Text Size: A  A  A

Chesapeake Bay News: Pollution

Jan
22
2016

Draft two-year work plans available for public feedback

The Chesapeake Bay Program is seeking public input on a collection of short-term plans aimed toward achieving the goals and outcomes of the landmark Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. These twenty-eight draft work plans outline specific actions our partners intend to take over the next two years toward protecting and restoring the Bay, its rivers and streams and the surrounding lands.

Each two-year work plan addresses one or more of the Watershed Agreement’s thirty-one interconnected outcomes and outlines short-term actions critical to our work maintaining the health of local waters, sustaining abundant fish and wildlife populations, restoring vital habitats, fostering engaged and diverse communities through increased public access and education, conserving farmland and forests, and improving the climate resiliency of the region.

In June 2014, representatives from the six watershed states, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the federal government signed the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. In July 2015, the Chesapeake Executive Council announced the release of a set of twenty-five management strategies outlining our plans for implementation, monitoring and assessing progress toward the goals of that accord. The draft two-year work plans released today represent the next step in our continued work toward a healthy and vibrant Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Drafts of the work plans are available online. The Bay Program welcomes input on these drafts between January 22 and March 7, 2016. Interested parties can offer input by completing an online form, sending an email to the Bay Program or mailing a letter to the Bay Program office.



Jan
05
2016

By supporting key habitats, we support the ecosystem

The need for land and resources has led to fragmented and degraded habitats across the Chesapeake region, impacting the health of many species. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Bay Program’s Vital Habitats Goal Implementation Team are leading an effort to exemplify scalable, strategic habitat conservation in action across the Chesapeake landscape.

For the first time, our partners now have the regional context and scientific horsepower—through tools and information developed by the North Atlantic and Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs); the Atlantic Coast, Appalachian Mountain and Black Duck Joint Ventures; and the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (NEAFWA)—to identify and agree upon priority "surrogate" species. Surrogate species are animals and plants that can be used to represent the habitat needs of many other species using similar habitats throughout the watershed, and include the black bear, woodcock, black duck, saltmarsh sparrow and brook trout.

Surrogate species like the saltmarsh sparrow can be used to represent the habitat needs of other species throughout the watershed. (Image by nebirdsplus/Flickr)

Together, we are determining the habitat needs of these surrogate species—what kind of habitat, how much, and where—to understand and plan for habitat changes due to climate change and development. Our aim will be to conserve enough of the right kinds of habitat throughout the Chesapeake landscape, in the right configurations, to sustain these surrogate species, and by extension all the other species whose needs they represent, at desired population levels.

FWS is helping to coordinate the contributions of established, successful conservation partnerships that impact the Chesapeake region, supporting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and Chesapeake Bay Executive Order. By aligning the ground-breaking science of LCCs, the organizing power of Joint Ventures and Fish Habitat Partnerships, and the capacity of NEAFWA and other non-governmental organizations to address our mutual priorities, we are bringing new leadership and resources to bear on the goals of the Executive Order and Watershed Agreement.

Conserving healthy habitats is essential to the long-term health of the ecosystem and the region’s quality of life. All of our work adds up to measurable gains for fish, wildlife and plants and the natural benefits they provide to people living in the Chesapeake watershed.

Written by Mike Slattery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.



Dec
29
2015

By the Numbers: 589

With its rough shell, gray body and big ecological value, the eastern oyster is one of the most iconic species in the Chesapeake Bay. And for decades, protecting oyster populations has been part of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s work. But it was not until the signing of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement that our partners committed to what is known as a tributary-based restoration strategy, setting a goal to restore oyster reefs in ten Maryland and Virginia rivers by 2025 in order to foster the ecological services these reefs provide.

In Maryland, three tributaries—often referred to collectively as the Choptank Complex—have been selected for oyster reef restoration, which will take place where oyster harvest doesn’t occur. While the implementation of restoration treatments in Harris Creek was completed this September, work remains in two other waterways that flow into the Choptank. According to a December update from our Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team, 589 acres of oyster reefs are targeted for restoration in the Little Choptank and Tred Avon rivers. That’s an area bigger than the town of Oxford, Maryland, which is located between the two waterways.

Three Maryland tributaries (clockwise, from top: Harris Creek, the Tred Avon River and the Little Choptank River) have been selected for oyster reef restoration.

But what does restoring reefs to a tributary entail? The process varies by state and even by waterway. While its overarching steps—from selecting a tributary and setting a target to tracking progress and monitoring oyster health—are often the same, a range of factors can impact the specific course of work. The availability of shell and other hard substrates (which are used to build reefs) and the availability of spat (which are planted on reefs) are of particular concern in a region where both resources are used for other work (including aquaculture and shellfish harvest).

Oyster shell at the Horn Point Oyster Hatchery, located at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science’s Horn Point Laboratory in Cambridge, Md.

Nevertheless, work is underway in the Little Choptank and Tred Avon. In the Little Choptank, which has a restoration target of 442 acres, 114 acres have been built and 35 have been seeded with spat to date. In the Tred Avon, which has a restoration target of 147 acres, 17 have been built and just over two and a half have been seeded to date. The next progress report from the Maryland Oyster Restoration Interagency Workgroup will be released in spring of 2016, and tributary teams in Virginia will continue their work in the Piankatank, Lafayette and Lynnhaven rivers. The two-year work plan detailing the steps that will be taken to restore reefs in Maryland and Virginia will be released in summer.

Update: On January 13, 2016, the Chesapeake Bay Journal reported that the state of Maryland has instituted a "brief pause" in its construction of oyster reefs in the Tred Avon River. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary Mark J. Belton told the newspaper that the pause will be in place until the state completes an internal review of its oyster management policies, due in July. 

Catherine Krikstan's avatar
About Catherine Krikstan - Catherine Krikstan is a web writer at the Chesapeake Bay Program. She began writing about the watershed as a reporter in Annapolis, Md., where she covered algae blooms and climate change and interviewed hog farmers and watermen. She lives in Washington, D.C.



Dec
17
2015

Study finds intersex bass near wildlife refuges in Northeast U.S.

Intersex small- and largemouth bass were found in waters near national wildlife refuges throughout the Northeast United States, according to a study from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Of the fish tested, 85 percent of male smallmouth bass and 27 percent of male largemouth bass were intersex.

Eighty-five percent of the male smallmouth bass tested in a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were found to be intersex. (Image by Beth Swanson/Shutterstock)

Intersex conditions—the presence of both male and female characteristics in an animal that should exhibit the characteristics of just one sex in its lifetime—occur when pesticides, pharmaceuticals or other chemicals disrupt the hormonal systems of an animal.

“It is not clear what the specific cause of intersex is in these fish,” said Luke Iwanowicz, a USGS research biologist and lead author of the paper, in a release. “Chemical analyses of fish or water samples at collection sites were not conducted, so we cannot attribute the observation of intersex to specific, known estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals.”

Among the sites sampled were several locations in the Chesapeake Bay region, including near the Patuxent Research Refuge, Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge and Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

This study comes just after the release of a separate report from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission identifying endocrine-disruptors, pathogens and parasites as the most likely causes for a decline of smallmouth bass in the Susquehanna River.

The USGS and FWS report, “Evidence of estrogenic endocrine disruption in smallmouth and largemouth bass inhabiting Northeast U.S. national wildlife refuge waters: A reconnaissance study,” is available online.



410 Severn Avenue / Suite 112
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
Tel: (800) YOUR-BAY / Fax: (410) 267-5777
Directions to the Bay Program Office
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
©2012 Chesapeake Bay Program | All Rights Reserved