december 2005 the chesapeake bay: how is it doing?
TRANSCRIPT
December 2005
The Chesapeake Bay:How is it Doing?The Chesapeake Bay:
How is it Doing?
Why Are We Here?
The Chesapeake Bay is a beautiful place. By protecting the Bay, we are more likely to preserve our economy and the
health of the living things that call the Bay home.
CBP 1/5/06
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Maryland
Delaware
New York
District of Columbia
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
The Bay is Economically Important
The Bay is important for many reasons.It helps to support the region's economy as a major source of
seafood and a major hub for shipping and commerce.
The Bay is Important for Recreation and Tourism
It offers a wide variety of recreational opportunitiesfor residents and visitors.
The Bay Provides Important Habitat for Wildlife
It provides a huge natural habitat for wildlife.
Where Does the Bay Start?
Where does the Bay start?If you are one of the 16 million people who live in the
watershed, then the Bay starts in your backyard!
CBP 1/5/06
Threats to the Bay and Rivers
NUTRIENTS
SEDIMENTS
TOXIC CHEMICALS
HABITAT LOSS
OVERFISHING
CBP 1/5/06
Nutrients
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
are the nutrients causingproblems in the Bay.
What Are the Effects of Excess Nutrients?
What are the effects of excess nutrients?Bay grasses die.
Bay creatures are affected by low oxygen levels
What are the effects of excess nutrients?Low oxygen levels in Bay waters.
CBP 1/5/06
Sources of Pollutants to the Bay
Nonpoint Sources
•Run-off from farmland•Run-off from lawns and paved areas
Point Sources
•Industry•Wastewater Treatment Plants
Cows in Streams
Stormwater and groundwater carry nutrients into rivers and the Bay from a variety of nonpoint sources.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Point sources are the second largest contributors of nutrient pollution to the rivers and the Bay.
Fossil Fuel Power Plant
A significant amount of nitrogen pollution is created when we generate electricity and drive cars. Generating electric power
by burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, releases nitrogen, in the form of nitrogen oxide gas, into the air.
Automobile Exhaust
Nitrogen, again in the form of nitrogen oxide gases, comes out of car tail pipes and gets into the air.
Septic Systems
Another source of nitrogen is septic systems.Many homes in the watershed use underground septic
systems for treatment of wastewater and sewage.
CBP 1/5/06
The Bay and its rivers are doing betterthan they were when the first
Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1983,but we still have a way to go before we reach our
goals for a restored Chesapeake.
CBP 1/5/06
Phosphorus Concentrations Declining in Some of the
Non-tidal Portions of the Rivers
1985 – 2004
Decreasing
No significant trend
Increasing
Monitoring data shows that concentrations of nitrogen flowing into the Bay are decreasing in many of the Bay’s major tributaries.
These charts use flow-adjusted data, which are ‘normalized’ to account for seasonal and year-to-year variability in weather patterns.
CBP 1/5/06
Nitrogen Concentrations Declining in Some of the
Non-tidal Portions of the Rivers
1985 – 2004
Decreasing
No significant trend
Increasing
Monitoring data shows that concentrations of phosphorus flowing into the Bay are decreasing in many of the Bay’s major tributaries.
These charts use flow-adjusted data, which are ‘normalized’ to account for seasonal and year-to-year variability in weather patterns.
CBP 1/5/06
Sediment Concentrations Declining in Some of the
Non-tidal Portions of the Rivers
Monitoring data shows that concentrations of sediment flowing into the Bay are decreasing in some of the Bay’s major tributaries.
These charts use flow-adjusted data, which are ‘normalized’ to account for seasonal and year-to-year variability in weather patterns.
1980s – 2004
Decreasing
No significant trend
Increasing
CBP 1/5/06
Bay Grasses Show Annual Variation
Underwater bay grasses are slowly improving, but further reductions in the pollutants flowing into the Bay are needed to help them flourish.Annual variations in bay grasses show the sensitivity of the Bay ecosystem.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
18019
7819
7919
8019
8119
8219
8319
8419
8519
8619
8719
8819
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
04
Acr
es o
f Bay
Gra
sses
(th
ousa
nds) Restoration Goal (185,000 acres by 2010)
*Note – Hatched area of bar includes estimated additional acreage. No Baywide surveys 1979-83 and 1988 Source: Chesapeake Bay Program.
