Virginia
Pound Net Fishing on the Chesapeake
By Gary Greenwood
Antipoison Creek is home to three pound-net fishermen. If you are up early, you can see them heading out to their nets in their iconic Chesapeake workboats. A couple of weeks ago my neighbor, Joe, took me out with him for their morning fishing.
Pound nets are a type of fish weir. A pound net is a collection of nets, set in a fixed location. The nets are set on pine poles driven into soft river bottom. They are designed to herd the fish into a single square net with a small exit hole. I couldn’t find a description of pound nets on Wikipedia, so they may be unique to the Chesapeake. Maryland and Virginia both have websites (see below) with the nets’ locations marked on a map.
We left the dock a couple of minutes after 5 AM. Joe’s nets were set on poles in the Rappahannock River, so we headed east, around Windmill Point, and a short distance up the Rappahannock. By 6 AM we were at the first net, and Joe and his two mates were pulling up the net using the small skiff we had towed out with us.
Ideally, the nets would be full of Croaker as they bring the most money back at the dock. But, not this morning. Mostly they caught menhaden, and not a lot of that. As part of the morning’s catch, Joe also brought in some small flounder, some sugar toads, and a snapping mackerel. These would be sold separately from the menhaden.
As soon as we tied up to the pound net, two local sport fishing boats pulled up and tied up to Joe’s boat. After the fish were brought aboard, they were sorted into bushel baskets, and each of the fishing boats purchased a couple of bushels of fresh menhaden. I think they were headed out to the Windmill Point light where cobia were rumored to be lurking.
As soon as the sport fishermen headed out, a local crabber stopped by to pick up a few bushels of menhaden for his pots. Then we moved onto the second net, and repeated the process. Not as many fish in the second net, and no buyers tied up, so Joe ended up taking several bushels back. Joe sold a couple of bushels to another crabber on his way back to the dock, and the rest were all spoken for. A small group of local residents were waiting to see what he had caught, and they purchased the flounder and other fish.
Maps to Chesapeake poundnets are here >> https://webapps.mrc.virginia.gov/public/maps/virginia_poundnets.php and here >> http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/pages/poundnets/index.aspx.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Will Not Appeal VA Court Decision
Last month I posted about the Richmond Circuit Court ruling against the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) in the case of CBF vs. Virginia, (see here). In this case, CBF argued that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the State Water Control Board should have included livestock exclusion from streams in a permit that both agencies passed late last year on land application of animal waste.
The Richmond Circuit Court, after reviewing the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit in question, decided that given the lack of clarity in the permit’s wording, Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality and the State Water Control Board were able to make their own call on the issue of livestock exclusion from streams. With this ruling, CBF’s case was rejected. As of last week, CBF has decided not to appeal this decision.
Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Meets to Discuss Progress, Initiatives
Last Thursday, July 23rd, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council met in Washington, D.C. to discuss progress, setbacks, and initiatives going forward for restoration of the Bay. The Executive Council is made up of governors from all Bay states and the Mayor of D.C., as well as heads of relevant federal agencies.
Present at Thursday’s meeting were: Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (the Executive Council Chair); D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser; Maryland Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford*; Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection, John Quigley*; and Delaware’s Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Ed Kee. Also present were heads of various agencies: Administrator of the EPA, Gina McCarthy; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the Department of the Interior, Karen Hyun; Assistant Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Services in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kirk Hamlin; and Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, L. Scott Lingamfelter.
The public meeting began with an introduction from Chesapeake Bay Program Director Nick DiPasquale. He mentioned the interconnectedness of all species and habitats in the Bay watershed, and the need for multi-state partnerships to protect and restore the Bay. Following his presentation, the Executive Council panel made brief comments on what had been discussed at the earlier private lunch. A short Q&A session from the press ended the meeting.
Most of the meeting was spent by council members reassuring the public that a lot of progress had been made to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and that a lot more progress was required. However, a few specific initiatives were mentioned that shed some light on how restoration efforts might progress in the years to come.
