CBP/TRS 222/102
EPA 903-R-99-008
CHESAPEAKE BAY
WATERSHED
ITS LAND AND PEOPLE
TIP F.FABe^'orillT |PA Report Collection
E^loaal Center for Environmental HS Sfijf Environmental Info™ati<>«
Info.'iriation Philadelphia, PA 19103
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
JUNE 1999
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
see inr f-f/j
,i. toinniurslv to winch
xhmg, we fii;tv bcgif:
ro use it witl
s ?! , I II F S A P E A K E BAY WATERSHED
The Chesapeake Bay is our country's largest and most productive estuary. Water from springs,
streams, small creeks and rivers flows into the Bay, mixing with water from the Atlantic Ocean to
form this estuarine system. From the smallest first order streams to the larger tributaries like the
Susquehanna, Potomac and James Rivers, fresh water enters the Bay from a 64,000 square-mile
drainage basin or watershed. The Chesapeake Watershed includes parts of New York, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and Maryland, and the entire District of Columbia.
-------
EPA - Online Library System Record
Page 1 of 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Libraries
Contact Us | Print Version
EPA Home > Information Sources > Libraries > Online Library System > OLS Record
OLS Record
±
SUM! NiwnJ LMH I^Mil Esatl fag I [ Display Records as Bibliograpfiy
RECORD NUMBER: 17 OF 82
Item Status
Main Title
CORP Author
Publisher
Year Published
Report Number
Stock Number
OCLC Number
Subjects
Subject Added
Ent
Collation
Holdings
*»-—
Abstract
Chesapeake Bay watershed : its land and people /
Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, MD. Chesapeake Bay Program.
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1999
EPA903-R-99-008; CBP/TRS-222/102
PB99-156416
42437430
Chesapeake Bay; Watersheds(Basins), Natural resources management; Aquatic
biology; Aquatic habitats; Ecosystems; Forests; Wetlands; Estuaries; Environmental
health; Environmental protection; Population dynamics; Man environment
interactions; Water pollution; Land pollution; Middle Atlantic Region(United States);
Chesapeake Bay Program
Watersheds-Chesapeake Bay (Md. and Va.)
12 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
LIBRARY"" CALL NUMBER LOCATION
"EJAD EPA-903/R-99-008 . Region 3
Library/Philadelphia,
PA
EJDD CB 00793 2 copies OASQA Library/Fort
Meade.MD
NTIS PB99-156416 Most EPA libraries have NTIS
a fiche copy filed under
the call number shown.
Check with individual
libraries about paper
copy.
The Chesapeake Bay was this nation's first estuary targeted for restoration and
protection. The Chesapeake Bay Program is the unique regional partnership that has
been directing and conducting the restoration of the Bay since the signing of the
http://cave.epa.gov/cgi/nph-bwcgis/BASIS/ncat/pub/ncat/DDW?W%3DTITLE+PH+WOR... 8/23/2006
-------
EPA - Online Library System Record
Page 2 of 3
Notes
Supplementary
Notes
Availability
Notes
Corp Au Added
Ent
Place
Published
PUB Date Free
Form
Series Ti
Traced
NTIS Prices
Holdings
Modified
Bib Level
OCLC Time
Stamp
Cataloging
Source
Language
OCLC/NTIS
Type
OCLC Rec
Leader
historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Chesapeake Bay Program partners
include the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of Columbia;
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, representing the federal government; and participating advisory
groups.
Cover title. "June 1999"-Cover. "EPA 903-R-99-008"~Cover
Cover.
"CBP/TRS 222/1 02"-
See also PB97-1 05944 and PB98-1 15587.
Available in original stock only. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-
NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; and
email at orders@ntis.fedworld.gov. NTIS is located at 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA, 22161, USA.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay Program.
{Washington, D.C ?} :
1999.
CBP/TRS ; 222/1 02
PCA03
LIBRARY Date Modified
EJA 19991105
EJD 19991008
m
19991103143034
OCLC/T
eng
OCLC
MERGE
00931 nam 2200265Ka 45020
Q 1
Search I ISuhnaryl I PrinTl | Nest
[ Display Records as Bibliography ] [ Item Status ]
If there is an AREA footer, put it here.
EPA Home | Priya_cy_and_Secunty^Notice | Contact Us
http://cave.epa.ROv/cgi/nph-bwcgis/BASIS/ncat/pub/ncat/DDW?W%3DTITLE+PH+WOR... 8/23/2006
-------
C H F S A P E A K E B A Y
A T E R S H E D
A N I) P I. O P I. I
I i
LAN
C1
^k oil, air, water, plants and animals, including
4k. .
-------
Threats to the
M:
ajor threats to the Bay include nutrients,
toxic chemicals, habitat loss and overfishing.
