So in thinking about what to write my blog on for this week I kept coming back to the recent scientific papers we have read in class about the effects of urbanization on the health of streams and riparian areas. In my musing I wondered about the status of our very own river and the subject of this course, the James. So I decided to do some research and looked up the most recent news articles I could find about the James River, and was surprised to find conflicting results. Below is my response letter to one of the first articles I found, which highlights the recent “revival” of the James:
Dear Ms. Sarah Wheaton,
I recently read your article “Signs of an Urban River’s Revival in Virginia” in the June edition of The New York Times, and must admit that I am not convinced of such a resurrection of the James River.1 I came across your article in a literature search I performed as part of a class I am taking entitled “Geography of the James River Watershed” at the University of Richmond, where I am currently a sophomore biology major. There are a handful of reasons why I took exception to your article, the most blatant being more recent literature concerning evaluations of the health of the James River.
In fact, I found a more recent article right next to the link to yours from the local news station WTVR CBS 6, that focused on the recent downgrade of the heath of the James River from a “C+” to a “C” by the James River Association.2 This article explored this rating from the association’s biennial “State of the James” report and explained how the river’s scores for pollution, key fish and wildlife, and overall health have decreased since 2009. This brings me back to your article. It seems to me as though you regard the presence of blue herons, shad, and people along the river as the signs of the river’s revival that you mention in your title.1 However, while reading this more recent article I could not help but wonder- what about the recent increases in nutrient pollution? Or how about the decreases in the numbers of oysters, brook trout, rock fish, and small mouth bass?2
As a science major I am interested in the more quantitative measures of evaluating water quality and stream health. As part of the class at UR that I mentioned earlier we have read recent scientific articles focused on the effects of urbanization on stream and riparian zones. One article described what is now known as the “urban stream syndrome”, which includes side effects such as, “a flashier hydrograph, elevated concentrations of nutrients and contaminants, altered channel morphology and stability, reduced biotic richness, and increased dominance of tolerant species”.3 Looking right off-shore, another article claimed that urbanization causes “hydrologic drought” in riparian zones, which in turn “alters soil, vegetation, and microbial processes.”4 So my question to you is- Why leave out all of these variables when determining the health of our river? Why base it on the presence of herons, artists, and kayakers?1
I must admit that in the second half of your article you did begin to turn towards a more realistic view, especially with your mention of my fellow spider Sadie Runge.1 However, you then seemed to dismiss any signs of the river’s poor health by highlighting a few that turned out to be VCU experiments.1 Also, due to your quick reference to and lack of explanation of the pollution in the river and Sadie’s “James River UFO” project I had to do some digging myself, and found a quite different story. The image you sculpt in your article is one of locals still having their doubts about the river’s apparent “revival”1, but when I researched Sadie’s project5, it was actually an effort to raise awareness about the EPA’s recent establishment of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load, a response to President Barack Obama’s Executive Order to restore and protect the Bay.
From a review of the legislation posted by the EPA, I learned that the TMDL is essentially a “pollution diet” and this one is the largest ever developed by the EPA, with the goal of addressing the “poor water quality, degraded habitats and low populations of many species of fish and shellfish” in the Chesapeake Bay area.6 The fact sheet goes on to say that “the Bay and its rivers are overweight with nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater, airborne contaminants and other sources.”6 So I once again come back to your article. Now knowing all of this, do you still stand by your claim of a recent “revival” of the James River?
I know I may seem harsh and cynical in my objections to your article, but after reading it I have become concerned about the way the James River is portrayed to the public. I cannot help but think about the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of people who read The New York Times, and how many of them may have come across this inaccurate assessment of the river. I am concerned about the public awareness of the state of our river and, as Sadie phrases it on her website, our “sense of place.”4 If the general public is told that the river has been revived and well on its way to a brighter future, they will be much less likely to support legislation calling for billions of dollars to be put towards the restoration of the Bay area. In conclusion, I implore that you realize the enormous impact that your articles can have on the greater public and do your research before making claims on issues as important as the health of the James River.
Sincerely,
Mark Massaro
University of Richmond 2014
Works Cited
1. Wheaton, Sarah. “Signs of an Urban River’s Revival in Virginia.” The New York Times. 4 June 2011. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/us/05richmond.html
2. “James River Health Downgraded to a “C” – Wtvr.” CBS 6 News WTVR, Richmond News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | WTVR.com | Richmond News | CBS 6 WTVR TV – Wtvr. Web. 01 Feb. 2012. http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-james-river-health-downgraded-to-a-c-20111130,0,1643025.story
3. Walsh, Christopher J., Allison H. Roy, Jack W. Feminella, Peter D. Cottingham, Peter M. Groffman, and Raymond P. Morgan. “The Urban Stream Syndrome: Current Knowledge and the Search for a Cure.” Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24.3 (2005): 706. Print.
4. Groffman, Peter M., Daniel J. Bain, Lawrence E. Band, Kenneth T. Belt, Grace S. Brush, J. Morgan Grove, Richard V. Pouyat, Ian C. Yesilonis, and Wayne C. Zipperer. “Down by the Riverside: Urban Riparian Ecology.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1.6 (2003): 315. Print.
5. James River UFO. Web. 01 Feb. 2012. http://jamesriverufo.wordpress.com
6. Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Driving Actions to Clean Local Waters and the Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Dec. 2010. Web. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/BayTMDLFactSheet8_6.pdf
The Works Cited looks normal in my editing screen I swear!
<3 the use of paragraphs here.