Research Recommendations for the Chesapeake Bay Program 2000 A Ten Year Focus Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Chesapeake Bay Program L_ ------- Acknowledgements Research Recommendations for the Chesapeake Bay Program was prepared by the Bay Program's Research Planning Advisory Group (RPAG). After completing this publication, RPAG was incorporated in the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). As chairman of RPAG, I wish to express my thanks to the many participants who joined in this effort and to acknowledge the authors who worked to define and articulate these research recommendations. Frank Perkins Chairman, Research Planning Advisory Group Director, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Contributing Authors: Arthur Butt Rita Colwell Chris D'Elia Mike Haire Robert Huggett Richard Jachowski Robert Lippson Maurice Lynch Joseph Mihurslcy Steve Nelson Frank Perkins Donald Rice Terry Schemm Len Shabman Virginia State Water Control Board University of Maryland, Center for Biotechnology Maryland Sea Grant College Program Maryland Department of the Environment College of William & Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration College of William & Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science University of Maryland-CEES,Chesapeake Biological Lab Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. College of William & Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science University of Maiyland-CEES, Chesapeake Biological Lab Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Lab Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University Editors: Photography: Illustration: Design and Layout: Steve Nelson and Cindy Corlett, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Mike Reber, University of Maryland-CEES, Chesapeake Biological Lab A.J. Lippson Michele Aud, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. CRC Publication Number 138 Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. P.O. Box 1280 Solomons, Maryland 20688 (301) 326-6700 ------- Introduction Research Recommendations: Information for Management Decisions The following pages contain recommendations for research to support the Chesa- peake Bay Program. As recommendations, these statements provide an overview of the scientific information necessary to make informed management decisions in the years ahead. Written by experts in their respective scientific fields, Research Recommendations was prepared under the guidance of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Commit- tee to the Chesapeake Bay Program (STAC). The research planning advisory group (RPAG) of STAC met several times in 1990 to discuss and articulate the following priorities. In this context, Research Recommendations represents the viewpoint of the Chesapeake Bay scientific and technical community and offers perspectives from those closest to the frontiers of research. Research recommendations set forth in this report do not replace the research plans outlined in earlier years. Rather, they represent a natural evolution of earlier research planning efforts based on added knowledge gained from recent scientific findings and a better understanding of the problems facing management. Links to the Bay Program Subcommittees From the outset, STAC workgroup members aimed to link research recommenda- tions to management structures of the Bay Program especially to subcommittees charged with implementing the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. We chose the present format because it correlates research needs with existing subcommittees and targets the management problems facing Bay region decision-makers. Based on these objectives, the workgroup outlined research recommendations in seven areas: Section £a££ 1. Living Resources 3 2. Toxics 7 3. Modeling 11 4. Monitoring 15 5. Nutrients 19 6. Economics 23 7. Public Health 27 Although the areas of nutrients, economics, and public health are not addressed by specific Bay Program subcommittees, they are topics of interest to several manage- ment structures. The STAC workgroup developed recommendations in these areas as a guidepost for multi-disciplinary efforts. As broad outlines, these perspectives were not crafted to provide specific wording for requests for proposals (RFPs) or to encourage unsolicited research proposals. Rather, they aim to provide a framework to allow the scientific and management communities to conduct a productive dialogue in meeting the true research needs of the Chesapeake Bay Program. 1 ------- Ten Year Focus For each of the seven areas, Research Recommendations includes a brief introduc- tion describing the rationale for that area of research, a set of specific recommenda- tions outlining broad categories of research needs, and a concise statement of relevant implications for management. Each section also provides best estimates of the time and money required to support the suggested research agenda over the next ten years. Although new findings constantly change our view of future research needs, we offer a ten-year agenda to facilitate planning and to optimize the allocation of research dollars in the coming decade. Much of the recommended research expenditure will produce valuable short-term results. For example, it is likely that we will gain information to help us build better sewage treatment processes and find ways to improve our monitoring techniques. Other basic ecological research will provide long-term benefits farther down the road. By knowing more about fundamental ecological processes, we can make a wise investment in our future living resources and improve our ability to identify, evaluate, and manage the risks to the Bay. Closing the Information Gap Whether we are working on short-term or long-term goals we must recognize how much is still unknown about the Chesapeake Bay and the processes that control the quality of our water and the status of our living resources. After the 1991 reevalua- tion 40 percent nutrient reduction goal, we likely will broaden our management programs to include other aspects of ecosystem health. It is the combination of these two factors the intersection of scientific uncertainty with timely and relevant management needs that defines our research agenda for the 1990s. EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS IN THE BAY HEALTHY SYSTEM NUTRIENTS SEDIMENTS TOXICANTS After an initial foCus on nutrients, the Bay Program of the 1990s will need better information about the effects of toxic contaminants and a clearer understanding of sediment and ecosystem processes. v ALGAL BLOOMS * HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS LOW DISSOLVED OXYGEN WATER COLUMN HABITAT Clear water Algal growth balanced Oxygen levels adequate Finfish abundant FOOD CHAIN EFFECTS POOR WATER CLARITY AQUATIC PLANT HABITAT FLOURISHES AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH INHIBITED FISH, SHELLFISH AND OTHER ORGANISMS STRESSED BOTTOM HABITAT HEALTHY 2 ------- Section 1: Living Resources Research to Restore Populations " To develop ecoysystem models we need to investigate how organisms interact with their environment and how there interac- tions affect energy sources and pathways." Introduction According to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, "the productivity, diversity, and abundance of living resources are the best ultimate measures of the Chesapeake Bay's condition." The Agreement further states that "living resources are the main focus of the restoration and protection effort." Two general types of management actions will be required to restore and protect living resources. One is improvement of habitat conditions, such as water quality and access to spawning areas. The other is control of factors that directly affect living-resource populations, including harvest and the introduction of exotic species. Research on living resources should provide the basis for managers to design and implement both types of actions. Federal, state, and university laboratories in the Bay region have focused on living- resources research and monitoring for most of this century. In general, we have collected extensive data on populations of economically important living resources and their habitat requirements. However, we know less about ecosystem functions, such as energy flow, interactions between species, and modeling of these dynamics. Similarly, we have an inadequate understanding of the population dynamics of most living resources and of the effects of various strategies to restore them. We need to focus research on restoration measures, such as genetic manipulation, mitigation practices, and aquaculture. These research needs can be grouped in four broad categories: Ecosystem processes. We need to understand how different parts of the Bay's ecosystem are interrelated and how environmental factors affect those relationships. Population dynamics. We need more information on the population dynamics of living resources. * Habitat requirements. Managers need better information to assure that water- quality criteria and habitat-management standards will have the desired effect. * Restoration strategies. Finally, we need research on restoration strategies for living resources, including both the evaluation of current methods and the development of innovative techniques. 3 ------- Specific Recommendations Improve ecosystem models of the Bay. Determine energy flow patterns and food chain relationships. In vestigate effects of external forces. Determine functional roles of wetlands and shallow-water habitats. Ecosystem processes We need a model of the major elements of the Bay system as a guide to research and a tool for understanding. If an ecosystem model is to accurately reflect the biological characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay, it must incorporate a wide spectrum of information on living resources and the influence of human activity on the ecosystem. Localized versions of ecosystem models would help guide and evaluate restoration projects in tributaries and shallow areas. To develop ecosystem models, we need fuller knowledge of energy flow dynamics in the Bay watershed. For example, microheterotrophic bacteria may play important roles in the utilization of phytoplankton and bacterial production, the transfer of matter to higher trophic levels, and the recycling of nutrients; yet these bacteria and other micro-organisms remain the least studied organisms in the Chesapeake system. We need to investigate how organisms interact with their environment and how these interactions affect energy sources and pathways. Strategic, long-term research on predator-prey relationships is essential for under- standing the trophic relationships among key species or guilds of species. We need better understanding of the effects of external forces (such as land use, climate change, and episodic events) on population dynamics and resource habitats. Benthic and wetland communities deserve special attention because of their vulnerability to changes in sea level, hurricanes, and dredging. Since tidal and nontidal wetlands are highly valued as living-resource habitats, we need quantitative research to determine the role these habitats play in the nutrient and energy flow of the system. Moreover, we need to understand how wetlands and shallow-water habitats fit into the whole ecosystem. We need to know the qualita- tive and quantitative contributions habitats make to supporting particular species of living resources. Identify factors affecting productivity and survival Determine the genetic composition of managed species. Investigate the role of benthic organisms in nutrient dynamics. 