Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

What’s 116,511 Acres Between Friends?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Virginia is farther from its goal of preserving a fifth of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in open land than officials had thought, reports Greg Edwards , writing for the Media General News Service. The state has roughly 360,000 acres to preserve under the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement — considerably more than the 239,000 acres previously thought.

It appears that Department of Conservation and Recreation incorrectly calculated in 2000 how much land Virginia had already saved toward the goal. They inadvertently included 116,511 acres of the George Washington National Forest.

Oops.

Under a 2000 agreement, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and the U.S. government pledged to protect the bay’s watershed by permanently preserving 20 percent in open farm, forest or park land by 2010. Maryland and Pennsylvania have met the goal.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

34 responses to “What’s 116,511 Acres Between Friends?”

  1. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    “by permanently preserving 20 percent in open farm”

    What is the point?

    Haven’t I read lately that farms are one of the worst polluters of the Chesapeake?

    When the TRILO-G is updated to include political feel good psychobabble variable costs, this should be at the top of the list.

    Government sewage plants that are not up to standard are one of the biggest polluters of the Bay.

    But let’s act like it’s a preservation issue.

    It’s GREEN and we can all feel better about it!

    Farms, sewage, and the Bay – read about it here:

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2003/2003-10-30-10.asp

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    For once “Not Ed Risse” is right.

    Conventionally farmed land and pasture that is not fenced to provide stream-side buffers has major negitve impact on the Chesapeake Bay.

    Book Two of TRILO-G (BRIDGES) will be supported by three major Backgrounders on MainStream Media, Autonomobiles and the Use and Management of Land.

    The first installment of the Backgrounder on MainStream Media will be out Monday in Bacon’s Rebellion.

    The other two are well along and when Use and Management of Land is published it will make these points with respect to farm land, waste water treatment plants and other polluters.

    It will also note that for intensive urban land uses only about 5 percent of the state is needed at minimum densities inside Clear Edges.

    The 25% goal is pure feel good.

    EMR

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    At least if its a farm there’s a chance the farmer could plant back a riparian buffer. Or fence cattle out of the streams, or use less polluting fertilzer…

    If its a subdivision its screwed. more impervious surface, miracle grow lawns, etc.

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 1:25:

    You are, of course, correct…

    Except after 75 years (when it became painfully obvious that a change was needed) many farmers are still abusing the soil.

    It has been 30 years since those in the Bay watershed knew or should have known they should change and they have not.

    Business-As-Usual incourages them not to change their ways…

    Subdivision lot owners “could do the same” but very few of us have…

    If the subdivision is 30 persons per acre and there is common land in every Cluster, the chances are far better.

    We managed the landscaped areas and natural areas of 30 persons per acre Clusters, Neighorhoods and Villages in Columbia, Reston, Burke Centre and Fair Lakes with great success vis a vis water quality goals.

    The important thing to remember is with 5% devoted to urban uses, citizens can farm the best land, stay off of the poor soils / steep slopes and out of riparian areas.

    This allows natural systems — which are the very best stewards — take care of the majority of the land.

    Here is the guideline: 5% intensive urban land uses, 95% nonurban and extensive land uses.

    Anything less is uncivilized (in the sense that the alternatives trajectories are unsustainable and thus spell the end of civilization as we know it.

    EMR

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    One can get different perspectives .. even reading the same literature – as evidenced by the diversity of opinions you’ll find in the Bay Journal.

    But common sense should prevail when it comes to land clearing and impervious surfaces.

    Farms have been farms for hundreds of years. Virginia was covered from one end to the other – back when the Chesapeake Bay was swarming with crabs and oysters.

    so I have a really hard time understanding why those same farms are not a problem – unless of course they are CAFOs (Combined animal feeding operations) or similarly more intensive use.

    And I hear folks talking about increased use of fertilizers and pesticides on farms than previously. Fair enough but the hundreds of thousands and millions of 1/4 yard.. stuffed with far more fertilizer and weed killer than they can possible absorb … on a pure volume basis has to be hundreds of time more than the 10% of farms left.. if that… I’m still skeptical.

    Sewage Plants are fair game but they are much, much cleaner than they used to be.

    The 600lb gorilla in my opinion is storm water.

    When you go to a mall… take a look .. take close look at what is on the asphalt… oil, anti-freeze, pet feces, cigarettes, etc.

    The academic moment occurs.. when you go back to that same parking lot in the middle of a rain storm and see the water.. running off.

