Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Will Account for Climate Change

On Friday Governor Ralph Northam joined Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, Virginia Delegate David Bulova, Environmental Protection Agency Acting Regional Administrator Diana Esher, and the other representatives from the Chesapeake Bay watershed states at a meeting of the Chesapeake Executive Council to sign a directive that commits the Chesapeake Bay Program to addressing the threats of climate change.

In the 2014 all the parties signed the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, where the EPA set a limit for release of nutrients into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This limit was called a TMDL at the time and now is called the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint. Under the most recent revision to the blueprint, the Chesapeake Bay model called for about 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the “base case 2011 levels.”

 The reductions in pollution were then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. Each year, Virginia, as well as the other Bay jurisdictions, report information about implemented practices to the EPA, which takes the information and runs it through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. The results estimate the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that would make it to the Bay under average conditions. By comparing the model results across time, EPA can see the expected collective impact of our actions under the implementation plans.

However, with climate change, conditions veer away from the average conditions underlying the model assumptions. Let’s be honest, no matter what mankind does, in the next couple of decades the expected impacts from climate change are going to happen. At this point climate projections for our region forecast that on average, precipitation in the region is projected to increase by around 8% by 2040, and temperature is projected to increase by about 1 °C further.

“Because warmer air can hold more moisture, heavy rainfall events ...are projected to increase in frequency and severity as the world continues to warm. Both the intensity and rainfall rates of Atlantic hurricanes are projected to increase with the strongest storms getting stronger in a warming climate. Recent research has shown how global warming can alter atmospheric circulation and weather patterns such as the jet stream, affecting the location, frequency, and duration of these and other extremes,” says the Fourth National Climate Assessment.

To respond to climate, change the Chesapeake Bay models will have to incorporate more precipitation and more severe storms. It is stormwater that delivers the pollutants to the Chesapeake Bay. Our mitigation efforts must consider increased storm intensity and flooding frequency. Our mitigations, called “Best Management Practices” must be robust and be able to function in stronger storms.

So, the Chesapeake Executive Council has committed to increase the resiliency of the watershed, including its living resources, habitats, public infrastructure and communities, to withstand adverse impacts from changing environmental and climate conditions. To respond to the growing body of science documenting the impacts of climate change and the urgent need for action, the Executive Council has agreed to build upon previous commitments and hasten their response. Directive No. 21-1 Collective Action for ClimateChange calls for addressing the threats of climate change in all aspects of theplan to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed:

• Prioritize communities and habitats most vulnerable to ever-increasing risks.

• Apply the best scientific, modeling, monitoring and planning capabilities of the Chesapeake Bay Program.

• Connect Chesapeake Bay restoration goals with emerging opportunities in climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience.

As the Chesapeake Bay Foundation stated: “Climate change is a real and imminent threat to the Chesapeake Bay. Water temperatures are warming. Sea levels are rising. Record levels of rainfall, like those in 2018, are expected to become more regular. Scientists agree these changes will make Bay restoration harder, requiring additional reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution by 2025.”

2020 Dead Zone Update

Overall, the total volume of the 2020 Dead Zone in the Chesapeake Bay was the second lowest since 1985 and was estimated to be considerably lower than in the Last several years. The “Dead Zone” of the Chesapeake Bay refers to a volume of hypoxic water that is characterized by dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 2 mg/L, which is too low for aquatic organisms such as fish and blue crabs to thrive.

If your will recall, in mid-June, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, United States Geological Survey, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and University of Michigan scientists released their prediction for slightly smaller than average 2020 Dead Zone. This prediction was based on slightly less than average water and nitrogen flows into the bay from January – May 2020. The actual Dead Zone was smaller than they predicted.

At various times each summer the Maryland Department of Natural Resources measures the dissolved oxygen in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay main stem and the size of the Dead Zone. While the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Anchor QEA and collaborators at UMCES, operate a real-time three-dimensional hypoxia forecast model using input of that predicts daily dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout the Bay (www.vims.edu/hypoxia) using the National Weather Service wind monitoring data.

"The average hypoxic volume of the eight 2020 summer cruiseswas 0.63 cubic miles, compared to a historical summer average from 1985-2019 of0.84 cubic miles. During 2020, every cruise except the one in late July hadbetter than average oxygen conditions for its time period. The most recentmonitoring cruise conducted in September found no hypoxic waters in theMaryland mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay. "The September cruise normally occurs mid-month but was delayed a week due to several days of high winds which, along with cool September temperatures, contributed to the increase in oxygen in the deeper bay waters. Similarly, no hypoxia was observed in Virginia Chesapeake Bay mainstem waters in September. 

Crabs, fish, oysters, and other creatures in the Chesapeake Bay require oxygen to survive. Scientists and natural resource managers study the volume and duration of bay hypoxia to determine possible impacts to bay life. Each year from May to September, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources computes these volumes from data collected by Maryland and Virginia monitoring teams during twice-monthly monitoring cruises. Data collection is funded by these states and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program. Bay hypoxia monitoring continues throughout the year.

From the VMIS 2020 Bay Report Card:

“Springtime nitrogen inflows in 2020 were 17% below the long-term average, resulting in the prediction that the amount of hypoxia would similarly be slightly less than average... cool windy weather helped mix and aerate Bay water in the spring, resulting in hypoxia beginning later than in previous years. As summer arrived, weak winds and very high temperatures allowed hypoxia to increase considerably, resulting in a very large dead zone in late July... In 2020, hypoxia decreased quickly in early August in response to Hurricane Isaias; however, hypoxia returned in early September until stronger winds and cooler temperatures prevailed, ending hypoxia in the mainstem of the Bay earlier than in previous years. Overall, the total amount of hypoxia in 2020 was estimated to be considerably lower than in the recent past, with hypoxia both starting later and ending earlier, as was also seen in periodic ship based observations of dissolved oxygen.”

Despite the fact that the rain fall was above average in the region, and an extended heat wave struck the area in July the hypoxia was below average. This could be an indication that the Chesapeake Bay pollution diet is working, or an indication that the large number of storm that passed through the region bringing strong winds and cooler temperature were the controlling factor.

2020 Dead Zone Summer Update

The “Dead Zone” of the Chesapeake Bay refers to a volume of hypoxic water that is characterized by dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 2 mg/L, which is too low for aquatic organisms such as fish and blue crabs to thrive. Within the hypoxic area life of the bay dies and a “Dead Zone” forms. The Chesapeake Bay experiences hypoxic conditions every year, with the severity varying from year to year, depending on nutrient and freshwater flows into the bay, wind, and temperature.

In mid-June, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, United States Geological Survey, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and University of Michigan scientists released their prediction for slightly smaller than average 2020 Dead Zone. This prediction was based on slightly less than average water and nitrogen flows into the bay from January – May 2020.

At various times each summer the Maryland Department of Natural Resources measures the dissolved oxygen in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay main stem and the size of the Dead Zone. While the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Anchor QEA and collaborators at UMCES, operate a real-time three-dimensional hypoxia forecast model using input of that predicts daily dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout the Bay (www.vims.edu/hypoxia) using the National Weather Service wind monitoring data.

