Chesapeake Area Bird Watchers Also Keep a Keen Eye on the Bay

When we look at the Chesapeake Bay, we see water. But the region’s avid bird watching population knows that to see some of the species that call the estuary home, you must look to the sky. And just as birds play a vital part in the bay’s ecosystem, bird watchers take an active role in its culture.

Yesterday, Pat Tate, president of the Anne Arundel Bird Club, wrote a column featured in the Annapolis Capital advocating bird watching as a “great opportunity for everyone, young and old, to connect with nature and enjoy wildlife all around the area.” The Chesapeake dominates the environmental landscape, providing welcoming habitats to hundreds of bird species in its 64,000 square mile watershed, so clubs such as this chapter of the Maryland Ornithological Society depend on it as a resource, a teaching tool, and the locale of many field trips and expeditions. So they work to protect their birds and the bay both, dedicating themselves “to the protection and conservation of bird life and other natural resources.”

Photo of a hunting osprey. Source: Tim Lenz

In the next two weeks, the bird-watching community will be abuzz because of the homecoming of the osprey, one of signature birds of region, after a winter in South America, according to recent Annapolis Capital article by Pamela Wood. The hobbyists celebrate ospreys, and not just because they are easily spotted. Like many bay-area birds, the ospreys had their population crippled by pesticides such as DDT. But after DDT was banned in 1970s, they rebounded, and now the Chesapeake area is home to largest known concentration of the sea hawks in the world, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

But though the birds signal success and pride for the bird watchers, the ospreys also show them what they still must fight to accomplish to protect their pastime. A U.S. Geological Survey study on the Chesapeake released in 2008 said that birds such as the osprey are still threatened by pollution, disease, climate change, overfishing and shoreline overdevelopment, which harm not only the health of the birds but also their food sources and habitats. As the Fish and Wildlife Service said, “The osprey’s high visibility and position at the top of the aquatic food chain make it a valuable indicator species for detecting future habitat destruction, dwindling fish populations, and contamination of the environment.”

Bird watchers must keep up the fight for the bay to keep their community intact.

Is More Government Regulation the Solution?

The Clean Water Act is central to restoring the Chesapeake Bay.  It was passed in 1972 and the goals of the act are clearly outlined in Title 1, Section 101 of the law, which reads, “The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

As the EPA explains, the Clean Water Act regulates everything from direct pollutant discharges into waterways to preservation of wetlands and issues relating to municipal wastewater treatment facilities, nonpoint source pollution and runoff.

The law also states, “It is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983.”

In Hedrick Smith’s Frontline documentary, Poisoned Waters, Will Baker of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation explains that the Chesapeake watershed is at a turning point, on the verge of being unable to offer a place for recreation, provide food or maintain aesthetic value linked to tourism and state pride.  Smith’s documentary outlines the political history that is behind the inconsistency with environmental cleanup.  The Clean Water Act set goals for 1983 that have still not been met in 2010.

Smith explains that severe degradation of the nation’s waterways led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 under the Nixon administration.  Smith interviews former EPA Administrator, William Ruckelshaus who says, “We had to issue standards and enforce them.”

Smith explains that the public was interested in the environment during the 1970s, and that as a result, significant political progress was made.  The Reagan administration adopted a policy of deregulation during the 1980s, and transformed environmental regulation into a cooperative, voluntary program.  The experts in Smith’s documentary identify this political shift as the root of the ineffective cleanup efforts still taking place today.

President Obama has already made strides towards stricter regulation.  He issued an executive order in May 2009 reiterating the importance of protecting the Chesapeake Bay and calling for stricter enforcement of programs outlined in the Clean Water Act.  In Part 3, Section 301. Water Pollution Control Strategies, Obama calls for “using Clean Water Act tools, including strengthening existing permit programs and extending coverage where appropriate.”

History indicates that stricter regulation leads to better results where the environment is concerned, but the questions remain: Will this political action happen in time to save the Chesapeake? And is there enough public interest to bring about this change?

Weighing Chicken House Damage

Nearly 100 Eastern Shore farmers gathered in Princess Anne recently to discuss the most pressing issues facing their livelihood during Lower Shore Agronomy Day.

At the top of the minds of many farmers was the destruction of 41 confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and 12 cattle barns during the massive round of snowstorms that socked the Mid-Atlantic earlier this month.

CAFOs, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations, are structures holding animals in tight quarters for feeding them, with no vegetations or crops to help naturally absorb their waste.

Factory farms and their CAFOs are an important part of the way farmers and those involved in the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore do their jobs and enact production. However, environmentalists and advocates for the Chesapeake Bay most likely aren’t crying over the damage the storms did to these feeding operations.

In the words of Assateague Coastkeeper Kathy Phillips, who spoke News21 reporters at the University of Maryland last week, the bay would probably be much better off if there were fewer CAFOs in operation in Maryland, because of the pollution associated with  these feeding operations.

Phillips is not alone – other groups, including one in rural Michigan, are spearheading efforts to get rid of CAFOs because of concerns about the pollution they emit.

The Eastern Shore of Maryland, a hotbed for the poultry industry, is populated by chickens versus people at the rate of 1,000-to-1, according to Phillips’s Web site. So the severe damage to 41 chicken houses puts a strain on the production capabilities of an important industry in Maryland.

Yet because of their potential impact large chicken houses can have on water quality, it would be no surprise to see environmental and bay activists favor a slowdown on their repair or reconstruction.

