Grand Lake St Marys update

http://thevwindependent.com/news/?p=1095

State officials briefed on Grand Lake St. Marys situation

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

Ohio Director of Agriculture James Zehringer had the shortest trip, since he lives just down the road in Fort Recovery. He was joined by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Nally and Department of Natural Resources Director David Mustine for a briefing held at Wright State University’s Lake Campus detailing what the Grand Lake St. Marys Restoration Committee seeks to do to deal with the problem.CELINA – Just four days after being sworn in by Governor John Kasich, the directors of three state agencies were in Celina to underscore the governor’s commitment to deal with the algae bloom problem on Grand Lake St. Marys.

The three directors, along with Mercer County Economic Development Director Jared Ebbing, a representative of the Grand Lake St. Marys Restoration Committee, and State Representative Keith Faber, later held a meeting with media representatives to provide comments on the briefing and what could be the next steps in the process.

The three state officials, who were sworn in January 10 by Governor Kasich, indicated their commitment to taking action on the issue, while Faber said he was pleased with the quick action by Governor Kasich to honor a commitment he made during the gubernatorial campaign to solve the lake’s problems.

“When John was campaigning, he came here and saw first-hand the impact on Grand Lake St. Marys and the community,” Faber said, “and he made a commitment … that this would be a priority for the new Kasich administration.

“And I don’t know how you get much more priority, as a state legislator, than to see the three directors – and really the four agencies that are directly impacted on this – coming in literally the first week they’re in office to talk to the interested parties about what needs to be done to fix Grand Lake St. Marys,” Faber added.

All three state directors were provided with a strategic plan outlining steps needed to deal with the algae bloom problem.

Those priorities include the following:

• Sequestration of soluble reactive phosphorus to limit availability of nutrients that fuel algae and mycrotoxin development (the highest priority item).
• Physical removal and encapsulation of nutrient-laden sediment, through dredging, as the most effective long-term means of eliminating internal nutrient loading and the controlling factor for nutrient cycling within the lake.
• Develop opportunities to remove stressors on the ecological system through application of technologies that provide sustainable processes.
• Establish Best Management Practices in each sub-watershed draining to the lake to intercept and remove nutrient loading prior to its entry into the system.
• Decrease rough fish population through removal and management actions.
• Management of the lake as an economic resource of the state, with recognition of the influence it maintains over the local and regional economy.
• Fund the development and restoration of natural resources within the state, where the economic benefit will exceed the costs of capital investment to undertake.
• Prioritize applications from producers within the Grand Lake St. Marys Watershed for the Water Pollution Control Loan fund, with the added caveat that use of manure best management practices and technologies be integrated into all aspects of the agricultural/livestock industries located within the watershed to decrease nutrients draining into the lake.

All three directors were complimentary of the work done so far by the Grand Lake St. Marys Restoration Committee, with Mustine saying he felt the strategic plan was “very professional.”

Although he comes from Indiana, Nally, the new Ohio EPA director, said he is familiar with the local problem since he lived near a water recreation area in the Indianapolis area called Geist Reservoir, adding that that area, which includes homes in the median range of $1 million-$10 million, has the same problem as Grand Lake St. Marys.Mustine said he was also impressed with the local fundraising efforts, which have generated $650,000 so far. “That’s fantastic and certainly inspires us to be looking as hard as we can to find ways to get resources for this effort.”

Nally also responded to a question asking what the state planned to do this summer to deal with the problem.

“There’s going to be action done this spring,” Nally said. “Whether it prevents a algae bloom this summer we don’t know, but at least we’re not going to say we didn’t try these top four, five, six top issues, we’re going to be doing things and not waiting for something to happen.”

“If you’re asking if we’re going to have action, yes, we’ll guarantee we’re going to have action,” Zehringer added. “We can’t guarantee success.”

Agriculture is responsible for one third of Antropogenic GHG emissions

http://blogs.forbes.com/csr/2010/12/22/impact-investing-in-sustainable-agriculture-for-a-new-economy/?boxes=Homepagechannels

Impact Investing in Sustainable Agriculture for a New Economy

Dec. 22 2010 - 1:52 pm | 1,051 views | 1 recommendation | 6 comments

posted by NICOLE SKIBOLA

According to a recent article from Scientific American, agriculture is responsible for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. Agribusiness farming operations are notorious for nitrogen and phosphorus runoff (particularly from poultry and hog farms). In the Chesapeake Bay region, for example, one study estimated the price tag for restoring the bay at $19 billion, of which $11 billion would go toward “nutrient reduction.”