    Multiply this scenario out.. across every big box places, every Costco, every 7-11, etc.

    AND… multiply it out for dense multi-use where the idea is to utilize the land as efficiently and densely as possible – comes with consequences – in many cases… virtually 90% impervious surfaces…

    I think we are fooling ourselves if we do not acknowledge that GROWTH and development i.e. the vast clearing of land and replacing it with impervious surfaces – ARE – a primary factor in the runoff that now goes into the bay.

    I think the focus on farms is misguided.

    And here’s how to prove this.

    do water quality monitoring below the farms and then below the urbanizing areas.. and then do the data processing.

    Right now, we are using predictive models rather than actual data – to make some of these determinations and for the life of me, I cannot understand why.

    It would seem a no-brainer to do the actual water quality monitoring to get to the truth of the matter – which, IMHO, THAT should be the basis for our priorities when we do have finite resources and cannot fix everything right away.

    Think about this… where you live – what would you think – should be the priorities – where you live.

    What we’re doing here.. is essentially telling people that the problem is “not” where they live and dump fertilizer and weed killer on their lawns or the oil draining from their car onto the Walmart parking lot – but instead, we’re telling them that the problem is some farmer upstream who is not using good farming practices.

    The whole concept is bogus and it really encourages people to think that the problem is not where they live and does not require changes in the way that we clear land and build impervious surfaces.

    It’s the old POGO trick. The reality is, “we have met the enemy and it is us – not that farmer upstream”.

    and folks.. I say this also as someone who paddles rivers – and if the common sense water quality monitoring approach does not snap your socks – take a canoe trip just downstream of an urbanized area with lots of impervious surfaces and see for yourself.

    My view is that if we did not do anything else other than concentrate on impervious surfaces, we see an improvement in the bay.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …..why those same farms are NOW a problem –

    sorry about the typo

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Haven’t I read lately that farms are one of the worst polluters of the Chesapeake?”

    Yes, this is probalby true, in general. It isn’t true of all farms. It doesn’t have to be true of any farms.

    But farms are working on the negative cusp of profitability to begin with. Conservation belongs to those that can afford it.

    If any conservationists wants some ideas on how to make farms more conservation friendly, I have a few ideas. for mY farm and farms in general.

    But, you had better show up with money, because it isn’t cheap.

    ——————————–

    “If the subdivision is 30 persons per acre and there is common land in every Cluster, the chances are far better.”

    Gee, Ed, aren’t you the same one that is constantly harping on the tragedy of the commons?

    Proper, and egalitarian, rules on private property will do far more to promote conservation than any commonly held land.

    ———————————–

    “The important thing to remember is with 5% devoted to urban uses, citizens can farm the best land, stay off of the poor soils / steep slopes and out of riparian areas. “

    This is utter nonsense. The way the rules are now, the best land is reserved for septic systems. the seconcd best for housing, and the steep, swampy, and rocky land is all that’s left for agriculture.

    ——————————

    Natural systems are demonstrably NOT the best stewards of the land. Where did you EVER get that idea? They are the best natural stewards of the land, but we need to do a lot better than that.

    ——————————-

    “Here is the guideline: 5% intensive urban land uses, 95% nonurban and extensive land uses.”

    Why is that the guidleline?
    Under what circumstances might that guideline change?

    Let’s say that 95% of the population lives on 5% of the land. Wouldn’t you suggest that a large percentage of their income ought to be devoted to sustaining the 95% of land that makes their sustainment possible?

    Why is it that, instead, we think that those who qre fortunate to own our most valuable resources ought to be stewards of those resources, at no cost: with no remuneration?

    What is uncivilized, is demanding that those that have what we think is most valuable, give it to us for free.

    ———————————

    We do not have to have miracle grow lawns. We already have requirements that runoff be contained. What is your problem now?

    ———————————-

    “Farms have been farms for hundreds of years. Virginia was covered from one end to the other – back when the Chesapeake Bay was swarming with crabs and oysters.”

    Right. We actually have far more forested area now than we did in 1900. I have aerial photographs of the area around my farm dated 1933. In those photographs, there is nary a tree to be seen. Today, it is heavly forested. In fact, even the foresters agree that some areas need to be clear cut.

    ———————————–

    “The academic moment occurs.. when you go back to that same parking lot in the middle of a rain storm and see the water.. running off.

    Multiply this scenario out.. across every big box places, every Costco, every 7-11, etc.

    AND… multiply it out for dense multi-use where the idea is to utilize the land as efficiently and densely as possible – comes with consequences – in many cases… virtually 90% impervious surfaces…

    I think we are fooling ourselves if we do not acknowledge that GROWTH and development i.e. the vast clearing of land and replacing it with impervious surfaces – ARE – a primary factor in the runoff that now goes into the bay.”

    Sorry Larry, you are just wrong on this.

    The bigest polluter of the bay is the Susquehannah river. The biggest source of nitrogen is cows in Pennsylvania. It has been this way for years, and it is still true today.

    As a percentage of runoff, impervious areas are a tiney fraction of the whole. True, they have neary 100% runoff, and they carry a lot of bad stuff.

    Bad stuff happens everywhere.

    The uncontrolled bad stuff, because it covers such a much greater proportion of the area, even if it is less bad, is still a major problem.

    There is a lot more uncontrolled runoff from my farm than there is from impervious surfaces.

    If you don’t believe it, I’ll be happy to go out on the farm and collect a few tons of “bad stuff” and deposit it on your front lawn.

    For a price.

    You could save on Miracle Grow, and help save a farm.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “By David A. Fahrenthold
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, November 23, 2007; Page A01

    Is it still “open space” if the grass on the ground is plastic?

    In Maryland, state officials say yes. They’re planning to spend at least $7 million in tax funds from Program Open Space, a pool of money intended to preserve and develop parkland, to carpet 14 playing fields in Howard and Anne Arundel counties with artificial turf.”

    Today’s WAPO.

    You have to love this.

    Where the heck was Chesapeake Bay Foundation?

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Gee, Ed, we are only using three or fourt percent of the land mass for urban uses now.

    What’s the problem?

    The problem is that we are using far to much of it in far to few places. Even considering tht there is a need for contiguous wildlife habitat, ther is no reason that far more of us cannot actually enjoy those open spaces that you seem to think are so valuable.

    All we need to do is make open spaces pay, instead of saddling the owners with unenending penalties.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Being a steward of the land is an honorable profession and honest work. If we expect those who own the land to be stewards for us, then we should expect to pay them an honest wage.

    Otherwise, we don’t have stewards, we have slaves.

    Or, we can go buy the land, for the price we claim it is worth. And then we can hire our own stewards.

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If you look at some of the worst “dead” spots in the Bay.. places where the underwater grasses have disappeared.. places where the oysters and crabs have disappeared – it’s NOT just the Susquehanna River.

    We are fooling ourselves if we think the problem is farms.

    If the problem was farms – more specifically the over fertilization or pesticdization of farms, we could fix this fairly easily even if unfairly.. by passing some pretty stiff regs…

    but the problem is not so easy to fix .. because it involves the very way that most non-farmers live today – we want roads, big box stores, parking lots, green lawns and no dandelions, copious amounts of electricity that put almost 40% of the nitrogen in the bay as well as toxics like mercury…

    we want cheap chicken and pork not from “farms” but from CAFOs… where massive antibiotics and harmones are flushed through the animals.. onto manure piles.. that then drain into Rivers like the Shenandoah and Potomac – that, in turn produce intersex fish – that have absolutely nothing to do with the Susquehanna.

    We have toxics like PCBs in the Shennandoh, the Rappahannock, and the James.

    The Chesapeake Bay Watershed was virtually covered with farms at some point in the past – at the same time the Bay was vibrant and healthy.. despite the fact that farming practices where not modern at all.. cattle ranged freely through streams.. chicken houses an out houses were perched on river banks… people would throw their sewage and trash directly in the river.. and yet the Bay was relatively healthy.

    I’m not discounting the influence of non-CAFO farming operations where fertilizers and pesticides are more a part of farming..

    but folks ..you gotta ask yourselves something… think about the food you buy in the food market.. these days in Virginia and tell me how much of it comes from Pennsylvania Farms….

    some..yes.. but most.. no…

    Pennsylvania farms are not the reason why the Bay is dying.

    They are part of the puzzle but you cannot grow by 3 million non-farming people.. who now live in townhouses on slopes that used to be forest… and now drain parking lots with oil, antifreeze and pet feces… and generate nitrogen not only from lawn fertilizer, but automobile exhausts and power plants… without some consequences.

    I also am not saying that we should not deal with the farming issue but to focus on farming as the primary problem.. while essentially fooling ourselves about storm water from growth and development is. not smart and will not lead to a cleaner Bay until we accept some realities.

    we have folks out there who think all we have to do is to pay farmers to put buffers on their properties to “fix” the Bay… rather than looking behind their own houses to see the problems.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I suspeect that a portion of the solution is more places, as Ray has suggested many times. Perhaps, that means more people need to move to North and South Dakota!

