903R911QO
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
...AN ACTION AGENDA
Envisioning Success
Chesapeake Executive Council ;, / *.^^"^9107
August, 1991
Printed on recycled paper
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
. . ;., ;-."» Wi
Accelerate Nutrient Reduction
Background
;'.. r^i.'dtcn Age
Goal i ..uii-.i Resource
Action Agenda ;
Adopt Pollution Prevention.
Background
Goal
Action Agenda
Restore and Enhance Living Resources and Their Habitat.
Background
Goal
Action Agenda
Broaden Participation in the Bay Restoration Program
Background
Goal
Action Agenda
Looking To The Future .
Acknowledgments
-------
-------
We have scored significant gains in our common
effort to sustain the productivity and safeguard the
future of the Chesapeake Bay. Under the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, literally hundreds
of tasks have been initiated to fulfill its bold
promise to restore and protect this treasured
estuary.
As a result of these efforts, we have witnessed
many achievements in each of the major areas
established by the Agreement:
Living Resources
Water Quality
Population Growth and Development
Public Information, Participation
and Education
Public Access
Governance
Many of the initial cooperative strategies envisioned by the Bay Agreement have in fact been
developed. Our main challenge today is to focus our collective energies on the implementation
of those strategies and on the elements critical to our future success.
These essential steps have carried us to a new threshold in our mutual endeavor to save a major
ecosystem through cooperative action. Our challenge now is to maintain, and even increase,
the momentum achieved over the months and years since the creation of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. We must look anew at the still formidable challenges ahead and bring into sharp
focus the specific objectives that merit priority now and in the months ahead.
The Chesapeake Executive Council has identified four action steps that define the future thrust
and direction of the Chesapeake Bay Program:
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
1
-------
I. Accelerate nutrient reduction
The scheduled reevaluation of the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal will be the starting
point for expanded efforts to control nitrogen and phosphorus. The measurable progress
in reducing phosphorus must be extended to nitrogen. We are concluding a phase of the
Nutrient Reduction Strategy and are reevaluating the 40 percent reduction goal. The next
phase of this strategy requires a heightened commitment and sense of urgency to continue
our efforts to control excess nitrogen and phosphorus levels. The findings of the reevaluation
will help us to focus our accelerated efforts.
II. Adopt pollution prevention
Coordinated programs to "turn off the tap" at the sources of pollution will achieve the largest
gains in environmental protection at the least cost. Industry, agriculture, communities, and
individual citizens all have roles to play in this effort. These pollution prevention programs
must complement our expanding efforts to reduce the impacts of environmental pollution.
III. Restore and enhance living resources and their habitat
The encouraging signs of striped bass recovery and increasing acreage of vital aquatic
vegetation underscore the potential of effective living resources management. Oysters,
waterfowl, and other important Bay speciesas well as their habitatmerit special man-
agement attention. Additionally, we must improve our ability to measure our progress in
restoring living resources.
IV. Broaden participation in the Bay Program
We must not forget that people are part of an ecosystem, too. Every citizen of the Bay basin
has a stake in the future of the Chesapeake; every citizen can contribute to the success of
restoration efforts. We must reach out especially to those who have not participated in the
Program previously.
Specific actions to support these four broad initiatives are described in the following pages.
Every level of governmentfederal, state, and localmust be a partner in this effort together
with business and industry, agriculture, academic and scientific institutions, civic and commu-
nity groups, and individuals.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
2
-------
BACKGROUND
The 1988 Nutrient Reduction Strategy specified three phases of actions necessary to achieve
a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Bay by the year 2000. The third, and
most ambitious phase of that strategy, begins at the end of 1991.
Substantial progress in nutrient reduction has been documented in the Bay during Phases I and
II as the result of improved wastewater treatment, a ban on phosphate detergents, and refine-
ments to the nonpoint source control programs. Together these controls have reduced the
phosphorus in the Bay by 20 percent since 1985. Yet despite this progress, there is mounting
evidence that we must sharpen our focus on the removal of nitrogen. We need to ensure that
the pace and extent of future reductions continue for phosphorus and greatly expand for
nitrogen in order to achieve our year 2000 goal. Additional actions have also contributed to
reductions in nutrients. Compliance with permit conditions has been dramatically improved,
now 72 percent better than it was in 1988. Modifications have been made to the operating
procedures at several municipal treatment plants to enhance the ability of existing equipment
to achieve greater levels of nutrient removal.
