $400 million  that the General Assembly earmarked at his request for transportation from the tax-increase package he pushed through in the special session just finished.

The governor wasn't the only one getting "attaboys'' at the 1000 Friends gala, despite doing things that have disappointed or angered the faithful.  Another public official praised last night was Howard County Executive Ken Ulman, who despite other steps he's taken to promote green building and the like presided over the Baltimore regional transportation board's approval of a long-range transportation plan that many advocates complain slights transit.

Whatever the differences with O'Malley and others, last night's celebration evidently was not the politic time to air them. Instead it was a time for activists to honor and encourage a governor whose heart, judging by his rhetoric, seems to be with them, even if all his actions aren't. 

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

Few subjects ignite more intense reactions than wind power.  Supporters of wind farms see them as pollution-free sources of electricity and symbols of our nation's willingness to tackle the moral crisis of global warming.  Critics call them government-subsidized scams too unreliable to replace coal and gas power plants, but certainly large enough to permanently mangle a lot of beautiful landscape.

I published a story in today's paper about a Western Maryland farmer who wants a developer to raise three nearly 40-story turbines on his land.  For 69-year-old John Roth, the wind farm would bring him enough money (perhaps $15,000 to $20,000 a year) to allow him to retire and stay on the more than century-old farm where he and his father were born.  Without the cash, Roth worries he'd have to sell the farm, because he's getting older and can't physically tackle raising corn anymore.  So he wants to reap the wind.

Many neighbors praise Roth, saying he's growing a clean energy plant and has the right to do what the hell he wants with his land. But the project, led by Annapolis-based Synergics and its director Wayne Rogers, a former chairman of the Maryland Democratic party, has some persistent critics, who worry about Maryland's tallest ridge being turned into an industrial landscape.

Shorly after my story was published this morning, I received this email from frequent wind critic Jon Boone of Oakland: "Yet another reprehensible story enhancing the industrial wind con, helping Wayne Rogers.... despoil and exploit the land and people of Western Maryland for his own very substantial profit. Rogers' wind project atop Roth Rock would contribute nothing to the region's energy store while clearcuttting, dynamiting, and fragmenting some of the most sensitive habitat in the state, jeopardizing several state-endangered species, and threatening the quality of life for virtually all surrounding neighbors. Those who endorse or profit from placing such industrial complexes near the homes of others evidently don’t have a clue about how to foster civil society. If Rogers succeeds with this project, it will be because the gullible are led by the pretentious, a process made easier because of a lack of accountability.... and the pervasive vacuity of our political and regulatory culture. And stories like this one, from reporters who couldn't hit water with an accurate accounting if they fell out of a boat."

Well, I think we can read between the lines there -- Jon isn't the world's biggest supporter of wind. I'm going to quibble with his last line, however.  In fact, I frequently hit water with great accuracy while falling out of boats.

However, another reader, George Marsh, correctly pointed out that the story contained an error (for which we are running a correction.)  My story said that the Maryland Public Service Commission last October approved the Roth Rock Wind Project. In fact, a hearing examiner for the commission issued a proposed order, approving a permit (called a "certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN)").  This might have been enough to allow the project to move ahead -- but it was appealed, and the full five member Public Service Commission hasn't yet voted on this appeal.  Without this vote, it's not official.  Thanks for setting the record straight on this matter, George.

But there's also a twist: a law passed last spring says that CPCN's aren't necessary for wind farms of this size.  So the whole issue of approval or not approval of a CPCN may be moot. 

(George also brought up the fact that the ridge owned by John Roth where the windmills are proposed are above his farm, and physically separate from it.  I don't think this changes the fact that Roth hopes to make enough money to remain on his farm by allowing the developer to build the wind turbines on his land -- whether the turbines are "above" his farm (which is what I wrote) or right in the middle of his fields)

From another reader, I got this message in support of John Roth from Andrea Lake, an educator from Harford County: "Dear Mr. Pelton, My vote is to let Mr. Roth do what he wants with his land - we have lost so many of our rights - let's let this one stand. Our country needs to 'wake up'.