The Council mentioned a riparian forest buffer resolution, and the need for partner states to increase compliance and enforcement among farmers to install riparian buffer zones along waterways. Going off of this, Chesapeake Bay Commission Chair, Lingamfelter, discussed livestock stream exclusion. While many Bay states, such as Virginia, have a majority of their farmers participating in livestock stream exclusion, there is still more to be done in the watershed. Lingamfelter calls for greater USDA support and outlined five actions he recommended to the Secretary of the USDA to ensure livestock stream exclusion is enforced throughout the watershed. These actions include educating farmers, increasing technical and financial assistance for fencing or riparian buffers, and making requirements more clear, and more of a priority.
The issue of funding restoration efforts came up several times during the meeting. Governor McAuliffe announced an increase in federal funding. The current Presidential Budget allocates $39.7 million, pending congressional approval, toward conservation and restoration in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, while the previous fiscal year allocated only $7.58 million. Maryland Lt. Governor Rutherford suggested creating more public-private partnerships to increase funding from the private sector. He mentioned a resolution to sponsor a symposium by the Bay and federal partners to further discuss this idea.
The panel ended with EPA Administrator McCarthy and Virginia Governor McAuliffe highlighting where more efforts need to be made, such as urban stormwater runoff and agriculture, and the need for Bay states and partners to share their best practices with each other to improve water quality throughout the watershed.
This meeting was the first for many Executive Council members who had been newly elected as representatives for their states or cities in 2014. This excuse was used to explain why timetables for the next two-year milestone (2015-2017) were yet to be released. (Milestones are due to come in to the EPA in mid-January of 2016). While more specifics on timeframes and restoration plans would have been appropriate, the meeting did provide some insight on what Bay states will be focusing on over the next couple of years to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
* Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe was the only governor present at Thursday’s meeting. Maryland’s Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford stepped in for Governor Larry Hogan as he underwent medical treatment. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection, John Quigley, represented his state as Governor Tom Wolf was held up in Harrisburg, attempting to finaliz
Crabbing on Antipoison Creek
By Gary Greenwood
As Katie pointed out in a previous post, some restaurants in the Washington area were reporting a shortage of crabs. When I was down at our house on Antipoison Creek, I stopped by to see Glenn, one of the local crabbers, to see how many crabs he was catching.
On July 2, Glenn brought in nine bushels of crabs from more than 150 pots. He considered that a good day, and said he had had a pretty good June as well. I rode with him as he delivered the crabs to his buyer and then picked up bait for his next trip out. Glenn had four bushels of #1s, three bushels of #2 and 2 bushels of #3 crabs.
The first picture shows the buyer weighing the four bushels of #1 jimmy crabs. Each bushel is marked as to the type of crab it contains. #1 are mature jimmy (male) crabs. These are often sold intact for steamed crabs. #2 jimmy crabs are younger male crabs, probably used for crabmeat. The #3 crabs are mature sooks (females). The price paid for a bushel depends on the type of crab, as well as the time of year and market.
The buyer was waiting for one more waterman to drop off his crabs, and then he would load the day’s catch into a refrigerated truck to take to the Little River Seafood processing plant up in Reedville.
After the bushels were weighed, Glenn picked up nine empty baskets, and we headed back to White Stone to pick up bait at a local fish warehouse. Glenn uses menhaden to bait his crab pots, and we picked up five 50-pound boxes of frozen menhaden. We stored those in an insulated box on the dock, ready to be loaded on the boat for the next trip out. Buddy, the blue heron that hangs out at Glenn’s fish house talked us into giving him one of the menhaden, which he promptly stabbed with his beak.
A Review of Virginia’s TMDL Assessment
By Neil Saunders
Given the EPA’s recent interim assessment of the Bay States’ ongoing implementation of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the Third Circuit’s affirmation of the legality of the Bay TMDL, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the findings of Virginia’s water quality assessment. While this assessment is relevant to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, in that any sub-watersheds belonging to the Chesapeake watershed apply to the Bay TMDL, it encompasses all of the waterbodies in Virginia- not only those belonging to the Bay watershed.