In 1990, an Independent Panel was established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator, William K. Reilly, to evaluate the implementation of nonpoint source control
programs in the Bay jurisdictions. The Panel issued a report containing many useful recom-
mendations for improvement of these programs. The Implementation Committee, upon the
advice of its Nonpoint Source Subcommittee, responded to this report by developing a plan
for future action.
The first steps indicated in this plan are outlined in the following action plan, which includes
program refinements, new elements of the program to control neglected sources of nutrients,
and the development of basin-wide standards for nutrient management plans. A balance of
measures is now needed to accelerate point source controls and to refine and augment existing
nonpoint source control programs. These measures would ensure that we meet or even
exceed the nutrient reduction goals made under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
GOAL
To achieve a greater rate of nutrient reduction in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
3
-------
ACTION AGENDA
I-(A) Reevaluate the Nutrient Reduction Strategy
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement calls for a revaluation of the 40 percent nutrient
reduction goal to be undertaken. That reevaluation, currently underway, involves a
careful review of the success of the program to date as well as ways to make more
specific recommendations on protecting valuable Bay and tributary resources. The
adoption of consensus recommendations from this review in a timely fashion will
provide the fundamental goals for further control and prevention efforts.
I-(B) Expand Nonpoint Source Management Programs
Phase III of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy focuses most heavily on nitrogen. Nutrient
management, a method of pollution prevention developed for use in agriculture, is
recognized as the most effective means of controlling nitrogen. The Bay Program's
emphasis has been on the responsibility of state and federal government and various
academic and advisory agencies to promote nutrient management. Greater partici-
pation in nutrient management efforts will be encouraged, and involvement of the
private sector will be facilitated through development of consistent minimum technical
specifications, expansion of educational programs, and development of model certi-
fication programs.
I-(C) Accelerate Point Source Controls & Operational Changes
The signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement committed to achieve a 40 percent
nitrogen and phosphorus reduction goal through a combination of point and nonpoint
source reductions. Some states are using point source controls to achieve their goal.
While significant progress, particularly with regard to phosphorus, has been docu-
mented in the last five years, an accelerated pace will expedite the improvement of
the Bay's water quality. The preliminary results of a pilot study conducted by Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University indicate that in certain types of sewage
treatment plants dramatic nutrient removal can be achieved through operational
modifications coupled with minor capital improvements. Based on the promise that
this research holds, the states should continue their support, using this engineering
approach at other sewage treatment plants, where appropriate.
I-(D) Ensure Point Source Compliance
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits set very specific
limits on the quantities of pollutants that may be discharged into the Bay's receiving
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
4
-------
waters. Operational difficulties in the treatment process may .result in discharges that
are not in full compliance for all parameters. However, increased operational efficiency
and enhanced compliance monitoring will aid in achieving compliance. In order to
achieve improved point source compliance, the states and EPA will implement the
Chesapeake Bay Long-Term Compliance Strategy adopted in April 1991.
I-(E) Enhance Educational Efforts
The efforts to control nutrients rely on a combination of incentives, regulations, and
educational programs. It is widely recognized that incentives and regulations alone
can be costly approaches to attack the entire universe of nonpoint source problems.
Educational efforts, on the other hand, can contribute to major life style and work
method changes that will help reduce pollutant releases. Consequently, new emphasis
will be placed on education with particular attention paid to refining the messages
to sectors most important to reach.
I-(F) Control Additional Nutrient Sources
Additional nutrient sources must be carefully assessed to determine how they can
contribute to the massive reductions necessary to reach the Program's goals. Atmo-
spheric sources, groundwater and stormwater runoff from urban areas are leading
candidates for this assessment.
