October 1999
EPA903-R99-013
CBP/TRS 222/108
THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
he Chesapeake Bay Program, formed
in 1983 by the first Chesapeake
Bay Agreement, is a unique regional
partnership leading and directing
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The
Bay Program partners include the states of
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District
of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a
tri-state legislative body; the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which represents the federal
government; and participating citizen advisory groups.
The second Chesapeake Bay Agreement, adopted in
1987 and amended in 1992, established an overall
vision for the restoration and protection of the Bay.
One of its main goals is to reduce the nutrients nitrogen
and phosphorus entering the Bay by 40% by the year
2000. In the Amendments, partners agreed to maintain
the 40% goal beyond the year 2000 and to attack
nutrients at their source—upstream in the tributaries.
The Chesapeake Executive Council, made up of the
governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia; the
mayor of Washington, DC; the EPA administrator;
and the chair of the Bay Commission, guided the
restoration effort in 1993 with five directives addressing
key areas of the restoration, including the tributaries,
toxics, underwater Bay grasses, fish passages and
agricultural nonpoint source pollution. In 1994,
partners outlined initiatives for habitat restoration of
aquatic, riparian and upland environments; nutrient
reduction in the Bay's tributaries; and toxics reductions,
with an emphasis on pollution prevention.
The 1995 Local Government Partnership Initiative
engages the watersheds 1,650 local governments in the
Bay restoration effort. The Executive Council followed
this in 1996 by adopting the Local Government
Participation Action Plan and the Priorities for Action
for Land, Growth and Stewardship in the Chesapeake
Bay Region, which address land use management,
growth and development, stream corridor protection,
and infrastructure improvements. A 1996 riparian
forest buffers initiative furthers the Bay Program's
commitment to improving water quality and
enhancing habitat with the goal of increasing riparian
buffers on 2,010 miles of stream and shoreline in
the watershed by the year 2010. In 1997, the Bay
Program renewed its commitment to meet the 40%
nutrient reduction goal by the year 2000 and adopted
initiatives that addressed the acceleration of current
nutrient reduction efforts, expanded wetlands
protection and support for community-based
watershed restoration efforts.
Now, the Bay Program, advisory committees, all levels
of government and other Bay stakeholders set their
sights on Chesapeake 2000, a renewal of the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement and one of the four directives signed at
the 1998 Executive Council meeting. As always, the
Bay Program's highest priority is the restoration of the
Bay's living resources—its finfish, shellfish, Bay grasses,
and other aquatic life and wildlife. Chesapeake 2000
will assess the progress made since 1987 and, among
other objectives, will identify new science and emerging
challenges related to the Bay's health. Another
directive—the Bay Program's Education Initiative—
will bring information, data and the goals of the Bay
region's restoration into classrooms. The other two
1998 directives address innovative technologies in Bay
restoration and regional management of the use and
transport of animal waste.
410 Severn Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21403 • 1-800-YOUR BAY • Fax: 410-267-5777
www.chesapeakebay.net
-------
THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region
October 1999
_j Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Printed on recycled paper by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The State of the Chesapeake Bay
^ /he Chesapeake Bay and its rivers are an
i^X incredibly complex and productive natural
system. The 64,000-square-mile watershed teems
with life. This region is home to more than 3,000
species of plants and animals and at least 15.1 million
people. Every day, 300 more people call this region
home. That pressure poses a great challenge to our
natural resources and the pollution reductions we've
achieved so far.
To many, the steady restoration of the Chesapeake
system is a budding success story. As chief managers
of the Bay's resources since 1983, the Chesapeake Bay
Program partners have set clear goals for recovery
through the reduction of nutrient and toxic
pollution, plus habitat protection and restoration.
More specifically, the Bay Program partners, guided
by the Chesapeake Executive Council, put in place
the management efforts that have led to the return
of Bay grasses and cleaner water in most of our
rivers. The Executive Council membership changes
periodically, but its approach to the Bay restoration
has always been the same—set clear, measurable
goals, guide implementation and track the progress.
Measuring progress, however, is not an exact science.
One word, such as good, fair or poor, doesn't quite
tell the story. The bottom line is that the Bay
Program partners believe the Bay and many of its
living resources have come a long way since the
1970s. The Bay can be considered a patient that's just
been released from intensive care and is recovering.
Some of its vital signs are improving, but we need to
keep a very close watch on all the signals.
POPULATION PROJECTION:
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
.0 16 -
o
'*-•
IV
10
£
.£ a
W
I 6
a 4
To understand progress to date, we offer this report.
Treat it like a report to the shareholders. It is intended
to explain the results of the investments you've made
to protect and restore the Chesapeake system up to
this point. This report also marks the Bay Program's
continued commitment to be held accountable
for our performance as managers of the Bay's
precious resources.
This report highlights water quality conditions
and the status of creatures that call the Bay home.
The first question we answer is how are our most
important species doing? We also explain the progress
we're making to reduce the top four stressors on the
Bay system: excess nutrients, toxic pollution, air
pollution and landscape changes. Also highlighted
are the most recent policy decisions and goals that are
driving the overall cleanup effort, along with new
findings, innovative technologies and some of the
challenges we will face beyond 2000.
The Executive Council is preparing the road map
for the future: Chesapeake 2000. That renewed
agreement, to be written with the help of the citizens,
will be a visionary document to guide the Bay
Program into the next century. It also will lay out
plans for dealing with the next generation of issues,
such as the effects of a growing population on the
landscape, our cap on nutrient loads, sediment
pollution, the loss of forests and wetlands, and the
decline of several species of valuable fish, shellfish
and waterbirds.
More than anything, we hope this report will pique
your interest in further exploring the Chesapeake Bay
and its rivers and in making changes in your everyday
life that will help the clean-up effort. To help you
recognize areas where you can help, we include a
special feature called "What You Can Do"
throughout the report. If you are interested in more
information about anything you read here, refer to
our website at www.chesapeakebay.net or call us at
1-800-YOUR BAY. The Chesapeake is your Bay—
yours to restore and to enjoy.
1950 1960 1970 196Q 1990 2000 2010 2020
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
How THE BAY WORKS 6
The Citizen Connection: Citizens Advisory Committee
CHAPTER ONE - WHAT LIVES IN A HEALTHY SYSTEM
Striped Bass 8
The Critter Connection: Plankton
Shad & Herring 10
The Habitat Connection: Fish Passage
For Your Information: Pfiesteria
Blue Crabs 12
The Habitat Connection: Underwater Grasses
Oysters 14
The Habitat Connection: Oyster Reefs
The Critter Connection: Benthos
Bald Eagles 16
Osprey
The Habitat Connection: Forests
For Your Information: Forests
Ducks, Herons & Egrets 19
The Habitat Connection: Wetlands
For Your Information: Exotic Species
CHAPTER TWO - STRESSORS ON THE SYSTEM: THE BAY'S TOP CHALLENGES
Nutrients 24
Sources of Nutrients: Point and Nonpoint
The Technical Connection: Computer Modeling
Making Progress: The Year 2000 Goal
Making Progress: Reducing Nutrients from Point Sources
The Technical Connection: Biological Nutrient Removal
Making Progress: Reducing Nutrients from Nonpoint Sources
For Your Information: Best Management Practices
The Technical Connection: Nutrient Management
Making Progress: Tributary Strategies
Making Progress: How Have We Done So Far?
-------
Toxic Chemicals/Chemical Contaminants 30
Pollution From Industry
Toxics of Concern
For Your Information: Pesticide Disposal
For Your Information: Integrated Pest Management
The Pollution Prevention Connection: Businesses for the Bay
Air Pollution 32
Landscape Changes 34
Population Boom
Patterns Change
Sprawl & Air Pollution
Sustainable System
Chesapeake Bay Community Partnerships (Map)
CHAPTER THREE - WATER QUALITY IN THE RIVERS & MAIN BAY
Chesapeake Bay Watershed & its Major Rivers (Map) 40
Non-tidal Rivers 41
Top Finding
Trends in the Non-tidal Rivers (Maps)
For Your Information: High Flows
Tidal Rivers & the Main Bay 46
Top Findings for the Tidal Rivers
Top Findings for the Main Bay
For Your Information: Status & Trends
For Your Information: Lag Time
For Your Information: Water Clarity
Status & Trends in the Mainstem Bay & Tidal Tributaries (Maps)
The Citizen Connection: Bernie Fowler's Sneaker Index
CONCLUSION 53
CHESAPEAKE BAY TIME LINE 54
-------
r IA •' •' ••• '''''•'•' t'J'V '•'^••'v •''">'•' "'''"^K'>^'l", '*'''" ';*'; '•'',>'••'':,".
-•,,, , ,, ,, - M, •..,•. .-. „ * ''''M^%^; V'"^''";/ ,*'" .'"''"'^''''f.^'' "is'^ff',t/(i'' 'ic''^!'fc< fi,-:
>"^ v?V; ;»^',sr .^ :>'>/"^
•\, '•' ^/ - --1';' r.'i;-'•" :"" '^: V-T', ^'.''il', ;:'"'-i/\!^fe:',^^^ttl
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of the Chesapeake Bay
)ince 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program has
been working in cooperation with federal,
state and local governments; industry; farmers;
environmentalists; conservation associations; citizen
groups; and others to restore the Bay's water quality
by reducing pollution. To help guide these efforts, the
Bay Program set a series of challenging goals to
achieve its top priority—the restoration of living
resources including finfish, shellfish, underwater Bay
grasses and other aquatic life and wildlife.
As we approach 2000, striped bass are back in record
numbers, underwater grasses have rebounded since
the 1980s, and sewage treatment plant upgrades have
helped in the ongoing clean-up of rivers. We have
made impressive progress toward the ambitious
nutrient reduction goal set in 1987. Scientists
recognized early on that excess nutrients were the
Bay's number one pollution problem; that's why
clean-up efforts are focused so heavily on reducing
them. The implementation of nutrient reduction
strategies in the major tributary rivers has been a key
to this progress, along with strong citizen support. It's
fair to say that the Bay and rivers would be in much
worse shape today if no action had been taken.
There's more good news: in some places, living
resources are beginning to respond, especially in areas
where management actions have been concentrated.
However, that good news is tempered by the lack of
water quality improvements in some areas and the
effect of Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-\ike organisms on
fish and humans in 1997. There also is a disturbing
trend showing significant losses of Bay grasses in the
Tangier Sound area—one of the most productive
areas of the Bay for blue crabs. The challenges we face
in restoring living resources and reducing nutrients
remind us that we need to do more if we want to
achieve our living resource and habitat restoration
goals and, ultimately, a healthier, more productive,
more resilient Bay system.
OVERVIEW
• Nutrient Reduction — The Bay Program's most
important goal is the 40% reduction of the
controllable loads of nitrogen and phosphorus
entering the Bay by 2000. In 1997, following
extensive reevaluation, the Bay Program
concluded that the phosphorus goal will be met,
but the nitrogen goal wouldn't unless current
reduction efforts were accelerated. Since then, a
number of actions have been taken to close the gap
on nitrogen.
• Toxics Reduction — We're learning more about
the sources of toxic chemicals to the major river
basins in the region. New data will enable the Bay
Program to target and tailor toxics reduction and
pollution prevention efforts. Between 1988 and
1997, industries have reduced toxic releases into
the Bay by 67%.
• Air pollution — Scientists estimate that
approximately 21% of all the nitrogen in the Bay
region comes from the air. Air quality monitoring
has become more sophisticated, and there is
growing evidence that nitrogen emissions,
particularly nitrogen oxides, contribute
significantly to the excess nutrient problem in
the Chesapeake system.
• Landscape changes — Put simply, changes to
the landscape throughout the Chesapeake region
threaten to undo more than 25 years of
environmental improvements in just a short time.
While the Bay Program partners grapple with
controlling or eliminating the top stressors on the
Bay system, there is good news on the local level.
More local governments and watershed organizations
are spearheading decision-making and hands-on
work to reduce nutrients and toxics and to restore
habitat. More citizens throughout the region also
monitor water quality in their neighborhood for
nutrients, oxygen, clarity and the presence of Bay
grasses. Schools across the region also are kicking in
with habitat restoration projects and clean-up efforts.
Overall, the effort to restore the Chesapeake system is
stronger than ever with more partners on all levels.
-------
NOW 1 If! B "-'i \\
The State of the Chesapeake Bay
«fc-
-------
WHAT LIVES IN A HEALTHY SYSTEM
1983, the Chesapeake Bay Programs highest priority has been
the restoration of living resources. In total, there are about 3,000
species of plants and animals in the Chesapeake ecosystem. That's a
daunting number, so we chose six of the most ecologically important and
highly visible species on which to report in depth: striped bass, shad, blue
crabs, oysters, bald eagles and waterbirds. In the following chapter, we
present these creatures in a larger context, including their food sources
and favorite habitat. For example, when we report on striped bass, we also
report on plankton, one of their food sources. Although there are many
stories to tell, we hope this chapter begins to clarify the complex
connections that exist within the ecosystem.
-------
STRIPED BASS
/ arge striped bass, some weighing as much as 70
(f\ pounds, prowl the Chesapeake Bay, consuming
smaller fish. However, these top predators, also called
rockfish, begin their lives as tiny larvae that feed on
microscopic animals called zooplankton. Striped bass
are migratory fish that live most of their lives in
saltwater, but reproduce
in freshwater. They may
live as long as 30 years, and
females often don't mature
until they are seven or
eight years old. During
early April through the end of May,
mature adults migrate to the Bay's tidal freshwater
tributaries to spawn. Unlike other fish that migrate
far up the tributaries, striped bass spawn where the
freshwater begins.
Tiny bass larvae hatch from eggs several days after
spawning when the water temperature is just right.
Young bass, or juveniles, often hide from predators in
underwater Bay grass beds. Food such as insect
larvae, tiny worms, larval fish and other small
creatures abound in these grasses. As juveniles grow,
they move to saltier water. By their second year,
juveniles, like their parents, are consuming fish and
shellfish. The striped bass diet changes with the
seasons as other fish move through the Bay. Bay
anchovy and Atlantic menhaden may dominate their
diet during summer and fall. Spot and Atlantic
croaker sustain striped bass through cold winter
months. White perch and river herring
become important fare as bass
migrate up the Bay in spring and
early summer.
Striped bass require plenty
of oxygen in the water
through all of their life stages. As
waters warm in the summer months and
algae grow and die, oxygen levels in water decline.
In turn, striped bass may be squeezed out of entire
regions of the Bay.
Striped bass are a fisheries management success story.
