Microbeads Banned in US Waters
Good news for the Chesapeake Bay, and watersheds around the nation!
Earlier this month, Congress voted to ban microbeads in common personal hygiene products, such as soaps, toothpastes and facial cleansers. The bill – the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015- was passed by the House of Representatives first, and then the Senate on December 18. President Obama signed the bill into law yesterday.
Microbeads, found in many health and beauty products, cause major problems in watersheds. The beads, which are rinsed down the drain with use, are too small to be filtered out in wastewater treatment plants, and end up directly in our waterways. These beads, which are plastic, adhere to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) in streams and estuaries, and are toxic to marine animals. Toxins make their way up the food chain, and have been found in significantly high concentrations in fish in watersheds such as the Great Lakes.
Nine states, and several municipalities around the country, have already passed bans on products with these beads, but this is the first nationwide bill of its kind. With the Microbead-Free Waters Act, all production of microbeads will be phased out of personal care products by July 1, 2017, with production phase out of microbeads in over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics to follow in July 2018 (with a ban on sales enforced by July 2019).
To read more about plastic debris in the Chesapeake Bay, CityLab has a post on Julie Lawson’s (director of Trash Free Maryland) efforts to document plastic concentrations in Bay waters. Lawson’s team has found plastic debris from what they suspect comes from film associated with mulching on watershed farms. If or when the lab working on these water samples confirms this, our region will likely face a fresh set of challenges, revolving around the phase-out of harmful products from the agricultural sector.
Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Detroit News
Water Quality Monitoring on Antipoison Creek
This autumn, I have begun water quality monitoring on Antipoison Creek, a small tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, located on Virginia’s Northern Neck. I have been collecting and preparing water samples for analysis of nitrates, phosphates, ammonium, and chlorophyll, and working with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Studies’ Nutrient Analytical Services Laboratory (NASL) on advanced analytical services for these water chemistry results.
Water sampling bottles are prepared using an acid wash procedure, to ensure that no remaining particles from manufacturing or previous water samples corrupt the results. When the bottles are ready, I collect samples from four locations via kayak along Antipoison Creek (2 samples per location, using a three-sample rinse method).
The first location is upstream from the beach from where I depart; the second location is several feet in front of the beach. The third and fourth locations are further downstream, at the mouth of Little Bay, (shown on the map below as Fleet’s Bay- Little Bay lies just between Fleet’s Bay and the mainland).
Once the samples are collected, they are filtered and divided into auto analyzer cups to be tested for nitrate, phosphate, and ammonium levels at NASL. (See photo below). Samples are frozen until they can be transported to the lab.
The samples must be filtered differently for chlorophyll- the lab receives just a filter pad for this, no water samples.
It took a little longer to get all of the supplies for the chlorophyll filtering procedure, and I have yet to send in samples for chlorophyll testing. However, the first results for nitrates, phosphates and ammonium recently came in. The ammonium test results have to be crosschecked with the pH levels of the samples, but I was able to read the phosphate and nitrate results.
According to North Carolina State University, phosphate designated use limits for estuaries, in order to support maximum diversity of aquatic life, must be 0.01 mg/L; for moderate diversity the phosphate limit is 0.1 mg/l.
Recommended nitrate limits are 0.1 mg/l for maximum diversity, and 1.0 mg/l for moderate diversity.
The results we received for phosphate (PO4) and nitrates (NO23) from Antipoison Creek were as follows (see bolded figures):
The results for phosphates and nitrates are significantly lower than limits set for water quality standards– which is a good thing- it means there is not an excess level of nutrients in the water, which can impair aquatic life. There is a significant amount of oyster production taking place in this sample area- oysters are natural filterers of nutrients and sediment. Perhaps this has an impact on our results. This is only one month’s results, however, (September), and results from following months must be compared before further analysis can be made.
Future chlorophyll readings will give an indication of algae levels in the sample region. Ammonium is another type of nitrogen in waters- it is produced when plants and animals decompose, and is present in animal waste. It acts as a pollutant when levels are too high, impacting local aquatic species. We should be seeing low results for ammonium as well to indicate good water quality in this portion of Antipoison Creek.
Maryland Lawn Fertilizer Law
Last week, I saw several Chesapeake Bay news stories referencing a Maryland Lawn Fertilizer Law. There has been a lot of discussion in recent months about agricultural application of fertilizer, and the harmful effects nutrient farm runoff has on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Fertilizer is also frequently applied in nonagricultural settings, (with lawn fertilizer accounting for 44% of all fertilizer sold in Maryland), and can have just as harmful an impact on the Bay (but at a smaller scale).
I took a look into the Maryland Lawn Fertilizer Law, which went into effect in 2013. This law creates limits and restrictions for lawn fertilizer application across the state, in an attempt to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into the Bay Watershed. Before 2013, there were no Maryland state laws aimed at homeowners, and other non-agricultural consumers of fertilizer. Restrictions of fertilizer use for farmers has been in place since 2001. The Maryland Lawn Fertilizer Law targets fertilizer use by not only urban and suburban homeowners, but also owners of golf courses, parks and athletic fields, and businesses.
