MENU

Sections

  • Home
  • Education
  • Donate to the Centreville Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Spy Community Media
    • Chestertown Spy
    • Talbot Spy
    • Cambridge Spy

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
  • Subscribe
December 7, 2025

Centreville Spy

Nonpartisan and Education-based News for Centreville

  • Home
  • Education
  • Donate to the Centreville Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Spy Community Media
    • Chestertown Spy
    • Talbot Spy
    • Cambridge Spy
2 News Homepage

The Chesapeake Bay Loses Best Friend Scientist Beth McGee

June 10, 2023 by Bay Journal Leave a Comment

 

Beth McGee, senior scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, walks along a Maryland shoreline in August 2020. Photo by Dave Harp

Beth McGee, a longtime senior scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation whose work is reflected in some of the most widely used reports detailing the Bay’s health and value, died June 4 after a long battle with cancer.

“The Chesapeake Bay lost a giant,” said Alison Prost, CBF vice president for Environmental Protection and Restoration.

“Few have contributed as much to the science and policy of Bay restoration as Dr. Beth McGee,” Prost said. “Her love and connection to the watershed and the Bay drove her. And her intellect never let her settle for the status quo. When Beth talked, the Bay restoration community listened and acted on her advice.”

Many people in the general public are familiar with her two decades of work at CBF, even if they do not recognize her name. She oversaw production of the organization’s State of the Bay reports, one of the most widely cited assessments of the Chesapeake’s well-being.

McGee was also a lead author of a 2014 study that established a value on the natural benefits of the Bay ($107 billion a year) and how those would grow (by another $22.5 billion annually) if cleanup goals were met — figures still widely used today.

The breadth of McGee’s work over the years encompassed everything from agriculture, fish health and nutrient trading to the Conowingo Dam, toxic contaminants and much more.

“Beth was able to become an expert on this or that aspect of science, whether it was economics or agricultural restoration tools,” said Roy Hoagland, a retired CBF vice president who worked with McGee for years. “She had a mind that was able to understand, grasp and articulate practically any subject matter.”

Prior to 2010, when the region was developing its latest cleanup plan — the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, which limits the amount of nutrients states can send to the Bay — McGee was instrumental in developing new approaches that would provide more accountability than previous plans.

“She wanted to make it actually mean something,” Hoagland said. “That was consistent with her being a really smart, thoughtful, creative, passionate advocate.”

McGee was a fixture at meetings of the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program, and colleagues there cited her ability to synthesize complex scientific issues and recommend how that could inform the many policies related to restoration efforts.

“She did not lead with that advocacy side. She was an advocate, absolutely. But she was advocate that had a strong, strong scientific foundation,” said Rich Batiuk, the retired associate director for science with the EPA’s Bay Program Office. “I found myself, probably 99% of the time, ending up agreeing with her, even when I started that conversation thinking, ‘Let me see if I can turn about her around.’ It was usually Beth who ended up turning me around and having me understand the science implications.”

Because of her ability to translate science into potential policy solutions, she was frequently asked to make presentations to the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a panel of Bay state legislators who work to turn such advice into laws.

“Beth was, for many of us, our ‘go-to’ person,” said Ann Swanson, who recently retired as the commission’s executive director. “She was a gifted conservation policymaker with a strong science background. She was most interested in getting it right, with little need for fanfare or credit. Her wit provided well-timed humor, and all of us will remember her laugh. So many of us relied on her. So many of us will now miss her.”

Kim Coble, who hired McGee at CBF in 2003, recognized early that the scientist had a gift for communicating and tapped her to help persuade lawmakers on key legislation.

“It was fun to see somebody with her scientific skills, intellect and personality, lobby,” recalled Coble, who is now executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. “As you can imagine, she was very effective at it. I don’t think she really enjoyed it, but she was very good at it.”

McGee often took the lead in creating forums to advance knowledge of Bay issues that were not always front-and-center in the public eye.

When fish diseases were turning up everywhere, from the open waters of the Bay to headwater streams in its watershed, she led efforts to organize a workshop that for the first time brought together biologists from across the region, many of whom had never met.

