Thursday, July 28, 2011

Conowingo's ability to trap sediment, phosphorus nearing capacity

The largest nutrient and sediment control device in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is likely to stop functioning in the next 15 to 20 years under current conditions, which could dramatically increase the amount of pollution to the Upper Bay.

The device is the Conowingo Dam, located 10 miles upstream from the mouth of the Susquehanna.

When the reservoir behind the 100-foot-high dam is filled, the millions of pounds of phosphorus and millions of tons of sediment now being trapped each year will reach the Upper Bay unless action is taken.

The latest study by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the reservoir behind the dam has about 30 million tons of remaining storage capacity, but it is being filled at an average rate of about 1.5 million to 2 million tons of sediment annually. Its total storage capacity is about 174 million tons.

"The reservoir continues to fill," said Mike Langland, a USGS scientist who resurveyed the sediment buildup last year. "There haven't been any real surprises as to where and how it is being filled."

The survey showed that sediment deposition in the lower part of the reservoir increased 8-10 feet compared with the last survey, which was completed in 1996.

Scientists have warned about the inevitable filling of the reservoir and its impact on the Bay since the early 1990s. But the problem has always been so far in the future-and so costly to deal with-that it has been largely ignored.

Now, it's a problem that can no longer be avoided. The states and the EPA have set 2025 as their new Bay cleanup deadline-a date that overlaps the projected filling of the reservoir.

The EPA is also requiring a cleanup plan, known as a Total Maximum Daily Load, to guide nutrient and sediment control efforts. The TMDL is a pollution budget that determines the maximum amount of pollution a water body can receive and still meet its water quality standards-essentially a pollution cap.

That means state implementation plans required as part of the TMDL will have to account for the reservoir filling to keep from exceeding the cap.

"We would expect to see a credible plan that looks at any major changes to major sources," said Jon Capacasa, water division director for EPA Region III.

The EPA expects states to update implementation plans every two years until the cleanup is complete.

"If the science is telling us that there is going to be a major change in the sediment dynamics behind the dams, I think a credible implementation plan will have to deal with that," Capacasa said. "If not in the initial plan, then in the updates over time."

It's a massive issue to resolve. The dam traps about 3.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 2 million tons of dirt every year-about a third of the phosphorus and more than half of the sediment moving downstream. (The dam traps little nitrogen because it is water soluble.)

In addition to sediment and phosphorus reductions already needed to meet Bay cleanup goals, a TMDL would require that all additional sediment and phosphorus be offset once the reservoir stops trapping it.

A filled reservoir also poses a greater threat to the Upper Bay in the event of another storm like Hurricane Agnes, which in 1972 scoured huge amounts of sediment from behind the dam and smothered much of the Upper Bay in several inches of sediment, obliterating underwater grass beds and other habitats.

A similar storm today would flush even more material downstream because of the additional sediment buildup. "There is more there to be scoured, and it is probably in areas that would be more rapidly scoured-closer to the dam," Langland said.

The Army Corps of Engineers' Baltimore District this year got $57,000 to begin looking at the reservoir issue. Funding for next year is uncertain. The Senate has proposed another $200,000 in next year's federal budget, although the House included no money in its legislation.

Those funds, though, would only set the framework for a study. A full-blown review by the Corps would likely cost a few million dollars, and take two to three years, said Dan Bierly, who oversees studies for the Baltimore District. It would also require a non-federal "sponsor"-such as a state agency, river basin commission or nonprofit organization-to share the cost. The sponsor will likely share 25 percent of the study costs, though the entire amount can be in-kind services or a combination of services and cash.

A full study would likely look at the practicality of controlling upstream sources of sediment, dredging sediment from the reservoir to increase capacity, and sediment impacts on the Bay downstream, Bierly said. In addition, the sediment needs to be examined for possible contaminants.

"It may be very appropriate to determine impact and potential benefits before anyone really wants to spend the big bucks," Bierly said. Dredging sediment from the reservoir, for instance, could cost tens of millions of dollars.

But the cost of doing nothing could be huge, said Michael Helfrick, the Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, who called for a study that would assess the likely consequences for the Bay in the event of another catastrophic storm such as Agnes.

"Until we have a document that tells us how much we have to lose, it is going to be hard to get anybody to pay to not lose it, because the amount we have to pay is outrageous," Helfrick said. "But it may not look that outrageous when you look at the cost of losing everything."

While people search for solutions, Langland said more efforts should be made to promote actions that prevent erosion along streams in the watershed. If the amount of sediment is reduced, it will buy more storage time for the reservoir.

"You're not only improving the capacity of the reservoirs," Langland said, "but you are also improving the quality of the water upstream."

