1. Buffers and pollution
18 foot wide buffers can remove 80% of nitrogen from runoff
The recommended yearly load is 18.7 million pounds
The bay receives 30 million pounds of nitrogen per year - about 100 thousand pounds a day
With buffers, we can stop 80,000 pounds of nitrogen from polluting our bay
EVERY DAY
Source 1, 2, and 3

2. Buffers and pollution Buffers can also use 80% of phosphorus in runoff
The recommended yearly load for phosphorus is 1.2 million pounds
The bay receives 1.8 million pounds of phosphorus per year - about six thousand pounds a day
With buffers, we can stop 4,800 pounds of phosphorus from polluting our bay
EVERY SINGLE DAY
Source 1, 2, and 4

3. THE BAY WE USED TO HAVE
On a hundred point scale our wetlands score a 42. We have lost almost half our forest buffers, and now have only a tenth of our original wetlands area.
The entire bay scores a 31. Factors of this rating include various pollutants, such as nitrogen and phosphorus (which are now 16 and 23, respectively), species who once thrived here, such as crabs and oysters, and buffer areas.
Buffers give the species of the bay a great natural habitat. They also use and store the unwanted pollutants which have come to dominate our bay.
Source 1 and 2

5. nitrogen in the bay
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation says that nitrogen is the most serious pollution problem in the bay.
Nitrogen was the only measure in the pollution section of the State of the Bay Report that had fallen since 2008.
Nitrogen is one of the major causes of the large 'dead zones', composed of bacteria, which appear during the summer months in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
We need to save our bay, and nitrogen is one of its biggest problems. Buffers are one of the best ways to fix it.
Source 1 and 2

6. Research
I have taken samples from 11 areas through a large section of the Lafayette River, a tributary of the Elizabeth River and the Chesapeake Bay.
The measurements that these samples supplied were within a moderately healthy range, if not low:
Lafayette River
Ammonium Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen pH
0.1 ppm
0.25 ppm
0.05 ppm
Source 5

7. Research
Four of these eleven areas also had a dirt trap set, which was left to rest for two to four weeks
The dirt traps revealed a very low amount of free sediment in the water, which could be a sign of the success of the buffers at keeping it firmly locked in place.
Source 5

8. research
This may be a sign of improvement, but some of the numbers are very low. Also, the differences were not as pronounced as expected, as the sites were selected for their differences.
There are many possible causes.
There is little activity in the bay during the winter months
Dead zones caused by nitrogen may use it, change it to other forms not previously measured, or release it to the air
Buffers in the area could store the nitrogen in the ground
The areas are close enough for water exchanges to create an equalizing effect
Source 2 and 3

9. Ideas for the future RESEARCH
Taking samples in other seasons, tides, and before and after rains
Looking in other places around the Lafayette River, the Elizabeth River, and the Chesapeake Bay
Researching the effect of dead zones on nitrogen levels and types
Researching the effect of rains on nitrogen levels

10. Ideas for the future BUFFERS
Financial incentives for buffers based on the research
Higher incentives in areas of worse health/more danger
Offering the best type of buffer for the area
New plan for total acreage for the EPA and CBF, with incentives for completion and penalties for delays
Source 1 and 3

11. we can do this...
Why not now?

12. Works Cited CBF 2010 State of the Bay Report
CBF Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution
EPA Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness
VIrginia Cooperative Extension of VT Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Effects on Water Quality
EPA Technical Factsheet on: NITRATE/NITRITE
This is really good