Environmental Management

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 613–619 | Cite as

Resource protection for waterbirds in Chesapeake bay

  • R. Michael Erwin
  • G. Michael Haramis
  • David G. Krementz
  • Steven L. Funderburk
Profile

Abstract

Many living resources in the Chesapeake Bay estuary have deteriorated over the past 50 years. As a result, many governmental committees, task forces, and management plans have been established. Most of the recommendations for implementing a bay cleanup focus on reducing sediments and nutrient flow into the watershed. We emphasize that habitat requirements other than water quality are necessary for the recovery of much of the bay's avian wildlife, and we use a waterbird example as illustration. Some of these needs are: (1) protection of fast-eroding islands, or creation of new ones by dredge deposition to improve nesting habitat for American black ducks(Anas rubripes), great blue herons(Ardea herodias), and other associated wading birds; (2) conservation of remaining brackish marshes, especially near riparian areas, for feeding black ducks, wading birds, and wood ducks(Aix sponsa); (3) establishment of sanctuaries in open-water, littoral zones to protect feeding and/or roosting areas for diving ducks such as canvasbacks(Aythya valisineria) and redheads(Aythya americana), and for bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus); and (4) limitation of disturbance by boaters around nesting islands and open-water feeding areas. Land (or water) protection measures for waterbirds need to include units at several different spatial scales, ranging from “points” (e.g., a colony site) to large-area resources (e.g., a marsh or tributary for feeding). Planning to conserve large areas of both land and water can be achieved following a biosphere reserve model. Existing interagency committees in the Chesapeake Bay Program could be more effective in developing such a model for wildlife and fisheries resources.

Key words

Chesapeake Bay Habitat requirements Scaling Waterbirds 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anon. 1988. Population growth and development in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to the year 2020. Report of the year 2020 panel to the Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  2. Chesapeake Bay Executive Council. 1985. Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection plan. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  3. Chesapeake Bay Executive Council. 1988. Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, J. R. 1991. Management of coastal barrier biosphere reserves.BioScience 41:331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeMoss, T. B., D. A. Flemer, C. J. Strobel, and D. Wilding. 1981. Trends in water quality for Chesapeake Bay relative to improved management.Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 46:230–249.Google Scholar
  6. Ehrlich, P., and A. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Erwin, R. M. 1979. Coastal waterbird colonies: Cape Elizabeth, Maine to Virginia. US Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/10.Google Scholar
  8. Erwin, R. M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting colonies: Experimental results and management guidelines.Colonial Waterbirds 12:104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erwin, R. M., and J. A. Spendelow. 1991. Colonial wading birds: Herons and egrets. Pages 19.1–19.14in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser, J. D., G. D. Therres, D. A. Buehler, and J. K. D. Seegar. 1991. Bald eagle. Pages 21.1–21.9in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  11. Funderburk, S., S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.). 1991. Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  12. Gates, J. E., D. Brinker, and J. McKearnan. in press. Maryland Waterbird Study. Project FW-8-P: Final Report. Maryland Forests, Parks, and Wildlife, Wye Mills, Maryland (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Gosselink, J., G. Shaffer, L. Lee, D. Burdick, D. Childers, N. Liebowitz, S. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J. Visser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed.BioScience 40:533–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haramis, G. M. 1991a. Wood duck. Pages 15.1–15.11in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  15. Haramis, G. M. 1991b. Canvasback. Pages 17.1–17.10in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  16. Haramis, G. M. 1991c. Redhead. Pages 18.1–18.10in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  17. Heinz, G., and S. Weimeyer. 1991. Effects of contaminants on birds. Pages 23.1–23.9in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  18. Kearney, M., and J. C. Stevenson. 1991. Island land loss and marsh vertical accretion rate: Evidence for historical sealevel changes in Chesapeake Bay.Journal of Coastal Research 7:403–416.Google Scholar
  19. Kerwin, J., R. Munro, and W. Peterson. 1976. Distribution and abundance of aquatic vegetation in the upper Chesapeake Bay, 1971–1974. Pages 393–400in J. Davis (ed.), The effects of tropical storm Agnes on the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. CRC Pub. No. 54, 639 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Krementz, D. G. 1991. American black duck. Pages 16.1–16.7in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  21. Krementz, D. G., V. D. Stotts, D. B. Stotts, J. E. Hines, and S. L. Funderburk. 1991. Historical changes in laying date, clutch size, and nest success of American black ducks.Journal of Wildlife Management 55:462–466.Google Scholar
  22. Master, L. 1991. Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation.Conservation Biology 5:559–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Myers, J. P. 1986. Sex and gluttony on Delaware Bay.Natural History 95:69–76.Google Scholar
  24. Officer, C. B., R. B. Biggs, J. L. Taft, L. E. Cronin, M. A. Tyler, and W. R. Boynton. 1984. Chesapeake Bay anoxia: Origin, development, and significance.Science 223:22–27.Google Scholar
  25. Ohlendorf, H. M. 1981. The Chesapeake Bay's birds and organochlorine pollutants.Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 46:259–270.Google Scholar
  26. Orth, R. J. and K. A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 223:51–52.Google Scholar
  27. Reese, J. 1991. Osprey. Pages 20.1–20.11in S. Funderburk, S. Jordan, J. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.), Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, 2nd ed., revised. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  28. Schubel, J. R. 1986. The life and death of the Chesapeake Bay. University of Maryland Sea Grant Publication, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  29. Short, H. and R. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: Great blue heron. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 82(10.99), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  30. Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1987. Mid-Atlantic wetlands: A disappearing natural treasure. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88.Google Scholar
  31. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1982. Chesapeake Bay Program technical studies: A synthesis. Washington, DC, 635 pp.Google Scholar
  32. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1983a. Chesapeake Bay: A framework for action. Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 186 pp.Google Scholar
  33. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1983b. Chesapeake Bay Program: Findings and recommendations. Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 48 pp.Google Scholar
  34. US FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Vision for the future. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 12 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Michael Erwin
    • 1
  • G. Michael Haramis
    • 1
  • David G. Krementz
    • 1
  • Steven L. Funderburk
    • 2
  1. 1.US Fish and Wildlife ServicePatuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA
  2. 2.US Fish and Wildlife ServiceChesapeake Bay Estuary ProgramAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations