Month: December 2018

A Proposal to Expand North Atlantic Right Whale Protection Zones

jyankee 90 Comments

Jake Yankee- Natural Resources Conservation

Olivia Babine- Environmental Science

Ben D’Ambra- Horticultural Science

Kayshauna Montano- Animal Science

 

The North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, faces a number of challenges to its recovery. Their habitat includes the waters off the U.S. East coast where they come into contact with pollutants, fishing gear, and boats that threaten their survival. The greatest source of right whale mortality is collisions with vessels. In order to mitigate this problem, researchers have utilized a number of strategies to help vessels and whales occupy the same space without colliding with one another. One of the most popular strategies is vessel speed restriction zones. These  are geographic areas in the ocean designated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration where vessels must slow down to accommodate right whales (Mullen 2013). While these zones cover much of the right whale’s current range, their distribution is patchy with long stretches of unprotected space between them and they do not extend far enough offshore to cover the whale’s entire habitat. To increase the effectiveness of these zones and better protect right whales from ship strikes, we propose that protection areas be expanded to cover the entire U.S. East coast and to extend 30 nautical miles offshore.

Continue Reading →

LdMNPV and the Management of Gypsy Moths

wcoville 45 Comments

Gypsy moth larvae consuming leaves

William Coville – Environmental Science

Julianne Foren – Animal Science

Catherine George – Horticultural Science

John Mazzone – Turf Grass Science and Managment

 

In the late 1860’s, a French scientist brought the gypsy moth to Massachusetts from Europe in the hopes of breeding disease-resistant genes into silkworms to improve and expand the silk industry (Liebhold, 2003). Due to his incompetence, a couple of his gypsy moth subjects made their way into the New England forest and found that they could live, breed, and thrive there. The carelessness of one scientist resulted in a gypsy moth invasion that persisted over the last hundred years and encompasses various ecosystems throughout the U.S. and Canada. Lymantria dispar dispar, known as the gypsy moth, is an invasive species that acts as a major pest of hardwood trees, particularly the dominant oak and aspen (Liebhold, 2003). As an example, a red oak that lies at the entrance of Quabbin Park in Belchertown, MA has been taken down due to it being mostly dead from gypsy moth defoliation (Miner, 2018). Iconic trees in parks around the country are not spared from the damage of gypsy moths and once enough damage sets in the trees are lost from the community. Not only does the gypsy moth cause an an aesthetic decline among these once beautiful hardwood trees, but they also play the role of the small beginning in a larger catalyst effect. They cause severe defoliation among the trees they feed on and cause harm to native species as well. One scientists economic greed and thoughtless actions have resulted in ecological destruction that has lasted and will continue to last well beyond his lifetime.

Continue Reading →

Reducing Cows Environmental Impact

hegoulet 166 Comments

Bessie producing methane

Andreas Aluia- Forestry

Sean Davenport- Environmental Science

Haley Goulet- Animal Science

Picture this. Miles of rolling green fields sprawled out in front of you, dappled in hundreds and hundreds of black and white cows. Their heads low as they graze the young grasses covered in early morning dew. Behind you the farmer is preparing the barns for the cows return in the afternoon. Each breath of air making you feel renewed with the peace and clean air of the countryside. But how clean is it?

 

Continue Reading →

Controlled Burns; The solution to California’s Wildfire Problem

Samuel Poza 160 Comments
Picture of Camp Fire in California

Picture of Camp Fire in California

On Thursday November 8th, 2018, more than 52,000 people’s lives were changed forever. Northern California was rocked by a wildfire that consumed thousands of homes and businesses.

Wildfires In the United States are mainly concentrated in the Western forests (National Geographic, 2018), where wildfire activity, frequency, severity and size are seeing an increase in recent years, and is expected to further increase in years to come (Van Mantgem, Nesmith, Keifer, Knapp, Flint, Flint, & Penuelas, 2013 and Riley & Loehman, 2016). Climate change is the main driver of this trend (Abatzoglou & Williams, 2016), and as wildfires increase, so do the damages they inflict on natural, economic, and human resources (Barrett, 2018 and Kousky, Greig, Lingle, & Kunreuther, 2018).The cost of wildfires are buoyed by the additional factors of under-burned forests as a result of too much fire suppression, and the rapid encroachment of human settlement in areas bordering forests, known as the wildland urban interface (WUI) (Moseley, 2018). Due to the increasing activity, size, intensity, and severity of wildfires and their associated costs in the Western U.S. and particularly California, a well-funded, rigorous regime of prescribed burning should be implemented at federal, state, and local levels in order to cull accumulated forest fuels, and thus decrease future wildfire severity and intensity. Continue Reading →

Massachusetts’ Green Wave

rcarlo 52 Comments

A jar of weed grown in a commercial facility.