I-(G) Expand Research
The control of nonpoint sources of pollution is both uncertain because of the diversity
of sources, and less understood because of the relative newness of the discipline. Most
controls in use today are adaptations of soil erosion control techniques and many have
not been carefully assessed for their impacts on water quality. Better information is
needed about the water quality impacts of various Best Management Practices and
more attention must be devoted to atmospheric deposition and groundwater concerns.
I-(H) Prepare a Continuing Action Agenda
Following the completion of the Reevaluation of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, a
continuing Action Agenda will be prepared to improve other elements of the program
in such diverse areas as monitoring, targeting, regulatory development and coopera-
tion with other governmental and private interests. Regulatory controls such as those
planned through new stormwater permits in urban areas and strengthened controls
in other nonpoint source programs will be pursued.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
5
-------
BACKGROUND
Pollution prevention is source reduction. It eliminates or reduces the amount of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant released to the environment at its source. It complements
other environmental protection practices as the preferred first step in a hierarchy of risk
reduction measures.
Adoption of this concept within the Chesapeake Bay Program broadens the work on pollution
control or mitigation to include anticipating and avoiding the generation of pollution before
it takes place. While a number of highly successful pollution prevention actions have been
employed in the Bay Program to date, the goal serve's to enhance and extend this concept to
as many components and activities of the program as are feasible. This need is driven by the
changing nature of our remaining environmental challenges, such as toxic releases from
disparate sources, nonpoint source problems, and the collective impact of individual actions
that comprise our major concern with land use and development.
Some examples of pollution prevention in the Bay program include:
Phosphorus Reductions: Phosphorus levels in the mid-Bay have decreased 20 percent from
1984 levels. Phosphorus reductions are attributed to: improved municipal treatment,
phosphate detergent bans, and soil erosion controls (the latter two represent prevention
techniques).
Nutrient Management Plans Reducing Fertilizer Use: Farmers have reduced the amount
of chemical fertilizers applied to the land, thereby assisting in meeting the nutrient reduction
goal of reducing specific nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) by 40 percent using a 1985
base to the year 2000. Nitrogen fertilizer use in the watershed has decreased 25 percent from
1980 levels. Bay Program reporting has documented reduced runoff of excess nutrients as
evidenced by more than 115,000 acres with Nutrient Management Plans, 1,500 animal waste
storage systems, and over 12,000 Best Management Practices (BMPs) completed.
Protecting Water Quality Through Land Use Management: Maryland's Critical Areas
Program protects water quality through controls over a 1000 foot coastal management zone.
Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act protects water quality through a two-tiered,
land-use management approach to the management of lands affecting the Bay and its
tributaries.
Toxics Reductions: Overall, toxics releases are being reduced in the Bay watershed. In 1987,
EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reported that toxics releases for all industries in all Bay
watershed states were 321.2 million pounds. In 1988, toxic releases decreased 9 percent to
292 million pounds, a 29.2 million pound difference.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
6
-------
Pesticide Management: Maryland and Virginia and federal legislation limit or restrict I
sale and use of tributyltin (TBT) boat paint which is toxic to shellfish and other aque
organisms. Carbofuran has been banned from agricultural use in Virginia to help prot
the Bay's water quality and living resources. The EPA and a national manufacturer agre
in May 1991 to eliminate the use of carbofuran under a multi-year phase down. All u
in Maryland will terminate in September 1991. Use of integrated pest management is gaini
increased support in the Bay watershed, with specific programs conducted in the three sta
and the District of Columbia.
Waste Minimization: Waste minimization programs are the beginnings of a major si
in the basic regional approach to waste. All Region III states possess approved capac
assurance plans (under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) wh:
include the development of waste minimization programs.
Building on these successful examples of pollution prevention, the Bay Program plans
strengthen its focus and the use of this approach. Consequently, the following Action Agen
identifies a framework for future implementation efforts. The highest priority areas for imp
mentation are activities in the following categories or sectors: Growth Management & La
Consumption, Energy Efficiency, Agriculture and Pesticides, Industrial Toxics, Oil Spill P
vention, Transportation, and Education/Participation.
GOAL
To adopt pollution prevention as the preferred approach for reducing ecological and hum
health risks in the Chesapeake Bay region.
