The Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper, P. O. Box 961, Eastville, VA 23347-0961; 757-678-6182; info@shorekeeper.org
Contents copyright 2011-2012. Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper. All rights reserved.
Eastern Shore Bay TMDL WIP Public Comments
posted Feb. 13, 2012
The following are comments I made about TMDLs, following the TMDL public forum event hosted by Rep. Lynwood Lewis at the Eastern Shore Community College last fall.
To Whom it May Concern,
My name is David Burden, and I am the Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper. As Shorekeeper I represent a membership of over 200 Eastern Shore of Virginia residents and business owners who care deeply about protecting, preserving, and improving the quality of the coastal waters of the Eastern Shore. The purpose of this letter is to encourage the Counties of the Eastern Shore and the ANPDC to be leaders in the implementation of the Bay TMDL, and to take advantage of the historic opportunity the program provides to restore the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and the tremendous social, environmental, and economic benefits that accompany that restoration
The Bay TMDL is the latest step in a process that has been developing over more than 25 years. The Bay TMDL was called for in the 2000 Chesapeake Agreement as a follow-up measure if nutrient reduction goals were not met by 2010. The Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) were developed by the States. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell’s administration was responsible for our plan. It is also important to note that the steps called for in the plan are voluntary. No particular farmer, town, or business is being forced to implement any unique BMP. However, if the regions fail to meet their goals, then Richmond will step in and dictate how things are done. If Richmond fails to do so adequately then the EPA can get involved. It is in our best interest to be leaders in this effort rather than attempt to stall it and end up having outside parties tell us how to manage our lands.
I had hoped to be able to comment on the actual WIP compliance plans that the ANPDC had put together for the counties as the Director of the ANPDC had promised at the Bay TMDL Workshop that Del. Lewis had hosted at the Eastern Shore Community College. As these plans have not been made available, the public is forced to assume what direction has been taken by the ANPDC. This is very unfortunate and somewhat defeats the purpose of public comment. If the public comments of the Director of the ANPDC are an indicator of the direction that is being suggested to our counties, then I and many other Eastern Shore residents and business leaders will be very disappointed. The option that seems to be in favor - to complain about the TMDL and fight the clean up of the Bay while misleading the public to believe that the Eastern Shore is being singled out or forced to absorb all of the cleanup costs on our own - is counter productive, shortsighted, and will hurt the Eastern Shore for generations to come. Since the Eastern Shore is uniquely situated to benefit the most from a cleaner Chesapeake Bay, and we are only being asked to be an equal partner in reducing pollution, it is difficult to understand why either county would make such a shortsighted decision rather than leading the charge to secure grants and other funds for local municipalities, farmers, businesses and residents. I sincerely hope that the ANPDC is recommending that both Accomack and Northampton Counties reach out to both the State and the EPA to propose that the Eastern Shore of Virginia should be used as an example of how to best implement the Bay TMDL and the Watershed Implementation Plans developed to support it.
Funding for WIP implementation will not be unlimited. The best course of action for the Eastern Shore is to doggedly pursue the available funding to ensure that the cost of the implementation of the Bay TMDL does not fall on our local farmers and taxpayers. The farming community has raised some very valid concerns about the Bay TMDL process, and the EPA is working with farmers and their representatives to address these concerns. Among the solutions being developed are a “Safe Harbor” definition to guarantee farmers will not have to deal with a constantly moving goal of compliance. Farmers have never said that they cannot meet the goals of the Bay TMDL. They have made it clear that they are concerned about securing grand and other funding assistance and that they want clarity in the end goal for their farms. Accomack, Northampton, and the ANPDC should be leading the charge to secure funding for the Bay TMDL compliance efforts that local farmers are ready and willing to make rather than stalling the process and allowing those dollars to flow to other communities.
Just this week the Chesapeake Bay Foundation released a study that discusses “How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region." In this report, a citation is made of a University of Virginia study stating that “About 11,751 temporary jobs are expected to be created over five years if Virginia and the federal governments invest $804 million in farm runoff- control projects such as planting trees and building fences along streams to meet Bay-pollution goals.” These can be Eastern Shore jobs, or the jobs can go elsewhere. It is up to our leaders to demonstrate that we heartily support the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, that we are willing to do our part, and that the Eastern Shore is the perfect place for Virginia to invest those job-creating dollars.