The mayor Holyoke, a small city in Western Massachusetts, is hoping he has found the golden ticket that will save the area’s economy, and it comes in the form of legalized pot. Effective December 15, 2016 Massachusetts became the first East Coast state that will allow the sale of recreational marijuana and many cities are hoping the new industry will jobs and money to poorer areas (Massachusetts Legislation, 201). When recreational marijuana was first made available in Colorado there was a large spike in commercial cultivation facilities to keep up with the demand. The first week that marijuana was legal in Colorado stores sold over $14 million worth of recreational marijuana and this number continues to grow as more user adopt the practice (KansasCityFed). By the end of 2016 Colorado had given out nearly 500 permits to sell recreational marijuana and 700 permits to grow it, resulting in $1.3 billion dollars worth of marijuana being sold (KansasCityFed). All of the marijuana sold in Massachusetts needs to be grown in Massachusetts which has resulted in 172 recreational cultivation license applications being submitted to Massachusetts’ cannabis control board from all across the state, showing that Mass is on track to follow Colorado’s cannabis boom (CCC).

These facilities are almost exclusively indoor cultivation facilities that are housed in warehouses or greenhouses. Indoor grow facilities are utilized because of their ability to deliver a high yield of crops year round while protecting plants from any adverse environmental conditions and keeping the grow area within precise environmental conditions (Baptista et al., 2017). Indoor grow facilities produce as much as ten times more crops compared to traditional farms, making them an obvious choice for growing expensive crops like marijuana (Barbosa et al., 2015). In Massachusetts indoor grow facilities are used almost exclusively for large operations because of the long winters and short growing season that would drastically impact the growers overall yield. Consumers also demand a very high quality product when they purchase marijuana from a store and these products can only be grown in intensly regulated facilities. Without the use of indoor grow operations marijuana cultivators would not be able to produce enough high quality product to yield a reasonable profit.  The major problem with controlled environment agricultural is the reliance on outside energy sources and the effect this energy consumption can have on the environment (Sanjuan-Delmás et al., 2017).

However, greenhouses use significantly more energy than more traditional open air farms. The amount of energy utilized fluctuates based on the individual greenhouse because of differences seen in technology and construction, but it is inevitable that greenhouses will use more energy than traditional open air farms due to the equipment needed to produce a high yield of crops. A recent study found that greenhouses use as much as 160.5 MJ/kg while more traditional outdoor growing options like open air farming only uses 0.8-6.9 MJ/kg (Ntinas et al., 2016). Marijuana cultivation is considered to be one of the most energy intensive industries in America today (Warren 2016). In the United States 1% of the entire country’s energy use is spent on marijuana cultivation  (Magagninia 2018). This can rise to 3% in cannabis rich states like California (Magagninia 2018). Most industrial grow facilities have large, overhead lights that replace the sun, bring water straight to the plants in the absence of rain, maintain precise air quality through the use of air filters and dehumidifiers. (NCLS). Each of these necessary tools needs a large amount of energy to function at peak performance.

To grow a high quality product facilities must employ very specialized lighting units that provide a specific wavelength of light to optimize production. Different lighting systems can produce very different effects on the plants that can change the height of the plant, the amount of product produced, and the amount of THC and CBD found in the marijuana (Magagninia 2018). Lighting can account for 76-86% of the entire facility’s energy usage, which toals 2283 kW/hr per kilogram of marijuana produced (Arnold 2013). Unfortunately, cutting back on lighting isn’t an option either. Because of marijuana’s intense cultivation needs any compromise in lighting quality can gravely impact the amount of product yielded and the quality of the product.

Another large consumer of energy within an indoor grow facility is the transportation of water to the facility and the method utilized to water the plants.  Most facilities utilize hydroponic systems because of their ability to maximize crop yield while minimizing the amount of water being used (Barbosa 2015). However, the addition of hydroponic systems can increase the amount of energy needed to effectively operate an individual greenhouse (Cannabis Control Commision). Extra water handling uses approximately 173 kW/h for every kg of cannabis yielded (Mills, 2012).

Large marijuana facilities are forced to use ventilation systems like air scrubbers or charcoal filters in their facility to help mitigate noxious gases or any other fumes associated with cultivation (Marijuana Facility Guidance 2016). These machines help remove any impurities from the air while maintaining safe working conditions for workers who will be subjected to the fumes all day. When studied these machines consumed 1848 kW/h for every kg of cannabis yielded (Mills, 2012). Despite their large energy draw, ventilation systems are imperative for maintaining a safe work environment while insuring the cultivation plants are not dumping a large amount of noxious fumes into the surrounding area.

