Chesapeake Bay Action Plan

(Posted by Erik Michelsen.)

According to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s estimates, pollution from urban and suburban stormwater runoff is the only sector where nutrient loads are currently growing in the bay watershed. On much of the western shore of the Chesapeake, including the Baltimore-Washington metro counties, agriculture is an increasingly rare land use, shifting daily to the eastern shore or Midwest. And in Maryland, the Bay Restoration Fund (aka “Flush Tax”) is being used to upgrade wastewater treatment plants to the best available technology. Yet, these areas consistently suffer from some of the worst water quality in the Chesapeake region (see EcoCheck Chesapeake Bay Report Cards).

In the face of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits, a sputtering economy, and cash-strapped governments, if we are going to improve water quality in our local rivers and the bay, we’re going to have to get creative. The development of Phase II Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) by local governments throughout the bay watershed has made it more apparent than ever that in order to have any chance of reversing the damage caused by urban and suburban runoff in our lifetime, each local government needs to create a dedicated source of funds for the maintenance and retrofit of stormwater practices. Funding these efforts from the general fund or through inadequate fees on new development has been an abject failure, and without a serious approach, modeled upon the way that municipal drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is maintained and expanded, we shouldn’t expect any improvement in this arena. During the upcoming legislative session, a number of organizations will continue to push for Maryland to adopt a state requirement that local governments put these dedicated funds in place as well as create revenue streams to fill them.

Dedicated funding to tackle the existing backlog of stormwater work is a huge piece of the clean-up puzzle, but what about the fact that as new development comes into the watershed, or existing sources of pollution (e.g., wastewater treatment plants) grow, additional pollution will be added to already heavily impaired waterways? With the promulgation of the bay TMDL by EPA in late 2010, pollution reduction targets are in place, and new pollutant loads, whether they be from stormwater, wastewater, or another source, must be “offset” so as not to worsen the condition of either the bay or the local tributary into which the site discharges. The exact form that this offset or “trading” program will take is still under development, but a well-devised plan can not only foster truly “smart” growth in the bay watershed, but also enlist it as a powerful tool in the improvement of water quality.

I recognize that this will be difficult for many to believe or accept—after all, we’ve been bombarded with the mantra that “development is killing the bay” for decades – but what if, as a condition of new development, local governments required developers to upgrade existing septic systems, restore broken streams and wetlands, and convert farm fields into forests? In certain respects, the change is no different than current “adequacy of public facilities” laws that are on the books, and that pertain to school or sewer capacity. Our waterways are the ultimate “public facilities”, and their current condition is, with very few exceptions, completely inadequate.

The notion of “trading pollution” is distasteful to some and has surely been manipulated by others, but it’s important to recognize that even in the absence of any new growth, our rivers and the bay will remain badly broken, but that by harnessing the inevitable growth that will come to the bay watershed as a partner in improving water quality, we add another important tool to the toolbox of bay recovery.

Share on Facebook

For the last decade I have written, talked, and sometimes even done things to promote clean water in the Chesapeake Bay region and beyond. But one thing I have always refused to do was to participate in that unique Chesapeake Bay tradition known as “the wade-in.”

The practice was made popular by my good friend and trusted ally, former Maryland State Sen. Bernie Fowler, who has conducted his wade-in for more than two decades. As regular as the fish that return to the Bay each spring, on the second Sunday in June, Sen. Fowler and his followers return to the banks of the Patuxent to see how far they can walk in the water before their shoes become obscured by the thick flow of agricultural pollution, mud and sewage that plague that troubled river. Politicians make speeches, friends are acknowledged for their hard work, and Bernie loses sight of his feet at about 30 inches (never much different than the year before).

I have avoided this event and others like it, despite my sincere admiration for Bernie Fowler, because I do not think they go far enough. Like many others, I have concluded that it is time for us to go farther, deeper, to do more. No more tinkering around the water’s edge. It’s time to take the plunge. So on June 30th, one day prior to the 28th anniversary of the Clean Water Act’s due date for making our nation’s rivers swimmable, a small group of environmental policy experts and scientists will defy the recommendation of health officials and our own better judgment, and we swim will in one of the nation’s dirtiest rivers—the Anacostia.

(Illustration courtesy Anacostia Watershed Society.)

The Anacostia has been closed for swimming for as long as anyone can remember, and for good reason. Despite the hard work of countless volunteers and environmental professionals the river remains polluted—defiled by a vile mixture of two billion gallons of untreated sewage and storm water that desecrate its sacred waters each year. As well as the annual insult of 70,000 tons of trash, toxic pollution and sediments that further degrade the once mighty Anacostia.