    I once worked for a guy who used to argue that the U.S. would function better if the Department of Agriculture was located in Kansas City, rather than in the District of Columbia. Perhaps the feds need to move some government agencies to Huron, SD or Minot, ND! 😉

    TMT

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    more places is not the answer if growth and development in those new places is done the same way it has been done in the existing places.

    We have to make a commitment to deal with the way that we do storm water – both in existing areas and greenfield sites.

    We went through this before with sewage treatement plants when the modus operandi was “dilution is the solution to pollution” and we found out that this will not work unless you look at ALL of the cumulative discharges.

    and now we’re up against the same issue all over again..but for storm water…

    You cannot grow by 3 million people whether it be in a more dense NoVa or new places in Fredericksburg if the result is more people, more antifreeze and oil and more pet feces.

    When the increased volume goes into the river in a more densified NoVa or a “new place” downstream – the net result is exactly the same.

    More.. bad stuff in the rivers/bay – as a result of population growth and development to serve it.

    It’s the cumulative impacts.

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Rather than choosing traditional asphalt, officials opted for gray concrete. The choice of concrete over asphalt may seem cosmetic, but it goes deeper than that, say hospital officials and environmental experts.

    Gray apparently, is the new green.

    While the traditional thought on parking lot paving is to keep moisture out, the material used at the hospital — pervious concrete — draws moisture in and allows it to reach soil underneath. In the soil are millions of microbes waiting that eat away at contaminants like gasoline, brake fluid and antifreeze.

    “Really, what you’re doing in those cases is dedicating that piece of property just to storm water management,” said Jamie Houle, outreach coordinator and program manager for the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, which is studying its own pervious concrete parking lot.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/environment/2007-11-25-grey-green_N.htm

    ” The cost of the zero discharge parking retrofits is the same as, or lower than, traditional alternatives using new treatment and detention systems. Costs for green roofing will be higher, but the increased life of the roof will help offset these costs. An important factor in choosing the pervious paving systems is that this approach negates the need to clear and grade surrounding forest areas for detention ponds.”

    http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_studies/permeable_pavement.htm

    Now.. why don’t we use it?

    … the answer is found in the words above: “The cost of the zero discharge parking retrofits is the same as, or lower than, traditional alternatives using new treatment and detention systems.”

    Virginia, nor none of it’s localities (as far as I know) requires zero-discharge even though the technology exists and is cost effective.

    I get very… very.. frustrated when I hear politicians and Chesapeake Bay advocates .. focus on MORE MONEY from taxpayers … BEFORE they talk about implementation of zero-discharge regs.

    Why is this?

    Here is a situation.. tailor-made for fiscally conservatives Republicans to pursue something that is a win-win-win… and yet in General Assembly after General Assembly .. where is that law?

    In my mind.. if we all… citizens, legislators, and Chesapeake Bay advocates are truly interested in confronting the issues that challenge the Bay.. this is a good place to start….

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The Chesapeake Bay Watershed was virtually covered with farms at some point in the past – at the same time the Bay was vibrant and healthy.. despite the fact that farming practices where not modern at all..”

    Larry, Larry, Larry. Get with the program. It takes a long time to ruin the Chesapeake. Much of the damage we blame ourselve for actually happened long ago.

    The Susquehannah was then and is now the major source of pollution in the Chesapeake, believe it or not.

    The Chesapeake and Potomac Watersheds suffered decades of siltation durint the time PA and VA was heavily logged off. The Potomac was a hundred feet deep, all the way to Georgetown. Square riggers anchored in the Tobacco river, where you can barely canoe today.

    One result of all that siltation is that the Chesapeake and Potomac has a lot less water in it now than previously, and less water is more easily polluted.

    Another result is that the same amount of water has to pass through shallwer areas. This means that it “piles up” more, and wee see this as erosion and land loss. In fact, it is the result of gaining land, that is still underwater.

    If you really want to restore the Chesapeake and Potomac, the only way to do it is call in the dredgers and put it back the way it was.

    With the amount of dredge spoil, you could probably create a whole new state, off the coast of Delaware, or a second set of barrier islands. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about development, because you would have lots of new places for it.

    How much are you willing to raise your taxes to pay for this? We think we should not be allowed to do anything for fear of the legacy we will leave our grandchildren. Meanwhile, we are doing nothing about the legacies our grandparents left us.