Marijuana is a very climate dependant plant that requires specific temperatures to grow as productive as possible. Most facilities are need to use air conditioners for a large part of the year because of the immense amount of heat being produced by the equipment being used, however, in Massachusetts facilities would also need to provide heat in the winter. Without air conditioning the plants would overheat which can impact the amount of product yielded and they could even be at risk of dying. Massachusetts’ winters are so cold that it would necessitate additional heat sources be provided or the plants could again face decreased yields or death. It was shown that the average facility uses 1284  kW/h for every kg of cannabis yielded on air conditioning and 304 kW/h for every kg of cannabis yielded on heating (Mills, 2012).

When a system is continuously using large amount of energy the waste product of these systems needs to be considered.  The introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a leading cause of climate change that has been proven to warm the earth, resulting in melting glaciers, rising sea levels, warmer oceans, and more natural disasters (NASA). Indoor agriculture’s high energy needs often results in a high amount of carbon dioxide being produced as waste  (Sanjuan-Delmás et al., 2017). A 70 m2 greenhouse heated solely by natural gas produced 2.9 kg CO2 eq./kg more than one of the same size that was heated by natural gas supplemented by solar power (Hassanien et al., 2017). Most marijuana grow operations do not follow organic production standards which have a 35%-45% lower carbon footprint than organic farming (Bos et al., 2014). This carbon being pumped into the environment can negatively impact the Earth by promoting climate change. Thankfully, there are renewable sources of energy that can be harnessed that have a much smaller carbon footprint while still providing a quality source of energy.  

Large Legal Marijuana Farm Professional Commercial Grade Greenhouse Filled With Mature Budding Cannabis Indica Plants

Massachusetts has been slowly working towards more eco friendly energy solutions like energy that comes from solar panels, nuclear reactors, and natural gas. In 2017 68% of Massachusetts’ energy was produced by natural gas and only 4% of its energy from coal (eia). Solar panels are also gaining popularity and 1,867 megawatts of solar power was installed in Massachusetts in 2017 (eia) . Carbon emissions were also decreased by 19 percent from 1990 t0 2015 (Mass.gov). However, 27% of Massachusetts heating needs still come from oil (eia). Such a large and energy intensive industry that requires a large amount of heat could jeopardize Massachusetts goals to reduce carbon emissions and increase clean energy usage. One popular solution is the use of photovoltaic cells, also known as solar panels.  

 The use of technologically advanced solar panels would help offset the shortcomings of greenhouse growing maintaining a high agricultural yield without contributing to global warming by releasing greenhouse gases. When solar panels are placed on an area that covers  20% of the roof of a greenhouse it can replace 20% of the energy necessary to power the grow site (Hassanien et al., 2017). In Massachusetts standard solar panels are able to produce approximately 1130 kWh of energy per year (Solar-Estimate). A large marijuana cultivation facility can use an upward of 210,000 kWh of energy per year, which would require approximately 185 panels to completely run the facility off of energy generated by panels (CPR.org). Energy use is directly linked to size and not all facilities are as large and energy dependant; they can be as small as a few hundred square feet or as large as 100,000 square feet (Cannabis Control Commision).  Not only can greenhouse energy production be supplemented with renewables, but renewables could possibly meet all of a greenhouse’s energy demand. Previous marijuana grow sites have been able operate while only utilizing energy from solar arrays, making it likely that greenhouses in Massachusetts could do the same (Barok 2017).

By adding solar panels to grow sites the amount of fossil fuels  used will drop dramatically which will also combat the amount of carbon dioxide being produced which will ultimately help slow the rate of climate change. When compared to greenhouses that relied on fossil fuels alone to produce their electricity demand, ones that supplemented production with solar panels had a 29% lower carbon footprint (Ntinas et al., 2016). The potential for greenhouses to run largely off of solar energy while still producing a high yield of crops will result in a large cut to each facilities carbon footprint. The 240 solar panels they installed generated 440,000 kWh of energy in five years, which would have cost $88,000 and was more than enough to power the facility throughout the year (Barok 2017). A solar array of this size would make almost two times the amount of energy needed for an average facility that only consumes roughly 210,000 kWh of energy per year (CPR.org). Just one building was able to save 550,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere (Barok 2017).

Often times when considering the amount of energy used by indoor grow facilities it is tempting to offer solutions that involve less intensive cultivation practices that often use less energy. By using open air farming practices a cultivation site could use close to 23 times less energy than indoor growing facilities (Ntinas et al., 2016). The problem with less intensive production practices is that they often produce a lower yield of poorer quality cannabis. Growing outdoors leaves plants vulnerable to volatile weather, mold, and pests (Leafly). Massachusetts winters would also drastically limit the grow season for cultivators to just a few months a year, while indoor facilities could continue to produce products all year (Leafly). These drawbacks are not worth the potential energy savings.

