Great Bay essay

Please edit the passage below by making corrections on the page. You should assume the author’s facts are essentially correct and the opinions expressed are his or her own. Please correct any mistake you find in syntax, spelling, grammar, punctuation, structure, or other elements, and also make any suggestions you think are warranted to improve the passage in any other way. Please note that your job is to improve the writing as much as possible while respecting the author’s intent and voice.

Although you may think it is unsalvageable, “scrap this” is not an option. Please rely on the Chicago Manual of Style 15th Edition as a reference tool for completing this. Both the New Hampshire general assembly and state agencies have acknowledged the NPS (agricultural nonpoint source) pollution problems plaguing which currently plague Great Bay. Both entities have made sincere concerted efforts to institute programs to which effectively reduce agricultural NPS pollution.

This section evaluates two of the most successful NPS pollution programs implemented in New Hampshire; — nutrient management plans and manure transport programs. In order to reduce address the problem of agricultural NPS pollution, in 1998 legislation in 1998 was passed by the New Hampshire General Assembly requiring which required farmers to abode abide by strict nutrient management plans. The nutrient managementThese plans demand stated that “all New Hampshire farmers grossing over $2,500 or more annually or raising 8,000 obs.

Or or more of live animal weight” conduct their operations using ain accordance with a nutrient management plan. By the end of 2003, over 85% of New Hampshire’s agricultural land (managed by over seventy-five percent75% of New Hampshire’s’ farmers) by operateding under in compliance with these plans. Unfortunately, Second,much like the Clean Water actAct (CWA), nutrient management plans lack sufficient enforcement mechanisms. Oversight of the implementation of these management plans is badhas been lax.

Since previous studies suggest that the effectiveness of a nitrogen reduction plan should be in evidence w/inwithin the span of a couple oftwo years, you should expectit was expected that a functional reduction plan will would yield noticeable results. For example, in 1998 the New Hampshire Department of Natural Resources and the local county conservation team of the upper Merrimack River (a district with one of the highest poultry farm concentrations in the country and highest nutrient runoff rates in Great Bay-) actually implemented and enforced nutrient management plans.

It maintained these practices for 4 four years and “nitrogen levels in the streams dropped by 25 percent in the study watershed”. In contractcontrast, the success of the General Assembly’s nutrient management plan is dubious; recent studies show no decreasean increase, but rather than a decreasean increase, in nutrient pollution since it’s implementationinception. New Hampshire also implemented a manure transport system, in 2003, to reduce agricultural NPS pollution by collecting and disposing of excess waste outside the watershed, thus reducing nutrient runoff into the Bay.

A parallel goal of the program was to encourage the “‘development of alternative technologies and business ventures to create a market for use of animal manures”’. Virtually all of the manure transported was used as poultry litter for the purpose of growing mushrooms. Farmers were reimbursed with $20 per ton of manure they transported from the watershed, and received approximately 871/2% of transport costs from public funds. Though the transport of manure sounds appears to be a promising, this method of NPS pollution control, it presents additional problems, in addition.

The most formidable problem is financial. tThe United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) economic research service reports that a manure transport program in the Great Bay watershed would cost one hundred and fifty million dollars$150,000,000 if used as the primary method of reducing agricultural NPS pollution. This is Fclearly inancially unrealistic, considering that New Hampshire has a combined Federal federal and State state allocation of just over 5 million dollars$5,000,000 for all NPS control programs, is; the manure transport program falls under the currentthis funding scheme.

Other program challenges would include: the ability to carefully tracking the manure to its final destination and then finding landowners to who would accept it. ArgueablyArguably the best longtermlong-term solution is to revise current federal NPS pollution statutes. Revision of the pollution laws would be a good idea. The process of revising the CWA would be arduous, difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and politically challenging.

Nevertheless, ifIf N. P. S. pollution regulation regulationswere revised to beand modeled after the current point source provisions of the CWA, such a revision might solve the reoccurringrecurring problems that ariseswhich have become evident when in tackling the larger issue of NPS pollution. Alternately, the process of revising the CWA would be arduous, difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and politically challenging. In order to produce the most effective change, a reasonable and easily enforced pollution control plan is a necessity.