There are more than 400 such dead zones throughout the world. Additionally, heavily subsidized corn and soy feed to livestock contribute to massive deforestation in the developing world. Tufts University researchers estimate that in the United States alone, between 1997 and 2005 the industrial animal sector saved more than $35 billion as a result of federal farm subsidies that lowered the price of the feed they purchased. These statistics demonstrate both the complexity of the supply chain from feed farm to table, and illustrate the importance of sustainability in the American food production industry.

A sustainable alternative to the beef factory-farming model follows in the footsteps of conservationist pioneer Allan Savory. The recent winner of the prestigious Buckminster Fuller Prize, Savory developed the Holistic Management grazing technique during his time as a researcher and farmer in Southern Africa in the 1980s. By getting grazing cattle to stay in larger, tight herds, Savory was able to restore grassland vitality and increase grass biodiversity. Deep chewing of plant roots, paired with the repeated soil chipping of hooves, caused dormant seeds to germinate and water to penetrate below the surface. According to Shannon Horst, CEO and co-founder of the Savory Institute, ranchers can consistently double, and even quadruple livestock capacity over time. (See an article in TIMEfor more on the Savory grazing technique).

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Savory’s work has been its appeal to both profit-driven investors and international development agencies like USAID as a tool to combat desertification in rural farming communities. Since 2005, USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance has provided more than $1.1 million to support Savory’s African Centre for Holistic Management’s program to restore degraded land, revive water sources, mitigate the effects of global climate change, and increase crop yields. Savory and Horst have worked with range managers on ranches and community group ranches, demonstrating how to manage holistically in communal and private range lands, in partnership with USAID.

Within the past couple of years, for-profit enterprises like Grasslands, LLC are successfully implementing the Savory Holistic Management methodology. Grasslands owns and manages 14,000 acres in South Dakota, and is funded by a network of private impact investors likeArmonia, LLC and Capital Institute founder John Fullerton. The profitability of the Grasslands structure comes from ranching fees per head of cattle, and is based directly on the Savory Institute business model. By investing in companies like Grasslands, Fullterton and other impact investors are laying the foundation for new finance-based theories, tools, and metrics to serve the needs of a sustainable economic system.

In addition to increased yields of beef per acre, the Grasslands model also creates an opportunity to commoditize sequestered carbon for carbon credit trading. Steven Apfelbaum, Founder/Chairman of Applied Ecological Services, Inc., explained to TIME, ”healthy grasslands represents the ecosystem with the highest potential for carbon sequestration of any on the planet.” Ranches like those owned by Grasslands cover an estimated 30 million acres in North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa—and nearly half of the earth’s land mass. Given the shear vastness of the earth’s grasslands, holistic management and reclamation projects hold huge implications for changing the planet.

While Grasslands only just completed its first year in operation, rancher Jim Howell reports that the two South Dakota ranches are expected to double in value and in productivity over a ten-year period and to yield annual dividends on the order of 4% to 5% in the early years, increasing to 10% to 11%. In a recent Capital Institute article, Fullerton expressed his confidence that the Grasslands model can provide a profitable, scalable model for biodiversity recovery: “We have a case study here of true wealth creation in Grasslands,” he says. “We are building biodiversity, soil fertility, sequestering carbon, and generating financial returns. And if my belief of what will happen to ecosystem services plays out, we will make a lot more money with these assets than with most financial assets.”

For more on Grasslands and the Capital Institute’s sustainable investment agenda

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/uond-nsf122010.php

Lakes a big source of climate-warming gas: study

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO | Thu Jan 6, 2011 2:47pm EST

(Reuters) - Lakes and rivers emit far more of a powerful greenhouse gas than previously thought, counteracting the overall role of nature in soaking up climate-warming gases, a study showed on Thursday.

A review of 474 freshwater systems indicated they emitted methane equivalent to 25 percent of all carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas blamed for stoking climate change -- absorbed by the world's land areas every year.

Trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow.

"Methane emissions from freshwater sources were greater than expected," David Bastviken, lead author of the study at Linkoping University in Sweden, told Reuters.