Solar panels are the best option for cannabis cultivators that are looking to reduce their carbon footprint through the use of low emission energy, but putting these practises to use might not come naturally to companies that are usually focus solely on profit. The availability of solar panels in America is at an all time high with energy subsidies projected to reach between $43 and $320 per megawatt hour for solar panel produced energy coming from tax credits that cover between 30% and 60% of wholesale prices (Maloney, 2018). Subsidies provided for solar energy bring the costs of energy provided by solar panels down drastically and continue to do so (Maloney, 2018). To further incentivise solar usage Massachusetts towns and cities should give preference to indoor cultivation facilities that utilize solar panels as their main source of energy. Towns have a high level of control when granting permits to businesses that are trying to grow marijuana within town borders (CCC). If towns made it known that they gave preference to facilities that utilize solar energy then incoming businesses would be more likely to implement solar technology as a way to get gain an advantage over their competition. This would also empower those looking to get a license to include as much renewable energy as possible as a way to maximize the chance that they would be granted a permit.

Fossil fuels are not a clean source of energy and while reduction in use of electricity can help to lessen pollution, to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions more eco friendly energy sources need to be utilized. In an effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption, scientists have developed a multitude of systems that are able to produce large amounts of energy without releasing harmful gases into the atmosphere. One of the most common ways to harvest renewable energy is through the use of photovoltaic cells, more commonly known as solar panels. Because of the ease of production, limited drawbacks, and technological advancements surrounding solar panels it is widely thought that they will be the most abundant source of energy in the future (Schmalensee et al., 2015).

One way to encourage greenhouses to make the switch from fossil fuel powered grid energy to roof- or ground-mounted solar panels is for the government to provide subsidies to facilities that use solar panels to provide the majority of their energy demand. If subsidies are provided, more facilities will start using clean energy, bringing the industry’s carbon footprint down (Maloney, 2018; Sanjuan-Delmás et al., 2017). In China, a different subsidy was proposed to provide greenhouses with between $62 and $140 per megawatt hour of electricity produced with solar panels (Wang et al., 2017). Although there is currently no such policy in China, solar powered greenhouses will help lead sustainable development and reduce carbon emissions (Wang et al., 2017). It is clear that if subsidies for using solar panels for energy production are offered, it will attract more users and bring the costs down while at the same time provide clean energy not produced by fossil fuels.

These results could be replicated across Massachusetts as a way decrease the amount of carbon dioxide produced across the state.  

When considering ways to reduce our carbon footprint most Americans do not consider the role that agriculture plays in climate change. 60% of Americans believe that climate change is an ongoing issue but they tend to focus on emissions produced by cars, planes, and factories, rather than agricultural industries (Borick 2018). However, according to the Washington Post, “the nation’s booming marijuana sector is struggling to go green”. They state that analysts and state regulators say the cannabis industry, including states that have legalized recreational pot and those that offer it only for medicinal purposes,  is outpacing many other areas of the economy in energy use, racking up massive electricity bills as more Americans light up. The county’s Marijuana Energy Impact Offset Fund, which tacks on a 2.16-cent surcharge for each kilowatt-hour of electricity used by grow facilities, is something of a model for other states, cities and counties that also recognize the growing energy drain that has resulted from the rapid expansion of legal cannabis (Wolfgang, B., 2018). By introducing legislation now that rewards the use of solar energy Massachusetts can incentivise new businesses to build more sustainable greenhouses from the onset. These eco-friendly greenhouses will reduce the amount of fossil fuels used and could drastically cut their carbon footprint (Ntinas et al., 2016).

The one major hurdle for most growers is the initial cost of adding solar panels being prohibitive. They simply cannot afford the start up costs associated with adding solar panels to a facility and don’t believe that they can be a money saving investment in the long run. However, in one study done by Petru Maior University, they found solar panels payed for themselves in 6 years. After considering the initial costs of the system, yearly operating costs, taxes, and income a facility studied by Petru Maior University found that the initial investment was paid back after six years after saving money on their electricity bill and selling excess energy back to the electricity companies ( hydroponic greenhouse energy supply based on renewable energy). Solar panels also reduce cost because the energy is generated at the site where it is needed and there are no costs associated with transporting the power to where it needs to be (Borenstein 2008). Even when you consider the cost of yearly maintenance of solar panels, the amount of money saved with a reduction of the facility’s energy bill far outweighed the money needed to be paid (LG Energy). These savings jump quickly when you consider the high cost of electricity in Massachusetts where residents pay roughly 14.8 cents per kWh, the the ninth highest in the state (NPR :) ).