2. Population dynamics We need additional research on the population dynamics of economically or ecologically important species. We especially need to study factors affecting the productivity and survival of those populations. Research should include efforts to identify environmental factors correlated with recruitment variability. Research results would be applied to stock recruitment models and to resource management plans for such uses as predicting the results of fishery management options. A related need is the development of interrelated, multispecies population and yield models, which would be used for similar purposes. Interest in translocating or introducing genetically distinct stocks of oysters or other animals has generated concern about the genetic integrity of natural populations that may be uniquely adapted to local environmental conditions. Besides a comprehen- sive understanding of their genetic makeup, we need to determine how the viability of natural populations and their resistance to disease would be affected by intro- duced stocks. In past years, we focused much research on the population dynamics of pelagic organisms. We now need a better understanding of the relationships between benthic production and the energetics and productivity of other components of the ecosystem, especially phytoplankton and predators. 4 ------- Section 1: Living Resources Correlate habitat require- ments with water quality. 3. Habitat requirements Knowledge of habitat requirements for selected species of plants and animals in the Bay will be used in setting water-quality goals to protect living resources. We need better information to complete this task, including information on differences in habitat requirements among species and among life stages. We also need to know how living resources respond to aspects of water quality, including nutrient and sediment loading and changing hydrological conditions. Determine the habitat needs of economically and ecologically important species. Develop habitat require- ments for all Bay water- fowl We need detailed information on the ecology of living resources throughout their life cycles and throughout their ranges of distribution in the Bay, especially for species with drastically different requirements at various stages of their life cycles. Certain species of waterfowl are directly affected by wetland alterations. Others depend primarily on open-water habitats. To help guide restoration efforts, we need to evaluate the effects of habitat changes resulting from both wetland management practices and wetland loss. Determine distribution and function of benthic habitats. Benthic habitats (bare sand, mud, marshes, seagrass beds, and oyster bars) have altered as the condition of the Bay has deteriorated. Knowledge of the relationship between their distribution and function is important for their management. Relate habitat changes to population status. Determine the effects of wetlands management on living resources. 4. Restoration strategies Building on information about habitat needs, we can understand effects of habitat loss and degradation on changes in populations of selected species. Correlative studies should lead to process-oriented research on the mechanisms linking popula- tions with their deteriorating habitats. This will support specific habitat restoration programs, such as improving the reproductive success of fishes, enhancing survival of oysters exposed to MSX, and helping the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. We need studies on the function of replacement wetlands, and the effects of human actions on wetlands, such as shoreline alteration, erosion controls, dredging, and stormwater management. Moreover, we need to sponsor research on innovative mitigation measures to counteract wetland losses. Develop aquaculture methods. For the aquaculture area, we need to investigate the production potential of synthetic cultch material for oysters, determine the impact of pathogenic microbes on aquacul- ture operations, develop methods for reestablishing submerged aquatic vegetation in areas of improved water quality, and better understand the role of rebuilt stocks in maintaining water quality and health of Bay ecosystems. Evaluate stock restoration and enhancement efforts. We need to monitor the success of stock restoration efforts and evaluate the factors affecting their outcome. Future studies also should assess the impact of restoration and enhancement programs on other parts of the ecosystem, and should anticipate any unintended effects. 5 ------- Implications for Management The fundamental management goal for living resources, as stated in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, is to provide for restoration and protection of the Bay's living resources, their habitats, and their ecological relationships. Specific objectives under this goal include restoration, enhancement, and protection of (a) submerged aquatic vegetation, (b) wetlands and other systems important to water quality and habitat, (c) shellfish, and (d) waterfowl and other wildlife. Other objectives are to conserve soil resources, to maintain necessary freshwater flow regimes, and to develop Baywide stock assessment and fishery management programs. The research priorities described above focus on some of the greatest current needs for information to guide managers in meeting these living resources objectives. Management actions to restore depleted populations and improve habitat conditions require an understanding of the complex functional relationships of the Bay ecosystem. We emphasize the need for studies to investigate and model ecosystem processes because they will enable scientists and managers to identify these functional relationships, to learn how they operate, and to highlight the remaining information gaps. Each of the other priorities also has direct application to management. Present knowledge about submerged aquatic vegetation, wetlands, and other systems is not sufficient to guide decisions on their protection or restoration. Better understanding of population dynamics and habitat requirements is needed to define specific quantitative goals for the health of plant and animal populations in and around the Bay. Research on these subjects also will help in measuring progress toward meeting such goals. The studies will lay the foundation for the next stage, which is to develop and test restoration strategies for living resources. Research Funding Requirements Ecosystem Process Ecosystem models ($250K) Energy flow studies ($1,OOOK) Effects of external forces ($400K) Functional role of habitats (J5O0K) Habitat Requirements Habitat req/water quality ($250K) Benthlc habitats ($300K) Waterfowl habitats (S100K) Habitat of important species ($300K) Population Dynamics Productivity/survival dynamics ($1,OOOK) Species genetics (S300K) Benthos nutrient dynamics ($500K) Recruitment studies ($300K) Restoration Strategies Hab changes/living resources (J250K) Wetlands and living resources ($300K) Aquaculture (J100K) Stock restoration ($300K) 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Numb«rt In p»r«nth»w« ¦ budo«l lor pro|«cl 6 ------- Section 2: Toxics How Contaminated is the Bay? " ...our goal is to define the problem while concurrently working on the solution..." Introduction In recent years, thousands of anthropogenic chemicals have entered the Bay water- shed and caused a variety of ecosystem stresses. We don't know the precise identity, fate, and effects of these chemicals, nor do we fully understand their impact on living resources. As the word "toxics" implies, any of them may produce a toxic effect in an organism. In the field of toxics, research is at a unique juncture: our goal is to define the problem while concurrently working on its resolution. In this context, we're striving to identify and understand the modes of exposure and to determine the biological effects of hazardous chemicals. By definition, risk assessment is a probability-based system for determining whether an anthropogenic stressor is having, or will have an undesirable effect on the environment. In addition to predicting the likelihood of such an effect, risk assess- ment estimates the nature and severity of the effect. Adverse effects may include mortality, acute and chronic toxicity, reproductive changes, or changes in community or ecosystem function and structure.' Environmental risk assessment is based on the level of danger presented by a substance and the amount of exposure to it. Environmental fate studies usually provide the information necessary for determining exposure, while toxicological studies provide information about hazard. Therefore, risk assessment provides a framework for integrating environmental fate and effects studies. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee endorsed this view in their 1988 Toxics Research Strategy2. The conclusions of this 1988 prioritization are still valid and we reiterate them here. As valuable as a list of research priorities can be, such a list also can have draw- backs. Funding agencies may support only those listed needs and may thereby inhibit innovative thinking. Good, creative projects should always be considered. The field of toxicology is very complex. As scientists, we need to emphasize the fact that we do not fully understand the scope and extent of Chesapeake Bay toxics problems. For this reason, we stress the importance of funding toxics research that does not appear to have immediate management implications. !u.S. EPA 1986 Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001, June 1985. U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. ^Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Toxics Research Strategy. In: Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Appendices: Appendix C. U.S. EPA CBP/TRS 25/ 88, December 1988. 7 ------- Specific Recommendations Determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing risk assessment methodologies. 1. Risk assessment As a result of the various ways exposure and hazard can he coupled, there are numerous ways of assessing risks. We need to study existing risk assessment methodologies to determine the strengths and weaknesses of these systems relative to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. We should be evaulating the recommendations from recent ecological risk assessment workshops, especially the November 1990 National Academy of Sciences workshop and the May 1991 workshop sponsored by the Chesapeake Bay Program STAC. Develop and validate biomarker assays. 