"Some of the carbon that is being captured and stored by the Earth will be counteracted by methane from these freshwater sources," according to the study by experts in Sweden, the United States and Brazil in the journal Science.

Emissions of methane, released by decaying vegetation and other organic matter in rivers, reservoirs, lakes and streams, have not previously been properly built into models used to understand global warming, Bastviken said.

The findings indicate that other parts of the landscape, led by forests, should be prized more as the most robust natural stores of greenhouse gases, he said.

"This means that forests and other local environments, being carbon sinks, are even more important" in helping offset global warming, he said. Land-based stores "may be more rare than expected."

LONG IGNORED

Bastviken said the freshwater methane emissions were not a new environmental threat since the presence of the gas in the atmosphere was previously known, even if scientists were unsure where it came from.

"This has always happened. We just haven't paid attention," he said. Even so, he said a thaw of permafrost in places from Siberia to Alaska may also be releasing more methane from once frozen soils.

A U.N. climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, last month agreed to set up a system to slow deforestation, from the Amazon to the Congo basin, to help slow climate change.

The plan envisages incentives for developing nations to safeguard forests rather than clear them to make way for farmland, towns or roads. Deforestation accounts for perhaps 10 percent of greenhouse gases from human activities.

A build-up of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, will cause more heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels, according to the U.N. panel of climate scientists.

Methane is about 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

Bastviken said the findings were not an argument for draining wetlands or lakes to limit methane emissions -- that might well backfire and release carbon stored in sediments.

(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

New study focuses on nitrogen in waterways as cause of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/uond-nsf122010.php

New study focuses on nitrogen in waterways as cause of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere

Jake Beaulieu, a postdoctoral researcher the Environmental Protection Agency in Cincinnati, Ohio, who earned his doctorate at the University of Notre Dame, and Jennifer Tank, Galla Professor of Biological Sciences at the University, are lead authors of new paper demonstrating that streams and rivers receiving nitrogen inputs from urban and agricultural land uses are a significant source of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change and the loss of the protective ozone layer. Nitrogen loading to river networks from urban and agricultural activities is a potentially important source of nitrous oxide emission to the atmosphere. It occurs through a microbial process called denitrification, which converts dissolved nitrate-nitrogen to nitrous oxide and dinitorgen gases.

In a paper appearing this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Beaulieu and Tank describe how they measured nitrous oxide production rates from denitrification in 72 streams draining multiple land-use types across the United States.

They found that the amount of nitrous oxide produced in streams is related to human activities that release nitrogen into the environment, such as fertilizer use and sewage discharges.

"Runoff from agricultural and urban watersheds has increased the availability of nitrogen in streams and rivers, greatly increasing nitrous oxide production rates," Beaulieu said. "This research shows that river networks play an important role in how human nitrogen use affects climate change and ozone loss."

The new study reports that streams and river networks are the source of at least 10 percent of human-caused nitrous oxide emission to the atmosphere worldwide, which is three times the amount estimated by an earlier report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Beaulieu and Tank suggest that reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from stream and river networks can be achieved through changes in urban and agricultural land use patterns, such as reduced agricultural fertilizer application.

Jake Beaulieu
University of Notre Dame

Chesapeake Bay regs would cost cattlemen $30,000 to $40,000 each

http://southeastfarmpress.com/government/bay-regs-would-cost-cattlemen-30000-40000-each

Bay regs would cost cattlemen $30,000 to $40,000 each

From the Virginia Farm Bureau

Dec. 22, 2010 7:18am

If Congress pushes through proposed Chesapeake Bay legislation during its lame duck session, Virginia farmers could face billions of dollars in additional expenses.

"On the farmer side of the equation, we’re talking about somewhere in the neighborhood between $1.5 billion and $3 billion," said Wilmer Stoneman, Virginia Farm Bureau Federation associate director of governmental relations. "Fencing cattle out of streams, the icon of the Chesapeake Bay Program, is going to cost $800 million. It will probably cost around $30,000 to $40,000 apiece for every cattle farmer in the watershed. And that’s a cost that they can’t absorb on their own."