Greenhouse agriculture, including marijuana grow houses, is a quickly growing industry that requires high amounts of energy that is currently supplied primarily by fossil fuels which produce large amounts greenhouse gases when burned (Shen et al., 2018; Sanjuan-Delmás et al., 2017). A shift can be made in the industry from fossil fuels to clean energy if subsidies are provided to greenhouses that use solar panels to supply their energy demand. Subsidies will incentivize greenhouse operators to use solar panels and will help make them more affordable to operators who may have not been able to afford solar panels otherwise. Subsidies will result in a reduction in the cost of solar panels over time as more facilities start to use them (Maloney, 2018). A reduction in the reliance on fossil fuels to lower our carbon footprint is essential if climate change is to be mitigated. Solar panels are a great source of renewable energy that are becoming increasingly popular and if utilized by energy-hungry greenhouses can greatly reduce their carbon footprint.

By adding solar panels to grow sites the amount of fossil fuels  used will drop dramatically which will also combat the amount of carbon dioxide being produced which will ultimately help slow the rate of climate change.

A greenhouse growing marijuana intended for legal sales.

 

Works Cited

Baptista FJ, Guimares AC, Meneses JF, Silva AT, Navas LM. Greenhouse energy

consumption for tomato production in the iberian peninsula countries [electronic resource]. Acta horticulturae. 2012(9521):409-416. http://silk.library.umass.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=agr&AN=IND44639795&site=ehost-live&scope=site http://www.actahort.org/. doi: //www.actahort.org/.

Baptista FJ, Murcho D, Silva LL, et al. Assessment of energy consumption in organic tomato greenhouse production – a case study. Acta horticulturae. 2017(1164):453-460. http://silk.library.umass.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=agr&AN=IND605853021&site=ehost-live&scope=site http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1164.59. doi: //dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1164.59.

Barbosa, L. G., Gadelha, D. F., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E., . . . Halden, U. R. (2015). Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods doi:10.3390/ijerph120606879

Barok, J. (2017). Is it time to consider solar power. Cannabis Business Times. Retrieved from https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/is-it-time-to-consider-solar-power/

Borenstein, B. (2008).The market value and cost of solar photovoltaic electricity production. University of California Energy Institute. Retrieved from escholarship.org/uc/item/3ws6r3j4

Borick, C., Rabe, B., Fitzpatrick, N., & Mills, S. (2018). Issues in energy and environmental policy. University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2018-spring-climate-belief.pdf

Felix, A. (2018). The economic effects of the marijuana industry in Colorado. Main Street Views.  Retrieved from www.kansascityfed.org/publications/research/rme/articles/2018/rme-1q-2018

Hartig, H., & Geiger, A. (2018). About six-in-ten americans support marijuana legalization. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization

Hassanien, R. H. E., & Ming, L. (2017). Influences of greenhouse-integrated semi-transparent photovoltaics on microclimate and lettuce growth. International Journal of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, 10(6), 11-22. doi:10.25165/j.ijabe.20171006.3407

Holyoke, Massachusetts, is ready to welcome the marijuana industry with open arms. (2018). NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holyoke-massachusetts-is-ready-to-welcome-the-marijuana-industry-with-open-arms/

Magagninia, G., Grassia, G., & Kotirantab, S. (2018). The effect of light spectrum on the morphology and cannabinoid content of cannabis sativa L. Med Cannabis Cannabinoids. 1:19–27. DOI: 10.1159/000489030

Maloney, B. (2018, March 23). Renewable Energy Subsidies — Yes Or No? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/03/23/renewable-energy-subsidies-yes-or-no/#7afc6c206e23

Marijuana Facility Guidance. (2016). Colorado Fire Marshals Special Task Group. Retrieved from https://fmac-co.wildapricot.org/resources/Pictures/Marijuana_Guidance_Document_v.1_2016%2003%2016.pdf

Massachusetts Legislature. (2016). Section 76: Cannabis control commission; members; appointment; terms; chairman; secretary. Retrieved from https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter10/Section76

Mills, E. (2012). The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Elsevier. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.396.4759&rep=rep1&type=pdf

NASA. (n. d.) How climate is changing. NASA Science. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Ntinas, G. K., Neumair, M., Tsadilas, C. D., & Meyer, J. (2017). Carbon footprint and cumulative energy demand of greenhouse and open-field tomato cultivation systems under southern and central european climatic conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3617-3626. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.106

Ronay, K., & Dumitru, C. (2015). Hydroponic greenhouse energy supply based on renewable energy sources doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2015.02.099

Schmalensee, R., Bulovic, V., Armstrong, R., Batlle, C., Brown, P., Deutch, J., . . . Vergara, C. (2015). The future of solar energy an interdisciplinary MIT study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MITEI-The-Future-of-Solar-Energy.pdf