The peak of oxygen depletion typically occurs in July or August. Water temperatures are highest during these months and the days are longest accelerating the growth of phytoplankton that ultimately consumes all the dissolved oxygen. The dead zone is typically gone by late fall. Cooler air temperatures at that time of year chill the surface waters, while the deeper water remains warm and allows more mixing of the layers during storms. Cooler water also will hold more oxygen. The size and shape of the dead zone is variable from month to month during the summer.

From VIMS

This year our region experienced a long heat wave in July. The hot and still conditions were ideal for promoting hypoxia and resulted in an expanding Dead Zone throughout the month. Warmer waters hold less oxygen, and warmer surface waters can create a barrier to oxygen mixing into deep waters of the bay.

From VIMS

Hypoxia started later in the summer than in other recent years, peaked in late July, and decreased quickly with the passing of Hurricane Isais whose winds stirred up the Chesapeake Bay near the beginning of August. The outlook for the rest of the season changed with the increase in tropical storm activity impacting our area. Isais was followed by Laura. .

In the fall of each year, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Anchor QEA release a retrospective seasonal analysis of the severity of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay. The Annual Chesapeake Bay Hypoxia Report Card summarizes dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Bay as estimated by the team's 3-D, real-time hypoxia forecast model. We should see that report in two to three months. The modeling team also generates the same dissolved oxygen statistics for previous years for comparative purposes you can look at the past few years below.

In 2019, hypoxia decreased quickly in late August and early September due to the winds of Hurricane Dorian; however, the Dead Zone returned with the high temperatures in late September and early October until strong winds mixed the Bay water and ended the Dead Zone in the mainstem of the Bay for the year. Overall, the total amount of hypoxia in 2019 was estimated to be on the high end of the normal range for 1985 to 2018, and higher than in the recent past (see above); and as in 2018, hypoxia also lasted longer than in other recent years.

Invasive Species threatens Progress in Bay Cleanup

New Water Chesnut species  from USGS

 An invasive species of plant has recently arrived in our Potomac River Watershed. If we act soon we can still stop it. This is a new species of water chestnut is a relative of the well-known invasive species Eurasian water chestnut. The new plant has leaves with the same serrated pattern, but the underside of this new species is red. This species has pink flowers and the seed pods which form this time of year have two hooks on them.

Once water chestnut shows up in a water body, it spreads to cover large areas chocking out all other life. If allowed to flower and reproduce, can spread far and wide carried by Canadian geese, other wild life and the flow of the rivers and streams. This plant forms dense floating mats that cover the water surface, blocking sunlight and killing aquatic grasses and vegetation. Dr. Nancy Rybicki formerly of the U.S. Geological Survey and now teaching at George Mason University has been trying to alert owners of ponds and other water bodies that have been impacted.

Across Northern Virginia, this invasive water chestnut has spread to dozens of locations. It can still be stopped before it takes hold, but we need to act soon, before the water chestnut spreads from the small ponds it has infested and spreads to the Potomac River. Last year this new species of water chestnut was confined to 12 locations in Fairfax and Prince William counties. Now , it has been sited in 54 locations in 5 counties. It is spreading quickly.

It is spreading in stormwater ponds, farm ponds, golf water hazards, and ponds in parks. Once it flowers with a pink flower it produces its 2 horned fruit with barbs that attach to wildlife, but are sharp enough to puncture a shoe. The water chestnut is an aquatic annual herb. The fruit though horned and barbed is edible and has medicinal qualities and was probably brought to Northern Virginia intentionally. It sprouts from seeds in spring and the plants die off in winter after a hard frost, but the seeds can lie dormant for several years and be washed from a spill way down river.

from USGS

 
If this new water chestnut is allowed to establish itself in ponds around Virginia it could spread into the tidal waters, and we will face an epic control challenge that would both undo past decades of successful eradication of invasive species and undermine all our efforts under the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and the resulting estuary water quality improvements- in restoration of the population of submersed aquatic vegetation. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL is a “pollution diet” mandated by the U.S.EPA to restore the health of the Bay and its local streams, creeks and rivers. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL—the largest such cleanup plan ever developed by the U.S. EPA—sets limits on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution necessary to meet water quality standards in the Bay and its tidal rivers.

Health of the Chesapeake Bay Looks Worse

from UMCES

Last week the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science released their 13th annual report card on the health of the Chesapeake Bay for 2019. Overall, Chesapeake Bay scored 44% in 2019. This is the lowest score and first C- since 2011 and pretty discouraging considering all the effort and money that has gone into the Watershed Implementation Plans to meet the goals of the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. will ensure pollution reductions in the Chesapeake Bay by 2025 that was supposed to lead to the "fishable, swimmable" waters.

Although several indicators of bay health improved in 2019, they did not offset those that declined. Bay-wide, dissolved oxygen scored 83% in 2019, a decrease from 2018. Water clarity scored 10%, a slight decrease from last year’s 7%. The benthic community score sharply decreased from a 59% to a 38%. Total nitrogen scored 39%, a decline from last year’s 44%. Total phosphorus scored 76%, a slight increase from 2018. Chlorophyll a scored 26%, an increase from 22% in 2018. Aquatic grasses scored 35%, a decline from last year’s 39%.

from UMCES

Overall Chesapeake Bay Health Scores have been variable in the past and bounced around a bit. From 2015-2017 the, Chesapeake Bay Health Scores were in the high C range (53, 54, 54). At that time the consecutive scores contributed to an overall positive trajectory and it appeared that we were making progress. More time only served to show that the Health Index broke out of its historical range to the down side. This year they explain that the moderate and poor scores in 2019 were mainly due to above-average temperatures almost every month of the year. Warmer air temperatures means warmer waters, and the intense heat hurt aquatic grasses and benthic macroinvertebrates, and caused lower dissolved oxygen levels. The year before it was excessive rain and heavy storm events that caused the disappointing results. A changing climate seem to be impacting the performance of the Clean Water Blueprint. The next phase of the plan is supposed to account for changing climate.

This is the first year that they have scored the watershed, using five indicators of ecological and socioeconomic health. The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science has incorporated new indicators for Chesapeake Bay health including some indicators of watershed health. Watershed health includes traditional ecosystem indicators, but also social, economic, and cultural indicators.

from UMCES

Overall, the Chesapeake Watershed scored 60%, a B-. There were four aquatic indicators and one societal indicator. Watershed-wide, total nitrogen scored 79%. Total phosphorus scored 61% and turbidity scored 68%. Stream benthic community scored 46%. One social indicator was included, the Social Index, which scored 60%. I have no idea why these scores were given.

2015 Dead Zone

The recently released 2015 NOAA-funded forecast calls for a smaller than average dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay this summer. Scientists are predicting that the dead zone in the nation's largest estuary will cover a volume of 1.37 cubic miles, 10% lower than the long term average. The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science attributes this smaller dead zone to the cool and relatively dry spring in Pennsylvania followed by late arriving rains the same thing that happened in 2013. The spring load of nutrients into the bay was light and locked in a lighter load of nutrients in the water layers within the Chesapeake Bay for the summer.