Another reader, Don Airey, from upstate New York, reports that fights over wind turbines in the Schoharie Valley have gotten so bitter that police had to escort someone out of a town hall meeting this week. "It's that emotional and passionate when people's homes are involved," Airey wrote.

Meanwhile, The New York Times and many other publications have been discussing the reliability of wind power.

A Nov. 23 story by The Times' Mark Landler says: "Wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny, not just from hostile neighbors, who complain that the towers are a blot on the landscape, but from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power."

"For starters, the wind does not blow all the time. When it does, it does not necessarily do so during periods of high demand for electricity. That makes wind a shaky replacement for more dependable, if polluting, energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. Moreover, to capture the best breezes, wind farms are often built far from where the demand for electricity is highest. The power they generate must then be carried over long distances on high-voltage lines, which in Germany and other countries are strained and prone to breakdowns. In the United States, one of the areas most suited for wind turbines is the central part of the country, stretching from Texas through the northern Great Plains -- far from the coastal population centers that need the most electricity."

The Times piece also brings up the current lack of electrical storage capacity for wind power. So that lots of electrity is created on windy days, but there are few practical ways to store this excess until its needed on windless days.

Another perspective comes from writer Karl Stahlkopf, in the technical journal Spectrum Online. He suggests that power grids could be redesigned with equipment that could redistribute power, so that a lull in wind in one area could be compensated by turbines operating in another zone.

"Electronics devices can be combined with energy storage technologies that operate over a range of time scales to manage the shifts in wind power production," he writes. "....Continental supergrids eventually will help, too, by distributing wind-generated power across whole regions, balancing regions where the wind happens to be blowing with those that may be becalmed, while simultaneously spreading the burden of providing backup power."

Is this possible? I always thought that if wind is down in one region of the country it's likely also down in nearby areas from which transmission would be pratical. I don't know.  But if there are any experts on electricity transmission out there, I would like to hear from them.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)
                    

Update: there is new information. Please see more recent post that addresses it.

We have just gotten word that the Department of Natural Resources has changed the rules for managed reserves of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. They've gone from a 4-inch requirement to a partial 3.5 to now a 3. 

The significance of this may not be apparent because it's couched in bureaucratic language. But it means the difference between the supposed purpose of leaving the oysters in the water for a longer time to get ecological benefits -- the stated purpose of the so-called managed reserve program -- and just letting the watermen take them out as they would in any other harvest bar. 

In April, my colleague Greg Garland and I wrote a story about the Oyster Recovery Partnership, the nonprofit that has received millions of dollars in federal finds to re-seed the bay with oysters. Many of those oysters are planted in the managed reserves, which were an alternative to the old approach, where DNR would just spread seed around the bay. Here's how we explained:

Charlie Frentz didn't want to spend millions of dollars to plant disease-resistant oysters only to have the state turn around and deposit diseased seed nearby.

So he asked the watermen to turn down the state's seed. He said the partnership would instead provide hatchery-raised oysters that would eventually be available for harvest. The oysters would be planted on special bars that he called "managed reserves."

Normally, watermen can take oysters from the bay when they are 3 inches long. In the managed reserves, they had to wait until the oysters were 4 inches. The larger size meant the oysters would have an extra year or so to live in the bay.

But after the first year, when one waterman was so mad about the restrictions that he threw an oyster hammer at Larry Simns, the partnership changed the rules. Today, when half a bar's oysters reach 4 inches, watermen also can remove the 3-inch oysters.

Now, here's what is making the rounds (and apparently infuriating lots of recreational fishermen, who have long been howling about this program):

The Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pursuant to Natural Resources Article §4-1009.1 of the Maryland Annotated Code and the Code of Maryland Regulations 08.02.04.14 announces that the oyster harvest reserve areas described below for the Chester River, Choptank River and Patuxent River will be open for harvest under the conditions set forth below.... This action is recommended by the Oyster Harvest Reserve Steering Committee.