Stoneman is featured on The Real Dirt explaining why Farm Bureau members are opposed to the bill and how voluntary water quality protection efforts of thousands of farmers have been ignored.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS267497637520101220?pageNumber=1

Federal Cap on Water Pollution Is Chesapeake Bay's Road to Remedy

By Lisa Song at SolveClimate

Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:24am EST

Nutrient trading in some states is similar to the carbon cap and trade Congress failed to pass to address global warming pollution

By Lisa Song

When Dawn Stoltzfus looks at the Chesapeake Bay, she sees a body of water on life support. "It's barely hanging on," Stoltzfus, a spokeswoman from the Maryland Department of the Environment, told SolveClimate News.

The Chesapeake Bay is the country's largest estuary, with a watershed that's home to 17 million people. Despite decades of cleanup efforts, the estuary remains plagued by invasive species, harmful algal blooms and loss of wetland habitat.

Excessive nutrients pose the biggest challenge to water quality, and for the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency is setting mandatory limits on Bay-wide nutrient loads.

The final numbers—called Total Maximum Daily Loads—will be released later in December and are supported by executive orders from May and September 2010, when President Obama called for better restoration of the Bay's ecosystem health.

In draft targets released in September, the EPA aimed to reduce the Bay's nitrogen and phosphorous by 25% from current levels, with all reduction measures in place by 2025.

If that sounds like the federal government is putting a cap on the water pollution flowing into the Chesapeake, that’s because that’s exactly what it is. Further, in order to meet and possibly go beyond those pollution limits, several states in the watershed have initiated nutrient trading programs.

The basic concept is the same as the carbon trading Congress has failed to pass to address global warming pollution. Businesses that would produce too much nutrient pollution can buy nutrient credits from other businesses that operate under the allocated limits.

Chuck Fox, senior advisor to the EPA Administrator, said this work on daily load limits in the Chesapeake is the most aggressive and most complicated done in EPA history.

"We want to bring a new level of leadership and write a new course of history for the Chesapeake Bay," he said.

Failure to Comply Will Have Consequences

Each year, millions of pounds of nitrogen and phosphorous are washed into the bay. These nutrients, which originate from wastewater treatment plants, fertilizer runoff and air pollution, can induce algal blooms that remove oxygen from the water and block sunlight from reaching underwater plants.

All marine habitats need nutrients to survive, said Richard Batiuk, Associate Director for Science at EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office. But the nutrient load has gotten so excessive it's like “we've poured on cheeseburgers and fries." The Bay needs to be put on a diet, he said.

Past clean-up efforts relied on voluntary nutrient reduction goals. If a state didn't meet its goal, there was no price to pay except for some bad press, Batiuk said.

The upcoming Daily Loads will apply to six watershed states – New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia – and hold them responsible for their nutrient output. States that don't comply will face consequences, such as stricter Daily Loads in the future and decreased EPA funding for state programs. In addition, states must commit to two-year milestones that clearly demonstrate progress.

Each state is free to come up with its own method of nutrient reduction. The process began this summer, when the EPA calculated preliminary figures for Total Maximum Daily Loads. Each state then wrote strategy reports on how they would meet those limits: examples include upgrading wastewater treatment plants or planting cover crops to reduce soil erosion. The strategies will be updated once the EPA publishes final Daily Load figures later this month.

This flexibility allows each state to use the strategies that are best for them, said Batiuk. For example, New York, which has a very strong local-based government system, is working to clean up local streams and rivers that feed into the Chesapeake. Delaware, with its poultry farming industry, is turning manure into landscape fertilizer to be sold across the eastern seaboard.

Nutrient Credit Trading in Three States

Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia operate nutrient trading programs. Maryland's began in 2008, and it was aimed at point-sources of pollution such as wastewater treatment plants. After two years, the program yielded only a single credit trade. That’s because the point-sources were reluctant to sell off their right to pollute.

Any wastewater plant that sells nutrient credits is effectively driving development to its competitors, said John Rhoderick, Administrator of Resource Conservation Operations in Maryland's Department of Agriculture. Once a treatment plant reaches the maximum Daily Load, there's no way to expand service to new customers.

To encourage trading, earlier this month Maryland expanded the trading program to include non-point sources of pollution -- such as agricultural runoff. State experts have begun to assess individual farms to estimate the nutrient output. If the farm has nutrient credits to spare, farmers can sell them and generate revenue.