2. Hazards of toxic chemicals We should give high priority to the development and validation of biomarker assays. These tests of biochemical or physiological manifestations of chemical stress may provide information on the extent and magnitude of the effects of chemical pollution in the Bay. To accomplish this goal, we need to conduct biomarker studies using indigenous Bay organisms. Develop methods to evaluate To assess the impact of toxics on living resources, we need to develop methods to ambient toxicity. evaluate toxic risks in the environment. This will require defining and standardizing the most appropriate laboratory and field tests for evaluating ambient toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay. To achieve this goal, we must: construct a tiered system of screening and defining bioassays. develop integrated toxicity tests that measure growth and reproduction as well as survival; and improve chronic or partially chronic tests with sublethal endpoints. We should strive to establish tiered bioassay protocols to reduce the time, labor, and costs presently needed to evaluate ambient toxicity. For example, we could imple- ment a tiered system that uses acute lethality as a unified screen in areas suspected of high contamination. To establish effective protocols, we should define standard methods based on appropriate Bay organisms, and establish a battery of tests to assess toxicity in the water column as well as in the sediments. Moreover, we need to determine the uncertainty associated with the results of tiered testing and construct useful screening systems tailored to the Chesapeake Bay. Make toxicity tests more When designing a system of bioassays, we need to define the optimal conditions for realistic. the various toxicity tests to mimic the natural environment as closely as possible. This effort must include the appropriate choice of test organisms relevant to the Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, we must work to extrapolate results achieved in the laboratory with the effects that would occur in the natural environment. For ex- ample, most bioassays have been conducted using single chemicals, but in the environment, organisms are usually exposed to complex chemical mixtures. Ex- trapolation from the laboratory to the environment must consider many factors, including: long term vs. short term effects, single species vs. multiple species interactions, and flow-through vs. static flow conditions. It is also important to be realistic about defining optimal endpoints. Many chemicals enter the Bay in episodic events and cause a relatively short, transient toxic effect. For example, the toxic effect of storm runoff may be measured in days or months. Therefore, we need a better understanding of the impacts of these episodic events on the ecology of the Bay. In effect, we need to model the extremes, not the means. We should pay particular attention to the impacts of the chemicals on the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics of Concern List. Detect and define event- based chemical stress. 8 ------- Section 2: Toxics Define the magnitude of atmospheric inputs. Exposure research Many of the substances that we are concerned about today emanate from chimneys, smoke stacks, and automobile exhausts. Other sources such as trash burning and volatilization also add hazardous substances to our atmosphere. While research in the Great Lakes region has documented the importance of the atmosphere as a source and transport medium for hazardous chemicals, the Chesapeake Bay Program largely has ignored this important area. Therefore, we need research that defines both the magnitude of the atmosphere as a source of chemicals to the Chesapeake Bay as well as the magnitude of individual inputs. Assess the importance of nonpoint sources. Most of the regulatory activities that concern chemical inputs to the Chesapeake Bay have been directed toward effluents and discharges from discrete sources such as industries. These point sources have largely been controlled. However, it is now time to focus efforts on nonpoint-source discharge, which, according to a 1988 EPA study, pose a more serious risk to ecosystems than point-source pollution3. In addition to atmospheric deposition, we need to further examine sources of toxic chemicals contributed by soil erosion, groundwater, runoff from streets and urban areas, and other nonpoint sources. Study the dynamics of toxics partitioning and degradation. For many toxic chemicals, we do not understand the mechanisms of partitioning between surface films, dissolved phases, suspended sediments, biota, and bottom sediments. This information is important in any effort to predict the movement of toxics through the system. In addition, we need to know more about factors controlling degradation rates of toxic materials under a variety of ambient condi- tions. Evaluate sediment pro- cesses. Investigate sediment reworking by benthic organisms. Many of the hazardous chemicals of concern in the Chesapeake Bay rapidly become associated with suspended and bottom sediments. Because they are still biologically available in this form, we need to know more about the fate of these sediments in order to predict the fate of the chemical. Specifically, we need additional research on sediment movement, and a better understanding of the resuspension or bed failure of cohesive sediments. For these reasons, we need to focus on sediment deposition, consolidation, and resuspension processes. Worms and other benthic infauna move sediments and pump overlying water into their burrows. This results in the movement, release, or storage of hazardous chemicals in the sediment. To make more accurate exposure assessments, we need to determine the importance of benthic organisms in sediment processes. ¦'Comparing Risks and Setting Environmental Priorities. Washington, DC: EPA, August 1989. ------- Implications for Management Until very recently, most of the research on hazardous chemicals in natural bodies of water has focused on laboratory bioassays that estimate the effects of single chemi- cals. Much progress has been made using this approach, and its basic elements will be utilized long into the future. But today we no longer need to rely simply on "kill- them-and-count-them" toxicity tests and simple chemical surveys. The research outlined above will be difficult and time-consuming, and the costs will not be trivial. However, this research will allow decision-makers to better assess the extent and resulting impacts of hazardous chemical contamination on the Chesapeake Bay. It will allow for better risk assessments of potential or proposed chemical additions to the Chesapeake Bay. It will also allow better assessments of the effectiveness of chemical cleanups, regulations, and remedial actions in the Bay. Research in the area of exposure assessment will have the added advantage of benefiting the modeling effort, which will yield information necessary to construct mathematical models of the effect and transport of hazardous chemicals. Without estimates of the fluxes from one compartment of the ecosystem to another, accurate mathematical prediction of hazardous chemical exposure will be impossible. The existing problems related to hazardous chemicals in the Bay show that past management approaches have not been sufficient. We must keep up with new scientific advances, develop some technology ourselves, and modify other technolo- gies to suit our needs. In this way we will be better able to meet the increasing demands on the Chesapeake from the increasing number of people moving to its shore. Research Funding Requirements Risk Assessment Assess current methodologies ($300K) Chemical Hazards Develop blomarker assays ($5,000K) Develop ambient tox methods (S600K) Optimum toxicity tests ($1,OOOK) Define chemical events ($400K) Exposure Research Define atmospheric inputs ($600K) Assess nonpoint sources ($2,000K) Partitioning and degradation ($1,000K) Sediment processes ($1,000K) Benthic processes ($200K) 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Numbers In parentheses = budget for project ¦¦¦¦Hi 10 ------- Section 3: Nutrients Too Much of a Good Thing " ...we will see a refinement in our knowledge of the sources, fate, and transport of nutrients... especially in the areas of land use and BMPs." Introduction No single issue has dominated the Chesapeake Bay environmental agenda of the 1980s more than the effect of excessive nutrient input from point and nonpoint sources. In the past several years, researchers have made enormous progress in understanding the various roles nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon play in the nutrification of the Chesapeake. We have gained insight into how this nutrification increases primary production and depletes dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Bay. We have refined our knowledge of the sources and distribution of nutrients and confirmed predictions about the important contribution nonpoint sources make to total nutrient loadings. Moreover, we have begun to unravel the impact of nutrients on trophic structures. We have recognized the importance of nitrogen as a limiting nutrient and have seen how temporal and spatial variations in nitrogen and phosphorus control primary production. We have identified bacteria as a significant sink for organic material, and have learned that, although nutrients sustain high net primary productivity, it is the recycling of these nutrients that is responsible for sustaining the majority of the Bay's organic productivity. Research during the 1970s and 1980s uncovered new relationships between nutrients and sediments. Investigators observed that sediments act as buffers storing, removing, and exchanging nutrients from the water column ~ and that they play an important role in oxygen consumption and subsequent anoxia. This information has been incorporated into numerical models to improve their performance, and has helped us understand how sediments serve as a long-term memory for nutrients in the system. In the 1990s we will see a refinement in our knowledge of the sources, fate, and transport of nutrients in the Bay watershed, especially in the areas of land use and Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, we will focus on the effects of these elements: how they regulate the biological productivity and influence trophic structure of the Bay, and how they indirectly affect habitat quality by controlling oxygen productivity, consumption, and concentration. 11 ------- Specific Recommendations Assess the quality and quantity of groundwater and atmospheric nutrient sources to the Bay. Determine the impact of specific land uses. Evaluate the efficacy of BMPs on nutrient flux into the Bay. Clarify the roles of nitrogen and phospho- rus in controlling primary productivity. Couple monitoring data with process-oriented measurements. Determine annual and longer-term nutrient cycles. Link nutrient processes with hydrodynamics. 