Shen, Y., Wei, R., & Xu, L. (2018). Energy consumption prediction of a greenhouse and optimization of daily average temperature. Energies, 11(1), 65. doi:10.3390/en11010065

Warren, G. (2016). Regulating pot to save the polar bear: energy and climate impacts of the marijuana industry. Columbia J Environ Law 2015;40:385. Retrieved from http://www.columbiaenvironmentallaw.org/regulating-pot-to-save-the-polar-bear-energy-and-climate-impacts-of-the-marijuana-industry/

Wolfgang, B. (2018, January 7). Environmentalists alarmed at marijuana industry’s massive use of carbon-based electricity. Retrieved from washingtontimes.com

Where greenhouse gases come from. (n.d.) Ames Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.ameslab.gov/esha/where-greenhouse-gases-come

(2015, January 1). Environment and Energy Facts and Figures. Retrieved from https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/facts-figures

Miami Forever: Combating Flooding Caused by Climate Change

mleslie 27 Comments

Nicholas Lanni, Mariah Leslie, Hunter Magill, Jennifer Stowell

 

             Miami beach flooding in 2013

Home is where the heart is. But what if your home has been swept away in a catastrophic flood? Miami beach resident Bruce Bender represents one of millions of U.S. homeowners that are threatened by this reality with each and every hurricane that makes landfall. He shares with reporters how he is “completely, absolutely, one hundred percent desperate” (Harris, 2018). Due to climate change, sea-level rise is affecting Miami the hardest. Bender explains how he has to roll his pants up to his knees, to walk from his home to his garage, and he has photos of his home flooded in water a foot deep (Harris, Gurney, 2018). With sea level rise already impeding on life in Miami, hurricanes only worsen the problem and cause more damage. Hurricanes cause flooding, and climate change leads to more intense hurricanes which have worse floods and damage. As a hurricane hits land, it creates a rise in sea level called storm surge. A hurricane creates a storm surge due to the low pressure, large waves, and high wind speeds associated with its conditions (University of Illinois, 2010). Due to this rise in sea level, hurricanes cause flooding especially along coastlines, like those that Miami face (Loria, 2018). Due to climate change, hurricane flooding is only getting more intense. When the sea surface temperatures (SST) rise due to climate change, more seawater evaporates, increasing precipitation during hurricanes and other storms (Wang et. al, 2018) . This concept is similar to a sauna, where once you warm the coals to heat the sauna, the water you pour in quickly evaporates, creating more intense amounts of steam. When the sea surface temperatures rise, there is an increase in evaporation which intensifies hurricanes. Floods resulting from this increased precipitation damage coastal communities.

Miami plans to start its combat against climate change through a 400 million dollar general obligation bond called “Miami Forever”. The program’s main mission is to create future livability in Miami while trying to find more cost effective ways to withstand the environmental changes brought on by climate change (Smiley, 2017). Passed in Florida’s 2017 elections, the bond is intended to be paid back through property taxes and what’s more is that it will not raise property taxes for Miami residents. Instead, residents miss out on the reduction in tax rates they’d normally get when the city finishes paying off its old debt (Stein, 2017). Although the expected decrease in property taxes will not be coming to Miami residents anytime soon, they will not be paying extra for what this program, and voters, hope to achieve.

What the program lacks, however, is not being able to provide voters with any specifics on how it intends to achieve its climate adaptation and mitigation goals. Despite this, Miami officials can confirm that about 200 million dollars will be spent on sea level rise projects. The remaining 200 million will be spent on affordable housing, road improvements, parks, cultural facilities, and public safety (Smiley, 2017). The lack of specificity has left the program under high scrutiny and has stalemated the program from gaining any kind of momentum so far, however, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Leaders from the People of Climate Change March explains, “History has left us skeptical that the bond program will be implemented in an equitable fashion and without negative impacts to vulnerable populations” (as cited in Stein, 2017). In doing so, program directors are now held more accountable for how they spend the money, because, “programs like these are necessary for local government to begin addressing issues that our most vulnerable populations face.” ( as cited in Stein, 2017)

Before this program came to pass, voters passed the Stormwater Master Plan in 2012 and granted stronger water pumps to a few of Miami’s streets most impacted by floods. These pumps are capable of pumping 14,000 gallons of water per minute and were reported to be keeping the once regularly flooded streets relatively dry soon after implementation (Flechas, 2014). This program failed, however, because it failed to take into account local sea level rise projections for Miami so the pumps were not powerful enough (Stein, 2017). Mousavi et al. (2011) predicts climate change will cause the sea level to rise about one foot as soon as 2030. As tidal flooding continues to get worse in parts of Miami, Miami Forever should focus its sea level project efforts on installing more pumps. Updating Miami’s storm water drain system with more pumps will prevent Miami from hemorrhaging more funds into restorative projects, adding an overall cost effectiveness to the program. Although it’s important to note that these pump are only a temporary fix–like a band-aid over a deep wound–experts state it will give Miami a 30-40 year buffer for more conductive solutions to be made (Flechas & Staletovich, 2015).

