hesapeake Bay report card 29 pennsylvania H Harrisburg 76 81 8 1 1 68 83 maryland 9 Baltimore Balt B a m al altim more 4 west virginia 7 11 Washington, Wash W ash hington, ng n,.... 2 2 97 66 delaware 3 3 31 29 27 2 7 7 virginia Richmond R Richmo Richm Ric ichmo chmo mond 36 13 3 8 8 N 6 6 4 1 2 16 32 Norfolk 4 Miles Kilometerss 6 6 4 4 4 8 16 1 6
Improved health of hesapeake Bay in 29 The overall health of hesapeake Bay, assessed using water quality and biotic indicators, was the best it has been since 22. The overall grade improved from in 28 to in 29. Eight reporting regions had improved grades in 29, four were unchanged, and two had slightly worse grades. The highest ranked region, for the third year in a row, was the Upper Western Shore (B ), while the lowest ranked region this year was the Patapsco and Back s (F). 29 precipitation pattern provides insights about Bay health Long term Average 29 Precipitation (inches) 3 3 4 4 4 4 > N 3 6 Miles Kilometers 4 8 Above left: A map of normal average precipitation for 1971 2 shows precipitation distribution over the Bay watershed. Above right: In 29, increased precipitation was highly concentrated in the tidal areas of the watershed. ata: NOAA s National Weather Service The unique precipitation (rain, snow, and ice) pattern seen in 29 provides insights into the relative roles of nutrient and sediment inputs, which affect Bay health, from the Susquehanna versus the smaller tributaries in Maryland and Virginia. Pennsylvania and New York received relatively low amounts of precipitation in 29, while tributaries adjacent to the Bay received unusually high levels of precipitation (see figure). This most likely led to decreased inputs from the Susquehanna and higher inputs from the tributaries in Maryland and Virginia. The mainstem portion of the Bay tends to be more strongly influenced by flow from the Susquehanna than from other tributaries, and in 29 the Mid Bay (+ in 28; in 29) and Lower Bay (- in 28; in 29) mainstem regions appeared to respond positively to the decreased Susquehanna flow. The improvements in 29 overall Bay health likely reflect the improvements in the Mid and Lower Bay scores, which are the Bay s two largest reporting regions. Water clarity improves in 29 An encouraging sign for the Bay s health was an improvement in water clarity. Following a long-term trend of declining water clarity throughout the Bay, the last two to three years have seen improvement, especially in the average increase in Bay-wide water clarity of 12% in 29. The water clarity improvements were most dramatic in the middle regions of the Bay, including the mainstem, hoptank, Potomac, and Rappahannock s. However, the reporting regions with chronically poor water clarity, the Patapsco and Back s, Lower Western Shore of Maryland, York, and Elizabeth, still had poor water clarity.
Western shore tributaries Upper Western Shore B- Moderate good ecosystem health highest ranked region for the third year in a row. Very good dissolved oxygen. Aquatic grasses remained steady at healthy levels despite poor water clarity. Patapsco and Back s Very poor ecosystem health lowest ranked region in the Bay. ontinued decline of dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, and water clarity scores. Biotic indicators are slowly improving. Lower Western Shore (M) - Poor ecosystem health. Improved dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a conditions. Although benthic community condition improved, overall biotic health continues to be poor. F Patuxent Poor ecosystem health. No improvement in overall health of this region despite a slight improvement in dissolved oxygen. Most health indicators remain consistently poor. - Potomac Moderate ecosystem health. Slight improvement in overall health due to improvements in chlorophyll a, water clarity, and benthic and phytoplankton community conditions. Rappahannock Moderate ecosystem health. ontinued improvement in overall health due to improvements in water clarity and aquatic grasses. eclines in dissolved oxygen and phytoplankton. York Poor ecosystem health. Overall health is slightly better for second year in a row. Water quality indicators continue to be poor, while benthic community condition improved significantly. James Moderate poor ecosystem health. Aquatic grasses continue to improve, however, chlorophyll a scores declined slightly. This region hovers around the border of moderate to moderate poor health. - Elizabeth Incomplete assessment. Water quality indicators show no signs of improvement. Phytoplankton community condition continues to be very poor with a % for three years in a row.
HESAPEAKE BAY 29 REPORT AR e: Overall scor Upper Eastern Upper Western Shore Patapsco and Back s Lower Western Shore (M) Potomac B- Shore F + Upper Bay - Patuxent hoptank Lower Eastern Shore (Tangier) Mid Bay Rappahannock York James Lower Bay - N Bayy health healtth scale sccalee V poor Very p F Veryy good goo od 2 4 B 6 Insufficient Insu ufficieent data A 88 1% 1% Elizabeth 1 2 16 32 Mi Km www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/29/ w ww ww..eco o--che check.org/ check.o check
Eastern shore tributaries and mainstem Bay Upper Eastern Shore Poor ecosystem health. While still poor, the overall health of this region improved for the first time in five years. The scores for all six indicators showed improvement. Upper Bay + Moderate ecosystem health. Overall health is the same as last year. Aquatic grasses remained steady at healthy levels after several years of improvement. hoptank Poor ecosystem health. Overall health improved slightly, but is still poor. Improvements in water clarity, and benthic and phytoplankton community conditions. Mid Bay Moderate ecosystem health. Improvement in overall health. Aquatic grasses, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, and water clarity scores all showed improvement this year. Lower Eastern Shore (Tangier) Moderate ecosystem health. Water clarity score is the highest since first year of monitoring in 1986, although still considered poor. Aquatic grasses score increased for the third year in a row. Lower Bay Moderate ecosystem health. Large improvements in water clarity and benthic and phytoplankton community condition led to highest overall health score in eight years. Indicators used in the report card The aim of this report card is to provide a transparent, timely, and geographically detailed assessment of 29 hesapeake Bay health. hesapeake Bay health is defined as the progress of three water quality indicators (chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity) and three biotic indicators (aquatic grasses, phytoplankton community, and benthic community) toward scientifically derived ecological thresholds or goals. The six indicators are combined into one overarching Bay Health Index, which is presented as the report card overall score. etailed methods available at www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/. hlorophyll a issolved oxygen Water clarity Aquatic grasses Phytoplankton community Benthic community
What do the grades mean? All water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. Quality of water in these locations tends to be very good, most often leading to very good habitat conditions for fish and shellfish. Most water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. Quality of water in these locations tends to be good, often leading to good habitat conditions for fish and shellfish. There is a mix of good and poor levels of water quality and biological health indicators. Quality of water in these locations tends to be fair, leading to fair habitat conditions for fish and shellfish. Some or few water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. Quality of water in these locations tends to be poor, often leading to poor habitat conditions for fish and shellfish. Very few or no water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. Quality of water in these locations tends to be very poor, most often leading to very poor habitat conditions for fish and shellfish. acknowledgements Report card produced and released in April 21 by the Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland enter for Environmental Science, and Ecoheck (noaa umces Partnership). www.ian.umces.edu www.eco-check.org www.umces.edu The data and methods underpinning this report card represent the collective effort of many individuals and organizations working within the hesapeake Bay scientific and management community. The following organizations contributed significantly to the development of the report card: hesapeake Bay Program, University of Maryland enter for Environmental Science, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Maryland epartment of Natural Resources, Virginia epartment of Environmental Quality, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Versar Incorporated, us Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland epartment of the Environment, Interstate ommission on the Potomac Basin, Old ominion University, and Morgan State University.