She was particularly proud of the development of a nitrogen footprint calculator on CBF’s website, which helps individuals estimate their contributions to the Bay’s nutrient problems and learn how they could be reduced. A link to the calculator was always in the signature line of her emails.

In more recent years, her title expanded to encompass “agricultural policy” as she took a greater role in addressing the largest source of nutrient pollution to the Bay.

The work included addressing state and federal policies, identifying ways to better target funding and programs, trying to accurately assess nutrient contributions from the growing number of chickens in the watershed and, most recently, crafting approaches to address both climate change and nutrient runoff on the region’s farms.

That’s an evolution even McGee didn’t envision when she started working on the Bay. “If you had asked me 10 years ago whether I would have agricultural policy in my title, I would have said you were crazy,” she told an interviewer from the Peal Center for Baltimore History and Architecture in 2020. “I’m actually an aquatic toxicologist by training.”

Indeed, prior to joining CBF in 2003, she worked on chemical contaminant issues with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Annapolis. Previously, she worked with the Maryland Department of the Environment.

McGee had a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Virginia, a master’s degree in ecology from the University of Delaware, and a Ph.D. in environmental science from the University of Maryland.

She was an outdoor enthusiast, kayaking the Bay, hiking the region’s trails and taking long bicycling trips both here and abroad, often organizing trips for friends and colleagues.

In 2011, she and another CBF staffer made a 1,200-mile bike trip that roughly followed the perimeter of the Bay watershed to raise funds and awareness for the Chesapeake, conducting media interviews in areas far from the estuary.

She once said, “Find your passion, make it your job, and you’ll never work another day in your life!” In her Chesapeake work, McGee found her passion, continuing to push for solutions to complex problems years after her cancer diagnosis. Indeed, no matter how difficult the issue, McGee always described herself as an “eternal optimist.”

“Not only was Beth incredibly smart, thoughtful and passionate in her work for clean water, she was also known for her kindness, affability and warmth,” said Mariah Davis, acting director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents more than 200 organizations in the watershed. “We will miss Beth and hope to honor her legacy by leaving clean rivers and streams for future generations.”

By Karl Blankenship

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage

Consumer Guide Criticized for Saying ‘Avoid’ Chesapeake Oysters

May 27, 2023 by Bay Journal Leave a Comment

The Chesapeake Bay’s oyster population is still a long way from what it once was, but lately it’s shown signs of a rebound. Maryland and Virginia watermen harvested more of the bivalves in the most recent season than they had in more than three decades.

So why is Seafood Watch, a widely consulted guide to sustainable seafood, recommending that people avoid eating wild-caught oysters from the Bay?

The Monterey Bay Aquarium, which produces Seafood Watch, isn’t saying. A spokesperson for the California aquarium declined a request for an interview to answer questions about its draft report, which includes a recommendation to shun oysters from Maryland or Virginia.

“At this time, we are not able to comment on the draft assessment as the report may change based on feedback we receive in the public comment period,” the spokesperson said by email.

The aquarium was taking feedback through May 22. Since making its draft report public in April, it has received an earful from watermen, fishery managers, scientists and even other conservationists. Critics contend it erroneously portrays the Bay’s oyster population as overfished and poorly managed, a characterization they say even in draft form is hurting the region’s seafood industry.

“They have no idea what they’re doing,” said Robert T. Brown Sr., president of the Maryland Watermen’s Association, “… and they’re interfering with people’s livelihoods.”

Since 1999, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program every few years has been offering what it says are science-based recommendations on which fish and seafood across the United States are sustainable “best choices” or “good alternatives” — and which should be avoided because of the risk of that species’ depletion or of harm to the marine ecosystem. It distributes about 2.5 million printable online guides every year aimed at influencing the purchasing decisions of nonprofit organizations, businesses and consumers.

Based on its last assessment in 2018, Seafood Watch currently rates oysters from Maryland and Virginia a good choice, despite some concerns, for those who care about sustainable seafood.

The new draft assessment downgrades those recommendations, citing “high concern” for the abundance of oysters in both states and deeming their public fisheries management ineffective. It even finds fault with the methodology Maryland has used in assessing the abundance of its wild oyster stock and whether it’s being overharvested.

