Transcript Chesapeake Bay Program - University of Michigan School of

Chesapeake Bay Program
Possibilities, Problems, and Promise
Presented by: Elizabeth Mills, Heather
Plumridge, Elizabeth Repko
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