The filling of a reservoir is not necessarily visible to most people. Sediment builds up on the bottom, and once a reservoir is filled, currents prevent more from settling there.


http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=3650

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Solar Credit Pricing Plan Too High

To read this article by The Caesar Rodney Institute, click HERE


Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Bethany Beach ends discussion of underground lines with NRG

BETHANY BEACH -- Town officials have voted to end talks with NRG/Bluewater Wind on its bid to run underground power lines from its proposed offshore wind farm through town.

The company's brusque rebuff by Bethany Beach -- including a charge that it failed to negotiate in good faith -- comes five months after NRG representatives presented project plans proposing power lines below Wellington Parkway and Kent Avenue.

At the time, Mayor Tony McClenny told Town Manager Clifford M. Graviet to seek independent expert advice on the lines' potential impact on human health and the environment, and also told Graviet to ask NRG to cover the cost.

A memorandum of understanding sent to NRG in April was returned last month -- slightly changed and not signed -- saying the company agreed to pay up to $85,000 for independent research on the lines' effects.

Shortly thereafter, the company wrote to town officials saying it would offer an alternative route for the lines and conduct associated engineering studies for both routes.

"Based on this letter and previous actions, I do not believe that NRG/Bluewater has been dealing with the town in good faith," said Vice Mayor Jack Gordon, who made a motion to notify NRG the town no longer is interested in the project, or in continuing discussions.

"The townspeople cannot tolerate having this issue hanging over their heads for any longer," he said.

NRG/Bluewater founder and President Peter D. Mandelstam did not return calls Monday seeking comment about the vote, cast at Bethany Beach Town Council's regular meeting Friday afternoon. The company's state director could not be reached.

"As a council we've attempted through various means to ensure the town and its residents are protected if this project were to ever come into being," said Councilman Jerry Dorfman, adding the delay from NRG, not returning the memorandum of understanding "raises some serious red flags."

Councilwoman Margaret Young agreed, noting the alternative of Garfield Parkway was not something new. It was, in fact, the route NRG started out with.

Residents largely have opposed the construction, many asking the council to reject the proposal outright instead of researching its possible environmental and human effects.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110719/BUSINESS/107190322/Bethany-Beach-ends-discussion-underground-lines-NRG

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Island off Alabama coast bursting with birds after oil spill

BIRMINGHAM, Ala (Reuters) - Thousands of baby pelicans grunt and hiss at their parents in tightly packed nests on Gaillard Island, a feathered paradise situated off the coast of Alabama.

The 1,300-acre, man-made island is hosting more than 50,000 birds this summer as nesting pairs gather to raise babies. That number would be considered high in any year, but it's a particularly surprising sight a year after oil from the BP spill fouled surrounding waters.

The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion spewed more than 168 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico over three months, the largest spill in U.S. history. But so far, there is no evidence of deformities or ill health among the young on Gaillard Island.

Scientists speculate that the baby boom probably results from an abundance of fish left undisturbed in waterways where the federal government banned commercial and recreational fishing last summer, providing a feast for shore birds.

In a speech this spring, the executive director of the nearby Dauphin Island Sea Lab said the fish populations in that part of the Gulf were larger than he had ever seen.

The population of the pelicans, terns, laughing gulls, egrets, ibis and little blue and tricolored herons nesting on Gaillard Island is determined by the food supply, said Roger Clay, a wildlife biologist with the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries.

"If something was wrong with the food, the first place it would show is with the birds," said Clay, also known as the "the pelican guy."

That fact was painfully true in the 1960s and 1970s when the agricultural chemical DDT caused birds to produce deformed eggs. Many species, including the brown pelican, teetered on the brink of extinction.

A fondness for pelican feathers in women's hats in the 1900s resulted in over-hunting and decimated populations. The four nesting pelicans on Gaillard Island in 1983 were the first sightings of the birds in years in Alabama.

The number of pelican pairs has grown since then to an average of 4,000, but this year looks to be nearly 5,000, Clay said.

"The pelican has made a terrific comeback," said Celeste Hinds, field trip coordinator for the Mobile Bay Audubon Society, which monitors the bird population.

"So far, we have seen very little impact from the oil spill, and we are pleased that it has not affected the nesting habits of the brown pelican," Hinds said.

Clay said nearly every shore bird commonly found in Alabama nests on the island, which was created with dirt from a dredged shipping canal. Far enough from land to prevent predators such as feral cats and raccoons from reaching shore, the island provides protected habitat for ground nesters.

People are not allowed either, but many boats circle the two-mile island for some of summer's best bird-watching.

Each nesting pair typically raises two youngsters, even in a three-egg pelican nest. The first two baby birds to break the shell generally out-compete the last arrival.

Pelican parents do little to protect their young, but the babies hiss, scream and aim their beaks at the eyes of intruders. Nests sit close to each other as a defensive measure.