While the law does not forbid home and business owners from applying any fertilizer, it limits what can be laid down – limits that are created based on what is strictly necessary (and determined by the University of Maryland). Excess fertilizer results in stormwater runoff, depositing phosphorus and nitrogen into the Bay watershed, which is already heavily polluted with these nutrients.
This state law overrules any preexisting county legislation in Maryland that applied to nonagricultural fertilizer use.
Restrictions include:
-Lawn fertilizers with phosphorus (unless a soil test is taken, and shows that a particular lawn is in need of phosphorus)
-Lawn fertilizers with less than 20% nitrogen that is slow release
-The application of more than 0.9 pounds of total nitrogen per 1,000 square feet
-The hiring of lawn care professionals not certified by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (penalties apply: $1000 for the first violation, $2000 for every violation after that)
-The application of lawn fertilizers during “blackout dates” (November 15 – March 1)
-The application of lawn fertilizers to any impervious surfaces
-The application of lawn fertilizers before heavy rain forecasts
-The application of lawn fertilizers within 15 feet of waterways
Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint Faces its Next Round of Appeals
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has taken their case against the EPA’s Clean Water Blueprint to the Supreme Court. The AFBF is appealing the most recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which, this July, upheld the EPA’s right to enforce the Clean Water Blueprint for the Chesapeake Bay. (See the full opinion from that case here). This most recent appeal, should the Supreme Court choose to take this case, will be the third time the AFBF has challenged the Clean Water Blueprint in court. AFBF originally sued the EPA in January 2011, following the 2010 announcement of the Blueprint. That challenge was dismissed in 2013.
The EPA Clean Water Blueprint sets Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), which Bay states must enforce to meet Bay cleanup goals by 2025. While AFBF claims that these TMDL requirements are an overstep of federal authority, lower courts have upheld the EPA’s ability to enforce these pollution standards through the Clean Water Act.
The AFBF submitted their appeal to the Supreme Court this past Friday.
Virginia Winter Crab Dredging Closed Again This Year
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) issued their decision on October 27 concerning the winter dredging of blue crabs in state waters. The VMRC has elected to close winter dredging for the seventh year in a row, to protect the Chesapeake Bay crab population.
The VMRC must decide on a year-to-year basis whether or not to open winter dredging, based on what they call ‘trigger values,’or crab population numbers deemed high enough for winter harvesting. Trigger values for juvenile abundance of crabs must be at 291 million or higher; crabs of spawning age, or female abundance must be at 125 million for winter harvesting to occur. However, estimates made earlier this year for juvenile abundance of blue crabs was only at 269 million, and crabs of spawning age at 101 million. Both juvenile and female crab abundance were well below trigger values, leading to the recommendation to close winter dredging again this year. The VMRC took this recommendation into account, and elected to restrict dredging once again.
The full audio recording of the VMRC meeting concerning crab management can be found here.
Stormwater Fees to Be Reworked in Maryland’s Montgomery County
Stormwater runoff carries nutrient and sediments from urban and suburban areas into our local streams and rivers, eventually making its way into the Chesapeake Bay. Local stormwater fees, or “rain taxes,” as they are sometimes called, help pay for infrastructure and programs that reduce urban and suburban runoff from municipalities in the Chesapeake Watershed. Stormwater fees have faced a lot of backlash in Maryland recently, especially in Montgomery County. The County has reworked stormwater fee legislation, after the law was successfully challenged in court by a local developer. (See here).
Introduced last Tuesday, the new stormwater fee law will face a public hearing next month. Reworking of the law redefines the stormwater runoff fee as an excise tax, which the county has the ability to collect. Hopefully this new version will pass without issue, as stormwater runoff fees are a necessary pollution reduction tool for urban and suburban areas in the Bay watershed.
Proposed Nutrient Trading Program in Maryland: Solution or Distraction?
Is nutrient pollution trading in Maryland the answer to Bay cleanup or just another stalling mechanism? Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has proposed a new pollution trading system focused on nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. The system would allow communities, in need of upgrades to their local sewage treatment plants and stormwater runoff programs, to instead pay area farmers to pollute less. While this may result in fewer loads of nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from agricultural sources, (which is greatly needed), the plan allows urban and suburban communities to shift focus away from their own sources of pollution. The state should instead be focusing on a two-pronged approach, targeting pollution loads from agricultural and urban/suburban sources.
Agriculture is one of the leading sources of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, but it is not the only major source. Municipal and industrial wastewater (a sector that includes sewage treatment plants), contributes 19% of the nitrogen that reaches the Bay, and 21% of phosphorus; urban and suburban runoff contributes 31% of phosphorus pollution in the Bay (National Research Council, 2011). Just last week, The Washington Post reported on a Maryland-based water treatment plant, just north of Washington, D.C., that has been polluting millions of pounds of nutrients and chemicals into the Potomac River. The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), which runs the plant, from the outcome of a recent legal settlement, has agreed to make millions of dollars worth of upgrades to its outdated facility, (built in the 1960s). These upgrades are expensive, but they are long overdue, and are needed to improve water quality in the Potomac River, a major tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.