1. Sources of nutrients In recent years, neither groundwater nor the atmosphere has received much attention as an important source of nutrients to the Bay. Their nutrient input, however, may be significant and should be quantified in order to determine whether, and how these sources should be controlled. There is evidence that nitrogen concentrations in both surface and subsurface water are greatly reduced when the flow traverses a wooded riparian buffer zone or drainage-way. However, the available data is insufficient to develop recommenda- tions concerning specific soil types, buffer widths, and vegetation. We need to measure the effectiveness of riparian buffers in reducing nitrogen inputs to aquatic habitats, and we need to determine the chemical and biological reactions these buffers provide in removing nitrogen. Results of this research will allow managers to maximize the efficiency of the process. Once the impacts of various land uses have been more extensively studied, the resulting knowledge should be applied to improving BMPs, and identifying geo- graphic regions which are the critical contributors of nonpoint nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. This relies upon a strong Geographical Information System (GIS). As BMPs are used and developed, we should evaluate their efficacy as control measures for particular pollutants and land uses. 2. Control of primary production During the 1980s it became clear that nitrogen and phosphorus differ spatially and temporally in their control on primary productivity. Now it is important to under- stand the relative significance of each nutrient in stimulating and/or limiting primary production at different points in the Bay and different times of the year. The interactive effects of nitrogen and phosphorus should be included in the study. Standard monitoring of the Bay is not sufficient for understanding cause-and-effect relationships between nutrients and hypoxia. Methods of data collection that detect more subtle aspects of nutrient cycling should be used to better explain how nitrogen moves through biological processes. To achieve this goal, we need to strengthen communication between individuals making process-oriented measurements and those involved in the monitoring program. 3. Nutrient distribution By determining the seasonal cycles of the availability of nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon we have fulfilled an early goal of Chesapeake Bay research. We understand the spatial distribution of these nutrients and the various chemical species they represent. Now we need to investigate why and how nutrient availability varies over time scales of years and decades. We have recognized for a long time that the Bay consists of large masses of water which are constantly in motion and demonstrate complex hydrodynamic processes. We now are beginning to relate nutrient cycles and other ecosystem processes with these hydrodynamic ones. Research in this area should continue to receive empha- sis, and long-term remote sensing may be a good way to gain further understanding. 12 ------- Section 3: Nutrients Understand biological roles in nutrient cycling and energy flux. Trophic interactions For the most part, we understand the patterns of primary productivity in the Bay and the ultimate fate of biologically produced material. We need to supplement this understanding with knowledge of the relationship between the input of nutrients and the yield of commercially valuable species. Is increased carbon production associ- ated with eutrophication going mostly to bacteria? Does that lead to grazing by protozoa, ctenophores, and jellyfish instead of moving up to shellfish and finfish? A second relationship to study is the role of higher trophic levels in "top-down*1 control of trophic structure in the Bay. Assess the interactive effects of toxics and nutrients. Determine the quantitative, long-term effects of organic matter deposited to sediments. Toxics and nutrients interact in the water column and can thereby affect biological communities. We need clear assessments of how these interactions influence community structure and the fate and effects of pollutants added to the Bay. Sediment processes Since major advances have been made in the conceptual understanding of the role of sediments in the Bay ecosystem, we now need to conduct follow-up research. In particular, we need to understand quantitatively the long-term effects of nutrient deposition to sediments. Quantify the processes involved in denitrification. Closely tied to the need for research on the deposition of nitrogen into sediments is the need for better understanding of the denitrification process. We have identified denitrification in sediments as a particularly important means of removing nitrogen from the system, and now we need to quantify sediment nitrogen conversion and removal. Analyze extant water- quality data to fill informa- tion gaps. Analysis of nutrient data The Chesapeake Bay monitoring data are the most comprehensive and finest water- quality data available for any estuary in the world. We should expend more effort in analyzing the extant data with the aim of improving the analysis of incoming monitoring data. 13 ------- Implications for Management In 1987, Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories agreed to work towards a 40 percent reduction of nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay. If we are to accomplish this goal, we need reliable empirical data on nutrient dynamics and processes. We must determine how nutrients enter, move through, and leave the Bay system. Such data will aid in the development of water quality standards and criteria necessary to protect living resources and their natural habitat. Additionally, as the human population of the Chesapeake Bay region increases, we need a better understanding of the relationship between land-use and water quality. Research that investigates the impact of land-use changes, such as increased agricultural use, urbanization, and highway development, and evaluates the impact of different vegetative and soil land-cover on water quality will help determine what regulatory efforts are necessary to maintain reasonable nutrient levels. Recently, state agencies have developed BMPs in an attempt to control agricultural nonpoint sources, but again, these are not effective without specific information on the concentrations and mechanisms by which nutrients enter the Bay from specific terrestrial sources. The question asked by managers in response to any nutrient reduction plan is: will it lead to a net reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay environment? This question can only be answered through further research. We have begun to move toward the answer in our understanding of how sediments and nutrient levels are related. However, the Chesapeake Bay community must make a long-term commitment to gaining information on the physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting nutrient levels in the Chesapeake Bay if we are serious about preserving this vital resource. Research Funding Requirements - ; <- Sources ol Nutrients (S450K) Control ol Primary Production (f130K) Nutrient Distribution (S310K) Trophic Interactions ($1,500K) Sediment Processes (S210K) Data Analysis (S1J00K) Numbers in parentheses = budget for project 1990 1992 14 ------- Section 4: " ...our goal should be to ensure that we collect appro- priate informa- tion in the most cost-efffective manner." Monitoring Measuring Health and Progress Introduction Monitoring the health and productivity of the Chesapeake Bay is a cornerstone of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Without monitoring programs we could not establish trends, define specific Bay problems, or measure the success of restoration strategies. This premise was recognized from the outset of the Chesapeake Bay Program; since then, large data bases have been collected and analyzed to assess water quality and living resources stocks. As Chesapeake Bay data bases grow, it becomes imperative that we routinely evaluate them. We need to determine whether they are providing the information that managers need. We also need to ensure that we are gaining the most useful information for our dollars. Earlier Bay monitoring efforts were based on strategies developed from the best technologies and methodologies available at the time. But to take advantage of new research findings and to address new environmental concerns, we may be required to design or add new monitoring components. And as we seek to refine our knowledge of the environment, we must increase the sophistication of our monitoring efforts. Specifically we offer research recommendations to: develop remote sensing applications implement atmospheric deposition monitoring improve living resources stock assessment strengthen toxics monitoring efforts integrate ecological processes into the monitoring program improve data analysis capabilities The present cooperative multi-jurisdictional, multi-institutional Bay system monitor- ing effort costs approximately $3 million per year. Our goal should be to ensure that we collect appropriate information in the most cost-effective manner. 15 ------- Specific Recommendations Remote sensing Current research supported by agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), and the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program have shown promise in using aerial remote sensing to track surface features such as land-use patterns, terrestrial and aquatic vegetation cover, temperature, turbidity, and chlorophyll. We need continued research to link this surface information to water column characteris- tics. We also should strive to further develop other remote sensing approaches such as moored buoy systems that cover surficial as well as water column features. Also, scientists have used aerial remote sensing to track daily and seasonal migratory behavior of sea turtles and fin fish. Currently, we're working to combine underwater acoustics with traditional netting techniques to improve fish stock assessment efforts. In fact, many techniques in satellite imagery, aircraft remote sensing, and underwater acoustics have demonstrated great potential for improving spatial and temporal coverage of the Bay system. With the development of new remote sensing technolo- gies, we should evaluate them to determine whether they produce better information and if they do so at lower or equal cost. Moreover, we should define effective methodologies to improve the utility and efficiency of remote sensing hardware and software. Atmospheric deposition Given our new understanding of the importance of atmospheric deposition, we should design measurements to quantify the atmosphere's wet and dry deposition of nutrients and toxics to the Chesapeake Bay system. We need to know how atmo- spheric inputs affect budgets of key materials such as nutrients and toxics. Investiga- tors should develop and define the-optimal monitoring plan: the best seasons to monitor, the density of coverage needed, and the most appropriate temporal and spatial distribution of monitoring stations. The debate over the extent of the impact of atmospheric deposition on Bay water quality certainly justifies research in this area. Living resources stock assessement Recent exploratory efforts, principally through the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assess- ment Committee, have emphasized the need for improved quantification of commer- cially important fish and shellfish stocks. Unfortunately, we have not developed our stock assessment methodologies sufficiently to work at the level of the entire Bay system. To accomplish this goal, we need increased research efforts and critical evaluation in areas such as: gear development gear efficiency studies underwater acoustics development and evaluation improved commercial and recreational catch statistics application of catch-effort data to real-stock characteristics and abundance. 