Chesapeake Bay: Urban Encroachment

The Chesapeake Bay is perhaps the largest estuary in the United States, stretching about 195 miles north to south. Chesapeake Bay has a drainage area of 64,000 square miles, which includes six states as well as the District of Columbia. There are about 1.2 million acres of wetlands remaining; the preservation of these wetlands a is vital to the quality of the bay. Although over 150 rivers and streams supply the Chesapeake, the Susquehanna River contributes approximately ½ of the bay’s freshwater flow. In order to protect the watershed and freshwater flow the EPA and other agencies are implementing plans to protect and restore these areas[1]. In order to perform analyses on the Chesapeake Bay we downloaded datasets and organized them in an accessible manner. Both the data dictionary and data management were formed according to the problem to be solved.

The Extensive area covered by the bay is becoming more polluted each year; in several places the bay is becoming so polluted that it may cause health problems. According to Horton (1991), pollution follows four paths to the bay:

· Runoff of rainwater from the land; such as fertilizer, pesticides, oily residue from highways and wastes from domestic animals and humans· Pipes that discharge wastes from sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities

· Groundwater that picks up contaminated water from septic tanks and heavily fertilized cropland. These do not include the potential for illegal dumping, oil spills, and ruptured waste storage tanks. The increased nutrients and pollutants that are entering the bay are harming the wildlife and decreasing the quality of those species that many people depend on to survive. The chemical make-up of the bay is the determining factor in the distribution and abundance of plant and animal life within the bay (EPA, 1995). Because many of the species in the bay are anadromous the water salinity is important to their survival and is continuously affected by the pollution flowing into the bay.

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through analyses of obtained data sets and

Problem Description: The protection of the water quality and wildlife of the Bay are

necessary elements to their survival. Without such criteria the Bay would surely become a

hazard with little hope of restoration. The pollution has already reached destructive levels

from the flow of nutrients and toxins from agriculture and industry surrounding the bay.

Databases for the Chesapeake Bay were acquired from ESRI ArcData CD-Rom. This CD-Rom provided an enormous amount data for the United States and other portions of the world. Various data types for the entire United States were downloaded and transferred to ArcView software. The data from the counties surrounding the Chesapeake Bay were isolated and analyzed. From this data, the theme of the project was developed. A data dictionary was also created. Please see figure two located in the figures section.

encroachment. The data downloaded from the Esri CD-ROM was the underlying data for

this portion of the GIS Analysis. Each data layer supplied by Esri was transferred to a

shape file. The various shape files were overlain, and an overall description of the

Chesapeake Bay was determined. Please see table two, located in the table’s section, for

encroachment along with pollution extensively impacts the fragile ecosystem. The focus of

all GIS analysis was determining which areas around the Chesapeake Bay influenced its

water quality and species count. The following GIS analyses were performed: buffering and

Chesapeake Bay and the two surrounding rivers, Potomac and Susquehanna. The buffer

region was one mile in distance. The buffer region was used to determine the amount of

urban encroachment surrounding the bay. For this region, areas of industrial growth and

agricultural development were shown. From this data, an assumption could be made

incorporating pollution releases in reference to the amount of urban area. Not only was this

helpful in the Chesapeake Bay itself, this buffer described the urban encroachment located

along two of the major rivers that flow into the bay. This provided for great insight when

looking specifically at pollution and runoff, and the two rivers also showed a great deal of

urban encroachment. The pollution and sediment captured by these rivers flows directly into

the Chesapeake Bay. Often these basin areas create a bigger pollution problem for the

bay. Please see figure five, located in the figures section, for output of the Chesapeake Bay

analysis. The population for the counties surrounding the Chesapeake Bay in 1990 was

roughly 6.47 million, and the population in 1997 was roughly 6.05 million. These population

counts were then cross referenced with the amount of toxic releases for the two years. The

respectively. Please see figure four located in the figures section. These numbers

indicated that although the population increased, the amount of toxic substances entering

the bay has decreased. This is due mainly to the Environment Protection Agencies

stronghold on this area. The Chesapeake Bay Area Restoration and Protection Plan were

written in 1988 to protect the bay and its surrounding areas. This environmental regulation

was the turning point in the cleanup effort of the bay. The amount of toxic substances

entering the bay area is an extremely high amount for this small region. Thanks to the EPA’s

stronghold, the environmental regulations have offset the increasing population.