"Right now we have a lot of interest from people we've run these assessments on," Rhoderick said, but no one has jumped into trading yet. Market signals aren’t clear enough. The credits haven’t been priced, because the prices will depend on how many farmers opt into the program. The expectation is that farmers who find ways to reduce nutrient output will be able to sell their credits to wastewater treatment plants seeking to expand, and generate added income.

Rhoderick points out that the nutrient credit trading program is different from carbon cap and trade programs that people are familiar with in one important respect. Under Maryland's current program, polluters can’t begin trading until they have met their nutrient limits. They can’t keep polluting and buy their way into compliance. They must first comply, before trading their way into possible expansion.

Still Rhoderick expects there will be plenty of buyers. The trick will be to get sellers into the market, and that's what the expanded trading program aims to do. By 2015, Rhoderick is hoping to see 10% of Maryland's farmers trading nutrient credits.

Pennsylvania’s nutrient credit system also had a slow start. Now six years old, it didn’t see its first trade until 2007. Since then, there have been nine completed trades with another six pending. In total, the state has traded 92,000 nitrogen credits and 200 phosphorous credits (each credit is equal to a pound of nutrient).

Looking into the future, experts are looking at ways to combine nutrient trading with carbon cap and trade. Some conservation practices such as planting trees sequester carbon in addition to absorbing nutrients; a recent University of Maryland study modeled how both practices might be combined yielding dual benefits to landowners.

Batiuk hopes that Chesapeake Bay will set an example for the nation. If the collaborative efforts work here, he said, then this gives hope for bigger projects like restoring the Gulf of Mexico, whose watershed drains a much larger area but which shares many of the same problems as the Chesapeake.

Real Challenges in Algae-based CO2 Capture

Oilgae

Real Challenges in Algae-based CO₂ Capture

I thought it would be good to revisit the topic of CO₂ capture (and partial sequestration) by algae, where the idea is to use the CO₂ from concentrated CO₂ emitting sources, especially power plants, to grow algae and use the biomass to produce biofuels. The concept is enticing in that it solves two problems in one go – reduces the net amount of CO₂ released into the atmosphere while providing us with a renewable source of biofuel.

But, as will not be surprising, there are significant challenges this concept faces, and it can be safely said that it will take at least five years before anyone can convincingly come up with a biological/engineering model that can accomplish this sustainably. All the same, it is a domain that has exceptional potential. With this in mind, the Oilgae team does a continuous review of this field; I thought I’d share some of our latest thoughts about algae-based CO₂ capture with you.

You will appreciate this is a relatively vast topic to be covered in a single newsletter; so I will limit myself to revisiting the real challenges that we see in algae-based CO₂ capture.

I would request who would like more details on any of the challenges listed below to send me a note so I could answer specific questions (to the extent possible, that is).

1	It is difficult, if not impossible, to capture 100% of CO2 that is pumped into the ponds This could be an important challenge, given that the total cost of CO2 capture, cooling, transportation and ultimate transfer to the ponds is one of the largest cost contributors for algae biofuel production. A literature review suggests that it might be difficult to achieve capture %s that are higher than 75%.
2	Energy costs for constructing sumps The % of absorption of CO2 increases significantly if sumps are constructed in a customized manner within the ponds. However, construction of these pumps could add a few % points to the total cost.
3	Storage of CO2 during night Algae consume CO2 during the daytime and they do not consume any CO2 during night when they in fact respire and let out CO2. Thus, any system needs to ensure that there is a storage of CO2 piped from the power plant. This could add to costs.
4	Overall economic viability Ultimately, the challenge for algae-based CO2 might not be technical or biological in nature, it is more likely to be economic. The costs of algae-based CO2 capture are still quite unclear.
5	Industrial incentives and perception Where the power plants have no penalties for not sequestering the CO2 that they generate, there is little incentive for these plants to invest in uncertain technologies such as algae-based CCS. And at a time when implementing even a pilot-scale algae-based CCS effort could cost in millions, a lack of clear incentive or penalties will be a severe inhibitor to research efforts. While Copenhagen was a disaster, I am not sure how much better Cancun has performed in the context of getting national mandates on CO2 capture / sequestration.
6	Water source near the power plants It requires about a million liters of water to make 1 T of dry algae biomass. In order for a large power plant to have algae cultivation that sequesters millions of T of CO2 per year, it is imperative to have access to large quantities of water., which the power plants might not have access to. Narasimhan Santhanam www.oilgae.com