THE FUTURE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY THE INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT ITS COLLAPSE AND RECOVERY

THE FUTURE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

THE INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT ITS COLLAPSE AND

RECOVERY

SEVERN RIVER ASSOCIATION

February 17, 2009

Presented by: Gerald W. Winegrad

[email protected]

THE BAY HAS MORE THAN 3,000SPECIES OF WILDLIFE

More than one million waterfowl (ducks, geese, swans ) visit the Bay annually, 29 species in all

HOODED MERGANSER

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Maryland

Delaware

New York

District of Columbia

Virginia

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

THE SCENIC SEVERN

WATER QUALITY IMPAIRED: DECLINE DUE TO URBAN RUNOFF (DEVELOPMENT), WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS,

AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF, AND SEPTIC TANKS.

WILL WE RESTORE THE SEVERN’S 81 SQ. MI. WATERSHED AND ITS 140 MILES OF STREAMS?

WHAT’S THE STATUS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY?According to the most recent reports and data,

the Chesapeake is in dismal shape.

Bay Grass Plantings are used to help attain goal of 185,000 acres, but due to poor water quality, 90% of grasses planted may die

*April 2008 EPA Bay Program Ecosystem Health Report documents failure to meet most goals, calling Bay degraded, and acknowledging that key 2010 goals will not be met.

*April 2008 scientists score the Bay a C- in their Chesapeake Bay Report Card, far below what is needed for a healthy Bay. Data gathered from more than 150 monitoring sites throughout the Bay document that the health of the Bay remains poor--not on the road to recovery.

*Chesapeake Bay Foundation 2007 Bay Report Card rated the Bay a D, a 28 out of 100. CBF says the Bay is “in critical condition” & calls for end to politics of postponement.

EPA BAY PROGRAM APRIL 2007 REPORT ON BAY PAINTS A BLEAK PICTURE:

**Key water quality measurements have shown little progress over 1985 levels.

**Nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the Bay show no real long-term trends.

**Water clarity and concentrations of chlorophyll a (algae measurements) have worsened.

**Bottom habitats and phytoplankton communities show no clear trends

Over 90% of the Bay and its tidal

rivers are impaired* due to

low dissolved oxygen levels

and poor water clarity, all related to

nutrient and sediment

pollution.

The Bay is imperiled.

The states will be subject to suit if

waters do not meet CWA requirements

by 2010.

Over 90% of the Bay and its tidal

rivers are impaired* due to

low dissolved oxygen levels

and poor water clarity, all related to

nutrient and sediment

pollution.

The Bay is imperiled.

The states will be subject to suit if

waters do not meet CWA requirements

by 2010.

Impaired Water *Impaired means designated by the EPA as

not meeting Clean Water Act standards due to pollutants under Sec. 303(d).

AMERICA’S PREMIER WATERSHED RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP

IS FAILING!

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY LACKING

Why has the Bay declined so badly? Excess nutrients and sediment. They are the

focus of Bay restoration.

Toxic chemicals also present threats.

Septic5%

Municipal & Industrial Wastewater

20%

Urban/ Suburban Runoff - chemical fertilizer

11%

Atmospheric Deposition - natural (lightning +

forest soils)1%

Atmospheric Deposition - mobile + utilities +

industries22%

Agricultural Atmospheric Deposition - livestock & fertilized soil emissions

6%

Agriculture - manure19%

Agriculture - chemical fertilizer

16%

Sources of Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

2005266 million lbs. TN/yr

Sources of Phosphorus Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

200518.5 million lbs. TP/yr

Agriculture - chemical fertilizer

18%

Agriculture - manure27%

Natural - wildlife, forest, etc.3%

Urban/ Suburban Runoff & In-stream Sediment

30%


22%

Sources of Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

20054.87 million tons/yr

Urban/ Suburban Runoff & In-stream

Sediment18%

Natural - forest20% Agriculture

62%

LAND USE TN TP SED AREA2007 2007 2007 2007

(% of Total)

(% of Total)

(% of Total)

(% of Total)

Agriculture 3% 2% 46% 3%

Developed Land Runoff 39% 47% 46% 63%Forest 3% 0% 8% 32%Point Source 23% 49% 0% 0%Septic 30% 0% 0% 0%