Public health officials promise, if you believe them, that the river will be restored by 2032 (my friend Bernie Fowler will be 108 years old in 2032 and my 4-year son will have spent his entire childhood without having had the chance to swim in the nation’s Capital River). The point is this: Rivers around this region, and in fact around the globe, are looking more and more like the Anacostia with each passing year. Sewage spills, beach closures, off-limits rivers—all are a regular part of modern life.

The reality is that we know what the solutions are. For the Anacostia it is sewage and storm water upgrades. For the rivers of the Eastern Shore it is meaningful agricultural regulations. And for the rivers in between it is some combination of these needed changes.

So instead of packing our cars and heading to the beach this holiday weekend, a small group of us are going to skip the celebrations, and swim in the Anacostia. I’ll be joined by the Anacostia Riverkeeper, leaders from the Anacostia Watershed Society, former U.S. Senator Joe Tydings (D-Md.), Maryland state Sen. Paul Pinsky (D-Prince George’s County), former Maryland state senators David Harrington and Gerald Winegrad and leading scientists. We’ll don (mock) hazmat suits to dramatize the toxicity of the river, and publicize the 28 years of broken promises.

In doing so, we hope to remind a few people of the lost treasure in nation’s back yard, of the promises made by our government when they passed the Clean Water Act—promises now overdue by 28 years—and of the solutions that are in reach.

Will you join us to witness this event? We hope so. Details here.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Fred Tutman.)

On May 19, 2011, the 18 Waterkeepers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other Maryland-based Waterkeepers, staged an historic event in Annapolis at the City Dock. Firing up their patrol boats, the Riverkeepers (and one Coastkeeper), and a crowd of supporters motored into Annapolis in a Flotilla of Boats in order to make a point. On the day the Governor was signing (or vetoing) new legislation in the Maryland statehouse, this group of water advocates wanted to make sure that both the public and the legislature understood that time is running out to save our waterways and that it will take deeds–not just promise–in order to bring about necessary change. (“Riverkeepers decry ‘incremental solutions,’” Hometown Annapolis, May 23, 2011.)

The 2011 Maryland General Assembly session, recently concluded, had so much potential and so much promise to alleviate the many problems facing the environment and our declining waterways. And yet, instead of courageous and zealous action on the part of the legislature to champion the environment, we repeatedly heard and saw fear, paralysis and procrastination. Specifically, fear about the economy and jobs, in spite of the steady decline of the biggest economic assets one could ever have—clean water, air and land.

It is shocking that one could separate the need for a clean planet from the comparable need for a healthy economy. They are plainly one and the same. Both our environment and our economy are plagued by Bay dead zones, health hazards from toxics, an alarming decline in fisheries, lost habitat, shrinking open space, and dirty water runoff that promises a dark and bleak future unless we take action NOW to turn things around. The Waterkeepers Chesapeake who serve as the eyes, ears and voices of our waterways took the opportunity to express our anger, our disappointment and our demands for real outcomes and strong leadership on the environment from the politicians we elected and entrusted with these vital issues. Public service is a noble pursuit, deserving of our respect and support, but one must produce the results needed to carry the day and bring about change in order to remain in public office. One cannot expect to remain in office by failing to deliver on the core duties and obligations owed the public.

As for the Flotilla, I was enormously proud at the show of solidarity; the colorful spectacle of a citizen’s armada of boats expertly handled under storm clouds overhead, piloted by advocates who have made tremendous sacrifices to stand up for our water. Waterkeepers serve as the eyes, ears and voices of our watersheds and our message was that the Legislature has an obligation to advance solutions that are proportional to the daunting problems facing the environment. Not incremental, tepid or symbolic gestures, but giant strides toward goals that will solve problems that have been known all too well for decades. If my house was on fire and you brought a water pistol in order to help, I would not give you accolades for doing a good job. We are facing serious environmental problems statewide and what got passed this last time round, barely warrants a press release and does not represent serious progress or even good faith.

Consider the Waterkeeper press conference a legislative report card in an off-election year! Had this been an election year, I assure you the environmental vote would have brought the winds of change to Annapolis like a hurricane.

Undeniably, the citizens of Maryland did not elect politicians to represent us because we wanted to defer problems to future voters or to future legislatures. It is not a stretch to consider that many of us actually want genuine progress towards goals that have been in front of us for decades. Swimmable, fishable waters, clean air, protected land. We want these things not as a favor, or as alms—but because we are entitled and because it is the right thing to do.