The forecast is based to a large extent on the quantity and timing of rainfall in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but there is hope that this also reflects that the overall condition of the bay may be improving in response to the Chesapeake Bay Program coordinates U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandated TMDL.

The predicted “dead zone” size is based on models that forecast the zone based on midsummer volume of the low-oxygen hypoxic zone, early-summer oxygen-free anoxic zone, and late-summer oxygen-free anoxic zone. The models were developed by NOAA-sponsored research at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and the University of Michigan. They rely on nutrient loading estimates supplied by the U. S. Geological Survey. USGS estimates that 58 million pounds of nitrogen were transported to the Chesapeake Bay from January to May 2015, which is 29 % below average.

Later this year researchers will measure oxygen levels in the Chesapeake Bay. The model forecasts are then combined with the oxygen measurements taken during summer monitoring cruises to improve our understanding of how nutrients, hydrology, and other factors affect the size of the hypoxic zone. Improved understanding will result in improved the models which are used in turn to develop effective strategies for reducing dead zones.

Dead zones have become a yearly occurrence in the Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries. Dead zones form in summers when higher temperatures reduce the oxygen holding capacity of the water, the air is still and especially in years of heavy rains that carry excess nutrient pollution from cities and farms. The excess nutrient pollution combined with mild weather encourages the explosive growth of phytoplankton, which is a single-celled algae. While the phytoplankton produces oxygen during photosynthesis, when there is excessive growth of algae the light is chocked out and the algae die and fall from the warmer fresh water into the colder sea water. The phytoplankton is decomposed by bacteria, which consumes the already depleted oxygen in the lower salt level, leaving dead oysters, clams, fish and crabs in their wake.

In a wedge shaped estuary such as Chesapeake Bay where the layers of fresh and salt water are not well mixed, there are several sources of dissolved oxygen. The most important is the atmosphere. At sea level, air contains about 21% oxygen, while the Bay’s waters contain only a small fraction of a percent. This large difference between the amount of oxygen results in oxygen naturally dissolving into the water. This process is further enhanced by the wind, which mixes the surface of the water. The other important sources of oxygen in the water are phytoplankton and aquatic grasses which produce oxygen during photosynthesis, but when they die consume oxygen during decomposition by bacteria. Finally, dissolved oxygen flows into the Bay with the water coming from streams, rivers, and the Atlantic Ocean.

Nitrogen loads into the bay

In Praise of Nutrient Trading in Virginia

In mid-December Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and the Secretary of Agriculture all gathered in Fairfax County Virginia to applaud the expansion of the Virginia Nutrient Trading Program to meet the requirements of the U.S. EPA approved and mandated Watershed Implementation Plan. The nutrient trading program is an appealing, flexible and cost effective way to meet and maintain water quality goals. So, let’s back up and explain what is going on.

Volunteers in planting trees to reduce erosion along a stream

The Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters have been impaired by the release of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. The EPA mandated a contamination limit called the TMDL (total maximum daily load for nutrient contamination and sediment) to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The TMDL sets a total Chesapeake Bay watershed limits for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that was about a 25% reduction from 2011 discharge levels for the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states and Washington DC. The pollution limits were then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer model and monitoring data. Each of the states and Washington DC were required to submit and have approved by the EPA a detailed plan of how they intend to achieve the pollution reduction goals assigned to them. These plans are called the Watershed Implementation Plans, WIPs. The Virginia WIP outlines a series of pollution control measures and strategies on how we are going to achieve and fund the pollution control necessary to meet the EPA mandate.

One of the key strategies was expansion of the Virginia’s successful nutrient trading program. Legislation passed in 2005 created the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program and provides Virginia’s regulated pollution sources in the Bay watershed with the opportunity to meet required nutrient reductions through trading. The legislation also allows “point sources” like waste water treatment plants to purchase nutrient reductions from “nonpoint” sources like farms to offset new or increased nutrient discharges in excess of established load caps. Until recently the program had primarily been used by waste water treatment plants to offset the additional pollution loads from population growth. The Virginia nutrient trading program is based on the successful cap and trade program that was created to comply with the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain Program limits for sulfur dioxide.

Virginia has managed to find other ways to utilize nutrient trading to reduce compliance costs for large point and non-point generators of nutrient contamination. The example cited by EPA Administrator McCarthy was the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) who used banked pollution credits generated from farmers implementing Best Management Practices and riparian buffer stream bank plantings to off-set storm water pollution during road construction under increased Federal and State stormwater regulations that would have required building stormwater retention ponds and sediment filters for each construction section. VDOT did install permanent stormwater management infrastructure (using both traditional stormwater management and low impact strategies for the completed road, but using traded credits allowed them to avoid the wasteful building of temporary structures for the construction process yet reduce stormwater pollution on streams during construction.

Waste water treatment plants have predominately treaded among themselves. New expanded waste water treatment plans trade the excess credits that result for years after an expansion until the community “grows” into the plant, while those plants that have outgrown their facilities or need to meet more stringent standards by the credits. Some waste water treatment plants also created multi-year contracts with farmer to install nutrient reduction Best Management Practices during periods before expansion and improvement projects to meet tighter regulation or growth in the population served. There are critics of the program who oppose pollution trading because it allows polluters to buy their way out of controlling their pollution or restoring their degradation. The critics see only that entities are paying to pollute. However, with a growing population only a trading program can provide a framework to offset the inevitable additional pollution loads that come with more people.

Some critics are concerned about the potential for fraud or abuse. However, as you can see in the examples cited above this strategy allows for offsetting a short lived environmental impact without a huge and ultimately wasteful capital expenditure. There are limits to resources including capital, and a trading framework allows for cost effective temporary or longer term solutions. In the examples above in Virginia the permitted entity is required to verify and report the offset credits. Since most permitted facilities are VDOT, public waste water treatment plants and municipalities with storm water permits one hopes their veracity can be depended on to a greater extent and they have the ability to partner with Conservation Districts who have the expertise to evaluate the Best Management Practices in place.

Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program requires a level of Best Management Practice implementation called for in the nutrient tributary strategies to achieve nutrient reductions. You must achieve this level of nutrient reduction (known as the baseline) before you are allowed to generate and sell offsets to potential trading partners. Once the baseline level of nutrient reductions is achieved, additional reductions using approved Best Management Practices or land use conversions are eligible to generate offsets for trading. Cost share dollars can be used to implement the BMPs that achieve the baseline, which must be completed on the entire USDA Farm Services Agency tract before generating tradable credits. The program uses the incentive of earning additional dollars and cost share to further push all farmers to implement Best Management Practices on all their lands.

For a trading program to succeed there needs to be a regular and predictable demand for credits and a fairly straightforward and simple way to obtain the needed credits. Realistically the program will be limited to meeting the compliance needs of county and township stormwater permits, VDOT construction projects and if counties participate in facilitation and mandate the use then for construction projects large and small. The need for credits could be reasonably projected by county staff.

