Draft plan for Chesapeake Bay

Ross · Sep 16, 2009

Jon, If you save all of the shells you could use them for ballast in your cages. And for a place for the spat to settle. A short chain and small anchor could hold the cage near but not on the bottom if the cage has enough bouyancy. You could retrieve them with a boat hook.

Dan Johnson · Sep 16, 2009

Those of you...

that boat on the salty end of the Bay should come north to where Ross and I boat and see the difference. Last weekend our area was a muddy, turbid mess with as much debris in the water as after a hurricane's passing.

This wasn't the outflow of the miles of the Susquehanna but just the residue of the scouring of the banks of the little North East river from all the rain that fell the week before. This was the "visible" consequence. Who knows what chemical and other unseen residue was also washed into the waters.

As the Bay's tidal flow is counter clockwise, Cpt. Jon can expect to see a much diluted impact coming down the western shore some time in the next week or two. We've had a wet summer up at the top of the Bay so haven't seen the algae blooms and other signs of troubled waters this summer. In fact, the northern Bay waters have been relatively "clean" this year as a result of the higher than normal amount of fresh water contributed, all-be-it at a much slower rate than the past week.

As pointed out, this can change in a week's time. CBF and other environmentally concerned organizations have only scratched the surface. "Green Marina" initiatives are a start, but only a start. Farm run-off control up in Pennsylvania where I live still needs much more participation, but the suburban facination with green lawns may be far too deep-rooted to change enough to make a difference.

With so much funding being siphoned off for other more noble causes, it will be quite difficult to get government to kick in the what is really needed to solve this complex puzzle. Cpt. Jon and Pocahontas are on the right track. Do the best YOU can as every effort counts.

Shooter II · Sep 16, 2009

Dan,
I didn't see much of a fish kill this year down on the Rhode. In fact I don't recall any fish kill this year. Perhaps the wet year had something to do with it. The water's pretty turbid and the usual brown. There's a a brown ring around the hull. Still wouldn't want to swim in the water.
Just found this website and thought I'd share.
http://www.voicesofthechesapeakebay.org/

The "Watermen's Blues" puts much of the blame on the sewerage pouring into the bay, according to headlines.

I'll have to read it.

Shooter II · Sep 16, 2009

from wtop radio's webpage

http://wtop.com/?nid=598&sid=1764135

Bay pollution threatening water -- and fisherman

September 16, 2009 - 3:39pm

Veronica Robinson, wtop.com

CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. - "Watermen Blues," a new report on the health of the Chesapeake Bay, finds pollution is not only threatening the health of the water -- but also the fisherman.
The group Environment Maryland says the Bay is still dangerously sick after 25 years of government efforts, and the bay's watermen are paying the steepest price.
In the past four or five years, the number of Maryland watermen has declined from 10,000 to 6,000, and Maryland Watermen's Association President Capt. Larry Simms says most of those are "part-time jobs."
"The real problem is over-pollution and we've had a Bay cleanup program going on for 30 years, {yet} we're in worst shape now than we were 30 years ago."
Simms says 50 percent of the problem is the 550 million gallons of nutrient rich sewage going into the Bay in Maryland every day.
Environment Maryland says this is the year for the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress to commit to a strategy that will effectively clean up the waters and restore the treasured culture and community of the bay's watermen. (Copyright 2009 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

Veronica Robinson, wtop.com

Because the efforts (as stated above) have been going on for decades and the money spent is in the millions and the state of the Bay is said to be worse today, I'd have to say we need more immediate techniques. The patient won't survive telling people to let their lawns yellow a little. Won't work. We need to take seriously the cleanup and no longer abide even the casual polluters. We no longer tolerate the person tossing trash out the car window and yet even then we need people to volunteer to clean up the roads. BUT, the roads are a lot cleaner now than when the efforts began. We need to get there. A good effort is not enough. No such thing as a moral victory.

(Copyright 2009 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

Ross · Sep 16, 2009

Are they producing enough seed oysters to to keep some of these "Part Time" watermen working at planting instead of harvesting? Building oyster shell reefs?

