Estuaries

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 171–185 | Cite as

A watershed perspective on nutrient enrichment, science, and policy in the Patuxent River, Maryland: 1960–2000

  • Christopher F. D'Elia
  • Walter R. Boynton
  • James G. Sanders
Article

Abstract

The Patuxent River, Maryland, is a nutrient-overenriched tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrient inputs from sewage outfalls and nonpoint sources (NPS) have grown substantially during the last four decades, and chlorophylla levels have increased markedly with concomitant reductions in water quality and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The Patuxent has gained national attention because it was one of the first river basins in the U.S. for which basin-wide nutrient control standards were developed. These included a reduction in NPS inputs and a limit on both nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) loadings in sewage discharges intended to return the river to 1950s conditions. Full implementation of point source controls occurred by 1994, but population growth and land-use changes continue to increase total nutrient loadings to the river. The present paper provides the perspectives of scientists who participated in studies of the Patuxent River and its estuary over the last three decades, and who interacted with policy makers as decisions were made to develop a dual nutrient control strategy. Although nutrient control measures have not yet resulted in dramatic increases in water quality, we believe that without them, more extensive declines in water quality would have occurred. Future reductions will have to come from more effective NPS controls since future point source loading will be difficult to further reduce with present technology. Changing land use will present a challenge to policy makers faced with sprawling population growth and accelerated deforestation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abbe, G. R., B. W. Albright, C. B. McCollough, C. F. Dungan, andS. J. Jordan. 2002. Environmental effects onPerkinsis marinus infection rates, growth and survival among dermo-disease-free juvenile oysters planted at three salinity regimes in Patuxent River, Maryland. Abstract of a technical paper presented at the 55th annual meeting National Shellfisheries Association and Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association: Pacific Coast Section, Silverdale, Washington, September 20–22, 2001.Journal of Shellfish Research 21:371.Google Scholar
  2. Boynton, W. R., J. H. Garber, R. Summers, andW. M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries.Estuaries 18:285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boynton, W. R., W. M. Kemp, andC. G. Osborne. 1980. Nutrient fluxes across the sediment-water interface in the turbidity zone of a coastal plain estuary, p. 93–109.In V. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Perspectives. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Brush, G. 1984a. Stratiographic evidence of eutrophication in an estuary.Water Resources Research 20:531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brush, G. 1984b. Patterns of recent sediment accumulation in Chesapeake Bay (Virginia-Maryland, U.S.A.) tributaries.Chemical Geology 44:227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesapeake Research Consortium. 1977. Proceedings of the Bi-State conference on the Chesapeake Bay. CRC Publication No. 61. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, Maryland.Google Scholar
  7. Cronin, W. B. andD. W. Pritchard. 1975. Additional statistics on the dimensions of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries: Cross-section widths and segment volumes per meter depth. Special report 42. Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  8. Culliton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Godspeed, D. R. Rewer, C. M. Blackwell, andJ. J. McDonough, III. 1990. 50 years of population change along the nation's coasts 1960–2010. Second report coastal trust series. Strategies Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  9. D'Elia, C. F. andJ. G. Sanders. 1987. Scientists don't make management decisions (and why we wish that sometimes we did ...).Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D'Elia, C. F., L. W. Harding, Jr.,M. Leffler, andG. B. Mackiernan. 1992. The role and control of nutrients in Chesapeake Bay.Water Science and Technology 26:2635–2644.Google Scholar