Officials with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources say no one from the aquarium contacted them in developing the new assessment, and they were stunned to learn of the “avoid” recommendation.

“There’s missing information, there’s outdated information. They have misinterpreted information, and they have failed to live up to their own standards of using the best science and collaborating,” said Kristen Fidler, assistant DNR secretary for aquatic resources.

Agency officials defended the state’s oyster management, which they say is based on a science-driven stock assessment that has been reviewed favorably by a panel of outside scientists.

Mike Wilberg, a fisheries scientist with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science who led the development of DNR’s stock assessment, said he thought the Seafood Watch drafters applied an overly broad and uneven brush when rating the sustainability of oyster stocks along the East Coast. He said they failed to appreciate the complexities of the Bay’s oyster population and how it varies from one place to another.

“Some of the things we were criticized for [by Seafood Watch] are things we were praised for in the expert review of our stock assessment,” he noted.

“I applaud their efforts to get consumers to make conscious decisions [about sustainability],” Wilberg added. “Unfortunately, with all this stuff, the devil is in the details.”

Roger Mann and Mark Luckenbach, a pair of veteran oyster biologists with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, likewise contend that the Seafood Watch ratings of their state’s fishery are “based on old data and are entirely inappropriate.” The data cited by the report’s drafters in deeming oyster abundance “a high concern” was more than a decade old, they pointed out.

JC Hudgins, president of the Virginia Waterman’s Association, said that the Virginia Marine Resources Commission and members of the seafood industry “do a lot to keep the Eastern oyster a sustainable species,” even as the state’s harvest from public fishery areas in the 2022–23 season topped 300,000 bushels for the first time in 35 years.

Since 2018, when Seafood Watch rated Virginia oysters a good choice, the fishery has steadily improved every year, Hudgins said. Last year, he noted, reef surveys found oyster densities at levels not seen since before diseases struck in the late 1980s and triggered a catastrophic decline in population and habitat.

Brown, head of the Maryland watermen’s group, said he believed the Maryland oyster recommendation was also based on outdated information. In the six-month 2022–23 season that ended March 30, watermen harvested more than 600,000 bushels, the most since 1986–87.

In the recently ended season, Brown said, “a lot of people were still catching their limits [early] at the end of the season. That’s telling you we had plenty of oysters there.” He also noted that since the first stock assessment in 2019 that found widespread overharvesting, the state has reduced daily catch limits. “We’ve got a good management plan,” he said.

Even conservationists, who have at times voiced their own criticisms of oyster management in the Bay, have qualms about the draft Seafood Watch recommendation.

Allison Colden, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Maryland director and a fisheries biologist, said she thinks the aquarium may be jumping the gun because a fresh update of the state’s oyster population is due to be completed and released within a matter of weeks. She noted that conditions for oyster reproduction and survival have been on the upswing lately, with very low mortality rates from the once-devastating diseases MSX and Dermo.

Even so, Colden said, the Seafood Watch assessment “does highlight some of the lingering concerns CBF has had and still has with the fishery.” Though only a few areas are still experiencing overfishing, one of those is Tangier Sound, where the majority of Maryland oysters are harvested.

And while oyster reproduction has been good to excellent the last few years, Colden said, caution is warranted because the fishery has undergone boom and bust cycles in the past.

Colden said she was in wholehearted agreement with another Seafood Watch recommendation — a blanket endorsement of farmed oysters as a “best” choice for consumers concerned about the sustainability of the reef-building bivalves.

“We have long recommended that consumers choose farmed oysters from the Chesapeake Bay,” she said, “because that eliminates any possibility of concerns about sustainability or about oyster recovery.”

But even there, Maryland officials say, the Seafood Watch guides don’t make it clear enough that their “avoid” recommendation doesn’t apply to the state’s farmed oysters.

“We have a successful and growing oyster industry, both wild and aquaculture,” Fidler said. The “avoid” recommendation “could be incredibly damaging to the industry and really a major and unnecessary setback, especially with all the progress we’ve made.”

by Tim Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage, Eco Portal Lead, News Portal Highlights

Maryland Court finds County Erred in Waiving Forest Conservation Law

May 19, 2023 by Bay Journal Leave a Comment

An effort to prevent development of one of the last large, unprotected forests near the upper Chesapeake Bay has won a signal victory, but too late to spare some of its oldest trees from the bulldozer.

