W2 PM Chesapeake Bay Restoration (Part 2)
Wednesday, 16 November 2005: 1:50 PM - 5:30 PM in Ballroom 2

(BRE-1117-666484) The importance of scale and location to the ecological and economic benefits of restoration.

Breitburg, D¹, Nice, A², Adamack, A³, Jordan, T¹, Weller, D¹, Lipton, D⁴, Fulford, R¹, Lung, W², Rose, K³, ¹ Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, US² University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, US³ Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, US⁴ University of Maryland, College Park, MD, US

ABSTRACT- The scale and location of restoration efforts are influenced by funding constraints, the size and location of jurisdictional boundaries, and a desire to increase stakeholder involvement. We used a series of linked watershed, water quality, fisheries and economic models of the Patuxent River and adjacent Chesapeake Bay to investigate the differences in benefits gained from local vs. regional restoration. The models show that the location and percentage of agriculture and developed land within the Patuxent watershed strongly affects nutrient discharge and chlorophyll concentrations in the river, but has virtually no effect on bottom layer hypoxia. Instead, the extent and severity of hypoxia, which influences both mortality of early life stages of fishes and the ability of oysters (if restored) to remove chlorophyll from the water column, is almost entirely controlled by nutrient concentrations and carbon entering the river from the mainstem Chesapeake Bay. Thus, local stakeholders may reap greater benefit from regional than local restoration, and water quality goals will only be met by efforts at both scales. Regional efforts are also required to reap the economic benefits of restoration. Because fishers can adjust to long term local (Patuxent River) water quality degradation by fishing in other areas, significant economic gains are more likely to be realized when water quality improvements occur over the larger set of choices of fishing locations, that is, regional scale improvements. Applying strict cost-benefit analysis to local restoration improvements may fail to capture the benefits from the cumulative effects of restoration projects that lead to regional improvements in water quality. Regulations that result in a decoupling of the timing or magnitude of local and regional restoration efforts, and lead to benefits that differ from public expectations, may affect the willingness to pay and stakeholder political support for restoration.

Key words: Chesapeake Bay, nutrients, hypoxia, watershed