What Do They Measure in the Chesapeake Bay?

We hear a lot about the “health of the Chesapeake Bay”, but what does that really mean?  The health of the bay encompasses three categories; water quality, habitats and lower food web, and fish and shellfish.  These three categories are combined to give you the overall “Bay Health” score, which, as of 2008 is 38%, with 100% being a fully restored ecosystem.  Since the dairy industry is continually asked to do more to improve the water in the Chesapeake Bay it is important that we understand how we are being evaluated.  

“Water quality” gains the most attention in many bay health discussions and is directly impacted by agricultural practices.  With respect to the Chesapeake Bay, water quality encompasses four specific parameters:  dissolved oxygen levels, water clarity, chlorophyll a levels, and chemical contaminants.  Unfortunately, the long- and short-term trends show that only 21% of the water quality goals have been reached and they are not moving in the right direction. 

Dissolved oxygen is the amount of oxygen in water.  Just like animals on land, fish and other aquatic organisms need oxygen to survive, especially during spring spawning in the shallow waters.  Oxygen in the bay water comes from infiltration from the air, underwater grasses (which work much like plants on land), and river and ocean water.  Settling and decomposition of algae is the main cause for low dissolved oxygen levels in the Chesapeake Bay.  Algae are a food source for many organisms in the Chesapeake Bay, but if there is more algae than the fish and aquatic organisms can eat it will grow out of control and eventually die.  When it dies it decomposes.  The decomposition consumes much of the oxygen in the water creating an environment where fish and other aquatic organisms cannot survive. These algae blooms are caused by excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that enter the bay from rivers and streams.  Therefore, dissolved oxygen levels are a very good indicator of nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay.

Water clarity is a measure of the amount of sunlight that can penetrate the water.  Just like land plants, aquatic grasses need light to grow, and light is also important to aquatic organisms so they can see prey and avoid predators.  Sediment and plankton are two of the main causes of decreased clarity, but algae blooms can also decrease water clarity.  Therefore, water clarity is influenced by the amount of nutrients reaching the bay as well as the sediment that leaves the land.

Chlorophyll a is a green pigment that allows plants to grow, much like plants on land, but a is predominant in algae.  Therefore, chlorophyll a is a direct measurement of algae in the bay.  As mentioned previously, algae is the base of the food chain in the bay so it generally a beneficial organism, but if there is more than can be utilized it can decrease clarity and reduce oxygen in the water.  It is also a very good indicator of nutrient loading.

Chemical contaminants are the last component included in the overall water quality score.  Chemicals are monitored on 89 tidal water segments.  Metals, like Mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hydrocarbons from gas, oil, and coal burning, and herbicide and pesticide residues are some of the major chemicals that are being monitored.  Unlike the other water quality contaminants this one can have a direct impact on human health because fish and aquatic organisms tend to concentrate chemicals.  Therefore, warnings are in place on the amount of fish people should eat from the bay. 

Obviously not all of these water quality conditions are caused by agriculture, but agriculture does play a role and understanding the score card will make it easier to play by the rules.

Farmers Helping the Environment

I've been to a number of meetings the past few months and heard farmers complaining about why they are always blamed for nutrient pollution of local watersheds and the Chesapeake Bay.  Granted, agriculture does still contribute a large percentage of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay and local watersheds, but progress has been made.  In Pennsylvania, agriculture has reached over 40% of the nitrogen reduction goal and 30% of the phosphorus reduction goal!  This did not just happen, farmers made it happen through hard work and continuing to try to make their farms better. 

I see farmers doing the right thing for the environment all the time.  Just in the past few weeks I have received phone calls from producers trying to figure out the best way to reduce odor on the farm, compost manure to reduce the risk of nitrogen leaching, upgrade manure digesters, and to install solar power.  All of these farmers are considering making significant investments purely for the sake of doing the right thing for the environment and their neighbors.  How many of the rest of us can say that we have made the same level of investment in our own homes and lives to reduce our impact on the environment?  Farmers really are the original stewards of the land and deserve our respect and appreciation for their efforts. 

Focus on Small Farms for Feed Management

The vast majority of farms in Pennsylvania are small enough that they only fall under the most basic of regulations. Therefore, many in the regulatory and environmental community are turning their attention to these farms. The question is often posed, "Is a 1,000-cow farm better or worse than and ten 100-cow farms?" The answer I've heard is that the ten 100-cow farms may be worse. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of very good small farms out there that are doing their best to protect the environment, but from a basic oversight standpoint they are not nearly as regulated, which leads state and federal agencies to wonder if they really are doing everything right.

I have tried to focus on smaller farms in my programming and gearing the Feed Management program towards the smaller farm would be a win win for the farmer and the plan writer. Because smaller farmers are not required to follow as many regulations as larger farms they do not have the "insurance" that oversight and regulations provide against lawsuits and other environmental inquiries. Although a Feed Management Plan is not required for any size farm, for smaller farms, it provides that oversight from a federal agency that could serve as that "insurance policy".