Air Pollution: Non-Tidal Water 2% 1% 0% 2%All Sources 100% 100% 100% 100%

SEVERN RIVER LAND USE & POLLUTION SOURCES

MD Choptank River2007 Sources of Nitrogen Loads

Septic4%


4%

Urban/ Suburban Runoff - chemical fertilizer

10%

Atmospheric Deposition - natural

1%

Atmospheric Deposition - mobile + utilities +

industries15%

Agricultural atmospheric deposition

5%

Manure + agricultural chemical fertilizer

61%

MD Choptank River2007 Sources of Phosphorus Loads


7%

Urban/ Suburban Runoff & In-stream Sediment

28%

Natural - wildlife, forest2%

Manure + agricultural chemical fertilizer

63%

MD Choptank River2007 Sources of Sediment Loads

Forest6%

Developed Land Runoff11%

Agriculture83%

Pollution Control Summary

EPA BAY PROGRAM: LESS THAN HALF OF THE POLLUTION REDUCTION EFFORTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE THE NUTRIENT GOALS

HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN SINCE 1985.EPA BAY PROGRAM: THE BAY IS SEVERELY DEGRADED & AT CURRENT

RATE OF REDUCTION IT WOULD BE 2034 BEFORE NITROGEN REDUCTIONS AGREED UPON ARE MET AND 2050 FOR THE

PHOSPHORUS GOAL.

Maryland Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

82.4

56.7 57.7 56.9 56.2

37.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1985 2002 2003 2004 2005 Cap LoadAllocation

(million lbs./

year)

58% of Goal

Achieved

2010

Maryland Phosphorus Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

6.77

3.97 3.83 3.82 3.80

2.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


(million lbs.

/year)

77% of Goal

Achieved

2010

Maryland Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

1.25

1.01 1.00 0.99 0.99

0.71

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4


(million t

ons/year)

48% of Goal

Achieved

2010

SOUTH RIVER CATFISH HAVE CANCER THE CAPITAL January 26, 2006 Front Page, by Pamela Wood

“Nearly two-thirds of catfish pulled from the South River last spring had cancerous tumors.”

21 areas of the Bay have fishing bans or fish consumption advisories because of contaminants. This brown bullhead catfish from the South River near

Annapolis is one of 30 tested, 19 of which had cancerous growths.

BROWN TIDE KILLS 7,000 INNER HARBOR FISH WBAL-TV June 5, 2007

BALTIMORE -- State environmental officials said a lack of oxygen killed thousands of fish in Baltimore's Inner Harbor last weekend. State program director Charles Poukish said the fish kill is the result of an algae bloom or brown tide.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FISH KILLED IN POTOMACAug. 21, 2007 Virginia DEQ.

Most of the algae in the Potomac River bloom were Karlodinium. This type of algae turns the water a reddish-brown color and produces a toxin that can kill fish. The fish also die due to a lack of oxygen in the water that is caused by the bloom.

MARYLAND HAD 120+ SEPARATE FISH KILLS IN 2007BAY HAD 5TH WORST DEAD ZONE ON RECORD IN 2007

'Intersex' Fish Spark Pollution Debate(AP) WASHINGTON, SEPT. 6, 2006. U.S. scientists say abnormal "intersex" fish, with both male and female characteristics, have been discovered in the Potomac River and its tributaries across the U.S. capital region, raising questions about how contaminants are affecting millions of people who drink tap water there…. Last month's testing at three tributaries emptying into the Potomac revealed that more than 80 percent of all male smallmouth bass found were growing eggs, according to Vicki S. Blazer, a fish pathologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Pollution Rising In Tributaries of Bay, Data ShowBy David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, December 5, 2007; B01

The massive government effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay is not just falling short of its goals. Now the bay's pollution might actually be taking a turn for the worse.

New federal research indicates that pollution has crept up in some of the Chesapeake's biggest tributaries this decade, after a slow decline during the 1980s and 1990s. In the Potomac, the Patuxent and other major rivers, the pollutants on the rise include those blamed for low-oxygen "dead zones.“

HEALTH OF MD. CHOPTANK RIVER IS DECLINING, RESEARCHERS SAYS. GREENWIRE (12/11/2007)

The health of the Choptank River in Maryland is declining due to pollution from regional farms and new housing developments…. team of biologists recently ranked the Choptank as the second-most-polluted river in Maryland, behind to the Patapsco, which runs through Baltimore… the river has failed to improve. The amount of nitrogen flowing into the river was twice as high in 2005 as it was in 1985… Much of the Choptank's pollution is coming from nitrogen-rich fertilizer, which runs off farm fields and into the river after rains. [66% of nitrogen to Choptank is from agriculture]. From Rona Kobell article in Baltimore Sun, Dec. 9, 2007.

Trends in Shellfish: Oyster Fishery Collapsed

10X increase in oyster biomass= 25% of Bay’s nitrogen reduction goal.

Oyster harvest/population in the Bay have collapsed due to overharvesting, disease, pollution

and loss of oyster reef habitat.

Restoration efforts w/$$$$millions spent have failed to restore oysters.

A KEY GOAL OF BAY AGREEMENT GOAL IS TO INCREASE OYSTERS 10X BY 2010—WE ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE

Oysters are vital to the Bay's health: they filter the water removing nutrients and sediment, improving clarity. Oyster populations have been reduced to ~1-2%% of historic levels. In

1890, oysters could filter all the Bay’s waters in 3-5 days; now it would take a year or more.

Shad Returning to the Susquehanna River: Another Collapsed Fishery

Historically, the upper Bay was the most productive area for American shad. From the late 1800s to the mid-1900s, shad was the most economically valuable food fish

harvested in MD and VA waters. MD declared the shad “commercially endangered” and shut the fishery in 1980, but despite hatchery rearing and release, only 19,912 shad

reached the Conowingo dam in 2007, the lowest level since 1993 reflecting a seven year decline.

How Are Blue Crabs Doing?

IN 2008, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA GOVERNORS PETITION FEDS TO DECLARE CRAB FISHERY A DISASTER; FEDS COMPLY

WITH $20 MILLION IN AID. THE REAL DISASTER: THE FAILURE IN LEADERSHIP TO

REGULATE HARVEST & RESTORE THE BAY TO PREVENT FISHERY COLLAPSES.

In 2007, Bay grasses covered nearly 65,000 acres – or just 35% of the 185,000-acre restoration goal.

Bay grasses are essential for crabs with 40X the abundance of juvenile crabs as compared to barren

bottom.

BAY GRASSES

ROCKFISH RECOVERY WAS ACHIEVED AFTER SEVERE HARVEST RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING

MORATORIUM IN CHESAPEAKE BAY

BUT NOW THERE ARE CONCERNS OVER NUTRITION RELATED TO DEPLETED MENHADEN STOCKS AND DISEASE. 2008 YOUNG-OF-YEAR INDEX SLUMPED

TO 3.2, LOWEST LEVEL FOR YOUNG FISH SINCE 1990.

Chesapeake's Rockfish Overrun by Disease; Epidemic Hits Species Hailed for Revival, Then Weakened by Polluted WatersBy Elizabeth Williamson, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, March 11, 2006; Page A01

A wasting disease that kills rockfish and can cause a severe skin infection in humans has spread to nearly three-quarters of the rockfish in the Chesapeake Bay, cradle of the mid-Atlantic's most popular game fish. The disease also sends a grim message about the entire bay ecosystem. The rockfish remains bay conservationists' only success story -- a species nearly wiped out, then revived by fishing limits. But as the number of rockfish surged, the fish remained in a body of water too polluted to support the level of life it once did.

MYCOBACTERIOSIS (Chronic Wasting Disease) AFFECTS MORE THAN 50%

OF ROCKFISH

HUMAN HEALTH ADVISORIES LIMIT THE CONSUMPTION OF ROCKFISH BAYWIDE DUE TO

MERCURY CONTAMINATION

MYCOBACTERIUM MARINUM EATS FISH TISSUE

A DECADE AFTER PFIESTERIA HYSTERIA, SERIOUS HUMAN ILLNESSES REGULARY

OCCUR FROM BAY WATER CONTACT AND HANDLING FISH.

