Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

Gmail Peter Burgess Re: Agriculture, Etc and Biochar: Watershed Impacts on 'High-Profile' Marine Mammals 1 message Lloyd Helferty Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM To: timgoeders@hotmail.com Cc: Gary Hanson personal email Thanks, Tim. Good to hear about the progress on the Airships. And, yes, of course... Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal ecosystems, caused by over-use of fertilisers, is a rapidly growing 'environmental crisis' that will have a strong humanitarian impact both here in North America (in our freshwater ecosystems and also off our coasts), and also globally. You should remember that for a looooong time (years) I have been focusing on Watershed Impacts, and how biochar might be able to help in this area. You may recall that at one point we even had the support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA Region IV) in Atlanta (GA), and I was trying to help them move forward with these types of things, and we had even created a 'FEMA Biochar Initiative' discussion group to try and start this conversation.** (You were also a member of this group.) ** Disclaimer: the group that was created was not officially affiliated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, however some of the people who had created this group did work for FEMA. As you may recall, there were some attempts to involve multiple US Government departments as well, not only including the ten [10] FEMA districts and Headquarters, but also the US Army, the various State Emergency Management associations along with State Forestry & Transportation departments. It was all part of a larger GoM* Initiative (*Gulf of Mexico) to try and deal with the Gulf 'Dead Zone' using biochar produced from disaster woody debris in projects that focused on ecological habitat rehabilitation, watershed management & forestry applications that could help to improve water quality and mitigate the effects of land use, soil erosion, nutrient loading, and fisheries declines from poor agricultural practices in the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas and Tennessee watersheds as a result of the over-application of fertilizers. There was even some hope that this FEMA Biochar project/initiative might end up becoming one of the largest 'Biochar projects' of all time... especially if you consider that after Hurricane Katrina, the Governor of the State of Mississippi (alone) made a proposal for a $1billion restoration/offset program for only the Mississippi Delta. We were talking about a 'biochar programme' that could have eventually [potentially] encompassed about 1/3rd of the area of the Continental United States... and it all started with a discussion I had back in 2008 with an Engineering Tech from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in St Louis, MO, who was contemplating using biochar for the levee fixes along the banks of the Mississippi and within the Organized Levee Districts of Illinois and Missouri. Note: The 'FEMA Biochar Initiative' itself was really all about achieving 'regulatory compliance' so that biochar could become eligible for FEMA funding, 'in order to improve /debris management/ projects... (and) in order to achieve positive contributions to communities' productivity, long-term sustainability, environmental quality, and overall quality of life'. And of course, since that time things do not seem to have improved much: http://www.isustainableearth.com/water-conservation/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone Aug 16, 2014 The Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone is at a staggering 5,052 square miles this year, the second largest in the world. At a staggering 5,052 square miles, the Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone has become a focal point for the growing number of people worried about what humans are doing to harm the planet’s environment. Now the size of the state of Connecticut, the dead zone is an area of low oxygen water, otherwise known as hypoxia. The area covers almost the entire coast of Louisiana and the section of the Texas Gulf coast extended east from Galveston Bay to the Texas-Louisiana border. The dead zone typically appears every spring and lasts through the summer. as reported on the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) website: “Habitats that would normally be teeming with life become, essentially, biological deserts.” Possible Solutions Scientists with NOAA, the EPA and other agencies think there are many different strategies that could result in smaller dead zones. These include: Limiting the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilizers used by agricultural operations. Implementing water conservation and increasing the use of recycled water Searching out, finding and fixing leaks from wastewater treatment plants Limiting the amount of animal waste that enters into the waterways Restoration of wetlands. Millions of acres of wetlands have been lost over the last century, making it harder for water systems to absorb chemicals and waste. Federal, state and local governments are working on wetlands restoration projects around the country, including