The Chesapeake was once composed of blue water housing thousands of animal species necessary to the quality of the bay and the survival of its residents. The decaying algal blooms are continuously depleting the oxygen content of the bay; these blooms are a problem due to the increased flow of organic material containing nitrogen and phosphorous. Although efforts have been implemented to decrease the too high nutrient accumulation; the pollution is still too high to allow many species to recover. Chlorine is also causing major problems in the Chesapeake because it is overused to kill microorganisms in treated sewage that is dumped into the bay. Because the bay is so shallow, at a maximum of 21 feet, that there is little water beneath the bay’s surface to absorb dilute pollution from the land (Horton, 91). Therefore, pollutants have severe affects on water quality.

As the population surrounding the Chesapeake Bay increases, the excess nutrients from fertilizers, sewage drainage, and other sources increases causing a depletion of oxygen in the bay. Although the overuse of fertilizers is a major concern, the inability of the land surrounding the Chesapeake to filter out these nutrients is greater. Most of the pollution entering the bay is doing so because of the increase in forested lands and the destruction of necessary sea grass beds of the watersheds. In areas high in agriculture, it is important to preserve vegetation around the bay to act as a filter for pollutants. Without these natural filters the polluted runoff from industry and agriculture flows straight into the bay.

The most prevalent chemicals entering the bay are nitrogen and phosphorous. These nutrients are contained in commercial fertilizers and animal manure; the nutrients in these sources have doubled and even tripled per acre of cropland (Horton, 1991). The result is that there are more nutrients flowing in than the crops can take (Horton, 1991). The flow of nitrogen and phosphorous fuel the algal blooms in certain portions of the bay. . Nitrogen and phosphorous are major ingredients in fertilizers that are important in agricultural practices. These nutrients are being used in excessive amounts on cropland and are flowing directly into the bay in astronomical amounts thus depleting oxygen. These nutrients feed algal blooms (dinoflagellates) which decay and use up much of the oxygen content in the bay; thus causing harm to many species residing in the bay. The Susquehanna River brings is a major source of excess nutrient flow bringing in 76% of the phosphorous and 90% of the nitrogen (EPA, 1985). Of this 85% of the Nitrogen and 60% of the Phosphorous are delivered to the Susquehanna as runoff from cropland (EPA, 1985), where filtering vegetation is sparse. There are also problems with excess pollution in times of flooding and severe storms. Although the use of DDT was banned in the U.S. its use in Mexico provides airborne sources of nitrogen which accumulate in the great lakes and eventually flow into the Chesapeake (Marx, 1992).

Chlorine is another source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay due to its use in such great abundance. The treated sewage is mixed with chlorine before being released into rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters in order to protect the waterways in which people swim and for killing diseases where shellfish are harvested. The overuse of chlorine as a disinfectant also poisons fish and has the potential to form carcinogenic compounds such as chloroform. The EPA is now urging sewage treatment plants to use chlorine only when absolutely necessary (Table 2). The EPA also set up new guidelines in 1984 to reduce chlorine levels. The overuse of chlorine has left some streams and rivers looking so immaculately clean that the rocks are bleached as well as many fish carcasses. Those water sources with these characteristics are nearing sterilization thus killing productivity (Meyer, Eugene; 1991).

Industry surrounding the Chesapeake Bay impacts the water quality of the bay in several aspects. Pollution from industry may occur directly or indirectly, but the consequences of direct pollution and indirect pollution have the same disastrous affect of the water. The types of pollution contributed by industry are point source discharges, storm water runoff, air and groundwater (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2001A).