Generally speaking, a city’s stormwater drain system consists of multiple storm drains, manholes, and basins from which storm water enters. It then flows through a series of well chambers and interconnected cylinder pipes before reaching an exit point; typically a nearby body of water (“MDOT Stormwater Drainage Manual”, 2006). Pumps are added along this pathway to help better guide the body of liquid by increasing the fluid’s static pressure. The water enters the pump inlet point and is fed through a turning, motorized impeller using centripetal forces to suction water into its center, or “eye”,  before exiting an outlet point at higher velocity (“HEC 24 Highway Stormwater Pump Station Design”, 2001). Because there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to water pumps, determining the pumps strength, or how many gallons of water it needs to move per minute, is based off different calculations discussed later in this paper. As climate change continues to be realized, Miami continues to be hit the hardest with rising sea levels, as well as increasing hurricane storm surges and precipitations (Wang, et al. 2018). Miami’s stormwater drain systems need to be equally equipped in any way it can be and should be the program’s first steps in mitigating these water increases and limiting the damages caused by hurricanes and tidal floods.

There is currently a project underway to raise the roads of miami beach to prevent flooding. This will cost the city about 25 million dollars (Flechas, 2014) and the funding for this project is just the beginning to solving the problem. Miami beach is only a part of Miami-Dade county and a very small part of the Florida. If these measures were implemented to the rest of the county they wouldn’t have the same financial impact. There wouldn’t be as large a need for raised roads and the funding can go to installing pumps. Additionally if there is still need for more funding it can be found with the various businesses found in the county. During major storms and hurricanes they have to close down from the flooding and wind, but if they each gave a small percentage of their loss from the flooding to fund the project there would be more than enough to fund the project. Even though there is less than a 1:1 ratio for the money spent on prevention and money saved by the flood prevention. There is still money saved to the people and the businesses. There is no specific date to only pump flooding prevention cost benefits so the data is also skewed by including the costs of raising streets above sea level.

Let’s look at the effectivity of this solution. This answer comes as one of the least costly and most effective. As we know, most any problem can be solved if we throw enough money at it but in a time where funds need to be distributed over a broad range of enterprises, we can’t spend it all in one place. A category 3 hurricane, Norbert, dropped 464 mm of rain per hour at peak measurements which equates to 18.27 inches per hour. (Black, 2012) The reason this particular hurricane is of importance is how recent it was, 2014, and the amount of rain it dropped for the relatively low category number. Now unfortunately we are going to have to come to the realization that this amount of rainfall simply cannot be diverted into places to avoid flooding. However there is a way to calculate the amount of drainage in gallons per minute needed to help with the surplus of water during flood level events and keep flooding to a minimum in low sea level areas. Miami covers 55.25 square miles. This roughly equates to 289,935 gallons of water per minute for one inch of rainfall over one square mile. When hurricanes make landfall and the amount of rain being dropped is found, it’s a simple calculation to find how much water needs to be pumped out of the city and what size pumps should be installed or how many. There are many companies who make pumps ranging from 1,000 gpm all the way to 100,000 gpm and can be utilized in two ways. One way is a hard mount and the pump never moves. This way would be used preferably under ground or at a pumping station which takes all the water from the city and pumps it into the ocean or reservoir after being disinfected of chemicals and contaminants. This is much how city water systems work. The other type of pump is a movable configuration and is typically used as needed. Imagine you’re filling your bathtub with water but the drain can’t handle the amount coming in from the faucet. Once the water reaches the drain flip on the side of the tub then it can handle additional water. This is how the movable pump would be used and would be great for those areas in the city that have a lower average altitude and thus accrue more water and need additional support. Installing them to the existing storm drain infrastructure would minimize costs and increase effectiveness of the system. A 50,000 gpm pump could easily be integrated to the system at a rate of 6 per square mile to drain the water from, for instance, a hurricane like Norbert.