Mycobacterium marinum

BERNIE VOITH AT HIS DOCK ON PLUM CREEK OFF THE SEVERN

RIVER

BERNIE HAS SWAM AND FISHED THE WATERS OF THE BAY FOR 50 YEARS

I. BERNIE VOITH’S RIGHT LEG FROM BACTERIAL INFECTION CONTRACTED IN JULY 2005 WHEN HE SCRATCHED HIS LEG IN PLUM CREEK OFF THE SEVERN RIVER IN HIS BACKYARD. THE ENTEROBACTER NEARLY COST BERNIE HIS LIFE. BERNIE WILL

NEVER GO IN THE WATER AGAIN.

II. FORMER AA COUNCIL WOMAN BARBARA SAMORAJCZYK SCRAPPED HER LEG IN HER BACKYARD ON LAKE OGLETON AND

HAD TWO ABCESSES IN HER LEG REQUIRING MONTHS OF MEDICAL TREATMENT.

III. STAFF AT ARLINGTON ECHO ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER ON THE SEVERN RIVER HAVE HAD SIMILAR LEG

INFECTIONS AND SCHOOL CHILDREN AT THE COUNTY’S MAIN ENV. ED. FACILITY CAN NO LONGER GO IN THE WATER.

LAND USE TN TP SED AREA2007 2007 2007 2007

(% of Total)

(% of Total)

(% of Total)

(% of Total)

Agriculture 3% 2% 46% 3%

Developed Land Runoff 39% 47% 46% 63%Forest 3% 0% 8% 32%Point Source 23% 49% 0% 0%Septic 30% 0% 0% 0%

Air Pollution: Non-Tidal Water 2% 1% 0% 2%All Sources 100% 100% 100% 100%

SEVERN RIVER LAND USE & POLLUTION SOURCES

Three key water quality measures for a healthy Bay all linked to reducing nutrients and

sediment• Water Clarity – light for underwater Bay grasses• Chlorophyll a – fish food, and fewer algae blooms• Dissolved Oxygen – for fish, crabs and oysters

Together, these three criteria define the conditions necessary to protect the wide variety of the Bay’s living resources and their habitats and to remove the Bay’s waters from the Clean

Water Act EPA impaired waters list.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN IS CRITICAL FOR LIVING RESOURCES BUT DECLINED FROM 37% OF GOAL IN 2006

TO 12% IN 2007.

GOOD WATER CLARITY IS NEEDED FOR BAY GRASSES TO THRIVE (CRAB NURSERIES).

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT

IT COULD NOT GET

ANY WORSE………

IT DOES!ANNE ARUNDEL POPULATION HAS

INCREASED BY MORE THAN 4X SINCE 1950 WITH LOSS OF 42,000 FORESTED ACRES 1986-1999, AND 536 ACRES OF WETLANDS (1973-2002) & 125% MORE

HOUSING UNITS 1970-PRESENT.

DEVELOPMENT UNDERMINING RESTORATION: EPA INSPECTOR GENERAL

REPORT (Sept. 2007)(09/13/2007) E &ENews

Rapid development in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is hindering federal and state efforts to stanch the flow of nutrients and sediments into the bay and its tributaries, U.S. EPA's inspector general said in a report today…. As a result, the cleanup effort -- aimed at removing the bay from EPA's list of impaired waters by 2010 -- won't meet its goal until 2028 at earliest, the report says.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACT (BRAC)

**BRAC will generate the single largest job growth in Maryland since the end of World War II—at least 45,000 and as many as 60,000 jobs.

**MDP expects 28,176 new MD BRAC households.

**Army EIS on BRAC impacts around Ft. Meade projects a population increase of 41,000 with 33 acres of new parking lots just for new office structures.

**Growth concentrated in two counties, Harford (APG) and AA (Ft. Meade).

“IF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS CONTINUE, AN ADDITIONAL 250,000 ACRES OF WATERSHED LAND WILL BECOME IMPERVIOUS BETWEEN 2000 AND 2010 AND 9.5

MILLION MORE ACRES OF FORESTS WILL BE THREATENED BY DEVELOPMENT BY 2030.”

EPA CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM, APRIL 3, 2008

NITROGEN LOADING IS 16X GREATER THAN 1607 AND PHOSPHORUS LOADING 30X GREATER. ONE ACRE PARKING LOT

PRODUCES 40X THE RUNOFF OF ONE FORESTED ACRE.

JULY 2008 EPA INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT FAULTS AGENCY'S BAY EFFORTS.