    ————————–

    “The choice of concrete over asphalt may seem cosmetic, but it goes deeper than that, say hospital officials and environmental experts…….the material used at the hospital — pervious concrete — draws moisture in and allows it to reach soil underneath. In the soil are millions of microbes waiting that eat away at contaminants like gasoline, brake fluid and antifreeze.”

    Take a deep breath. This actually makes sense to me. I suspect that concrete is far more energy intensive and needs more expensive repairs to keep up, but this still might make sense.

    “Costs for green roofing will be higher, but the increased life of the roof will help offset these costs.”

    That, I have a very hard time believing.

    ———————————

    Here is the problem as I see it. Depending on who you believe 3% to 5% of the national land mass is developed. Of that, a tiny fraction is impervious.

    Even if the Eastern Megalopolis is far more developed and far more impervious, we still face the problem that far more runoff is totally uncontrolled than we can ever hope to manage and control through regulations.

    Sometimes we just worry too much, and too expensively. Am I suggesting that we do NOTHING about urban runoff? No, of course not. I just think our efforts should be consistent with the effects we can reasonably hope to achieve.

    RH

    ]

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I get very… very.. frustrated when I hear politicians and Chesapeake Bay advocates .. focus on MORE MONEY from taxpayers … BEFORE they talk about implementation of zero-discharge regs.”

    You CANNOT have zero discharge regulations without imposing infinite costs.

    It is not possible.

    There is no such thing as zero discharge, providing that any activity occurs. It is a violation of basic thermodynamic principles.

    The costs associated with dreams of zero discharte will come back and affect you and everybody else as much or more than the externalized costs of pollution they are imposed to prevent.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why shouldn’t land included in the GW forest count towards Virginias goal? Because the Feds preserved it for us?

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “zero-discharge regs.”
    ….
    You CANNOT have zero discharge regulations without imposing infinite costs.

    not zero discharge – period – zero discharge parking lots.

    zero discharge for things that can be – anti-freeze and oil – both potent pollutants.

    but you’re wrong about the Rivers – as usual.

    In the 1950’s, the Potomac was a virtual cesspool because of sewage discharges and the Susquehanna was by comparison pristine.

    The fetid condition of the Potomac in Congress back yard is what led directly to the creation of the Clean Water Act – not the condition of the Susquehanna.

    This is really simply stuff if one really wants to confront undeniable realities.

    Take 100 acres of farmland and compare it to 100 acres of developed NoVa real estate and compare the volume AND, more important, what is IN the runoff and you’re going to lose the debate everytime.

    Take 1000, 10,000 acres of farmland and you’re never going to see antifreeze and motor oil as any more than a trace amount – as compared to the percentages you’ll find near cities.

    And that is my point… where is that information about what the water quality is – just downstream of NoVa verses the water quality downstream of hundreds of farms?

    Shouldn’t we all find it interesting that we don’t know this basic data that would, if we did, focus and sharpen what we should be spending scarce resources on – and regulations – such as “zero discharge” parking lots.

    Second… tell me what has changed with respect to farms in terms of what runs off from them verses what has changed to NoVa land that used to be forest and now is a Costco parking lot?

    THAT Costco parking lot, plus the parking lots for the 100K new people – all who need parking lots, all who drive cars that put nitrogen into the air and all of whom uses gobs of electricity that also puts nitrogen into the air..

    VERSES fewer farms using better farming practices than they ever did before.

    It defies logic to claim that farms are not only polluting more but than their share is INCREASING.

    This is stupid stuff.

    There is no way that fewer farms using better practices are going to be polluting MORE than they did 100 years ago – and yet we have folks running away saying that the pollution from farms is THE problem.

    it boggles the mind… in terms of believability. Where is the data that proves this?

    You’re telling me that a 1000 farms in Pennsylvania are polluting more than a 1000 autos in NoVa.

    The CONTINUING DEGRADATION of the BAY is not due to less and less farms using better and better farming practices – guy.

    Its much more likely due to the fact that every day, 300 more people need parking lots and roofs in Virginia and 25 more in Fairfax.

    In the meantime.. every day in Pennsylvania, another farm ceases being plowed and having fertilizers and pesticides applied to it and becomes “fallow” and increases the acreage of land converted back to a pervious state.

    what’s being claimed in essence is that the one farm where there used to be 3 .. is now dumping fertilizer and pesticides on his land at a rate 3 times higher than when there actually were 3 farms AND he’s dumping anti freeze, motor oil an pet feces.. that cities have collected from their parking lots and sent to him for disposal.

    stupid stuff RH…. stupid stuff.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have previously posted the references concerning the rivers.