A possible argument against the use of drainage pumps is that these systems must be installed which costs time and money. While any addition of infrastructure will hold an economic impact, the amount of damage avoided by avoiding heavy flooding will save much more money than it costs to install the systems. As stated above, researchers are finding that the effects of hurricanes are only becoming more intense, and this includes flooding from excessive precipitation. Based on a report from Moody Analytics, “Property damage and disruption from Hurricane Florence is expected to total at least $17 billion to $22 billion, but the estimate could end up being conservative, as the Carolinas continue to face historic rainfalls and flooding” (Domm, p. 1). This estimate of cost in repairs was for one hurricane alone, meaning that with each additional hurricane more damage is done, and worse flooding will result. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans was reported to have cost $108 billion in damages, half of which were due to the damage done by flooding (Amadeo, 2018). After this hurricane, Louisiana began to install stronger, more effective pumps in order to avoid facing that same level of damage (Schleifstein, 2018). These drainage pump systems ended up going over budget, and costing the city of New Orleans $728 million for three main pumping stations. While this is a large sum of money, comparatively to the damage done by Hurricane Katrina, these costs could pay off for another high intensity hurricane. Half of the damage costs of Hurricane Katrina were reported to have been due to flooding, meaning that the $54 billion amount of damage could have been drastically reduced if proper infrastructure were in place (Amadeo, 2018) (Schleifstein, 2018). This comparison between the costs in New Orleans, could speak largely to

Bruce Bender is one of many home and business owners who are desperate to find solutions that will make their quality of life at the coast more sustainable. Stronger drainage pumps are not the only solution to Florida’s flood problem, but it is a practical approach to a much larger and complex issue in which they cannot afford further delay. If there is one thing we can be certain of is that climate change is here and creating more intense hurricanes. Combined with a rising sea level, another side effect of climate change, and recipe for disaster is likely to ensue upon coastal communities as has been the case for Miami, a major U.S. city. NOAA reports that the U.S. has seen 25 500-year hurricanes since 2010, in which the U.S. has paid a little over 300 billion dollars in damages for just 2017 alone (Ingraham, 2017). If even a portion of that cost can be reduced by adding stronger drainage pumps it could give coastal communities like Miami time to respond and reevaluate the framework of their society’s infrastructure. The millions it costs to install these pumps are alarming but nominal when compared to the billions it could save in flood damages. Adding stronger drainage pumps could be the starting point that allows for more permanent solutions to be made.

Managing Overpopulated Feral Horses in the Great Basin, USA

ebartone 50 Comments

Emily Bartone, Natural Resource Conservation; Charlotte Sedgwick, Animal Science; Derek Tripp, Building Construction Technology

Feral, invasive horses crowd government-managed corrals

The Great Basin of the United States is currently inhabited by over 80,000 wild non-native horses. Being a wild non-native species, they survive without the assistance of humans in a region outside of their native distribution range. The horses we now see in the Great Basin were brought to this continent by Europeans during colonization. Historically, large predators such as mountain lions and wolves also roamed the landscape and could control these populations. Humans eradicated nearly all large predators during the past century of extensive development. This has left many prey species, including horses, free to expand without limit (Jackson, S., 2018). Continue Reading →

Fighting Gypsy Moths With The Fungal Predator E. maimaga

qslavin 49 Comments

Gypsy moth on oak leaf

Authors: Izaak Jankowski (Animal Science), Reilly Mcnamara (Animal Science), and Quinn Slavin (Horticulture)

The year is 1868, and a French scientist by the name of Leopold Trouvelot has just accidentally released an organism that will ruthlessly defoliate trees of Massachusetts forests in the years to come (DEEP, 2018). This disastrous creature is none other that the Gypsy moth; a species of moth which has been living and thriving in European and Asian ecosystems for thousands of years (Libehold, 2018).  It took this moth ten years prior to establishment to reach a population level that was sizable enough to notice (Libehold, 2018). Within 100 years, this moth had spread from the point of origin in Boston to areas all throughout the northeast coast, into the great lake states, and even into further northern areas such as Quebec and Ontario (DEEP, 2018). This rapid expansion was fueled by the vast amount of plant species the moth is able to feed upon and the limited predator it had.   Continue Reading →

Will Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge impact Arctic Ecosystems?

mfrey 22 Comments

(Porcupine caribou majestically standing its ground against the dangerous oil drilling operations)

Authors: Matt Frey (Animal Science), Cameron Kononitz (Food Science),  Jess Sullivan (Animal Science), and Hannah McCollough (Earth Systems)

In 1980’s, Porcupine Caribou, a herd native to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), held its status as the 6th largest caribou herd in North America and it was projected to continue its vast growth (Clough, et al., 1987). However, those predictions couldn’t have been more wrong. In 1989, it was estimated that the Porcupine Caribou had a population size of 178,000, but since then they have been on a gradual decline dropping by 3.6% yearly from 1989 and 1998 and and show no indication of stopping. In 2001, it was estimated that there were only 123,000 caribou remaining (Griffith, et al., 2002). Continue Reading →