Putting Environmental Issues First?

With the political cycle in Maryland gearing up for the upcoming elections, a new group has formed which hopes to influence politicians to put environmental issues as their number one priority.

The Anne Arundel chapter of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters told The Capital that it will focus on both County Council and County Executive races. With the Chesapeake Bay experiencing such rough times, the group believes that environmental friendly candidates are needed to be part of the solution.

As the article points out, this is not the first group to take an environmental stand during elections. Back in 2006, “Blue Crab Candidates” were chosen. These candidates were picked because “if blue crabs could vote, they would pick those candidates.” This did not have a big effect on the outcome of the elections, though.

Maryland environmentalists may think that the environment, especially the Chesapeake Bay, should be a major part of the 2010 election, but other people have varying opinions. The unemployment rate, gambling, tuition hikes are among the hot issues. And Dan Nataf, a political science professor at Anne Arundel Community College, told The Capital he feels the Maryland League of Conservation Voters will have to “work hard to make headway against the dominant topic in this year’s election: the economy.”

The Grass is Sometimes Greener …

Sometimes it helps to look outside one’s own boundaries for new ideas.

England and Wales have a long history of farming on limited land surrounded by water. They are also under similar pressures as other farmers: produce food while working within European Union regulations, earn money, and use best farming practices that will sustain the land and water.

So it’s worth looking at programs they have implemented that both help preserve the environment and cut costs.

A series of case studies is available on the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency’s web site. The Agency is responsible for the whole of England and Wales: about 15 million hectares of land, 22,000 miles of river and 3,100 miles of coastline seawards to the three-mile limit, which includes 2 million hectares of coastal waters.

It’s worth taking a look at this 100-page booklet (free and available in PDF format). It’s well designed, easy to read, points out all the aid and funding available to farmers, and describes how each farmer (whether involved in horticulture, pigs, or poultry) tackled a particular problem, solved it, and saved money in the bargain.

The areas covered include using water wisely, combatting floods, crop protection, nutrients, livestock, ditches and riverbanks and reducing waste.

What might be interesting is creating a link between farmers in this program with farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed so they can discuss ideas, problems and solutions, in a public forum that readers/consumers could see.

As a journalist, it is always useful to compare how different people approach a similar conflict. I also like the idea of getting outside opinions and commentary, as the science/environment/federal agency/business/advocacy community focused on the Chesapeake, by the very nature of their constant interaction, appears to be a touch familial at times.

Clearly, the EA is an interested party, so its reports have to be considered with that in mind. And in the past, the UK agency has come under criticism for a lack of clarity, leadership and accountability. Experts have also said that the agency faced too great a conflict between its roles as habitat protector and planning regulator. But those criticisms should not detract from the successful work that has been done.

Bay Beetle Endangers Homes

For a close-up look at the struggle between man and nature along the Chesapeake Bay, consider one endangered insect.

Reports from WJZ13 and The Bay Net explain that at least 100 homes in a southern Maryland neighborhood called Calvert Cliffs are infested with a rare beetle named Puritan Tiger Beetle. Ironically, the beetle that is endangering the homes has been on the endangered species list itself. Though a majority of the beetle population lives in Maryland, only an estimated 5,000 of them are left.

The homes in Calvert County are on land that is eroding, which puts the homes at risk for collapsing into the Chesapeake Bay. Some homes are now perched very close to the edge of eroding cliffs. The homeowners have proposed various ways of countering the erosion and secure their homes, including construction of retaining walls, but government officials have said  these measures may interfere with the survival of the beetles, which burrow into the eroding cliffs to lay their eggs and reproduce.

This epitomizes the struggle between man versus nature near the Bay. People want to live on the waterfront properties, yet development imposes on the natural ecosystem and environmental habitat. These rare beetles don’t have a place to live.

This serves as a reminder that when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay and other vast ecosystems, every element is connected. There are many facets to consider. Especially since no one wants pesky beetles in their homes.

Conference Center on Choptank Struggles to Manage Debt

Eight years ago,  the Chesapeake Bay Convention Center was built as part of a brand new Hyatt Regency hotel along the banks of the Choptank River in the city of Cambridge.

The complex includes a marina and golf course, obviously an effort to attract more visitors and tourists to the hotel and surrounding region. Dorchester County hoped the new facility would be a major shot in the arm to the region’s economy. It hasn’t worked out that way, at least not recently.

According to the Maryland Reporter, the convention center/hotel  did not generate enough revenue to cover its costs in the year that ended last summer.  Documents from the Maryland Economic Development Corporation show the complex lost nearly $400,000 in FY 2009.

The Maryland Economic Development Corporation originally fronted the developers bond money to support construction and says that the complex still has millions of dollars to support it, despite the losses.

While there’s probably no reason to panic over the subpar economic performance of one convention center in the region, these are the kind of issues that need to be considered by anyone studying the Chesapeake Bay.  Tourism related to the bay is a lynchpin of the region’s economy.

Anne Arundel County, for instance, says that over 30,000 jobs in its area alone rely on the tourism industry, which accounted for $1.8 billion in spending in FY 2006.

The Chesapeake Bay is a driving force in how many people visit the region and how much money they spend.  So while one facility’s financial shortfalls in a single year may not be a reason to freak out, it’s worth considering that continuing declines in the health of the bay could cause tourism numbers to keep falling, too.