Harvesting conditions for all sites: Open Monday through Friday, December 3, 2007 through March 31, 2008 from sunrise till 3pm; 3" minimum cull size; 15 bushel daily limit per license not to exceed 30 bushels per boat (oyster surcharge fee must be paid for each harvester); 5% tolerance of oysters which measure less than 3 inches from hinge to bill and cultch consisting of shells, stones, gravel and slag; only the gear that is legal for the area may be used; catch must be held in containers.

The first year I covered the reserves, in 2004, the difference between them and other oyster bars was clear: the managed reserves were only open Saturday and were only open to tongers and divers. Plus, the aforementioned 4-inch size gave the oysters an extra year in the water.

Now I am wondering what makes the "managed reserves" different than regular harvest bars? Sure, they're monitored and measured, but at the end of the day, you still have the federal government spending millions of dollars to plant oysters in the bay only to let watermen take them out.

Does that make sense? Why did they change the rules? Inquiring minds want to know, but phone calls were not returned last night. All I got from DNR was an explanation of what ORP does, which they surely know I already know.
 

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

After my recent rant about not seeing enough hybrids, I walk into the parking lot and I am sandwiched between two- a Prius and a Civic. Then, I get on the road and I am behind three Priuses...

Is a change in the air?

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

Is the Chesapeake Bay Program trying to put lipstick on a pig?

That's the impression one could be left with from this headline: "Chesapeake Bay Summer Oxygen Conditions Significantly Better Than Predicted." This came to my inbox a little while ago.

It has long been well-established that dissolved oxygen conditions are poor in the summer, particularly in the deep water of the bay. Conditions in summer largely have to do with the kind of winter and spring it was.  Lots of rain = bad conditions. Drought = better conditions. So, because we can't predict the weather, we plan on what we're going to see in the water figuring it will be an average year.

As we all know, there was a pretty significant drought this year- - good for the few oysters remaining and the grassbeds, not so much for the farmers and for my new landscaping efforts. And there was a big wind event in July, which helped mix things up and get some oxygen to the bottom.

There are two problems with the headline, in my opinion. One, the full report, which is available here on the University of Maryland's eco-check web site, is far less rosy and emphasizes that we had continuous harmful algal blooms and numerous fish kills. And two, if weather is the reason for any improvement, however slight, then what is the Bay Program really doing to improve pollution problems?

I am on deadline, and I didn't read every word of it, but it doesn't appear that our government is attributing any of the success, limited as it is, to anything we have done, such as stormwater permit rules, sewage treatment upgrades, controls on development or power plant emissions, successful tributary management, etc.

Are we really trying to manage an estuary by determining which way the wind blows?

Posted by Rona Kobell at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

Maryland's highest court is about to wade into a controversy about large-scale development in rural Allegany County that could have a bearing on Chesapeake Bay and the rest of the state.  The case concerns Terrapin Run, a proposed 4,300 community that would be built on 935 acres off of Scenic U.S. 40 by Green Ridge State Forest.  

It's drawing statewide and even national attention because the heart of the dispute is about the legal weight to be given to comprehensive or master plans, the blueprints for growth that every county and muncipality in the state is required to have.  You can read the story I wrote about it in The Sun here.  As Tom Pelton, the Sun's environmental beat reporter, pointed out to me, controversies have erupted around other large-scale development proposals that did not square with local plans, such as the Blackwater Resort project in Cambridge and Harbor East in Baltimore.

Even as the Terrapin Run dispute was heading to the Court of Appeals in Annapolis, a new one has flared up in Allegany over yet another plan.  This one, two years in the making, seeks to spell out growth in LaVale, an unincorporated area outside Cumberland.  Though parts of LaVale are already heavily developed, with stores, motels and offices along U.S. 40, the new plan drawn up with citizen input over the past year or so originally called for discouraging large-scale residential development.

But local Realtors and at least one large landowner objected to that plan.  The Realtors complained the plan would impose "draconian" restrictions on new housing construction, and worried that the development restrictions imposed in the LaVale plan could become a countywide policy.  They argued that Allegany, struggling to rebuild jobs and hold onto its population, needs to encourage more develpment, not discourage it.  Here's a letter explaining their objections.