To allow for future population growth there might be a permanent demand for offsets by newer communities. The annual payments, maintenance of Best Management Practices or and use conversions and verifications could be funded by homeowner association fees. Every acre of development requires many more acres of supporting infrastructure development, schools, roads, shopping centers, churches, and public buildings. All this development increases runoff and additional nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads from sewer and septic systems and stormwater runoff from pavement and yards. Virginia has plans to “seed” the program to install some eligible credits in the Water Quality Improvement Fund for each watershed. In order for this to work the Conservation Districts in each watershed must have adequate funding, training and incentives. The dollars spent on these programs are the cheapest way to comply with the EPA mandate and cleanup our rivers and streams.


Full disclosure: In another part of my volunteer work I am a Director of the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District. You should check out all that the Conservation District does at their web site.

Be Afraid -Though It’s Not Flesh Eating Bacteria

Local headlines this summer have reported that 6 cases of “flesh eating” bacterial infections have been reported from swimmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in Maryland and Washington DC. These are not the true necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating) caused by group A streptococcus, they’re worse. These are cases of infection with the vibrio vulnificus bacteria. The difference is that in necrotizing fasciitis the A streptococcus attack the bands of tissue that surround muscles, nerves, fat and blood vessels. Vibrio vulnificus, on the other hand, gets into the blood stream from either a cut or skin abrasion or through the intestinal tract, and can damage organs (especially the liver) and cause skin lesions, that can result in hospitalization, amputation and death. Vibrio vulnificus has a higher death rate than flesh eating bacteria.

Vibrio vulnificus is a bacterium in the same family as those that cause cholera . It normally lives in warm seawater and ocean estuaries because they require warmer waters and low to moderate salt levels. Most vibrio vulnificus infections reported to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have historically been from the Gulf Coast states, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas; however Maryland and Virginia have reported increasing incidence of the infections since 1999. It is unclear if there has been an increase in the incidence of infections or better reporting. So far this year 4 infections have been reported in Texas, 13 in Florida, 6 in Maryland and 10 in Mississippi.

Typically, Maryland and Virginia report and average of 25-30 infections a year that occur primarily in in the warmer months of May to October. However, last year Maryland reported 57 cases. The CDC states that vibrio vulnificus infections are rare, on average there are 95 vibrio vulnificus cases each year, 85 require hospitalizations and 35 result in deaths. However, vibrio vulnificus is also under reported, only in 2007 did infections caused by vibrio vulnificus and other vibrio species became nationally notifiable.

In response to the public alarm the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) reissued its 2009 report that documented the rise in such infections. In this report they state: “Vibrio vulnificus, which can cause severe skin ulcers, gangrene, and deadly blood infections in people who expose cuts to warm saltwater containing the bacteria, as well as gastrointestinal illnesses in people who eat tainted shellfish.”

Dr. Rita Colwell of University of Maryland and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and her colleagues demonstrated that vibrio vulnificus, comma-shaped bacteria, are natural inhabitants of most of the world’s warm bays and oceans. Dr. Colwell “discovered that Vibrio is carried by microscopic, crab-like animals called copepods. These floating crustaceans—a form of zooplankton common in the Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere. Nutrient pollution stimulates the growth of algae, especially during warm-weather conditions. And algal blooms fuel the multiplication of copepods. Research has suggested that intense algal blooms have the potential to support “explosive growth” of Vibrio. When copepods die, Vibrio are shed into the water. And if the bacteria are in very dense concentrations, people can get sick if they drink the water or expose an open cut.”

From the Texas Department of Health and the CDC here are general recommendations for avoiding wound infections:

• Do not handle raw seafood of any kind if you have a pre-existing wound, cuts, scrapes or scabs.
• Wear gloves when handling raw seafood.
• Avoid bay waters, estuary waters or brackish (sea/ocean) water if you have any pre-existing cuts scrapes, scabs or other wounds.
• If you sustain a wound or injury while exposed to salty seawater or while handling seafood, thoroughly clean and disinfect the area immediately and seek medical attention if the area becomes inflamed. 
• Prompt and immediate treatment is likely to have the most positive outcome. 

General recommendations for avoiding infection by consumption of live Vibrio bacteria

• Only eat seafood or shellfish that has been thoroughly cooked until steaming hot.
• Eat shellfish immediately after cooking and refrigerate leftovers.
• Avoid cross contaminating raw juices from seafood with other foods, and immediately cleanup any spills with hot water and soap and clean rinsing water.
• Keep raw seafood separate from other food.
• Thoroughly wash hands, utensils and surfaces after preparing or handling raw seafood.

Farmers Appeal TMDL Decision – Right to Determine Land Use Belongs to the States

It is an old story now that the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters have been impaired by the release of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These pollutants are released from waste water treatment plants, agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater facilities, septic systems, air pollution and other sources that enter the tributaries and Chesapeake Bay from the 16 million people living within its vast 64,000 square mile watershed.

There are six Chesapeake Bay states, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York-and Washington DC. For decades these states have been attempting to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and in fact, have made tremendous progress. Nonetheless, a “clean” Chesapeake Bay has alluded them; the cleanup plans hindered by growth in population and the region’s economies and difficulty in controlling the diverse sources of contamination.

In December 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, mandated a contamination limit called the TMDL (total maximum daily load for nutrient contamination and sediment) to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL sets an overall limit for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the 2011 levels. The pollution limits were then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. At this time the TMDL addresses only pollution from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

Population growth and less than consistent remedial actions on the non-point source contamination has challenged efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Non-point source pollution is pollution that does not come out of a pipe, but are carried to rivers and streams by runoff from rain and snowmelt. The way to reduce impact of this non-point source pollution on the environment is to implement what has been called “best management practices” and stormwater management. BMPs minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and that slow stormwater flow to prevent erosion and achieve a desired level of performance and quality while protecting the environment.

Pollution form urban and suburban stormwater runoff and septic systems is the only category of pollution in the region that has been growing in the 21st Century. In order to reduce the stormwater runoff carrying nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and other pollutants from existing suburban residential areas, stormwater best management practices will also have to be implemented in the suburban communities. Counties, towns and cities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed are going to have to implement non-point source nutrient management throughout the watershed not only to stop growth in pollution, but reduce the amount of pollution. Homeowner Associations and individual homeowners will need to individually and as a group reduce the nutrients and sediment run off from their properties. EPA did not allow the states to “grandfather” the nutrient levels from existing homes. Suburban and semi-rural BMPs have the potential to significantly reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, but state regulators and various health departments have struggled to reach, educate and motivate the public to implement, let alone maintain mitigation strategies. States have struggled with something as simple as trying to increase compliance with septic regulations by the public.

Nutrient management and soil and water conservation districts play a pivotal role in preventing such runoff in the agricultural community. In fact, conservation districts have been in the business of fighting erosion (which prevents nutrient and sediment pollution) since the mid-1930s, but conservation districts have met with varying degrees of success from state to state. Agricultural operations are businesses that can see the direct result of maintaining their top soil and that have learned over the years to deal with various regulations, still there are challenges. When dealing with the individual homeowner and the disperse sources of non-point source contamination; septic systems, poor drainage, impervious ground cover, lawn and plant fertilization, and household behaviors the challenges are much greater.