Over-fishing led to very low numbers of striped bass
by the late 1970s. Conservative fishery management
measures first banned, then limited striped bass
fishing. The goal was attained in the mid-1990s, and
the Atlantic States Marines Fisheries Commission
declared the striped bass stock restored as of January
1, 1995. Even now, spawning stocks continue to rise.
STRIPED BASS ARE BACK!
I
£
'
-------
«e 9
STATUS OF FISHERY STOCKS IN 1998
Striped Bass
Atlantic Croaker
Spot
Catfish
White Perch
Black Drum
Weakfish
Yellow Perch
Blue Crab
Softshell Clam
Atlantic Menhaden
Spotted Seatrout
Summer Flounder
American Eel
Hard Clam
Horseshoe Crab
Hickory Shad
Red Drum
Bluefish
Black Sea Bass
Tautog
Alewife and
Blueback Herring
American Oyster
American Shad
Atlantic Sturgeon
Shortnose
Sturgeon
restored
historically high levels
appear healthy,
moderate abundance
appear healthy
recent indices above average
appear healthy,
abundance variable
moderate abundance,
recovery under way
indices above previous lows
since 1993
slightly below long-term
average abundance
depleted abundance dependent on
water temperature
concern over recent
poor recruitment
recent indications
of reduced abundance
overfished, medium abundance,
recovery under way
recent indications of
low abundance
recent signs of
decreased abundance
recent indications of
low abundance
moderate abundance, approaching
historic numbers in some rivers
overfished, recovery plan adopted
overfished, low abundance
overfished, low abundance,
recovery plan adopted
overfished, recovery plan adopted
low abundance
severely depleted,
recovery under way
very depressed abundance
(Bay moratorium)
40 year moratorium in place
endangered
PLANKTON:
The Base of the Food Web & The
Main Course for Young Fish
Although scientists know a lot more
about the Chesapeake Bay and Its
creatures today than they did 15 years
ago, It Is still difficult to make a direct
link between water quality, fish food and fish. But
the presence of two types of plankton—microscopic
plants and animals—best Indicate this link.
Phytoplankton are microscopic plants. They form
the base of the food web In the aquatic environment
and provide a measure of the effectiveness of our
efforts to reduce nutrient pollution. Phytoplankton
quickly respond to changes In nutrient levels, giving
scientists a direct Indication of the Bay's health.
Zooplankton are the community of floating animals
that feed on phytoplankton. They are the most
plentiful animals In the Bay and Its rivers. One
gallon of water can contain more than a half-million
zooplankton, ranging In size from tiny single-celled
Protozoa to large jellyfish. All fish are dependent on
zooplankton for food during their larval life stages,
and some species—Including herring, shad and the
Bay anchovy—eat zooplankton their entire lives.
Although difficult to measure, data show that fish
food availability, plus zooplankton diversity and
abundance, are Improving In the upper reaches of
some tidal tributaries. For example, In the Patuxent
River, these changes may be related to nutrient
reductions and Improving water quality conditions.
Also, heavy spring rains that caused high freshwater
flows In the rivers In 1998 gave these zooplankton
the opportunity to rebound from previous lows.
Meanwhile, the number of young migratory fish has
grown along with Increased levels In the abundance
of zooplankton.
Elsewhere In the Bay system, zooplankton show
declining trends over the past 12 years. In the Bay's
malnstem and the lower reaches of some tributaries,
the diversity of zooplankton has declined
dramatically, suggesting that nutrient and sediment
pollution still Impacts these waters.
-------
SHAD & HERRING
and herring, called anadromous fish,
begin their lives in the free-flowing freshwater
reaches of the Bay's rivers and streams, but spend the
majority of their lives in the Atlantic Ocean. American
shad and hickory shad are related to alewife and
blueback herring, which also are called river herring.
In the ocean, shad feed on crustaceans, insects and
small fish. During spring, mature shad migrate
through the Bay and up freshwater tributaries to
spawn. The American shad migration may begin as
early as mid-February, and it peaks during April.
Hickory shad spawning peaks later. Adults of all
species attempt to return to the ocean after spawning,
but are preyed upon by striped bass and bluefish.
Shad eggs, carried by river currents along the bottom,
hatch in two to 17 days. Shad larvae live near the
surface and drift downstream with the currents. They
require high dissolved oxygen levels and relatively clear
water to develop. The larvae change into young shad
and spend their first summer in the freshwater portions
of the rivers. Juveniles eat plankton. As fall approaches,
they move toward the ocean where they grow for
several years before returning to the rivers to spawn.
River herring have a life cycle similar to shad and are
an important food source for a variety of creatures,
including osprey green heron, striped bass, largemouth
bass and perch.
STOCKING UP ON FISH
Formerly one of the most abundant and valuable
fisheries in the Bay, stocks of shad and herring are
depleted. However, states are using a number of
strategies to replenish stocks and to control fishing.
A Bay fishing moratorium was placed on shad in
Maryland in 1980 and in Virginia in 1994 and
remains in place today. However, the shad intercept
fishery, which operates coastwide in the Atlantic
Ocean, still removes shad from the annual spawning
run. Recently, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission amended its shad management plan
to include a five-year phase-out of that fishery
beginning in 2000.
Bay region restocking efforts for shad are among the
most ambitious in the country. For example, between
1986 and 1998, a total of 218 million American shad
fry and fingerlings were cultured and released in
direct support of restoration programs in the
Susquehanna, James, Pamunkey, Potomac and several
Maryland rivers. In 1998 alone, nearly 34 million
juvenile American shad—the highest number ever—
were reared in hatcheries and released into
Bay tributaries.
PROGRESS MADE GETTING MIGATORY FISH PAST DAMS AND OTHER BLOCKAGES
14OO-1
| 1200 H
a.
o
t: 1000-
v, 600 -
i
.1 400-
1
3 200-
0^
Ysar2003 goal (1,357milas)
Taarl 993 goal (731 mi las)
Opened, but not yet to Anadromous Fish
OpenedtoAnadro mous F eh
Fish, like shad, that live in the Bay
and ocean as adults and migrate to
spawn in freshwater are called
anadromous fish.
Fish passages help anadromous fish
swim upstream, past dams and other
blockages, to reach freshwater
spawning habitat.
The removal of stream blockages and
construction of fish passages, between
1988 and 1998, have reopened 523.5
miles of historic spawning habitat to
migratory fish and an additional 121.5
miles to resident fish. A total of 645
miles have been reopened.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1995 1997 1994
-------
11
FISH PASSAGE:
Projects Give a Lift to Shad
& Herring
Shad and herring populations
plummeted primarily because of over-
fishing and their inability to reach
historic spawning grounds due to
human-installed stream blockages. More than
2,500 dams, road culverts and bridge aprons
stop fish from moving upstream.
Fish passages have been constructed, allowing
shad and herring to bypass those blockages and
to reach historic spawning grounds. Fish passage
goals established by the Chesapeake Executive
Council in 1993 directed Bay Program partners
to open more than 1,356 miles by 2003.
Through 1998, 645 miles of Bay tributaries
were reopened.
Giant fish lifts or elevators are one way to get
shad and herring past hydroelectric facilities.
Major projects to open the four largest dams in
the Bay region—all located on the Susquehanna
River—began in 1991, when Conowingo Dam's
fishlift opened. Fish elevators at Safe Harbor and
Holtwood dams—the largest-capacity fish lift
operations in the nation—opened in 1997. The
final project, a fish ladder at the York Haven
hydroelectric facility, is scheduled to provide fish
passage by 2000. In 1998, the last of five dams
on the James River was breached. A ladder
added at Bosher's Dam opened the river from
Richmond to Lynchburg.
Dam removal is another way to breach barriers.
In Pennsylvania, state agencies are working with
citizens to restore habitat by breaching or
removing non-beneficial dams. Between 1995
and 1997, 18 low-head dams were removed,
mostly in the Susquehanna basin, where more
than 200 low-head dams have been identified for
possible removal.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
• Help clean and maintain fish passages.
• Encourage your local and state governments
to facilitate construction of fish passages.
• Remove old dams that are no longer used
on your property.
• Support strong management actions to allow
stocks to increase and prevent over-fishing.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION...
Pfiesteria: A Toxic Organism Linked to Fish
Kills & Human Health Effects
Outbreaks of the toxic organism Pfiesteria piscicida had been
identified and reported in North Carolina in the early 1990s,
but the Chesapeake region did not encounter this tiny
creature until the drought-stricken summer of 1997. That's
when several tidal creeks in the Chesapeake system experienced
outbreaks, and fish kills occurred. We were luckier in 1998;
no fish kills were attributed to Pfiesteria. However, officials
continue to make more funds available for research to
determine why the toxic organism was found in the Bay region.
First, a little background. In August and September of 1997,
up to 50,000 fish—mostly a small bait fish called menhaden—
were found dead on Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore. The
incidents were in the Pocomoke River, Kings Creek (a tributary
of the Manokin River) and the Chicamacomico River.
Laboratory analysis confirmed that a dinoflagellate (a free-
swimming, single-celled organism) called Pfiesteria piscicida
was present at toxic levels that summer and was the probable
cause of the fish kills. In Virginia, in September 1997, species
within the Pfiesteria complex were identified in the
Rappahannock River. Their appearance was associated with a
high incidence of fish with lesions.
Medical evidence also collected during 1997 strongly suggested
that exposure to an active outbreak of Pfiesteria may result in
significant, but probably temporary, health impacts on
humans, including short-term memory difficulties and
respiratory problems. As a precaution, Maryland closed all
three rivers until the outbreaks ceased. However, there is no
evidence that Pfiesteria toxins accumulate in fish flesh or that
they can be passed to humans by eating seafood.
Although many factors must combine to encourage the growth
of Pfiesteria, the only one that humans have any significant
influence on is nutrient levels. Nutrient levels in the areas of the
outbreaks were high compared with other areas of the Bay. The
major source of these nutrients on Maryland's Eastern Shore is
agriculture—in particular, the expanding poultry industry and
the use of poultry litter on cropland.
Today, Maryland and Virginia are working with several federal
agencies to monitor habitat quality, fish health and any future
Pfiesteria outbreaks. One step was the installation of an
extensive early warning monitoring system by Maryland and
Virginia between the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998.
This early warning system helped scientists and medical
professionals better detect the presence of Pfiesteria in rivers. In
1999, following a year when there were no outbreaks, scientists
found non-toxic forms of Pfiesteria in two more rivers on
Maryland's Eastern Shore.
-------
BLUE CRABS
lue crabs scour the bottom of the Chesapeake
'Bay, preying on other crustaceans, small fish
and shellfish. They also act as underwater vultures,
scavenging for dead plants and animals.
In turn, they are consumed by
cownose rays, eels, striped bass,
bluefish, herons, diving ducks,
raccoons and each other. Humans
are pretty fond of them too.
Blue crabs begin their lives in
summer, near the mouth of the
Bay, when females release larvae (zoeae). Zoeae are
carried by currents out of the Bay's mouth and to the
ocean, where they need high salinity to grow. After
a month or so, zoeae change into shrimp-like
megalopae that drift back into the Bay on wind-
driven currents. Megalopae molt or shed their shell,
turning into tiny juvenile crabs. They continue to
molt the outer shells as they grow, maturing at 12 to
18 months of age, when the shell measures about five
inches tip-to-tip. As young crabs grow during
summer and fall, they disperse throughout the
Bay. Male crabs prefer lower salinity areas in the
upper Bay and tributaries. Females prefer the
higher salinity of the lower Bay and the mid to
lower tributaries, and many overwinter in southern
Bay waters.
Immediately after molting, crabs are vulnerable to
predators because they are soft, so they often hide in
Bay grass beds for protection. Young crabs use Bay
grass beds for nursery areas, and crabs of all sizes
forage for food there. Bay scientists
have found that 30 times more
young crabs were found in Bay
grasses than in areas without grass.
Crabs, like other Bay creatures, are
susceptible to summer's low oxygen
conditions. Fueled by nutrient
pollution from farms, sewage treatment plants,
homes and cars, algal blooms remove oxygen from
the water, and crabs may be driven from low-oxygen
areas. They may even die from low oxygen levels
when trapped in crab pots under these conditions.
With declines of finfish and other shellfish species,
there is concern that increased crab fishing efforts
could affect blue crab populations. A 1997
assessment of the blue crab stock showed that
population often fluctuates and, during the 1990s,
numbers were about average. The 1997 Chesapeake
Bay Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan outlines the
coordinated Baywide effort to monitor and control
crab harvests. Under the plan, Bay jurisdictions will
continue a cautious and conservative approach to
managing the blue crab stock.
BLUE CRABS HANGING ON
20 -i
1D -
Jl!
OD-
-0.5 •
-1D •
Mature Female
Blue Crabs
The Chesapeake Bay blue crab fisheries
are valuable. They provide significant
economic benefits for many people in the
region. Mature female abundance is lower
than during the 1980s but is comparable
to the 1970s. The 1997Chesapeake Bay
Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan does
not recommend any regulatory changes
but calls for a cautious and conservative
approach to managing the stock.
69 71 73 75 77 79 61 43 65 47 69 91 93 95 3! 96
-------
.,13
UNDERWATER GRASSES:
The Bay's Unique Yardstick
The plants growing under the surface in
shallow water are called underwater grasses
or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
They provide food for waterfowl and
habitat for fish, crabs and invertebrates; remove
suspended sediments from the water; protect
shorelines from waves and erosion; and add oxygen to
water. Grass growth is dependent on sufficient levels
of sunlight reaching the underwater leaves. Scientists
believe that underwater grasses once covered more
than 600,000 acres of Bay bottom. However,
increasing amounts of nutrients and sediment in
water, including significant runoff from Tropical
Storm Agnes in 1972, have contributed to declines in
grass acreage.
Because they are not harvested like many other Bay
resources, grasses give managers a unique yardstick for
measuring progress in the Chesapeake clean-up. They
also have a well-documented link to water quality. So
in the late 1980s, the Bay Program began targeting
underwater grasses for special protection and
restoration. In 1993, the Executive Council agreed to
an interim goal of 114,000 total acres of grasses
Baywide in 2005. Through 1998, based on aerial
surveys, the Bay Program was more than half-way to
meeting that goal with over 63,000 acres.
Discovery of damage to existing underwater grass
beds prompted action in the Maryland and Virginia
legislatures in 1998. In Maryland, the legislature
adopted laws that prohibit hydraulic clam dredging
in Bay grass beds in the Chesapeake Bay and the
state's coastal bays. Virginia never has allowed
hydraulic dredging. In Virginia, the Marina
Resources Commission adopted regulations which
prohibit clamming within 200 meters of grass beds in
Chincoteague Bay (a coastal bay) and regulations
which prohibit the placement of new aquaculture
structures within grass beds.