Supporters of the proposed nutrient trading program in Maryland argue that nutrient trading will allow for cleanup of the Bay, while reducing costs to communities, which might have plants that need millions of dollars worth of upgrades, like the WSSC facility . However, I would argue that nutrient trading allows half of the pollution problem to be ignored. Maryland should target both agricultural runoff and urban and suburban sources of pollution if its leaders are serious about cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.
New Study on Climate Change Impact on Bay Finfish
We hear a lot about how climate change will impact the Chesapeake Bay region, with sea level rise and increased rates of flooding affecting shoreline communities; and ocean acidification potentially harming oyster and blue crab populations. What about finfish species? The U.S. Geological Survery, USGS, has just released a report examining how climate change will affect coldwater fish species (such as the brook trout), native to the Bay watershed. The report relays estimates (through models) on how temperatures of specific streams and watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay region will be impacted with climate change. This new data should allow conservationists to ramp up efforts to protect coldwater fish ecosystems in threatened areas.
Brook trout, and other coldwater finfish species, which can be found in our watershed’s freshwater streams, are expected to suffer from climate change, and warming water temperatures. While previous studies have looked at the relationship between air and surface water temperature to predict future water temperatures of streams, the USGS set out to create more accurate models for climate change impacts on coldwater fish, by taking groundwater into account. Groundwater, especially in headwater streams, can have a major impact on overall stream temperatures. The USGS created models for specific streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, using groundwater and surface water temperatures, to predict changing water temperatures in the wake of climate change, and with this, the future health of the fish that rely on these streams.
The full report can be found here.
Oyster Season Takes Off in Maryland
Oyster season began last Thursday, October 1, in Maryland. While a lot of oyster production in the Chesapeake Bay now takes place in cages with specially manufactured disease-resistant oysters, there are still watermen who dredge and dive from natural oyster reefs in the Bay. Watermen typically use hand and patent tonging to bring up oysters.
(For a visual on this process, check out this youtube video of Chesapeake watermen oyster tonging on the water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRWGHgbCbHQ).
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources recently estimated that oyster harvests from tonging and diving will not be as high this year as in the past couple of years. According to DelmarvaNow, Maryland watermen hauled in 393,000 bushels of oysters last year, bringing in $17.3 million. This year’s harvest will likely be lower. The reason for the estimate of lower harvest levels this upcoming season is a decline in reproduction of oysters from 2013-2014. There are 1-2 years lag time between reproduction levels and harvest level responses, given the time it takes for oysters to mature. Reproduction levels were high in 2010-2012, contributing to high harvest levels the past two years.
However, despite recent storms keeping watermen off the water for a few days, good harvests are being reported so far, with bushel limits being reached every day, according to the Star Democrat, a newspaper produced in Easton, Maryland.
Tonging and diving for oysters can only take place at certain reefs in Maryland. The various restoration sites and oyster sanctuaries, overseen by organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (see map of CBF oyster reef sites here), are off limits to watermen. Even oyster reserve areas, which the DNR wanted to open to harvest, are off limits, after the Chesapeake Legal Alliance challenged the DNR’s proposal to open 10 reserve sites earlier this year.
Power- and sail-dredging for oysters will begin in November, and the oyster season will continue until March 31 of next year.
USDA Awards Four Bay States $1 Million Each for Cleanup Efforts
Virginia, West Virginia, New York and Delaware are set to receive $1 million each from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of a federal effort to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Money will go toward farmers in the Bay watershed with stream access on their properties. Specifically, the money supports planting of vegetated streamside buffers on agricultural lands.
These vegetated streamside buffers, or riparian buffer zones, act as physical barriers to livestock, which might otherwise have direct access to pollute streams. Riparian buffer zones also reduce sediment and nutrient loads, running off from farmland, and entering the watershed.
The USDA is able to offer federal funds to Bay states under their Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). According to the USDA, CREP and USDA funds (about $500 million in total), supplied to Bay states since 1996, have resulted in the planting of 7000 miles of riparian buffer zones, and “have prevented an estimated eight million tons of sediment, 16 million pounds of nitrogen, and four million pounds of phosphorus from entering the waters of the watershed.” (See http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2015/10/0271.xml&contentidonly=true).
The USDA CREP program is voluntary. Funds are being offered to agricultural landowners who agree to participate in planting riparian buffer zones, and require financial support.
The $4 million going to Virginia, West Virginia, New York and Delaware is a first round of funding. A second round from the USDA will likely target Maryland and Pennsylvania- states with significant amounts of agricultural runoff to the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Bay environment and water quality blog 