Nonetheless, it was the farmers who challenged the TMDL. In January 2011 American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed a complaint in federal court against the EPA to throw out the TMDL. The two Farm Bureaus were joined by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Turkey Federation, The Fertilizer Institute, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association. This group known collectively as “the Farm Bureau Group” made three complaints: (1) that the pollution limits or TMDL exceeded EPA’s authority, (2) that they were based on faulty science, and (3) that the plaintiff did not have adequate time to participate in the comment process and filed a motion for summary judgment against the EPA.

The EPA was joined by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Defenders of Wildlife, Jefferson County (WV) Public Service District, Midshore River Keeper Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. Several municipal waste water treatment groups were also allowed to intervene on behalf of EPA. The EPA group filed a counter motion for summary judgment against the Farm Bureau Group’s motion for summary judgment and oral arguments were made in October 2012.

Last September the District Court affirmed that the pollution limits that EPA established for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are within the purview of the Clean Water Act and are based on sound science. The Court also found that the Farm Bureau and Homebuilders had ample time to review and comment on the proposed limits. Summary judgment was granted to the EPA.

The Farm Bureau Group is appealing that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and have now been joined by a group of 21 of the nation’s 50 attorneys general who in February filed a friend of the court brief expressing concern that the Bay TMDL would set a precedent for other water bodies, including the Mississippi River basin. This month Thirty-nine members of Congress joined the Farm Bureau Group in their challenge to the EPA mandated TMDL and oversight of the Watershed Implementation Plans, saying the EPA went “far beyond” its authority when it set the TMDL limits and required states to develop the prescribed plans acceptable to the EPA showing how they would meet those limits on the timeline mandated by the EPA. This same structure of overall pollutant reduction with a mandated and supervised plan for implementation is also being used by the EPA to mandate reduction in carbon dioxide from power generation across the United States under the Clean Air Act.

This past spring when the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Choose Clean Water Coalition (CCWC) issued their report reviewing the results of the 2012-13 pollution reduction milestones against the states’ approved plans they found that pollution is being reduced in every state and Washington DC. However, they report that Pennsylvania and Delaware fell short in meeting their overall nitrogen pollution reduction target for 2013. In particular, estimated loads from the agricultural sector actually increased for nitrogen in Pennsylvania. The wastewater sector is already meeting or exceeding 2017 nutrient reduction goals in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington DC and Virginia. Non-point source pollution control on agricultural operations and control of the individual homeowner in urban and suburban areas is proving challenging everywhere, but Maryland. However the CBF and CCWC voiced their concerns about the underlying data for Maryland's calculations on retrofitting stormwater management saying: “There is a lack of transparency concerning both the numbers being reported to the state, as well as how the reductions are calculated.” In addition, while Maryland is tracking dead on target in meeting its pollution reduction milestones they have a long way to go to meet the 2017 and 2025 goals.

Now the Chesapeake Research Consortium and Bay Journal are planning a conference to discuss what they believe is the real policy solution to restoring the Chesapeake Bay. These organizations are looking to discuss and the possibility of and implementation of growth limits on population and the economy to achieve a sustainable Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL stated goal is to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its ecological condition in 1950. The targets of the TMDL are estimates of what those pollution levels were at that time. In 1950 there were approximately 8 million people living and working in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Today there are approximately 16 million people living and working in the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Research Consortium and the Bay Journal are questioning if a restored Chesapeake Bay can be achieved if the population an economy is “allowed” to continue to grow. It is a valid and realistic concern; however, these groups do not seem to question if EPA is can use the Watershed Implementation Plans for the Chesapeake Bay states to control land use, growth and water quality policy decisions. Congress did not grant to EPA the authority to control land use under the Clean Water Act. Growth and sustainability are issues that need to be addressed on the local level.

Conservation Districts Change their Position

At the just recently ended annual meeting in Williamsburg, VA, the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (VASWCD) passed a resolution reversing its previous stance on a possible transfer of oversight for the districts to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).  The motion to rescind the action of last year’s annual membership meeting and to instead support staying with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) passed easily after passionate discussion.   The VASCWD had previously passed a resolution supporting a move to DEQ at its annual meeting in Roanoke in 2012.

However, over the course of the last year, seven area meetings were held in various parts of the state to discuss the possible changes and get feedback from directors, employees, and most importantly the farmers who participate in the cost sharing programs.  I attended the public meeting in Culpeper to discuss these changes and allow the various community members and stakeholders to express their concerns and support.

The soil and water conservation districts (Districts) were born out of the dust bowl days to prevent erosion and preserve the soil and manage the network of small damns that were built throughout the nation. Over the years their mission evolved as the connection to water quality, soil and conservation were more fully understood. Today the districts provide technical assistance to help farmers and landowners adopt conservation management practices. The districts also promote and encourage voluntary adoption of the approved storm water management, water protection strategies and soil protection and conservation measures that are known as “Best Management Practices” or BMPs. Part of the promotion of the adoption of the BMPs are various financial incentives known collectively as cost share programs that help farmers and landowners pay for the necessary improvements. Finally the Districts run a series of educational programs for both children and adults to further understanding of our watersheds, water quality and the seemingly small actions that can provide big solutions to our water quality if they are adopted by most people.

The Culpeper meeting which I attended was really characteristic of the state as a whole, a mix of opinions with all the farmers who spoke opposed to the transfer. Throughout the Commonwealth,  there continues to be mixed opinions; however, a majority of the districts, and more importantly a vast majority of the farmers were leery of moving an all-volunteer cost share program to a regulatory agency.  In order to achieve their goals the Districts depend on the cooperation and willingness of community partners and volunteers to work with them. The relationships and trust that the Districts have with their communities is their greatest strength. The Districts encourage participation using established relationships, technical help and financial incentives and now have 100% funding available for their livestock exclusion program to expand the reach of their voluntary conservation activities.

Over the last seven decades districts across the state have built relationships based on trust with farmers across the Commonwealth of Virginia.   Despite the changes over time with agricultural and livestock trends, the districts have been able to maintain their relevance and support the mission of assisting farmers with best practices because of the trust based relationships.  One of the greatest concerns expressed by directors and producers alike was the possibility that a move to DEQ, a regulatory agency, would damage the long standing relationships and result in a decline participation in the cost sharing programs.

According to Neil Zahradka of the DEQ Office of Land Application Programs, the consolidation of the Districts under DEQ is intended to improved oversight and implementation of Virginia’s plan to comply with the EPA mandated pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay. The pollution diet is to reduce the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that reaches the Chesapeake Bay carried by rainfall from farm lands, suburban yards, roads and released by sewage treatment plants and septic systems.  Virginia and the other states and the District of the Columbia whose rain fall and snowmelt ultimately drain into the Chesapeake Bay are all under a mandated pollution diet.

Virginia produced a plan to reduce the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that reaches the Chesapeake Bay that ultimately satisfied EPA that required virtually all farmers to implement resource management plans and BMPs on most agricultural acres which may include: 35 foot grass or forest buffers between cropland and streams; building fences to keep livestock (and their feces) away from streams; and implement plans to limit and carefully manage the use of fertilizers.