CBP 1/5/06
Rockfish Population Stable
Rockfish have rebounded to levels not seen since the 1950’s, but concerns remain over disease, sufficient sources of food and availability of spawning habitat.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
4519
8219
8319
8419
8519
8619
8719
8819
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
03
SS
B (
fem
ales
ag
es 4
+yrs
, mill
ion
s o
f lb
s)
Fishing moratoria:MD & DE: 1985-1990
VA: 1989-1990
Baywide Female Spawning Stock Biomass
CBP 1/5/06
Bald Eagle Populations on the Rebound!
Actions to control chemical contaminants have led to improved conditions in the Bay.
Bald eagles are no longer endangered due to the ban on the pesticide DDT and subsequent habitat improvements.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
19
77
19
80
19
83
19
86
19
89
19
92
19
95
19
98
20
01
20
04
# o
f O
cc
up
ied
Ne
sts
CBP 1/5/06
Bay Waters are Generally Safefor Fishing and Swimming
CBP 1/5/06
The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership
Governor of MD
EPA Administrator
Governor of VA Governor of PA
Executive Council
Mayor of DC
Chair of Chesapeake
Bay Commission
CBP 1/5/06
Bay Cleanup Has Citizen Involvement
CHESAPEAKEBAY PROGRAM
Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee
Citizen Advisory Committee
representing the interests of: Business, Industry,
Environment, Agriculture, Fisheries, Local Governments,
Developers, etc.
CHESAPEAKE
BAY
CLEANUP
ALLIANCE FOR THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY
CHESAPEAKEBAY
FOUNDATION
WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS
LAND TRUSTS
CONSERVATION GROUPS
Phosphate Detergent Ban
After signing the 1983 Bay Agreement , Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia instituted
phosphate detergent bans.
In 1987, Chesapeake Bay Program partners committed to achieving a 40 percent reduction in controllable nutrient loads
to the Bay by 2000…and in 1992, agreed to stay at or below these nutrient loads
once attained.
CBP 1/5/06
Chesapeake 2000: The New Agreement
“by 2010, correct the nutrient‑ and sediment‑related problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act”.
In June 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners signed a new agreement to guide the restoration and protection of the Bay through the next decade and beyond.
In Chesapeake 2000, the partners agreed to:
CBP 1/5/06
Progress toward Meeting Nutrient and Sediment Goals LimitedThe Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model provides program managers with a way to estimate the nutrient and sediment reductions that will likely occur as pollution abatement practices are implemented throughout the watershed. These reduction estimates also provide an indication of the pollutant load that would flow into the Bay in an "average” year. Using the model, managers can project the future response of various management actions put in place today.
Based on Bay watershed model simulations, 58% of the phosphorus, 41% of the nitrogen and 54% of the sediment reduction goals have been achieved.
Source: CBP Phase 4.3 Watershed Model. Estimates of nutrient and land-based sediment reductions that may occur when the reported management practices and reduction technologies are implemented within watershed portions of NY, PA, MD, DC, DE, WV, VA. The model's nonpoint source load reductions are estimates of what would occur under long-term avergaed rainfall conditions based on the years 1985-1994. The point source load reductions are actual measurements and are influenced by the reporting year’s rainfall.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1985 2000 2004
Nitr
ogen
Loa
d (m
illion
lbs/
yr) 2010
NitrogenGoal
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1985 2000 2004
Pho
spho
rus
Load
(m
illion
lbs/
yr) 2010
PhosphorusGoal
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1985 2000 2004
Sed
imen
t Loa
d (m
illion
tons
/yr)
2010 SedimentGoal
CBP 1/5/06
63% of the Point Source Nitrogen Reduction Goal Has Been Achieved
Nitrogen loads delivered to the Bay from municipal and industrial wastewater facilities declined 30.4 million lbs/yr 1985 - 2004 as a result of industrial reductions and installment of nutrient reduction technology (NRT) technology.
80% of the Point Source Phosphorus Reduction Goal Has Been Achieved
Phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay from municipal and industrial wastewater facilities declined 4.9 million lbs/yr between 1985 and 2004 as a result of improved treatment capability and implementation of phosphate detergent bans (MD: 1985, DC: 1986, VA: 1988, PA: 1990).