The purpose of the Bay TMDL is to reduce the pollution stress on the Chesapeake Bay. The agriculture industry will have to be part of the solution to this challenge. However, agriculture is not being singled out. Reductions will continue to be made in wastewater treatment facilities, and urban storm-water runoff has to be dealt with as well. In places like the Eastern Shore where runoff from agricultural lands accounts for the majority of our Nitrogen and Phosphorus load, it may seem like an undue emphasis is being put on agriculture, but it is just one part of the puzzle. A significant facet of the Bay cleanup plan calls for the funding of grants and cost share programs to reduce this economic impact on farmers and land owners.
When the McDonnell Administration developed their strategy for meeting the goals of the Bay TMDL they decided that their priority would be to seek the most cost effective reductions in Nitrogen and Phosphorus. This means that they targeted Agricultural BMPs (Best Management Practices) as a large part of their strategy. Since both of our counties have a significant amount of agricultural land in production, we are being asked to make some significant pollution reductions. There are other contributing factors to Bay pollution that are being addressed, and it should be noted that Virginia has spent over $1 Billion in the last decade on improvements to wastewater treatment facilities throughout the Commonwealth including multi-million dollar grants to both the Cape Charles and Onancock wastewater treatment plants. These types of improvements have led to a 42% reduction in the amount of Nitrogen and a 68% cut in Phosphorus from municipal wastewater plants discharging into the Bay.
This is the type of progress and investment we should be proud of, and working hard to replicate. The Chesapeake Bay is a tremendous economic engine for the Eastern Shore. As the EPA finally steps up to do its job and hold every community in the Bay Watershed responsible for their part of the cleanup effort, the Eastern Shore should recognize that this is an incredible economic development opportunity for our region, and that to do anything less than embrace the TMDL and lead the charge for clean water is irresponsible. In addition to the cleanup related jobs that will be created by the TMDL, decision makers should take note of the following facts:
- A 2005 study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) found that the value of annual fisheries landings was $13.7 million for Accomack County and $2.9 million for Northampton County.
- A report by the Virginia Tourism Corporation stated that in 2009 tourists contributed $137.5 million to Accomack County, creating 1,850 jobs and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. In Northampton County, tourists spent almost $56.9 million, supporting 730 jobs and nearly $1.2 million in local sales tax receipts.
- A new VIMS study found that 2010 revenue taken home by Virginia clam and oyster aquaculturists was $25 million and $5 million, respectively.
- Accomack and Northampton revenues depend heavily on local real estate taxes (which generate about 80% of local county revenues), which in turn, depend on property values. Studies show that clean water can increase the value of nearby property by up to 25%.
One of the under-appreciated aspects of the Bay TMDL is that we are actually relying on the Bay to clean itself as we reduce the amount of pollution stress we place on it. The costs of a polluted Chesapeake Bay are with us every day. Since 1993 the number of watermen working the Bay has fallen from 14,000 to 1,500. The collapse of the natural Bay Oyster population has cost us over $4 Billion over the last 3 decades. Restoring the natural health of the Chesapeake Bay is arguably the best regional jobs program we could possibly hope for. And with a value of over $1 Trillion, the Chesapeake Bay is an asset we can’t afford to continue to abuse. On behalf of the members of the Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper organization, I sincerely and strongly encourage the leaders of Accomack and Northampton Counties to work together with the State and the EPA to make the Eastern Shore a model community within the Bay TMDL program, and to doggedly pursue the funding assistance our farmers and localities need in order to meet their cleanup goals.
Respectfully,
Dave Burden
Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper
There has been a great deal of discussion about the Bay TMDL and what it means for the Eastern Shore. Unfortunately it seems that a great deal of this discussion is driven by misinformation and suspicion of regulations in general.
If you are interested in learning more about the Bay TMDL, below you will find some links to PDFs and websites that contain a great deal of information about the process and the need for a comprehensive approach to reducing the amount of pollution we dump in to the Bay every day.
It contains a lot of information, and I’d suggest checking out the following two links from their page in particular.
How does it work? Ensuring results - http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/EnsuringResults.html
& Fact Sheets & Key Documents - http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/ResourceLibrary.html#keydocs
In particular you may want to look at the Virginia Planning Targets, the Our Waters Our Towns document, and the Driving Actions to Clean Local Waters Fact Sheet.
You can see the State’s TMDL page here: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/vabaytmdl/index.shtml
It should be noted that the current administration seems to favor less stringent guidelines, nutrient trading (allowing folks to pollute one creek if they pay someone else to clean up another) and other policies that do not fall in line with the EPA’s vision of the TMDL. That being said, you will still see that their policies include making significant strides toward cleaning up the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has a good article about the establishment of the TMDL here: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/news_finaltmdl.aspx?menuitem=55465 with links to a couple of other pieces they have put together.