In the end, the Waterkeepers and their boosters do not really care if you have a good legislative environmental score card from some group or other (the usual excuse I hear from politicians who want to authenticate their “green” credentials in the face of low performance). It doesn’t even matter if you have great intentions for the environment. Instead, it matters only that you can deliver the goods. As advocates, as voters and as citizens we stood united at the City Dock to make it clear that we insist on deeds, not unfulfilled promises. We demand solutions, not regrets. One earns the role of leadership in Annapolis or anywhere else, by walking the walk, not by just talking the talk. It is not about being a friendly face for the environment, it is truly about passing tough laws (and of course enforcing them). Guess what? The environmental problems won’t go away once the gavel of sine die has resonated, they linger on, causing real suffering, and genuine economic and social problems until the day something is actually done.

So, this is not a time to celebrate the successful end of a legislative session, but instead to start the process of making amends for the missed opportunities, for egregious failures and for deferring tough problems to yet another day. This last session was on credit. In the next one, we expect results.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Bill Dennison.)

This year’s Chesapeake Bay report card, produced by EcoCheck, a partnership between NOAA and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, was released last week. The overall report card score was a C-, based on data collected throughout 2010. Unfortunately, this report card score declined from the 2009 report card which was a C, and this was the first time the score declined since 2004. Of the 15 reporting regions, only two had higher scores than last year, but nine had lower scores, leaving four with no change.

The Chesapeake Bay report card is based on three water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll levels) and three biotic parameters (aquatic grasses, benthic index of biotic integrity and phytoplankton index of biotic integrity). The data are collected and analyzed by state agencies, academic institutions and private consultants, and coordinated through the Chesapeake Bay Program. EcoCheck staff then calculate, map and analyze report card scores to produce the final report card.

Why was this year’s Chesapeake Bay report card bad news? The report card indicators are influenced by nutrient loading into the Bay, and one of the most efficient ways to increase nutrient loading is to have dry weather punctuated by high runoff, washing unused fertilizer, animal waste and other nutrient sources into the streams and rivers. In the Potomac River watershed, this is what happened last late winter and early spring.

Chesapeake Bay aquatic grass, one of the biotic indicators in the report card, had a downturn which is likely due to thermal stress in early summer. Hot, still weather created extremely high water temperatures in the shallow water where aquatic grasses reside. The heat stress led to aquatic grass declines, just as happened in the late summer of 2005.

The natural inclination when receiving a bad grade is to blame the weather. “It was too rainy,” “It was too hot,” etc., but what really causes problems are the things that we are doing on land that affect runoff when it does rain. Animal waste and unused fertilizer applied to the land is delivered to the Bay with rainfall-derived runoff. In this sense, blaming the rain is blaming the courier (I.e., shooting the messenger), rather than the real cause. Heat stressed aquatic grasses will bounce back in healthy meadows supported by good water quality, but will not do well in poor water quality.

No one likes to receive a bad report card, no matter the cause or the overall upward trend since 2003. What is important is our reaction to the bad news report card. We need to be receptive to the message that we still need to do more, that our considerable efforts are not enough to guarantee measurable improvements in the Bay health. The Chesapeake Bay report card is totally data based, and there is no subjectivity to the final grades. The data are the data. It is up to us not to say “Don’t bring me no bad news,” but rather, “We’ll do better next time.” Inspired by the need to avoid saying “Don’t bring me no bad news,” I have adapted the lyrics for a song with the same name:

Don’t Nobody Bring Me No Bad News

(Adapted from lyrics by Charlie Smalls for a song of the same name, used in the musical “The Wiz” and sung by Mabel King in the film version)

When I wake up and look at Chesapeake
Which it pleases me to do
Don’t nobody bring me no bad news
‘Cause I wake up already negative
And I’ve got too much to lose
So don’t nobody bring me no bad news

If we’re going to be reportin’
Better bone up on the grades
‘Cause don’t nobody bring me no bad news
You can be my best of friends
If you act before hope fades
But don’t nobody bring me no bad news

No bad news
No bad news
Don’t you ever bring me no bad news
‘Cause I’ll need you to act right now
That you cannot refuse
So don’t nobody bring me no bad news

When you’re lookin’ at the grades
Don’t be cryin’ the blues
‘Cause don’t nobody bring me no bad news
You can rationalize and apologize
But just start payin’ your dues
But don’t nobody bring me no bad news

Bring some restoration to the Bay
We cannot afford to lose
But don’t you ever bring me no bad news
If you’re gonna bring me something
Bring me, something I can use
But don’t you bring me no bad news

Share on Facebook

Posted by Bill Dennison.