According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 30% of the pollution in the Chesapeake Bay are from farming practices, the best money spent could be to implement agricultural nutrient management plans. The need to coordinate all the water pollution programs in the state to meet the EPA mandated pollution diet was the reason behind the DEQ consolidating the water programs under their regulatory control. However, it is DEQ’s view of programs as regulatory that concerned the Conservation Districts. Virginia needs virtually all the farmers in the state to implement BMPs and the Conservation Districts feel the regulatory culture of DEQ will impede their effectiveness and possibly sully their mission and effectiveness.   Though, how all these activities to reduce pollution will be paid for is still unknown. The state had cut the budget for the conservation districts over the past several years and the EPA has never had a budget for implementation of these programs that are estimated to cost billions of dollars. 

Changes at the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts

During the past legislative session the water programs of the state were all consolidated and transferred to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by HB 2048 and SB 1279. Though there have been no changes in statutes or regulatory oversight, this was still a really big move to consolidate management and oversight of all water programs within the state under DEQ control. DEQ now manages; the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas, erosion and sediment control, point source and non-point source contamination, and the execution of all parts of the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Virginia developed to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates. With these changes the 47 Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts were moved under the oversight of the DEQ.

On Monday there was a well-attended Public Meeting in Culpeper to discuss these changes and allow the various community members and stakeholders to express their concerns and support. The soil and water conservation districts (Districts) were born out of the dust bowl days to prevent erosion and preserve the soil and manage the network of small damns that were built throughout the nation. Over the years the mission evolved. Today the districts provide technical assistance to help farmers and landowners adopt conservation management practices. The districts also promote and encourage voluntary adoption of the approved storm water management, water protection strategies and soil protection and conservation measures that are known as “Best Management Practices” or BMPs. Part of the promotion of the adoption of the BMPs are various financial incentives known collectively as cost share programs that help farmers and landowners pay for the necessary improvements. Finally the Districts run a series of educational programs for both children and adults to further understanding of our watersheds, water quality and the seemingly small actions that can provide big solutions to our water quality if they are adopted by most people.

According to Neil Zahradka of the DEQ Office of Land Application Programs, the consolidation of the Districts under DEQ is intended to improved oversight and implementation of Virginia’s WIP. The WIP is the plan created to comply with the Chesapeake Bay pollution diet, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment mandated by the EPA to Virginia and the other Chesapeake Bay Watershed states and the District of the Columbia. EPA has legal authority to regulate only point source releases of contaminants and pollutants- wastewater, industrial, and municipal separate stormwater systems (MS4), and concentrated animal feeding operation permits as well as set total maximum daily load (TMDL) of those contaminants in rivers and surface waters. Under threat of EPA reducing these point source release levels to incredibly expensive to achieve or perhaps unachievable levels, Virginia produced a WIP that ultimately satisfied EPA. Though how these activities will be paid for is still unknown. EPA has never had a budget for implementation of these programs that are estimated to cost billions of dollars.

The revised and accepted WIP requires that Virginia’s Stormwater Management Regulations require redevelopments to meet reductions in nutrient and sediment loads, and to prevent nutrient pollution and sediment load increases from new development. In the future all new development appears to be required to be almost sediment and nutrient pollution free or to “pay” for their developments by reducing runoff from existing developments. The Commonwealth will reduce pollution from stormwater running off urban streets and parking lots by mandating reductions in state permits for large city stormwater systems. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation stormwater runoff remains the only source of water pollution in Virginia that continues to increase. It is likely that the increase in nutrient pollution and sediment pollution from stormwater systems is partially a reflection of the expansion of suburban development out into Loudoun, Prince William and Fauquier counties and the increasing population and road traffic in these areas.

For agricultural operations the revised WIP requires the implementation of resource management plans and BMPs on most agricultural acres which may include: 35 foot grass or forest buffers between cropland and perennial surface waters; stream exclusion of livestock; and implemented nutrient management plans. Virginia plans to continue to provide cost-share funding to achieve these goals through the Districts and has even expanded stream exclusion funding to 100%. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 30% of the pollution loads in the Chesapeake Bay are from farming practices, the best money spent could be to implement agricultural nutrient management plans. That is why the DEQ has consolidated the water programs, Virginia need virtually all the farmers in the state to implement BMPs.

The Districts depend on the cooperation and willingness of community partners and volunteers to work with them in order to achieve their goals. The relationships and trust that the Districts have with their communities is their greatest strength. The Districts encourage participation using established relationships, technical help and financial incentives and now have 100% funding available for their livestock exclusion program to expand the reach of their voluntary conservation activities. In the idiom of the carrot and the stick, the Districts are strictly a carrot organization. This cannot be said about the DEQ. As the representative of the Virginia’s Cattlemen’s Association pointed out the Districts has been very effective in getting BMPs on the ground and the deadlines under Chesapeake Bay TMDL leaves no time for Virginia to step back and accept the change.

The Districts that objected to the consolidation under DEQ seemed to object primarily for concern for the cultural clash between the culture that has evolved at DEQ in dealing with regulatory mandates for large businesses that have compliance officers rather than smaller and moderate sized farmers who read their paperwork in the evening. The Districts need by-in from the farmers and cattlemen (and women) to make the progress that the EPA requires under the WIP. The Districts that supported the consolidation thought that the agency responsible for implementation for the WIP and Chesapeake Bay TMDL should house the soil and water conservation districts. This was especially true for districts that had significant urban and suburban storm water and non-point source involvement. Increased funding could help the Districts.

PWSWCD 2012 River Cleanup

Mitigating Environmental Impact of Suburban Sprawl

Increasing suburban development and population density is a significant contributing factor to the impaired water resources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Its impact is often hidden in the numbers because agricultural land represents almost twice the land as the developed areas. Growing populations in the suburban fringes of the Washington Metropolitan Area have had a significant impact on ecosystems in the region. Sprawling, low-density residential and commercial areas in the suburban and semi-rural areas result in additional infrastructure like roads (the controversial Bi-County Parkway) and shopping centers that chew up forests, green corridors, tree canopy, and agricultural lands. Often the remaining open areas between existing centers eventually fill with more new development. This type of development increases stormwater pollution and degrades the health of our water.

Image from Chesapeake Bay Foundation

According to the U. S. Environment al Protection Agency (EPA), the primary pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are; nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These nutrients can lead to harmful algae blooms that kill underwater plants and destroy the river, bay and estuary habitat that aquatic life needs to survive. Excess nutrients and sediments can also lead to water with little or no dissolved oxygen to the detriment of aquatic life and the ecosystem. The Chesapeake Bay serves as a nursery ground for the fish and shellfish industry and protects the coast from storm surges and filters pollution. The estuary filters water that is carrying nutrients and contaminants from the surrounding watershed, protecting and restoring our drinking water supplies, the commercial oyster harvest and the beauty and ecological balance of the largest estuary in the United States.

EPA has legal authority to regulate point source releases of contaminants and pollutants- wastewater, industrial, and municipal separate stormwater systems (MS4), and concentrated animal feeding operation permits as well as set total maximum daily load (TMDL) of those contaminants in rivers and surface waters. The Chesapeake Bay pollution diet, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment was mandated by the EPA to the six Chesapeake Bay Watershed states (Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) and the District of the Columbia.

