A dip in pollution levels is good news for the Chesapeake Bay

I believe that by now, readers of this blog know the Chesapeake Bay is polluted and they know why it’s polluted.

Recently, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released water quality monitoring data from 2013. The data was collected from nine river monitoring stations upstream from the Bay. These stations are located along the Appomatox, Choptank, James, Mattoponi, Pamunkey, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock and Susquehanna Rivers. 

The data shows the amount of nutrient and sediment pollution from these nine major watersheds remained below the 25-year average for 2013. The USGS found that 160 million pounds of nitrogen entered the Bay, down from the average of 212 million pounds; 10 million pounds of phosphorus entered the Bay, compared to the average of 14.6 million pounds; and 2.7 million pounds of sediment, almost half of the 5.2 million pound average, reached the Bay.

Scientists have attributed these below-average pollution loads partly to below-average river flow and partly to the implementation of pollution-reduction practices required by the 2010 Bay TMDL (pollution diet). Less rain means lower river flow but it also means less sediment and manure from farm fields and less polluted runoff from streets and parking lots entering our waters. Fewer pollutants entering our waters can also be attributed to implementing practices such as planting cover crops on farm fields, keeping forested buffers along waterways, and upgrading our wastewater treatment plants.

While the Farm Bureau wastes time and money challenging the Bay TMDL, individuals, businesses, and municipalities are working to implement the TMDL and reduce pollution and improve water quality. We have a long way to go before the Susquehanna River and the Bay are as clean as they should be, but it looks like we're on the right track.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Chesapeake Bay scores a D+ for overall health

No one is proud of getting a D+, but that’s the rather dismal grade the Chesapeake Bay received for overall health in the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s recent State of the Bay report. The report is based on indicators representing pollution, habitat, and fisheries. 

Despite the poor grade, the report is a mixed bag of positive and negative. Compared to 2012, nitrogen pollution remains unchanged while phosphorus pollution increased. These excess nutrients fuel algal blooms that cause dead zones in the Bay and find their way into our rivers and streams in runoff from farmlands, streets, lawns, and parking lots in urban and suburban areas.

Toxics pollution has remained unchanged since 2012 with over 70 percent of the Bay and its tidal rivers impaired due to long-lived chemical contamination. On a positive note, dissolved oxygen improved due to below-average temperatures this summer (cooler water holds more oxygen) and water clarity improved slightly, allowing more sunlight to reach underwater grasses, which provide habitat for fish and crabs.

While the trends for these pollution indicators seem rather impressive, they represent a 21.5 percent improvement over 2010 levels, indicating the plan to clean up the Bay and its tributaries (mentioned many times in this blog) is working. However, there is cause for concern because the pace of expected pollution reductions from agriculture and stormwater are off track and many of the Bay states, including Pennsylvania, are in danger of not meeting their pollution reduction goals.

Agriculture is the largest source of pollution to the Bay. Accordingly, the Bay states seek to get the majority (75 percent) of their pollution reductions from agriculture. Luckily, this is also the most cost effective way to reduce pollution. Using simple practices like planting grass buffers or cover crops comes in at a cost of between $3.20 and $4.70 and can keep a pound of nitrogen pollution out of our waters. To achieve the same pollution reductions, upgrades to wastewater treatment plants runs between $15 and $47 while stormwater retrofits can cost over $200 per pound of nitrogen.

High levels of pollution in the Bay continue to have a devastating effect on the iconic rockfish (striped bass) and blue crabs, and also impacts the families that rely upon them for their livelihoods. Rockfish have been declining since 2003 and the population is so low that catches will be cut back starting this year. Additionally, the number of blue crabs has dropped dramatically, from 765 million in 2012 to 297 million in 2014, forcing state mandated cutbacks on catches. On the other hand, oysters continue to improve. Almost 1 billion oysters are planted each year in the Bay and its tributaries and survival rates are high.

Even though the report is a mixed bag of good and bad, the good news is that plans to clean up the Bay are in place and are working. We simply need to work a little harder -- citizens, governments, businesses, and farmers -- to achieve the goal of clean water in our local rivers and streams and, ultimately, the Bay.

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.