The royal terns prefer 12 inches of space between nests and raise two young per nest. About 3,000 pairs inhabit the island, along with approximately 1,000 more pairs of Caspian, sandwich, gull-billed and common terns.

Bursting with birds, the island is hosting its maximum number of pairs. Clay began his weekly visits to the nests three years after the island was formed in 1983. He said the population peaked in 1992, with some years, such as this one, booming with babies.

"One year does not make a trend, so I hate to jump to any conclusions, but I am taking this as a positive sign," he said.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7692FL20110710?irpc=932


Saturday, July 2, 2011

Builders group sues EPA over Bay cleanup plan NAHB joins farm groups in claiming federal over-reaching

It appears that only the courts can save us from economic destruction by environmental extremism and junk science.


A national home builders' group has gone to court to block the Environmental Protection Agency's plan for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.

The lawsuit filed Monday by the National Association of Home Builders in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pa., accuses the federal agency of overstepping its legal authority and relying on flawed computer modeling in ordering Maryland, the five other bay watershed states and the District of Columbia to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution by 20 to 25 percent over the next 14 years.

The complaint was combined with a similar lawsuit filed earlier this year by the American Farm Bureau Federation and joined by several other agricultural industry groups. Both suits seek to require EPA to withdraw its "total maximum daily load," more commonly known as a "pollution diet," and redraft the plan, leaving more discretion with the states and allowing more time for public review and comment.

"We're not against cleaning up the bay, but we are against bad science and bad rulemaking, and that's what we want them to go back and fix,'' said Tom Ward, a lawyer for the national builders group. John E. Kortecamp, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Maryland, said his group was not consulted on the lawsuit and declined to comment.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, representing local wastewater treatment plant operators, as well as a Pennsylvania utility association, have moved to intervene in defense of EPA's bay cleanup plan. William C. Baker, president of the Annapolis-based foundation, called the builders' lawsuit "yet another attempt by a special interest to avoid responsibility for their part of the total pollution loading."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bs-gr-builders-bay-suit-20110628,0,185191.story




Maryland Adds Environmental Literacy in High Schools

Brainwashing is mandated in Maryland schools by regulators, not lawmakers

Maryland is the first state in the country to impose a new requirement to graduate from high school -- something called environmental literacy.

But what is that? That is the question State Senator J. B. Jennings is asking.

"What kind of education is it going to be?” he asks. “Is it going to be fact-based? Or is it going to be theory-based, which is usually politically, theory driven. And you can think, it's going to be about global warming or climate change."

Sarah Bodor of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation supports the initiative and says there is no mandate.

"People express concern about the content but what is important to know is that this new requirement doesn't actually mandate any content at all."

The new rule is a regulation from the State Board of Education, not a law passed by the legislature, so it lays out no specifics. Governor Martin O'Malley offers no real details but praises it, saying it will "infuse core subjects with lessons about conservation and smart growth and the health of our natural world."

O’Malley also said it'll serve as a "foundation for green jobs," though one analyst says training for those is just like it is for any other job.

"You need to know how to get there on time, how to be alert, how to work hard, how to absorb a lot of information, how to - you know - learn new skills," says Myron Ebell of free market think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute."

The state education board leaves all content up to local school boards and a state official says " local systems will implement the requirement as they see fit."

Boder says students near the Chesapeake Bay could learn by doing.

"[K]ids have the opportunity to participate in some real world learning, such as raising native oysters and replenishing reef habitat,” Boder says. “By raising the oysters, they can learn math and read and write about the history of oystering in the state of Maryland and throughout the Chesapeake Bay and that gets them excited and that helps to boost their achievements."

No one would object to boosting achievement, but some analysts fear a broader, more political agenda would be in play. For instance, the local school boards won't get any extra money, so a group called the North American Association of Environmental Education offers a guide for teachers.

An early passage from the guide says “consumption of natural resources, air and water pollution, and the impacts of climate change are among the many complex challenges that threaten human health, economic development, and national security.” It goes on to talk about the need to "take informed action." And that raises some eyebrows.

"That is not really education," says Ebell. "It's propaganda and its designed to raise up a new generation of easily led and poorly educated and misinformed students."

And state lawmakers like J.B. Jennings note there are only so many hours in a school day, and only 180 days in a school year. So, he wonders, what in the current curriculum gets squeezed out?

"They can't just keep adding on and on, so they will have to make room for this by pushing other things out of the curriculum, which is going to be a concern," Jennings says.

He wants to know what will be pushed out to make room for these yet-undefined lessons aimed at "environmental literacy."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/27/maryland-adds-environmental-literacy-in-high-schools/?cmpid=cmty_email_Gigya_Maryland_Adds_Environmental_Literacy_in_High_Schools