Point source discharges include discharges directly into the water, usually through a

piping system. Sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities, food production facilities and

processing facilities often discharge toxic-laden and laden wastes through point source

discharges. Other facilities may export wastes off site, and often, these wastes are spread

over land areas. These wastes eventually flow into the water source. Great strides

concerning waste regulation have occurred with point source discharges in recent years, but

currently, the toxins and nutrients enter the Bay in much greater amounts than ecologically

safe. This type of pollution directly affects the flora and fauna of the bay ecosystem. In years

past, point source pollution has been addressed as a simple issue, and the effects of this

theology can be seen in the stress of wildlife. Presently, it is known that dilution is not the

solution to pollution, and point source discharge is a complex issue. Please see figure one

located in the figures chapter for the toxic release inventory from 1988 to 1997

Storm water runoff occurs when precipitation comes in contact with the ground and carries various types of contaminant into local streams and bays, which feed the Chesapeake Bay. Polluted storm water runoff is a growing problem as the land around the Bay changes in land use and land cover. The land surrounding the Chesapeake Bay is changing from natural filters of forests and wetlands to poorly managed farmlands, construction sites, city streets, suburban communities and other hardened surfaces. Erosion is a major problem with construction sites and farmland. This erosion sends tons of topsoil into water sources. Even well managed farmland can cause several times the amount of sediment into the Bay than a forest area. In comparison to a forest, a construction site can send almost a thousand times more sediment into a waterway. Farmland, saturated with animal wastes and fertilizers, is also a significant source of bacterial, nutrient and toxic pollution from storm water runoff. As precipitation falls on the hardened surfaces of urban and suburban areas, great volumes of contaminated water enter the waterways than that of a wetland or forest (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2001A).

Acid rain, nitrogen and phosphorus are continually dropping from the skies above the

Chesapeake Bay. There are several sources of mobile air pollution that produce millions of

tons of pollution per year. These mobile sources include such things as cars, trucks, boats

and lawn mowers. Stationary sources can be hundreds or thousands of miles away from the

Bay and produce the same pollution effect. These stationary sources include power plants

and factories. These pollutants that are released into the air eventually settle directly into the

Bay or on the land where storm water eventually flushes them into the Bay. Groundwater

provides a significant amount of subsurface water; equivalent to the flow of a major river that

enters the Bay each year. Often, this groundwater is contaminated from leaking landfills,

malfunctioning septic tanks, and heavily fertilized cropland (Chesapeake Bay Foundation,

IV. Wildlife Impact

Populations surrounding the Chesapeake are increasing rapidly and as a consequence decreasing the quality of the environment. The rapidly growing industrial and agricultural businesses are lowering water quality and depleting the Bay’s natural resources. Many species in the Bay are suffering from abuse and may not recover from damages already sustained. With problems such as these on the rise there is an increased need for protection and restoration plans in the Bay area. The EPA is beginning to implement such plans; however further progress is needed to protect the natural resources of the Bay. Estuaries are important protein factories, especially the Chesapeake which produces more seafood per square acre per year than any where else in the world (Boyle, 1999). Bodies of water such as the Chesapeake Bay house intricate relationships between species. If pollution becomes a problem and wipes out or severely damages one species then an important food web may collapse (Figure 3). Causing a decline of certain species thus causing a breakdown in the quality of life of those species.

Many of the Chesapeake is anadromous, meaning that they spend their adult life in salt water and spawn in fresh water. Those spawning areas are in rivers and streams that flow into the bay, the pollution of these areas are preventing the reproduction of certain fish (Boyle, 1999). Herring populations had declined 95% by 1970’s and fishing had been banned by 1980; for the same reasons stripped bass fishing was banned by 1985 (Horton, 1993). Because over fishing and the decline of underwater vegetation for many freshwater fish habitats these populations are suffering terribly. Recently the fish populations have begun to rebuild enough to allow limited fishing but they are still in great danger (Horton, 1993). The stripped bass populations are suffering; 72% have little or no body fat and 12% suffer from lesions caused by pollution (Boyle, 1999).

