DNR Continuing to Monitor for Bay Impacts
 

Annapolis, Md. (March 21, 2011) — Early March runoff into the Susquehanna River watershed from heavy rains and snowmelt has brought a flood of nutrients and sediment-laden freshwater flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. This heavy spring runoff has resulted in record low water clarity for the month of March in many areas of Maryland’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay. Continued wet spring weather could extend these high flows that might result in less underwater grasses and an increase in algal blooms. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will continue its comprehensive Chesapeake Bay water quality habitat and living resources monitoring to assess any short- or long-term storm-related impacts.

On March 12, 2011, two days after a very heavy rain event (2+ inches) across the region, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recorded a peak “flow” of 485,000 cubic feet/second (cfs) from the Susquehanna River at Conowingo Dam. Average monthly flows at that site in March are about 75,000 cfs. This is the highest average daily flow rate observed at the dam since floodwaters from Tropical Storm Ivan passed in September 2004 (496,000 cfs on September 19; 545,000 cfs on September 20.)

A review of 26 years of water clarity data collected by the State shows that depth measurements in the Chesapeake Bay and many tributaries in March 2011 are below historic measures or set new historic lows.

A high amount of freshwater flowing into the Chesapeake Bay erodes sediments and transports polluted runoff (including nutrients and sediments) downstream towards the Bay. Generally, short-term storms will have short-term impacts on the Bay, but, if wet weather continues, there could be long-term consequences for the Bay’s water quality, and its abundant plant and animal population, as well.

The late winter/early spring season is a critical period for many aquatic species such as the underwater grasses, which are beginning to grow and the many types of fish, which are beginning to spawn. Full storm impacts may not be known until mid-summer or later.

Even with the surges in precipitation, Maryland is committed to reducing polluted runoff in order to meet Chesapeake Bay water quality goals. In May 2009, along with Pennsylvania and Virginia, Maryland agreed to aggressive 2-year milestones for assuring accountability in limiting nutrients and sediments entering the Bay. This requires citizens, businesses, and local, state and federal governments to work together in efforts to reduce polluted runoff by planting cover crops to reduce runoff from farms, reducing runoff from urban areas, restoring natural filters and conserving high priority lands.

Full story is available at http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/eyeso...ng_stories.cfm

The silt build up behind the Conowingo dam is a ticking time bomb.

Twenty five years ago - water was close to 80 feet deep in some spots.

Now , it is about 50 feet deep. That is about 30 feet of sediment - just waiting for a huge storm to unleash it. A storm similar to hurricane Agnes could be a disaster for the bay.

Seems the muddy plume gets worse as years go by.
Used to stop near Love Point , then it was Bloody Point. This last plume extended below the Choptank.

Lots of run off and few filter feeders ( oysters , menhadden ) - bad combo in my eyes.

I say we support another "study":D.

What a bunch of incompetent a$$holes we have elected. How proud they must be to know they have turned the worlds largest most productive estuary into a $hithole.

I guess I wouldn't be very good at writing political news releases.

5th (Marty)

I have fished the bay for over 50 years and the early memories are nothing like what we have now. It's steadily gone down hill. SAD. I sort of wish I never saw it 50 years ago...........Gary

Marty, tell us how you really feel !!!:eek::eek::eek:

We can sit here and reminisce for days.. I'm younger than you old farts ( Kirk call your office)but I actually remember Charter Boats as thick as flies on a cow pie, under the bridge, literally watching sterns hit transoms, transoms hitting sterns, starboard's hitting port side. Fishing in barrel.. No limits and people were keeping everything...

And now, well, you know the rest of the story.....:(

Got to blame it on somebody.

Never mind the fact that there are 16.5 million people in this watershed. Up a million people from 2000.

Yeah it's the politician's fault.

Yeah lets first talk about the flush tax. A so called shovel ready program. that gets radied. Dilution is the solution. :confused:

I'm past trying to place blame and pointing fingers. That will do nothing to clean up the bay. I'm past arguing on the internet boards. I am into doing something positive to make a difference no matter how small. It starts with me. The urine jug goes home instead of overboard. If a certain species of fish is in decline, I will take less and fish for other species. I will attend meetings and find out what's going on first hand instead of reading the spin on here. I will find ways to make a difference. That's a good start and I'll go from there. At least I will be able to look my Son in the face and tell him I tried to give him a good place to fish.............Gary

Gary;
You are a piss ant (get the pun) in the scheme of things. The bay is so far gone, that no individual or group of individuals is going to turn things around. Only the Government (and normally I hate government projects) has the resourses to address the problem.
I heard a story about the sediment buildup behind the Conawingo Dam being so bad that if they started to remove boxcars full of sediment, it would take years to get it back to when it was built.
Sewage pumping plants dump thousands of gallons of raw sewage into the bay after a big rain storm. How many pee buckets have to come off your boat to make up for the difference?
I understand your theory about each individual taking action to do no harm to the bay; but it will not be enough to make an impact.
I am normally a very opptomistic person, but in reference to the Bay, I am pesimistic about it's recovery unless SOMEONE takes charge. I say someone, because the government is too ambiguose of a term. Why don't you know, the bay is already clean; it was supposed to be cleaned up by 2010 according to the government. Of course the dates just keep getting pushed back further and further when the goal is not met.