Between 1997 and 1998, grass acreage increased
significantly in several Maryland and Virginia
tributaries including the Severn, Magothy and South
rivers and parts of the Potomac, Mattaponi,
Pamunkey and Chickahominy rivers. However,
grasses declined for the sixth straight year in 1998 in
Tangier Sound—one of the most productive areas for
crabs in the Bay. Scientists are looking at a variety of
possible causes for the decline, including increased
suspended sediment, decreased water clarity and
excess nutrient. Destruction by more localized
activities, like clam dredging, also is being considered.
114
100-
BAY GRASS ACREAGE
Potential Habitat (600JOOO acres)
interim |JO3I(114£CQ acres)
*-No sumevs-*
.,p p ^ ^ p .~|| |,^ „,,j | j( | t|,|
76 60 6! 64 66 66 90 92 94 96 96
Bay grasses are vital habitat for fish and crabs.
Improved water quality will promote Bay
grass growth.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
• Participate in citizen water quality monitoring.
• Help environmental organizations plant Bay grasses.
• Be a responsible boater and avoid disturbing Bay
grass beds.
• Use environmentally friendly landscaping techniques
that require less fertilizer, prevent erosion and utilize
native plants. This helps prevent sediments and
nutrients from reaching Bay waters.
-------
•» j 1 K>
jysters are odd-looking critters, but are valuable to
the Chesapeake Bay for their ability to filter
nutrients, toxics and sediment from the water. Except
during the larval stage, they are immobile and
permanently attached to reefs. Adult oysters may spawn
more than once a season, releasing millions of eggs at a
time. Fertilized eggs develop cilia, or tiny hairs, which
enable them to swim. Within weeks, larvae develop a
foot that is used to explore for hard bottom and a good
place to attach. After attachment, juvenile oysters, also
called spat, quickly develop and grow.
Oyster larvae are eaten by sea anemones, sea nettles and
other filter feeders, while flatworms and small crabs
consume new spat. Older spat and first-year oysters are
fare for larger crabs and fish. Although oysters are very
tolerant of changes in salinity, they stop feeding,
growing and reproducing in very low salinity. That
means freshwater flooding is particularly threatening to
oysters because it lowers water salinity, and it carries
heavy loads of sediments, which smother oysters.
Oysters are more tolerant of chemical contaminants
than many estuarine species, but eggs and larvae may
be vulnerable to chemical pollution and heavy metals
like copper.
Long ago, huge oysters once lived on underwater shell
reefs that rose from the bottom of the Bay to near its
surface. Millions of these large oysters fed on plankton,
each filtering about 50 gallons of water per day. Because
oysters were healthy and plentiful, they completely
filtered the Bay's water in under a week during summer,
keeping water clear as they fed. A valuable commodity
worldwide, oysters were once the mainstay of the Bay's
fishing industry. Chesapeake oysters were famous for
their size, tenderness and taste. The reefs they grew also
were well known because their height made them
hazards to navigation. Now the industry, along with the
natural oyster reef, is almost nonexistent.
Basically, the oyster population declined as a result of
over-harvesting and the loss of habitat as the huge reefs
were scraped away by fleets of oyster boats. Commercial
harvests in 1998 were about 2% of those seen in the
1950s, when 30 to 40 million pounds were taken from
the Chesapeake each year. Natural oyster reefs, once
the stuff of legends, now exist only as flat hard surfaces
on the bottom. And, the Bay's oysters now require
more than a year to filter its waters because they are
fewer in number.
Today, disease is the number one threat to oysters. Two
diseases that were discovered in the Bay some 40 years
ago, MSX and Dermo, have decimated the oyster. MSX
kills spat, while Dermo kills adult oysters before they
are big enough to reproduce or harvest. Despite this,
oyster spat production shows strong annual peaks, and
Maryland's 1997 spat set was the second highest since
monitoring began in 1939. But, this resilient species
continues to endure fluctuating conditions, and
officials, scientists and citizens are working together to
develop constructed reefs as well as disease-resistant
oysters that can thrive.
40 -,
OYSTER HARVESTS DECLINE DRAMATICALLY
Oyster harvests In (he Bay have
declined due (o harvesting,
disease, pollution, and loss of
oyster reef habitat,
.**••!
1953
SO
90
95 9fi
-------
15
z
O
H
U
Z
z
O
U
I
cO
OJ
r-<
P
Oyster Reefs
Oysters can attach to many hard
surfaces, but grow best when they
live on oyster shell reefs. Oyster
reefs provide hard structure where
barnacles, clams and other filter feeders also
attach. Crabs and finfish take advantage of the
reefs, hiding among the shells and dining on
each other. Destruction of these reefs due to
harvesting techniques has greatly reduced
suitable habitat for oysters and the many other
creatures that live on and around their reefs.
State and federal fishery agencies have begun
constructing protected oyster reefs by placing
oyster shells on the hard bottom where oyster
reefs used to exist. Constructed reefs get oysters
off the bottom where they may be smothered
by sediments. More than a dozen reefs—all
protected from harvest—have been created in
the Bay's tidal regions.
Benthos
Benthos refers to the wide variety of
animals that live on or in the bottom
sediments of the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries. Clams, crustaceans and
worms are some of the animals that make up
the benthic community. Many of these
creatures are a food source for blue crabs and
fish such as croaker, spot, striped bass and white
perch. Benthic animals filter plankton and
organic particles from the water column and are
good indicators of pollution and low dissolved
oxygen levels. A low level of dissolved oxygen in
bottom waters, which is ultimately caused by
excess nutrients, harms the Bay's benthos. Toxic
contamination also is a threat to benthos in a
few isolated areas. Experts agree that we must
reduce nutrient loads to the Bay and toxic
contamination in the sediments before benthic
communities can be restored. In 1997, more
than 50% of the benthic community and
habitat in the middle mainstem Bay and in the
tidal Potomac, Rappahannock and York rivers
did not meet benthic restoration goals.
Z
O
U
Z
Z
O
u
U
» '-^"B-*!- '. •^••1
TT- • *••- - ?t?"'-' --"-"%8&a
^rW;^ ZVP
,;-•«' *- 'iVffr.T^'1 ,.- "
l^^*^".'.^^-"^ ^^
riMj-.vs- ••.•,»•.>> • **
_ ^^fe'-^j-Sv.Jk^
•-^r
The Lynnhaven oysler reef, the 13th reef constructed
in Virginia's part of the Chesapeake Bay since 1993,
was built with 80,000 bushels of oyster shells. The Lyiinhaven
reef allows oysters to spawn, grow and compete effectively
despite disease pressure.
DO
• Join organizations that raise oysters for release
on Bay oyster reefs or build oyster gardens.
• Volunteer to help stock oysters on reefs.
* Encourage your local and state governments to
consider construction of protected reefs and to
further protect existing reefs.
* Urge strong regulations on harvest.
-------
BALD EAGLES
aid eagles, the living symbol of our nation,
'nest throughout the Chesapeake region. They
are attracted to the Bay's forested shorelines and fish.
This combination of habitat and food makes the
Chesapeake home to one of the highest
concentrations of eagles in the country,
especially in areas along the Potomac,
Rappahannock and James rivers and
in Dorchester County on Maryland's
Eastern Shore.
Weighing between 10 and 30 pounds
and with a wingspan of up to seven
feet, adult eagles are opportunistic
scavengers and predators. They eat
whatever is available—fish, birds and
mammals—dead or alive. This flexibility in
feeding contrasts with their specific habitat
requirements. Eagles are big birds that need tall,
sturdy trees for nesting and perching. Because eagles
are easily disturbed by human activity, suitable trees
must be located in undisturbed areas, usually
within a mile of water. In the Bay watershed, eagles
construct nests throughout the year and lay one to
three eggs from January through March. Young
eaglets leave the nests from May through July and
remain close to their parents for several weeks.
Bald eagles can be seen in the Bay region all year.
Those raised near the Bay usually stay their entire
lives. The Bay also is an important migratory route
during spring and fall for eagles from northeastern
US and Canada. Although the Bay has a large
eagle population now, their long-term success will
depend on the health of the Bay's fisheries and the
protection of forested habitat along shorelines.
During the early 1900s, illegal shooting and
habitat destruction jeopardized the Bay's bald
-<•- eagle population. By mid-century,
however, the pesticide DDT had
become the greatest threat. The
number of young eaglets dropped
from one or two per nest in the
1930s to one young for every five
active nests in the early 1960s. DDT was
widely used for controlling insects at the time, and it
quickly contaminated the aquatic food web. DDT
contamination caused eagles and other predators to
lay eggs with very thin shells that cracked easily under
the weight of the parents. As a result, the Bay's eagle
population declined from more than 1,000 pairs in
the early 1900s to fewer than 90 pairs in 1972, when
DDT was banned in the US. The bald eagle was
placed on the Endangered Species List in 1973.
BALD EAGLE POPULATION ON THE REBOUND!
700 ~<
Tfbung
Active Wests
"i—i—r—i—1—i—i—t—i—i—i—r—i—t—1
77 7* 79 40 41 62 63 64 45 66 *7 66 69 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 9S
Actions to control chemical
contaminants have led to
improved conditions in the
Bay. Bald eagles have rebounded
due to the ban on the pesticide
DDT in 1972, protection
provided by the Endangered
Species Act m 1973, and
increased public awareness.
-------
17
As a result of the DDT ban and the protection
provided by its endangered status, eagle numbers
increased as more young were produced. In 1995, the
US Fish & Wildlife Service downlisted the bald eagle
from endangered to threatened. In 1998, more than
450 active nests produced more than 600 young in
the Bay region.
Because the bald eagle has rebounded, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service in 1999 began its process to
remove it from the Endangered Species List.
OSPREY: The Bay's Acrobats
Osprey are another success story in the Bay region.
Every March, around St. Patrick's Day, these sharp-
eyed hunters return from Central and South
American wintering areas to nest on channel markers,
buoys and other platforms. Osprey stay through
September raising young and performing aerial
acrobatics as they hunt and dive for fish. In recent
years, the Bay region has been home to more than
2,000 nesting pairs a year or 25% of the nation's
breeding pairs. The future productivity and stability
of the osprey population in the Bay region will be
tied closely to restoration of our fisheries and to
protection of their habitat on wintering grounds.
Young oxpivv .no ;i t omnion MU,!H in <-u'i v patI ot (he
Chesapi-aki- if-i'<<-!i cat b
FORESTS:
Healthy Forests Mean
a Healthy Bay
Experts agree that healthy forests
are directly linked to the health of
1 our rivers and, ultimately, the Bay.
Forests are important because they
play a key role in nearly every part of the Bay
system. They protect our streams and soil; filter
our air; clean our water; provide places for
recreation; and supply the raw materials for
fuel, lumber and paper. Forests also provide
many kinds of habitat important to the
survival of fish and wildlife. More than half
of the Bay's species use riparian forests
during their lifecycles.
Scientific findings clearly show that forests are
the most beneficial land use for clean water.
Acting as a living filter, forests capture rainfall,
reduce storm water runoff, maintain stream
flow, reduce erosion, trap nutrients and stabilize
soil. When streams and shorelines are buffered
by forests, the amount of nutrients and soil
washing into the Bay is reduced significantly.
Large areas of healthy forest and streamside
forests are essential to keeping nutrient and
sediment pollution out of the rivers and Bay.
DO
9 Plant native trees on your property,
especially along waterways.
• Organize and/or volunteer for
streamside forest restoration and
stream monitoring projects in
your community.
» Encourage your local government to
incorporate forest conservation and
stream corridor protection in local
land use planning and zoning.
* Call your state forestry agency if
you have questions about forests in
your area.
-------
FOR YOUR INFORMATION..
What's Happening to Our Forests?
When explorer John Smith arrived in the
Chesapeake Bay in 1607, forests covered almost
95% of the land in the region. Then came the
settlers, and by the late 1800's, only 40% of the
watershed remained forested. This dramatic loss
was due to two centuries of extensive timber
harvesting for fuel, shelter and fences, plus land
clearing for agriculture. From that low point,
forests began to recover and expand. The expansion
lasted until the mid-1970s when, once again,
forested acres began to decline and forests became
increasingly fragmented.
Today, forests are still the dominant land cover in
the Bay region, covering 59% of the watershed.
However, we are losing forests at a rate of up to 100
acres per day. And, the forests we have are unevenly
distributed across the watershed, with the areas
closest to the Bay showing more rapid declines.
Most of the recent loss is due to suburban
development spurred on by population growth. If
estimates are correct, the region's population will
increase by three million people to nearly 18 million
by 2020, and a total of 1.7 million new homes
will be constructed. With the current pattern of
development, this will consume more than 636,000
acres of forests and farmland and will change our
natural landscape permanently.
FOREST FRAGMENTATION
When large tracts of forest are carved up into
smaller and more isolated patches, it leads to what
we call forest fragmentation. Forest fragmentation
can disrupt animal travel corridors, increase
flooding, increase the invasion of non-native
vegetation, expose isolated forest interiors and create
conflicts between people and wildlife. Forest
fragmentation affects water quality, fish and wildlife
populations and the biological health and diversity
of the forest itself. When many small habitat losses
occur over time, the cumulative impact can be as
dramatic as one large loss. When habitat is lost and
fragmented, wildlife populations decline and some
species may be eliminated.
FOREST ACREAGE DECLINING
100n
after civil
War and
Depression
1650
1700
1750
1SOO
1650
1303
1950
200
Forests provide critical habitat and help prevent
pollutants and sediment from reaching the Bay and
rivers. About. 59% of the Bay basin is currently forested.
PROTECT & RESTORE RIPARIAN FORESTS
Experts have long known that the forests along streams,
rivers and shorelines—known as riparian forests—are
especially critical to water quality and stream health.
Riparian forests are the last line of defense for
protecting waterways from pollution washing off the
land. The Chesapeake Bay Program is actively
addressing the decline and degradation of streamside
forests in the region. In 1996, the Chesapeake
Executive Council adopted the Riparian Forest Buffer
Initiative, a Baywide set of goals and recommendations
that some consider the strongest riparian buffer
protection and restoration policy in the country. The
overall goals are to protect existing buffers throughout
the region and to restore 2,010 miles of riparian forests
by the year 2010. Involving private landowners in this
effort through new incentives and partnerships also is
an important part of the buffer initiative.
-------
DUCKS, HERONS & EGRETS
/"" j^^
^ yhink of the Chesapeake Bay and birds will
t^_^/ fly through that image. Almost 30 species of
waterfowl, including ducks, geese and swans, visit the
Bay during winter. Wading birds, such as the great
blue heron, are prominent throughout the region.