    Susquehannah is the largest contributor of pollution.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The number one source of nitrogen pollution to the Bay comes from agricultural runoff. This which contributes 40 percent of the nitrogen and 50 percent of the phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay.

    In Maryland, manure and waste from chicken production plays a big role in agricultural nitrogen loads to the Bay. Chickens outnumber people approximately 1,000 to 1 on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

    In the Shenandoah and Potomac watersheds, large-scale poultry operations produce more waste than hog, cattle, or dairy farms and up to 150 percent more of the nutrient pollution generated by human waste in the same area. In addition, poultry waste creates four times more nitrogen and 24 times more phosphorous than hog waste in Virginia.”

    Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You cannot have zero discharge parking lots. It is not possible. You can decrease the pollutants considerably, but you cannot have zero discharge.

    Unless you park only zero discharge cars there.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The largest amount of nitrogen entering the Bay is contributed by the Susquehanna River, which drains some of the most productive agricultural land in the Nation. The sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural land are fertilizer and animal waste………

    Despite the success of phosphorus-reduction efforts in the Susquehanna, the Potomac, and the Patuxent Rivers, nitrogen is increasing in the Susquehanna and the Potomac Rivers, although the data indicate that the rate of increase has slowed significantly. The increase in nitrogen is probably caused by the continued use of nitrogen fertilizer on lawns and cropland, growing agricultural animal populations and associated wastes,…..”

    Chesapeake Bay Foundation

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Sediment Sources in the Watershed and Delivery to the Chesapeake Bay.

    Sediment is generated in the watershed because of natural weathering of rocks and soils, accelerated erosion of lands and streams caused by agricultural and urban development, and resuspension of previously eroded sediments that are stored in stream corridors.

    Compilations of sediment information lead by the USGS (Langland and Cronin, 2003) indicate the two primary sources of sediment in the watershed are (1) erosion from upland land sources and (2) erosion of stream corridors.

    Some findings about sediment in the watershed include:

    • For the entire Chesapeake Bay region, river basins with the highest percentage of agricultural land use have the highest annual sediment yields, and basins with the highest percentage of forest cover have the lowest annual sediment yields.

    • Urbanization and development can more than double the natural background sediment yield; the increase in sediment yield is highest in the early development stages.

    • After development is completed, erosion rates are lower; however, sediment yield from urbanized areas can remain high because of increased stream corridor erosion due to altered hydrology.

    • Sediment plays an important role in transporting phosphorus and other contaminants in river systems. The amount of phosphorus depends on the source and on the geochemical reactions affecting phosphorus during transport.

    • Most of the sediment from the watershed to the bay is transported when (1) streams reach bankfull conditions, which take place on average every 1-2 years, and (2) during relatively large storm events. “

    EPA

    Note that this means they aree double counting sedimentation because they count the re-suspension of sediment already in the stream beds. They are not saying that more sediment comes from urbanized areas, but that it causes a greater “yield” of sedimentation do to changes in hydrology.

    I’ll agree the net result is the same, but the cause of the result is far different than what is frequently claimed.

    RH

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    NOx are responsible for approximately 2/3 of the total nitrogen emissions that eventually end up as loads to the Bay. NOx are released into the air, primarily as a by-product of combustion – the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil or gas.

    Types and Relative % Contribution of NOx Emission Sources from States* in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed**:

    Vehicles – 39% (on-road cars and trucks)
    Electric utilities – 27%
    Off-road mobile sources – 16% (boats, lawn mowers, construction equipment, etc.)
    Industry – 12%
    Area Sources – 6% (homes, small business, agriculture, etc.)

    http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status/status_dev.cfm?SID=126&SUBJECTAREA=INDICATORS

    I’d also appreciate you giving your specific cites also.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/chesbay.html

    and

    http://chesapeake.usgs.gov/SedimentBay605.pdf

    I find it hard to believe that NOX is responsible for two thirds of nitrogen input to the Bay. In any case, such a claim disagrees with the source noted above.

    In Viginia, forest amounts to 65% of land use, and agriculture accounts for 27%. Developed areas amount to 3% to 4% and the amount of roadways is less than that. It is hard to see how your figures could be correct.

    What is true is that NOX entering the bay could come from a much larger region than the Bay area, including coal burning plants as far away as Ohio.