These reductions occurred in spite of a 20% increase in population 1985-2003.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Goa
l
Poi
nt S
ourc
e N
itrog
en L
oad
(milli
ons
lbs/
yr)
Tributary Strategy Load Goal
Municipal Nitrogen Delivered Load
Industrial Nitrogen Delivered Load
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Goa
l
Poi
nt S
ourc
e P
hosp
horu
s Lo
ad (
milli
ons
lbs/
yr)
Tributary Strategy Load Goal
Municipal P hosphorus Delivered Load
Industrial P hosphorus Delivered Load
Wastewater Treatment Improvements
Best Management Practices
As partners in the restoration effort, many farmers are using a variety of techniques, called "best management practices", to
reduce nutrients and sediment coming from farms into the Bay and its rivers.
CBP 1/5/06
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Milli
ons
of A
cres
(cu
mul
ativ
e)
Year 2010 Draft Target: 4.5 million acres
Farmers Using Nutrient ManagementApply Less Nutrients
3.42 million acres of cropland and hayland in the Bay watershed were placed under nutrient management plans between 1985 and 2003.
The effectiveness of the plans is based on how aggressively they are implemented.
Acres Under Nutrient Management
Sediment Control and Stormwater Management
The use of sediment control fencing around building and road construction sites has been very successful in reducing
nutrient and sediment loads from nonpoint sources.
Restoration and Protection of Habitat and Living Resources
Since 1987, the Bay Program has committed to "provide for the restoration and protection of living resources, their habitats,
and ecological relationships".
Fish Migration Blockages
More than 1,000 miles of fish spawning habitat on Chesapeake Bay tributaries are currently blocked by dams, culverts and
other obstructions.
CBP 1/5/06
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
280019
89
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year 2014 Goal (2,807 miles)
Year 2004 Goal Achievement (1,807 miles)
Migratory and Resident Fish Habitat Expanding
The removal of dams and the construction of fish passages are reopening native spawning grounds to migratory and resident fish in many parts of the watershed. When combined with stocking efforts, migratory species are beginning to return.
The removal of dams and fishway construction from 1988 through 2005 reopened 1,838 miles of historic habitat to migratory and resident fish.
CBP 1/5/06
Shad Are Starting to Make a Comeback
but Have a Long, Long Way to Go
Stocking efforts, a moratorium, and fish passage development increased the number of shad counted at Conowingo Dam from several hundred per year in the early 1980s to an average of 101,140 per year in 2003-2005.
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Sh
ad C
ou
nte
d a
t C
on
ow
ing
o F
ish
Lif
t (m
illio
ns)
Susquehanna River RestorationProgram Goal
Three Year Average
0
30000
60000
90000
120000
150000
180000
19
82
-84
19
85
-87
19
88
-90
19
91
-93
19
94
-96
19
97
-99
20
00
-02
20
03
-05
Sh
ad C
ou
nte
d a
t C
on
ow
ing
o
Fis
h L
ift
CBP 1/5/06
Streamside Forests Sprouting Up
Forest buffer restoration is improving local waterways throughout the Bay watershed by preventing pollutants from entering the rivers and improving wildlife habitat.
About 60 percent of the riparian area in the watershed is forested. In 1996, the Bay Program partners committed to restore riparian forests on 2,010 miles of stream and shoreline in the watershed by 2010. This goal was met in 2002.
Shad Are Starting to Make a Comeback...but have a long, long way to
In 2003, the partners committed to conserve and restore forests along at least 70% of all streams and shoreline in the watershed, with a near term goal of at least 10,000 miles by 2010.
Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Cum
ulat
ive
Mile
s R
esto
red
Current 2010 Goal:10,000 miles
(established 2003)
Initial 2010 Goal:2,010 miles
(established 1996)
CBP 1/5/06
Wetlands Are Being Restored
GOAL: Achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres by 2010 in the Wetlands Restoration Program.
STATUS: We have achieved 40% of the wetland acreage gain goal through non-regulatory programs.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is working to determine if this is indeed a “net gain”.
Establishment: Create wetland that did not previously exist.
Reestablishment: Restore historic functions to a former wetland.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Establishment
Reestablishment
2010 Goal: 25,054 acres
Wetland reestablishment and establishment (cumulative acres).