MoonSailer · Sep 17, 2009

Population growth during the last 30 years!!! Imagine how bad the water would be without efforts to keep it clean. Generally speaking double the number of people double the pollution. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/populationgrowth.aspx?menuitem=14669

Ross · Sep 17, 2009

The State and the DNR has limits on land animal and bird catches and no one complains. The penalties for violation are large. Before these limits were in place hunters killed ducks by the wagon load and sold them in the cities. Market hunters use small cannon and sneak boats to shoot ducks on the water sometimes killing a hundred with a single shot. I rather doubt that there is more chicken manure getting into the bay than there was water fowl manure before the market hunters slaughtered the flocks. Oyster populations depended on the high nutrient levels in the water. When mechanical oyster harvesting started they not only became more efficient in the harvest they also disturbed the habitat for regrowth. Almost like harvesting apples by cutting the trees.

Scott T-Bird · Sep 17, 2009

Industrialized agriculture needs improved regulation.

The posted report seems to indicate that 75% of the landmass in the Chessy watershed is agricultural and forested. It goes on to say that 25% is agricultural. I am not sure how to interpret this but my opinion is that agriculture has a much bigger impact on pollution than suburban development. Beginning in the early 70's, there has been a steady advancement of clean-water regulations that have been implemented with all development. These advancements have applied to stormwater runoff , soil erosion control, septic system designs and wastewater treatment plants. The Chesepeake watershed is among the most tightly regulated areas in the country in this regard. Regulations are mandatory, and they have teeth as the EPA has prosecuted aggressively on many fronts.

During that time period, agriculture has also transformed into an enormous industrial scale, but has had none of the regulations comparable to any other industrialized activity. BMP's are voluntary and have no teeth. They are weak and ignored with impunity. As somebody else has said, agricultural lands are essentially chemical dispensers into the watershed and there simply is no regulation or mandatory control. If you look at the data provided by the fertilizer industry, you will find that lawn fertilizers are an insignificant blip on the radar screen compared to the sales of agricultural fertilizer. It is so small, it is barely worth any mention. We can complain about lawn fertilizers and it is always best if we are responsible about the way we use them, but basically, it is an insignifcant contribution. It is the agricultural fertilizer that provides the enormous load into the watershed.

Surpisingly, the advancement of suburban development has an imact that isn't all negative. In the many areas where suburban growth is significant, there is an accompanying increase in fallow land that was once agricultural and soon becomes inactive for both develoment and agriculture. These lands revert back to forest, typically, and are no longer recieving the agricultural load of fertilzers. Soil erosion is also greatly reduced from these areas.

Scott T-Bird · Sep 17, 2009

Jon, just to be a little argumentative ...

It really is a myth that wealthy people can 'buy' their approvals with the right party contributions. You are right that it often takes a great deal of money to gain approvals. The money has to be spent on complying with the letter of the laws. The landowner has to spend money to hire the scientists, the engineers, the planners, the environmental specialists, and most significantly, the attorneys to make their case at the local planning board. The landowner also has to spend money on the escrow accounts so that the local planning board can hire their engineers, planners, scientists and environmental specialists, and most significantly, their attorney, in order to make sure that the landowner has made an airtight case that he/she will be in strict compliance with all local, state and federal regulations before a shovel can be put in the ground. This airtight case is absolutely necessary because of all the local neighbors who are watching the entire process and usually go away madder than hornets when the local planning board ultimately has to do what they are legally obligated to do when the landowner finally demonstrates that his home will comply with all rules, regulations and special conditions. This local process usually takes months if not a year in the coastal Atlantic states surrounding the Chesepeake.

What most people don't realize is that this local approval is always conditioned on the landowner getting all necessary state and federal permits, so the battle is just beginning once it is won at the local level. If you think you can buy your approval at that level, you must be dreaming! Well, on second thought, if you are Merrill Lynch, or the State Government, or maybe a prominent Environmental Authority, wanting to put up an office building on land that no residential real estate developer could hope to touch, maybe you have some influence, as we have found out in our state.

So what you may be seeing is a landowner with a local approval that must now go thru the 3+ year battle to get approvals at the next levels. This, and the economy, could be the reason for the delay. The requirements are daunting, to say the least, and it is risky because the approvals aren't automatic and this is an area where the scrutiny can become far more subjective, meaning the cost of the conditions can skyrocket. For housing developments, the cost can be tens of thousands of dollars for each home. For a single mansion, as you may be witnessing, the cost may easily be in the 6 figures (and that doesn't include the cents). You are right ... there are people who go to that expense, but it isn't just greasing the political skids (well, you know, THAT may also have to be done, too). They are paying for a whole industry of professionals. BTW, this type of expenditure is great for the professional industries that are involved in the process.

