Chesapeake Bay Action Plan

(Posted by Bill Dennison)

Nutrient trading is the buying and selling of nutrient reduction credits that have a monetary value for the reduction of either nitrogen or phosphorus loading to the waterways. The concept of nutrient trading is to unleash free market forces for nutrient reduction strategies, similar to the approach used with carbon trading to address global warming.

Nutrient trading is a relatively new concept in ecosystem restoration that has been initiated for the Chesapeake Bay. Using the new Google analysis tool (‘ngrams’), nutrient trading only appears in the literature around 1990, but has increased rapidly, with a doubling of citations roughly every three years. There is excitement about nutrient trading as a new approach, and this excitement is evident in the various policy statements explaining nutrient trading. Along with this excitement, there is considerable skepticism also evident, and the issue is often emotive.

The Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers group has reviewed the status of nutrient trading as applied to Chesapeake Bay restoration. We found that there are a variety of different definitions for nutrient trading being used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies, and that there is a lack of data and case studies to support or refute assertions about nutrient trading. The fact that nutrient trading is complicated, emotive and data poor makes this approach one that deserves close scrutiny and scientific rigor. Within the Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers group, our nutrient trading report is a carefully crafted consensus between fairly intense and polarized viewpoints and it took quite a bit of effort to strike this balance.

The nutrient trading report by the Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers answers the question “Is nutrient trading a good thing for Chesapeake Bay?” with a qualified “Yes it could be, but there are major concerns,”  listing ten caveats and recommendations for implementing nutrient trading.  A strong case is made for exercising caution in developing a nutrient trading program, recognizing that a nutrient trading system on this scale is unprecedented.

The ten caveats and recommendations for nutrient trading articulated in the report are the following:

1. Nutrient trading is a relatively new and untested technique for pollutant reductions in waterbodies that makes assumptions regarding short- and long-term effects.
2. All efforts should be made to improve and then preserve local water quality.
3. Independent, rigorous, and transparent verification is essential.
4. A policy of net improvement credit is needed to account for uncertainties in non-point sources reductions and runoff variability.
5. Nutrient trading should not be used to maintain discharges at technology levels below industry standards.
6. Nutrient trading may create environmental justice issues by moving problems to disadvantaged areas.
7. Trading could benefit large organizations and corporations without protecting the interests of local waterways and grassroots entities.
8. The total impacts of nutrient trades need to be measured and adequate compensation provided.
9. Credited practices and the models used to calculate the amounts of credits awarded need to be standardized.
10. Growth allocations should be based on demonstrated pollution reductions in other sectors, not on speculative, proposed reductions in those sectors.

It is evident from these ten caveats/recommendations that there are many ways to do nutrient trading badly, and fewer ways to get it right. We feel that there is only one shot at getting it right and developing market integrity is key. The scientifically rigorous verification by independent entities will be essential for the ongoing integrity of a nutrient trading program.

We have produced this nutrient trading report to encourage an active, robust discussion about the issue. We welcome your comments and viewpoints and would very much like to hear what you have to say about nutrient trading.

Share on Facebook

(This is the first in a series of posts on What’s It Going to Take?: A look at how the environmental community can regain the initiative and build the political will necessary to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.)

(Posted by Bill Dennison)

Our New Year’s resolution for 2012 should be to improve our public dialogue about Chesapeake Bay restoration. Instead of public arguments, recriminations, and debates about the watershed models, we should be talking about innovative approaches to reducing nutrients reaching the Bay. Instead of arguing about how restoring Chesapeake will be too expensive, we should be embracing the new jobs that restoration activities create (see the Chesapeake Bay Foundation report “Debunking the ‘Job Killer’ Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region”). Instead of bemoaning the difference between current conditions and the “good old days,” we should be celebrating the achievements that are being made with respect to realistic, short term targets.

So what are some ways we can improve our dialogue?

