Topic: chesapeake bay

These tables serve as a reference document containing the key design elements of nutrient trading programs in four Chesapeake Bay states: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

This working paper evaluates the opportunities for Pennsylvania farms to sell nutrient credits in a proposed nutrient trading program in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

This working paper evaluates the opportunities for Maryland farms to sell nutrient credits in a proposed nutrient trading program in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

The federal commitment to develop and support environmental markets could have national significance.

Research and design payments for ecosystem services that can improve water quality more efficiently and cost-effectively.

This working paper evaluates the opportunities for Virginia farms to sell nutrient credits in a proposed nutrient trading program in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

This working paper describes the rationale for nutrient trading in the Chesapeake Bay region and estimates the economic benefits, including potential benefits to the agriculture, wastewater, and stormwater sectors.

Nutrient pollution emerges as one of the greatest threats to water quality.

A new Fact Sheet on nutrient trading in the Chesapeake Bay region covers issues such as potential costs and revenues, and how farmers and other stakeholders can benefit.

This policy note provides an overview of the range of actions, policies, and institutions around the globe that address nutrient pollution and eutrophication.

This policy note provides a snapshot of the sources of nutrient pollution and the corresponding socioeconomic drivers that are increasing nutrient levels in our waterways.

Presidential intervention has raised the stakes in a decades-long effort to clean up Chesapeake Bay.

This map identifies 131 eutrophic and hypoxic coast zones in North America and the Caribbean. Sixty-two have documented hypoxia, 59 are areas of concern, and 10 are systems in recovery.

Outlines economic and “fairness” reasons why supporting the sale of the cost-share portion of agricultural nutrient and sediment reductions is not the most appropriate policy for the USDA and other government agencies to adopt.