ACTION AGENDA
II-(A) Growth Management & Land Consumption
Develop and implement, where appropriate, state-specific Growth Management Plans
response to the 2020 Report to promote sustainable development.
Provide a greater level of information on the environmental and resource costs of uncc
trolled growth to the general public and decision-makers at all governmental levels.
Provide local government decision-makers with localized land use and environmen
impact information using geographic information systems (GIS) to assist them with dev>
opment decisions affecting the health of the Bay.
Encourage stream protection through forested and vegetated buffer zones surroundi:
stream banks to reduce nutrient runoff.
II-(B) Energy Efficiency
Promote the adoption of "Green Lights" programs by governments, business and indust
in the Bay region to conserve energy in facilities. The Green Lights program encourag
the use of energy-efficient lighting technology which reduces energy consumption wh
delivering the same or better illumination.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
7
-------
Encourage utility rate restructuring to facilitate energy conservation and least cost utility
planning.
Encourage government and the private sector to incorporate stronger energy conservation/
efficiency elements into their energy plans.
(C) Agriculture and Pesticides
Support strong state programs to encourage the implementation of Nutrient Management
Programs for agriculture to reduce fertilizer use and runoff.
Encourage states to establish and enforce animal waste regulatory programs that include
special provisions for operations that have a high concentration of animal units.
Support development and implementation of effective state integrated pest management
(IPM) programs and state pesticide regulatory programs. Initiate or expand urban IPM
programs in selected states through demonstration projects.
Develop and implement the Bay Pesticides Management Index and Registry to promote the
use of alternative environmentally preferable pesticides and pest control practices in the
basin.
(D) Industrial Toxics
Encourage companies in the Bay watershed to participate in the national "33/50 Program"
to voluntarily reduce releases and off-site transfers of a targeted set of 17 select chemicals.
The project calls for a 33 percent reduction in the discharge of these chemicals by the end
of 1992 and a 50 percent reduction by 1995. Companies participating in this program are
encouraged to use pollution prevention practices to achieve the desired reductions. Federal
facilities (DoD among others) will be requested to participate in this program in the Bay
region. Industry also will be encouraged to achieve voluntary reductions of the 14 chemicals
on the Bay Program's Toxics of Concern List.
Develop prototypes for a region-wide waste exchange network for industrial wastes so that
discarded materials from one industry might be reused effectively by another.
Ensure regular, wide-spread distribution of the Bay's Toxics Loading Inventory, a comput-
erized database, as a means for full public awareness of the source of loadings in the Region.
Encourage state pollution prevention initiatives with emphasis on maximizing the useful
lives of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) through industrial wastewater pretreat-
ment, multi-media source reduction, water conservation measures and technical assistance.
Encourage development and refinement of state programs to regulate toxic air pollutants
not now regulated by EPA under the Clean Air Act.
E) Oil Spill Prevention
Secure a Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA and the United States Coast
Guard to help ensure a close working relationship in the implementation of additional
safeguards to prevent and mitigate oil spills under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Seek the
designation of the Bay as a critical or sensitive planning area for enhanced preparedness
under the Act.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
8
-------
Evaluate regional or national options which can be employed to manage and/or limit oil
exploration and development activities in the Atlantic Ocean in any area where an oil spill
could result in oil reaching the mouth of the Bay and cause irreparable damage to living
resources.
Continue support for existing state efforts to prepare for and prevent oil spills in the Bay
and its tributaries.
II-(F) Transportation
Support transportation control measures regarding emission reductions under Section 108
(f) of the Clean Air Act of 1990. Measures which must be evaluated include car pooling,
mass transportation, and employee subsidies for those who take mass transit. Coordinate
efforts with regional transportation authorities and state and regional planning agencies to
reduce vehicle miles traveled and single occupancy vehicles in the Bay region.
Support legislative efforts to fund alternatives to road construction, such as: mass transit,
parking facilities and high occupancy vehicle lanes.
Promote Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), a membership-sponsored ser-
vice, to work with local governments, developers, and businesses on improving efficiency
of travel by organizing ride-sharing programs in suburban/urban congested areas.
IMG) Education/Participation
Challenge Bay committees and subcommittees to identify and implement pollution preven-
tion efforts in their planning activities.