    The note I have is that “Scientists estimate that about one-quarter of the nitrogen entering the Bay is from the air. “

    http://baltimorechronicle.com/bay_mar01.html

    That is still a lot, but it doesn’t support your contention that all of this is due to impervious surfaces. And it leads to the question of What Scientists are making these estimates.

    http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/waterqualitycriteria/doc-tribtools-VAPotomacTribTeam10_10_03.ppt#299,1,Chesapeake Bay Program Model Update

    This reference describes modeling programs currently underway for Chesapeake Bay pollution, and describes the best management practices that are most efficient.

    Interestingly, it shows that Nitrogen mostly comes from the Susquehanna ( as far a stream flow goes) but Phosporous comes mainly from the James, and sediment from the Potomac.

    According to this source agriculture (23% of the land area) accounts for 40%of the total Nitrogen load, 47% of the Total Phosphorous Load, and 62% of the land based sediment load. One reason for this difference is the Conowingo dam which is (temporarily) holding back an eneoumous sediment and attached phosphorous load from the Susquehanna.

    We may be getting confused over the difference betwwen atmospheric NOX deposition and total Nitrogen loading, which are two different things. according to this source, of the atmospheric NOX deposition only half comes from states in the Bay watershed. Of the total Nitrogen load this source says that 32% comes from atmospheric sources. But even that, is frequently deposited on land, and subsequently washed to the bay.

    The model makes clear that Nitrogen and Phosphorous have a cycle. Anything we do to disrupt that cycle to decrease inputs to the Bay is going to result in more nitrogen and phosphorous someplace else. Last I knew, nitrogen and Phosphorous don’t just “go away”.

    What is most interesting (to me, anyway) is the efficiencies reported for various BMP’s. I can’t tell from this source if these are cost efficiencies or physical efficiencies, regardless of cost, but I assume it is the latter.

    With efficiencies from 5 to 80% for various practices, it is clear that we can never get to the point of perfectly clean streams, not that they ever existed to begin with.

    What we need to do is be reasonable and cost effective about whatever we can do.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The State of Florida is taking action to regulate systems under requirements of the EPA Region 4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) nitrogen standard published in December 2005 for springs in the Orlando area. The TMDL standard calls for a reduction of between 90% and 95% of existing nitrate-nitrogen reaching the springs from all sources to 0.11 mg/L, the estimated predevelopment level. This standard is so strict that, if enforced, all human-caused sources need to be eliminated, by definition, to achieve predevelopment levels, and pollution trading is not possible. It is unlikely that the TMDL standard can be achieved. The standard, however, does create a basis, even an obligation under nondegradation standards of the EPA rules, to deny any application for a new or renewed operational permit of any source that contributes any nitrogen to a watershed that is already exceeding standards. This practice keeps homeowners, developers, farmers, power plant operators, car owners, and the like in persistent violation of the standard and subject to case by case and selective enforcement
    practices.

    Housing and commercial development control by limiting access to wastewater treatment is politically less painful than zoning and is often the tool of choice in many jurisdictions. The methods include limiting access to treatment technology and strict nitrogen standards. Nitrogen reduction for single home systems is often more about land-use control than public health and environmental protection.

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – this is not my opinion:

    NOx are responsible for approximately 2/3 of the total nitrogen emissions that eventually end up as loads to the Bay. NOx are released into the air, primarily as a by-product of combustion – the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil or gas.

    Types and Relative % Contribution of NOx Emission Sources from States* in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed**:

    Vehicles – 39% (on-road cars and trucks)
    Electric utilities – 27%
    Off-road mobile sources – 16% (boats, lawn mowers, construction equipment, etc.)
    Industry – 12%
    Area Sources – 6% (homes, small business, agriculture, etc.)

    http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status/status_dev.cfm?SID=126&SUBJECTAREA=INDICATORS

    go read the actual link – which I quoted verbatim but take the time to read the rest and look at the graphics.

    re: remote power plants – yes – and they provide power to the Chesapeake Bay Region…

    re: models – vs… actual data collection?

    re: TMDL – TMDL is not yet implemented. If you think restrictions are tough right now, wait until TMDL gets fully implemented.

    And oh yes… you and FW’s ideas of no zoning… tell me again how that works with regard to storm water?

    here – take a look at this if you get a chance:

    Bay states at odds over definition of sprawl, how to measure it

    http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1688

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “RH – this is not my opinion:”

    It isn’t mine either.

    We quoted different sources and got different answers.

