Chesapeake Bay Program Presented by: Elizabeth Mills, Heather Plumridge, Elizabeth Repko...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
2
Transcript of Chesapeake Bay Program Presented by: Elizabeth Mills, Heather Plumridge, Elizabeth Repko...
Chesapeake Bay Program
Presented by: Elizabeth Mills, Heather Plumridge, Elizabeth Repko
Possibilities, Problems, and Promise
Introduction to the Bay
• Largest and most productive estuary in the U.S.
• Provides ideal habitat for plant and animal species
• Economic, recreational, and scenic benefits
Threat #1: Excess Nutrients
• Main culprits: phosphorus and nitrogen
• Cause algal blooms and decrease in submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
Threat #2: Excess Sedimentation
• Major cause: soil erosion due to loss of wetlands and forests
• This reduces water clarity and health of bay grass beds and oyster reefs
Threat #3: Toxic Chemicals
• Point sources: industries and waste water treatment plants
• NPS: urban run off, pesticides, and air pollution
Threat #4: Habitat Loss
• Decline of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs)
• Loss of habitat, such as forest and wetlands
Threat #5: Overharvesting
• Decline in the blue crab population, an important commercial fishery
• Decline in native oyster populations which filter water contaminants.
Threat #6: Invasive Species
• Major culprits: nutria, mute swans, and rapa whelks
• Displace native species and degrade the ecosystem
The Chesapeake Bay Program
• Late 1970s: First estuary targeted by federal lawmakers for restoration and protection
• Chesapeake Bay Program officially started in 1983, targets living resource protection
Executive Council Structure
• Voluntary program, supported by federal and state funding
• Strict consensus model: 100% buy-in or no programs
• Goals for Bay set in agreements: 1983, 1987, 2000
Year 2000 Goals
• Goal #1: Living Resource Protection and Restoration
• Goal #2: Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
Year 2000 Goals
• Goal #5: Water Quality Protection and Restoration– Achieve the 40%
nutrient reduction goal agreed to in 1987
– Establish “no discharge zones” in the bay
Evaluation of CBP
• Integrated ecosystem approach
• Main problems
• Humans embedded in Chesapeake Bay
Extensive Data Collection and Adaptation
• Data collection by academic institutional partners
• Adaptation to scientific findings (ex. University of Maryland study)
Challenges: Ecosystem Boundaries
• Political boundaries rather than ecological
• Management plan and finances determined by states
Challenges: Interagency Cooperation
• Different organizational structures and cultures
• Conflicting objectives at times
• Lowest common denominator
Opportunities: Human Reliance on the Bay
• 15.1 million people live, work, and play in the Bay
• Highly valued human resource
• Widespread acceptance of the Program by public and political entities
Conclusion: Future of the Bay
• Rising population density poses a major future threat
• CBP adapts to meet new challenges• Major challenges include: organizational
constraints, funding limitations, reliance on political rather than ecological boundaries
• Major opportunities include: organizational history and stakeholder commitment