From the nutritionist's point of view, writing and implementing a plan on a smaller farm would be simpler (at least from a sample collection standpoint). I came to this conclusion as I was out taking manure samples from a farm with over 400 cows. This farm has graciously agreed to serve as a an example for a Feed Management plan writing workshop, and in order to have the best data available for the participants I was diligently following the manure sampling protocol. This protocol, in Pennsylvania, requires manure to be sampled from 15% of the cows in each group or a maximum of 20 cow. With three groups on this farm that turned into a whole lot of manure samples and since we try to take the samples directly from the cow to avoid contamination my arm was a little tired. After cow 25 and realizing I was only about halfway done I was wishing I had chosen a nice 40-cow farm as that would have required I only get samples from 6 cows! Since Feed Management Plan implementation requires that manure samples be taken four times a year, if I were a nutritionist I think I would focus on smaller farms and save myself a lot of manure sampling.

My last piece of advice for folks writing Feed Management plans is to focus on farms that want nothing to do with this program because those are probably the farms that need it the most. Although getting more farms involved in the program is important, the biggest impact could be gained by focusing on getting plans written for the farms that really need them instead of farms that are already doing a good job.

Can We Really Clean Up an Impaired Watershed?

Below is a nice article written in the Lancaster Intelligencier/New Era newspaper that talks about a project that I am lucky to be involved with.  Penn State received a grant and that money was matched by other sources to fund whatever is needed to improve the water quality in an agriculturally impaired watershed.  At the most basic level this is a huge experiment to see what works and what progress can be made when all available resources are concentrated in a small area.  This will be a huge learning process for everyone involved in the project, and the goal is not only to just clean up this particular watershed, but to take those lessons learned to other watersheds and hopefully clean up those as well.

Actual article:

Local watershed may be key to saving Chesapeake Bay

Conewago effort to serve as model

By AD CRABLE, Staff Writer

The Conewago Creek watershed — a sparsely populated but heavily farmed area at the junction of Lancaster, Dauphin and Lebanon counties — is being put in a big test tube.

A unique grass-roots cleanup strategy being tried here, if successful, may become a model for how to clean streams across five states and make meaningful strides in restoring the Chesapeake Bay.

And, not so coincidentally, it night help Pennsylvania farmers avoid crackdowns and residents prevent hits in the pocketbook.

President Barack Obama has issued an executive order calling for stronger action to clean up the bay. Lancaster County is in the cross hairs.

As part of that accelerated marching order, Conewago Creek, with its two-dozen tributaries, has been tabbed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Pennsylvania's "discovery watershed."

The watershed covers three townships in northwestern Lancaster County.

Two similar experiments will be tried in Maryland and Virginia, but only the Conewago is under way.

Initial funding for the three-year project totals $1.5 million, but more is expected to be funneled into the effort as it gathers steam.

An ambitious grass-roots watershed group has joined forces with local officials, Penn State and a gaggle of federal and state agencies to attempt a from-the-bottom-up approach.

At least 15 entities are aboard the public-private partnership, known as the Conewago Creek Collaborative Conservation Initiative. Together, they'll try to restore an entire watershed, not by edict or mandatory regulations, but with a voluntary communitywide plan.

The hope is that communities will be infused with a sense of shared responsibility and roll up their sleeves.

The diversity of partners means the technical advice, manpower, money and rapport with landowners are already aboard.

The partners will be working with a nod toward what's happened with Lititz Run. There, Warwick Township officials, farmers, residents and groups such as the Donegal Chapter of Trout Unlimited have made huge progress in restoring the stream.

"We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We have to take what happened in Warwick Township and transfer it to the Conewago," Kristen Saacke Blunk, director of Penn State's Agriculture and Environment Center and head of the Conewago project, said.

South Londonderry Township in Lebanon County already has begun rallying the troops.

"We welcome this involvement," township supervisor Rugh Henderson said. The township formed an environmental advisory council to encourage residents to make their properties, regardless of size, better able to store water and reduce fertilizers and pesticides.

"We have two dozen natural areas. We have wildflower gardens. We're ready," Henderson said.

To that end, the Conewago project is holding a seminar for watershed residents and municipal officials on how to protect water quality in backyards. It will be held at 9:30 a.m. Saturday, April 10, at the Lebanon Ag Center on Cornwall Road in Lebanon.

An unprecedented level of monitoring will be deployed in waterways in the Conewago watershed so that even minute improvements in water quality can be shown to each participating landowner, proving they are making a difference.

Gauges will keep close tabs on such vital signs as dissolved oxygen, sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, flow and water temperature.

Every farmer, each municipality and all 3,000 homeowners will have to want to do something on their land to make it healthier.

As Don McNutt, the Lancaster County Conservation District's administrator, said, "Anybody in the Conewago watershed is part of the problem — and part of the solution.

"Storm water needs to be treated as a resource rather than just blowing it out through pipes into these 24 streams."

