The fishing in the Bay hasn't been all that great this year, once the spring run
slowed. This article helps explain what's happening.

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...=1031785431596

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

PocoLoco wrote:
The fishing in the Bay hasn't been all that great this year, once the spring run
slowed. This article helps explain what's happening.

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...=1031785431596

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

We have a similar situation up here with Hood Canal.

Doesn't flush well, lot of runoff from septic tanks, etc.

Not enough oxygen dissolved in the water to sustain sea life.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:13:42 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:09:33 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:45:34 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:
We have a well-run nuke plant in the mid-bay area. There's talk of
building another reactor on the site. I'm not opposed to that. I wonder
if some sort of huge 24-7 oxy generating plant and pump could be
developed and powered by the waste heat in the coolant water pipes. I
appreciate your comment about scale, but I wonder if something large and
dramatic might not help even a little.

Bottom line is that hot water will not hold enough oxygen... IOW you
could put all the bubblers in that you want, but the warmer water
won't hold enough oxygen.... additionally, really warm water. Locally,
we have a lake that is used by a coal fed power plant and the water
close to the to the generating facility was 91 degrees last Thursday.

At the coast we have a nuclear plant that releases the hot water some
distance from shore... thus mitigating some of the detrimental
environmental issues.

Now.... if somebody could explain to me why the nuclear cost keeps
pace with the fossil fuel cost..... I'd know something!

Well, there must be some sort of relief available from our wonderful
technology.

You could reduce oxygen depletion by one simple act - ban the use of
lawn fertilizer within 10 miles of the coast line.

Really. URI did a study about five years ago which attracted some
attention at the time because the research seemed to indicate that the
simple act of fertilizing lawns in proximity to bodies of water caused
almost 40% of the oxygen depletion near shore.

The problem is more from the rivers feeding the bay. Banning fertilizer along
all those creeks and rivers sounds good, but it isn't going to happen.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John,Much of the research I do concentrates on impacts of the Cheapseake Bay, my research project is located off the Rappahannock river. The problem within the bay environment is that is suffers from a host of Contributions to its detriment, mainly the causitive factor for the "Dead Zone" is the contibution of oxygen depletion due to nutrient loading. Of this the Pennsylvania rivers are a significant contributor to the north and to the South the single largest contribuotr is the Wastewater Treatment Plant in Richmond which each day discharges more effluent into the system than any of the other rivers in the state of Virginia.
The dead zone as it is called is approximately 70 miles long and 10 miles wide fromsource information I have seen. The lack of sustainable habitat and the constant state of change of the bay whether manmade or man contributed is outrageous.
Development along the rivers and farming as well as industry, water treatment and then the contributions of pollution fromships and boats is something that staggers the imagination.
Approximately 100 years ago the Bay could clean it self enough to rival the clear waters of Florida.Over harvesting of shellfish and lack of respect for the systm itself have led many to believe that the Bay could be a dead entitiy in as little as 35 years . Plans to clean the bay have to be mulit approach oriented programs dealing with restoration of wetlands, restoration of shellfish habitat, conservation of fishing resources, more of an environmental appraoch to development to lessen the vast depositions of solids and soils which now basin fill many areas of the bay due to runoff contributions. Simple things like a 15 foot green zone around farms that plow close to shorelines, Maintainence of shoreline formation by the insitution of boaters being more aware of the the wakes they create near shorelines, in areas where high banks exists and along wetlands and coastal zones. A conscience effort and public support for research to restore wetlands and to maintain them, enforcement of existing environmental law in cities and along our waterways would hepl the bay beyond belief.
LeeChamberlain

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:22:51 +0100, LeeChamberlain
wrote:


John,Much of the research I do concentrates on impacts of the Cheapseake
Bay, my research project is located off the Rappahannock river. The
problem within the bay environment is that is suffers from a host of
Contributions to its detriment, mainly the causitive factor for the
"Dead Zone" is the contibution of oxygen depletion due to nutrient
loading. Of this the Pennsylvania rivers are a significant contributor
to the north and to the South the single largest contribuotr is the
Wastewater Treatment Plant in Richmond which each day discharges more
effluent into the system than any of the other rivers in the state of
Virginia.
The dead zone as it is called is approximately 70 miles long and 10
miles wide fromsource information I have seen. The lack of sustainable
habitat and the constant state of change of the bay whether manmade or
man contributed is outrageous.
Development along the rivers and farming as well as industry, water
treatment and then the contributions of pollution fromships and boats
is something that staggers the imagination.
Approximately 100 years ago the Bay could clean it self enough to rival
the clear waters of Florida.Over harvesting of shellfish and lack of
respect for the systm itself have led many to believe that the Bay
could be a dead entitiy in as little as 35 years . Plans to clean the
bay have to be mulit approach oriented programs dealing with
restoration of wetlands, restoration of shellfish habitat, conservation
of fishing resources, more of an environmental appraoch to development
to lessen the vast depositions of solids and soils which now basin fill
many areas of the bay due to runoff contributions. Simple things like a
15 foot green zone around farms that plow close to shorelines,
Maintainence of shoreline formation by the insitution of boaters being
more aware of the the wakes they create near shorelines, in areas where
high banks exists and along wetlands and coastal zones. A conscience
effort and public support for research to restore wetlands and to
maintain them, enforcement of existing environmental law in cities and
along our waterways would hepl the bay beyond belief.
LeeChamberlain

Thanks Lee. I try to stay active in the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, but have
heard pros and cons about the organization. Any advice, other than sending
letters?


--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan