Brendan Wilbur

Research Memo 2

I have begun to notice more and more trends as I progress. My goal for this week is to
look into a couple topics that I believe have significant value for my paper. I still want to look in
to the decline of fish stock in the Chesapeake Bay. This week I have decided to ignore
freshwater systems as well as marine habitats that are not related to the Chesapeake. This will
exclude any rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes that may have been experience a decline in health.
For the rest of my capstone, I will only focus on the Chesapeake, but my goal for this week is to
redefine the decline in fish stock to include the decline in overall marine life. This week I will
specifically focus on both fish and shellfish including popular fish species, and shell fish such as
blue crabs and oysters. Another goal is to focus more on habitat. Last week I feel as if I focused
to much on declining number attributed to overfishing. While overfishing does have a major
impact, only researching this would lead to a narrow argument that does not consider other parts
of the problem. This week I will research a decline in habitat which will most likely be focused
on marine grasses and plants that protect juvenile species, as well as what causes the reoccurring
dead zones. I also plan on researching solutions. While I still have much to look into as far as
habitat and stock decline, I must begin to research solutions so I have a development for my
paper. Solutions may include advocacy, allocation practices or simply new laws. The
Chesapeake Bay foundation, as well as NOAA will most likely be my starting points. With that
in mind, my essential question is relatively the same, but for this week I hope to find evidence
answering: what is the decline in marine life in the Chesapeake Bay, and should we be
concerned.
I was fortunate to find a lot of research that related to my goals of further analyzing the
causes, and solutions. One of my goals was to understand other causes of the problem. Articles
from NOAA, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), as well as a report from Technology
Review, reported that overabundance of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the bay are causes a surge of
surface algae. According to NOAA 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen and 12.5 million pounds of
phosphorus enter the water each year from farms, urban and suburban runoff, and wastewater
(2017). These pollutions allow surface algae to rapidly grow. This surface Algae has gotten so
potent that it has actually completely blocked sunlight from shining though the water, and as a
result, killed all of the eelgrasses on the bay floor (Motley, 1988). The Chesapeake Bay
foundation also reports that 164,000 acres of crab and oyster habitat have been lost in just the
past three years (2008). While this is a terrible occurrence, there are already some solutions
being put into effect. On December 29, 2010 the EPA established a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TDML) for the Chesapeake Bay as a comprehensive pollution diet. This effort established by
the EPA, in accordance with NOA, is set to put in place any necessary efforts to revitalize
Chesapeake Bay habitats by 2025 (EPA, 2017). This is a major step returning stocks to their
original levels. Overfishing is rampant, but without a habitat, there will be no way for species to
repopulate.
This week provided much information, but there is still much to research. Next week, my
goal is still to look up what is causing the declining populations, but I would like to focus much
Brendan Wilbur

of my efforts on researching differing solutions to the declining numbers. I would like to look up
laws that are trying to be put in place, as well as existing laws. It is also important that I look up
differing apportionment practices that offer a solution to low populations.