Posted on 10/18/2002 11:40:04 AM PDT by cogitator
Chesapeake Bay's Health Not Improving
WASHINGTON, DC, October 17, 2002 (ENS) - Promises by state governments and federal agencies to clean up the Chesapeake Bay have made virtually no impact in the past five years, according to an annual report from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The nation's largest estuary rates a 27 out of 100 on the environmental group's health index for 2002, unchanged from last year and a long way from the organization's goal of reaching 40 by 2010.
The benchmark of 100 reflects the Chesapeake as described in the early 1600s, when clean water revealed meadows of underwater grasses, vast oyster reefs and abundant fish.
(Caption) The Chesapeake Bay has lost most of its sea grass beds (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
"The improvements in the Bay have stalled," said Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) senior scientist and assistant director Kim Coble. "There is a good effort but we need to see some changes in practices and in commitment from leadership in order to get it moving."
The biggest threat to the Bay is nitrogen pollution, and the report finds that "regulators and Bay states have not yet taken meaningful long term steps to fix the problem." More than 300 million pounds of nitrogen - from fertilizers, animals wastes and other sources - flow into the Bay every year, causing algae overgrowth that kills fish and harms the bay grasses that provide crucial habitat for crabs and small fish.
A reduction in nitrogen would improve each of the other 12 indicators used to measure the health of the Bay, Coble said.
One of the most difficult things about cleaning up the Bay is locating the source of pollution. The Chesapeake Bay watershed covers more than 64,000 square miles and encompasses parts of six states: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. More than 15 million people live in the watershed, a population expected to grow to 18 million by 2010.
(Caption) Pollutants from urban and suburban areas, farms and roads all wash into the Chesapeake Bay (Photo courtesy Anacostia Watershed Society)
For the Bay to reach a rating of 40 by 2010, the amount of nitrogen must be cut by about 150 million pounds, a target that will not be easy to reach. What is frustrating for environmentalists, however, is that political rhetoric on the Bay has offered hope of action without much actual accomplishment.
In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia along with the mayor of Washington DC signed onto a detailed plan to clean up the Bay, largely in line with the targets set by CBF's 40 by 2010 goal. The agreement is aimed at getting the Bay off the EPA's list of impaired waters.
But the agreement provided no funds for the massive cleanup needed, and funding for protection efforts has been spotty. Estimates for the cost of the work needed to get the Bay to 40 on the CBF's index range as high as $20 billion.
It will be expensive, Coble said, but the longer serious cleanup efforts are delayed, the more difficult and costly it will be to restore the Bay.
"It is an enormous task and is not easily solvable, but we need this to occur more rapidly," Coble said. "The science is good and strong and there are steps we can take now while the rest of the questions are being answered."
(Caption) The Bay hosts hundreds of species of resident and migratory birds, like these Canada geese (Photo courtesy Maryland Sea Grant)
One step the CBF is calling for is the upgrading of wastewater treatment plants, which contribute more than 60 million pounds of nitrogen to the Bay each year. Unlike agricultural runoff, this source of nitrogen is easy to identify and control, and the report cites sewage treatment upgrades as the "the first and easiest step to decrease nitrogen loads." [Improving just one large wastewater treatment plant that was discharging into Tampa Bay led to a marked improvement there.]
The recommended upgrades could cost an estimated $4.4 billion by 2010. So far, CBF reports that just 70 of the watershed's 288 plants have been upgraded. Many of these have only been upgraded to reduce the nitrogen content of treated wastewater to eight milligrams per liter, far short of the three milligrams per liter that CBF's plan requires.
Still, wastewater treatment upgrades are a good place to start, Colbe said.
"The technology exists and we know it works," he explained. "This is also a good first step because although they are expensive, the costs are distributed across millions of people."
Nitrogen is not the only nutrient polluting the Bay. Phosphorus levels also need to be reduced, from the current 20 million pounds that enter the Bay each year to four million, according to CBF.
The report also found that more toxic chemicals were released into the Bay in 2002 than in previous years - evidence of an increase in actual releases of chemicals to waterways in Virginia and Maryland. 2002 also had an increased number of health advisories limiting fish consumption throughout the watershed due to toxic contaminants.
(Caption) Studies show that the Chesapeake Bay's blue crab population is declining (Photo courtesy Maryland Sea Grant)
Maryland's famous blue crab population fared poorly in 2002, according to the report. Blue crabs dropped two points on the report's index, as the population suffered its third consecutive year of poor harvests.
"Scientific consensus is that the risk to the population is high and increasing," the report found. But the CBF said there is some optimism that a coordinated strategy between Maryland and Virginia could begin to show benefits later this year.
The one positive in the State of the Bay 2002 report is the finding that the Bay's shad population improved this year, as efforts to encourage spawning runs in several Bay tributaries began to pay dividends. Still, the shad population remains severely depleted - rating just seven on CBF's 100 point scale.
To read the report, visit the Chesapeake Bay Foundation at: http://www.cbf.org/
I wonder just how much reliable scientific documentation there is of the area from that time...
All I know is that crabs, oysters, softshell clams, etc. were all quite abundant in the Bay up until the 60's. $18 or $20 per bushel for large bluefins. Heck, it seemed we'd have a crab and steamers party every weekend during the summer months.
Too bad shad tastes like another four-letter word. Now, if only the blue crabs and oysters would come back in abundance. One can dream.....
It's had some positive effects, but we're still a long way off from the glory days of 20-30 years ago.
Honestly... I'm rolling on the floor laughing (ROTFL), and so would most of my neighbors if they heard THAT accusation.
You'd have to rip the Roscoe Bartlett bumper sticker off my car before I'd join the Green Party.
Aw, come on, Mark. It's possible to be a conservative and still love the outdoors and be in favor of clean water. It's kind of tough for people whose families have lived near the Bay for centuries to watch it turn into a giant outdoor toilet. Nothing wrong with clean water.
That's major, because the Agnes, etc. floods started killing the bay grasses, and too much nitrogen, especially from PA caused the algae blooms that not only killed plants, but crabs in pots!
If the Baltimore water authority is smart they will keep the Susq. pipeline open, share some with Anne Arundel if possible (I don't know). They specifically mentioned the lower water flow from lack of rain as being healthy for the grasses, with less nitrogen running off. These are required for soft crab production and safe male sloughing. I'd like to see crab prices come down with better yields.
Can't hurt the oysters either. I'll try to find a story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.