The Commonwealth of Virginia has earmarked $3.4 million for new stream protection practices under the Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) and the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. This week the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has awarded $690,120 or 20% of that money to the soil and water conservation districts in Fauquier, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties to be used to provide technical assistance and cost share money for new livestock exclusion and new stream protection practices being implemented within the next four months. If you are interested in learning more about these funds and conservation practices contact Nicole Ethier,Conservation Specialist, Prince William Soil & Water Conservation District, (703)594-3621 or follow the links on the county names to their websites.
Over the past quarter century the excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has decreased, but the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded. As a result, US EPA has taken control of the situation and has developed a new federally mandated total maximum daily load (TMDL) to restore the local waters. The TMDL allocates a pollution budget among the states which will decrease over time.
The final version of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan to approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spells out how Virginia will attain the TMDL goals. There are local TMDLs as well as state TMDLs. As a show of good faith, the Governor of Virginia included $36.4 million new dollars in the state’s Water Quality Improvement Fund in his 2011 budget amendments. This $3.4 million money earmarked for new stream exclusion is money already available that is being "reprogramed."
Last fall the US Department of Agriculture released a draft of a report evaluating conservation practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The USDA report stated 81% of farms lacked comprehensive nutrient management plans and practices. The report found that on over 2 million acres of cropland within the six state Chesapeake Bay watershed, that conservation practices are not being used at all. According to the current version of the EPA watershed model (to be revised in 2011), cropland accounts for 25% of sediment in the bay, 32% of the nitrogen and 27.5% of the phosphorus while accounting for only 10% of the Chesapeake Bay watershed acreage.
For agricultural operations in Virginia (and other states) the revised WIP requires the implementation of resource management plans on most agricultural acres which may include: 35 foot grass or forest riparian buffers between cropland and perennial surface waters; stream exclusion of livestock; and implemented nutrient management plans. Though funds are limited, the Commonwealth will provide cost-share funding to implement these best practices through the soil and water conservation districts. The WIP calls for farms to implement "resource management plans" to reduce pollution but does not mandate what those plans should include and requires them only if adequate funding is available through the cost share programs. However, the TMDL has to be met and the best money spent could be to implement agricultural nutrient management plans. Thus, the first money available for compliance with the Virginia WIP is for the cost share program at the soil and water conservation districts.
Riparian buffers, nutrient management plans and stream exclusion have been shown to be very effective in reducing nutrient pollution. Researchers at Virginia Tech found that orchard grass filter strip 30 feet wide remove 84% of the sediment and soluble solids from surface runoff. Recent studies northeast of Richmond, VA demonstrated that forested riparian buffers could reduce concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in runoff from croplands by 48%. While studies performed on the Maryland shore found that riparian buffers removed between 89% and 95% of the nitrogen from field run off. While riparian areas can be important sinks for phosphors, they are generally less effective in removing phosphorus than either sediment of nitrogen. (Parsons 1994, Cooper and Gilliam 1987).
In addition, protecting livestock from pollutant-contaminated waterways also leads to improved animal health, enabling local farmers to produce higher quality meats and poultry. According to the Department of Natural Resources, farmers report higher yields from animals grazing on lands where streams are protected from livestock “The best management practices promoted by conservation districts improve public and animal health and build(a) wealth,” said Jim Christian, Chairman of the Loudoun Soil and Water Conservation District. “Cost-share programs, tax credits, and contributions by participating landowners create a lucrative return on investment.” Many animal farms can operate well beyond the baseline level and will be able to sell nutrient credits under the nutrient exchange program to municipalities and others who are above the discharge baseline. Now is the time to call your soil and water conservation district and be proactive.
Showing posts with label Chesapeake Bay Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chesapeake Bay Act. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Monday, September 6, 2010
Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act- Managing an Ecosystem by Brute Force
On October 20, 2009, Senator Cardin of Maryland introduced, S. 1816, the “Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act,” on behalf of himself and Senators Mikulski, Carper and Kaufman. The legislation reappeared from Senator Boxer’s Committee on June 30th 2010 with all 64 plus pages stricken and with a 98 page amendment. Expanding federal authority even beyond that of the original bill to determine what science is acceptable and funded.
The Chesapeake Bay Act is an amendment to the Clean Water Act that serves to expand federal authority down to the smallest potential source of pollution. In the findings section the Chesapeake Bay Act states that the largest land use and largest source of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment within the Chesapeake Basin is agriculture. It also states that air pollution of nitrogen oxides and ammonia from air pollution contributes 1/3 of nitrogen loadings to the Bay. Significantly, the legislation states that suburban and urban spread is the fastest growing land use and that suburban and urban storm water run off is the only major source of pollution in the watershed that continues to increase. The Chesapeake Bay Act goes on to state this has been caused by the impervious cover (pavement, buildings and roadways) increasing by 250,000 acres between 1990 and 2000. Finally, the Chesapeake Bay Act states that 58% of the watershed is undeveloped and mostly forested, but that 100 acres of forest are lost to development each day. These claims have been determined by modeling, confirmation sampling and interpretation of data. In other words by the federal government and universities and experts.
This new legislation grants sweeping new authority to promulgate any regulation and issue any permit needed to control pollution from any source (including your back yard) to meet water quality goals set by the EPA, notwithstanding any other provision of the Clean Water Act. Thus, the Clean Water Act exemptions for agricultural storm water or irrigation return flows, or residential storm water flows are voided. This provides authority for the EPA to issue section 402 permits to all minor sources of pollution including your home, certainly your neighborhood. States are given authority to issue permits for any pollution source that the Chesapeake Bay State deems necessary. In addition, it requires that the EPA establish standards relating to site planning, design, construction and maintenance for project resulting in impervious development (concrete, roads, buildings, patios, increasing building footprints), essentially any development. The federal government is granted the right to control building and developments within Chesapeake Basin of the six states.
The legislation creates a nutrient trading program throughout the Chesapeake Basin based on imperfect modeling of the effectiveness of agricultural best management practices, storm water management plans. To development essentially a cap and trade program to attempt to accelerate the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay by creating nutrient credits based on federal government blessed “Big Science and Expert” approved model and best management practices (BMPs) that can be bought and sold to meet nutrient reduction goals. One unintended consequence will be in exploitation of know inefficiencies and errors in the models to game the system. In addition, BMPs need to be adopted then maintained year in and year out, so they need to be tracked. It is not like buying a more efficient filter or machine, but maintaining plantings and drainage patterns, composting animal waste, rotating pastures. So the legislation requires EPA to maintain a database with comprehensive information on best management practices.
Many of the other things covered by the legislation codifies as law the requirements for states to adopt and submit to EPA for approval watershed implementation plans for each segment of the Chesapeake Basin within their states. Codifies the total maximum daily load TMDL limits for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment and the methods for implementing enforcing the programs. These regulations are currently being implemented without this act which serves to place land use control into federal hands. With one piece of legislation we deliver into federal hands the authority to engage in social, economic and environmental engineering in the six state region.
The Chesapeake Bay Act is an amendment to the Clean Water Act that serves to expand federal authority down to the smallest potential source of pollution. In the findings section the Chesapeake Bay Act states that the largest land use and largest source of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment within the Chesapeake Basin is agriculture. It also states that air pollution of nitrogen oxides and ammonia from air pollution contributes 1/3 of nitrogen loadings to the Bay. Significantly, the legislation states that suburban and urban spread is the fastest growing land use and that suburban and urban storm water run off is the only major source of pollution in the watershed that continues to increase. The Chesapeake Bay Act goes on to state this has been caused by the impervious cover (pavement, buildings and roadways) increasing by 250,000 acres between 1990 and 2000. Finally, the Chesapeake Bay Act states that 58% of the watershed is undeveloped and mostly forested, but that 100 acres of forest are lost to development each day. These claims have been determined by modeling, confirmation sampling and interpretation of data. In other words by the federal government and universities and experts.
This new legislation grants sweeping new authority to promulgate any regulation and issue any permit needed to control pollution from any source (including your back yard) to meet water quality goals set by the EPA, notwithstanding any other provision of the Clean Water Act. Thus, the Clean Water Act exemptions for agricultural storm water or irrigation return flows, or residential storm water flows are voided. This provides authority for the EPA to issue section 402 permits to all minor sources of pollution including your home, certainly your neighborhood. States are given authority to issue permits for any pollution source that the Chesapeake Bay State deems necessary. In addition, it requires that the EPA establish standards relating to site planning, design, construction and maintenance for project resulting in impervious development (concrete, roads, buildings, patios, increasing building footprints), essentially any development. The federal government is granted the right to control building and developments within Chesapeake Basin of the six states.
The legislation creates a nutrient trading program throughout the Chesapeake Basin based on imperfect modeling of the effectiveness of agricultural best management practices, storm water management plans. To development essentially a cap and trade program to attempt to accelerate the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay by creating nutrient credits based on federal government blessed “Big Science and Expert” approved model and best management practices (BMPs) that can be bought and sold to meet nutrient reduction goals. One unintended consequence will be in exploitation of know inefficiencies and errors in the models to game the system. In addition, BMPs need to be adopted then maintained year in and year out, so they need to be tracked. It is not like buying a more efficient filter or machine, but maintaining plantings and drainage patterns, composting animal waste, rotating pastures. So the legislation requires EPA to maintain a database with comprehensive information on best management practices.
Many of the other things covered by the legislation codifies as law the requirements for states to adopt and submit to EPA for approval watershed implementation plans for each segment of the Chesapeake Basin within their states. Codifies the total maximum daily load TMDL limits for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment and the methods for implementing enforcing the programs. These regulations are currently being implemented without this act which serves to place land use control into federal hands. With one piece of legislation we deliver into federal hands the authority to engage in social, economic and environmental engineering in the six state region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)