Birds of all sizes are intricately entwined in the
Bay's ecosystem and, like eagles and osprey, many
are sensitive to environmental changes. So
how are the Bay's waterbirds
doing? Overall, trends show a
mixed picture. Most species
show improvement, such as brant,
mergansers and canvasback. Some species,
including scoters, black ducks and redheads,
are down substantially.
Increasing waterfowl populations are not always good
for the Bay. In addition to resident mallards, growing
populations of resident Canada geese and non-native
mute swans harm the ecosystem by consuming food
resources such as Bay grasses needed by other
waterfowl and by out-competing native species for
breeding areas. Humans often don't appreciate large
flocks occupying their beaches and ponds, and the
increasing bacteria levels in swimming areas and
shellfish grounds can be a health hazard. Snow geese
populations also have dramatically increased in recent
years. They are destroying their tundra breeding areas
by eating all the vegetation and increasing erosion.
Flocks of snow geese may contain thousands of birds
that can destroy large areas of marsh and agricultural
crops in a short time.
WOOD DUCKS AND BLACK DUCKS
Wood ducks are beautiful, shy creatures that live and
nest in the watershed's forested wetlands, from the
Bay's tidal marshes to the smallest tributaries of
the watershed. They nest in tree cavities, as well as
boxes provided by humans. Their predominantly
herbaceous diet includes duckweeds, underwater
grasses, acorns and seeds from sedges, grasses and
water lilies. Populations have rebounded since the
turn of the century, when wood ducks were hunted to
near extinction. However, destruction of streamside
forests and wetlands due to agricultural clearing,
development and timber harvest remains a threat to
wood ducks.
Black ducks also nest on the Bay on uninhabited
islands, on hunting blinds and in isolated coastal
marshes. Like the wood duck, black
ducks feed on the many types of
plants growing in wetlands and
along shorelines, as well as
insects and small fish. The wintering
population of the Bay black duck has
dropped 26% since the 1970s. As black duck
numbers have decreased, non-migratory mallard
numbers have increased. It is possible that mallards
released for hunting are more adaptable and are
out-competing black ducks for limited nesting
habitat and food resources. Black ducks also are
affected by the combination of sea level rise, the
degradation and loss of wetlands and coastal marshes,
competition with mallards, hunting, and predation
by gulls, raccoons and foxes.
WADING BIRDS
Up to nine species of colonial wading birds nest on
the Bay's shorelines. The great blue heron, great egret,
snowy egret, cattle egret, little blue heron, green
heron, black-crowned night heron, American bittern
and glossy ibis are skilled hunters that feed on
rodents, fish and insects. The good news is that the
numbers of these wading birds did not decline in the
past two decades, and great blue heron numbers
actually have increased. These wading birds use
undisturbed forests near the Bay to build woody nests
close to others of their own species. Most species of
colonial wading birds forage in wetlands, marshes
and tidal pools for fish, crabs, crustaceans, rodents
and frogs. Protection of forested nesting areas,
coastal marshes and tidal wetlands that provide
food for wading birds is key to maintaining
healthy populations.
-------
1999 BAY WATERFOWL TRENDS
Our goal is to restore populations and
habitats of valuable Bay waterfowl to 1970s
levels by the year 2000.
INCREASING
Mallard (migratory)
Northern Pintail
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
American Wigeon
Green-winged Teal
Canvasback
Scaup
Ring-necked Duck
Bufflehead
Ruddy Duck
Mergansers
Brant
% change
since mid-1970s
14*
63
44
975
93
626
5
9
233
73
265
420
546
DECREASING
Black Duck
Common Goldeneye
Scoters
Oldsquaw
Redhead
Canada Goose (migratory)
Tundra Swan
% change
since mid-1970s
-26
-22
-60
-27
-64
-46*
-30
PROBLEM SPECIES
Snow Goose
Mallard (resident)
Canada Goose (resident)
Mute Swan
*Estimates
3,447
over 1,500*
7,600
WETLANDS:
The Vital Link Between
Land & Water
Wetlands are a vital link between
land and water because they help
maintain water quality, control
flooding and erosion, and provide
wildlife habitat. The Chesapeake Bay region
has more than 1.5 million acres of wetlands.
Basically, they are areas that are flooded or
saturated with water long enough to cause
plants that grow there to adapt to wet
conditions. While some wetlands are obviously
wet, such as cattail marshes, many wetlands do
not look wet most of the year. For example,
water in forested wetlands often is present only
during the spring. Although water may not be
visible, soils, vegetation and other tell-tale signs
of hydrology are used to determine whether or
not an area is a wetland.
Population and development pressures are
threatening wetlands in all Bay states. For
example, about 5 acres per year of estuarine
wetlands were lost between 1982 and 1989, and
nearly 3,000 acres per year of freshwater
wetlands also were lost during that time.
Freshwater wetlands, including winter wet
woods, are hard to identify and protect, but are
just as valuable as the wetlands found along
shorelines, close to open water.
Clearly, protecting wetlands is important to
maintaining the health of the Bay region. But,
this is no easy task given the range of diverse and
sometimes contradictory problems that threaten
wetlands. In the Bay region, we try to maintain a
measure of flexibility when deciding how to
protect wetlands and plan to utilize a wide range
of strategies to protect them.
Following a 1997 Chesapeake Executive Council
directive, the Bay Program partners began
developing strategies to identify and track
wetlands in the Bay watershed to achieve a net
gain in wetlands acreage. Wetlands identification
through inventory and mapping is a critical step
in protection efforts. Additional protection can
be achieved through preservation of existing
wetlands; rehabilitation and restoration of
degraded wetlands; and education and research.
The Wetlands Initiative, a new Bay Program
effort, is under way and is designed to assist
local governments and watershed groups in
wetlands management.
-------
21
'V II
1
Pl'lti'ClHIg '.M'tlrDlds >S ISdjlnlMIH In flMmMJJIIMg III','
ht'.dlS] of (lit" B.r> ami its t:vi-iv
WIIAT DO
• Preserve any wetlands on your property, even
small areas.
• Plant native marsh grasses along shorelines.
* Plant native, water-tolerant trees in wet areas.
* Encourage your local government to include
wetland protection in local land use planning
and zoning.
» Support strong state and federal wetlands
regulatory programs.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION...
The Effect of Exotic Species
Exotic species, also called non-indigenous or
introduced species, are just that—not native to the
Bay region. During the summer of 1998, a snail—
the Veined Rapa Whelk of Japan - was discovered in
Virginia. As with a variety of non-indigenous plants
and animals, the Rapa Whelk probably was
introduced by accident. And, like other non-native
species, its presence here could upset some part of
the ecosystem.
Exotic species enter the Chesapeake through
unintentional introduction, such as discharge of
ballast water from ships or escape from aquaculture
facilities. There's also intentional introduction, such
as certain sport fish being placed in freshwater
streams. Some of the better known exotic species are
the tall shoreline plant Phragmites, grass carp, nutria,
resident Canada geese, resident mallard ducks and
the immense mute swan.
Exotics threaten the Chesapeake ecosystem
through disease transmission and competition
with native species for
food and habitat. For
instance, mute swans are
detrimental to the Bay
system because they tear
up huge amounts of
underwater grasses, and
they produce large
amounts of fecal waste
that foul the water and
shoreline. They also are
highly territorial and
may prevent black ducks
from nesting.
Alitiiui^ti tw-iiitifiil, itn- irinii
swan damages the Bay.
What can we do about exotic species? Vigilance is
the watchword. In 1993, the Chesapeake Executive
Council adopted the Policy for the Introduction of
Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species. The policy's goal is to
minimize the economic or ecological risk associated
with first-time introduction of exotic aquatic species
in the Bay region. Although regulatory controls
currently exist to prevent further introduction of
non-native species, public education is the best
possible method for controlling accidental and
intentional introduction.
-------
-------
STRESSORS ON THE SYSTEM
The Bay's Top Challenges
V J n this section, we report on the effect of the top four stressors on the
// Chesapeake system: excess nutrients, toxic chemical contaminants, air
pollution and landscape changes. All four influence the health of the Bay, its
rivers and the people and animals that call the region home. As shareholders
in this effort, you should note that we can only scratch the surface of these
complex issues. However, it's important to realize that the efforts to reduce the
impacts of these stressors are paying dividends in the form of fewer nutrients
and toxics entering the Bay airshed and watershed.
-------
NUTRIENTS
/"" j^^
/he Chesapeake Bay's worst problems are caused by the overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and
i^_^/ phosphorus, which can come from air, land and water. Excess nutrients cause algal blooms that are rapid,
uncontrolled growth of microscopic plants in the water. Algal blooms harm the system in two ways. First, they
cloud water and block sunlight, causing underwater Bay grasses to die. Second, when algae die and decompose,
they use up the oxygen needed by other plants and animals living in the water.
SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS:
Point & Nonpoint
In the Bay region, excess nutrients are
supplied to the system through two
sources: point and nonpoint sources. A
point source is a specific location or point
of entry, such as a pipe, where nutrients
enter waterways. Point sources, like
industrial sites and wastewater treatment
facilities, are usually regulated. Nonpoint
sources deliver nutrients from broad areas
of the watershed. For example, storm water
picks up nutrients from cities to rural areas
as it pours over roofs, through suburban
developments, over eroding streambanks,
through farm fields and into rivers.
However, people's everyday activities, like
driving an automobile, also are a major
contributor to nonpoint sources of pollution.
SOURCES OF NITROGEN & PHOSPHORUS
POLLUTION TO THE BAY: 1996
Point Source (25%)
Phosphorus
(9%)
Atmospheric
(21%)
r Point Source (22%)
Nitrogen
Nutrient pollution seeps into the groundwater, runs off the land
when it rains, and enters streams, rivers and the Bay from two major
sources: nonpoint and point sources.
Nutrient pollution also enters the air, from both point and nonpoint
sources, and then falls onto the land and water.
The TECHNICAL CONNECTION
COMPUTER MODELING:
Cutting-Edge Science & Technology
Bay managers and scientists need a way to predict changes in water quality, as well as responses from
living resources, when nitrogen and phosphorus levels decline. Computer models, verified using years
of monitoring data, can help make those predictions. Chesapeake Bay Program scientists and other
experts developed three integrated, cutting-edge computer models to track changes. The Watershed
Model, the Bay Water Quality Model and the Regional Atmospheric Deposition Model give a picture of how
the watershed, airshed and estuary interact. The models are used to pinpoint the amount of nutrients
contributing to the Bay's water and air pollution problems. The Bay ecosystem models also are beginning to
explore how nutrient reductions may affect plant and animal interactions and the health of the estuary.
-------
fr~.
25
MAKING PROGRESS:
The Year 2000 Goal
The most important goal set by the Chesapeake Bay
Program is the 40% reduction of the controllable
loads of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay
by 2000. In 1997, after reevaluation, the Bay
Program concluded that we would meet the
phosphorus goal, but would fall short of the
nitrogen goal unless reduction efforts were
accelerated. More specifically:
Phosphorus — It's estimated that between 1985 and
1997, flow-corrected loads delivered to the Bay from
all its tributaries declined six million pounds per
year. We need to reduce phosphorus loads by an
additional one million pounds.
Nitrogen — Estimates show that between 1985 and
1997, flow-corrected loads delivered to the Bay from
all its tributaries declined 32 million pounds per year.
We need to reduce nitrogen loads by an additional
40 million pounds.
MAKING PROGRESS:
Reducing Nutrients from Point Sources
Nutrient loadings from point sources are being reduced
by actions implemented at both industrial and
municipal facilities. Future reductions will come from
the implementation of biological nutrient removal, also
called BNR, at a large number of major municipal
facilities. A relatively new technology, BNR has proved
to be extremely effective in reducing nutrients.
Historically, the focus of conventional wastewater
treatment has been on the removal of organic content
from wastewater. BNR is unique because it removes
nutrients from the wastewater by adjusting the facility's
biological processes.
For phosphorus, estimates show that point source
loads were reduced by five million pounds between 1985
and 1997. Most of this reduction was due to the
implementation of phosphate detergent bans that
went into effect in each of the states and the District
between 1985 and 1990, plus wastewater treatment
upgrades and the implementation of effluent standards
for phosphorus.
Bay managers also measured major reductions in point
source nitrogen loads. Between 1985 and 1997,
nitrogen loads from point sources were reduced by
approximately 16 million pounds. Between 1985 and
1998, 43 major municipal wastewater treatment
facilities in the watershed upgraded to BNR. This
advanced technology reduces effluent concentrations
and keeps the municipal loads in check, in spite of
population increases in the region.
NUTRIENT POLLUTION DECLINING, BUT WE STILL NEED TO Do MORE
Phosphorus
Phosphoric
Goal
9 100
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Goal
Results from computer modeling show that
phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay from
all of its tributaries declined 6 million pounds
per year between 1985 and 1997. We expect to
reach the goal by 2000.
Nitrogen loads declined 32 million pounds
per year. More will need to be done in order
to meet the goal by 2000.
Maintaining reduced nutrient levels after
2000 will be a challenge due to expected
population growth in the region.
TOTAL NUTRIENT POLLUTION DELIVERED TO
THE BAY FROM ALL BAY TRIBUTARIES
(MD, PA, VA, DC)
-------
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL:
Winning the Wastewater Battle
A normal byproduct of everyday living is
nutrient-rich organic waste. More specifically,
human waste or sewage. Because of the
growing population in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, the introduction of effective sewage or
wastewater treatment processes have been a priority
for officials concerned about protecting human health
and water quality. Currently, about 22% of the total
nitrogen load to the Bay comes from point sources
including the municipal facilities that treat sewage
and wastewater from industrial facilities.
Through 1998, biological nutrient removal (BNR) was
installed in 43 of the major municipal wastewater
treatment plants in the Chesapeake region with excellent
results. The major facilities are plants that treat more
than a half million gallons of wastewater per day. One is
the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant in the
District of Columbia, where the immediate benefits of
BNR installation are exceeding expectations. Located on
the Potomac River, Blue Plains is the largest municipal
wastewater treatment facility in the Bay region and the
single largest source of nitrogen loadings to the Bay.
This facility treats up to 370 million gallons of
wastewater per day.
The Blue Plains BNR demonstration project is designed
to treat half the plant's flow. Without BNR, Blue Plains
would discharge 12.9 million pounds of nitrogen
annually to the Potomac. With BNR, the plant has
reduced nitrogen discharges by at least three million
pounds per year. In 2000, when BNR goes full scale, the
nitrogen reductions will double.