4. Toxics Changes in the Bay ecosystem are frequently attributed to toxic contaminants. In order to substantiate this, it is necessary to analyze for specific, suspected contami- nants. Presently we lack the ability to rapidly assess the presence, concentration, and effects of many toxic agents. Therefore, we need to develop a monitoring program that uses appropriate screening techniques to identify specific toxics and measure their biological effects. In other research needed to improve toxics monitoring, we should develop technology to perform wide-scale monitoring and we should deter- 16 1. Develop and apply remote sensing methodologies and instrumentation. 2. Design strategies for measuring atmo- spheric deposition. 3. Improve methodologies for quantifying stocks at the system level Develop methods for analysis and monitoring of toxics. ------- Section 4: Monitoring mine the best spatial and temporal resolution required for our monitoring goals. One specific toxic research need is to evaluate the correlation between specific suborganismal responses and the health of the organism measured in terms of growth, reproduction, behavior, and ecological interaction. The human risk factor is a subset of the overall concern of contaminants in natural systems and food web interactions. Elaborate upon structure and function framework for understanding ecosystem processes. 5. Ecological processes Historically, monitoring activities have measured nutrient loadings to the Bay watershed and concentrations of chemicals in the water column. As useful as these data may be, they do not provide direct information about basic ecological processes driving the ecosystem. And with the exception of certain nutrient and oxygen flux measurements, our current monitoring efforts do not assess functioning of key environmental components. Moreover, our current monitoring strategies assume that we already know the key components of the Bay ecosystem and understand how ecological processes work together in a healthy estuary. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Many uncertainties remain, especially in the areas of interface between two media such as: atmosphere to land atmosphere to water land to water water column to sediments (and vice versa) Research in the 1990s can help us to understand the basic processes defining ecosystem structure and function and showing how they fit together as a whole. We need better data on the interface processes information about regulating condi- tions, exchange rates, and transformation of substances moving across interface boundaries. In addition, we should attempt to uncover processes that may be important to monitoring programs of the future. For example, we need a better understanding of microbial ecological processes and the roles microbes play in chemical breakdown. 6. Data analysis and statistics Integrate and organize As we collect more environmental information, we will be building larger and more data. complex data bases. To improve monitoring design in the 1990s, we should work toward integrating all data into a standardized ecological framework. This will require building consistent data bases based on standardized sampling techniques across a broader scale of spatial and temporal dimensions. Moreover, we will need to integrate new data, in such areas as remote sensing and microbial processes, into existing data bases. To meet these needs, we continually should review data bases and better organize information to meet changing monitoring requirements. In addition, we should evaluate options for information technologies that afford user- friendly and cost-effective access to monitoring data and analysis 17 ------- Implications for Management Monitoring is a fundamentally important component to management when undertak- ing a large, complex task such as the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The need to measure key system components and processes in an adequate temporal and spatial pattern, using standardized methodologies in a cost-effective manner is self-evident. Long-term data bases are necessary to detect trends in a system. Monitoring data is of little use if it is not continued for several years (decades) with uniform collection methods. Only if it is continued can we "piece together the puzzle" to determine if components of an ecosystem are healthy or in decline. Furthermore, once a manage- ment abatement strategy has been implemented, monitoring data are necessary to detect ecosystem response and to evaluate the effectiveness of management action. Research Funding Requirements Remote Sensing Terrestial <$600K) Water column characteristics ($250K) Hydroacoustlcs ($1,OOOK) Bouy systems ($500K) Atmospheric Deposition Dry deposition ($1,500K) Wet deposition (S200K) Living Resources Gear development ($250K) Gear efficiency ($500K) Catch statistics ($50K) Stock assessment ($1,000K) Research In Monitoring Design Toxics research ($600K) Ecological processes research ($500K) Data Analysis QA/QC development for toxics ($800K) Power analysis expansion ($500K) Trend analysis development ($500K) Situation room development ($1,000K) ¦H HBIBHHMNM Wmm ¦ ¦¦¦¦iaBBHiwHi mmmm mmsmm ¦HOHH 1990 1992 1994 1996 Numbers in parentheses = budget for project 1998 2000 18 ------- " The 1990s will see the integra- tion, coupling, and synthesis of all modeling efforts. We will integrate new ecosystem models with water quality, hydrodynamics, and land use models." Section 5: Modeling Defining Goals and Anticipating Change Introduction From the beginning, the Chesapeake Bay Program has relied heavily on numerical computer models to address key management issues. In fact, computer models were used to establish the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal the basis for our initial efforts. An important component to the Chesapeake Bay Program is the continued existence of numerical models of the Chesapeake Bay for use in addressing specific management issues. The present generation of Chesapeake Bay models is vastly superior to the earlier versions used in the establishment of the nutrient reduction goal. The current Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models are time-variant and fully three-dimen- sional (3D). They portray what levels of control could be instituted in the Bay. The Water Quality Model includes a sophisticated sediment sub-model that estimates fluxes of nutrients and other important variables in the water column. In addition, the Phase II Watershed Model, coupled with the 3D models, provides improved predictions of nutrients and other substances entering the Bay as a result of different land use scenarios. These improved models will be used in 1991 to assist managers in the re-evaluation of the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal. The 3D modeling effort complements other Bay Program activities such as long-term monitoring, data compilation and analysis, and development of Bay resource management plans. The combined efforts of these activities are necessary to quantitatively determine the spatial and temporal variability of the processes leading to anoxia and eutrophication in the Bay. Despite their utility in setting management directions, Chesapeake Bay models still fail to address many important issues. Future modeling efforts will incorporate phenomena such as shallow water processes, ecological interactions, toxic contami- nation, sediment transport, and long-term impacts of episodic events such as storms. We will also develop adjustments for atmospheric and groundwater nutrient loads. Perhaps most importantly, the 1990s will see the integration, coupling, and synthesis of all modeling efforts. We will integrate new ecosystem models with water quality, hydrodynamic, and land use models. In this way, the next generation of Chesapeake Bay models will couple physical and chemical characteristics with the distribution of living resources in the Bay. 19 ------- Specific Recommendations Develop tributary models. Develop high-resolution, limited-area models. Develop a living-resources models. Develop stock abundance models. Model and quantify toxic inputs to the Bay. Incorporate toxics modeling into the existing watershed, hydrodynamic, and water- quality models. Local and shallow areas To develop tributary models, we need research in three areas. 1) Forces affecting circulation. A better knowledge of circulation will improve our understanding of the distribution of living resources, the movement (disposal, concentration, or transport) of toxics, and the movement of nutrients. 2) Sediment processes in the shallows. In the area of sediment processes, we need to understand vertical flux and deposition rates, and their potential impact on productivity in association with light attenuation and submerged aquatic vegetation. 