For non-governmental sources, you can see what the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has to say about the Bay TMDL here: http://cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=2518, or a history of the process that brought us to where we are today here: http://cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=2527 (If you read our ad in the Eastern Shore News you saw a similar timeline.)
There are a ton of other resources out there on the internet, and you can find opinions from people who think that we should get to work today to clean the Bay as well as those who believe that we should wait a few more years, keep polluting, and study the issue some more. There is nobody who will tell you that they have a plan to stop Bay pollution at no cost, or that it will be easy. This is a difficult job and there’s no way around it. At some point we will have to step up and take responsibility for our actions. I guess the question we have to ask is “are we ready to commit to a clean Chesapeake Bay, or do we think we can wait a while and let the next generation clean up the mess?”
About Objections to TMDLS
One of the objections I have heard to the Bay TMDL is that the Agriculture community is being picked on and that the whole responsibility rides on their shoulders. While nobody likes to be told what to do, it’s time for everyone to stop pointing fingers at other parties and start doing the things we all know need to be done to clean up the Bay. This means farmers, towns, businesses, and individual homeowners.
But since the Ag community is particularly bent out of shape over the Bay TMDL, let’s address a couple of their concerns.
1 – We want to get credit for existing practices – The most common complaint I have heard from the Ag community is that they won’t get credit for the good work they have already done. What they are saying is that they have implemented a large number of voluntary BPS (Best Management Practices) with their own money because they didn’t want the government telling them how to implement them. This means that they did not receive government assistance for these projects (there are grants and cost share programs to implement BMPs) and they have not reported these BMPs to the agencies that tally the number BMPs on the ground. The concern is that as goals are set, the farmers will never get recognized for the uncounted BMPs that are currently in place. I have asked about this in every Bay TMDL meeting I have attended, and asked very clearly “Will farmers get credit for uncounted BMPs that are already in place?” The answer has been “Yes” 100% of the time. Of course these BMPs have to meet standards, and they have to be reported in order to be counted. A farmer or land owner can’t just write down on a piece of paper that they have done X,Y, & Z, and get credit for having done it. Just like a student can’t just tell their teacher that they’ve written a great paper but don’t want to turn it in.
At the Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper we firmly believe that all farmers should get credit for all of the BMPs they have implemented. If any farmer has an issue getting a particular BMP recognized, we want to know about it. This is an important issue for Eastern Shore farmers, and it is vital to the success of the Bay TMDL.
2 – We need more testing and modeling in order to make sure we’re going to get all of the results we expect before we implement this plan. - Nobody seems to be questioning whether or not many of these BMPs work. Most of the folks involved in this discussion have accepted that vegetative buffers, retention ponds, filter strips, rock dams, and nutrient management plans do reduce runoff pollution to the Bay. But some lobbyists and lawyers are proposing that since we don’t have exact numbers to tell us how each one will work on every farm that we should not implement these accepted practices. So while they concede that 1+1=2, they’re not sure that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=22.
This seems to be another example of people deciding when to believe in science or not based on their own financial agendas. We can keep studying the levels of pollution we dump in to the Bay for decades. We will never have definitive proof that everything we propose will meet all of its goals all of the time. But if your child were standing in the middle of a highway, would you wait to get them off the road until you had definitive proof that they were going to get hit by a car, or would you accept that a high probability of their getting hit was good enough for you and take some action to get them out of harms way?
3 – We think the Bay model is flawed. – Some national Agricultural and Homebuilders groups are proposing that the Chesapeake Bay Model is not a useful tool. This is the basis of much of their PR campaign against the TMDL. They’ve produced their own study which has been independently assessed to be misleading and flawed.
You can learn more about this here: http://cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=2646
http://www.cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=2672
Here are a couple of good articles about BMPs & why they matter:
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/cleanandclear/ag-bmps.htm
http://www.vcnva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,403,418,0,html/Agricultural-Best-Management-Practices-Ag-BMPs
Of course we knew that not everyone would like this. There are plenty of people who would prefer that the public not worry about the details and debate over when, how, or why our government makes the decisions it does. Most of those people are the ones who make the decisions. You see, governing is a messy job (trust me, I did a little bit of it), and you have to balance competing interests in a way that generally ensures that someone is going to be upset with you. On the Shore we have some powerful special interest groups who do apply a lot of pressure to our elected officials. Unfortunately the environmental movement is not generally considered one of these powerful forces. We tend to look for compromises and accept that anyone saying the word “jobs” is going to win any debate, whether they have the facts or track record to back up their promises or not.