After those objections, county planners produced a new version of the plan, calling for more residential and commercial development in the area and nearly doubling the amount of land targeted for new housing, even though state planners project population loss there.  Here's a story about the changes in the Cumberland Times-News.

Smart-growth activists complained that the new language said large-scale residential development was to be encouraged in LaVale. Here's a letter published in the Cumberland Times-News from Dale Sams, a member of the Citizens for Smart Growth in Allegany County, the group that has fought Terrapin Run.

The planning commission's executive director called the revisions "clarifications," which did not require a new public hearing before approving the plan, according to this story in the Times-News. But residents complained the plan's intent had been stood on its head.  The local forestry board objected that the revised plan did not protect lands traditionally used to produce harvestable timber, while the League of Women Voters complained that the changes were made without notice or opportunity for the public to comment. 

The county commissioners have scheduled a public hearing on the plan Dec. 6, after which they could approve the plan or suggest modifications, according to the Times-News. Plan on hearing more about this.

UPDATE: Allegany County commissioners have postponed the hearing on the LaVale plan until January, to give the planning commission a chance to consider amending it.  The planning commission will meet Dec. 19 at 7 p.m., the Cumberland Times-News reports.

 

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

My new radio program, "The Environment Report," starts this morning on WYPR-FM, 88.1 in Baltimore.  It's scheduled to run at 9:35 a.m. every other Wednesday. 

I plan to discuss a wide range of subjects, from exotic species to efforts to fight global warming, as well as battles over pollution control laws in Annapolis.

If you missed it on the radio, you can listen to a digital recording of it on the WYPR web site by clicking here.

If you want to offer any feedback on the show, feel free to post comments on this blog.  Also, please let me know if you have any ideas for stories in the newspaper, radio features or things you'd like the community to discuss on the Bay & Environment blog.  You can contact me at tom.pelton@baltsun.com

The first segment, "Terrapin Man," was about Willem Roosenburg, a biologist who helped lead a lobbying effort to save Maryland's mascot, the Diamondback Terrapin. This spring, he and allies convinced the Maryland legislature to ban the trapping of the turtles, which were being increasingly harvested because of a growing market in China for Chesapeake turtle soup. 

When I wrote a profile of Roosenburg on this blog a few months back, he very modestly replied that he was part of a large group that protected the 'Terps.  In my radio essay, I referred to "Team 'Terp."  Roosenburg spelled out many of the important members of that team: "I want thank Tom for a very flattering story but there are many people who deserve credit for the success of this endeavor.  I have achieved a career goal but with the help of many people including Rick Stanley, Jack Cover, Virgina Clagett, Roy Dyson, Alex Seiss, Jeff Topping, Sandy Barnett, Vicky Poole, Tim Hoen, Norm Meadows and many others who helped direct the political process in the direction that my science indicated.  To these people I am indebted," Roosenburg wrote.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

In this space a couple of months ago, we discussed upcoming priorities for the green groups for this legislative session: to recap, we expect to see a cellulosic ethanol bill and perhaps something on ghost crab pots; there will definitely be discussion of fisheries, such as yellow perch, and some sort of something on oysters, but it's not clear what yet.

Now comes word from the Patuxent Riverkeeper that they're looking to strengthen the Critical Areas Law.

The law restricts building within the shoreline, but exceptions are often granted; and on some occasions (see: Little Island, many other parts of Anne Arundel County) people just build in the critical area anyway, without permits or regard for the law.

Don't know what the environmental groups have in mind, but we shall soon see. At least one activist group, South Arundel Citizens for Responsible Development, is pressuring a bank not to lend to anyone building in the critical area. Stay tuned.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

Good morning! Washingtonian magazine has this very interesting piece about what would happen if a flood were to hit the area.

A thought I'd rather not ponder:

“There’s been considerable development in areas that in my opinion shouldn’t be considered for development,” says University of Maryland coastal scientist Michael Kearney. On Kent Island, on the other side of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from Annapolis, “I can’t believe that those new homes wouldn’t be at severe risk from a major hurricane.”