3) Effects of hydrological mixing patterns on toxics and living resources. We need to determine the role of mixing on the concen- tration and dispersal of toxics, and its effects on recruitment and distribution of living resources. The existing hydrodynamic and water-quality models lack the spatial resolution necessary to predict details of the circulation and distribution of important chemical and biological constituents within tributaries and shallow areas. This is an important concern since many of our living resources live in shallow-water habitats. High- resolution, limited-area models need to be developed for the major tributaries and possibly for selected regions of the main stem. We should design these models to interface with existing coarser-resolution models. Living resources in the ecosystem To develop a comprehensive Chesapeake Bay ecosystem model, we will require a living resources component in addition to the watershed, hydrodynamic, and water- quality models. The living resources model would simulate the effects of predator- prey relationships, and changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations and other water quality parameters on living organisms. This would be used to determine whether changes in either the dominant algae or the magnitude of primary production have any effect on the pelagic trophic structure of the Bay, and if so, to what degree. It also would provide valuable information on potential shifts in the Bay's trophic structure and better evaluate whether such alterations account for the decline of certain commercially important species with a concurrent rise in other less desirable organisms (such as gelatinous zooplankton). Successful fishery management plans (FMPs) depend on our ability to determine current stock levels and assess stock recovery. We can best accomplish this goal by developing stock assessment models in conjunction with long-term data collection programs as demonstrated by the success of the combined water-quality monitoring and modeling efforts. The baseline data need to include genetic variability of target species. Toxics We need to model and quantify toxins that pose a significant threat to the Bay's ecosystem. For example, mathematical models of estuarine circulation can be used to predict the source and arrival of a contaminant or spill. In addition, we can use such models to estimate the fate of moving spills and to perform post-spill assess- ments on the most impacted region(s), such as coastal wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). While data on inputs of toxics are being collected, we need to determine the best means of modeling toxics. Should a toxics model be incorporated into the frame- work of existing models or should we design separate models? How will either of these efforts be best accomplished? Any successful modeling effort should include atmospheric contributions, groundwater inputs, and travel time, as well as concentra- 20 ------- Section 5: Modeling Modify the hydrodynamic model to include sediment transports. Develop models for contami- nant transport and fate. Make true long-term, time- variable predictions. Estimate groundwater input. Estimate impacts of land use changes on water quality. tion of contaminants. We should begin developing these toxics models as soon as we establish the requirements and gather sufficient data to validate the models. Sediment transport Knowledge of nutrient fluxes into and out of the bottom sediments is important for determining the nutrient concentrations and oxygen content of the water column. The water quality model accounts for these in part by including a sediment sub- model to estimate fluxes at the bottom boundary. However, the transport of sedi- ments is poorly represented by the hydrodynamic model. It needs to include vertical flux, deposition, and longitudinal transport of sediments. In addition, both models need the capability to model contaminants through sediment transport. Neither the water-quality nor the watershed model currently describes plans for contaminant modeling. However, both models need the capability to demonstrate the activities, levels, and movement of contaminants through sediment transport. Long-term predictions Present models can simulate conditions far into the future by integrating them to steady-state conditions using projected average values for the required inputs, including atmosphere parameters. Such an approach, however, does not account for very dramatic transient events that occur infrequently and unpredictably (e.g., Hurricane Agnes). Before incorporating these transient phenomena, we need progress in two specific areas: identification of the requirements for long-term modeling, and modification of existing hydrodynamic and water-quality models to accept seasonally-averaged inputs that run with large (inter-tidal) time steps. Contributions from land and air Shallow, unconfined, coastal-plain aquifers around the Bay appear to be vulnerable to groundwater contamination from agricultural practices and atmospheric deposi- tion. In some areas groundwater recharge may serve as a sink for contaminants, but in other areas geologists suspect that contaminants are transported back into aquatic environments through groundwater discharge. We need to identify and map signifi- cant recharge and discharge areas and to estimate with models the quantity and quality of groundwater entering and leaving the seepage face, streams and wetlands. Bay models need to better relate changes in land use with water quality. For example, models should contain parameters for different land uses, such as animal grazing or agricultural use. With better land use data, managers will be better able to assess the effectiveness of BMPs. Incorporate atmospheric deposition data. Develop a strategy for long-term maintenance and improvements to the Chesapeake Bay modeling program. Recent studies indicate that rainfall may account for 30 - 40 percent of the nitrogen loadings to the Bay. Even though the water-quality model includes rainfall deposi- tion in the Bay, we lack sufficient resolution and chemical rainwater data to accu- rately model the full effects of atmospheric deposition, both spatially and temporally. In addition, we need to include kinetic equations to account for chemical reactions involving acidic compounds entering aquatic ecosystems. Model code maintenance In order for the existing models to function as effective management tools, we must ensure that their state-of-the-art modeling capability is maintained, and that a system is established to provide managers with the predictions required to meet their needs. The specific tasks recommended herein should ensure that our modeling capability remains state-of-the-art. However, to do their jobs effectively, the researchers engaged in studies of modeling innovations must have access to the models, which includes the computers on which they run. Not only must there be a central comput- ing facility and a staff to run the models, but the services of a number of scientist/ 21 ------- modelers must be available on a continuing basis for two reasons: To assist researchers who are not modelers but who may need access to the Bay models, and To carry out systematic testing and evaluation of new components or improved versions of existing models. Implications for Management Computer models will continue to be used as management tools. Since their parameters can be changed rather easily, models are ideal laboratories for testing anticipated changes of variables affecting Bay water-quality. Having assisted with establishing the target of a 40 percent nutrient reduction, they also will be instrumen- tal in the 1991 reevaluation of that goal. In fact the management utility of computer models will continue until our ultimate goal is reached. To further aid managers, models can include modules that calculate cause-and-effect relationships in terms of decision variables. For example, managers can evaluate various combinations of best management practices (BMPs) for their effectiveness as well as their cost. The results can be used to evaluate BMPs and to estimate the time it takes to see improvements from them. The Chesapeake Bay and its extensive watershed comprise a dynamic system, experiencing continual change from both internal and external sources. Successful management of such a dynamic region requires the use of tools that reflect and respond to such changes. If maintained, the Bay models will assist managers and researchers with the assessment of specific concerns in the coming years, serving as management tools in the assessment of the local and regional impacts of population growth, climate variations, and the effectiveness of control strategies. Research Funding Requirements Local and Shallow Areas (S1,000K) Living Resources In Ecosystem (f1,400K) Toxics (S1.000K) Sediment Transport (S800K) Long-term Prediction ($400K) Contributions Land/Air (S600K) Model Code Maintenance (S1.9O0K) Numbers In pareniheaes ¦ budget (or protect 22 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 ------- Section 6: " Economics can and should be used to supplement current land and water manage- ment methods. Indeed, what is needed is the use of incen- tives to improve, not replace, current manage- ment ap- proaches. " Economics New Thinking in Bay Restoration Introduction We have made great progress in protecting Chesapeake Bay resources and in upgrading management processes. However, we will have to use increased eco- nomic incentives as complements to current federal, state, and local regulatory approaches to cope with the growing stresses facing the Bay ecosystem. Regulatory controls, the primary policy instruments now in use, can and should be strengthened to contend with the growing population and land use challenges anticipated by the 2020 Report1. We face urgent problems in the areas of water quality, land use, management of living resources, regional economic development, and impacts from federal government programs for energy, defense, and transportation. Economists have emphasized the need for cost effectiveness in environmental management and have proposed incentive-based management instruments (taxes, fees, and transferable rights systems) as means to achieve cost effectiveness. How- ever, incentive-oriented instruments have not received general acceptance because they often appear to ignore other criteria, such as distributional equity and cost of implementation. Therefore, research to enhance the use of incentive-based policies needs to take into consideration not only potential cost effectiveness, but also administrative costs and obstacles to implementation. '2020 Panel. Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020. Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Program; 1988. 23 ------- Specific Recommendations Conduct economic research on wetlands. Wetlands management Signatories of the Bay Program's Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy agreed to the immediate goal of "no net loss" followed by a long-term goal of "net resource gain" for tidal and nontidal wetlands. In response, states in the Bay basin have made efforts to extend existing regulation on tidal wetlands to nontidal ones as well. Further action has been slow because several issues remain unresolved. Specifically, we don't fully know the status of wetlands in the basin and we don't understand all the economic forces affecting their conversion. There is even ambiguity about the definition of wetlands of social concern. Develop an innovative wetlands management strategy. Determine the forces driving land use and population growth. Study the relative effective- ness and cost of specific growth-management options. Ecologists have invested considerable thought in the issue of wetlands management. Now, economic research is needed to supplement the ecological analysis. Research- ers need to design wetlands management strategies that anticipate future develop- ment, incorporate incentive-based programs into wetlands regulation, and consider ways of financing wetlands restoration to achieve the goal of a net gain. Growth and land use In recognition of the Chesapeake Bay's growth dilemma, the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland have passed laws protecting critical areas. As valuable as these initiatives are, they may fall short of dealing satisfactorily with land use, a key element in the future protection of the Bay. Little information exists on the eco- nomic, demographic, and public-policy factors that drive land-use decisions in the private market. In order to draft effective plans, policy makers need to understand how