As we saw the direction that the discussion over the Bay TMDL was taking in the public forum, it was easy to see that the folks who think that the government should stay away from regulating pollution and just leave us all alone were controlling the tone and content. We could talk privately with individuals and make a little bit of progress, but it was getting clearer and clearer that when it came time to vote, nobody else was going to stand up in front of their Board members and make a strong argument for supporting the Bay TMDL.
This issue is important because we are standing at a unique crossroads in time for the Bay. For the first time we have a Federal mandate with some teeth to it that will compel all of the Bay States and the District of Columbia to take meaningful steps to reduce pollution flowing in to the Chesapeake Bay. Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices, and it’s going to be hard, but we actually have people who are willing to hold our feet to the fire and make us clean up our mess.
With pressure mounting form special interests to join in to a lawsuit filed by the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association of Homebuilders, we recognized that two of our most influential lobbying groups were ahead of the game in the public discourse. In September I spoke at the Northampton Board of Supervisors meeting to encourage them to reject the temptation to join this lawsuit designed to stall the Bay cleanup efforts. Not one word about it was reported in either of our papers. I have spoken to Accomack Supervisors, and asked to be included on their meeting agenda so that we could discuss the issue in public. I have received no response to this request.
While it may be uncomfortable for our local leaders to have this discussion in public, I believe that it is important for the citizens of the Eastern Shore to have their voices heard regarding clean water and the vital importance of the health of the Chesapeake Bay. This is an issue that affects all of us, and failing to address it because it’s politically difficult is not an option. We do have some political leaders who don’t want to have difficult discussions about difficult issues. I have no sympathy for them.
Having sat on the Northampton County Board of Supervisors and listened intently to a wide range of viewpoints on highly contentious issues, I know how hard it can be to be assaulted on all sides of an issue, and I think that this type of contentious public discourse forces leaders to have courage and conviction in their decisions. I am not here to demand that anyone do as I say, but I will demand to be heard, and so should you.
If the leaders of our Counties want to vote against cleaning up the Bay, and spend our money fighting for the right of special interests to keep polluting, then they can make that decision, but our job is to ensure that they’re going to have to make it in public and they’re going to have to justify their actions with more than mumbled platitudes about mom and apple pie.
For some more information on why the TMDL is being implemented and what it means, please check out this article in the Bay Journal: http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=3417
They also have an interview with the head of the EPA’s Senior Advisor on the Chesapeake Bay, Jeff Corbin, here: http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=4058
It’s not the most challenging interview, but gives you a little bit of insight into how Mr. Corbin sees his job and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.
Incidentally, during his time with the Kaine Administration Mr. Corbin spent some time on the Shore and has expressed an affinity for what he recognized as one of the Commonwealth’s most significant natural areas.
Dear Editor,
I have read with interest the responses to my letter regarding the environmental threats of industrial scale chicken houses, and feel obliged to respond. While I initially composed a detailed response to the various flawed claims in Mr. Creed’s letter, I reconsidered sending it in for two reasons.
1 – If nothing has compelled Mr. Creed and the few other folks who remain opposed to our Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance to read them, then it is doubtful that my letter would do so. Both of these documents allow for the massive chicken houses and ugly strip malls on 13 that Mr. Creed sees as our salvation - a fact that would surprise many Shore residents, especially those who get their news either through gossip mills or from special interest groups.
2 – Mr. Creed’s actual stance on chicken houses is essentially the same as mine. He suggests that we should accommodate large-scale chicken houses if there is a more sustainable way to build and operate them. This is a far cry from allowing them to operate at the current industry standard. Once I got through the insults, sarcasm and hyperbole that make up the bulk of his tirade, I realized that it would probably be more effective to point out this agreement than to offer any credibility to his inaccurate representation of our County planning documents.
Mr. Sturgis’ letter on behalf of the Farm Bureau compelled me to reply, as it is a thoughtful response from a community leader for whom I have a great deal of respect. Mr. Sturgis is one of those farmers who I believe understands his responsibility for proper stewardship and who strives to achieve the highest standards of environmental responsibility.
The only point in his letter that I take issue with is the suggestion that I would reject chicken house operations outright. From our discussions on this issue, Mr. Sturgis is aware that my deep concerns regarding the development of massive industrial scale chicken operations on the Eastern Shore are rooted in the threat that current practices pose to our water quality.