KandD · Sep 17, 2009

I'm working on a grant proposal right now and came across an interesting "fact" and thought I would share it (I haven't caught up on the thread yet):

It was estimated that the oyster population at it's peak in the Chesapeake bay (late 1800's) filtered the entire day, and the current population would take 325 days.
Cit.
Newell, R.I.E. (1988). Ecological changes in Chesapeake Bay: Are they the result of over-harvesting the American oyster? In Understanding the Estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research, Publication 129, M.P. Lynch and E.C. Krome, Eds. Baltimore, MD: Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium.

Ross · Sep 17, 2009

Re: Jon, just to be a little argumentative ...

I have just been spending some time on Google Earth and looking at the rivers that feed the Bay. All of the farm lands have good tree buffers along the water but most of the residential lands have lawn down to the water or to the rip-rap. My observations as I sail the upper bay have been that the farmers don't plant to the water's edge but leave a good line of trees along the water front wheter it be creek, river or bay.

Dan Johnson · Sep 17, 2009

Shooter...

I spent my summers growing up in a little community below the West River area called Cape Anne, on Broadwater Creek in the Herring Bay area. Bay water was clear enough to see ten feet down to the bottom. Grasses grew well in the shallows. Crabs were plentiful (so were the jellyfish!). Fishing for Spot over oyster beds was usually productive. I doubt if any of that is true there today.

The Eastern shore was predominantly agricultural. The Western shore was only modestly developed. Then came the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

All over, houses sprouted up like so many mushrooms, bringing with them asphalt run-offs and fertilized lawns where farm fields and woods once stood. Add to that the effluent from old sewage treatment plant overloads and massive chicken operations and its easy to see results in the water conditions today.

And I disagree with Scott that this level of development has had any positive impact. You can bet those fallow fields already have a plot plan developed for them sitting on the shelf, waiting for the economic recovery to bring more people who want to live in the land of "Good and Plenty".

And it is naive to believe that money doesn't talk behind the scenes in small rural communities such as Cpt. Jon described.

kloudie1 · Sep 17, 2009

Our Lake Pontchartrain has gone from a real icky mess twenty years ago to an improving habitat.. Widely opposed legislation stopped shell dredging and started to control agricultural fertilizer runoff and sewerage runoff from poultry and livestock farms.. City waste runoff from treatment plants began to be controlled as well.. The lake is in MUCH better condition today ! Still has a ways to go but the programs are succeeding …. Fish and crab populations are up.. Manatees are sometimes seen now.. they haven’t been in the lake for many years.. Two organizations, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation and the Save Our Lake group were the active ones along with many local folks that pushed the Federal and State GovMints to promulgate new rules and actually enforce rules that were already in place .. It is working here pretty well. We’ve had a few setbacks, the most notable were the two openings of the Bonnet Carrie spillway, which bleeds Mississippi River water into the lake for flood protection for New Orleans.. Tropical storms/hurricanes cause bumps but usually the lake recovers really quickly from those. I understand that the population around the Chesapeake is much greater … but if meaningful runoff rules can be passed and enforced, things will get better!! I mean.. Lets get some holding tanks for those ducks and geese! and don't forget the speckled trout !

Ross · Sep 17, 2009

The city of Milwaukee sells Milorganite which is a pelletized sewer sluge residue. I should think that with some subsidies a system for collecting, treating, digesting for biogas and pelletizing chicken manure could be developed to turn a pernicious waste product into a useable and marketable product. There are enough regions where excess animal manure is a problem and enough places that are buying chemical fertilizer that a change is consumer habits would do much for solving a problem.

MoonSailer · Sep 17, 2009

Weed killer!!! I noticed in Texas that above an agricultural area that the Medina river was full of grass/weeds and below the fields there was little to no vegetation. Weed killers run off lawns and fields and many are still active enough to kill aquaitic vegetation. This is important as vegetation absorbs nutrients and keeps it from going to algea which cause the anaerobic conditions.
As to oxygenating the bay it might be more cost effective to put virtual sewage treatment plants that pump water and organisms into big tanks where oxygen encourages growth and then the bacteria are allowed to settle out removing nutrients and adding oxygen at the same time. The settled out sludge can be sent to the midwest to fertilize the corn fields.
It all comes down to money!!!!! It is cheaper to apply chemical fertilizers. It is cheaper to dump sludge on the land . It is cheaper to raise livestock in confined quarters and force feed them. If people were willing to spend the money the Chesapeake could be clean in a few years. But everyone wants someone else to pay for the cleanup.

Scott T-Bird · Sep 17, 2009

Moon is right about that ...

Agriculture is one industry where people do not want environmental regulation to impact the cost of living. We don't want to tolerate an increase in food prices because it has a severe impact on impoverished people and it cuts into the discretionary spending for the rest of us. We are also sympathetic to our perception that farmers are the stewards of the land. In the meantime, agriculture has become industrialized and there is little restraint to the negative impacts of industrialized agriculture. However, we are starting to hear much more about 'green' farming. We are slowly being encouraged to buy local produce and even meats that are raised locally and 'organically'. This comes with a higher price tag, but I have noticed people using this as a sort of status symbol and a discussion point that they are eating healthy and helping the environment by buying local and by not supporting the industrial producers like Perdue. 'Free Range' chicken is appearing all over the place now.

These trends will gain traction and eventually, the agriculture lobbyists will lose their power which has kept environmental regulation out of agriculture. Ross, your analogy doesn't really account for the thousands of square miles of agricultural land in the watershed that deposit chemical laden water directly into the water stream. Water will only travel for a few hundred feet overland in most instances before miniature rivelets are formed whereby water no longer is absorbed by the ground and rapid overland travel continues instead. Cultivated farm fields, particularly when they are bare dirt (when the fertilizers are often applied), contribute runoff at a rate that is not much slower than pavement. Your buffer examples along the bay itself, are only a tiny portion of the watershed. Besides, even forested areas can have a greater runoff coefficient than suburban lawns (although the runoff won't have the same chemical content). However, under today's regulations, housing has a greater buffer requirement than agriculture, and the examples you notice are in areas that were developed in earlier decades before regulations became more stringent.

Housing is one aspect of our culture where we don't mind seeing dramatic increases in costs. We generally are in favor of higher housing prices, as it improves our own equity when we own a home, and increased home values, such as we see in desirable areas around the bay, give us a sense of status and exclusiveness.

Moon is right that we can solve the problem of what we think of as over-development if we are willing to spend the money. Anybody who thinks that building should be more restrictive should simply buy a house and tear it down - but you can't sell the property then. Think of that land investment as your contribution for solving the problem. If you see a fallow field that you think is just ripe for development ... buy it. That will stop development on that parcel right in its tracks! Band together with your neighbors and buy open space. This is happening in many areas of the country.

Ross · Sep 17, 2009

Re: Moon is right about that ...

Scott most farmers are careful to use contour planting, no-till planting when posible and in this area they all leave unplanted grass covered swales that channel run-off water and catch sediment. Forest land has litter a foot deep that slows run-off. There is a tree in my yard that overhangs the patio. It takes a quarter inch of rain before the ground under that tree gets wet. That water is caught by the leaves and held to be released slowly over several hours.
Maryland has a strictly enforced law requiring the planting of trees on fallow ground to replace trees cut for developement or for infrastructure expansion. Our sediment control would drive my kid brother in SC crazy. There(in SC) bare ground is left for years and the rate of erosion is astonding.

Scott T-Bird · Sep 17, 2009

Dan, if you think ...

that landowners are able to get around development regulations simply by 'paying-off' local politicians, why isn't it stopped? It is easy to stop that kind of issue. Just notify state enforcement and watch them come down on it. I'm not saying that there isn't a certain amount of politicking which goes around. But the impact is usually in which developer will get to develop a property, where there is competition among many. The property itself will get developed only if the conditions are met, whether it is won by the scum-bag who pays off the local pols or if it is won by honest business people who do not resort to those tactics.

It is almost impossible to subvert the approval process itself. There are too many watchdog groups, and the DEP personnel are not beholden to anybody, in general, and are generally allowed to carry out their own environmentalist agenda, as far as they can take it until restriction is just impossible any more.