Baltimore Sun. July 17, 2008.

“Yesterday's report is one of several released in recent years that has been critical of the EPA's Chesapeake Bay cleanup strategy. A Government Accountability Office report released in 2005 criticized the bay program for painting too rosy a picture of cleanup successes.”

Investigators with the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general found and cited several new problems with the bay's cleanup, including uncontrolled land development, the limited implementation of agricultural conservation practices, and the inability to control air emissions that are adversely affecting bay water quality.

AVERAGE EDGE-OF-FIELD NITROGEN FLOWS IFROM CORN IS ESTIMATED AT 30 LBS PER ACRE; HAYFIELD= 6 LBS.

SPIKE IN ROW CROP PRODUCTION INCREASES NUTRIENT, SEDIMENT LOADS TO BAY; RECORD PRICES SPURRING FARMERS IN WATERSHED TO WORK IDLE LAND, USE MORE FERTILIZERBAY JOURNAL OCTOBER 2008 An analysis of USDA figures by the Bay Journal indicate that about 65,000 additional acres Baywide were plowed for crops this year than in 2006. The increased crop acreage, coupled with more intensive production from those fields, had the potential to increase runoff from row crops by 8 million to 9 million pounds of nitrogen since 2005, an average of nearly 3 million pounds a year. In comparison, nitrogen reductions from all sources in the watershed have averaged about 3.5 million pounds per year. "The combination of land use change and intensification will start canceling out nutrient reductions.”

REASON: ETHANOL + FOOD SHORTAGE.

17 Million People Live in the Bay Watershed w/154,000 more per year 2000-07In last Decade, 8% population growth = 41% impervious surface increaseLost 50% of wetlands and 40% of forests & forests are fragmented Bay watershed in 1607 was 95% forested, now at 58%, 41% in MarylandFrom 1982-1997, 750,000 acres of forest were converted to development Maryland lost 141,000 acres of forest,1986-1999 (6%)

Non-Tidal Water1%

Non-Agricultural Grasslands

12%

Urban/ Suburban18%

Forest44%

Agriculture25%

Maryland Land Area in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

8.19.6

11.712.6

13.514.5 15 15.7

16.617.418.7

19.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

1950

1960

1970

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2020

2030

Bay Watershed Population (millions)

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program

Human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has more than doubled since 1950 from 8.1 million to 16.9 million; in 1900=4 million. Population projected to increase to nearly 20 million by 2030. BRAC =

80,000 more people in Maryland. Native American population in Chesapeake Bay in 1607 = ~30,000, perhaps 100,000 in entire watershed.

Exacerbating the sheer

numbers is the sprawl:

39 of Maryland’s1

57 towns and cities

LOST population from 2000-2006, while Maryland

population grew by 6%.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed PopulationGROWING BY 170,000 MORE PEOPLE PER YEAR

SMART GROWTH IS NOT WORKING75% OF ALL LAND DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES SINCE 1997

HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PFA’S.

AVERAGE LOT SIZE OUTSIDE PFA’S IS INCREASING SINCE 1999.

AVERAGE LOT SIZE FOR DEVELOPMENT INSIDE PFA’S IS INCREASING, REACHING .281 ACRES IN 2004, THE HIGHEST IN 15 YEARS.

LACK OF THOROUGH MONITORING OF STATE FUNDING UNDRMINES ABILITY TO TRACK AND MEASURE SUCCESS.

62 PROJECTS EXEMPTED FROM FUNDING REQUIRMENTS ONLY FOR PFA’S.

LAND (AB)USEIn 1920, Baltimore = 51% of MD population; In 1950, Baltimore was 6th largest U.S. City , with

41% of MD population at 949,708

In 2006, Baltimore = 11% of MD population at 631,365, 19th largest U.S. City

Net loss of Baltimore's population (1950-2006) = 33.5% while Maryland population grew from 2.343

million to 5.616 million, or 2.4X

“THE LAW PUNISHES THE THIEF WHO STEALS THE GOOSE FROM THE COMMONS, BUT THE GREATER THIEF THE LAW LETS LOOSE WHO STEALS THE COMMONS FROM THE GOOSE.” 17th century English folk saying.