EPA is invoking a “moderate levels of back stops” for Virginia under the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) for the TMDL to ensure adequate reduction in nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. This means that the WIP aggregate point source allocations for storm water and animal agriculture (CAFO) sectors were adjusted by the federal government to levels determined to be adequate to meet the TMDL. More stringent waste load allocations were applied to waste water treatment plants (regulated via federal programs); so that the waste stream from wastewater treatment plants was assigned to be 4 mg/L total nitrogen and 0.3 mg/L total phosphorus. For municipal separate storm sewer systems, MS4s, the federal government has imposed the requirement that 75% of urban MS4 lands meet aggressive performance standard through retrofit and redevelopment. I’m, quite frankly, not sure what that means in terms of installation and operation of storm systems, but the recent merger of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to have the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) be the lead agency for stormwater management is intended in part to address this.

In order to reduce the stormwater runoff carrying nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and other pollutants from existing suburban residential areas stormwater best management practices (BMPs) will need to be implemented in the suburban communities. DNR, DEQ and the counties and cities of Virginia are going to have to implement non-point source nutrient management throughout the watershed. Homeowner Associations and individual homeowners need to individually and as a group reduce the nutrients and sediment run off from their properties.

Nutrient management and soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) play a pivotal role in preventing such runoff in the agricultural community. In fact, SWCDs have been in the business of fighting erosion which prevents nutrient and sediment pollution since the mid-1930s, but agricultural operations are businesses that can see the direct result of maintaining their top soil and that have learned over the years to deal with various regulations. The challenge is much greater for the individual homeowner and the disperse sources of non-point source contamination; septic systems, poor drainage, impervious ground cover, lawn and plant fertilization, and household behaviors.

Virginia's 47 soil and water conservation districts have for years focused mainly on on-the-ground work implementing best management practices (BMPs) on farms. They have used the agricultural cost share program as the carrot to help foster the acceptance of BMPs and now have 100% funding available for their livestock exclusion program. DCR and the counties and conservation districts are attempting to develop strategies to reach out to not only farmers, but also urban and suburban landowners, and other land managers to encourage and help them to reduce their stormwater runoff and nutrient loads. Controlling runoff pollution is everyone's business and education and community have to be a large part of implementation. Each of us causes runoff pollution, and each of us must act to reduce its effects.

The difficult question is how does one educate the public of their responsibilities and then ensure that the public meets them? Suburban and semi-rural BMPs have the potential to significantly reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, but DCR, DEQ and the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) have struggled to reach, educate and motivate the public. The VDH has set up an advisory committee of private sector septic design, maintenance and installation companies to assist in the transition to privatize the industry to the greatest extent possible and increase compliance with septic regulations by the public. Loudoun County has been in the forefront of innovative programs and to reach the public and appears to have successfully managed to privatize septic design, installation, maintenance and inspection within the county while utilizing their resources to track compliance.

Another area where Loudoun County is leading is experimenting with suburban BMP implementation programs. Loudoun County funded a pilot program with the county Soil and Water Conservation District to implement non-agricultural stream buffer plantings in several suburban developments. The Conservation district worked with county staff, the Department of Forestry, HOAs, individual homeowners, and all other stakeholders to plant canopy trees and under story plantings along stream banks to reduce erosion of the stream bank. The county provided funding for the pilot project at $7,000 per acre for a total of 10 acres the HOAs provided labor for the plantings and a covenant to maintain the plantings in perpetuity. The model of conservation districts working with suburban HOAs (especially the semi-rural developments) is one that could be copied and implemented broadly to include not only buffer plantings but infiltration trenches, bio-retention areas, rain gardens and curb cuts, dry swales and even septic maintenance best practices.

The Chesapeake Bay Gets a C- Overall Health is Improving

For the past seven years the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science has issued a report card for the Chesapeake Bay, evaluating the environmental health of the estuary. In the past the grade was based on three water quality indicators and three biotic indicators, which had then been averaged into an overall Bay Health Index and grade. This year the method was changed.  Total nitrogen and total phosphorus load (important indicators form the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load of those nutrients) were added and phytoplankton (whose growth in excess is a major contributing factor to the summer dead zone) was eliminated. In addition, each of what are now seven indicators is weighted equally in measuring the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Part of the reason for the change was the data collected under the EPA mandate does not include phytoplankton. According to the scientists and their grading scale we got a “C”. The overall health of Chesapeake Bay improved from 2011 to 2012. In 2011 the overall grade was a 40%, and now is 47%.

From 2012 Chesapeake Bay Report Card

One drawback of the annual reporting framework is the lack of context- an indication of whether Bay health is improving or getting worse. Now with this change in the grading method looking back is more important than ever. This year, Professor Bill Dennis and the other researcher of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science have graded all 15 reporting regions of the Chesapeake Bay for the years 1986 to 2011 to look for trends in the data using a consistent methodology. Four out of the fifteen regions had a significantly improving trend. The four reporting regions with significantly improving trends were the Upper Western Shore, Upper Bay, James River and Elizabeth River. One region, the York River, showed a slightly improving trend, although it was not statistically significant. Unfortunately, the MidBay with moderate ecosystem health (its overall grade is a C) is the onlyregion with a declining health trend since 1986 that seemed to be driven by declinesin benthic community and aquatic grasses despite improvements in water clarityand total nitrogen load.  

The organisms that live at the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay and its streams and rivers like clams, worms, oysters and mussels are examples of benthic organisms. Scientists believe that the health of the benthic community organisms provide a good snapshot of environmental conditions in the Bay and its streams and rivers. Most benthic creatures are fairly stationary and reflect pollution or unhealthy water conditions in particular locations. Benthic communities are exposed to many stressors, including low oxygen levels caused by excess growth of phytoplankton, excess sediment and chemical contaminants. Some reasons that the benthic community would be poor are:

• In summer, high temperatures and nutrient pollution often lead to low-oxygen areas at the bottom of the Bay and its rivers.
• Excess sediment suspended in the water can block sunlight from reaching bay grasses growing at the bottom. When sediment finally settles, it can bury oyster bars and other benthic species.
• Many chemical contaminants that are not part of the Chesapeake Bay pollution diet concentrate and bind to bottom sediments, remaining there for years. Benthic species become contaminated when they feed and live in these toxic sediments.
• Heavy spring rains particularly those associated with flash floods are generally responsible for high nutrient runoff and earlier and larger dead zones in the mid Bay’s tidal waters. This usually results in greater degradation in the benthic community. The 2012 dead zone was the 2nd smallest since 1985 and has been followed by the prediction that the 2013 dead zone will be smaller than average this summer. Professor Bill Dennis of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science attributes this smaller dead zone to the cool and relatively dry spring followed by late arriving rains. Yet even with this good news, the mid bay region has deteriorated. 
  