Added Mike Hubler of the Dauphin County Conservation District, "It's everybody's watershed, and you have to do it down to the lowest common denominator — and that's the individual landowner."

For the homeowner, perhaps it's plugging a gutter into a barrel to catch rainwater, planting a rain garden or checking to see if the septic tank is working properly.

For township supervisors, it might be pushing for more-than-required storm-water controls with new growth.

"It's got to be a whole community approach to be successful," Blunk said.

"There are going to be things just about anybody can do that can make a difference."

Clearly, much will be expected of farmers.

Perhaps they'll fence off livestock or give up a little ground from crop fields to allow plantings of filtering trees and shrubs along creeks. Or perhaps they'll sign up for a slew of experimental cutting-edge farming techniques that are being freed from laboratories or demonstration plots to be tried here.

Among them are:

• A device that can be used in no-till farming that injects dry manure into the ground, where it won't smell, run off the fields or release ammonia, a greenhouse gas.

• Feed for cattle and poultry that uses less protein so their manure contains less nitrogen.

• Bag digesters, consisting of a cover placed over manure lagoons to capture methane, a greenhouse gas.

In addition, tried-and-true conservation techniques will be pushed, such as buffers of trees and shrubs along streams, crop rotation, cover crops and filter strips.

•••

Conewago Creek, which is the boundary between Lancaster and Dauphin counties, has a watershed that encompasses 53 square miles and 3,000 households.

In Lancaster County, the creek drains Conoy, West Donegal and Mount Joy townships. Elizabethtown gets a large portion of its drinking water from the Conewago.

Mount Gretna is the only borough within its borders, and the dammed stream forms Mount Gretna Lake. Many horse farms and stables are located there.

From its headwaters on state game lands near Mount Gretna, the stream empties into the Susquehanna between Falmouth and Three Mile Island.

Like many streams in the area, Conewago Creek is often laden with farm-related nutrients and muddy from bank erosion and runoff. It floods easily.

And like many waterways here, the stream and many of its 25 tributaries are officially designated as "impaired," meaning they can't support the fish and richness of aquatic life they could if they were healthy.

In a broader picture, the silt and nutrients that the waterways send downstream contribute to the pollution and decline of the Chesapeake Bay, the largest, richest estuary on the continent.

Most of the pollution is caused by runoff from agriculture, which accounts for just over half the land use in the Conewago Creek watershed. But housing developments, leaking septic systems, sewage treatment plants and some industrial uses in the watershed also contribute.

•••

Matt Royer grew up on a chicken farm along Conewago Creek on the Dauphin County side.

One day, he and his father, Hal Royer, were talking about how the stream's health was clearly declining.

Matt Royer began tacking up broadsides in the area, inviting anyone interested in forming a grass-roots watershed group to show up at a meeting.

Anglers, a biology professor from Elizabethtown College, the Milton Hershey Foundation — the largest landowner in the watershed — and lots of interested residents did just that.

The Tri-County Conewago Creek Association was formed in 1992 and hit the ground running. Royer is its president. He also serves as staff attorney for the Pennsylvania office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and is on the guiding committee for the Conewago project.

The new group obtained a grant and hired consultants to study the watershed extensively and map what it would take to restore it.

Some 129 projects were outlined, and the group marshaled hundreds of volunteers and signed up farmers for four major improvement projects, from planting several thousand trees for stream buffers to performing bank stabilization work.

That ability to get boots on the ground is one reason the Conewago was chosen for a centerpiece project. Another was the manageable size of the watershed and the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill targeted small watersheds to fund conservation measures. A third was Penn State's search for a place to try all the research its staff was tinkering with.

"At the end, we hope to be able to say here's how we did it and here's what it takes to make changes daily," Blunk said.

One thrust of Penn State's involvement is to help farmers, landowners and communities obtain dollar value for doing the right thing for the environment.

Increasingly, she said, land-use actions that prevent greenhouse gases are being viewed as having monetary value, called carbon credits, and markets are developing to pay those who hold credits.

Getting money should encourage more landowners to adopt conservation measures, she said.

But the trick is measuring the value.

How much value do you attach to a farmer who practices no-till farming or has a flood plain that recharges aquifers? Or to a homeowner who plants wildlife habitat rather than a carpet of grass that needs constant fertilizing?

To help develop the project's one-community goal, an Internet program will be created with a one-stop clearinghouse of information for everyone in the watershed.

"We want to show information to say (that) when you do a practice, here is an outcome that you can expect," Blunk said.

Otherwise, McNutt said, "It's like telling a farmer he needs to lose weight and not being able to tell him what he weighs or what the diet will be."

Officials working on the project admit feeling the pressure to produce. But they're also clearly energized by the fresh approach and the opportunity to try cutting-edge down-on-the-farm conservation practices.

"It is a little daunting, but it is exciting because it's an opportunity to really make this a great place to live," Royer said.

"It's an opportunity to improve the stream and make it a place everyone can continue to live and work in and make sure agriculture is an important part of the watershed."

acrable@lnpnews.com