A Harford County Circuit Court judge ruled May 9 that the county’s planning and zoning officials improperly granted developers permission three years ago to remove 49 large “specimen” trees while developing a business park in a 326-acre tract known as Abingdon WoodsHarford Investors LLP and BTC III I-95 Logistics Center LLC received county approval in 2020 to clear 220 wooded acres for the construction of four large warehouses, restaurants, shops, a hotel and gas station. As part of the plan, the county also waived a requirement in its forest conservation ordinance that would have required the developers to preserve trees that were notable specimens because of their size and age.

The county allowed the removal of 49 of 85 such trees after the developers asserted that it would be a hardship to keep them.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and some residents living near Abingdon Woods filed suit in 2020, arguing that the county failed to follow the Forest Conservation Act, the 1991 state law on which the county’s ordinance was modeled. Harford Circuit Judge Diane Adkins-Tobin at first dismissed the case, ruling at the time that the county’s sign-off on a developer’s forest conservation plan could not be appealed until the entire project was approved.

But in 2022, Maryland’s highest court — now called the Maryland Supreme Court — ruled that a developer’s forest conservation plan could be challenged in court and sent it back for reconsideration. The Harford judge then ordered a temporary halt to construction until she could hear and decide the case, but clearing at the site had already begun.

In January, when the case came up for a hearing, the county — which had until then defended its decision — switched its position and asked the judge to send the issue back to the county to reconsider.

In her May 9 opinion, Adkins-Tobin did just that. She declared that the county had not made any findings of fact, as required by the law, to justify waiving the preservation of all specimen trees.

The Bay Foundation hailed the latest ruling as a “major victory.”

“The judge’s ruling sends a message to counties and developers that there must be a clear factual basis for granting waivers from the state’s requirements to protect forested land,” said Paul Smail, the organization’s attorney.

“Most developers won’t suffer hardship,” Smail added, “by preserving forests and large trees that benefit residents’ physical and mental health, the enjoyment of their property, and improve water quality.”

Tracey Waite, chair of the Save Abingdon Woods Coalition, said the rulings set important precedents for preserving trees and forests.

“These court actions and decisions have kept hope alive even as trees were being cut down,” she said.

Before work was stopped at the site, though, the developer felled 22 of the specimen trees.

“Families of turkeys were seen running out of the woods and through suburban neighborhoods looking for cover,” she said. Polluted runoff into the stream called Haha Branch also was observed after rainstorms, she added.

The Bay Foundation’s lawyer noted that project opponents had tried and failed to prevent the start of tree clearing until the case could be resolved. He said he and his clients are now weighing what recourse they have for the loss of those trees.

Meanwhile, the court has yet to rule on a separate related lawsuit challenging the Maryland Department of the Environment’s decision to let the developer build across wetlands and a stream.

Harford County spokesman Joe Cluster said officials are still reviewing the ruling in the Bay Foundation lawsuit and weighing their next step. That decision comes at a time when Republican County Executive Bob Cassilly, who took office in December, has expressed reservations about the environmental impacts of e-commerce-related warehouse development in the county.

At Cassilly’s behest, the county council in April approved a three-month moratorium on warehouse projects while officials weigh what if any new limits or requirements they want to place on them. That has at least temporarily held up another large warehouse project proposed on Perryman Peninsula near the Bush River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.

Waite said that during the moratorium, her group and others hope to persuade the county to alter its development laws to permit distribution centers larger than 200,000 square feet only on land zoned for industry — which would prevent construction of what she called “mega-warehouses” at Abingdon Woods and Perryman Peninsula.

“There’s every reason to keep fighting,” she said.

By Tim Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: Eco Lead, Eco Portal Lead

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

Copyright © 2025

Affiliated News

  • Chestertown Spy
  • Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy

Sections

  • Sample Page

Spy Community Media

  • Sample Page
  • Subscribe
  • Sample Page

Copyright © 2025 · Spy Community Media Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in