Initiate workshops for the public, industry and scientists to help each sector increase its
awareness of the pollution prevention concept and provide answers to the question: "What
can I do to practice pollution prevention?" Challenge research scientists to explore additional
pollution prevention source reduction techniques.
Promote the Department of Defense's Tidewater Interagency Pollution Prevention Program
(TIPPP) in the Bay region. A joint DoD/EPA program, TIPPP seeks to demonstrate pollution
prevention techniques on a community-wide basis. Designate the Chesapeake Bay region
as a "Geographic Demonstration Area" for testing of new pollution prevention strategies
and projects.
Conduct a major Ground Water Protection forum to assess the adequacy of protection
programs and policies in the region and to obtain public comment on national policy
changes. The national Ground Water Task Force recommendations can provide a framework
for these discussions.
Support local efforts to develop household hazardous waste management programs. Coordinate
training programs and workshops with the Local Government Advisory Committee.
Establish a separate Chesapeake Bay Pollution Prevention computerized database in the
national Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse as a means of transferring infor-
mation on Bay-related prevention projects, initiatives, meetings, etc.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
9
-------
BACKGROUND
"The productivity, diversity and abundance of living resources are the best ultimate measures
of the Chesapeake Bay's health" (Chesapeake Bay Agreement). Therefore, it is critical that the
Bay Program set forth benchmarks for successmeasures that can be used to evaluate the health
of the Bay.
We are beginning to see signs that living resources are recovering. The response of the striped
bass to coordinated and cooperative management efforts is a national success story. Submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV or underwater grass) acreage is increasing in the Potomac and the upper
Bay. Benthic or bottom dwelling organisms are increasing in type and abundance in the outer
harbor of Baltimore and in the upper portions of the Patuxent, P.otomac, and York Rivers.
Approximately, 90 miles of spawning and nursery habitat have been restored by removal of
fish passage impediments. However, many species, including oysters, flounder and waterfowl,
have not yet shown signs of recovery.
GOAL
A) To continue to take strong steps to protect and restore Bay fish, shellfish, and waterfowl.
B) To accelerate efforts to provide necessary habitat.
C) To set measurable goals or targets for living resources and their habitats to enable us to assess
progress.
ACTION AGENDA
III-(A) Provide for Species Restoration and Enhancement of Fish and Shellfish
1. Development of New Plans:
Appropriate harvest management is one of the most critical elements affecting our ability to
maintain healthy populations of fish and waterfowl and to restore those in a state of decline.
The Bay Program has endorsed Management Plans for alosids (shad), blue crab, bluefish, oyster,
striped bass, weakfish and spotted seatrout and waterfowl. Plans for summer flounder,
American eel and spot/croaker will be finalized by December 1991. Plans will be prepared
for red drum and black drum in 1992.
Develop new plans for the management of black sea bass, tautog, Spanish mackerel, and
king mackerel and catfish by 1993.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
10
-------
2. Implementation of Existing Plans:
We must follow through on the recommenda-
tions of our existing management plans
for fish, shellfish and waterfowl. For
example, Virginia and Mary-
land have recently taken ac-
tion to implement the Blue
Crab Management Plan. Mea-
sures include:
Conducting major educational
and promotional programs
which advocate voluntary use of
cull rings in crab pots to allow the
escape of undersize crabs. To date,
Virginia crabbers have gone from 5
percent to approximately 70 percent
voluntary compliance.
Setting a minimum mesh size in Virginia for
peeler pound heads at 1 inch diameter to allow
small crabs to escape, mature, and spawn.
Analyzing information on the winter crab dredge fishery
in Virginia to determine if additional areas should be des-
ignated as sanctuaries; crab pot surveys and other data to deter-
mine amount of fishing pressure; and winter dredge data to determine
over-wintering populations and the effects of the previous summer's (1990)
recreational and commercial harvest to develop estimators of future harvest levels.
To ensure that the blue crab remains at a healthy level we will work with the appropriate
organizations and legislative bodies to resolve the following issues, among others:
Promote pending legislation in Virginia to have a maximum 6 foot dredge used in the winter
fishery. Less area would be covered leaving crabs for spawning and for the summer fishery.
