New Insights: Case Study Locations Executive Summary Expanding Population, Increased Fertilizer Use, and More 5 Livestock May Counteract Water Quality Improvements
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A tool for watershed management Adjusting our course New Insights summarizes the changes in water quality resulting from The examination of water quality monitoring data associated with best New nutrient reducing practices in more than 40 Chesapeake Bay watershed case management practice implementation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed studies. In many examples, water quality monitoring data reveal the benefits reveals multiple implications for continued efforts in Bay restoration: of restoration practices aimed at reducing nutrient and sediment pollution Investments in sewage treatment plants provide rapid water flowing into our local waters. Insights: quality improvements. 1 The science-based evidence summarized here shows that: National requirements of the Clean Air Act are benefitting the Science-based evidence of • Several groups of pollution-reducing practices, also known as best management 2 Chesapeake Bay watershed. practices or BMPS, are effective at improving water quality and habitats; water quality improvements, Some agricultural practices are providing local benefits • Specific challenges can still impede water quality improvements; and challenges, and opportunities 3 to streams. • More practices that focus on the impacts of intensified agriculture and urban and in the Chesapeake suburban development are needed for healthier waters. Lag times that delay improvements mean patience and persistence 4 are needed to realize the results of our efforts. New Insights: Case study locations Executive Summary Expanding population, increased fertilizer use, and more 5 livestock may counteract water quality improvements. NEW YORK Science should be better used to guide restoration choices and 6 subsequent monitoring is needed to evaluate effectiveness. Proven and innovative stormwater management practices need Sinnemahoning Creek to be implemented and evaluated to maintain and improve Bay 7 health as urban and suburban development expands. PENNSYLVANIA Spring Creek Mahantango Creek Brush Run Creek Little Conestoga Creek Big Spring Run Potomac River at Hancock, MD Bald Eagle Creek MARYLAND Frederick Co. Baltimore Co. WEST Stony Run Baltimore, Maryland VIRGINIA Back River WWTP Chesapeake Bay Program Montgomery Anne Co. Arundel Co. Corsica River Authors Washington, D.C. Fairfax Co. Wye River Blue Plains WWTP Richard Batiuk, Ana L. Hernández Cordero, Margaret M.G. Enloe, William C. Dennison, Muddy Creek Occoquan River Gunston Cove DELAWARE Catherine Krikstan, Christina M. Lyerly, Scott Phillips Mattawoman Creek Choptank River Patuxent River Online Availability VIRGINIA This publication is also available electronically at: ian.umces.edu and chesapeakebay.net Potomac River Pocomoke River Polecat Creek Jackson River Upper Rappahannock River Science Communication, Design, & Layout Brianne Walsh, Integration & Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (ian.umces.edu). Chesapeake Bay Front Cover Photo © Chesapeake Bay Program N James River 0 10 20 40 Miles 464 16 32 64 Kilometers Our long-term efforts to reduce pollution Our progress is affected by 'lag times' and We need to be diligent about how and have led to local improvements in our can be overwhelmed by unsustainable where we use both proven and innovative air, land, and water. transformations to the landscape. practices to reduce pollution, and in Monitoring efforts show that three kinds of BMPs can Once a restoration practice is put in place, it can take time to see visible monitoring how well they work. effectively improve water quality: improvements in water quality. These delays, called “lag times,” can vary By monitoring water quality Improvements to wastewater treatment plants. based on the kind of restoration work completed, the geology of the restoration site, its distance from a nearby river or stream, and many other when restoration practices are Technological factors. One of the major factors is the slow movement of groundwater put in place, scientists have upgrades to and the nutrients it often carries. This means the full benefits of our provided evidence of successful wastewater pollution-reducing work can take decades or more to be seen. Patience and practices that can result in treatment plants across the persistence are needed to realize the results of restoration efforts. healthier waters and improved Chesapeake Bay watershed habitats. They have also have decreased the amount of As we convert our landscapes from forests and wetlands to urban and helped us better understand excess nutrients flowing into suburban neighborhoods and intensive agricultural operations, local and the challenges we all face. local waters. In some areas, regional water quality declines. A better understanding of these growing In particular, evidence shows the resulting improvements in challenges is essential, as it will lead directly to opportunities for better that improving stormwater water quality have also led to management of pollution sources. management in the face of a resurgence in underwater the watershed’s growing cities, grasses. Chesapeake Bay Program towns and communities is vital for the long–term health of Reductions in amounts of nitrogen coming from the atmosphere. our waterways. Efforts to reduce nitrogen entering Experts and decision–makers the atmosphere need to utilize this science– from vehicle based evidence to better emissions and identify locations of specific power plant emissions have nutrient pollution sources in resulted in less airborne the Chesapeake Bay region. nitrogen reaching our rivers Then managers must ask the and the Chesapeake Bay. right questions as they consider In some locations, these implementation: What is the reductions have contributed to best practice to reduce the Jane Thomas, IAN Image Library improved surface water quality. Chesapeake Bay Program impacts from these nutrient sources? Where should that practice be used? Choosing the best proven or innovative practice can result in more effective Reductions in nutrients from various forms of agricultural land runoff. local action and achieve better results in any given landscape. Finally, Research shows continued long–term, water quality monitoring plays an important role in that planting cover informing everyone—scientists, decision–makers and crops, managing managers— when adjustments to restoration work fertilizer and Decreased nutrient loads Increased nutrient loads are needed. manure applications, and limiting livestock access to streams can reduce nutrients, For more information, and in some instances sediment, Best management practices (BMPs) such Increases in other pressures, such as intensied and to access the full in rivers and streams as well as wastewater treatment plant agriculture and greater stormwater runo as in groundwater (water upgrades and reduced power plant from expanding development can increase New Insights report online, visit No emissions are proven practices nutrient loads , counteracting water quality that seeps into the earth and x ultimately drains to local Chesapeake Bay Program that reduce nutrient loads to the improvements that would have resulted from ian.umces.edu/link/newinsights waterways). Chesapeake Bay watershed. eective BMP implementation..