Prince William County the Retirement Mecca that will Survive Climate Change

The climate of the earth is constantly changing. Scientific studies have indicated that over the past century the earth has warmed 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit. This warming is not particularly alarming in itself given our planetary history, but the speed of this temperature increase and the fact that the warming is projected to continue at an accelerated pace is worrisome. The planetary warming is forecast to cause sea levels to rise due to melting of sea ice in parts of the world, and changes in weather and patterns and precipitation. If carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are the driving force in earth’s temperature that many scientists believe, then these trends are likely to continue. On a whole earth basis the climate models show at this point there is nothing that we can do to stop global warming and climate change.

As the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere increase, the warming produced by the greenhouse gas effect is strengthened. Computer modeling of the climate predicts that there will be feedbacks that significantly increase the impact from the increasing CO2. Even if the concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere were to stabilize at this level, the changes in the climate of the earth in response to the atmospheric CO2 levels would continue for hundreds of years. In reality, the global emissions of CO2 will not stabilize or decrease any time soon and will continue to rise for at least a generation. What is going to happen will happen, so we need to plan for change and make decisions for the next 30-50 years based on likely outcomes.

It is my plan to live for another 40 years. My relatives do pretty well and I am an optimist and a “real food” and exercise devotee. So when it came time to select a place to live in retirement, climate change was one of the factors taken into consideration- water availability, distance from the coast, elevation, along with proximity to family, medical service and an airport and several other factors. Now, I find myself in northwest Prince William County a place that the Washington Post recently described as becoming “a regional retirement mecca, a small-scale version of Florida on the outskirts of Washington.” I made my choices based to a large extent on general projections of climate released by various groups, not having the tools or resources to do much more.

Now, however, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) has completed a study in water supply availability and the health of the Potomac Watershed for various climate scenarios. The focus of their study was the Potomac River, which supplies water to the Washington Aqueduct, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and Fairfax Water who all funded the study. The Potomac River supplies 78% of the regions drinking water and the water utilities of the region must plan for the future. In addition, there must be adequate flow of the Potomac below Little Falls to ensure that the balance of saline and fresh water for the health of the Chesapeake Bay estuary. So, on the water rate payer’s nickel I get to see what the future might look like here in in Prince William County.

The National Research Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) actually performed the study using six of the global climate models and three atmospheric CO2 scenarios to create 18 separate possible scenarios. The USGS then “downscaled” the 18 global climate predictions to the Potomac River basin and to other areas as part of a separate project on climate change being conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the USGS’s Virginia Water Science Center (your tax dollars at work). In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Phase 5 Watershed Model was used to estimate the impact of changing temperatures and precipitation on Potomac basin stream flows.

The most advanced types of models currently being used to project future global climate are general circulation models (GCMs). A GCM is a numerical model which represents the important physical, chemical, and biological processes on the Earth’s surface, in the atmosphere, and/or in oceanic systems that affect climate. The USGS used models from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (USA), Norway, Australia, Russia and Japan as listed in the chart below.

From ICPRB publication

In addition, the three CO2 emissions scenarios were based on IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2007c). The USGS used relatively low emissions (B1), medium emissions (A1B), and high emissions (A2) temperature forecasts for each model to create the 18 scenarios.

IPCC Climate Change 2007

There is tremendous uncertainty in projecting the future climate of the earth, especially at the regional scale. Though global climate models are continually being refined and improved, they do not capture complexity of the interrelations of earth’s land, water, and atmospheric systems that we do not yet fully understand. Local nuisances can be lost in the broad sweeps of mathematical modeling of a living system. Scientific confidence in global model projections is higher for temperature than for precipitation, higher for global scales rather than small regional scales, and higher for longer time frames than shorter ones. Nonetheless, with all those disclaimers, the USGS did get some predictions out of their 18 scenarios.

Though it is predicted by the climate models that precipitation will increase on a global scale, when dealing with only the Potomac River basin, the models differed on whether precipitation will increase or decrease. The models project that the total annual precipitation varies from plus 9% to minus 9% or that the rainfall/ snowmelt that averaged 42.2 inches during the reference period (1988-1999) may stay within 4 inches of that average. Though, it is to be noted, that year to year weather variations in rainfall in the region are large, precipitation has varied from over 80 inches to below 20 inches in the past. Also, in the 18 climate scenarios, the increase in annual average temperature by 2040 increases for the area from 1.3 to 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit when compared with the reference period of 1988 to 1999. The average increase, over all scenarios is 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. (These temperature predictions were the basis of the energy savings and water savings projects for my home that were geared for a slightly warmer, drier climate, though I am still hoping for wetter.)

Though annual rainfall increases in half of the climate change scenarios, flow in the Potomac River falls in most scenarios. Changes in both temperature and precipitation affect stream flows. Changes in rain or snow affect the amount of water that runs off the land surface and enters streams during rainfall. Precipitation also affects the amount of water recharging groundwater aquifers, which are the primary source of stream flow during dry weather periods. Increasing temperatures will cause more rain to be lost to evaporation from the soil, streams, and will increase transpiration, the water released to the atmosphere by plants. These increases in evaporation and transpiration will tend to reduce flow in streams which in turn reduces flow in the Potomac. With rising population, this could require changes in water use and supply for the area and reduce groundwater availability for private well owners like me.

Average annual basin-wide evaporation and transpiration is predicted to increase by 6-8%. Groundwater recharge decreases under all but three of the climate scenarios, and as I watch the statistically low water level in the monitoring well up the road, I worry about my well water supply. According to study results, the seasonal pattern of groundwater recharge does not change significantly under climate change, with January, February, and March remaining the months of greatest recharge. However, the average annual amount of groundwater that provides base flow to streams and the water in my well, is predicted to decrease in 16 out of the 18 scenarios by as much as 34% in one case.

Results for the 18 climate scenarios fell into three categories: minor impact, moderate impact, and major impact. The biggest impact is the ability of the regional water utilities to continue to supply water on demand during droughts as the climate changes. Six of the scenarios are predicted to have little impact on the system during a moderate drought and the projected population of the region can be supplied with drinking water from the Potomac River and current systems and operations. Six of the climate change scenarios fall into the “moderate impact” category. Under these scenarios the region is predicted to experience more frequent and stricter water use restrictions, but no water supply shortages during a moderate drought. Reservoir levels are predicted to fall to significantly lower levels during a drought than would occur in the absence of climate change with the projected and assumed increase in population.

However, the remaining six climate change scenarios are scary. Under these dreadful six scenarios, unless we make changes in the water supply systems we run out of water. These scenarios predict that both mandatory and emergency water use restrictions would be imposed and most system reservoirs would become empty or close to empty during a moderate drought. In addition, these six scenarios predict on some days of the drought the Potomac River would fail to provide sufficient water to meet demand and environmental needs. Our regional water utilities: The Washington Aqueduct, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and Fairfax Water working together with the ICPRB can make changes to the structure and operation of the water supply system to make it more robust. The Potomac River will continue to supply water to the region, we will have to use it more wisely to ensure adequate water supply in the future, but there will be water.  Clearly though, development in the groundwater recharge zones (mostly the Rural Crescent in Prince William County) and open areas needs to be limited to protect the groundwater and stream base flow that supplies our water.