    At most, one of them is right.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Nonpoint sources of nutrients contribute about 60 percent of the nitrogen that reaches the Bay. The largest single source is agricultural runoff. Nitrogen loading results from application of chemical fertilizers, livestock manure, and sewage sludge on fields as well as from animal wastes that run off pastures and feedlots.”

    “Other nitrogen sources include atmospheric deposition to tidal surface waters, adjacent ocean waters, and the watershed, as well as runoff from urban and suburban lawns, roadways, and other developed areas to creeks and tributary rivers.”

    http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/gr8water/xbrochure/chesapea.html

    I believe you are incoorect in claiming that NOX is responsible for 2/3 of the nitrogen reaching the bay.

    FYI, I spent four years doing atmospheric research on ways to measure NOX, sulfuric acid and other atmospheric contaminants as they affect the soil and water.

    I also spent some time doing studies concerning fraud in advertizing that involved chemical substances.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Computer models indicate that about 10 percent of the Bay’s nitrogen load is the result of airborne nitrogen, deposited directly on the surface of the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries. When the amount of atmospheric nitrogen deposited throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed is considered, air pollution could account for nearly 40 percent of the Bay’s total nitrogen load. The exact nitrogen load added from air pollution sources is uncertain because of the lack of monitoring data and questions about how and where nitrogen is transported. The EPA is developing a model that will provide a more definitive idea about air pollution sources that impact the Bay.

    http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/gr8water/xbrochure/chesapea.html

    According to EPA, we really don;t know, but it isn’t 2/3.

    Maybe I should have stayed in the atmospheric measuring business ;-).

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    re: models – vs… actual data collection?

    The models in the report mentioned are verified and calibrated against actual data – as all useful models are.

    The report presents a number of graphs which show excellent correlation between the model and actual events.

    RH

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I believe you are incoorect in claiming that NOX is responsible for 2/3 of the nitrogen reaching the bay.”

    do you mean I was incorrect in quoting the EPA and providing the link? Are you saying the EPA said are wrong?

    re: models

    … are worthless if not validated.

    Validated means that the model can be used to PREDICT and THEN compared to see if the prediction is close to the actual.

    The Bay model does not do this. There have been continuing arguments about the fact that they are making policy based on a model that cannot yield data that matches actual monitoring data.

    It’s not an easy thing to do.

    The Feds have spent billions of dollars on models that DO accurately predict where a Trident missile will go once launched.

    Entire missile test shots have no other purpose other than to see if the models correctly predicted where the missile actually landed.

    If the Chesapeake Bay folks had their crap together – there would not be seemingly contradictory data like we’ve found – which I was already very familiar with.

    It’s one of my biggest complaints with regard to the CBAY folks.

    They splatter contradictory data and the average person cannot figure it out.

    The net result of this is that CBAY is claiming that farms… 1/10 in numbers from 100 years ago are polluting more than they use to and that more than 3 million new people living where forests used to be and now are impervious surfaces are minor in impacts compared to farms.

    This makes absolutely no sense at all.

    The net result is that if I asked you to name the 3 most cost-effective things that needed to be done in NoVa to help the Bay – you could not tell me what the 3 are much less what the percentage is.

    and here’s an example – they attribute sewage application on fields – to agriculture sources and not urban sources. Really?

    so we truck the sewage from NoVa to farms where it get’s included in the Farming contribution to the problems.

    This is totally bogus and if they make this kind of mistake what kind of confidence should one have in the rest of it?

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s one of my biggest complaints with regard to the CBAY folks.

    They splatter contradictory data and the average person cannot figure it out.”

    Agreed.

    They want what they want, regardless of the cost. They are willing to spread disinformation to get what they want.

    It is egegeious at least and fraudulent at worst.

    That, is precisely the problem that I suggest procedures to eliminate.

    The procedure is to promote ONLY those environmental initiatives that we can show actually provide a net benefit to EVERYONE who resides in and contributes to the best environment for ALL of us.

    Besides that, we have each provided nfo that comes from the EPA. We stil have data that is contradictory.

    At most, one of us is correct.

    I still do not beieve, based on the data I have retrieved, and on my own personal experience as an atmospheric analytical chemist, that your claim that 2/3 rds of nitrogen in the bay comes from atmospheric sources is correct.

    You are going to have to convince me, based on recent data.

    RH

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH… those words are not my words.

    they are exact quotes from their website.

    It’s not my opinion.

    It’s stated on their website so if you don’t believe it – you don’t believe them.

    right?

Leave a Reply

Read More