Forest Acres

2550000

2600000

2650000

2700000

2750000

2800000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Acre

s

FOREST COVERAGE IN MARYLAND 1973-2002

FROM 1973-2002, MARYLAND LOST 249,000 ACRES OF FOREST MOSTLY TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (LOW DENSITY #1).

8,300 ACRES OF FOREST LOST ANNUALLY IN MARYLAND.ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LED THE WAY WITH A LOSS OF 42,000

ACRES OR 33% OF ITS FOREST FROM 1986-1999.

TO SAVE THE BAY WE MUST SAVE THE FORESTS

Agriculture in Maryland and the Bay watershed is the greatest pollution source: Bay-wide, 72% of the sediment load, 42% of the

Nitrogen, and 46% of the Phosphorus. Ag pollution is the most cost-effective to reduce.

CHICKEN FARMING PRODUCES 1 BILLION POUNDS OF MANURE AND 6 MILLION POUNDS OF BAY NITROGEN POLLUTION

ON MARYLAND'S EASTERN SHORE, 10% OF ALL N IN MARYLAND

57% of streams on the E. Shore impaired by fecal coliform; 50% with nitrogen pollution 3X the level harmful to aquatic life, 33% of wells with excess nitrate

levels above EPA safe drinking water levels.

One chicken farm with 150,000 birds produces at least 2 million pounds of manure a year, equivalent to human waste from a city of 25,000 people.

MUCH OF THE MANURE AND FERTILIZER IS PLACED ON BARE FIELDS BEFORE CROPS GROW MAKING IT MORE VULNERABLE TO RUNOFF

“Farmers who raise chickens in Maryland - as well as grain and vegetable growers who use poultry litter as fertilizer - receive minimal, if any, oversight

from the state.” Baltimore Sun,, October 14, 2007.

MYTHSOnce farm land ceases to be used as farmland, it is always converted to development. FACT: While much farmland was developed, from 1982-1997, 889,000 acres of cropland and pastureland reverted to forest. Another 213,000 acres of forest was converted to farmland. 40% of all Bay forests are on farms.

The conversion of farmland to housing or commercial development always results in more pollutants (nutrients and sediment) flowing to the Bay.FACT: Farmland, especially cropland using animal manure, produce more nutrients and sediment per acre on average than most developed uses, especially where the development employs good stormwater management.

There is widespread adoption of sound nutrient management and BMPs to reducenutrient and sediment flows on the vast majority of farmland in Maryland and the other Bay states. FACT: No more than 30%-40% of farmland is under BMPs and proper nutrient management so as to achieve Trib Strategies goals and the Chesapeake 2000 goals to remove the Bay from the CWA impaired waters list. 90%-95% of farmland would have to be under sound BMPs to achieve the requisite caps for nutrients and sediment.

Greatly increasing money for farmers to adopt the requisite BMPs without mandatory requirements to implement them with appropriate enforcement will achieve the necessary reductions in nutrients and sediment flows. FACT: No environmental program has been successful in gaining such substantial pollution reductions without mandatory laws/regulations and their proper enforcement.

EPA INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT July 2008 Findings:

The Report notes that there has been “limited implementation of agricultural conservation practices….few of the agricultural practices in the trib strategies have been implemented” this despite the expenditure of $250 million from 2003 to 2005 by USDA for conservation practices and another $11 million by the EPA.

The Report also notes that the new farm bill has $405 million over the next 10 years for conservation programs in the Bay watershed, but that the increased growing of corn for ethanol is estimated by the CBC to add as much as 5 million pounds of nitrogen to the Bay annually. 65% of the reductions in N, 60% in P, and 86% in S must come from ag under the trib strategies.

213,000 ACRES OF FOREST WERE CONVERTED TO AGRICULTURAL USES, BUT 889,000 ACRES OF AG LAND

REVERTED TO FOREST FOR A NET INCREASE OF 676,000 ACRES OF FOREST FROM AG LANDS.

2006 Nitrogen Loads (lbs/acre) Nonpoint SourceAll Jurisdictions

17.25

11.74

5.87

13.89

02468

101214161820

Agricultural CropLand

All AgriculturalLand

Urban Runoff Developed Load

lbs/a

cre

For corn, average of 30 lbs of N loss per acre per year;

4 lbs of P.Soybeans 22.5 lbs of N loss per acre per year; 4 lbs

of P.