The writer, Steve Olson, points out that we are losing our early warning signs for hurricanes-- tidal marshes and wetlands. Just as they did in Louisiana. Even in good-weather times, these wetlands, which are rapidly disappearing, are like the kidneys of the bay -- they help filter sediment and protect us from erosion.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

You've heard about eco-friendly vacations and reusable shopping bags.... how about green funerals?

Growing in popularity across the U.S. are funeral services that don't include cremation (which is cheap but produces lots of greenhouse gases), embalming fluids (toxic pollutants) or metal coffins (which don't biodegrade), according to this report.

The green way to go, according to this new industry, is to quickly put the deceased, without any embalming fluids or makeup, into a cardboard box or wooden coffin.  Then bury him or her in a wildlife area, with only a natural rock as a marker.  The key: use the thousands of dollars that would have been spent on a conventional funeral on instead buying conservation easements to help permanantly protect a piece of land.  That way, a person returns naturally into the Earth -- and prevents blacktop or stripmalls from blighting the landscape in the future.

Sounds like a peaceful departure.  But there are downsides, according to the Chicago Tribune: "Green burials also have downsides, mainstream funeral directors contend. They say that makeup application, often used to make the deceased look better after long illnesses, is difficult without embalming. They worry that doing viewings quickly -- usually within 24 to 48 hours to beat any decomposition -- is sometimes too fast for grieving families. They say that digging graves in some parts of the country can be next to impossible for weeks on end in winter, but that unembalmed bodies should not be kept unburied for that long. And they assert that embalming cuts down on the risk, however small, of disease transmission....."

Is this the next frontier of green living?  

A discussion of this subject has been continuing on Treehugger,
with one writer suggesting that coffins made of recycled newspaper are the most eco-elegant way to go.  (Perhaps for someone in the newspaper biz.  But wait....isn't that how dead fish make their exit?)  Or how about a coffin woven from wicker? (See above photo from the British company Greenendings, which advertises "individualised, eco-friendly funerals" with "a range of papier mache, wicker and bamboo caskets....)"

Correspondent Kpod asks if an ethically superior goodbye is to simply donate one's body to medical research.   "So which is greener: a green/woodland burial, or recycling your body by donating it to science?"

I wonder how many people would even care that much about what happens to them after they're gone?

 

Posted by Tom Pelton at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

I spent Thanksgiving week in Galveston, Texas, where my in-laws live. It was an interesting week in many respects -- but for the purposes of this blog, it's probably best to focus on the, er, outdoors parts.

One day, we took a walk along the harbor near The Strand, a revamped part of old Galveston that actually reminded me of a lot of old shore towns, except much bigger. These beautiful old buildings were redone, and now they're touristy shops. Down by the water, we saw white and brown pelicans perched on the rocks. And out in the water sat four huge oil platforms, with ships next to them.

I don't exactly understand all the mechanics of oil drilling -- on my next visit, maybe I'll go to the little museum next to the platform and learn about it -- but I was so disappointed I forgot my camera because I have never seen anything like this before. These cement platforms, just sitting in the water, with huge ships next to them. My brother-in-law tells me that the boats are going ever deeper into the bay to get the oil, which is shipped all over the place. We saw one of the ships said "Halliburton" on the side but we couldn't make out where the other ones were from.

Galveston Bay seems a lot more industrial than the Chesapeake Bay, even more so, I would say, than Baltimore, with its Lehigh Cement and the few other factories that remain. From a distance, it's oddly beautiful to look at, but I do wonder how their crabs and oysters appear to be doing so much better than ours with all of that industry...maybe they have fewer people? There sure did seem to be a lot of development in suburban Houston....

And speaking of Turkey Day, Angus Phillips reminds us that it's not too soon to start thinking about Christmas, and that great wild goose he's going to eat.

