What has worked to clean the bay?

[TDLewis]

I was wondering if anyone could point out any good examples of "things done well"?

Was it planting buffers on streambanks?
..........reducing lawn fertilizer use?
..........rebuilding oyster beds?
..........better fisheries management?

and additionally, how much better did it make things?

Also - Is the bay getting worse or better?

I'm just curious about what things are the most effective..and what we can do to support these efforts in the future...

[Barefoot]

From where I sit, the only thing they've done right since I've been fishing the Bay is the rockfish moratorium.

And from where I sit, they are screwing up rockfish now

[scotty80]

From where I sit, the only thing they've done right since I've been fishing the Bay is the rockfish moratorium.

And from where I sit, they are screwing up rockfish now

No,:nono: Water quality is the big scape goat. Oh, wait a minute. How did rock come back with the horrendous water quality? Never mind, water quality is the main issue.
Flush tax, 66 WTP's upgrades, CBF stating water quality has remained approx same for last few years despite continuing development and population. We are not doing enough!

[TDLewis]

....but what ARE we doing?? What has CBF done that has helped out?

seems to me that one of the main issues is runoff. We need to install some type of buffer on every available bit of shoreline that has been built on. I think waterfront landowners need to get a tax break for doing the right thing in this regard. Similar things could be arranged for commercial interests. Lets reward people for doing the right thing instead of just focusing on catching those who are doing the wrong thing..

[TDLewis]

I have to admit that I'm taken aback by the lack of response to this post..is this because there are not that many positive things happening for the bay?

Maybe we need a CRP-type approach. Groups like Pheasants Forever out in the Midwest basically chip in to make CRP a better deal for private landowners. Most CRP programs work by paying a farmer or other landowner so much per acre to let the land grow back in native grasses & such. Long story short, you are rewarding the landowner for doing something good for everyone...out in the Midwest, they get a lot of pheasants...maybe we need something like this for bay habitat/Chesapeake wetlands?

FWIW, I am aware that CBF does fund CRP in the watershed as a means to help control erosion & such.

[Matt]

an answer in general terms would be, not much has been done to "save the bay."

One of the best things we've done to mitigate bigger problems is to requuire developers to install stromwater mitigation basins, to hold water like parking lot and highway runoff. But that's not enough to actually solve problems. Its sort of unfair to make developers pay for this when a single commercial crabber can lose dozens of pots a year, littering the bay with heavy metal corrosion, and covering the bottom with ghost pots that keep on killing.

[Ele]

This may sound trivial, but I think the removal of phosphates from laundry detergents has helped.

Ele

[BILL H]

I was wondering if anyone could point out any good examples of "things done well"?

Was it planting buffers on streambanks?
..........reducing lawn fertilizer use?
..........rebuilding oyster beds?
..........better fisheries management?

and additionally, how much better did it make things?

Also - Is the bay getting worse or better?

I'm just curious about what things are the most effective..and what we can do to support these efforts in the future...

This is the most recent summary of conditions on the Bay from the Chesapeake Bay Program. (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/)

There is a lot more information available at the above site.
Bay Program Releases 2006 Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment

Annual Report Shows Most of Bay’s Waters Degraded; Restoration Efforts Advance;
Mixed Year-to-Year Results

Annapolis, Md. (March 31, 2006) -- The Federal/State Chesapeake Bay Program partnership today released its Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment reports. These reports were developed to provide a clear and concise synopsis of Chesapeake Bay health and the on-the-ground restoration efforts taking place across the bay watershed.
The reports found that in 2006, while Bay Program partners made significant advances in restoration efforts through newly-focused programs, legislation and/or funding, year-to-year results were mixed and the overall health of the Bay remains degraded.
“While the partnership is making strides in certain restoration efforts, there are significant challenges ahead,” said Jeff Lape, director of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. “We are counting on the continued resolve of all our partners to forge ahead to reach our Chesapeake Bay goals.”
A summary of findings in the Health Assessment include:

To-date, less than one-third of water quality goals have been met;
The Bay’s habitats and lower food webs are at about one-third of desired levels; and
Many of the Bay’s fish and shellfish population remain below desired, historical levels. Specific indicators find that in 2006, dissolved oxygen showed a significant improvement from 2005, to one of the best years on record, though at 37 percent of the goal. Chlorophyll a, a measure of algae, showed slight improvement from last year, while mid-channel water clarity declined slightly. In addition, 53 percent of monitored tidal rivers had chemical contaminants in fish tissue high enough to warrant fish consumption advisories in those areas.
Bottom (benthic) habitat continued to be significantly impacted in 2006, matching 2005 numbers with 41 percent of the Bay’s floor considered healthy. Bay-wide acreage of underwater grasses decreased by 25 percent in 2006 to the lowest total acreage figure since 1989, covering only 59,090 acres – or about 32 percent of the 185,000-acre restoration goal. Blue crab, oyster, and shad populations also remained well below restoration goals with levels reaching 57 percent, 9 percent, and 3 percent of goal, respectively.
With the human population in the watershed currently at over 16 million and growing by more than 170,000 residents annually, urban and suburban lands have contributed significantly to the degraded condition of the Chesapeake Bay. To date, it is estimated that the pollution increases associated with land development (e.g. converting farms and forests to urban/suburban developments) have surpassed the gains achieved from improved landscape design and stormwater management practices. The rapid rate of population growth and related residential and commercial development has made this pollution sector the only one in the Bay watershed to still be growing, and thus “progress” is negative.
2006 Restoration Assessment findings include:

About half of the pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve the nutrient goals have been undertaken;
Habitat restoration efforts are collectively less than half-way to Program goals;
Watershed protection efforts are slightly more than two-thirds of the way toward goals; and
A newly developed indicator, Fostering Chesapeake Stewardship, has reached two-thirds of its goals. “From the 2006 data, we can see that the Bay Program partners must remain committed to cleaning up the Chesapeake,” said Carlton Haywood, chair of the Bay Program’s Monitoring and Assessment Subcommittee and director for program operations at the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. “However, not all of the data we see in the 2006 report is negative. Tremendous strides have been made in an effort to restore the Bay.”
Some of the noted 2006 successes include the steep reduction of harmful nutrients discharged from wastewater treatment plants. Nitrogen discharges are at 72 percent of the reduction goal while phosphorous discharges have reached 87 percent of reduction goals. However, pollution control efforts need to be accelerated in the agricultural sector, with only 45 percent goal achievement in the reduction of nitrogen pollution from agriculture and a 49 percent goal achievement for phosphorous, the report shows.
Reopening upstream blockages to migratory fish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is measured at 76 percent of the goal, with 2,144 miles reopened since 1990. Watershed land preservation efforts have resulted in 99 percent achievement of restoration goals with a total of 6.83 million acres permanently preserved. The forest buffer restoration goal of 2,010 miles was reached by Bay Program partners well ahead of schedule, and in 2003 the target was raised to 10,000 miles. As of 2006, 53 percent of the new goal had been achieved.

[goose70]

Ele hit one of the nails on the head. It will take a few years to see the results, since the regs don't fully kick-in until 2011, I think, but the laundry detergent thing is significant.

The Flush Fee (Tax) may also start to pay noticeable dividends in the near future. Same with the CBF-pushed agriculture initiatives.

AA County is moving towards mandatory, innovative stormwater management that could significantly improve the quality of stormwater that enters the waterways. Developers and community associations can actually save money by implementing these methods, which is why they appear set to go into wide use.

Also in AA County, look to a new mega development about to begin in Brooklyn as possibly starting a trend towards using development to improve brownfields rather than replace forests with asphalt. We need tougher zoning laws and other regs on forested land, increase incentives for developing/redeveloping urban land, and then let the market steer to development to the urban land. This isn't difficult or particularly expensive. In the long run, it's probably a cost savings and revenue boost for gov't and developers.

One really big one that is SO EASY to implement, and could have an especially nice impact in places like the Severn, is a BIG PUSH to keep people from fertilizing there lawns, or at least holding off until spring. Unfortunately, I underestimated how sacred a golf-course lawn is to so many folks, including some who belong to groups that are supposedly acting in the Severn's best interest. But it takes effort to make change. I just convinced my community association today to ban fertilizer until fall. As BP says, it's a start. This is something that we can each push within our own communities.

Shoreline buffers are also a big one, although if you don't have fertilizer running down your yard and into the water, the buffers become a little less critical (although still important). As we can all see, our shorelines continue to be "armored" at an alarming rate. Again, stopping this from happening and even reversing some of it, over time, would cost the taxpayers next to nothing.

[BILL H]

From the Chesapeake Bay Program report "The rapid rate of population growth and related residential and commercial development has made this pollution sector the only one in the Bay watershed to still be growing, and thus “progress” is negative."

The growth rate of about 1% per year in the Bay watershed amounts to about 170,000 new individuals per year. Until some of the things mentioned by Goose70 are more fully implemented, it will really be difficult to see progress, even if success occurs in the other areas.