|
Petersburg
High School
Hampshire High School
Petersburg High School AP Biology Consensus Paper SCE Forum
May 8, 2006
All groups
have met together here, and we have attempted to each a consensus as
to how best begin the clean up, restoration, and maintenance of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed system.
We all agree
that the Chesapeake watershed has suffered in recent years. Species
diversity has decreased, as well as overall wildlife abundance,
including the amount of fish. The overall system has deteriorated
probably due to several factors.
We have
listed certain factors that we think have major impact on the
Chesapeake watershed, ranking them from most to least influential in
impact:
1.
Nutrient runoff, particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus, mostly from agricultural sources.
2.
Sediments resulting from erosion
within the watershed. Sources of the excess sediments are varied
and include agricultural sources, forest road stream crossings,
building sites, and natural storm activity (storm water).
3.
Water borne pollutants from
industrial (point ) sources. We classified these as pollutants
other than nutrient runoff.
4.
Litter, trash, and debris either
thrown carelessly or dumped deliberately into the watershed streams
and the bay.
5.
Air borne pollutants from
industrial and urban sources. This also includes vehicle pollution
from roadways.
These factors are varied
and almost seem overwhelming when the entire watershed is
considered. Therefore, we have decided to address solutions to only
the first two factors in our consensus forum.
Decreasing nutrient
runoff, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, would help the bay
watershed. In order to decrease this runoff, we need to get all the
agricultural sources involved. This means trying to convince
farmers that it is important to them to reduce the nitrogen and
phosphorus they are allowing to run into the streams and rivers.
The farmers in the headwaters (including West Virginia) sometimes
have trouble seeing a benefit for them in this. Some of them only
see this as more trouble. We need to try to educate the farmers on
best management practices that they can use to reduce nutrients and
sediments. The existing agencies (US Fish and Wildlife, EPA,
Department of Agriculture, etc.) could hold forums for farmers, meet
with them on their farms, produce pamphlets or on-line instructions
on how to prevent nutrient or sediment runoff. These agencies could
be given the authority to fine uncooperative farmers who produce
large loads of nitrogen and phosphorus. We could utilize USDA or
other government grant monies to find alternative uses for poultry
litter and other manure.
We need to reduce
sediments going into the watershed along with reducing the nutrient
runoff. Again, we suggest that framers be encouraged to use best
management practices. If possible, monetary incentives from
government grants could be given to farmers who reduce sediments or
nutrients from their lands. Erosion control needs to be enforced in
the forest and agricultural areas. Loggers also need incentives to
implement best management practices, and perhaps also be fined when
their operations result in excessive sedimentation.
The PHS consensus group
thinks that the strategies implemented in the West Virginia Potomac
Tributary Strategy of the Chesapeake Bay Program are good strategies
that should be modeled and implemented by all other areas of the
watershed. If all areas of the watershed would conform to these
policies, the Chesapeake Bay watershed would have a much better
chance of retaining its natural quality, beauty, and diversity.
Hampshire High School Environmental and Earth Science Block 2.
Compiled by Chad.
There are many things that need to be improved in order to help the
Chesapeake Bay. Our class came up with a consensus to help with
this. This includes the immediate needs, future needs, and things
that groups are willing to give up to improve it.
Starting with the bay ecosystem, they decided their immediate needs
were to reduce the flow of nutrients and sediments. They also
decided they had to increase the population and develop healthy
levels of algae. Their future needs were to watch the water and to
make sure the nonpoint pollution is controlled. They then decided
they were willing to give up 10 percent of the population to the
fishermen.
Next to present was the recreational fisherman. They needed stricter
laws on factories and farmers so that population doesn’t go into the
river. The fisherman also decided that there future needs were to
have clean up crews on the river. They were willing to give up money
to go into research for the fish and what is wrong with them and how
they can get the population back up.
The next group was the commercial fisherman who decided that they
should be able to catch as much fish as they have been. The future
goals of this group is to catch more fish than they have in the past
and they decided they were willing to fish in certain areas so the
population can grow faster and they were willing to fish annually.
Farmers was the next group who wanted to not keep populating the
water. Their future goals was to have the water management
supervised so that none of it gets wasted. In the future they wanted
to watch where they manfacture at.
Next up was the city people who had to continue to use the river as
a sewer. They wanted to eventually cut back on using fossil fuels
and get another source for alternative energy. They are willing to
give up money to improve the sewage.
The last group was the boaters. They wanted to patrol for littering
in the future. And they were willing to give up speed zones, that
will imite the times they can boat.
In the end I believe that in order to do anything, all the groups
are going to have to work together if they want to solve the
problem.
Hampshire High School Environmental and Earth Science Block 4.
Compiled by Kevin.
The City is willing to
raise their taxes to improve their sewage system and drinking water.
In exchange they are willing to give up land and slow their
economy’s growth. The farmers are willing to stop using as many
pesticides on their fields which could help increase the water
quality. They need cleaner water for their plants and animals. The
recreational fishermen need cleaner streams and rivers so that fish
will be healthier and live longer, and they need better ways of
getting rid of debris and wastes. They are willing to give up less
amount of fishing time and reduce the limit of harvest. The
fishermen are going to help raise money to help lower pollution. My
group the commercial fishermen need clean water and places that we
can fish to bring money into our households. In the future we hope
to have more fish in the bay. For now we are willing to raise our
prices on the fish that we sell and use the extra profit to help in
the restoration of the bay. The ecosystem’s needs are water. Their
future plans are to have harsher penalties on littering in the bay
and to have constant monitoring of the bay. They are willing to give
up some fish to eventually have a higher population in the bay’s
ecosystem.
|