First, we should begin every discussion about Chesapeake restoration reaffirming our shared vision of having a healthy Bay supporting healthy communities. We need to remind ourselves that farmers do not want to over-fertilize their fields, people using septic systems do not want to pollute the Bay any more than people connected to sewage treatment facilities and no one wants to be an environmental vandal. People living in the Chesapeake watershed generally have good intentions.

Second, we should emphasize what can “I” or “we” do to improve Chesapeake Bay, rather than what “you” should do. No one wants to be told what to do, and having someone prescribing your actions, rather than allowing for innovative solutions, can backfire.

Third, we need to celebrate our achievements, even small ones, while tracking our progress toward the overall goals. This celebration of achievements should embrace new approaches to Chesapeake restoration, thus providing positive reinforcement for the right kinds of behavior and developing a collective learning about what does and does not work.

Finally, there needs to be a safe forum for vigorous debate about contentious issues. But following the debate, we need to establish what we agree on, and what we don’t agree on. The agreed items are ready for a consensus policy position, and the items that remain contentious can be designated for further research or testing.

What are some topics that we should be talking about? There are several examples that epitomize fresh new approaches to Chesapeake restoration and we should be talking about these approaches. One of these examples is the growing army of citizen scientists that the Riverkeeper/Waterkeeper groups have trained and empowered. These citizen scientists are collecting important, relevant data at scales that count, and then analyzing and communicating their data. Another example is the Healthy Harbors initiative for Baltimore Harbor, a coalition being led by people in the private sector, supported by city, county and state governments. Having business leaders embrace bold, ambitious goals like obtaining a “swimmable” and “fishable” Baltimore Harbor by 2020 is a breath of fresh air. Innovative approaches like floating wetlands, water wheels for trash removal are being tested. Another example is using events like film festivals (e.g., Chesapeake Film Festival), wade-ins and musical concerts in which environmental issues are presented in a fun and entertaining way, to expand the interested, informed and empowered citizenry regarding Chesapeake issues.

In conclusion, we have much to talk about regarding Chesapeake restoration, and this dialog should ongoing, robust, and constructive. Let’s make changing our dialog to be positive and forward thinking our New Year’s resolution for 2012.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Bill Dennison.)

In a recent scientific publication by Rebecca Murphy and Bill Ball from Johns Hopkins University and Michael Kemp at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, an analysis of 40 years of Chesapeake Bay data reveals some important new insights.

What Rebecca and her colleagues did was quite clever. Instead of simply looking at the annual “dead zone”– regions within Chesapeake Bay with very low dissolved oxygen levels (<0.2 mg/L)– they separated the low oxygen events into spring/early summer events vs. late summer/autumn events. Various different environmental factors influencing these low oxygen events were explored.

They found that the spring/early summer “dead zones” were largely due to increased stratification: warmer, fresher water floating in top of cooler, saltier water. This has led to earlier, more pronounced “dead zone” formation. Regional climatic factors were invoked to explain this trend, and it is just a bit of more bad news for Chesapeake Bay.

But what is really exciting about their analysis is what is happening in the late summer/autumn “dead zones.” Their analysis indicates a reduction in the “dead zones” which, by process of elimination, they have related to nutrient reductions that have been documented entering Chesapeake Bay at the river monitoring sites.

This is a very encouraging finding, as it is the first time that we can point to management actions having a positive impact on reducing the Chesapeake Bay “dead zone.”  In a similar vein, the resurgence of aquatic grasses in some of the freshwater reaches of the Bay were related to nutrient reductions in a paper by scientists at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, United States Geological Survey and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. This trend was not evident when lumping all of the Bay grasses into one group, just as lumping all of the dissolved oxygen data into annual increments would have hidden the story of nutrient reductions leading to reduced late summer “dead zones.”

There are three features of the dissolved oxygen and aquatic grass stories that are worthy of mention.

