November 2022 Director’s Corner

While considerable progress has been made in meeting the goals of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, a significant challenge remains and the October CRC Roundtable webinar tackled the timely question of how to accelerate progress and attain more success.

The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement outlined 10 goals with 31 outcomes, with most directed at supporting viable populations of living resources throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Federal, state, and local programs to secure those living resource goals have been primarily directed towards achieving water quality standards in the Bay proper, if you measure by policy attention and resource commitment. This attention is partially explained by the unique status of the water quality goal, since it is the only goal of the 10 that carried legal authority under the Clean Water Act; the tools for accountability and action were readily available. 

As an unintended consequence, water quality is thought by many to have literally (and pardon the pun) “sucked the oxygen out of the room” of achieving our desired impact on living resources. While water quality is a necessary part of the equation, it is not sufficient alone to establish the appropriate conditions for many of our living resource goals. Living resource abundance depends heavily on factors besides dissolved oxygen and water clarity, including water temperatures and salinity conditions considered suboptimal for a specific species, adequate structural habitat, and appropriate harvest limits. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program is trying to achieve water quality standards in a highly altered system that will continue to change in ways with no historical precedent. 

In the midst of all of these issues, our target dates for success have not changed, and many of the outcomes are meant to be realized by 2025. However, we’ve seen various degrees of success to date and progress on some goals requires acceleration if we are to meet them. The question of the day is this: not whether to stop – we certainly don’t want to take our foot off the gas of nutrient and sediment load reductions – but how does the restoration community use tools and funding increases to more effectively advance multiple outcomes and shift our progress to higher living resource responses, all while maintaining our water quality efforts?

Our October speakers are probably familiar to you if you’ve been on the CRC Roundtables before. Both come to us from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with a history of supporting its mission to “lead the Nation in 21st-century integrated research, assessments, and prediction of natural resources and processes to meet society’s needs.” I quote the mission because both speakers bring it to life by showing up at any forum where they can assist stakeholders in decision making and creating the tools to help them as they navigate tough environmental issues. Scott Phillips is the Chesapeake Bay Program Coordinator for USGS. I can personally attest to Scott’s ability to see the opportunity for science in service to society around every corner, and there are a lot of corners in the restoration effort. John is the Assistant Director of Land Change Research, Hydrologic Transport, and Response with USGS. He turns out to be a true geographer, which is all about illuminating context. This is John’s third roundtable, which is evidence of the fact that the primarily GIS-based tools that he develops are indeed timely, helpful, and of interest to the restoration community.