Sabrina Klick, Stephanie Siemek, Wenfei Ni

The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) was established in 1983 and started the partnership between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia (NRC 2011). The partnership expanded in 2002 with the addition of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia under the Memorandum of Understanding. The partnership’s initial goal was to reduce nutrient pollution into the Chesapeake Bay by 40% by 2000. The deadline was moved to 2010 when the goal was missed, and then set to 2025 when the deadline was again not reached (Fincham and Strain 2012). With so many states working together, what was keeping CBP from reaching their goal? As pollution was cut back due to multiple efforts, e.g. enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA), upgrades of sewage plants and stormwater systems, and improved farming practices, it was found that additional cutbacks were needed.

In 2009, the executive order was given to restore the Chesapeake Bay after the release of the 2008 initiatives to increase accountability and transparency of the CBP (NRC 2001). After the deadline to reduce nutrient pollution by 40% was missed for the second time in 2010, two things happened to make the 2025 goal more realistic. First was the establishment of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) by the EPA, which determined maximum loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment needed to obtain the water quality standards of the Bay by 2025 (NRC 2011). Second, the two-milestone strategy was implemented to focus on increments that could be met by each Bay jurisdiction to meet the new 2025 deadline (Figure 1).

However, the two-year milestone strategy did not identify specific strategies for the Bay jurisdictions to reach the necessary pollution reduction goals. It has been described as a “ladder without rungs” (NRC 2011). Given the history of missed deadlines and unclear strategies regarding restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, it makes one wonder about the water quality status and what has been done differently to reach the 2025 goal.

In the Chesapeake Quarterly of 2012, Michael Fincham suggested that our new slogan should be “we are half way home” because of the previous efforts that have reduced nutrient pollution to slightly over 20%. Also, the seagrasses in the Susquehanna Flats have re-emerged over time (Figure 2) from needed light conditions, absence of storm events, and other ideal plant growth conditions between 1997 and 2002 (Gurbisz and Kemp 2014). The seagrass beds have become more resilient which was seen after Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. A variable correlated to seagrass growth has been river flow where low growth has occurred during periods of wet and high river flow conditions and high growth has occurred during periods of dry and low river flow conditions (Fincham and Strain 2012; Gurbisz and Kemp 2014). The 2013-2014 Bay Barometer has also mentioned the improvement in water quality, increase in seagrasses, rises in abundance of spawning shad and juvenile striped bass, rehabilitated tidal marshes, and the building of six oyster reefs for restoration (Chesapeake Bay Program 2015).

The philosophy and approach of the CBP is adaptive management. The National Research Council (NRC) explains that effective adaptive management comprises of “deliberate management experiments, a carefully planned monitoring program, assessment of the results, and a process by which management decisions are modified based on new knowledge” (2011). The CBP has prided itself on models and monitoring, but needs improvement in monitoring uniformity, integration, and effective communication of science. Monitoring could become more uniform if all monitoring groups from Maryland, Virginia, and the Bay jurisdictions made sure to consistently measure all of the same water quality parameters with similar techniques. The data could then be submitted onto a single database accessible to the public, management, and scientists. This would improve the data quality for modeling and management decisions.

Citizen science has shown to be successful by the Chester Tester Program which can act as a model program to build citizen science programs in other river systems to improve monitoring efforts. The Chester Tester’s yearly data on their monitored sites is found on their website. There has also been success in health report and watershed report cards in the Chesapeake Bay and other watershed systems. The Chesapeake Bay Program website provides links to river health report cards for various rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed for people to track progress. A set of uniform report card criteria could be given to the other Bay jurisdictions to follow when reporting progress towards the 2025 nutrient pollution reduction goals so there is consistency and uniformity across all states. As monitoring programs continue to be improved, models can also be improved with the higher quality and consistent data. These models could then be used to form better predictions for adaptive management strategies. The models must be followed up with testing and monitoring to continue the improvement of the model predictions.

To further improve science and management in the Chesapeake Bay, there needs to be more synthesis of science communication where scientists collaborate and produce the necessary information that management and policy makers can use to make informed, quality decisions. When scientists collaborate to inform management and policy makers on issues, the focus should shift from “what we do not know” to “what we do know” and how to build upon “what we know.” Examples of effective science communication and synthesis have been demonstrated by the Bay Barometer 2013-2014 and The Cambridge Census (1997). Policy makers and management cannot make good decisions on policies and regulations solely based on uncertainties of “what we do not know.” A scientist’s research and role in society is not complete without effective, published communication. Journalists and scientists must work together so that the science is reported correctly. Also, scientists should try not to overreach their findings and take into account how their writing will be interpreted after publication.

References:

• Chesapeake Bay Program. 2015. Bay Barometer 2013-2014: Health and restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. [pdf]
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “How does it Work? Ensuring Results in the Bay.”
• Fincham, M.W., and D. Strain, 2012. "Is the bay recovery looking up?" Chesapeake Quarterly 11(4): 1-16.
• Gurbisz, C., and W. M. Kemp, W. M. 2014. Unexpected resurgence of a large submersed plant bed in Chesapeake Bay: Analysis of time series data. Limnology and Oceanography 59(2): 482-494.
• Kemp, W. M., W. R. Boynton, J. E. Adolf, D. F. Boesch, W. C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J. C. Cornwell et al. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303(21): 1-29. [pdf]
• National Research Council (US). 2011. Committee on the Evaluation of Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation for Nutrient Reduction to Improve Water Quality. Achieving nutrient and sediment reduction goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An evaluation of program strategies and implementation. National Academies Press.
• University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. 1997. The Cambridge Consensus: Forum on Land-Based Pollution and Toxic Dinoflagellates in Chesapeake Bay. Cambridge, Maryland.