Da
ta C
oll
ec
tio
n I
n P
rog
res
s
CBP 1/5/06
Toxics-Free Bay
CBP 1/5/06
Regions of Concern
The most severe chemical contamination problems in the Bay are generally limited to those areas located near urban centers close to the Bay: the Baltimore Harbor and the Anacostia and Elizabeth rivers.
The Bay Program is directing reduction and prevention actions toward these areas, known as "Regions of Concern".
Regions of Concern: Areas with known chemical contaminant-related impacts.
Baltimore Harbor
Anacostia River
Elizabeth River
CBP 1/5/06
Not characterized due tohistorically low levels ofchemical contaminants
Area with Insufficient orInconclusive Data
Area with Low Probabilityfor Adverse Effects
Area of Emphasis -area with potential foradverse effects
Region of Concern -area with probableadverse effects
LEGEND
York
Rappahannock
PotomacPatuxent
Baltimore Harbor/PatapscoChester
Choptank
Eastern Bay
Bush
South
Rhode
Elizabeth
SassafrassMiddle
James
Nanticoke
Manokin
Back
Mattaponi
Pocomoke
Tangier Sound
Susquehanna
Gunpowder
MagothySevern
Anacostia
Pamunkey
MobjackBay
Chickahominy
Big Annemessex
Wicomico
WyeMiles
Bohemia
ElkNortheast
Status of Chemical Contaminant Effects
on Living Resources in the Bay’s Tidal Rivers
Chesapeake Bay scientists and managers characterized the status of chemical contaminant effects on living resources in the Bay’s tidal rivers based on all available chemical contaminant data.
The result of this characterization, summarized in this map, will be used by Chesapeake Bay Program decision makers to target specific tidal rivers for monitoring and management efforts.
CBP 1/5/06
Industry Reduces Chemical Releases
Bay basin industries have achieved their voluntary goal of reducing releases and transfers of chemical contaminants 65% between 1988 and 2000.
Since the year 2000 goal has been achieved, the Chesapeake Bay Program has consulted with industry to set new targets.
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Mill
ions
of l
bs/y
r
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Year 2000Measurement of
Progress
CBP 1/5/06
We Still Have More Work to Do
Crabs
The Chesapeake Bay blue crab fisheries are valuable. They provide significant economic benefits for many people in the region.
They are also an important part of the region's heritage.
CBP 1/5/06
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
Sp
aw
nin
g F
em
ale
Ind
ex
Blue Crabs At Risk
Mature Female Blue Crabs
Average
Blue Crab populations have stabilized at below-average levels.
Improved water quality and habitat restoration efforts along with proper management of the crab harvest are needed to restore the Bay’s blue crab populations.
CBP 1/5/06
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
53 58 63 68 73 78 83 88 93 98 2003
Com
mer
cial
Lan
ding
s (m
illio
n lb
s)
Oysters at Historic Lows
Oyster populations in the Chesapeake are at historic lows due to disease, intense harvest pressure and poor water quality.
Oysters and Aquatic Reef Construction
Bay Program partners are constructing underwater reefs to provide habitat for oysters and the other animals and plants
that rely on these reefs for their survival.
CBP 1/5/06
Forest Acreage Declining
Landcleared foragricultureand timber
EarlyColonies
Landabandonedafter CivilWar and
Depression
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 20000
20
40
60
80
100
Per
cen
tag
e o
f W
ater
shed
Fo
rest
ed
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.
The forest that regrew from the 19th to the mid-20th centuries is steadily declining. Current losses represent permanent conversions.
Forest Conservation
Many efforts to conserve existing forest have involved responsible management and stewardship.
Wetlands
Wetlands are vital habitats for many plants and animals. Wetlands directly benefit people by improving water quality, reducing flood and storm damages, minimizing erosion and supporting tourism and the hunting and fishing industries.
Wetlands Protection
Protecting our remaining wetlands is vital to restoringthe Bay ecosystem.
CBP 1/5/06
Patterns of Land Use and Consumption of Natural Resources Threaten Our Progress
Since 1950, the Bay watershed’s population has doubled to about 16 million people. As the population of the watershed grows, so does our footprint on the landscape.
In the past decade, population increased by about 8 percent, while the amount of impervious surface increased by 41 percent, representing an area five times the size of the nation’s capital.
