Restoration programs for aquatic ecosystems are a high priority nationally, even including restoration of rivers that flow into coastal regions. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the US and much focus has been put towards restoration programs. This is because of commission reports and news coverage that has highlighted non-point source pollution that has negatively affected coastal fisheries. However, even with the exponential increase in restoration efforts, especially for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW) which has the highest estimated expenditure, there has been limited monitoring of effectiveness ( Hassett et al., 2005 ). This and other factors have caused the Chesapeake Bay quality restoration to experience difficulty fail to achieve the projected success.
The CBW restoration efforts have mainly been centered on reducing pollution, restoring habitats, and through outreach programs. The non-point source pollution (when rainwater or snow pick up pollutants) in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem has been on the increase due to increased human activity in the region ( Hassett et al., 2005 ). The Bay is overwhelmed with nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, which originate from sewage treatment plants, industries, agricultural fields, lawns, and the air. This may be attributed to the replacement of forest and wetland cover by suburbs and farms, to allow for the growing human population.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Accompanying this, the challenge of the lack of an estimate of the nutrient reduction efforts, due to inconsistent efforts of tracking and monitoring implemented progress and pollution arises. The main restoration activities have been centered on improving water quality and managing the riparian zones. The riparian reforestation has been initiated mainly to address non-point source pollution while the physical stream rehabilitation projects are centered on mitigation activities which resolve regulatory permits ( Band et al.,2008 ). However, the nature and size of the project mean that the objectives may not be achieved in a decade. This has frustrated the creation of monitoring initiatives, and their funding, since these have to be decided from a long term perspective. There, however, lacks a systematic approach that tracks and accounts for the efficiency and effectiveness of the restoration program ( Band et al.,2008 ). This has meant that the figures overseeing the initiative are ill-fitted to understand if the desired water quality conditions would be met even if the individual nutrient goals are met.
Additionally, the project’s resource needs have not been adequately met, and the project seems to be underfunded. This is because the model development, calibration, and validation are dependent on some key figures which limit the effectiveness of the initiative, despite its current success. The project needs a constant cycle of engineers, scientists, and technical support who would begin the design and testing of new models that address the current challenges facing the project ( Band et al.,2008 ). Research has shown that the modeling budget of the CBW needs to be doubled or tripled for the next few years for the project to realize any significant development.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was created to provide a model for regulating discharging of pollutants into water bodies and also for regulating the quality standards for the surface waters. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the authority that enforces the CWA. The EPA seeks to restore the Bay and its ecosystem by developing the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), which is a target that seeks to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings to the Bay ( EIP, 2018 ). The model seeks to control some of the nonpoint source pollutions from industrial and municipal sources. The TMDL sets discharge limits, known as waste-load allocation, which act as future pollution control goals for facilities, following the Clean Water permits, which also provide for monitoring and reporting of discharges ( EIP, 2018 ).The TDML allocations measure the advancement towards meeting the Bay water quality goals by requiring permits and enforcing the pollution limits against these. This is achieved by monitoring the discharges against the WLA, according to the appropriate permit limits set by the permit writers.
The EPA has, however, not fully implemented the Clean Water Act since smaller industrial and municipal dischargers have not set individual WLAs. Additionally, violations are common and this diminishes the effect of the permits ( EIP, 2018 ). This is even with evidence that some discharges failed to report their nitrogen data in some monitoring periods.
The CBW initiative is boosted by the elements of the CWA, like the TMDL and the WLA. These elements seek to track and limit the non-point pollution effects of industries and municipalities. This is even as the initiative lacks an effective monitoring structure, and this means that the steps needed for the restoration to achieve clean water status are evasive. The CWA can be made more effective by enforcing TMDL with numeric limits, especially for the major polluters. This also means keeping an eye on the non-significant facilities to track any large pollutants ( EIP, 2018 ). Additionally, these permit limits should be augmented to compliance schedules to meet the next permit cycle, so that this information may be available for calibration and validation.
References
Band, L., Dillaha, T., Duffy, C., Reckhow, K., & Welty, C. (2008). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Phase V Review. STAC Publ , 08-003.
EIP. (2019). The Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake. Retrieved 14 October 2019, from http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/EIP-TheCWAandtheChesapeakeDec20122_000.pdf
Hassett, B., Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Smith, S., Carr, J., & Hart, D. (2005). Restoring watersheds project by project: trends in Chesapeake Bay tributary restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 3 (5), 259-267.