In 1998, Virginia officials announced a plan to spend
about $40 million to improve pollution controls at
wastewater treatment plants in Northern Virginia and in
the Shenandoah Valley. Improvements will include the
installation of new technologies, including BNR. The
bulk of the upgrades will occur at plants located along
the Potomac River, in densely populated Northern
Virginia. The upgrades at these plants are expected to be
in place by 2002, and experts project a nutrient load
reduction of as much as 3.4 million pounds annually
once the projects are complete. By 2003, almost
100 major municipal wastewater treatment facilities
will have BNR treating a total of 63% of the wastewater
flow in the region.
Through 1998, biological nutrient removal (BNR)
was installed at 43 of the major municipal wastewater
treatment plants in the Chesapeake region with
excellent results.
REDUCING NUTRIENT POLLUTION USING
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL (BNR)
HH
h-M
U
MJ
H
-------
0^\
27
MAKING PROGRESS:
Reducing Nutrients from Nonpoint Sources
Nutrient loadings also are being reduced and prevented
through implementation of a range of nonpoint source
management practices and control techniques. Overall,
through 1997, nonpoint source phosphorus loadings
are estimated to have decreased more than one million
pounds per year. Nitrogen loadings delivered to the
Bay from nonpoint sources are estimated to have
decreased by 16 million pounds per year through
1997. The majority of the nonpoint source loading
reductions for nitrogen and phosphorus anticipated by
2000 will come from those Chesapeake basins with
tributary strategies in place.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION...
Best Management Practices
Best management practices (BMPs) are designed to
reduce or prevent nonpoint source runoff of nutrients.
Several examples of the more widely applied
practices include!
• Agricultural Practices! These BMPs include a range
of different activities that reduce or eliminate soil
loss and provide for the proper application rates of
nutrients to cropland. Practices include vegetated
buffer strips at the edge of crop fields, conservation
tillage, strip cropping, diversion and waterways,
nutrient management and stream bank fencing.
• Animal Waste Management Practices: They include
state of the art animal waste management systems,
such as manure storage structures, runoff controls
for barnyards, guttering and nutrient management.
These systems address the handling, storage,
transport and utilization of animal waste as
fertilizer on cropland.
• Riparian Forest Buffers and Other Buffers! Forested
and other vegetated buffers serve as a trap for
nutrients and sediment from upland sites.
• Stream Protection Practices: These include stream
bank fencing and alternative watering sites so
livestock access to the stream is restricted.
• Urban Practices! These BMPs include erosion and
sediment controls on areas under development and
storm water controls in developed areas. These
practices are applied across a broad spectrum from
industrial, commercial and residential facility
construction sites to the management of lawns and
open spaces, reducing nutrient runoff.
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT:
Certification Programs are the Key
Agricultural nutrient management is a
good example of how Chesapeake Bay
area farmers have joined the effort to
reduce nutrients. Nutrient management
matches the amount of nutrients farmers put
on crops with how much is really needed.
In the suburban/urban environment, nutrient
management limits fertilizer use on lawns, gardens
and recreation areas. The goal is to maintain crop
yields or green lawns, while minimizing the
amount of nutrients washing away and entering
surface or groundwater. In many cases, nutrient
management lowers fertilizer costs and may result
in higher profits for farmers.
Since 1995, the Bay Program partners have worked
together to develop nutrient certification
programs. By 1997, all three states had successful
agricultural nutrient management certification and
education outreach programs in place. The result
has been one of the most successful voluntary
nutrient management programs in the country. To
date, more than 400 public and private nutrient
management planners from six states have been
trained and certified, and this certification is
reciprocal among the states. Nutrient management
plans were written in 1997 for approximately 1.7
million acres of agricultural land. By the year 2000,
it's projected that more than 3 million acres of
agricultural land in the Chesapeake region will be
under nutrient management plan recommendations.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
• Use BayScape techniques on your yard,
including native vegetation that requires less
fertilizer, pesticides and water.
• Start a compost pile to reduce the amount
of waste you put into the garbage disposal.
• Maintain your septic system by having it
pumped out every three to five years.
Z
o
H-1
H
U
w
z
Z
O
U
z
E
U
w
H
-------
MAKING PROGRESS:
Tributary Strategies
Tributary strategies are nutrient reduction plans for
each of the Chesapeake Bay watershed s major tributary
basins. The momentum for tributary strategies was
sparked in 1992 when the Chesapeake Executive
Council made a commitment to attack nutrients at
their source - upstream in the Bay's tributary rivers. As
a result, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the
District of Columbia began developing strategies to
achieve specific nutrient reduction targets for the nine
major tributary basins. In 1997, the Bay Program
calculated the nutrient reduction progress in areas
where tributary strategies were in place from the
Potomac River north. Where strategies are not yet in
place, there are statutory deadlines to complete them
and to set appropriate goals.
MAKING PROGRESS:
How Have We Done So Far?
For phosphorus, the latest computer model estimates
show we will achieve by 2000 the four million pound
nutrient reduction goal identified by the Bay Program
for basins where tributary strategies are in place. For
nitrogen, the latest model estimates show that, by
2000, we will be within four million pounds per year
of the 50 million pound per year reduction goal
identified by the Bay Program for basins where
tributary strategies are in place. The tributary strategies
are projected to achieve the goal when fully
implemented, but have fallen behind the 2000
deadline in some areas. The challenge is to identify
opportunities to accelerate our actions to achieve the
nitrogen goal by 2000.
In tributaries south of the Potomac, where the 40%
goal is interim, tributary strategies will be completed
in the summer of 1999. Strategies are being developed
for the Rappahannock, York and James rivers and for
the Eastern Shore.
NUTRIENT REDUCTIONS ARE BEING ACHIEVED THROUGH THE TRIBUTARY STRATEGIES
Phosphorus
Phosphorus Goal
(for tributaries with
strategies in place)
0 -+--
200O 'Tributary'
Estimate strategy
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
-------
0s*
29
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED:
AREAS WITH TRIBUTARY STRATEGIES
Areas with Tributary Strategies
A reas wit h Tri buta ry 5t rategies U nder Develop ment
Non- 5 ig natory States (No Tr ib uta ry Strateg es)
-------
Toxic CHEMICALS/CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
C ~~~7f-
/Tnother major stressor to the Chesapeake Bay is toxic chemicals. By toxic chemicals, we mean the
c^/ / chemical contaminants that harm plants, animals, fish and humans. Toxic chemicals are not nutrients,
and they do not affect the Bay system the same way nutrients do. The nature, extent and severity of toxic effects
vary widely throughout the Chesapeake system. A few areas, called Regions of Concern, have serious, localized
problems; some other regions show evidence of toxic effects. Overall, however, there is no evidence of severe,
system-wide toxic problems.
In order to reduce chemical releases, Bay managers
are working to identify and target sources of chemical
contaminants. Like nutrients, toxic chemicals enter
the system from point and nonpoint sources. For
example, manufacturing processes we have come
to rely on for products often involve the use of
potentially harmful chemicals. Also, many everyday
household cleaning and pest control products
contain toxic ingredients. Exhaust from automobiles
and emissions from fossil fuel power plants also
contain toxic chemicals. Although we do not know as
much about the sources of chemical contaminants as
we do about the sources of nutrients, scientists and
managers agree that:
• Point sources, such as industries and wastewater
treatment plants, are not always the biggest source
of chemical contaminants to the Bay and rivers.
• Nonpoint sources, such as urban and suburban
storm water runoff, are significant sources of
chemical contaminants.
• Air pollution is a source of chemical contaminants.
• The primary sources of chemical contaminant
loads to the Bay vary depending on the chemical.
• Sources of chemical contaminant loads vary
by watershed.
Scientists and Bay managers also agree that as tough
controls continue to be applied to point sources, the
importance of controlling nonpoint sources of
contaminants will increase.
Based on the goal of a toxics-free Bay, Chesapeake Bay
Program partners have been working to reduce or
eliminate the input of chemical contaminants from
all controllable sources to levels that result in no
toxic impact on the Bay's living resources or on
human health.
To better understand, control and reduce toxic
pollution in highly impacted areas, the Bay Program
designated three Regions of Concern in 1994. These
regions—Baltimore Harbor in Maryland, the
Anacostia River in the District of Columbia and the
Elizabeth River in Norfolk, Virginia—are the areas
with the most severe known toxic problems (hot
spots). In 1996, the Bay Program adopted Regional
Action Plans for the reduction and elimination of
toxic impacts in these areas. Maryland, Virginia and
the District worked with local stakeholder groups to
clearly define chemical contaminant problems and
implement viable options for reducing and preventing
more pollution in these areas. In 1997, studies began
in the three regions as part of the ongoing toxic
research program. Outside of the Regions of Concern,
the Bay Program has collected and analyzed data on
the toxic conditions in water, sediment and fish
tissue. The data reveals that there are no new hot
spots, but there are areas where there is potential for
toxic problems (warm spots). There also are areas
where there are no toxic problems or where there
is insufficient data to label a region. This
new characterization of the Bay's tidal rivers will
help managers better target prevention and
reduction efforts.
POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRY
As a result of the Bay Program's toxics reduction
efforts, pollution prevention activities have increased,
and chemical releases from industry have declined.
The latest Toxics Release Inventory, a report published
annually by the EPA, shows that Bay basin industries
cut their releases of certain chemicals by 67% between
1988 and 1997. That report confirms that industry
already has met a voluntary Bay Program goal of
reducing chemical releases and transfers by 65%
basinwide by 2000. The Bay Program is working with
industry representatives to set a new goal.
-------
fr~.
31
Toxics OF CONCERN
In 1990, Bay Program managers identified 14
chemicals considered to be the most harmful to the
Bay's aquatic life. These chemicals were grouped
together on the Toxics of Concern list. They
are atrazine; benz[a] anthracene; benzo[a]pyrene;
cadmium; chlordane; chromium; chrysene; copper;
flouranthene; lead; mercury; naphthalene; PCBs;
and tributylin (TBT). The Bay Program has set a
goal calling for a 75% reduction in the releases of
Toxics of Concern chemicals from point sources
between 1988 and 2000. As with the other Baywide
reduction goals, it is difficult to track progress
toward this goal because only eight of the 14 Toxics
of Concern are included in the national Toxics
Release Inventory report. The most recent national
report showed that releases of the eight Toxics of
Concern chemicals it tracks decreased 29% between
1988 and 1997.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
Pesticide Disposal
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia are working to
prevent pollution by implementing pesticide
collection and disposal programs throughout the
region. Between 1990 and 1998, more than 1.1
million pounds of pesticides were disposed of and
nearly 600,000 pesticide containers were collected
and recycled.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated pest management, or IPM, is a pollution
prevention technique that can help farmers, growers,
and other pesticide users minimize economic, health,
and environmental risks resulting from pesticide use.
In 1997, IPM was practiced on 4.4 million acres, or
61%, of the cropland in the Bay watershed. The Bay
Program's IPM goal calls for 75% of all agricultural,
recreational, and public lands in the basin; 50% of all
commercial land; and 25% of all residential land to
be under IPM by the year 2000.
BUSINESSES FOR THE BAY:
A Voluntary Program that Works
Businesses for the Bay is a voluntary,
non-regulatory pollution prevention
program developed by the Chesapeake
Bay Program in cooperation with
industry. The goal of the program, which started
in 1996, is prevention of toxic chemicals from
point sources. Businesses, as well as federal, state
and local government facilities, are encouraged to
develop their own annual pollution prevention
commitments, which range from activities
such as educating employees about pollution
prevention to changing manufacturing processes
to reduce wastes. Businesses for the Bay spreads
the pollution prevention message through a
Mentor Program. Mentors from participating
facilities volunteer their pollution prevention
expertise to help other facilities in need
of technical assistance. Through pollution
prevention efforts, participants save money
through increased production efficiency and
reduced waste disposal costs. More than 250
participants have joined the program and at least
90 individuals are volunteering as mentors.
Business for the Bay has been recognized as a
unique way to partner with the private sector.
It has won two national awards and one
regional award.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
• Use safer, non-toxic alternatives for
cleaning and controlling pests.
• Take household chemicals to a recycling
center instead of pouring them down
drains or putting them in the trash.
• Use less water at home. That means less
will have to be treated at your local
wastewater facility.
• Purchase energy efficient home appliances.
• Purchase products made from recycled
materials and that use less packaging.
Z
o
H-1
H
U
w
z
z
o
U
z
o
H
z
z
o
HH
§
h-1
o
PM
-------
AIR POLLUTION
///ir pollution now is recognized as a major stressor on the Chesapeake Bay system. Air pollution
^/r contributes nitrogen and toxic chemicals directly to the waters of the Bay and to land. The Chesapeake
Bay Program is at the leading edge of identifying the sources of atmospheric nitrogen. However, the sources of
toxic air pollution are harder to identify, and the Bay Program is just starting to get a handle on it. Determining
the sources for air pollution is significant because reductions in air pollution can have a direct effect on
improvements in water quality. With this connection in mind, resource managers are beginning to factor air
pollution into their decisions about water quality improvements.
The Bay's nitrogen oxide airshed is approximately
418,000 square miles—six and a half times the size
of the watershed. Current modeling efforts estimate
that a quarter of the nitrogen delivered to the Bay
comes from the air. About 75 percent of that
airborne load is deposited on land and then is
transported to the Bay by surface water runoff and
groundwater flow. The remaining 25 percent is
deposited directly on the water.
Computer models also show that a majority of the
nitrogen deposited from the air to the Bay and its
watershed comes from combustion. There are three
different categories for the sources of combustion:
stationary, mobile and area sources. Stationary
sources include electric power plants and factories;
mobile sources include automobiles, boats, ships and
airplanes; and area sources include machines like
lawn mowers and heavy construction equipment.
Nitrogen compounds also are emitted by agricultural
sources from activities such as fertilizer application
and animal waste storage practices. Depending on
wind patterns and weather conditions, nitrogen
compounds can travel short or long distances
through the air before being washed out in rain or
snow (wet deposition) or before falling directly to
the ground (dry deposition). Wet deposition is
measurable, but dry deposition is difficult to
measure. It's important to note that even if the
pollution does not fall directly on water, it can be
transported to the Bay and rivers by surface water
runoff or through groundwater flow.
The Bay Program is working to reduce air pollution
and its effect on the Bay system. Currently, Bay
Program managers are using advanced computer
model simulations to measure the benefits that will
come from air pollution regulations included in the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The latest computer
modeling results show that when current control
actions are fully implemented in about ten years, they
should reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the
Chesapeake by more than ten million pounds
annually. Emissions of chemical contaminants also
are expected to be significantly reduced as control
standards are developed and put in place. In the
meantime, the Bay Program will continue to
promote air pollution prevention and control actions
on the state level because these will yield maximum
benefit to the Bay and the region's air quality.