Virginia may be on track towards Bay TMDL implementation, but current water quality in the state is still far from healthy. According to Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) 2014 water quality assessment, a significant percentage of rivers, lakes, and estuaries are “impaired” in three out of the six designated uses in Virginia: recreation, aquatic life, and fish consumption.
The assessment sites the presence of E. Coli from agriculture, urban runoff, leaking sanitary and storm sewers, and domesticated animals as primarily responsible for the impairment of the recreation use. For aquatic life, low levels of dissolved oxygen concentration and nutrient enrichment are the primary cause of impairment. Specific causes for impairment of fish consumption are mercury and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The remaining designated uses are shellfishing, public water supply, and wildlife, which have a much lower percentage of impaired waterbodies.
Additionally, a vast majority of lakes (81%) and estuarine waters (75%) tested are impaired for at least one designated use. River waters have a lower percentage of impairment (17%), but this figure does not take into account the 78% categorized as non-assessed due to insufficient data. DEQ utilizes two methods of data collection: DEQ-approved monitoring, which includes all monitoring performed by DEQ or individuals approved by DEQ, and lower quality, DEQ-non-approved monitoring, which includes outside data collection by citizen groups, the private sector, and other government organizations. Both types of monitoring play an important role in DEQ’s overall assessment methodology (p. 4). It is not clear from the report, however, why so much data for river waters are insufficient to assess.
The VA DEQ 2104 assessment is based on six years of monitoring between 2007 and 2012. The Clean Water Act requires every state to submit to the EPA a biennial review describing the quality of their navigable waters. Virginia uses a monitoring schedule that covers 1/3 of all waters every two years, so that all waters are monitored within a six-year period.
Unlike the EPA interim assessment, however, this water quality assessment provides a more accurate and immediate sense of what the Virginia’s water quality was in 2012. As the information in this report shows, despite Virginia staying on track for the most part to meet the Bay TMDL implementation targets, there is still a long way to go and a lot that needs to be done for the water quality to actually improve.
One of the biggest areas for improvement is monitoring. As stated earlier, almost 80% of river waters throughout the state are categorized as “non-assessed” due to lack of sufficient data. As a result, it is uncertain what percentage of these rivers are meeting their respective water quality standards, and what percentage are impaired or threatened. Unfortunately, a lack of sufficient monitoring- a problem which exists in most states- is more easily fixable in theory than in practice: understaffing at the agencies charged with conducting the water quality assessments as well as budgetary constraints severely limit the amount of waters that can be properly assessed.
One potential way in which monitoring can improve is through Virginia’s citizen monitoring programs. DEQ relies on citizen monitoring data to supplement its own data collection, and offers grant money to organizations through the state’s Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Grant Program. While DEQ cites 120 such organizations as providing data for the current assessment, not all data collected could be used because they did not meet DEQ’s assessment methodolgy or procedures. If more citizen-collected data could be used by DEQ, through additional citizen involvement and proper training, more waterbodies could be assessed, which would lead to more accurate assessments of water quality and more accurate changes to address water quality conditions.
Improved monitoring may not directly address other issues plaguing water quality, such as excessive bacteria or nutrient enrichment, but with more accurate assessments, Virginia can more effectively manage its regulatory framework to achieve greater reductions in pollution and better meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and Bay TMDL.
The information in this post was acquired from the report available on VA DEQ’s website: http://www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAssessments/2014305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx#factsheets.
An Update on CBF vs. VA : A Setback to Virginia Water Quality
The Richmond Circuit Court judge who heard the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) vs. Virginia lawsuit earlier this month has ruled against CBF’s plea to keep livestock out of state streams and rivers. The decision allows large livestock farmers, particularly cattle farmers, to give animals unfettered access to Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Virginia has pledged to institute Best Management Practices (BMPs), including the use of stream buffers and fences on farmlands, to reduce nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay. This ruling, however, impedes the institution of such practices, and threatens water quality in the watershed.