2006 Phosphorus Loads (lbs/acre) Nonpoint SourceAll Jurisdictions

1.10

0.94

0.67

1.14

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2




lbs/a

cre

NOTE: URBAN RUNOFF DATA INCLUDES LEGACY PHOSPHORUS, ALREADY IN WATER

2006 Sediment Loads (lbs/acre) Nonpoint SourceAll Jurisdictions

0.45

0.33

0.11 0.11

0.00.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.40.50.5




ton

s/a

cre

NOTE: URBAN RUNOFF DATA INCLUDES LEGACY SEDIMENT, ALREADY IN WATER.

"Today, fully seven years after Maryland first adopted mandatory nutrient management regulations, the state has largely failed to implement the Water Quality Improvement Act. In effect, Maryland continues to operate under a system of voluntary compliance with the regulations." Anne Marie Herbst, MIT grad student, 2005 Master’s Thesis on the 1998 WQIA.

EPA INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT July 2008 Findings:

The Report notes that there has been “limited implementation of agricultural conservation practices….few of the agricultural practices in the trib strategies have been implemented” this despite the expenditure of $250 million from 2003 to 2005 by USDA for conservation practices and another $11 million by the EPA.

The Report also notes that the new farm bill has $405 million over the next 10 years for conservation programs in the Bay watershed, but that the increased growing of corn for ethanol is estimated by the CBC to add as much as 5 million pounds of nitrogen to the Bay annually. 65% of the reductions in N, 60% in P, and 86% in S must come from ag under the trib strategies.

Runoff from Developed Areas Contributes 16% of the Nitrogen, 17% of Phosphorus, and 10% of

Sediment Flowing to the Bay—and is Increasing. Impervious surface fee needed to address this.

COST OF RETROFITTINMG DEVELOPED AREAS FOR BETTER STORMWATER CONTROL IS EXTREMELY EXPENISVE: $65-$267 PER LB OF NITROGEN AND $767 TO $1,495 PER LB. OF PHOSPHORUS. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT BMPs ON AG LAND = $1.66 PER LB OF

NITROGEN; $28.26 FOR LB OF PHOSPORUSURBAN FOREST BUFFERS ARE BEST AT $53 PER LB. OF

NITROGEN.

To meet the required reductions in nutrients in Maryland, the Tributary

Strategies call for 40% (32% Bay-wide) of the phosphorus reductions

and 13% (18% Bay-wide) of the nitrogen reductions to come from

urban/suburban runoff improvements.

$1.515 billion called for in Trib Strategies

This is impossible without a significant amount of new funding. A dedicated

fund with an impervious surface fee is the most logical funding source.

WON’T YOU PLEASE HELP ME? YES, YOU.

I. Reduce our individual pollutant loads.

II. Change development patterns through State and local land use legislation and

establish no net loss of forest.

III. Require stormwater retrofits and no net pollution in new development, fix septic,

and requiren new septic to be state-of-the art. .

IV. Require mandatory controls and BMPs for agricultural pollutants, including

advanced nutrient management and better animal manure management.

THREE KEYS TO RESTORE THE SEVERN:

PLAN OF ACTION FOR COUNTY COUNCIL & STATE LEGISLATURE

I. ENACT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FEE FOR NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPED LANDS DEDICATED TO STORMWATER RETROFIT & FOREST BUFFERS, WITH A STORMWATER UTILITY TO ADMINSTER THE FUND AND THE MANDATORY RETROFITS.

II. REQUIRE STATE-OF-THE ART STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN NEW DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF FOREST COVER—NO NET INCREASE IN RUNOFF VOLUME OR RATE FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT.

III. ENACT COMPREHENSIVE STATE & LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO 1991 BARNES COMMISSION 2020 BILL & CRITCIAL AREA.

IV. ESTABLISH A NO NET LOSS OF FOREST POLICY W/100’ RIPARIAN BUFFER PROTECTION, & REPLANTING OF BUFFERS.

V. REQUIRE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO KEEP OR PLANT FOREST BUFFERS OF AT LEAST 100' AROUND ALL STREAMS AND THE RIVER.