The Integration and Application Network has been working with various groups in Queensland, Australia to produce an environmental report card for the Great Barrier Reef, modeled in some ways after the Chesapeake Bay report card. Comparisons between the two large ecosystems can be made and these comparisons can provide insight into both Chesapeake Bay and the Great Barrier Reef.

As the title suggests, both Chesapeake Bay and the Great Barrier Reef are iconic in many ways. Their iconic status has to do with their respective sizes. Chesapeake Bay is the largest (or one of the largest estuaries in the world, depending on how estuary is defined). The Great Barrier Reef is inarguably the largest coral reef on the planet. Both are clearly visible from space, both have had many books and articles written about them. They are well studied scientifically, with many research institutions and universities studying them for over a hundred years each. They both attract thousands of tourists each year, who travel from great distances. They are in developed countries and are facing threats like land use change and climate change.

There are some important differences, and size is one of them. The Great Barrier Reef stretches for 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) from north to south, spanning from 10 to 25 degrees south latitude and the Great Barrier Reef covers an area of ~350,000 square kilometers (135,000 square miles). Chesapeake Bay, in contrast, is 360 kilometers (200 miles) from north to south, spanning from 37 to 40 degrees north latitude, and the Bay area is ~13,000 square kilometers (5,200 square miles). In spite of its immense size, the Great Barrier Reef is managed as one large marine park, with subregional Natural Resource Management areas. Chesapeake Bay has many parks within the Bay and the watershed, but it is managed by multiple states and entities, with the Chesapeake Bay Program acting as a coordinating body. The human population living in the watershed, or catchment, of Chesapeake Bay is ~17 million, but the Great Barrier Reef watershed only has ~1 million people. The key habitats of Chesapeake Bay are salt marshes, seagrass meadows, oyster reefs and soft bottoms, but the key habitats of the Great Barrier Reef are coral reefs, seagrass meadows, mangrove forests and hard bottoms. The Great Barrier Reef was discovered by Europeans relatively recently, in 1770 by Captain James Cook, but Chesapeake Bay was discovered by Captain John Smith in 1607. In short, the Great Barrier Reef, is 27 times bigger, 17 times less populated, tropical, rather than temperate, and more recently discovered.

In terms of scientific and management histories, both ecosystems have had a discovery phase, followed by a phase of identifying threats, followed by a phase of developing a modeling and monitoring program and are now engaged in a phase of accountability. This accountability phase is exemplified by the environmental report cards for both regions. Chesapeake Bay has an environmental report card for 15 subregions, using a combination of water quality and biotic parameters. The Great Barrier Reef report card has six subregions, using a combination of water quality, seagrass and coral parameters.

The past couple of months have demonstrated a major difference in precipitation between the two regions. The east coast of Australia is currently experiencing a severe La Niña cycle, as part of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation. This means that the prolonged drought that Queensland experienced over the past decade has been broken by significant rainfall events, leading to flooding and major plumes of freshwater laden with sediments, nutrients and toxicants spilling onto the Great Barrier Reef. This cycle of drought, punctuated by extreme events, is typical in Australia. Chesapeake Bay has much more consistent rainfall by comparison. However, the climate forecasts for the Chesapeake region are for more drought, punctuated by extreme events, so lessons from the Great Barrier Reef will be increasingly relevant.

The issue of diffuse or non-point sources of pollution are paramount in both ecosystems. In both cases, the federal government has allocated significant funds to incentivize farmers to conduct best practices, often managed through the state governments (Queensland in Australia; Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia in the U.S.). There is a similar reticence about sharing the data on implementation of agricultural best practices, but in Australia, the government has been more successful at getting self-reporting mechanisms in place and having this data shared.

On a scale of protection versus restoration, Chesapeake Bay management efforts are more focused on restoration, while the Great Barrier Reef efforts are more focused on protection. The iconic status of both regions means that significant attention and resources are devoted to each, and they serve as models for many other smaller programs. Now that reporting mechanisms have been established for both regions, it will be interesting to track the progress of the significant management efforts being made in both regions. In many ways, the future success of coastal management will hinge on the progress we make in these two iconic regions.

Share on Facebook