Investigate the licensing of crab shedding operations to minimize peeler loss.
Discuss daily time limits in Virginia, Maryland, and by the Potomac River Fisheries Com-
mission to stabilize harvest.
Review consistent soft crab size limits to increase the meat yield per crab and improve
enforcement efforts.
Appropriate priority issues will be addressed for additional species.
Investigate efforts to enhance wild stocks of oysters, and restore the public fishery through
broad-based federal/state/private partnership to promote aquaculture.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
11
-------
III-(B) Encourage the Restoration and Enhancement of Habitat
The Bay region has lost a significant amount of wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and
aquatic reef substrate. In response, the Bay Program has adopted strong policies for the
protection and enhancement of SAV and wetlands.
1. Oysters:
Further policy actions need to be taken to restore aquatic reefs as foundation for oysters to restore
the oysters' role as primary water filtering organisms and to provide safe resting and feeding
areas for fish.
Develop an aquatic reef habitat plan for oysters by December 1992.
Develop joint plans under the Coastal America program involving the EPA, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Army
Corps of Engineers in partnership with the states to provide funding, expertise and equip-
ment in a Bay-wide effort to rebuild oyster reefs in historic oyster growing areas.
Explore other funding options from public and private sources for the reconstruction of
oyster reefs and to address the problems of oyster disease.
2. Migratory Fish:
Another initiative designed to restore
habitat is the Bay-wide fish passage pro-
gram. Efforts to remove barriers to allow
fish to reclaim traditional spawning and
nursery areas have been successful through
effective cooperation among jurisdictions,
the Federal government, and the private
sector.
Since completion of the Fish Passage
Strategy in December 1988 and its sub-
sequent Implementation Plan in Decem-
ber 1989,90 miles of historic habitat have
been opened. This has occurred through
a combination of opening blockages (James
River, Stoney Run, Morgan, Deep and
Beaverdam Creeks), ladder construction
(Winters Run, Patuxent and Chickahominy
Rivers), and a fish lift on the Susque-
hanna River. In addition, significant effort
has been expended to maintain, create or
expand on the trap/transport and hatch-
ery components of reintroduction pro-
grams.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
12
-------
Create additional nursery and spawning areas:
Maryland: to focus on completing passage in the Patapsco, and target areas on the
Patuxent, Tuckahoe and Anacostia Rivers.
Pennsylvania: to work with project owners to provide passage over the dams on the
Susquehanna upstream of the Conowingo Dam.
Virginia: priority passage projects will involve the James and Rappahannock Rivers
along with a shad restoration program being planned for the James River.
District of Columbia: to provide passage in Rock Creek.
Develop a Habitat Resource Assessment to ascertain the amount of additional habitat that
could be provided under various funding options. The Bay Program will also give priority
to coordinated efforts to seek additional funding, public and/or private, to accomplish
priority fish passage projects.
III-(C) Establish Measurable Living Resources and Habitat Restoration Goals
Restoration targets for shad in the upper Bay and for waterfowl are contained in the Imple-
mentation Plans adopted for alosids and waterfowl. The mechanism for measuring success in
restoring wetlands will be determined based on the accountability built into the Policy's goal
of "No Net Loss/Long-Term Gain."
1. Fish and Shellfish:
An initial basis for measuring progress for other fish species is being developed pursuant to
the following schedule:
Establish restoration targets for weakfish and summer flounder (by December 1991) and
bluefish, alosids, and striped bass (by July 1992).
Provide the Executive Council by December 1991 with a schedule for developing similar
targets for oysters and blue crabs.
2. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation:
The SAV is one of the main indicators of the Bay Program's success or failure to achieve adequate
water quality.
The amount of light and nutrients necessary for the survival of SAV are being defined. This
will allow the program to take the significant step of specifically linking water quality and living
resources survival.