SEVERN INITIATIVES PACKAGE VI. USE PROGRAM OPEN SPACE, RURAL LEGACY AND OTHER FUNDING FOR

MAJOR EXPENDITURES FOR PRESERVATION OF FORESTS & FORESTED BUFFER CREATION THROUGHOUT THE WATERSHED, INCLUDING DEVELOPED ACREAGE.

VII. STRENGTHEN CRITICAL AREA LAW AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAW IN COUNTY AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER LAND USE LAWS AND HIRE A FULL TIME INPSECTOR WITH A VESSEL TO ENFORCE.

VIII. TIGHTEN REQUIREMENTS FOR FARM NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND REQUIRE MANDATORY BMPs AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION AND MDE INSPECTION ON FARMS.

IX. AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING ANY STATE FUNDS FOR AG LAND PRESERVATION, MET EASEMENTS, MACS GRANTS, COVER CROP GRANTS, MANURE MANAGEMENT GRANTS, REQUIRE FARMERS TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CERTIFY THAT IT IS BEING FULLY IMPLEMENTED.

X. PROMOTE RAPID IMPLEMENTATION OF FLUSH TAX TO UPGRADE SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN AA COUNTY--**ANNAPOLIS & BROADNECK ESPECIALLY.

XI. REQUIRE ALL NEW AND REPLACED SEPTIC SYSTEMS TO BE STATE-OF-THE-ART NITROGEN REMOVAL SYSTEMS AND SYSTEMICALLY REQUIRE THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITH STATE FLUSH TAX GRANTS ($17 MILLION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE). 30% OF NITROGEN FLOWING TO THE SEVERN IS FROM THE 29% OF HOUSING AND BUSINESSES ON SEPTIC.

ONLY THE ADOPTION OF BOLD NEW MEASURES WILL SAVE THE SEVERN AND THE BAY. WE CAN RESTORE THE SEVERN’S 81 SQ. MI. WATERSHED AND ITS 140 MILES OF STREAMS, BUT

STRONG, EVEN RADICAL ACTION IS NECESSARY.

1. Move out of the watershed. If you cannot or will not:

2. Conserve energy and water—prevent air pollution that poisons the Bay. Control thermostats, use compact fluorescent bulbs, turn lights and computers off when not in use, drive less, and use a fuel efficient car.

3. Reduce, re-use, recycle and purchase recycled products.

4. GREEN your home, schools, & houses of worship, work place (what about the impervious surface runoff here at Hdqrts of bay Program?) , --plant forested buffers, retrofit stormwater system, green roof, rain gardens, energy conservation practices, limited use of nutrients and pesticides, implement water conservation, use flow restrictors on all faucets and showerheads, reduce, re-reuse, recycle.

5. Educate yourself, join conservation groups, speak out and become active.

6. Support legislation at the county and state level to restore the Bay, including mandatory controls on agricultural pollutants, no net loss of forest law, and growth control legislation.

WHAT CAN I DO TO SAVE THE BAY?

THE BAY IS IN DISMAL SHAPE

OUR NATURAL HERITAGE IS BEING SQUANDERED

25 YEARS AFTER THE FIRST BAY AGREEMENT, BAY RESTORATION EFFORTS ARE FAILING

BOLD, COMPREHENSIVE INITIATIVES ARE NEEDED TO CURB

GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT POLLUTIONAND AGRICULTURAL POLLUTANTS

BERNIE’S INFECTED LEG ROCKFISH W/MYCOBATERIOSIS

CATFISH FROM SOUTH RIVER WITH CANCEROUS LESION

THESE ARE SOME OF THE

CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUING

CURRENT EFFORTS TO

RESTORE THE BAY WITHOUT

RADICAL CHANGE

“THE TRUTH? YOU WANT THE TRUTH? SON, YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.”Jack Nicholson as Guantanamo Bay Marine Corps Colonel on Witness Stand to Tom Cruise, Navy JAG Lt., in A FEW GOOD MEN.

WILL WE SAVE THE BAY, THE SEVERN? NO, NOT UNLESS THERE IS NEW, BOLD LEADERSHIP LEADING

TO RADICAL CHANGES IN CONTROLLING DEVELOPMENT AND CURBING FARM POLLUTANTS.

Documents

THE FUTURE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY THE INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT ITS COLLAPSE AND RECOVERY