these forces cause changes in both land use and population-settlement patterns. We need research on the relative effectiveness and costs of growth management options such as conservation easements, direct acquisition, impact fees, and infra- structure planning and pricing. All these options should be carefully evaluated to support growth management decisions. Evaluate growth-manage- ment approaches from other areas. Many states have been successful in developing strategies for growth management that have been acceptable to both environmentalists and developers. A desirable next step for Bay managers would be to categorize and evaluate these growth management approaches from other areas, with hopes of applying suitable measures to the Bay system. Determine the cost trade- offs among various ap- proaches to nutrient control Nutrient control The objective of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to achieve a minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) goal at a target locale in the Bay. If we succeed in a 40% reduction in nutrient loading to the Bay, we expect to achieve this goal. Currently, Bay managers and researchers are reviewing the DO goal and the strategies used to approach it. As we select revised water-quality goals, we should endeavor to achieve these goals at the lowest possible cost. This will require that administrators consider the cost trade-offs among various control strategies. Options include: making capital investments in the most efficient sewage treatment plants, instituting best manage- ment practices (BMPs) on agricultural lands, and reducing nutrient flows from urban areas and other nonpoint sources. As part of this study, economists and nutrient control specialists need to identify the optimal designs and locations of sewage treatment plants, taking into account different watershed goals and seasonal varia- tions in the Bay system. 24 ------- Section 6: Economics Design a bio-economic approach to living-resource management strategies. Living resources Many of the most valuable Chesapeake Bay living resources appear to be facing imminent decline. However, we still don't agree on the causes of the decline, with some researchers pointing to factors such as pollution, and others identifying disease or over-harvesting of living resources. Poorly developed management policies, while not the only factor involved, have been an important element in the demise of the Bay's living resources. For this reason, we need to pay careful attention to the impact of regulatory approaches and to the use of economic incentives in achieving regulatory goals. In addition, we should investigate alternative management strate- gies. For example, aquaculture and private ownership of oyster beds have shown to be both economically efficient and acceptable to many watermen. Cooperative research among disciplines in designing a multi-disciplinary, bio-economic approach to living resource management is central to the protection and management of the Bay's living resources. Incorporate an economics component into the Chesapeake Bay model Modeling and social accounting Economists and scientists are both engaged in large-scale modeling of Chesapeake Bay systems. Within their separate disciplines, individual modelers isolate water quality, energy flows, fishery populations, or economic accounts. These various attempts at systems analysis share some common elements; and collaboration among modelers could help to identify solutions that would work best in the context of the entire ecosystem. Incorporating an economics model into the Bay Program model- ing strategy would provide valuable information on the costs of management alternatives, allowing planners to make more cost-effective decisions. Estimate the economic value of Chesapeake Bay resources. Administrators frequently ask economic investigators to provide estimates of values associated with the Chesapeake Bay estuarine and environmental resources. Econo- mists have been reluctant to provide these estimates, both because a value could be misinterpreted, and because of the difficulty of developing the non-economic data bases that are a necessary component of such studies. Both economic analysts and public officials would benefit if modelers in various disciplines (ecology, economics, biology, hydrology, etc.) collaborated more closely to design and implement value- estimate models. Examine the relative cost- effectiveness of point- source versus nonpoint- source programs. Enforcing pollution control We need to determine whether the cost of enforcement of various pollution programs varies in proportion to their benefits. This may be especially important in choosing between point-source and nonpoint-source pollution reductions in control of nutrient and contaminant loadings. The best approach would be to examine the efficiency of enforcement procedures used for point and nonpoint-source pollution reduction programs, to suggest improved alternatives considering the programs' economic, administrative, and social aspects, and to recommend possible choices to Bay Program managers. When we carefully consider both control and enforcement costs, we may find it best to achieve many modest reductions at lower costs, rather than to seek high reduction yields with corresponding high control costs. 25 ------- Implications for Management As a decision-making science, economics offers important insight and new ideas for achieving environmental goals. Economic argument has its limits, and these are recognized; it should not be the sole basis for a Bay management program. How- ever, economics can and should be used to supplement current land and water management methods. Indeed, what is needed is the use of incentives to improve, not replace, current management approaches. Therefore, the Chesapeake Bay Program should begin searching for additional policy instruments and initiating a dialogue among scientists, economists, and all interest groups. To cope with the foreseeable population and development pressures affecting the Bay, members of all these disciplines will need to cooperate continu- ally. Research Funding Requirements Wetlands (S17SK) Growth and Land Use ($750K) Nutrient Control Economics (S300K) Living Resources (S3S0K) Modeling Considerations (S200K) Cost of Pollution Contol (S300K) 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Numbers in parentheses = budget for project 26 ------- "We need to collect data on levels of con- tamination in Chesapeake Bay organisms and how these levels translate to human health problems." Section 7; Public Health Reducing Risks to Human Populations Introduction The Chesapeake Bay, like most other estuaries, influences human health in a variety of positive and negative ways. Health risks from contact with contaminated water and contaminated living resources are among the negative influences. Reducing the potential for these health risks is a goal underlying many of the specific points of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. To attain this goal, we must track contaminants of concern in the aquatic environment and determine actual and potential health risks. These contaminants of concern can be broadly characterized as either biotic or abiotic in origin, and usually they affect human health by ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact. Environmental planners, managers, and public health officials need to detect the presence and assess the impacts of these contaminants. Despite their importance, current contaminant detection methods are time-consum- ing, costly, insensitive, and not sufficiently specific. Researchers need more efficient and more precise analytical tools to detect and assess the risks of microbiological and abiotic contaminants to human health. It is also important to determine the human health effects, acute and chronic, of direct exposure to contaminants in the Bay. At the same time, we need to assess seafood handling procedures and identify safe levels of contaminated-seafood consumption. Furthermore, we need to investigate possible sources of catastrophic events and develop models to forecast their likeli- hood and effects. Such actions will lead to a better understanding of what constitutes "unsafe" seafood and water, and will help managers flag developing problems for action before fisheries or recreational resources are seriously affected. 27 ------- Specific Recommendations Prepare molecular genetic probes for environmentally important pathogens. Microbe detection methods Molecular genetic probes have been found to have potential for detection of Salmo- nella sppEscherichia coli (E. Coli) and viruses in environmental waters. Eventu- ally, molecular genetic techniques could be used to develop rapid assays to assess the public health safety of Bay water and seafood. Similarly, probes for fish and shellfish pathogens, including MSX, can assist greatly in monitoring the health of Chesapeake Bay shellfish and finfish stocks. Develop monoclonal antibody probes. Develop E. coli-specific, rRNA directed fluorescent probe assays. Although several researchers have developed polyclonal antibodies for detecting E. coli, the traditional serological methods are not routinely used because of the large numbers of serotypes involved and the problems associated with cross-reacting antigens in polyclonal antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies offer a useful alternative to more cumbersome polyclonal antibody techniques. Research should introduce E. co/;-specific, rRNA directed fluorescent probe assays for public health use in the fish and shellfish harvesting areas of the Chesapeake Bay. However, the more appropriate long-term goal should be to develop a suite of probes for the significant pathogens: bacteria (e.g. Salmonella), viruses (e.g. hepatitis or Norwalk), and fungi of public health concern. Establish precise and accurate bioassays based on molecular genetic methods. By combining direct detection systems with polymerase chain reactions, research should permit development of specific assays to detect pathogens, such as enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) and related pathogens of significance to human health and commercial fisheries. Identify sentinel organisms for abiotic contamination. Determine the human health effects of direct exposure to chemical agents in the Bay. Assess the human health effects of chronic exposure to contaminated Bay resources. Abiotic contaminant detection Currently, there are few guidelines limiting levels of abiotic contaminants in the Bay. Sentinel organisms can be used as indicators of unsafe levels of contaminants of concern to human health. By understanding and making use of the biological concentration mechanisms of readily collectible Bay organisms (such as annelids and small mollusks), researchers should be able to improve the sensitivity and specificity of detection methods for such agents as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, heavy metals and pesticides. To achieve this goal, we need to identify common aquatic organisms that concentrate particular toxic agents