In addition, the EPA has issued its first-ever action
to force air pollution reductions on upwind states
to improve downwind air quality. When fully
implemented, the action is projected to significantly
reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from various
sources. This could translate into a reduction of
hundreds of thousands of pounds of nitrogen
deposition to the Bay.
TYPES OF NITROGEN OXIDE
EMISSION SOURCES FROM STATES*
THAT CONTRIBUTE THE MOST
NITROGEN DEPOSITION TO THE BAY
& ITS WATERSHED
Utilities (3S%)
\ Industries (6%)
*MD, VA, PA, NY, WV, NJ, OH
-------
i^5
AREAS OF NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE
NITROGEN DEPOSITION TO THE CHESPEAKE BAY & ITS WATERSHED
WHAT YOU CAN DO
• Reduce the amount of miles you drive. This
will result in reductions in the amount of
nutrients and toxic substances entering the
watershed.
• Maximize fuel efficiency by keeping your
car maintained and by properly inflating
tires. Also follow your state's guidelines on
emissions testing.
• Conserve electricity. This will result in
reductions in the amount of nutrients and
toxic substances entering the watershed
from power plants that burn fossil fuels.
Between 1970 and 1997, vehicle miles traveled increased at four
times the rate of population in the Bay region. Pollution from car
exhaust and sprawling development harms the Bay.
-------
LANDSCAPE CHANGES
C y// ~V~fe call the fourth major stressor affecting the Chesapeake system landscape changes. We mean the
f \J changes to land brought about by human activities. Those changes include the loss of wetlands,
forests, farms and other open space to development. They also include the most costly development pattern of
all—sprawl. Most of these landscape changes place an incredible amount of stress on an already over-stressed
system. Put simply, these changes threaten to undo more than 25 years of environmental improvements in just
a few short years. In this section, we report on the enormous population growth in the Bay region since 1970
and the dramatic changes in land development patterns that this boom created. We also explore the positive
changes a smart growth or sustainable development approach could bring to the region. The Bay Program goal
is to conserve and increase wetland and forest land uses, while reducing the water quality impacts of urban
development and agriculture.
POPULATION BOOM
It's no secret that population pressure is changing the
Chesapeake landscape. These pressures are helping to
produce or lead to much of the excess nutrient load,
including air pollution, that affects the Bay. Between
1970 and 1997, the population in the Chesapeake
region grew 28% to 15.1 million people. Experts
predict that the Bay regions population will continue
to grow at a rate of 300 new people each day. In order
to handle all these people, more homes will be built.
And, if the current development pattern holds, many
of these new houses will be located farther away from
existing infrastructure, such as schools, businesses
and wastewater treatment facilities. This pattern of
sprawl development has taken hold all over the Bay
region and now ranks among the top threats to the
Bay's recovery.
PATTERNS CHANGE
Sprawl development is relatively new to the Bay
region. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, compact
towns and cities, surrounded by farms and forests,
dotted the watershed. After World War II, the
automobile made it easy to live out of town and
suburbia was born. Suburban development often is
characterized by low-density, single-use patterns.
These patterns separate households from other
community needs such as businesses, schools and
jobs. While urban and suburban land acres increased
between 1985 and 1997, this type of development
consumed farms, wetlands and forests at a rate of
roughly 35,000 acres per year during that period.
Sprawl is costly in terms of its impact on the Bay
ecosystem because it increases impervious surfaces
such as roads, parking lots and rooftops. When it
rains, pollutants from impervious surfaces run into
drainage systems which often lead directly to streams,
rivers and the Bay. The runoff does not filter through
the ground like it would in a natural setting, such as
forests. The runoff from suburban streets and
rooftops adds excess nutrients, toxics and sediment
directly into the system with devastating effects. For
example, a recent study showed that sprawl patterns
produce from five to seven times the amount of
sediment and phosphorous as a forest.
SPRAWL & AIR POLLUTION
Sprawl development patterns also increase traffic
and, ultimately, the amount of air pollution that falls
on land and in water. Because the density of sprawl
development is usually too low to support mass
transportation, the car is usually the only means of
transportation to work, school and shopping. That
means more people are commuting farther every
year to reach jobs and basic services. They also are
spending more time in the car as increased
congestion slows the flow of traffic. In the case of the
Bay region, the number of vehicle miles traveled in
the watershed increased at four times the rate of
population growth between 1970 and 1997.
-------
&~,
35
SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment
and Development published a report titled Our
Common Future. In it, the concept of sustainable
development was defined as "the ability to meet the
needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own
needs." With our current development patterns and
lifestyle choices, we are in danger of losing the
character, beauty and resources that initially made
the Bay region so attractive. More efficient, or
sustainable, development patterns would help protect
natural areas and traditional uses of land, including
farming and forestry. These development patterns are
less costly to local governments because they require
fewer municipal services such as roads and sewers.
These patterns also enhance the quality of life by
maintaining open space and by conserving those
historic and cultural resources that are so much a
part of community identity.and protection effort
at the community level. Warwick Township in
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania was the site of the
first pilot project held April 1998. Plans are under
way to conduct reviews in Maryland and Virginia.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
• Get involved in local organizations that
monitor land management and participate
in efforts to manage growth.
• Encourage government officials to improve
existing infrastructure instead of building
new roads, schools and other facilities, and
encourage them to engage citizens in
growth management decisions.
• Plant trees, especially in areas near
waterways. This will not only help reduce
soil erosion and nutrient and toxic inputs
to the watershed, but also will provide
habitat for many creatures that live in
the watershed.
PEOPLE ARE DRIVING FARTHER TO REACH JOBS & SERVICES
V&hida Miles Tra\elad
200 r
_ 175
>fi
c
O
•£. 150
I
£
I
£
I
125
100
75
50
32j£ prcjtctd
increase
(1337-2010)
(1370-1337)
aui
on
on on
Population
8
o
Between 1970 and 1997 vehicle miles traveled increased at four times the rate of population in
the Bay region. Pollution from car exhaust and sprawling development harms the Bay.
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
^ /he Bay Program is working hard to help local and state governments in the region grow in ways that support
t^_^/ sustainable development. In 1996, the Executive Council adopted the Priorities for Action for Land, Growth
and Stewardship to help meet the challenges posed by population growth and development. The Priorities represents
a new way to meet these challenges in a manner that is sensitive to local issues and autonomy. This approach
recognizes that communities are the basic unit for addressing growth, land use and long-term stewardship of the
natural environment. The goal of the Priorities is "... to encourage sustainable development patterns that integrate
economic health, resource protection and community participation." They are voluntary actions that are expected
to be accomplished through a variety of public and private partners, including the Bay Program.
Countryside Stewardship Exchange: The Exchange
encourages communities to develop solutions for
managing growth, maintaining community character
and achieving sustainable economies. Seven communities
in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia have received
Countryside Stewardship Exchange assistance.
f } Sacred Places: Sacred Places workshops help
communities identify those natural, cultural and
economic resources that create a sense of place—the
community's Sacred Places. Sacred Places workshops
have been held in Union County, Pennsylvania and in
Rockbridge County, Virginia.
-------
0^,
CHESAPEAKE BAY
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
« 37
Lagand
A Cou ntrV! ids Stewa rdshi p EM ha nge
(j sac red Places
O Heritac^TciurismF^ns
^' C hesapea keEayFartrerOommunities
"(^ 5 ma II Waterc hsd Gra nte Progra m
^j? FiveStarRestoratbn
Grant Program
"y7 Communftj* Bi*I lonnrKntal Rewiew
•~ Mode) Riparian Forest Buffer
Restoraton
Sictainabte Development
Challenge Grants
Wetlands In it iat we Pi lot Fro jact
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY IN THE
RIVERS & MAIN BAY
Vve explained that each year, millions of pounds of nutrients
are removed from the system, but what do these reductions
mean? In broad terms, management actions taken between 1985 and
1997 in controlling nutrients have resulted in better water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay system.
Top Findings: Non-tidal portions of many of our rivers were running cleaner
in 1997 than they were in 1985. And, lower levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus were measured in portions of the tidal rivers and main Bay
between 1985 and 1997. However, the opposite was true for other portions.
Before we move into specific measurements, let's take a step back to
understand that the Bay is not just one body of water; it's a large
mainstem with many tributary rivers flowing into it. Every part of the Bay
system responds differently to nutrient reduction efforts and to the forces
of Mother Nature. So, for the purposes of monitoring and reporting on
the health of the Bay and rivers, we've created two sections in this chapter:
first the upstream, non-tidal portion of the system and, second, the
downstream, tidal portion including the main Bay.
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
& ITS MAJOR RIVERS
Chester
...•- Cho pta nk
Nanrticoke
Pocomoke
ApponrattoK '
Elizabeth
The Chesapeake Bay watershed is 64,000 square miles. The natural break separating the non-tidal
and tidal portions of the Bay system is called the fall line. Upstream of the fall line, the rivers are
free-flowing and not affected by tidal flow. It consists completely of freshwater. Downstream of
the fall line, the rivers and the main Bay are affected by the natural tidal flow from the Atlantic
Ocean, and they are generally a mixture of salt and freshwater.
-------
NON-TIDAL RIVERS
41
• In this section, we report on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment levels in the non-tidal rivers.
£/ Top Finding: Latest results show that flow-adjusted [see high flows sidebar] nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment levels declined between 1985 and 1997. All of these declines are significant because they mean that
management actions are having a positive effect and are leading to improved water quality in the non-tidal
portions of the rivers.
Susquehanna River: At the very top of the Bay
system is the Susquehanna River. As the Bay's
largest tributary, it supplies approximately 50% of
the freshwater flow to the Bay. Long-term water
quality monitoring of the river indicated
significant decreases in nitrogen levels throughout
the river. Decreases in phosphorus levels also
occurred in the central and southern areas of the
river. Sediment levels also declined in portions of
the river. These water quality improvements in the
Susquehanna reflect the cumulative impact of
better land management practices, wastewater
treatment plant upgrades and the phosphate
detergent ban.
While the improvements are good news, a
troubling issue is the capacity of the Susquehanna's
large hydroelectric dams to continue to trap
phosphorus-rich sediment and prevent its flow
downstream. These dams, which have been in place
since the 1920's, may completely fill in and lose
their sediment-trapping capacity in another 15 to
20 years. This would cause the amount of
phosphorus-rich sediment entering the Bay to
increase substantially.
Patuxent River: Nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment levels in the non-tidal portion of the
Patuxent River declined.
* Potomac River: The Potomac is second only to the
Susquehanna in the amount of freshwater supplied
to the Bay (approximately 16%). Phosphorus and
sediment levels declined; however, there was no
significant change for nitrogen in the non-tidal
portion of the river.
* Rappahannock River: Nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment levels in the non-tidal Rappahannock
River declined.
• York River Basin: Non-tidal portions of the York
actually are in two tributaries: the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers. In the Mattaponi, nitrogen and
phosphorus levels declined; however, there was no
significant change for sediment. In the Pamunkey,
phosphorus levels declined, but nitrogen and
sediment did not change significantly.
• James River: The James supplies approximately
12% of the freshwater supplied to the Bay. In the
non-tidal portion of the James, nitrogen and
phosphorus levels declined; however, there was no
significant change for sediment. In the
Appomattox River, a tributary to the James,
nitrogen levels declined, but phosphorus and
sediment levels did not change significantly.
-------
NITROGEN LEVELS DECLINING IN
NON-TIDAL PORTIONS OF CHESAPEAKE BAY RIVERS
Decreasing
No sig nifica nt t rend
Increasing
Monitoring data from major rivers entering the tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay show that flow-
adjusted nitrogen concentrations are declining in the Susquehanna, Patuxent, Rappahannock,
Mattaponi (a tributary to the York), James and the Appomattox (a tributary to the James) rivers.
The Potomac and Pamunkey (a tributary to the York) show no trend.
-------
43
PHOSPHORUS LEVELS DECLINING IN
NON-TIDAL PORTIONS OF CHESAPEAKE BAY RIVERS
1980^-1997
Decreasing
No significant trend
Increasing
Monitoring data from major rivers entering the tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay show that flow-
adjusted phosphorus concentrations are declining in the Susquehanna, Potomac, Patuxent,
Rappahannock, Mattaponi (a tributary to the York), Pamunkey (a tributary to the York) and
James rivers. The Appomattox, a tributary to the James, shows no trend.
-------
SEDIMENT LEVELS DECLINING IN
NON-TIDAL PORTIONS OF CHESAPEAKE BAY RIVERS
198QS-1997
Decreasing
No sign if ica nt trend
/\ increasing
Monitoring data from major rivers entering the tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay show that flow-
adjusted sediment concentrations are declining in the Potomac, Patuxent, Rappahannock and in
portions of the Susquehanna. Concentrations remain unchanged in the other rivers.
-------
45
FOR YOUR INFORMATION...
Understanding High Flows
Each of the major rivers in the Chesapeake system
supplies millions of gallons of water every year to the
main Bay. Much of that flow is driven by weather
patterns and, ultimately, rainfall. Depending on the
amount of rain that swells the thousands of streams,
creeks and rivers that flow into the Bay, some years
are considered wet or high flow years, and others are
dry or low flow years. Bay managers track flow
closely because flow influences Bay and river
responses to nutrient reduction measures.
Higher freshwater flows can be bad for the Bay
because they capture the nutrient-rich runoff from
the land and quickly transport it to the rivers and
Bay in large quantities. Freshwater flows also
affect Bay water quality because they influence
circulation, salinity and dissolved oxygen levels, and
they indirectly affect finfish and shellfish populations.
Flow records kept since the early 1950s show that
since 1972, we have witnessed a period including
many higher-than-average flow years. When we
want to assess progress, the effects of flow variations
on observed nutrient and sediment levels are taken
into account, or adjusted, in the calculation of
trends. The flow adjustment is done so that we can
evaluate the success of point and nonpoint source
management programs, which could be masked due
to changes in flow conditions.
RIVMR FLOW INTO Ci ii'SAPi'AKi" BAY
14QOOO-
1 120000-
O
5 100000
Q.
1996
highest flow
on record
6OOOO
.u
-Lj
3
c 6OODiD-r
m
2>
£ 4COXI-
20000-
. An nuaI
Average
Flow
1951 55
60
65
70
75
6O 65
90
95 96
-------
TIDAL RIVERS & THE MAIN BAY
^ In this section, we report on status and trends [see sidebar] in nitrogen, phosphorus and water clarity [see
£/ sidebar] in the tidal rivers and the mainstem Chesapeake Bay between 1985 and 1997. The conditions in
the tidal rivers and 200-mile-long mainstem of the Bay vary from year to year depending on the forces of
Mother Nature, freshwater flow and the cumulative effect of the pollution control measures that have been
installed on the land and in wastewater treatment plants since the early 1980s.
