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 #3: Sound Land Use Goal #4: Stewardship and Community Engagement

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)

Monitoring Program and Positive Indications

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