south Louisiana. Despite the growth of dead zones over the past few decades, scientists remain optimistic that the trend can be reversed with these simple measures. But accomplishing them, given this year’s size of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, may take longer than first anticipated. August 30, 2014 Louisiana's coastline has vanished over the last 80 years http://www.vox.com/2014/8/30/6084585/watch-how-louisianas-coastline-has-vanished-in-the-last-80-years Over the last 80 years, Louisiana has lost nearly 2,000 square miles of coastland — land that has simply vanished into the Gulf of Mexico. And much, much more land is likely to disappear in the years ahead unless major changes are made. But right now I think that many of the 'solutions' to these problems will not come from BIG Funding for BIG projects, but we may instead be able to achieve significantly reduced impacts by focusing on the use of biochar at the 'Community scale', where there are potential applications in local backyard, schoolyard and roof top gardens, wetlands, watersheds, riparian buffers, wildlife habitats, community-based agriculture and in the restoration of underutilized, misused and contaminated land in and around our cities. Thus, the local (Greater Toronto) biochar initiative is also focused on integrating biochar technologies into some sort of an 'Eco-Hub' community project here in the Toronto area... by focusing on Water for People... and Water for Nature (i.e. Freshwater Health).** ** P.S. Ontario is land-locked (not near the ocean), but is surrounded by four out of the five Great Lakes. The health of these important freshwater bodies is thus one of our top priorities. (And I do hope that we will eventually be able to work with our associates in other other Great Lakes States to implement these types of programmes within this entire ecobasin.) The Great Lakes form the largest system of freshwater lakes in the world, with: • ~84% of North America's surface fresh water ~21% of the world's supply of surface fresh water Ontario’s economy and our way of life are both closely tied to these resources. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/business/greatlakes/index.html http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/basicinfo.html Canadians, including Ontarians, are also among the biggest consumers of water in the world, partly because freshwater reserves are so abundant – with average household water use being almost double the European equivalent. In November 2010, the Ontario Legislature passed the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act to help foster growth in water technologies and services via the creation of a technology hub called the 'Water Technology Acceleration Project' (TAP). The Act establishes ‘aspirational targets’ for water conservation. -- see: ACCOUNTANTS FOR BUSINESS: Canada and the green economy (October 2012) P.P.S. The U.S. and Canadian governments are also considering whether to update and strengthen the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which hasn't been significantly revised since 1987. The original agreement commits the two countries to 'restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity' of the world's biggest surface freshwater system -- a mission that many see as only partly accomplished. http://www.sott.net/article/125586-US-Canada-Weigh-Great-Lakes-Cleanup When Canada and the United States approved the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972, the running joke in Cleveland was that anyone unlucky enough to fall into the Cuyahoga River would decay rather than drown. The Cuyahoga, which meanders through the city before reaching Lake Erie, helped inspire the cleanup initiative by literally catching fire three years earlier. The lower end of the 112-mile-long waterway was a foul brew of oil, sludge, sewage and chemicals. It made embarrassing headlines when its surface flamed for about 30 minutes. Today the river is returning to health under a plan developed through the binational agreement. ... Although the lakes and their major tributaries are less dirty than four decades ago, states continue warning children and women of childbearing age to limit fish consumption because of lingering toxicity. Algae overgrowth and a resulting oxygen-starved 'dead zone' in Lake Erie, all but eliminated by the early 1980s, are returning. ... A committee representing both countries is studying the matter. A decision isn't likely before next year... ... the Council of Great Lakes Industries, which represents chemical manufacturers, electric utilities and other companies, fears a more aggressive water quality pact will bring costly new regulations and stifle the regional economy***. *** We feel that the approach we are taking here in the GTA may become a 'model' for creating a cost-effective way to deal with these many issues of water quality, environmental stewardship, community development and even job creation. P.P.P.S. I will also be attending a discussion about the issue of 'microplastics' in our watersheds tomorrow. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140918162317.htm Microplastic pollution discovered in St. Lawrence River sediments A team of researchers from McGill University and the Quebec government have discovered microplastics (in the form of polyethylene 'microbeads', <2 mm diameter) widely distributed across the bottom of the St. Lawrence River, the first time such pollutants have been found in freshwater sediments. Their research was published this month in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. The microbeads likely originate from cosmetics, household cleansers, or industrial cleansers, to which they are commonly added as abrasives. Owing to their small size and buoyancy, they may readily pass through sewage treatment plants. Microplastics are a global contaminant in the world's oceans, but have only recently been detected in the surface waters of lakes and rivers. Did you read the article by Finger Lakes Biochar about 'Biochar v Microbeads'? http://fingerlakesbiochar.com/biochar-v-microbeads/ Essentially, the idea would be to REPLACE the synthetic (plastic) abrasives used in these common household (and industrial) products with 'natural' (biochar-based) abrasives. Thus, I would propose that one way to 'kick start' the significant production of 'value added' biochar on both sides of the border (in both the USA and Canada) would be to BAN 'microbeads' in all of these products... and work on a research approach that includes all of the companies that use these synthetic materials in their products so that we can find a way to replace many or most of them with a variety of (locally-produced) char-based abrasives that will not only have 'benign' effects on our environments, but instead may even create positive effects on the environmental health of local and regional watersheds. Regards, Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada) www.biochar-consulting.ca Earth Stewardship consultant, Passive Remediation Systems Ltd. (PRSI) http://www.prsi.ca/ 48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada 905-707-8754 CELL: 647-886-8754 Skype: lloyd.helferty Steering Committee coordinator Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI) CURRENTS, A working group of Science for Peace http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/ President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario National Office, Canadian Carbon Farming Initiative (CCFI) Organizing team member, 2013 N/A Biochar Symposium: www.carbon-negative.us/symposium Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC) Manager, Biochar Offsets Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475 Advisory Committee Member, IBI http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675 http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/ http://www.biocharontario.ca www.biochar.ca 'We cannot understand the present, nor imagine the future, if we do not know the past.' - David Crombie, former mayor of Toronto (1972 to 1978), an Officer of the Order of Canada, and former President and CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute. On 2014-11-02 12:58 PM, timgoeders@hotmail.com wrote: Hello Lloyd, Sorry for my lack of communication with you. Thanks for keeping Gary and I within the biochar information 'loop'. Gary and I are working to complete a Hybrid Airship-related report for the World Bank, now that most of our other reports for Federal and State-level officials have been sent out. We still have to put the finishing touches on another report for the Federal-level elected officials this week, so Gary and I will still be distracted, somewhat, until that is completed. However, on another matter, I came across some information by accident this week (it may already be in use by the biochar community, to some extent, I don't know) but my take on it was that the complex problem that was described regarding the negative impacts of agricultural run-off on marine mammals far away from the sources of pollution, yet carried to the marine environment through watershed discharges (failed to recommend any 'solution'), is a 'high profile' tool for the biochar community to bring attention and political support to the biochar - watershed preservation model and initiatives. Gary and I didn't have the time to participate in the watershed modeling that Victoria had organized, but this would be helpful to all those who are participating. Sometimes the 'sizzle' in a public relations pitch is what separates the a successful campaign from an ineffective one. The high-profile marine animals may be the 'sizzle' that will capture the attention and support of the public, which in turn will drive the politicians and bureaucrat 'decision-makers' and regulators, respectively, to more broadly adopt the use of biochar to control the agricultural and municipal run-off and discharges in all watersheds. The coastal 'dead-zone' crisises are pretty well recognized now as problems (although to the public the problem may seem to be too nebulous, distant and overwhelming), but the specific negative impacts (and potential solutions) on marine mammals down stream of municipalities could put a finer point on the issue when the biochar 'mitigation' model to deal with the pollution in-the-field, is explained. I'll try and send the information links and our summary of it to you, later today, or tomorrow. Thanks, Tim