  11. D'Elia, C. F., J. G. Sanders, andW. R. Boynton. 1986. Nutrient enrichment studies in a coastal plain estuary: Phytoplankton growth in large-scale, continuous cultures.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagy, J. D., W. R. Boynton, andM. M. Weir. 1998. Estimating nitrogen and phosphorus loads for the Patuxent River, 1960–1977, p. 184–211.In W. R. Boynton and F. M. Rohland (eds.), Ecosystem Processes Component (EPC), Level 1 Report No. 15, Reference No. [UMCES]CBL 98-073a. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Hagy, J. D., L. P. Sanford, andW. R. Boynton. 2000. Estimation of net physical transport and hydraulic residence times for a coastal plain estuary using box models.Estuaries 23:328–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinle, D. R., C. F. D'Elia, J. L. Taft, J. S. Wilson, M. Cole-Jones, A. B. Caplins, andL. E. Cronin. 1980. Historical review of water quality and climatic data from Chesapeake Bay with emphasis on effects of enrichment. Grant #R806189010. USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Final Report. Publication No. 84. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  15. Horton, T. 1993. Chesapeake Bay—Hanging in the balance.National Geographic 183:2–35.Google Scholar
  16. HydroQual. 1981. Water quality analysis of the Patuxent River. Report to Maryland Office of Environmental Programs. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  17. Kahn, H. andG. S. Brush. 1994. Nutrient and metal accumulations in a fresh tidal marsh.Estuaries 17:345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langland, M. J., R. E. Edwards, L. A. Sprague, andS. E. Yochum. 2001. Summary of trends and status analysis for flow, nutrients, and sediments at selected nontidal sites, Chesapeake Bay basin, 1985–99. Open File Report 01-73. U.S. Geological Survey, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  19. Malone, T. C., W. R. Boynton, T. Horton, andJ. C. Stevenson. 1993. Nutrient loading to surface waters: Chesapeake Bay case study, p. 8–38.In M. F. Uman (ed.), Keeping Pace with Science and Engineering. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  21. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Maryland Tributary Water Quality Monitoring Program. Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division. Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  22. Maryland Office of Planning. 2001. Patuxent Watershed Land Use Data. Maryland Department of Planning. Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  23. Nash, C. B. 1947. Environmental characteristics of a river estuary.Journal of Marine Research 6:147–174.Google Scholar
  24. Newcombe, C. L. andH. F. Brust. 1940. Variations in the phosphorus content of estuarine waters of the Chesapeake Bay near Solomons.Journal of Marine Research 3:76–88.Google Scholar
  25. Powers, A. E. 1986. Overview: Law: Protecting the Chesapeake Bay: Maryland's Critical Area Program.Environment 28:5.Google Scholar
  26. Riedel, G. F., G. R. Abbe, andJ. G. Sanders. 1995. Silver and copper accumulation in two estuarine bivalves, the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the hooked mussel (Ishadium recurvum) in the Patuxent River estuary.Estuaries 18: 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roosenburg, W. H. 1969. Greening and copper accumulation in the American oyster,Crassostrea virginica in the vicinity of a stream electric generating system.Chesapeake Science 10:241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryther, J. H. andW. M. Dunstan. 1972. Nitrogen, phosphorus and eutrophication in the coastal marine environment.Science 171:1008–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanders, J. G., S. J. Cibik, C. F. D'Elia, andW. R. Boynton. 1987. Nutrient enrichment studies in a coastal plain estuary: Changes in phytoplankton species composition.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stankelis, R. M., M. D. Naylor, andW. R. Boynton. 2003. Submerged aquatic vegetation in the mesohaline region of the Patuxent estuary: Past, present, and future status.Estuaries 26:186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Chesapeake Bay Program. Scientific and technical advisory committee. Nutrient control in the Chesapeake Bay. Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  32. Voinov, A. 2001. Patuxent watershed land use data. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  33. Wiedeman, A. andA. Cosgrove. 1998. Chesapeake Bay water-shed model application and calculations of nutrient and sediment loading. Appendix F: Point source loadings. USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  34. Year 2020 Panel Report. 1988. Population growth and development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the year 2020. A Report to the Chesapeake Executive Council. Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar

Source of Unpublished Materials

  1. Hagy, J. personal communication. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher F. D'Elia
    • 1
  • Walter R. Boynton
    • 2
  • James G. Sanders
    • 3
  1. 1.University at Albany, Department of Biological SciencesState University of New YorkAlbany
  2. 2.Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceSolomons
  3. 3.Skidaway Institute of OceanographySavannah

Personalised recommendations