Chesapeake Bay Action Plan
After decades of effort, the voluntary, collaborative approach to restoring the health and vitality of the Chesapeake Bay— the largest estuary in the United States—has not worked and, in fact, is failing.
A diverse group of 57 senior scientists and policymakers have joined forces to save the Bay. This is our plan.
New Leadership for Chesapeake Bay Action Plan
We are pleased to announce today the formation of the executive council of the Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers, almost one year to the day after launch of the Chesapeake Bay Action Plan website.
Composed of leading scientists and policymakers, members of the executive council are all long-time champions of the Chesapeake Bay, and they will lend their substantial talents and expertise to help our group shape important policy decisions. They will also provide direction to help the Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers strategically focus our collective efforts, and harness the power of the many organizations supporting this work, so we can be most effective.
Protecting the “Most Important Fish in the Sea”
(Posted by Gerald Winegrad.)
Conservationists have been working for seven years to gain conservation measures for menhaden. This species plays an important role in the Chesapeake Bay’s ecosystem as a filter feeder, as a critical prey species for other fish and for piscivorous (fish-eating) birds. That’s why this keystone species has been called the most important fish in the sea.
After the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010 stock assessment found that menhaden are at their lowest point on record, the group is on the brink of adopting historic coast-wide conservation measures for this over-fished species. Yesterday, a group of 30 Chesapeake Bay leaders sent this letter to ASMFC urging restrictions on fishing this critical species.
Nutrient Trading—Promise or Pitfall?
(Posted by Dawn Stoltzfus.)
With the watershed states (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, W. Virginia and Delaware) and D.C. working to significantly reduce pollution to meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, nutrient trading is a hot topic. Some see trading as a way to reduce the challenging costs of Chesapeake Bay cleanup, and it looks good on paper—but there are serious scientific concerns about its practicality and water quality benefits, particularly with trades between nonpoint sources (like agriculture and stormwater runoff) and point sources (like wastewater treatment plants). Difficulty in accurately measuring trading’s effectiveness also seems like a big obstacle.
Builders: Do No Harm
(Posted by Howard Ernst)
Before Henry David Thoreau borrowed an axe and withdrew to the woods at Walden Pond, he spent a great deal of time daydreaming of owning a proper farm. He writes that “at a certain season of our life we are accustomed to consider every spot as the possible site of a house.” Toward this end, he had “surveyed the country on every side within a dozen miles of where I live. In imagination I have bought all the farms in succession.” He imaged how he would transform the land “into orchard, wood-lot, and pasture” and decided “what fine oaks or pines should be left to stand before the door.”
It seems that no one, not even the sage of Walden Pond, can escape from the pull of home ownership. In many ways it is the American Dream—white picket fence, grassy lawn, dog rolling in autumn leaves, every home a castle and every homeowner the king or queen of their castle. Entire television programs—no entire television networks—are based on the premise of buying, building or rebuilding the perfecting home (e.g., “House Hunters,” “Property Virgins,” “Curb Appeal,” and my favorite, “Flipping Out”—who can resist Zoila?).
Mitigation Madness
(Posted by Fred Tutman.)
The legend of Robin Hood is about a fabled band of brave outlaws in medieval England who took money from the rich under a repressive monarchy and redistributed it to the poor. Sounds like a good thing right? Take something from somebody who has too much and give it instead to somebody who has not enough. What could be wrong with that? Fast forward into reality on the Chesapeake Bay, the 21st century and the lopsided world of “net environmental impacts” where we can take a perfectly good and functioning wetlands site, turn it into a parking lot and then make up for it by restoring a wetlands half way across the state.
Sprawl Poisons the Bay
(Posted by Gerald Winegrad).
The recent deluges leading to massive stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay may cause great damage to an already seriously impaired system. We previously have discussed in this spot the huge flows of Bay-choking nutrients and sediment from farms each time it rains. Now, we will devote discussions to the pollution flowing from developed lands including huge amounts of nutrients, sediment, and toxic chemicals.
The Chesapeake’s watershed before 1607 was 95 percent forested with huge acreage of intact wetlands. These forests and wetlands absorbed and held nutrients and sediment. The flow of these Bay-killing pollutants was greatly accelerated due to enormous changes in land use when we converted forests and wetlands to agriculture and then, more recently, to development. The Bay region has since lost about 50 percent of its forest cover and 72 percent of its wetlands. No change has been more devastating for the Bay.
Big Chicken Vs. Clean Bay
(Posted by Roy Hoagland.)
The Pew Environmental Group recently issued a report, “Big Chicken: Pollution and Industrial Production in America,” which included a focus on the pollution problems contributed by agriculture to the Chesapeake Bay. Agribusiness interests quickly condemned the report, claiming that as of today, the industry was both “diligent and innovative” in its work to achieve a healthier environment.
Using Development to Drive Bay Recovery
(Posted by Erik Michelsen.)
According to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s estimates, pollution from urban and suburban stormwater runoff is the only sector where nutrient loads are currently growing in the Bay watershed. On much of the western shore of the Chesapeake, including the Baltimore-Washington metro counties, agriculture is an increasingly rare land use, shifting daily to the eastern shore or Midwest. And in Maryland, the Bay Restoration Fund (aka “Flush Tax”) is being used to upgrade wastewater treatment plants to the best available technology. Yet, these areas consistently suffer from some of the worst water quality in the Chesapeake region (see EcoCheck Chesapeake Bay Report Cards).
We are senior Chesapeake Bay scientists and policymakers from Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania who have concluded that after decades of effort, the voluntary, collaborative approach to restoring the health and vitality of the largest estuary in the United States has not worked and, in fact, is failing. Our group unanimously recommends that all states draining into the Chesapeake Bay adopt our 25 action items in their Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) and implement them to improve the Bay’s water quality and to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Sign up for news & updates from Patuxent Riverkeeper