TOP FINDINGS FOR THE TIDAL RIVERS:
Status: Many of Maryland's smaller Eastern and
Western Shore tributaries and the Potomac River had
higher nitrogen concentrations than elsewhere. For
phosphorus, regions of the Patuxent, York and James
rivers and a few Maryland Eastern and Western
Shore tributaries had higher concentrations.
Trend: We saw responses to management actions
in varying degrees, even in the face of lag times
[see sidebar] and high flow events. Rivers with
significant reductions in point source nutrient
loadings showed clear signs of recovery. Specifically,
for nitrogen, the trend improved in the Back,
Patuxent, York, James, and portions of the Potomac,
Rappahannock and Elizabeth rivers. For phosphorus,
the trend improved in several Maryland tributaries,
including the Patuxent, and in the James and
Elizabeth rivers.
Status: Nearly all tidal tributaries had poor or fair
water clarity conditions.
Trend: Water clarity in the tidal rivers got worse,
especially in Tangier Sound and in the Patuxent,
Potomac, James and Maryland's Eastern Shore
rivers. Only Maryland's Middle River had
improving conditions.
TOP FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN BAY:
Status: Nitrogen concentrations in portions of the
Bay's mainstem were generally good. Phosphorus
concentrations were good in all portions of
the mainstem.
Trend: There was no significant trend for nitrogen
in the mainstem Bay. For phosphorus, the trend
became worse in the middle mainstem Bay but
improved in the upper and lower portions.
Status: Water clarity in the mainstem Bay was fair.
Trend: Water clarity got worse in most portions of
the mainstem Bay.
High river flows in the Bay region in 1993, 1994 and
1996 increased runoff from the land and added high
levels of sediment to the water throughout the
system. Bay managers attributed declines in water
clarity between 1985 and 1997 to the increased
runoff and high amounts of sediment in the water.
Poor water clarity is of concern, especially in the
Lower Eastern Shore around Smith Island and
Tangier Sound, where Bay grasses have been
declining significantly since 1992.
In addition, between 1985 and 1997, there was no
clear trend in oxygen levels in the lower layer waters
of the main Bay and tidal tributaries. In the
mainstem Bay in 1997, however, oxygen levels were
among the best since monitoring began. This
improvement was significant for the Bay's living
resources because the improved oxygen levels meant
that more underwater habitat was available to them.
Often in summer months, the lower layer of water
(critical habitat for fish and shellfish) can be deprived
of oxygen because of excess nutrients and poor
mixing between the upper and lower layers of the
water. Experts pointed to the cooler water
temperature in 1997 and the low river flow
during that summer as part of the reason for
this improvement.
-------
47
FOR YOUR INFORMATION...
Understanding Status & Trends
In order to give us the complete story on water
quality, scientific experts analyze mountains of data
and information collected each year under the Bay
Program's nationally-recognized water quality
monitoring program. Based on this information, the
experts report on the status and trends in the rivers
and the main Bay. The status is the current condition
based on observed water quality conditions. The
trends are the long-term changes in conditions.
To determine the status of a particular section of the
Bay system, Bay managers compare current water
quality conditions—1995 to 1997—to a scale
developed using Baywide data from 1985-1997
across regions of the Bay with similar salinity. For
nutrients, the water quality at each station is
categorized as good (lowest concentrations), fair
(moderate concentrations) and poor (highest
concentrations). An area with low nitrogen or
phosphorus and high water clarity is considered
good. However, it is important to note that an area
categorized as having good status still may need
nutrient reductions to improve its water quality in
order to meet the habitat requirements needed
by the Bay's fish, shellfish, grasses and other
living resources.
Trends are based on observed concentration data
collected from 1985 through 1997. The trend is
determined with a statistical analysis test called
Seasonal Kendall. A decreasing trend for nitrogen
and phosphorus is considered a positive trend for the
Bay, while a decreasing water clarity trend is
considered bad for the Bay.
Understanding Lag Time
Nutrient reduction progress can be masked or slowed
down by natural lag times between actions taken on
the land and the delivery of resulting reductions to
the Bay. For example, nutrients are transported in the
watershed in several ways. Nutrients dissolved in
water—mostly nitrogen—or attached to sediments—
mostly phosphorus—are washed off the land into
streams as runoff during rain events. Once in the
stream, the nutrients associated with water move
along the surface and flow to a nearby stream or river
and eventually the Bay. Nitrogen-rich runoff also
can infiltrate the ground before reaching a stream,
move with groundwater and eventually seep back
into streams, rivers and the Bay. But, this process can
take five years or more. This is called groundwater
lag time.
There are also lag times in the Bay system associated
with the time it takes for living resources to recover
once water quality and habitat conditions have
improved. For example, once water quality conditions
suitable for underwater grasses are attained, it still
may be years before enough seeds or vegetative plant
materials are transported to the restored habitat to
support regrowth.
Understanding Water Clarity
Water clarity is measured with a simple round black
and white device called a Secchi disc, which is lowered
into the water on a string until it disappears from
view. That distance is measured because that's how far
sunlight is penetrating the water. Sunlight is needed
for Bay grasses to grow.
Improvements in water clarity are necessary in order
to ensure the growth of Bay grasses, which totaled
63,495 acres in 1998. Scientists note that underwater
grasses tend to flourish during the Bay's low-flow
years because there is less sediment in the water to
block sunlight.
-------
STATUS & TRENDS IN NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE MAINSTEM BAY & TIDAL TRIBUTARIES
Susquehanna Flats
W.
*
•A-
•A-
Patapsco
Anacostia
PotormacV^
Nantkoke
Poco moke. MD
F-oco moke. VA
*^Tangier Sour»d
Mattaponi V
Trend
(1985-1997)
V Dec rasing
Status
(1995-1997)
Increasing
(Bad)
k -:\ Ftcr
n wot
V
ApponcflttcK
Ava itab le
Ch ic ka homi ry V
*Trtnd and rtatu s inforrrarthn
if through 1996.
EliiabethV \7south Branch Elizabeth
Wtest Branch ElizabethV
-------
STATUS & TRENDS IN PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE MAINSTEM BAY & TIDAL TRIBUTARIES
« 49
Susquehanna Flats
Potonrsc
V
AppomattoK
V Upper Mainstem Bay
Fia ppa ha n roc k &>.
Piankatank
Mobjack Bay A
Wantkoke
\7 W co mico
Pocomoke, MD
Poconnoke. VA
•Tangier Sound
Middle Mainstem Bay
Trend
(19S 5-1997)
"\7 Decreasing
(Gocd)
A Increasing
(Bad)
Seg n*ntj with
unchanged trends
Status
(1995-1997)
| Fair
| Poor
| Mot
Ava ila ble
EliiabethV
West Branch El
VLower Mainstem Bay
East Branch Elizabeth
VSouth Branch Elizabeth
-------
STATUS & TRENDS IN WATER CLARITY
IN THE MAINSTEM BAY & TIDAL TRIBUTARIES
Northeast
Susquehanna Fbts
Bush
Gunpowder
Middle A,
Back
Potomac
RappahannocK
Cc> rroto ma n
PB n kata n k
Mo biac k Bay
Nanticoke
Midd le Ma i nstem Bay
Wicomico
Ma no kin
Big Anne me SEEK
r Pocomoke. MD
—^ Poco moke. VA
Slangier Sound
I
Ap po rrattoz
1 %
(,f\
\4r
i f£
a v LJ
J p
1
u-L , 1
Trend
(1985-1997)
^ Ciecreasing
(Bad)
A Inc rasing
(Qood) "
Segment with
unchanged trend;
have nojymbol
Status
(1995-1997)
CH Fair
| Poor
Available
Lower Mainstsm Bay
Elizabeth
-------
.e 51
The CITIZEN CONNECTION
BERNIE FOWLER'S SNEAKER INDEX:
Testing the Bays Water Clarity the Old-Fashioned Way
Even though there are formal methods to take water clarity measurements, the most famous
water clarity test in the Bay region is an informal one conducted annually by former
Maryland State Senator Bernie Fowler of Broomes Island, Maryland. Every year since 1988,
on the second Sunday in June, Senator Fowler, a long-time environmental activist, conducts
his wade-in with the help of family and friends. Senator Fowlers water clarity measurement is simple:
he wades into the Patuxent River as far as he can until his white sneakers disappear. He stops at that
point and wades back to shore. There, the high water mark on his overalls is measured and the annual
Sneaker Index is announced. In 1998, the Bernie Fowler Sneaker Index was 35.5 inches, down from
an all-time high of 44.5 in 1997. "Although this is not a scientific measurement, it puts restoring the
river on a human scale," says Fowler.
Senator Fowler's wade-in has its roots in the childhood he spent fishing and crabbing in the Patuxent
River. In the 1950s, the water clarity was high, and fish, crabs and grass were plentiful. However, the
water quality in the river degraded over the next two decades, due to land use changes and increased
sewage flow from the population growth upstream in the metropolitan Washington area. Senator
Fowler led the fight that forced the construction of better, more efficient wastewater treatment
facilities upstream. These changes led to the improved water quality and clarity conditions we see in
the Patuxent River today.
CITIZENS ARE INTERESTED IN TRACKING PROGRESS IN BAY CLEAN-UP
Bernie Fowler's Sneabsr Index
1 •-'
Q _+. ....... .j ,.._.....,. . .j , .. _ +. .._. ...... ... ..,
50s 605 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Wading in the Paluxent River at Biootnes Island,
Maryland, Bernie Fowler has seen improvements in
water clarity during the last ten years. He says, "although
this is not a scientific measure, it puts restoring the river
on a human scale," Pictured (left to right) are Belly
Fowler, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), EPA
Administrator Carol M. Browner and Fowler.
-------
''","''•.';:,;•(-'.>!.„',«.,•;(,".'.' \ .
,-- "' , ( V- t ''•'.,."«: '4 ,,',".'.'. ' ' '
11 ),,'i- i,:,,''">sf;f'l'-'"' '".['• "if* ''ff'i>i''<>-,\\ " ', •.
V *** *'" ' JU * ' 1 jV * ^ *.^ '''P *'\f* ' i. „' 'j '! ( \i " t ' ' ' '
..i _J^Vtj;/,,y|,';
-------
CONCLUSION
The State of the Chesapeake Bay
C )
n a broad scale, there are many challenges and
opportunities ahead for the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. And, as far as your investment in the
clean-up effort, it's paying dividends. True, there
may be some downward trends in the near future
but, basically, your long-term investment is sound.
The most pressing challenge will be to meet our
40% reduction goal on time and maintain the
nutrient cap. Once the nutrient cap goes into effect,
other issues will challenge us, including:
• Increased phosphorus pollution — The phosphate
detergent bans of the 1980s cut pollution
dramatically. However, recent increases in
population and wastewater flows are starting to
offset those early gains.
• Nutrient pollution from other Bay states — Only
the Bay Program partners — Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania and the District — have agreed to a
nutrient cap. Increased nutrient pollution from
the other Bay states — West Virginia, New York
and Delaware — could offset reductions. Nutrient
pollution from air also could be a factor.
In addition to the issues that face us concerning
nutrient reduction, there also is a myriad of natural
resource management issues ahead, including:
• Increased population growth — About 300 new
people call the Chesapeake region home daily.
Right now, the watershed supports 15.1 million
people, with another three million expected by
2020. More people mean more sewage, more
pollution and further changes to the landscape.
• Increase in vehicle miles traveled — By 2010, we
can expect that vehicle miles—a significant source
of water and air pollution in the region—will
increase at three times the rate of population.
• Conflicts over resources — In 1998, we saw, for
the first time, regulations on the clamming
industry designed to limit damage to Bay grass
beds. In other areas, jet skiing is being limited to
reduce noise and damage to shallow water habitats.
• Fishery management — We are at a crossroads with
blue crab and several other fisheries. All eyes are on
the managers to make the right decisions to preserve
these resources. One of the Bay's most famous
fisheries—the oyster—continues to struggle.
In the face of these issues, it's fair to say that the
Chesapeake Bay Program will work hard and will
continue to anticipate and meet challenges. The
Bay Program, under the leadership of the Executive
Council, has an excellent 16-year track record
based on strong partnerships, innovative thinking,
cooperation and the political will to set clear,
challenging goals for the restoration of the Bay
and its resources. Your investment already has paid
dividends, but the years beyond 2000 will be
filled with challenges. The Executive Council will
continue to make the difficult management
decisions that move the Bay restoration forward.
These leaders will also continue to encourage their
shareholders to roll up their sleeves, dig in, learn the
issues, learn how the natural system works, reduce
pollution and, by protecting their investment, make
a healthy Bay system one of their top priorities.
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY TIME LINE
9000 B.C.
- Sea level rise from melting glaciers fills the lower
Susquehanna valley and begins forming the
Chesapeake Bay.
- Native tribes arrive in the Bay region.
2000 B.C.
- The Bay assumes its current shape.
1000 B.C.
- Native American agriculture begins. Crops
include corn, squash and beans. Native Americans
fish the Bay with spears, traps and hook and line.
1500s
- Spanish and French explorers reach the Bay.
1607
- The first permanent New World English settlement
is established in Jamestown, Virginia. John Smith, a
member of its governing council, begins his
exploration of the Bay.
1600s
- Virginia enacts laws addressing fishery wastes and
the blockage of fish migrations by commercial dams.
- In Maryland, by 1639, game laws are enacted to
protect species like the great blue heron.
1650s
- The Colonists establish booming businesses in ship
masts and timber. They clear land for agriculture
and use hook and line on shallow water species
offish.
1750s
- The Colonists strip 20 to 30% of forests for
settlements. They grow tobacco, which depletes
the soil and causes erosion.
- Bay shipping ports begin to fill with eroded
sediments and become too shallow for navigation.
- The Colonists begin to catch fish in nets.
1776
- Farmers begin to use plows extensively, starting
a cycle of permanent tillage that prevents
reforestation, dramatically alters the natural fabric
of the soil profile, and begins a massive period of
soil erosion.
1785
- Virginia and Maryland sign the Compact of 1785.
Virginia agrees to give vessels bound for Maryland
free passage at the entrance to the Bay in return for
an agreement by Maryland that the right to fish in
the Potomac River was to be enjoyed by citizens of
both states.
1813
- Oyster raking begins in the Bay.
