Workshop Gives Insight on Bay Restoration Projects
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 03/28/2008 - 10:04am.
Chris Torres
Staff Writer
RUTHSBURG, Md. — From lasers to satellite technology, scientists are trying to figure out what makes the Choptank River tick and how to clean it up.
On Tuesday, a group of scientists, policymakers and farmers got a chance to see up close and personal what’s being done to monitor the river during a workshop put on by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
The day featured presentations from numerous scientists on projects they have been working on to study the Choptank River as well as a tour of a farm where some experiments are taking place.
It was called a “customer workshop” as representatives of numerous agencies that provide funding to the program were there to see what progress has been made.
There was also a panel which focused on the future of bay restoration programs.
Edith Thompson, senior legislative assistant for U.S. Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), was one of the organizers of the event. She said the meeting is beneficial to educate policymakers to see how tax dollars are being used to benefit Chesapeake Bay restoration programs.
Since 2004, ARS has led the project, along with several other state and federal agencies, to study the Choptank River and the effects “best management practices” have on it as well as the Chesapeake Bay. The river is one of only 14 “benchmark watersheds” in the nation, meaning funding has been set aside to study the watershed on a long-term bases.
A recent report from the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science concluded the Choptank River is the second most polluted river in Maryland because of its high amount of nutrients and sediments, much of which comes from agricultural operations.
Greg McCarty, an ARS soil scientist, said scientists are using remote sensing and satellite technology along with analyzing cover crops and buffer areas to come up with ways to better forecast how these practices affect the watershed.
According to McCarty, the watershed along with 15 “subwatersheds” are being monitored. Scientists are collecting things such as nutrient and pesticide samples so “we can look at, for example, how pesticide use changes through the seasons.”
Scientists are also utilizing satellite imagery along with agronomic data and ground based collections to determine nutrient uptakes from cover crops.
Controlled drainage structures are being studied to see if they can better control the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus going into the Choptank.
According to Megan Lang, a research associate at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Md., radar has been used to monitor wetland “hydroperiods”. Better understanding wetlands, Lang said, is important because they can be utilized to absorb nutrient and sediment runoff from farm operations.
“Hydroperiod is very dynamic and it’s powerful in terms of water quality dynamics,” she said.
Radar, along with laser technology that collects surface elevation, has helped her come to the conclusion that much of the Eastern Shore was once made up of numerous small bays and that farmers drained these bays by excavating ditches so they could farm the ground. Reclaiming some of these wetlands, she said, could be beneficial to absorbing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment runoff in the future.
Dean Hively, a soil scientist with the USDA, is looking at which types of winter cover crops work best to capture excess nitrogen and phosphorus on farms and whether they can help to reduce the river’s nutrient and sediment loads.
Satellite images, which are collected four times a year, depict plant growth, crop rotations and land use changes in the watershed, Hively explained. By taking samples of cover crops and looking at farm biomass measurements, he is then able to calculate cover crop nutrient uptake throughout the watershed.
“The technique appears to be working well,” he said.
Hively, along with several other scientists, will be looking at 600 fields this year.
His research is important to John Rhoderick, administrator of the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s Resource Conservation Operations.
The state offers a cover crop cost share program, which allows farmers to enroll anywhere between five and 700 acres of cover crops to be reimbursed by the state. About $8 million has been set aside for the first-come, first-serve program.
“A lot of dollars are going to BMPs in the Choptank, but what we don’t know is what comes out of it,” Rhoderick said.
Many of the things the scientists talked about are being studied at William Collier’s farm in neighboring Caroline County. Later in the day, the group loaded a bus and toured three different stations at the farm.
At the farm, scientists gave demonstrations on drainage control, remote sensing and wetland conservation practices.
Collier, who said he will retire from farming next year, said he was more than willing to offer his farm for research. He wants to see his land remain in farming and feels research is the key to better understanding what affects the bay and to keep funding available for bay restoration projects.
“If there is not good research out there, the politics take over. Politicians are good at throwing money towards pork barrel type things and things like this often get looked over,” he said.
A panel, which included two educators, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program and a local farmer, talked about what they’d like to see become priorities when it comes to restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Jeff Lape, head of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program, said he’d like to see more research focused on nutrient and sediments in the bay as well as on biofuels, because of potential increased nitrogen levels as a result of producing more corn.
Amanda Bassow, program director for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Chesapeake Bay programs, said she’d like to see more research on nutrient trading programs to see if funding them is beneficial or not.
Russ Brinsfield of the University of Maryland said funding for restoration programs should be targeted more to locations that contribute the most nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads to the bay.
Along with that, he called on full funding for the state’s cover crop program, establishing riparian buffers along all tributaries and streams that feed into the Chesapeake Bay and improving nutrient management planning by developing a program to better track nutrient levels in soils.
Jennifer Rhodes, an extension agent from Queen Anne’s County, Md., said farmers she has talked to are worried about staying profitable in an area where so much is being talked about using fertilizers and better managing manure.
“When farmers are profitable, we will keep land in farmland,” Rhodes said. “We always get blamed for everything that happens, but we all live in this watershed, we all are to blame for this.”
She said a review of nutrient loading and nutrient efficiency in livestock as well as better communicating research to the community is something she’d like to see more.
Jim Saathoff, a grain farmer from Caroline County, said he’d like to see programs that benefit farmers who do a good job in being stewards of the land instead of just “throwing money out to all farmers.”
His chance on the panel gave him an opportunity to sound off on funding for poultry manure storage structures, which he said are a fire hazard and his dislike of nutrient management plans, which he said unfairly target farmers and are burdensome.
“It has done absolutely nothing for me. It has caused me headaches and nightmares and I don’t think it has done anything to save the bay,” he said. “We have to endure all of the rules and regulations people make. But some of the people making decisions don’t understand what’s going on at the farm.”