I admit I have only tried the bird once -- it was on a sail from Annapolis to St. Mary's, and it was jerky, and it was not necessarily the thing you most want to eat when your stomach is already queasy. But when I woke up in St. Mary's after a rough night at sea, that goose jerky hit the spot. As the captain told me, it was just killed a couple of days before. So it was very fresh jerky...if that isn't an oxymoron.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

Maryland's recent approval of $50 million in Chesapeake Bay cleanup funds comes at a crucial time, advocates say.  The state is stepping up and shouldering its responsibilities at a time when the federal government is paralyzed by political gridlock. 

A lobbying effort in D.C. to get $500 million in federal funds -- parallel to the campaign in Annapolis to get state assistance for the bay -- appears to have flipped off the rails into the swamp.

For months, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others have been trying to persuade Congress to revise the federal Farm Bill.  They want the normal cash subsidies handed out to farmers every year to include more financial rewards for environmental good behavior.  For example, more money to entice farmers to plant buffer strips of trees along streams, forming a natural filter to prevent fertilizer from running into the bay.  But recently the foundation conceded that nothing will happen this year.  Their lobbyists say political gridlock is holding up meaningful revisions to the Farm Bill.  And of course next year is an election year, so it may not be the best time for serious legislative debate.  Efforts in the past to win large amounts of federal cash to clean the bay have also run aground.

The Bay Foundation issued this statement, expressing frustration:

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) -- For the last two weeks, the Senate has been mired in gridlock preventing consideration of the Farm Bill. (On Nov. 16) the Senate failed to move the process forward, and it is now possible that the bill will not be considered this year. Following today’s vote, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) Federal Affairs Director Doug Siglin issued the following statement.

"The Farm Bill currently on the Senate floor would provide an unprecedented amount of conservation funding critical to the health of local farms and water quality in rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. This bill provides farmers the tools they need to reduce runoff and remain profitable. Allowing this gridlock to continue and failing to pass a new Farm Bill jeopardizes up to $500 million in new conservation funding for the region. Our waterways and the Chesapeake Bay are a national treasure, and CBF is calling on the region’s Senate delegation to work together to move the Farm Bill forward."

Posted by Tom Pelton at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

When people think about pollution choking the Chesapeake Bay, they often focus on sewage treatment plants, leaky urban storm drains, or farmers spreading poultry manure on their fields.

But what about those suburban lawns?  Fertilizing farm fields is one thing.  At least farmers do that for a socially useful purpose, to grow food for the rest of us to eat.  But lawn fertilizer is an aesthetic thing. No one will starve without it.  Some folks just like the look of a bright green spongy chemically enhanced lawn.  It's kind of like a carpet outside your house -- and kind of like nature on steroids.

By some calculations, lawn fertilizer makes up 11 percent of the pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay.  That would make it at least as big of a problem as poultry manure, which makes up about 10 percent of the pollution flowing into the estuary from Maryland.

In an open letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley, a former Maryland Department of the Environment official, Vincent H. Berg, makes the case that the state should consider a ban on lawn fertilizer containing the phosphorus, a pollutant that helps to spur excessive algae growth.  Similar bans on laundry and dish detergent containing phosphorus have been passed in recent years by the state.  Perhaps it's time for the focus to shift to lawn fertilizer.

Check out Berg's letter to the Governror (which follows).  And then stay tuned to see if he gets a response.    

 

An Open Letter to the Governor of Maryland

October 25, 2007

Honorable Martin O’ Malley, Governor

State of Maryland

Maryland State House

Annapolis, Maryland, 21401

Re: Urban/Suburban Lands: Causing the Failure of the Chesapeake Bay Program

Dear Governor O’Malley:

There have been many stories about the Chesapeake Bay Program over the last several months. I thought I would give you my perspective concerning the Chesapeake Bay Program having lived with the Program for the past 25 years. I have worked closely in the urban/suburban programs (county and state level), forestry programs and agricultural programs of the Bay during my career. I have also been a member of the State Water Quality Advisory Committee, Middle Potomac Tributary Team, and local land conservation, agriculture and forestry committees.