1835
- By now, half of the Chesapeake region forests is
cleared for agriculture, timber, and fuel for homes
and industry.
- The first imported fertilizers are used after ships
bring bird guano from Caribbean rookery islands
and later from nitrate deposits on the coast
of Chile.
1890s
- Nearly 60% of the watershed s forests are cleared.
However, a process of land abandonment and
reversion to forest begins and continues through
the early 1900s.
1900
- Railroad tie replacement consumes an estimated
15 to 20 million acres of Eastern forests.
- Steamships and the railroad allow fish, crabs and
oysters to be marketed to distant cities.
1914
- The City of Baltimore is the last major American
city to install sewer lines, but one of the first to
adopt a waste treatment system. The system is
installed based on its ability to save valuable
oyster beds.
1918
- The University of Maryland Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory is founded. The first water quality
surveys indicate that the Bay is in good shape,
except in heavily industrialized areas.
1930
- Reversion to forests continues as farmers relocate to
more productive land. Reforestation programs
result in an increase of forests.
1933
- An interstate conference on the Bay is held. The
concept of treating the Bay as a single resource unit
is developed.
1938
- Aerial photographs of several Chesapeake
tributaries show extraordinary underwater Bay
grass beds.
1940
- The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin is established.
1945
- Widespread use of chemical fertilizers begins.
- The human population explodes and the "suburb"
is born.
- Changes in fishing boat and equipment technology
cause many fish species to decrease.
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY TIME LINE
1948
- Both Maryland and Virginia have water pollution
control agencies in place.
1950s
- Calvert County, Maryland resident Bernie Fowler
can see his white sneakers after wading to
shoulder-depth in the Patuxent River. The clear
water is a sign of good water quality.
- MSX and Dermo—two diseases that kill oysters—
appear in the Bay.
1965
- In his State of the Union address, President
Johnson pledges that the Potomac River will
become a "model of beauty and recreation" for
the country.
196?
- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is founded. It's
now one of the largest private environmental
organizations in the nation.
1970s
- The federal Clean Air Act is passed.
- The trend in increasing forest cover reverses due
to population growth and development.
- The Susquehanna River Basin Commission is
established by the federal government and the
states of New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
- The Bay jurisdictions enact laws to
protect wetlands.
1972
- In late June, tropical storm Agnes ravages the
Basin, destroying many underwater Bay grass beds.
- The federal Clean Water Act is passed.
- The pesticide DDT is banned. This eventually
reduces toxic effects on osprey, eagles and other
fish-eaters.
- The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay is formed.
This organization is designed to ensure public
participation in policy decisions affecting the Bay.
1975
- High levels of Kepone, a toxic chemical, are found
in Virginias James River, threatening fish,
shellfish, wildlife and public health.
- US Senator Charles Mathias (R-MD) successfully
introduces legislation that directs the EPA to
conduct a five-year study and produce a report
on the Bay.
1980
- The Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state
legislative body, is created.
1981
- Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) is introduced
at treatment plants on the Patuxent River
following a lawsuit filed by three Maryland
counties challenging the state and EPA over poor
water quality in the river.
1983
- The congressionally-mandated EPA report on the
Bay is completed. It highlights four areas that
require immediate attention: the overabundance of
the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus in the water;
dwindling underwater Bay grasses; toxic pollution;
and the over-harvesting of living resources.
- The Chesapeake Bay Program, a unique voluntary
partnership, is established with the signing of the
first Chesapeake Bay Agreement by Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of
Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and
the EPA. The agreement establishes the Chesapeake
Executive Council as the chief policy-making
authority in the Bay region. Executive Council
members are the governors of Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia, the mayor of the
District, the EPA administrator, and the chair of
the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
- The Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring
program is initiated by the Bay Program.
- The first federal agency agreements are signed
between EPA and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the
US Geological Survey (USGS) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
- The Maryland legislature passes the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Areas Protection Act, a plan to control
development along the shores of the Bay and
its tributaries.
1985
- The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay begins a
first-of-its-kind volunteer citizen water quality
monitoring program.
- Maryland places a moratorium on fishing for
striped bass.
- A phosphate detergent ban is enacted in
Maryland. DC follows in 1986, Virginia in 1988
and Pennsylvania in 1990.
1988
- The Bay Program initiates its first nutrient
management efforts.
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY TIME LINE
1987
- The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is signed by
the Bay Program partners. The Agreement sets a
goal to reduce the nutrients nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the Bay by 40% by the year
2000 and directs the Bay Program to study
atmospheric inputs to the Bay.
1988
- Virginia adopts the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
to provide land use guidance to local governments.
- Bernie Fowler, now a Maryland state senator, wades
into the Patuxent River. Water clarity is so poor he
cannot see the tips of his white sneakers beyond ten
inches deep.
1989
- The Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Strategy is adopted.
- The Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy, which
commits the Bay Program partners to a no net
loss of wetlands goal, is adopted.
- Virginia places a moratorium on fishing for
striped bass.
1990
- The federal Clean Air Act Amendments establish
the Great Water Bodies Program, which
acknowledges air deposition as a contributor
to water pollution.
- Striped bass moratoria are lifted and limited
seasons are allowed in Maryland and Virginia.
1992
- The Chesapeake Bay Agreement 1992 Amendments
are issued, giving nutrient reductions a tributary
focus. The amendments call for a permanent
nutrient cap after 2000.
- More than 450,000 acres of land in the Bay region
are under nutrient management plans.
1993
- The Bay Program issues directives addressing
tributary strategies, regional action plans to reduce
toxics, underwater Bay grasses restoration, fish
passage openings, and reduction of agricultural
nonpoint source pollution.
- Pennsylvania enacts a law requiring large animal
farm operations to implement nutrient
management plans.
1994
- Twenty-five agencies and departments sign the
Agreement of Federal Agencies on Ecosystem
Management in the Chesapeake Bay.
- Nearly one million acres of land in the Bay region
are under nutrient management.
- The 1994 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics
Reduction and Prevention Strategy K adopted.
- New initiatives for riparian forest buffers, habitat
restoration and aquatic reefs, and reciprocal
agricultural certification programs begin.
1995
- The striped bass stock is declared restored by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
- The Local Government Partnership Initiative is
signed, engaging the watersheds 1,650 local
governments in the Bay restoration effort.
- The Public Access Guide is released, highlighting
more than 500 public access sites in
the watershed.
- Adoption Statements on ballast water and
pesticide management are signed.
- Maryland creates ten watershed-based Tributary
Teams to bring the Bay cleanup to the local level.
1996
- Record high flows are recorded as a result of heavy
winter snowfall and Hurricane Fran.
- The Businesses for the Bay program is launched by
the Bay Program.
- The Toxics Regional Action Plans for the
Elizabeth River, Baltimore Harbor and the
Anacostia River are finalized.
- The Local Government Participation Action Plan
is adopted, reaffirming the Bay Programs
commitment to strengthening its partnership
with local governments.
- The Priorities for Action for Land, Growth and
Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay Region is
adopted, addressing land use management, growth
and development, stream corridor protection, and
infrastructure improvements.
- The new Riparian Forest Buffers Initiative calls for
conserving existing forests along streams and sets a
goal of restoring 2,010 miles of forest buffers on
stream and shoreline in the Bay watershed by the
year 2010.
- The largest wastewater treatment facility in the
Bay region, the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant in the District of Columbia, begins BNR for
half of its flow capacity.
- Virginia passes the Agricultural Stewardship Act,
considered to be the most far-reaching "bad
actor" law in the nation for controlling
agricultural pollution.
1997
- The 1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation
concludes that the 40% goal is in sight.
- Former Maryland State Senator Bernie Fowler
conducts his annual wade-in on the Patuxent
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY TIME LINE
River at Broomes Island. Accompanied by his
family, friends, local and state officials and EPA
Administrator Carol M. Browner, Fowler wades in
to 44 inches—his best measurement since the
1950s and 1960s.
- Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia all have
successful agriculture nutrient management
certification and education programs in place.
Approximately 1.7 million acres in the Bay region
are under nutrient management.
- Installation of the BNR pilot at Blue Plains leads
to record reductions of nitrogen discharges into
the Potomac River.
- Pfiesteriapiscicida, a toxic dinoflagellate, is
discovered in three tidal tributaries of the Bay,
causing fish kills and raising concerns about
nutrient impacts on human health and
water quality.
- Three important indicators of the health of the
Bay show improvement: acres of underwater Bay
grasses increased, more oxygen was available to
fish and crabs during the early summer, and less
nitrogen and phosphorus were found in the Bay's
waters compared with previous years.
- Maryland adopts a series of Smart Growth and
Neighborhood Conservation initiatives aimed
at directing growth and enhancing older
developed areas.
- Virginia passes the Water Quality Improvement
Act, setting a process for establishing goals and
providing funds for both point and nonpoint
source improvements.
- Pennsylvania establishes the 21st Century
Environment Commission to determine
environmental priorities for the next century.
1998
- Maryland adopts a bill that requires farmers to
implement management plans to reduce both
nitrogen and phosphorus.
- The federal Clean Water Action Plan provides a
blueprint for restoring and protecting the nations
waters using the Bay Program as a model. It's later
implemented in the Bay region with the signing of
FACEUP (Federal Agencies' Chesapeake
Ecosystem Unified Plan).
- American Forests kicks off the Global ReLeaf for
the Chesapeake campaign to plant one million trees
in the Bay region by 2000.
- Small Watersheds Grants are awarded to 17 local
communities and 20 citizen groups in the Bay
watershed to assist with on-the-ground
restoration projects.
- Bay Program data confirm that industries showed
a 67% reduction in toxic releases in the Bay region
between 1988 and 1996.
- The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant
commits to full BNR by 2000.
- The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
closes the entire East Coast to Atlantic Sturgeon
fishing for the next 40 years. It's the longest
fishing moratorium on record.
- Virginia announces it will spend $48 million on
new clean water programs.
- The Executive Council signs directives that make
education, a renewed Chesapeake Bay Agreement,
technology and animal waste management top
tools for the future.
- The last of five dams on the James River is
breached. A fish ladder added to Bosher's
Dam opens the river from Richmond to
Lynchburg, Virginia.
1999
- Pennsylvania Governor Thomas Ridge issues an
Executive Order to establish land use goals and to
assist local governments in implementing sound
land use objectives.
- Representatives of Maryland and the District of
Columbia sign the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Agreement, which includes goals of
restoring the waterway and 176 square miles of
surrounding land.
BEYOND 2000
2000
- Nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to the Bay are
capped at the 40% reduction level.
2003
- More than 1,356 miles are opened for fish
passage in order to restore spawning habitat for
migratory fish.
2005
- Recovery of Bay grasses reaches a total of
114,000 acres.
2010
- Riparian forests on 2,010 miles of stream and
shoreline in the Bay watershed are restored.
2020
- The Bay region's population approaches
18 million.
-------
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
& ITS RIVERS, CONTACT:
Chesapeake Bay Program
Communications Office
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(800) YOUR-BAY/(410) 267-5700
www .chesapeakebay .net
B.C. & STATE GOVERNMENT
& OTHER PARTNERS
Chesapeake Bay Commission
(410) 263-3420
www.chesbay.state.va.us
District of Columbia Department
of Health
(202) 645-6617
www.environ.state.dc.us
District of Columbia Public Schools
(202) 442-4016
www.kl2.dc.us
Maryland Department of Education
(888) 246-0016
www.msde.state.md.us
Maryland Department of the
Environment
(800) 633-6101
www.mde.state.md.us
Maryland Department of
Natural Resources
(410) 260-8710
www.dnr.state.md.us
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay
Education Office
(717) 545-8878
www.pacd.org
Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources
(717) 787-9306
www.dcnr.state.pa.us
Pennsylvania Department of Education
(717) 783-6788
www.pde.psu.edu
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
(717) 787-2300
www.dep.state.pa.us
Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation
(804) 786-1712
www.state.va.us/-dcr/
Virginia Department of Education
(800) 292-3820
www.pen.kl2.va.us
Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality
(800) 592-5482/(804) 698-4000
www.deq.state.va.us
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT &
OTHER PARTNERS
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Chesapeake Bay Office
(410) 267-5660
www.noaa.gov
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District Office in Baltimore
(410) 962-7608
www.nab.usace.army.mil
U.S. Army Environmental Center
(410) 436-7113
www.hqda.army.mil
U.S. Department of Education
(800) USA-LEARN
www.ed.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
(800) YOUR-BAY/(410) 267-5700
www.chesapeakebay.net or www.epa.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
(410) 573-4500
www.fws.gov/r5cbfo
U.S. Geological Survey
(703) 648-4000
www.usgs.gov
ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS
Maryland Sea Grant
(301) 405-6371
www.mdsg.umd.edu
Pennsylvania State University
(814) 865-4700
www.psu.edu
University of the District of Columbia
(202) 274-5000
www.wrlc.org/udc.htm
University of Maryland Cooperative
Extension Service
(301) 405-2072
www.agnr.umd.edu
University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science
(410) 228-9250
www.umces.edu
Virginia Cooperative Extension
(540) 231-6704
www.ext.vt.edu
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(804) 684-7000
www.vims.edu
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Regional Information Service
Hotline (800) 662-CRIS
www.acb-online.org
Center for Chesapeake Communities
(410) 267-8595
www .chesapeakecommunities .org
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
(410) 268-8816
www.cbf.org
Chesapeake Bay Trust
(410) 974-2941
www.baytrust.org
-------
The Renewed Agreement
CHESAPEAKE 2000
Renewing the Bay Agreement
Chesapeake 2000 refers to the effort to renew the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement in the year 2000 and to
define the priority goals and commitments for the
Chesapeake Bay Program into the next millennium.
Also called C2K, the project is under way with the
Bay Program working in partnership with its
advisory committees, subcommittees, all levels of
government and key stakeholder groups.
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement, adopted in 1987 and
amended in 1992, established the overall vision and
interstate policy framework for the restoration and
protection of the Bay. However, many of the original
goals and commitments of the Bay Agreement were
indexed to the year 2000. Many of the original
restoration milestones have been achieved, so it is
time to take stock of the latest science, the emerging
challenges and public interests, and the various
strategies adopted by the Bay Program in order to
renew the Agreement. The C2K effort will put the
priority goals and commitments of the Bay Program
into one master plan to restore and protect the Bay
for years to come.
For more information on how you can get
involved in the C2K effort, call the Bay Program
at 1-800-YOUR BAY or see our website at
www.chesapeakebay.net.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21403 • 1-800-YOUR BAY • Fax: 410-267-5777
www.chesapeakebay.net
------- |