Chris TorresStaff Writer
RUTHSBURG, Md. — From lasers to satellite technology, scientists are trying to figure out what makes the Choptank River tick and how to clean it up.
On Tuesday, a group of scientists, policymakers and farmers got a chance to see up close and personal what’s being done to monitor the river during a workshop put on by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
The day featured presentations from numerous scientists on projects they have been working on to study the Choptank River as well as a tour of a farm where some experiments are taking place.
It was called a “customer workshop” as representatives of numerous agencies that provide funding to the program were there to see what progress has been made.
There was also a panel which focused on the future of bay restoration programs.
Edith Thompson, senior legislative assistant for U.S. Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), was one of the organizers of the event. She said the meeting is beneficial to educate policymakers to see how tax dollars are being used to benefit Chesapeake Bay restoration programs.
Since 2004, ARS has led the project, along with several other state and federal agencies, to study the Choptank River and the effects “best management practices” have on it as well as the Chesapeake Bay. The river is one of only 14 “benchmark watersheds” in the nation, meaning funding has been set aside to study the watershed on a long-term bases.
A recent report from the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science concluded the Choptank River is the second most polluted river in Maryland because of its high amount of nutrients and sediments, much of which comes from agricultural operations.
Greg McCarty, an ARS soil scientist, said scientists are using remote sensing and satellite technology along with analyzing cover crops and buffer areas to come up with ways to better forecast how these practices affect the watershed.
According to McCarty, the watershed along with 15 “subwatersheds” are being monitored. Scientists are collecting things such as nutrient and pesticide samples so “we can look at, for example, how pesticide use changes through the seasons.”
Scientists are also utilizing satellite imagery along with agronomic data and ground based collections to determine nutrient uptakes from cover crops.
Controlled drainage structures are being studied to see if they can better control the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus going into the Choptank.
According to Megan Lang, a research associate at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Md., radar has been used to monitor wetland “hydroperiods”. Better understanding wetlands, Lang said, is important because they can be utilized to absorb nutrient and sediment runoff from farm operations.
“Hydroperiod is very dynamic and it’s powerful in terms of water quality dynamics,” she said.
Radar, along with laser technology that collects surface elevation, has helped her come to the conclusion that much of the Eastern Shore was once made up of numerous small bays and that farmers drained these bays by excavating ditches so they could farm the ground. Reclaiming some of these wetlands, she said, could be beneficial to absorbing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment runoff in the future.
Dean Hively, a soil scientist with the USDA, is looking at which types of winter cover crops work best to capture excess nitrogen and phosphorus on farms and whether they can help to reduce the river’s nutrient and sediment loads.
Satellite images, which are collected four times a year, depict plant growth, crop rotations and land use changes in the watershed, Hively explained. By taking samples of cover crops and looking at farm biomass measurements, he is then able to calculate cover crop nutrient uptake throughout the watershed.
“The technique appears to be working well,” he said.
Hively, along with several other scientists, will be looking at 600 fields this year.
His research is important to John Rhoderick, administrator of the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s Resource Conservation Operations.
The state offers a cover crop cost share program, which allows farmers to enroll anywhere between five and 700 acres of cover crops to be reimbursed by the state. About $8 million has been set aside for the first-come, first-serve program.
“A lot of dollars are going to BMPs in the Choptank, but what we don’t know is what comes out of it,” Rhoderick said.
Many of the things the scientists talked about are being studied at William Collier’s farm in neighboring Caroline County. Later in the day, the group loaded a bus and toured three different stations at the farm.
At the farm, scientists gave demonstrations on drainage control, remote sensing and wetland conservation practices.
Collier, who said he will retire from farming next year, said he was more than willing to offer his farm for research. He wants to see his land remain in farming and feels research is the key to better understanding what affects the bay and to keep funding available for bay restoration projects.
“If there is not good research out there, the politics take over. Politicians are good at throwing money towards pork barrel type things and things like this often get looked over,” he said.
A panel, which included two educators, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program and a local farmer, talked about what they’d like to see become priorities when it comes to restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Jeff Lape, head of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program, said he’d like to see more research focused on nutrient and sediments in the bay as well as on biofuels, because of potential increased nitrogen levels as a result of producing more corn.
Amanda Bassow, program director for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Chesapeake Bay programs, said she’d like to see more research on nutrient trading programs to see if funding them is beneficial or not.
Russ Brinsfield of the University of Maryland said funding for restoration programs should be targeted more to locations that contribute the most nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads to the bay.
Along with that, he called on full funding for the state’s cover crop program, establishing riparian buffers along all tributaries and streams that feed into the Chesapeake Bay and improving nutrient management planning by developing a program to better track nutrient levels in soils.
Jennifer Rhodes, an extension agent from Queen Anne’s County, Md., said farmers she has talked to are worried about staying profitable in an area where so much is being talked about using fertilizers and better managing manure.
“When farmers are profitable, we will keep land in farmland,” Rhodes said. “We always get blamed for everything that happens, but we all live in this watershed, we all are to blame for this.”
She said a review of nutrient loading and nutrient efficiency in livestock as well as better communicating research to the community is something she’d like to see more.
Jim Saathoff, a grain farmer from Caroline County, said he’d like to see programs that benefit farmers who do a good job in being stewards of the land instead of just “throwing money out to all farmers.”
His chance on the panel gave him an opportunity to sound off on funding for poultry manure storage structures, which he said are a fire hazard and his dislike of nutrient management plans, which he said unfairly target farmers and are burdensome.
“It has done absolutely nothing for me. It has caused me headaches and nightmares and I don’t think it has done anything to save the bay,” he said. “We have to endure all of the rules and regulations people make. But some of the people making decisions don’t understand what’s going on at the farm.”