Set SAV acreage goals for each tidal tributary and the mainstem to provide a measure of
progress directly related to living resources. A three-tiered set of SAV distribution resto-
ration goals will be phased in, representing increases in SAV distribution which can be
achieved with improvements in water quality over time.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
13
-------
BACKGROUND
Much of the Bay Program's success can be attributed to the open participation and interaction
of citizens, scientists, and policy makers. Nevertheless, there still is the need for us to continually
expand citizen awareness and involvement. The 1990 census shows significant increases over
the past decade in the numbers of individuals in each ethnic group in each of the Bay states.
This underscores the need to enhance the representation of under-represented groups in the
public participation process and their access to the scientific, technical and policy positions of
the Bay Program.
Many groups in the urban areas of the Bay region, as well as the rural poor, have not been
typically represented among the citizen network that has made the Bay restoration successful.
Consequently, this initiative seeks to solicit the talents of citizens of African, Hispanic, Asian,
and Middle-eastern descent, among others. Additionally, the initiative seeks greater involve-
ment of rural poor for whom the productivity of the Bay is of economic importance.
Several efforts toward increasing public participation in the Bay are already underway:
The Anacostia Public Education & Participation Program of the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin has reached over 40,000 people since it began in 1988. A prime
objective of this program is to get every foot of every stream within the Anacostia watershed
"adopted" by local residents and businesses.
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) has formed a workgroup on
Human Resources to develop strategies for involving more women and ethnic minorities.
They are conducting a survey of current minority and female employment by public
environmental agencies in the Bay region.
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other citizen
groups are initiating efforts to increase the involvement of inner city and multi-cultural
groups.
State and federal agencies are expanding efforts to recruit minority groups and women for
administrative and technical positions. For example, the U.S. Forest Service's role in
broadening minority participation in the Bay is as follows: 1) a Forest Service liaison has
been leading an ad hoc committee of Bay Program participants to review ways to broaden
multi-cultural participation within the Bay Program; 2) a Forest Service representative has
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
14
-------
been coordinating efforts with the Bay Program and HBCUs (historically black colleges and
universities) in the Bay area; and 3) the Forest Service recently awarded a research grant
of $47,000 to an HBCU to investigate the effects of a pesticide used in forest management
on crabs. Another example includes the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) where a represen-
tative is carrying out an outreach effort aimed at educating minority landowners on water
quality issues. SCS programs are being developed which will direct technical and financial
assistance to limited resource farmers. EPA Special Emphasis Groups have participated in
articulating the action agenda which follows.
GOAL
To foster continued success of the Bay Program by broadening the participation and involvement
of groups not previously active on Bay issues.
ACTION AGENDA
IV-(A) Challenge Bay Program participants and citizen groups to increase multi-cultural
participation in their activities and recruitment efforts. Bay committees and subcom-
mittees will be requested to undertake activities to incorporate multi-cultural partici-
pation in the Bay program.
IV-(B) Assign the Public Information and Education Subcommittee the responsibility of
ensuring that future reprints and development of Bay Program public information
materials and education programs have a broad appeal and reflect the goal of culti-
vating broader participation. The Subcommittee will be responsible for developing
or reviewing all public information documents and releases to ensure that information
has broad appeal.
IV-(C) Survey multi-cultural interests to help focus and to evaluate the impact of activities
undertaken under this initiative. The Communications Steering Committee is propos-
ing to conduct a general public opinion survey regarding Bay awareness and interests
which could be used as a vehicle to define the interests and concerns of the various
ethnic groups. The Committee should ensure that this survey identifies and samples
representatives of ethnic and socio-economic groups in order to help focus and evaluate
the impact of activities undertaken under this initiative.
IV-(D) Expand the Bay community's outreach network to include groups and agencies
working on urban environmental and multi-cultural issues. Coordinate Bay Program
efforts with these groups, such as EPA Region Ill's Urban Environmental Risk Initia-
tive, so as to multiply the coverage of measures taken.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
15
-------
IV-(E) Encourage local officials and citizen groups to increase participation in environmental
issues among ethnic groups through such activities as sponsoring workshops in inner
city or rural areas. Both the Local Government Advisory Committee and the Citizens
Advisory Committee should be consulted for the most effective means to accomplish
these tasks.
IV-(F) Ask each Bay state to sponsor events and/or activities in an urban area(s) and
communities; for example: sponsor boat trips or fishing events to promote awareness
of natural resources.