Other species that are affected by the bay are those waterfowl, grasses, crabs, and oysters. Blue crabs have always been an important resource of the Bay and are rapidly declining. A crash in crab populations is a tragedy that many hope will not occur. According to Horton, a crash 20 years ago would have been a blow but other fisheries would have taken up the slack; however, if a crash were to occur today the consequences would be devastating (1991). This would be horrific because of the decline in other fishing resources. Because crabs are a major source on income for many residents of the Chesapeake, there is an important question concerning the crabs; “how many crabs must be left to ensure healthy reproduction (Horton, 1991)?” The answer to this question is dependent on the environmental factors important to their reproduction and how pollutants will affect these factors.

V. Conclusions

In order to prevent and restore the watershed, Chesapeake Bay, the following criteria must be met:

· Implement training programs for those individuals responsible for the bay (i.e., Marine Police, Coast Guard, and Residents)

These criteria were created and decided upon by the members of out team and do not include costs of these implementations. These criteria, however, are the implementations that we deem necessary to the survival of the Bay.

The population surrounding the Bay provides so many problem areas that it is difficult to determine which areas are in the greatest need of protection (Figure 5); there for we wish to designate those areas that appear to be in the most danger protect Bay quality (Figure 7).

Because population growth cannot be stopped and there is already too much damage sustained, we wish to improve those plans and regulations that were implemented in earlier years in order to reduce damage caused to the water quality and wildlife of the Bay. This will encompass the toxic accumulation that is contained in the Bay that results from the increasing population (Figure 6) for residents and businesses encroaching on our designated buffer). There has been so much pollution of the Chesapeake that even slight decreases in pollution are not enough to compensate for the many tons that are already contained in the bay. For example, well managed farms can have ten times more sediment from runoff than a forest while a construction site can have one-thousand times the amount of runoff than forests (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2001). Therefore, new guidelines must be implemented in order to prevent such extensive future runoff. Those guidelines include: re-establish maximum levels of pollution (i.e., nutrients and other pollutants) the Bay can sustain, to manage areas of pollution more efficiently (i.e., more involved clean-up efforts with volunteers – residents of the Bay area), to establish guidelines for business surrounding the bay such as their dumping practices, and to provide more strict enforcement of those guidelines.

The U.S Coast Guard has implemented an OPA-90 plan. The OPA-90 plan is a detailed list, provided by industry, of their incident response procedures. We believe the Marine Police should have copies of this plan and should be trained by the Coast Guard. Therefore, we wish to implement guidelines for training practices to occur frequently in order to keep the Marine Police up to date with procedures.

With the criteria, stated above, the pollution of the Chesapeake will surely decrease thereby protecting wildlife and water quality. These criteria will also provide a solution to the problems stated throughout this paper.

Boyle, Robert H. Bringing Back the Chesapeake. Audobon, May 1999. v. 101. p 78-84.

Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council. July 1985.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2001A. The pollution factor: what we put into the bay. Retrieved April 26, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cbf.org/sotb/pollution.htm.

Fischman, Robert, Marsh, Anne, & Meyers Erik. Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife. Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program: Wetlands Protection and Future Growth. Island Press 1995.

Horton, Tom. Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay. Island Press. Washington D.C. 1991.

Horton, Tom. Chesapeake Bay: Hanging in the Balance. National Geographic. June1993. v. 183. n 6. p 2-35.

Marx, Wesley. Great Water Bodies at a Watershed: Pollution prevention and regional approach are needed. EPA Journal Sept-Oct. 1992 v 18. n 4. p 45-48.

Meyer, Eugene L. A Battle in the Bay. Audobon. Nov-Dec. 1991. v 93. n 6. p 25 28.

[1] Statistical information from Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program: Wetlands Protection and Future Growth.

Urban Encroachment in the Chesapeake Bay:

I. Introduction

IV. Wildlife Impact

V. Conclusions