• These stories rely on good, long-term monitoring data carefully collected and analyzed. We need to continue to monitor the Bay to track the progress of Chesapeake Bay restoration.
• The in-depth analyses that synthesize large, complex data sets require teams of talented researchers using sophisticated analytical techniques. The monitoring data, without this analysis, was not enough. Thus, ongoing monitoring needs to be accompanying with ongoing research.
• The connection between what we are accomplishing in terms of management implementation and the health of Chesapeake Bay is difficult, but not impossible, to discern. We need to continue to look for more of these stories in the data that we have at hand. In summary, we need continued monitoring and research and we need to apply this to Chesapeake Bay restoration.

This past summer was a fairly awful one for Chesapeake Bay water quality, largely due to weather extremes. The advantage of analyzing long term data sets is that year-to-year variability can be factored out of the equation. So as we sort through the combined impacts of high spring rains, and Hurricanes Irene and Lee, it is really nice to have this news that Rebecca Murphy and colleagues have given us.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Bill Dennison.)

This year’s Chesapeake Bay report card, produced by EcoCheck, a partnership between NOAA and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, was released last week. The overall report card score was a C-, based on data collected throughout 2010. Unfortunately, this report card score declined from the 2009 report card which was a C, and this was the first time the score declined since 2004. Of the 15 reporting regions, only two had higher scores than last year, but nine had lower scores, leaving four with no change.

The Chesapeake Bay report card is based on three water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll levels) and three biotic parameters (aquatic grasses, benthic index of biotic integrity and phytoplankton index of biotic integrity). The data are collected and analyzed by state agencies, academic institutions and private consultants, and coordinated through the Chesapeake Bay Program. EcoCheck staff then calculate, map and analyze report card scores to produce the final report card.

Why was this year’s Chesapeake Bay report card bad news? The report card indicators are influenced by nutrient loading into the Bay, and one of the most efficient ways to increase nutrient loading is to have dry weather punctuated by high runoff, washing unused fertilizer, animal waste and other nutrient sources into the streams and rivers. In the Potomac River watershed, this is what happened last late winter and early spring.

Chesapeake Bay aquatic grass, one of the biotic indicators in the report card, had a downturn which is likely due to thermal stress in early summer. Hot, still weather created extremely high water temperatures in the shallow water where aquatic grasses reside. The heat stress led to aquatic grass declines, just as happened in the late summer of 2005.

The natural inclination when receiving a bad grade is to blame the weather. “It was too rainy,” “It was too hot,” etc., but what really causes problems are the things that we are doing on land that affect runoff when it does rain. Animal waste and unused fertilizer applied to the land is delivered to the Bay with rainfall-derived runoff. In this sense, blaming the rain is blaming the courier (I.e., shooting the messenger), rather than the real cause. Heat stressed aquatic grasses will bounce back in healthy meadows supported by good water quality, but will not do well in poor water quality.

No one likes to receive a bad report card, no matter the cause or the overall upward trend since 2003. What is important is our reaction to the bad news report card. We need to be receptive to the message that we still need to do more, that our considerable efforts are not enough to guarantee measurable improvements in the Bay health. The Chesapeake Bay report card is totally data based, and there is no subjectivity to the final grades. The data are the data. It is up to us not to say “Don’t bring me no bad news,” but rather, “We’ll do better next time.” Inspired by the need to avoid saying “Don’t bring me no bad news,” I have adapted the lyrics for a song with the same name:

Don’t Nobody Bring Me No Bad News

(Adapted from lyrics by Charlie Smalls for a song of the same name, used in the musical “The Wiz” and sung by Mabel King in the film version)

When I wake up and look at Chesapeake
Which it pleases me to do
Don’t nobody bring me no bad news
‘Cause I wake up already negative
And I’ve got too much to lose
So don’t nobody bring me no bad news

If we’re going to be reportin’
Better bone up on the grades
‘Cause don’t nobody bring me no bad news
You can be my best of friends
If you act before hope fades
But don’t nobody bring me no bad news

No bad news
No bad news
Don’t you ever bring me no bad news
‘Cause I’ll need you to act right now
That you cannot refuse
So don’t nobody bring me no bad news

When you’re lookin’ at the grades
Don’t be cryin’ the blues
‘Cause don’t nobody bring me no bad news
You can rationalize and apologize
But just start payin’ your dues
But don’t nobody bring me no bad news

Bring some restoration to the Bay
We cannot afford to lose
But don’t you ever bring me no bad news
If you’re gonna bring me something
Bring me, something I can use
But don’t you bring me no bad news

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Bill Dennison.)

