Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

How to Save The Bay

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Today’s DP describes the unhealthy grass beds in The Bay (Underwater grass at risk, May 26, 2006). Total acreage of underwater grasses increased (good) by 7 % to 80,000 acres in 2005. The Government goal (Feds?) is 185,000 acres by 2010.

The biggest damage to underwater grasses was Hurricane Agnes in 1972. Last year’s hot summer did some damage. Interesting that Mother Nature is the worst culprit.

Regardless, the eelgrass traps nitrogen and phosporus and produces oxygen (good). So, more eelgrass would be a good thing – I’d think. But, I have science questions with policy implications.

What pollution – name the chemical and culprit – hurts the eelgrass? Or, is it that the eelgrass can’t take too much nitrogen or phosphorus (if so much, how much is too much?).

Does the VMRC or anyone else have stocks of eelgrass seed for 100,000 acres more?

I’m looking for hard evidence for cause and effect to see what is needed to fix the problem.

Also, there was an article this week about rays coming in early and eating most of the baby oysters set out to re-populate beds. More Mother Nature interfering with nature.

Last item. 655 or so acres were given to the Nature Conservancy near the Yorktown oil refinery. Most of it is designated wetlands. I applaud it. But, in the dust up on land use, is this a problem or a good thing?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

9 responses to “How to Save The Bay”

  1. El Macho Grande Avatar
    El Macho Grande

    Writing it off to “Mother Nature interfering with nature” is a little glib. It’s a big complex system that has been degrading over the course of decades. I remember the 1960s, when it was alive with crabs and oysters, and supported a local waterman culture and boats. I feel a sense of loss when I think back to those days. As for eel grasses, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s “State of the Bay 2006” report (http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=sotb_2005_index) says:

    “Water clarity … measured by the amount of sunlight that can penetrate into the water … . is critical to the growth and survival of underwater grasses, which provide shelter for fish and crabs and food for migrating waterfowl.” Penetration of sunlight is limited by the amount of sediment, algae, and other materials in the water (determined in turn by various forms of water pollution).

    “Underwater grasses are recovering in the upper Chesapeake. In the lower Bay, “grass beds continued to decline. Grass acreage in areas such as Mobjack Bay, for example, plummeted in 2004 to the lowest levels recorded since 1987. 2005 shows little evidence of improvement over the previous year’s record low, and experts are raising new concerns of a prolonged eelgrass die-off. While the overall increase in grass acreage Baywide is encouraging, the slow recovery of grasses in the southern sections of the Bay remains cause for concern because this area is critical habitat for blue crabs and a nursery for many species of fish.”

  2. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    I also think Bacon is being glib.

    The Bay has been a victim of pollution. Sewer overflow, Kepone, dog crap, you name it. But the biggest threat to the Bay comes from construction site runoff.

    Unless Virginia gets a handle on its development issues, the Bay will soon be dead.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I don’t think this is true. As I understand it the biggest source of contamination in the bay is agricultural, and the biggest portion of that comes from Pennsylvania. I think the Susquehanna carries almost half the pollutant load in the Chesapeake.

    I’m not sure how much eelgrass die off is caused by siltation and how much by other factors such as excess nutrients or too little oxygen.

    I believe the issue with eelgrass is not so much sediment but excess nitrogen. this cuases a bloom in algae which then obscures the sunlight needed by eelgrass. When the algae dies off, it depletes the oxygen level and hurts the animal life.

    The biggest point sources of nitrogen are sewage treatment plants. Because of that, urban and suburban land cuases the highest amount of pollution per acre. But because there is so much more farmland, farmland is both a high contributor of nitrogen, and if it is tilled, of sediment.

    Both farmland and construction site runoff have been reduced in recent years through better practices and mitigation. Also because there is less farmland.

    The report JAB mentions differs from this one http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/science/3898456.html

    entitled “Chesapeake Bay Underwater Grasses Rebound” and dated May 25, 2006. 7:30PM

    Sources and amounts of various pollutants ought to be easy to look up. Anyone have numbers and sources?

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    This is from a source talking about the Susquehanna.

    “In an average year, more than
    60 percent of the phosphorus and 85 percent of the nitrogen found in the Susquehanna can be
    traced to non-point sources of pollution, such as farm runoff.

    Altogether, the nutrients that are introduced into the Susquehanna make up 21 percent of the
    phosphorus and 40 percent of the nitrogen that is found in the Chesapeake Bay.