As I have told Mr. Sturgis, I have no problems with chickens. It’s the chicken manure that poses a very serious threat to our water quality. As I stated in my letter, Northampton currently allows chicken houses. I did not propose changing this. They are regulated using the only tool available to the county: the zoning ordinance. They are allowed with significant buffers from our creeks, streams, and Bay. This is appropriate due to the very serious problems that have been caused by runoff from the storage and spreading of chicken manure in areas where you find the type of intense industrial chicken industry that has been proposed for the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
If the chicken industry wishes to propose new regulations that would hold the large chicken corporations responsible for managing manure rather than laying that burden at the feet of family farmers, or regulations that would make all nutrient management plans public information with enforceable oversight, or propose other enforceable measure to ensure water quality, then it might be advisable for the county to alter its only means of managing these operations.
However, one needs only to read recent articles in this paper about the vital importance of our aquaculture and tourism industries to recognize that water quality is an essential and unique resource for our community and our economy. The continued success of these industries does not impact the ability of farmers to operate in this county. However, industrial scale chicken production under standard operating conditions poses a clear threat to both Aquaculture and Tourism, as well as our research and commercial fishing industries, due to its significant negative impact on water quality.
If the Farm Bureau wishes to fulfill it’s mission to “support agriculture in Northampton County while promoting
good stewardship of the land” by advocating for the addition industrial scale
chicken houses to our county, then I invite them to do so by proposing a new
way of operating these facilities and managing the thousands of tons of manure
they produce. If they can provide
an operating strategy that does not impact water quality, and the regulatory
structure to ensure accountability, then I will be the first one to line up
behind them to expand that revolution to chicken operations around the region
and beyond.
If what is proposed is to bring
the same type of environmentally destructive practices to Virginia that have decimated
the waters of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, then I will continue to argue that
it is not worth sacrificing two of our most powerful economic engines and our
quality of life in order to bow down to Big Chicken.
I look forward to continued
discussion of this important issue, and hope that it continues to move toward
looking for ways to create sustainable ways of bringing in new industries as
opposed to lowering our standards in order to attract whatever might happen to
come our way. As I have said for years, we don’t have to sell out in order to
cash in.
Maybe a good next step would be
for the farmers who are interested in adding chicken houses to their farms to
come forward to the Board of Supervisors and work together with members of the
aquaculture and estuarine research sectors to find suitable locations on their
farms for these facilities, and to develop practices that assure that there is
no impact on our water quality.
Sincerely,
Dave Burden
Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper
I am writing to express my concern with the associations made in this paper between sustainable family farms and the massive, industrial-scale factory farming currently being proposed in both Northampton and Accomack counties, as well as the wide ranging effects that accompany these corporate chicken factories.
Responsible family farmers are some of the most active and invested preservationists in our community. On the Eastern Shore we are especially fortunate to have many farmers who have seen the potential in aquaculture and have turned their work ethic, experience, and wealth of knowledge toward this growing industry.
These farmers understand that virtually all of the problems we face with water quality start on the land. These are the farmers who are working hard to find new ways of reducing their impact on our waterways, while simultaneously increasing their profits and production on their land.
If these hardworking community leaders were the men and women pushing for changes to our local regulations in order to add large scale poultry to their operations, I would expect that these requests would come parceled with proposals for how to adequately deal with the thousands of tons of manure produced annually by each of these massive chicken house complexes.
But they are not. As a matter of fact, discussions with Farm Bureau board members have revealed that in the past 15-20 years the number of farmers seeking assistance to locate chicken houses on their property is precisely zero. The interest today comes from the corporate headquarters of Tyson and Perdue.
The state of Maryland is finally being forced to apply their environmental regulations to the chicken industry. Rather than elevate their operations to an environmentally responsible level, these large corporations are seeking to expand their operations here in Virginia where the state does not adequately protect us from the environmental and health threats posed by large-scale industrial chicken farms.
Parents and consumers across the country are starting to recognize the threat that factory farms pose to our environment and our health. Right here on the Shore we have several farmers who have seen the trend toward specialty and organic crops as well as the potential presented by the current trend toward regional food networks.
They are looking forward for solutions to our current economic challenges. Why are some people urging the Northampton County Board of Supervisors to look backward to the failing strategies of corporate food production that have crippled family farms across the country and decimated the health of the waterways of Maryland and the upper Chesapeake Bay?
Northampton's current regulations allow chicken houses with appropriate buffers. These protections should not be removed. Accomack County should be looking at this example to protect their citizens and waterways as well. There is no need to sacrifice our health and economy in order to seduce corporate farms with unsustainable practices.
I encourage every Eastern Shore resident who is concerned with their water quality, their property values, their quality of life, and the health of their children to write to their county supervisor and tell them that they do not want the future of the Shore to be coated in chicken manure.
Dave Burden
Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper
Cheriton