The seven essential things that one needs to know to become literate about Chesapeake Bay have been described in a previous post on the Integration and Application Network blog as the following:

• Chesapeake Bay is a large, shallow and productive estuary formed by a drowned river valley.
• The extensive Chesapeake watershed is connected to the Bay by a myriad of streams and rivers.
• Chesapeake Bay is particularly vulnerable to runoff of nutrients, sediments and toxicants.
• Climate change and land use alternation are major drivers for Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
• Chesapeake Bay supports unique human cultures and livelihoods.
• American history has been shaped by Chesapeake Bay.
• Chesapeake Bay is extremely well studied and intensively managed.

Having established a Chesapeake literacy, how does this knowledge help guide management? In other words, how do we go from having an informed citizenry to having an involved citizenry? This blog post is an attempt to link Chesapeake literacy to Chesapeake action.

The first literacy principle describing Chesapeake as being large, shallow and productive means that the scale of management needs to be large in order to capture the entirety of the Bay. The shallow and productive nature of the Bay means that the natural processes need to be preserved to allow this high productivity to flourish. The key to maintaining these natural processes includes allowing fresh and salt marshes to flourish along the shoreline and aquatic grasses to flourish in shallow waters.

The second literacy principle describing the extensive Chesapeake watershed which includes coastal plain, Piedmont and Appalachian mountains means again that the scale of management needs to be large, and include the entire watershed. Furthermore, since the watershed spans fundamentally different physiographic provinces,

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The third literacy principle describing the vulnerability of Chesapeake Bay to nutrients, sediments and toxicants means that the Bay requires extra vigilance. The vulnerability is the flip side of productivity: what makes the Bay naturally productive also makes it particularly vulnerable. Some standards or thresholds may need to be more stringent in Chesapeake Bay than other locations in order to account for this vulnerability.

The fourth literacy principle identifying climate change and land use alteration as major drivers of change in Chesapeake Bay and its watershed leads to an adaptive management approach in which a “learn by doing” approach allows for mid-course adjusts to be made in relation to new threats and altered conditions that result from climate and land use changes. These factors also promote a long range and forward thinking management plan.

The fifth literacy principle concerning the unique human culture and livelihoods reminds us that the management of Chesapeake Bay should embrace the cultural diversity in and around the Bay. Solutions that allow for significant input from watermen and help provide relevant livelihoods (e.g., the role watermen play in the Oyster Recovery Partnership) should be developed and maintained.

The sixth literacy principle about the role Chesapeake Bay has played in American history leads to opportunities to link the cultural resources like battlefields and historic buildings with natural resources like habitats and living resources. The Captain John Smith water trail is a good example of the integration of cultural and natural resources. The learning opportunities provided by national and state parks should be exploited in behalf of Chesapeake restoration. In addition, the parks can be places where large scale experimentation in restoration techniques and approaches can be conducted in a public setting.

The seventh literacy principle is that the Bay is well studied and intensively managed. All the science in the world doesn’t help if we are simply documenting the decline of the Bay. Thus, the scientific understanding generated through research and monitoring needs to be synthesized and effectively communicated so that it can be used to better manage the Bay. A previous blog post discussed the type of scientific questions that need to be addressed; a) the science of monitoring and understanding trajectories, b) the science of diagnosing problems, and c) the science of ecosystem restoration.

It is not enough to have “Save the Bay” slogans everywhere, and to have everyone understanding the essential features of Chesapeake Bay. While awareness and knowledge are indeed important, it is the actions we take that will determine the future of Chesapeake Bay. We must work to insure that we continue to build our Chesapeake literacy, and couple this knowledge with Chesapeake action.

Share on Facebook