    Once in the water, nitrogen and phosphorus can stimulate excess algal growth. As the algae die
    and settle to the bottom of the river or Bay, they decay and consume the oxygen needed by fish
    and other waterlife. Thick growth of algae also cuts down on the amount of sunlight in the water,
    which inhibits the growth of submerged aquatic plants needed by fish (and other animals) for
    food and shelter.

    A second major pollutant in the Susquehanna is sediment. The land in the lower Susquehanna
    basin is intensively farmed, and conventional tillage–whereby the soil is disturbed at the time of
    planting and harvesting–is common practice. According to the Soil Conservation Service,
    erosion in the Susquehanna basin is very high–over seven tons of soil per acre of cropland are
    lost every year. Certain critical areas lose almost 18 tons of soil per acre per year!”

    Because there is so much manure applied to the ground, you can lose a lot of “soil” and not ever run out.

  5. El Macho Grande Avatar
    El Macho Grande

    Thanks Scott–

    In other words, when hell freezes over. I agree that the problem is largely due to sediment and pollution that are the results of suburban development. But I’m not hopeful about “getting a handle on development.” We may be able to restrain some of its impacts (for example, in Virginia’s recent belated decision to pay for upgrades on sewage treatment plants). Most of the experts think that it will take several Billion dollars over the next few years to make a dent in Virginia’s part of the problem. That’s seriouos money in a state as conservative as this one!

  6. El Macho Grande Avatar
    El Macho Grande

    Ray and Scott,

    The federal-state Chesapeake Bay Program has a list of “Bay Stressors” at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/stressor1.htm. It’s not really easy to rack up one type of pollution against another, as far as I can see, but there are some data there. Among the bullet points that summarize the situation are these:

    “* Among the major land use categories, urban and suburban lands contribute, per acre, the largest amount of nutrients to the Bay when septic and wastewater treatment plant discharges are factored in.
    “* Runoff from farms is generally declining as farmers adopt nutrient management and runoff control techniques, and because the overall amount of farmland is declining.
    “* Nutrients from septic systems are increasing throughout the watershed as development spreads farther into the countryside, beyond the reach of sewer systems.
    “* Stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas is increasing as more land is developed.
    “* Nitrogen from wastewater treatment plants is declining in rivers where biological nutrient removal (BNR) technology is being used. It is increasing in other rivers.
    “* Phosphorus from sewage treatment plants has declined sharply, in large part because of the phosphate detergent ban.”

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    All:

    Both phosphorus and nitrogen contribute to Bay pollution. Excess nitrogen comes from farms, residential lawns, and wastewater plants, primarily. Nitrogen is very water-soluble and typically is highest in the Bay in rainy seasons, when it flushes from the land.

    Excess phosphorus comes from soil erosion, since phosphorus, while still water soluble, is less so than nitrogen and binds with the soil. It also comes from water treatment plants.

    There’s a good primer here on what happens with excess nutrients in the Bay:

    http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_facts_DOLevels_2004

    Finally, the old saw about the Susquehanna being the biggest contributor to Bay pollution is wrong:

    “The Potomac, Susquehanna, and James Rivers rank first, second, and third, respectively, in pounds of nitrogen discharged.”

    http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_facts_nutrient_red_ww

  8. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    In 2003, the Susquehanna River contributed 44% of the nitrogen, 21% of the phosphorus, and 21% of the sediment polluting the Chesapeake Bay.

    http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10769

    Evidently you can’t count on CBF to give you the straight dope. Or maybe they just say what they want their (currently) targeted audience to hear. This might be a classic case of having a dog in the fight, but I think it is just an error in the printing of your source: it should have said the Susquehanna, the Potomac and the James rank 1, 2, and 3.

    If the Potomac does emit more than the 44% contributed by the susquehanna, then the James would have to be a distant third indeed. Almost half the water that flows into the Ceseapeake comes from the Susquehanna, so If the Potomac really contributes more nitrogen, then it must be very, very polluted. Yet the susquehanna was named the most endangered river for 2005.

    “According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Susquehanna River is the largest source of Nitrogen and one of the biggest contributors of Phosporous.”

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nGX47atDhFMJ:www.ydr.com/newsfull/ci_3741185+susquehanna+pollution&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=13

    “The Chesapeake Bay Foundation nominated the Susquehanna River for the designation because it is the largest contributor of water and pollution to the bay.
    Aside from sewage, stormwater runoff and, to a larger degree, agricultural runoff also contribute to the nutrient loads entering the bay.”

    http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14343179&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=8

    Can somebody shed some light on the discrepancy?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    good editorials

Leave a Reply

Read More