The three main land use and facility areas of Bay Restoration are Agriculture, Wastewater and Urban/Suburban Lands. All of these groups must reach 100% of their goals if the Bay Restoration efforts are to be marginally successful. A great deal of progress has been made in two of these areas, Agriculture and Wastewater. As you can see from the enclosed tables (1 to 5) from the presentation by the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Office, based on Bay Restoration Goals, reductions for Agriculture are 45% for Total Nitrogen, 49% for Total Phosphorus and 43% for Sediment. The Wastewater component has reduced Total Nitrogen loads by 72% and Total Phosphorus by 87%.

Remember all three elements are needed to have a successful Bay Program with the established goals to be reached by the year 2010. Also consider that about 9% (18% in Maryland) of the Chesapeake Watershed area is in the Urban/Suburban category. After 25 years, the Urban/Suburban Lands component has increased the Total Nitrogen load by 90%, increased the Total Phosphorus load by 87% and increased the Sediment load by 57%. After 25 years the Urban/Suburban Lands programs is nearly twice the distance away from their required Chesapeake Bay Goals. How could such a situation have occurred with so many government agencies and technical people looking after this issue? The impact of Urban/Suburban Lands is now nearly twice as great (22%) on the Bay and a minor source is now a major source of pollutants and growing fast.

The basic problem is the entire population of the watershed (people), and the way we do not control our every day activities and the impacts of our urban/suburban life-style has on the watershed. In 2001 45% of the total nutrients (fertilizer) tonnage used in Maryland (farm and non-farm) was used on urban/suburban lands and it is projected to reach half of all nutrient (fertilizer) use shortly (see chart 9). We regulate and control agricultural nutrients, but have placed no controls on urban/suburban use of fertilizers in Maryland. As a major first step to control urban fertilizer use, many organizations have been supporting the need for retail sales of ‘Zero Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer’ to reduce nutrient loadings (this product should be less costly than current lawn fertilizer). I strongly urge you to move forward on this important legislative initiative this year.

The next issue is how we control or do not control the runoff from urban developing lands, redeveloping lands and infill development. Maryland Laws do not require documented improvement in runoff and water quality conditions when development occurs, only that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be employed on development projects. Your own environmental agency has said that development of urban/suburban lands reduces nutrient and sediment loads (TN= 25%, TP= 40% and TSS=40% all reductions) to the Bay. If this were true the attached graphics would be quit different. How is this false information helpful and honest to the Chesapeake Bay Program?

The Stormwater and New Development Task Group (SNDTG) within the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office has been assigning efficiency ratings to Urban/Suburban BMPs to be used in the Bay Model. The Bay Model will be used to predict progress in meeting the Bay’s Goals. The efficiencies the SNDTG are using are based on very little science and mostly on individual’s best judgment to assign efficiencies to the BMPs. To make matters worse they are assigning the first operational year (highest efficiency) to the BMPs as the efficiency rather than the mid life efficiency of each BMP. The model is being skewed to look better for Urban/Suburban BMPs than it will be in reality over the life of the BMPs. An honest Bay Model is needed to project accurate progress.

The need to utilize new, proven and innovative BMPs and the need for retrofitting existing developed areas with stormwater controls has not been the priority of your environmental regulatory agency. There should be documented "no net increase" in nutrient and sediment loads from all new development and major reductions from redevelopment projects.

As you know Senator Bernie Fowler has tried for 30 years to have one tributary of the Bay restored to a healthy condition and the "Wade In" has shown a continuous decline for the past 10+ years. It is unfortunate that during one of the greatest development periods in the history of Maryland we were not able to make positive progress towards the Urban/Suburban Goals of the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay Restorations.

It is my hope that I and the many constitute groups that have a stake in the ultimate success of the Chesapeake Bay Program can provide additional support and advice to your Office in developing more effective means for the protection and restoration of Maryland’s waters and reversing the Urban/Suburban Lands problems quickly or the Bay Restoration effort will be lost.

Sincerely,
Vincent H. Berg, P.E.,

Vincent H. Berg, P.E. has worked on urban environmental issues for the past 34 years. Mr. Berg was the former Director of the Sediment and Stormwater Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment from 1989 to 1992. Mr. Berg is currently a member of the Middle Potomac Tributary Team and local land conservation, agriculture and forestry committees.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)