![[Old] Chesapeake Research Consortium](https://chesapeake.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/LogoForDarkBack.png)
{Note: Most publications for the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership's Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) have been published by the CRC since the CBP's creation in 1984. These publications have been separately cataloged, however, and most are not available here. For a comprehensive searchable database of STAC publications, click here. }
It is estimated to cost billions of dollars to reduce nutrients and sediment loads to the Bay to improve water quality enough to support fish, shellfish and other living resources and provide safe and clean water for recreational uses by the year 2025. To that end, state and federal agencies involved with the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP)partnership have gone to great lengths to ensure an open, science-based, and transparent process thorough all aspects of the 2017 TMDL midpoint assessment.
Get PDFAs part of NOAA’s response to Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) outlined several activities to support fisheries and water quality management, including a plankton monitoring program. At the request of NCBO, the Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC) convened a Plankton Monitoring Design workshop on February 7-8, 2011 in Annapolis, Maryland. The objective of the workshop was to define the elements of a “core” tidal Chesapeake Bay Plankton Monitoring Program that addressed specific regional water quality and fisheries management needs. Although plankton monitoring programs have existed in the Chesapeake Bay since the mid-1980’s, the data have not been well integrated into fisheries and water quality management decisions. Reasons for and solutions to this disconnect were discussed during the workshop. Participants included water quality and resource managers, plankton and fisheries experts, and other individuals familiar with the plankton database and collection programs.
Get PDFNumerous compounds in the environment interfere with normal endocrine function in humans and other animals. These compounds, which include heavy metals, a wide variety of anthropogenic organic compounds, steroids and steroid-mimicking compounds, are collectively termed endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). Over the past 20 years, research on the impacts of EDC exposure has identified a range of effects on growth, development, and reproduction in humans and wildlife. Most studies of EDC effects on wildlife have focused on vertebrates. Findings of reduced reproductive success in amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals resulting from environmental exposure to EDCs have generated considerable alarm (e.g., Colborn et al. 1996). Though less attention has been focused on invertebrates, it is clear that a wide variety of compounds introduced into the environment by humans can alter normal endocrine function in numerous taxa, affecting growth, development, and reproduction. Most widely noted in this regard has been impairment of the molt cycle in crustaceans due to insecticide exposure. Among mollusks, induction of imposex and intersex in gastropods exposed to tributyltin has been widely studied. Fewer studies have addressed effects of EDC exposure on bivalve mollusks, but there is evidence from several species that a range of compounds can affect sex determination, gonadal and gamete development, egg and sperm viability and function, and larval development. Intergenerational effects, in which exposure of one generation to EDCs reduces the survival of larvae in the next generation, have also been observed. Viewed in the context of conservation and restoration of bivalve populations already at historic low levels and facing multiple stressors (e.g., Chesapeake Bay oyster populations), environmental pollutants which reduce the reproductive success of individuals can have very pronounced effects on population dynamics. For instance, on oyster reefs where recruitment is intermittent or provided primarily by stocking with hatchery-produced juveniles, exposure to compounds which result in early maturation as females and/or reduce sperm function can lead to reduced fertilization success in the population. Unfortunately, there are large gaps in our knowledge about inputs and fates of EDCs in Chesapeake Bay, and about the impacts these pollutants have on bivalves at the individual, population, and ecosystem levels. We identify several areas in which critical information is needed to effectively evaluate the magnitude of EDC impacts on bivalves in Chesapeake Bay. Specifically, we recommend seven priority research and development needs: (1) development of an integrated database and communications structure, (2) identification of the major effects and modes of action by EDCs in native bivalves, (3) linkage of effects on individuals at specific stages in the life cycle to population and ecosystem models to evaluate larger-scale impacts of exposure, (4) identification in bivalves of biomarkers indicative of field exposure to EDCs, (5) monitoring of potential EDC source areas, (6) in situ field exposure studies, and (7) evaluation of EDC effects on bivalves exposed to multiple stresses characteristic of many Bay habitats.
Get PDFChesapeake Research Consortium’s (CRC) Kevin Sellner was asked to attend a NOAA-sponsored Virginia Oyster Restoration Review workshop, assist Mr. Bill Goldsborough (Chesapeake Bay Foundation) in meeting facilitation, record comments, and derive a summary of the workshop’s presentations and open discussions. Ms. Paula Jasinski, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office-VIMS, organized the workshop, identifying key Virginia participants from those restoring, monitoring, and managing the native oysters of Virginia. The workshop was convened at the Alumni House, William & Mary College, on March 31, 2010. The summary reflects the author’s recorded comments and presentation highlights, expanded in some cases from monitoring details received prior to the workshop. This workshop was an important initial step in developing a coordinated, consensus-derived Virginia restoration and monitoring strategy now moving forward through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ development of a Native Oyster Restoration Plan, a NOAA-led Federal agency response to the Presidential Executive Order of 2009, Virginia’s Marine Resource Commission 2010 harvest area restoration strategy, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Benthic Assessment Program, and the individual efforts of several organizations including Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Foundation office, The Nature Conservancy, and VIMS’ Mann research laboratory, Lipcius laboratory, and Wachapreague Laboratory.
Get PDF