When I decide to run for office, I better get at least 20,000 votes from CBA's and TF'ers.
Marty

p.s. and while I'm on my soapbox; Brian, if you are going to try to discredit the lady, please spell her name correctly. I am tired of seeing Pallin on all your posts.

Can't say I have any faith in politicians either. One area we do disagree is that every little bit helps. An honest effort by each and every person makes a difference, and we owe this effort to each other.

Rich; I have no problen with each of use doing their best to help clean up the bay. I applaude Gary and everyone else for "doing their part".

What I said was, "no individual or group of individuals is going to turn this around".

I would go so far as to say, if you took every recreational angler off the bay. Even this would not clean up the bay. Sediment from upstream would still cover the grasses and oysters killing them. Busineses would still be dumping polution into the bay. Sewage treatment plants would still be allowing thousands of gallons of raw sewage into the bay after heavy rains. Those oysters and menhaden that filter the bay will still be depleated to the point where they are no longer effective.
I could go on, but I hope you see my point. Each of us "should" do his part. However, we must be honest with ourselves and admit we can not clean the bay on our own. We need help on a grand scale.
5th (Marty)

If you really want to do something that will help the bay - push for a moratorium

on oyster harvesting. They filter the bay water and need to be left alone to build back the population. Years ago - oysters filter the entire amount of water in the day in a week.

Now , at roughly 2% of the population , bay water volume really is filtered once a year - at best. Diseases hurt the oysters but now they seem to be immune to the diseases. If we left them alone for 5-10 years - they could build back up and do wonders for cleaning the bay waters.

The Magothy river saw a black mussel population explosion and in just one year - water clarity went from 4-5 inches to 4-5 FEET. Sadly , the mussels died off and sure enough , water clarity went back to inches.

As much as I enjoy eating oysters - I'd gladly give them up to help cleanse the bay waters.

I fully support individual efforts to reduce our impact on the bay, but the things we do are far outweighed by the problems inherent to the bay that are bigger than us. Sounds like Marty and I are on the same page.

Everyone will have to sacrifice something to improve the bay's health, but as with most problems of this scale, somebody will have to sacrifice more than the rest.

Skip might be right about the oysters (Well scientifically speaking I think he's on the money.) So the people sacrificing more would be the oystermen of the bay. I can give up eating oysters easily enough, as much as I love them though. But what are we really willing to give up as an incentive to make the oystermen agree to a moratorium? Tax incentives? State sponsored jobs reconstructing the oyster beds with their now dormant boats?

Research the ORP - Oyster recovery program.

Lot of money already flows to oystersmen. It is more a put / take then a real recovery effort - IMHO. Seems that kind of money should give better results.

Then there are the poachers - raiding the sanctuary areas.

Oysters left alone would help clear up the bay. Then sea grasses could grow - these help even more.

I talk to guys who fished in the early 60's - just 50 years ago. They tell me how clear the water was and grass beds so thick they could not get boats through them in summer time.

While everyone argues / studies what needs to be done - oysters are quietly filtering bay water. Get enough of them out there - water would improve.

Oysters never go on strike, work for free and never call out sick. Hard to bet!..........Gary

I fished the early 60's and most of the 50's. The key was the amount of rain and runoff, just like it is now.

The difference between then and now is the number of people and the effluent that is pumped into the bay. Oysters can't live in a septic tank. They couldn't then, they can't now.

I agree that the runoff is a big part of the problem.

But oysters, when in abundance absolutely could liveand thrive in a polluted bay. There just needs to be enough of them that each one can handle the burden.

I couldn't soak up a bottle of spilled water with one paper towel. But if I had an entire roll, the job would be easy.

Not trying to be smart - oysters can tolerate some nasty / polluted waters.

Certain areas are off limits to harvesting oysters - all the time - due to pollution concerns.

Other oyster beds have been closed for short periods when found to be contaminated by polluted water.

Sad part - sometimes oysters watermen would take them to market :eek:.

Yeah. They tolerate polluted waters, but they don't reproduce.
What happens when Dermo and MSX goes on the upswing again?

Unless the bay is cleaned up, the diseases will find a way to keep the oyster population down.

So are we in a big circle of never seeing any gains?

The oysters can't survive because of disease and pollution and the disease and pollution will stay rampant because there's no oysters to filter the water?

It's a shame people decades ago couldn't foresee this problem. I have a client who used to work at the Coast Guard yard in Curtis Bay. He told me how the ships' maintenance crews used to just dump leftover paints and solvents into the water to get rid of them.:mad:

In the ealy 90's I volunteered on a few cleanups of the Patapsco Valley State Park land along River Rd in Linthicum. People used to dump SO much trash and old tires along there....it was disgusting.

Reds - There is evidence that the oysters are becoming immune to the diseases that almost wiped them out.

Key - IMHO - is to allow these oysters to breed. Taking the survivors makes little sense in the long run.

There are reports of very good spat this year - that could jump start the recovery of oysters.

I sometimes fish out of Wachapreaque and see oyster bars that break the surface.

Years ago - way back - oyster bars in the bay were considered a navigation hazard. They broke surface on low tide - in 12 feet of water.

It makes no sense to me to continue to harvest something at 2% of former population. Guess if the bay were to get cleaned up - some would be out great paying jobs :rolleyes:.