Managing future growth will be critical to preserving gains made during the first two decades of Bay restoration efforts.
Impervious Cover
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1990
2000
2010
pro
ject
ion
Imp
ervi
ou
s A
cres
(m
illio
ns)
30% Rate Reduction
Goal
High Development Pressure (HDP)
Close Proximity to HDP
Areas of Highest Development Pressure in the Watershed
CBP 1/5/06
State and local governmentsplay an important role inland use planning and
development in theChesapeake Bay region.
Stormwater Runoff
As more and more of the watershed is developed, vegetated lands, such as forests, wetlands and farmland are converted to roads, parking lots, rooftops and other "impervious" surfaces.
CBP 1/5/06
River Flow into Chesapeake Bay
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10019
37
1947
1957
1967
1977
1987
1997
Riv
er F
low
(b
illi
on
s o
f g
allo
ns
per
day
)
1972Tropical StormAgnes
Normal Range
1941lowest flow on record Wet
Years
DryYears
200
4
CBP 1/5/06
Water Clarity Improvements Needed in Key Habitat AreasWater clarity is critical to the health of underwater grasses that provide important habitat for many Bay animals.
Water clarity is a measure of the amount of sunlight that penetrates the Bay’s waters and reaches the surface of underwater Bay grass leaves.
The amount needed is determined by the specific underwater grasses which grow in different areas of the Bay.
Increases in sediment and nutrient concentrations in the water lead to declines in water clarity.
CBP 1/5/06
Pfiesteria piscicidais a toxic dinoflagellate
that has been associated with fish lesions and fish killsin the coastal waters from
Delaware to North Carolina, including Chesapeake Bay.
Flagellated FormPhoto courtesy of the
Aquatic Botany Laboratory, North
Carolina State University
CBP 1/5/06
What Can You Doto Help Restore the Bay and its Rivers?
CBP 1/5/06
Conserve electricity and water and reduce the amount of miles you drive.
CBP 1/5/06
Use safer, nontoxic alternatives for cleaningand for controlling pests and weeds.
CBP 1/5/06
Properly dispose of household hazardous waste, antifreeze, oil and boat waste.
CBP 1/5/06
Prevent pollution byreducing, reusing and recycling.
CBP 1/5/06
Prevent pollution from entering the Bay and rivers by planting trees, especially along streams and
shorelines.
CBP 1/5/06
Plant native vegetationthat requires the use of less
(or no) fertilizer, pesticides and water.
CBP 1/5/06
Limit fertilizer useand apply at appropriate times.
Have your soil tested and ask for recommendations for the best time and amount of fertilizer to apply for your particular landscaping needs.
Never apply more than is needed.
Start a compost pile
If you have room, start a compost pile in your backyard.By using a compost pile instead of a garbage disposal, you will
reduce your nutrient inputs to the watershed.
Maintain Your Septic System!
If you have a septic system, be sure to have it pumped out every three to five years. This will allow your septic tank to
operate efficiently.
Be a Sediment Buster!
Be a "sediment buster"!If you suspect violations of sediment control measures, report the
violation. Call your local Planning and Zoning Office.
Participate in clean up and restoration activities
Participate in clean up and restoration activities.
Volunteer to Help Plant Beach and Marsh Grasses!
Volunteer to help plant beach and marsh grasses. This will not only help reduce erosion, but also help reduce nutrient and toxic inputs to the watershed. Beach and marsh grasses also provide beneficial habitat for many creatures that live in the watershed.
Avoid disturbing shallow water areasand Bay grass beds
Observe posted speed limits and be responsible for your wake. This will help prevent erosion and habitat destruction.
Avoid disturbing shallow water areas and Bay grass beds.
CBP 1/5/06
Get involved in community groups and watershed organizations to develop and implement watershed management plans and pollution reduction plans.
CBP 1/5/06
Get involved with citizen monitoring efforts that track progress in the Bay cleanup.
Former MD state senator Bernie Fowler wades into the Patuxent River every year to test improvements in water clarity.
Bernie Fowler's Sneaker Index63
57
108
16 1618
28 28
4037
44.5
35.5
41.539.5
31
42.8
24.5
31.5
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7019
50s
1960
s 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
05
Vis
ibilit
y (in
ches
)
goal
Chesapeake Bay Needs YOU!
The Chesapeake Bay needs you!