CBF sued the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the State Water Control Board over the passing of the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit- a permit that regulates animal waste management for animal feeding operations. The permit fails to address the need for large livestock farms (i.e. 200-300 cattle) to put into place stream buffers and fencing that would keep livestock out of streams and rivers on these farms. (Please see this post from July 1). Without buffers and fencing, livestock can deposit waste directly into waters, and can erode stream banks, putting excess sediment into the watershed.
The lawsuit, heard on July 9, was dismissed by Judge C.N. Jenkins. While CBF argues that free-roaming livestock can “apply” their waste directly to streams, the judge believes that application of manure can only refer to the spreading of waste by livestock farmers.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Files Suit Against Virginia
Kudos to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) for moving ahead on a major water quality issue in Virginia. This week CBF filed suit against Virginia’s Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) and the State Water Control Board over failure to enforce state regulations for livestock farmers.
One of the management practices Virginia has said it will implement to reduce water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is making sure all farmers keep their livestock out of streams and rivers through the use of fences and stream buffers. CBF has found that many Virginia livestock farmers are not implementing these management practices. This is thanks to the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit, approved last year by the DEQ and the Water Control Board for a ten-year period. This permit does not require the state’s largest livestock farms (cattle, pig, poultry) to fence and buffer streams to which the livestock have access.
CBF’s challenge to the DEQ and the State Water Control Board, should it be upheld in court, will improve a flawed permitting process, ensure that Virginia does its part to reduce water pollution, and ultimately improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
Fencing off streams and rivers from livestock reduces water quality issues in the tributaries and mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay. When livestock have wading access to bodies of water, they are able to pollute streams and rivers with their waste, adding to the nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that enters the Bay. Livestock also erode stream banks, depositing sediment directly into the water, which makes its way downstream and eventually reaches the Bay.
By allowing farms to give their livestock access to streams and rivers, the DEQ and State Water Control Board are not enforcing the State Water Control Law, which calls for a reduction and prevention of water pollution. Furthermore, by not enforcing regulations that curb nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment runoff from agriculture, Virginia is violating its agreement with the EPA (in the Clean Water Blueprint) to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution entering the Bay from state waters.
The Richmond Circuit Court will hear arguments for this case this Thursday, July 2. Updates to come.
The original press release from CBF can be found here.
A Review of the EPA’s Assessment of Virginia’s Bay Cleanup Progress
By Neil Saunders
According to the EPA’s recent interim assessment of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia is on track to meet its TMDL targets for both nitrogen and phosphorus, but is off track to meet its targets for sediment. Three out of four sectors- agriculture; wastewater treatment plants and onsite systems; and offsets and trading- are under the lower “ongoing oversight” designation, with the remaining sector- urban/suburban storm water- under the intermediate “enhanced oversight.” According to the EPA’s “Next Steps,” urban/suburban storm water may be upgraded to “ongoing oversight” in 2016 provided Virginia completes certain MS4 (define) permitting requirements.
What do these results mean going forward? At this stage in the overall TMDL process, it is an encouraging sign that Virginia, which contributes significant nutrient levels to the Bay, is on track to meets its 2017 targets for nitrogen and phosphorus. It is also encouraging that Virginia appears close to receiving an upgrade in oversight level for the urban/storm water sector, which would place all of the state’s programs under the lower “ongoing oversight” level. Until all practices are in place (which isn’t expected until 2025), this is generally what we hope to see in all of the Bay States’ interim assessments.
Despite the largely positive results, however, there are still areas where Virginia can improve. Sediment levels remain an issue for the state, and will require additional measures to achieve the necessary reductions targets by 2017. This will likely prove challenging, given the fact that the EPA’s current projections of sediment levels over the past decade are higher than were initially anticipated, meaning more sediment has been entering the Bay than previously thought. Another concern is that, although the EPA’s model projections place the state’s agriculture practices on track to meet the 2017 targets within that sector, the fact that Virginia maintains a voluntary approach to nutrient management makes it difficult to accurately measure. The EPA expects that Virginia will work with the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to “project the necessary pace of voluntary agriculture program implementation to stay on track with nutrient and sediment reduction goals and set milestones accordingly.”
