Chesapeak Bay Ecological Management

Slide 1: 

Chesapeake Bay Ecological Management ~ in the Sky, on the Land, & down the Rivers* 4th Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands, 7-11 April 2008 Dann M. Sklarew, Chief Technical Advisor GEF IW:LEARN * Adapted from presentations available via http://www.chesapeakebay.net/

Slide 2: 

Maryland Delaware New York District of Columbia Virginia West Virginia Pennsylvania

2007 Bay Assessment : 

2007 Bay Assessment Key indicators of Bay health show: 12 percent of the Bay & tidal tributaries met summer dissolved oxygen standards. Bay grasses (SAV) increased to 35 percent of the restoration goal. Blue crab abundance still only 78% of target. Striped bass populations remained high but face uncertain health. Native oyster populations continue to be at depressed levels.

Threats to the Bay and Rivers : 

Threats to the Bay and Rivers NUTRIENTS SEDIMENTS TOXIC CHEMICALS HABITAT LOSS OVERFISHING

Sources of Pollutants to Bay : 

Sources of Pollutants to Bay Nonpoint Sources Run-off from farmland Run-off from lawns and paved areas Point Sources Industry Wastewater Treatment Plants

Cows in Streams : 

Cows in Streams Stormwater and groundwater carry nutrients into rivers and the Bay from a variety of nonpoint sources.

Wastewater Treatment Plant : 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Point sources are the second largest contributors of nutrient pollution to the rivers and the Bay.

Septic Systems : 

Septic Systems Another source of nitrogen is septic systems.

Fossil Fuel Power Plant : 

Fossil Fuel Power Plant Nitrogen pollution is created when we use fossil fuels to generate electricity and drive cars.

Political Timeline : 

Political Timeline “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”. 1983 Agreement --> Chesapeake Bay Program 1987: 40% reduction in controllable nutrient loads by 2000 1992: Agreed not to exceed nutrient limits once attained. 2000:

2007 Bay Assessment : 

2007 Bay Assessment Restoration Progress: Met ½ of goals to control agricultural N, P & sediments, 69% of N & 87% P reduction goals for wastewater, BUT Pollution continues to grow w/rapid population growth and related development. Still: Bay Program partners continued to progress to restore forest buffers and preserve land in 2007. The partners have planted 5,722 miles of forested buffer.

Progress toward Meeting Nutrient and Sediment Goals Limited : 

Progress toward Meeting Nutrient and Sediment Goals Limited The 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.

Farmers Using Nutrient ManagementApply Less Nutrients : 

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 : 

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.

Wastewater Treatment Improvements : 

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. Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Slide 17: 

Nitrogen Concentrations Declining in Some of theNon-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.

2007 Bay Assessment : 

2007 Bay Assessment Some reasons for continued poor health: Population growth Agricultural runoff Climate variability If current development trends continue: 250,000 more acres of watershed land will become impervious between 2000 and 2010. 9.5 million more acres of forests will be threatened by development by 2030. s. * Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia have permanently preserved 6.88 million acres of land -- nearly completing the 2010 goal to preserve 20 percent of their combined land within the Chesapeake watershed.

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. : 

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.

The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership : 

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

Slide 22: 

Management & Implementation Board (MIB)‏ CAC LGAC STAC Reorganization Structure to be Proposed to PSC on March 19 Water Regulatory Steering Committee State Implementation Action Teams Executive Council Principals’ Staff Committee Local Implementation Modeling, Monitoring and Assessment Toxics Living Resources Nutrients Education Standing Subcommittees