of concern. Moreover, we should develop methods for collecting and culturing each organism, exposing them to selected toxics and investigating methods to test tissue concentrations for each organism-contaminant pair. With proper selection, sentinels also may implicate sources of toxic releases and thus allow managers to take remedial action on specific sources rather than disrupting nearby benign activities. Health effects of chemical agents Toxic agents in Bay water may compromise public health should these agents directly enter the human body by ingestion, respiration, or through the skin. Some health effects may be acute and easily treated, but others may cause genetic damage or loss of tissue and organ function that may become chronic. While the acute impact of health hazards such as shellfish poisoning are well documented, we need to know more about the effects of long-term exposures to contaminated seafood, water, and maritime air. 28 ------- Section 7: Public Health Identify those regimes of the Bay with elevated levels of chemicals presenting a human health risk. Assess seafood handling and inspection procedures. Identification of waters that present a human health risk by ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact involves two tasks. First, we need to identify zones of elevated chemical concentration; second, and just as important, we need to evaluate the potential for human exposure to these regions. Seafood safety Since the seafood industry is largely unregulated, we need to determine which handling processes are safe and which are not. Managers need this information to develop guidelines for the transportation, handling, and processing of various types of seafood. Additionally, we should support development of a program to standard- ize routine seafood inspections. Inspection is the first step necessary for assuring the public that seafood is safe to consume. Determine safe human consumption levels of biotic and abiotic contami- nants in seafood. Develop a program for monitoring levels of potential contaminants of seafood in the Bay. Investigate possible sources of catastrophic events. Develop models to forecast the possibility of cata- strophic events. Little is known about the impact of contaminated seafood on human health. We need to collect data on levels of contamination in Chesapeake Bay organisms and consider how these levels translate to human health problems. While an aquatic organism may be severely affected by a chemical or biotic agent, consumption of a contaminated organism may not pose a direct risk to human health. Such correla- tions should be quantified in order to develop better standards. Researchers need to develop a Baywide survey to locate regions contaminated with chemical and living agents of concern. This project also should assess the impact of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund sites on seafood. A prudent monitoring program should also devote special effort to those areas known to be favored by commercial and private fishermen. Catastrophic contamination events The use of nuclear and fossil fuels and byproducts from their manufacture has clearly contributed to elevated levels of environmental pollution in the coastal environment. Social and economic upheavals as well as environmental damage can result from leaks, accidents, or breakdowns of nuclear energy facilities and fossil fuel spills or leaks. Extensive nuclear and other types of energy-generating facilities and storage terminals are located on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and it is therefore crucial to assess the associated catastrophic environmental health risks. Due to the severe impact of catastrophic events such as oil spills and nuclear accidents, researchers should develop Bay models to characterize the probability of such events. Attention must be given to oversight programs and contingency planning, i.e., development of research and management programs that protect public health and provide insights that will help mitigate damage if large-scale catastrophe should occur. Clearly, response strategies must be constructed in advance through the analysis of multiple hypothetical scenarios. 29 ------- Implications for Management A full understanding of the relationship between public health and anthropogenic processes operating in Chesapeake Bay is possible only if information flows easily between those who study the Bay and those who monitor the health of persons who use the Bay's resources. Data on patients with symptoms suggestive of exposure to contaminated food or other materials from the Bay need to be routed back to the scientific community for follow-up. Similarly, the health care community should receive timely information when environmental events in or around the Bay present a reasonable danger to public health. Through a give-and-take system of information flow, both the scientific and diagnostic tasks would be simplified and enriched. Research Funding Requirements Microbe Detection (S800K) Abiotic Detection (S400K) Health Effects of Chemical Agents ($1,000K) Seafood Safety (S900K) Catastrophic Events (S400K) Develop t Implement New Techniques ($1,OOOK) 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Numbers in parentheses = budget for project 30 ------- Conclusion Research Findings into Management Action Today we're living in times of tremendous change. The rate of environmental, governmental, social, and even personal change is greater than ever before in human history. At the same time, we're accumulating information at a rate unprecedented in man's history. We're producing research findings, creating new data bases, and integrating data into models that attempt to predict and explain how systems fit together. These dual processes of rapid change and greater availability of information are occurring in the Chesapeake watershed just as they are throughout the entire world. The Chesapeake Bay is a typical coastal system experiencing unprecedented growth in human populations. In fact, the rapid increase in the number of people singularly creates the greatest risks to our environment and initiates the fastest changes to our ecosystems. Historically, we have not always recognized the time lag between the introduction of research findings and their application by management or regulatory agencies. This lag mainly is due to the difficult process of integrating good science into public policy. Usually, the process includes three steps; publication of research findings, verification and consensus within the scientific community, and acceptance and implementation by the management community. In this complicated process, many years can go by between the time of an important scientific breakthrough and appropriate action on the part of regulatory agencies. For example, consider the nitrogen issue in the Chesapeake Bay. Several years passed between the time we understood the role of nitrogen as a limiting nutrient in the Bay and the implementation of pollution controls to manage nitrogen loading. In a more contemporary example, the Bay Program of the 1990s is working hard to integrate good science into control programs for toxic substances. However, in the case of toxic contaminants, we find ourselves defining the problem while concur- rently working on the solution. Hopefully, the interaction between toxicological researchers and Bay Program managers will set a new model for successful science- management cooperation. Different Perspectives, Common Goals Research has yet to provide all the information needed to resolve the problems of the Chesapeake Bay. But what we have learned allows us to move in the right direction. In areas where we face critical decisions, there may be strong differences of opinion over whether our present base of knowledge will support a specific management approach. But it is precisely on these topics those areas characterized by strong differences of opinion that we must focus additional research. Today we realize that we cannot make risk-free decisions about the management approaches to cleaning the Bay. Neither can we guarantee that a given research approach will yield answers that managers can use. There have been and there will continue to be many decisions based on inadequate or incomplete scientific informa- tion. To the extent possible, we hope to apply research to narrow the information gap- 31 ------- If we are going to stay ahead of the curve wisely manage ourselves and achieve a high level of environmental quality we must continue to develop more efficient mechanisms for incorporating useful research findings into management programs. Building the Science/Management Partnership As an advisory committee to the Chesapeake Bay Program, one of STAC's goals is to bring scientists and managers closer together. We should strive to build a coop- erative partnership between managers and scientists; a working relationship that will enable both research directors and top-level managers to put their thumbprints on important policies and technical issues. To achieve these goals we rely on commu- nication and dialogue. In this context, we offer the following suggestions as a way to improve the science- management partnership: Formal dialogue ~ To improve the flow of scientific information from researchers to managers, we should initiate a formal dialogue between science directors and agency heads. The purpose of these dialogues would be to explore and develop new mechanisms for presenting appropriate scientific facts to the management community and for translating these findings into practical use. Sensitize the scientific community ~ To make research findings as useful as possible, we must work to help researchers appreciate the information needs of management programs. By working with the various subcommittees in the Bay Program, scientific liaisons can keep their colleagues up-to-date on current management goals. Sensitize the management community To allow managers to more effectively communicate their concerns to the research community, we should help managers understand the ways scientists develop and conduct research projects. We should develop a communications framework that integrates management concerns with ecological processes. Develop a grand strategy Managers, scientists, and citizens should work together on a strategic plan to understand and restore the Chesapeake Bay system. We continually should revisit this grand strategy to identify and document research and management needs, to design plans for equitable distribution of state and federal funds, and to encourage citizen participation and support. Although the current Chesapeake Bay Program already performs many of these functions, we propose developing more formal and better documented processes that can be understood by everyone involved with Bay restoration. By publishing this research agenda, STAC hopes to strengthen the science/management partnership and to improve communication among participants who may express different view- points, but share in the goal of restoring the health and productivity of the Chesa- peake Bay. 32 ------- |