The interim “results” are based largely on models that project future nutrient and sediment levels, and incorporate many activities, or practices, that have not yet been implemented. Unless the states actually follow through on their commitments, many of the positive projections will be unrealized. Therefore, it is crucial that the states continue to take any and all additional measures that are necessary to restore the Chesapeake Bay. There is still a long way to go and a lot more that needs to be done.
The interim assessments were released to for the six Bay States’ 2014-2015 milestones. These assessments, which form part of the EPA’s overall accountability framework under the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed, play an integral role in evaluating the progress of the Bay States towards meeting their respective pollution reduction targets, and are used to identify areas of concern that require additional measures to meet those targets.
The EPA and Bay States are currently in Phase II of a three-phase, fifteen year process of the TMDL, which means that they are continuing to work towards implementing practices by 2017 that will meet sixty percent of the total pollution reductions needed to clean the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. The third and final phase is to be completed by 2025, and requires 100 percent of the pollution reductions measures to be in place.
2015 Blue Crab Regulations
Last Tuesday, May 26, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) held a public hearing on blue crab management. The issues voted on included dates for the crab management season (July 5, 2015 – July 4, 2016), the commercial crabbing season (March 17 – November 30), and the culling of sponge crabs (female crabs carrying eggs). The Commission voted to restrict the culling of sponge crabs from March 17 to June 15 of this year.
The commission also voted on bushel limits, agreeing to keep in place stricter limits for commercial crabbers that were enforced last summer in response to the extremely low crab population. To review, the VMRC voted in July of 2014 to reduce the harvesting of female and juvenile blue crabs by 10%, effective through July of 2015. These regulations were put into place after the 2013-2014 winter dredge survey found that only 297 million blue crabs were in the Chesapeake. From this number, there were less than 70 million female crabs of spawning age. These population numbers are low for the Chesapeake Bay. In 2012, there were 765 million blue crabs in the Bay. That number was cut by more than half in the two years that followed.
While the Bay’s blue crab population did slightly increase over the past year, to 411 million crabs, the stricter regulations have been kept in place to get crab numbers up to a healthier level, closer to the 765 million-population number of 2012.
Again, as last year, I would like to see the VMRC put harsher regulations in place for the culling of sponge crabs, making it illegal altogether for commercial crabbers to harvest female crabs carrying eggs, not just during a certain time period. In addition I would like to see Virginia restrict winter dredging of blue crabs for harvest. The VMRC agreed to put off a vote on winter dredging until later this fall. The VMRC has voted to restrict this activity over the past couple of years and hopefully will do so again. Winter dredging poses risks to the blue crab population, and is permanently restricted in the neighboring state of Maryland for this reason.
To see the Commission Meeting Summary from last Tuesday, please check out the VMRC link here: http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/Commission_Summaries/cs0515.shtm.
Optimism Before the Crab Season
In spite of two bad years for crabbing in the Bay, our neighbor in White Stone is optimistic at the start of a new season. The picture shows his 200 pots freshly painted and ready to go last weekend. Usually they are green, but due to some manufacturing problem, the antifouling paint is yellow this year. Hopefully the crabs will find yellow an attractive color.
The VMRC has published a press release with a preliminary look at the winter dredge survey results. (http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/VMRC_2015_Crab_WDS_Survey_Results.pdf).
And this article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/manil-suri-mathematicians-and-blue-crabs.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 , registration on nytimes.com required) talks about the mathematical models used to predict the crab population. The article makes the point that these models are often not accurate predictors.
The VMRC press release comments that ‘Spawning-age females are the cornerstone of stock rebuilding’. But Virginia’s restrictions on keeping sponge crabs are looser than Maryland’s. VMRC plans a public hearing on the crab regulations for May 26.
– Gary Greenwood
Chesapeake Bay environment and water quality blog 