IV-(G) Step up environmental education efforts in urban and rural elementary and secondary
schools to cultivate an early awareness and interest in environmental science and
management. For example, support the sponsorship of Environmental Explorer
groups to assist young teens to explore careers in the environmental arena.
IV-(H) Seek the support of multi-cultural institutional groups such as historically black
colleges and universities and other non-governmental organizations for recruiting and
educational purposes. Initiate internship and research programs as stated in the
Environmental Education Act. Establish a Bay Program clearinghouse for sharing
resumes that may offer a pool of qualified individuals from a range of ethnic or minority
groups..
IV-(I) Direct the Communications Steering Committee to ensure that Bay Program commit-
tees and subcommittees consider new "forums" for discussing environmental issues,
such as minority professional societies and rural development organizations. For
example, seek out speaking engagements at key conferences and events, and publish
editorials in targeted publications.
IV-(J) Require the Communications Steering Committee and the chairman of the Implemen-
tation Committee to report to the Principals' Staff Committee at each of its meetings
on progress in achieving this goal and each of the foregoing actions.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
16
-------
Just as the Chesapeake Bay is the core of a dynamic, ever-changing ecosystem, so must the
restoration program retain the flexibility to adapt to needs and opportunities as they emerge
in the future. The themes set forth here will be regularly reviewed and modified as necessary
to maintain our progress toward the ultimate objective of a healthy, productive Chesapeake
Bay.
There must be no change, however, in the commitment to see the job through. The challenges
will not diminish, but will grow more difficult as we seek to move beyond traditional envi-
ronmental measures to create and construct innovative mechanisms necessary to protect natural
resources in the face of rapid growth and development.
Only continued public interest, support and participation can sustain the long-term strategies
essential to the success of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Each generation must renew the
commitment to protect this national treasure.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
17
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PRINCIPALS' STAFF COMMITTEE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edwin B. Erickson, Chairman
Administrator, Region III
Virginia
The Honorable Elizabeth H. Haskell
Secretary of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania
The Honorable Helen D. Wise
Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs
and Secretary to the Cabinet
Maryland
David Carroll, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator
Office of the Governor
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Ann Pesiri Swanson
Executive Director
District of Columbia
Aubrey Edwards, Director
Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
District of Columbia
Ferial Bishop
Dept. of Housing & Environmental Regulation
James Collier
Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Kenneth Laden
Dept. of Public Works
Maryland
David Carroll
Office of the Governor
Verna E. Harrison, Assistant Secretary
Dept. of Natural Resources
Rosemary Roswell
Dept. of Agriculture
Michael Haire
Dept. of the Environment
Pennsylvania
Patricia A. Buckley
Governor's Policy Office
Walter Peechatka
Dept. of Agriculture
Louis W. Berchini
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Keith R. Gentzler
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Paul O. Swartz
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Virginia
Richard N. Burton
State Water Control Board
Keith Buttleman
Council on the Environment
Roland Geddes
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
William A. Pruitt
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Jack Raybourne
Dept. of Game"& Inland Fisheries
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Ann Pesiri Swanson
Executive Director
Federal
Jon M. Capacasa, Chairman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Glenn Kinser
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Edmund Miller
U.S. Department of Defense
Dr. Jerry Stokes
USDA Forest Service
Dr. Robert Lippson
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm.
Robert Klumpe
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Stanley Sauer
U.S. Geological Survey
Col. Frank Finch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regional
Robert Bielo
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Lee Zeni
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Ex Officio
Anna Long
Local Government Advisory Committee
Joseph A. Mihursky
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
Mary Roe Walkup
Citizens Advisory Committee
Photographs
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Kent Mountford
Editors
Jon M. Capacasa
Mary Ann Boyer
We wish to express our appreciation to all who took the time to
offer information, comments and review of this document, espe-
cially Charles Spooner, Tom McCully, Jim Edward, and Larry
Minock.
This document was printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency for the Chesapeake B"ay Program.
Chesapeake Bay Program Action Agenda
18
-------
Prepared for the
Chesapeake Executive Council
by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office
US EPA Region III
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
(301) 267-0061
------- |