Although nutrients, sediments and potentially toxic
chemicals do occur naturally in the Chesapeake
Bay system, the amount of these pollutants
entering the system has been amplified by human
activities. Though sediments and toxic chemicals
cause harmful effects to die ecosystem, most
scientists believe excess nutrients have the largest
impact on the Bay.
A. Nutrients
"Eutrophication," or nutrient enrichment, of a body
of water can lead to large algal blooms. Algal
blooms are the result of the rapid, uncontrolled
growth of microscopic plants in Bay waters. They
harm the system in two ways. First, they cloud the
water and block sunlight, causing underwater
grasses to die. Underwater grasses, like all plants,
cannot grow without sunlight. Because these
grasses provide food and shelter for Bay creatures,
spawning and nursery habitat is destroyed and
waterfowl have less food to eat when grasses die
off. Second, when the algae die and decompose,
oxygen is used up. Dissolved oxygen in the water
is essential to most organisms living in the water,
such as fish, crabs and other shellfish. In the
summer, dissolved oxygen levels can become
dangerously low in the deeper waters of the Bay.
As upper water temperatures rise, fish and crabs
that would normally retreat to deeper, cooler
waters may be restricted to the warmer upper
waters due to low oxygen in deeper waters. This
imposes a stress on these organisms which
can lead to their mortality.
B. Toxic Chemicals
Chemical contaminants are also a threat to the
health of the Bay, particularly when they are found
in high concentrations. Filter feeding organisms like
clams, mussels and oysters can accumulate these
chemicals, as can fish and other marine organisms.
An accumulation of chemical contaminants in
any organism may cause its death or reduce its
reproductive success. It can also pose a health
threat if the organism is eaten by other animals,
including humans. One of the most notorious
environmental chemical contaminants stories is that
of the pesticide DDT and its impact on bald eagles.
DDT contamination caused eggshell brittleness, and
fewer young were hatched. Due in part to a ban on
DDT, bald eagles are no longer endangered and
are seen with increasing frequency around the Bay
watershed. A loss of habitat is now the primary
concern regarding the future of our nation's symbol.
C. Habitat Loss
The Bay and its watershed provide food, water,
cover and nesting/nursing areas, collectively known
as habitat, to more than 3,000 plants, fish and
waterfowl. A loss of habitat poses a threat not
only to the organisms that live in that habitat, but
to the overall health of the Bay.
Forests: Forests contribute to the Bay's health in a
variety of ways: they filter nutrients and sediment,
capture rainfall and regulate streamflow, moderate
stream and air temperatures, stabilize erodible
soils and preserve biodiversity by creating and
maintaining critical wildlife habitat. Historically
forest lands have been cleared for farming, fuel
and timber, especially during colonial years. Today
the demands of an increasing population are the
primary threat to forest lands. The amount of forest
land needed to restore the ecological balance of
the Bay is unknown. To maintain the present
health of the Chesapeake ecosystem and improve
it in the future, new forests must be planted and
existing ones must be conserved, especially critical
forests along streambanks and those buffering
polluting lands.
-------
A
1 though forest and wetlands still cover a
majority of the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
they are being lost at an alarming rate. We've lost
hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land in
the Bay region between 1985 and 1997 primarily
due to urban sprawl. Forests, once covering 95%
of the watershed, now cover around only 60%.
Areas closest to the Bay are losing forest the
fastest. A recent EPA study indicates that coastal
watersheds have the highest fragmentation.
Forest fragmentation is the process by which larger
contiguous forest lands are broken into smaller,
more isolated fragments or islands, surrounded by
human-modified environments like agriculture and
urban land uses. There is concern that a continued
decline in and fragmentation of forest land may
reduce the ecosystem's ability to protect water
quality, provide healthy and diverse habitat, and
remain a viable economic resource for recreation,
timber and other forest products.
Wetlands perform many of the same functions as
forests and are as important to maintaining the
health of the Bay ecosystem. Wetlands are areas
that are subject to periodic flooding or prolonged
saturation. In the Bay watershed we have both tidal
(subject to flooding from daily tides) and non-tidal
wetlands. Wetlands are among the most productive
ecosystems in the world and support an enormous
amount of plant material. As such, they have the
ability to trap sediment, store seasonal flood
waters and absorb pollutants like nitrogen and
phosphorous. Coastal wetlands absorb the
destructive energy of waves, reducing erosion.
Wetlands also provide valuable habitat for many
organisms like the great flocks of migratory
waterfowl that winter in tidal wetlands. Other
wildlife, including muskrats, beaver, otter, songbirds
and wading birds, also rely on wetland habitat.
An estimated two-thirds of the entire nation's
commercial fish and shellfish stocks depend on
wetlands as nursery or spawning grounds.
Forest &
Wetlands
60.6%
Agriculture
31.7%
Urban/
Suburban
7.7%
Forest &
Wetlands
60%
Agriculture
31.3%
Urban/
Suburban
8.7%
Chesapeake Basin Land Use
Often viewed as wastelands, wetlands were
historically drained or filled for farms, residential
developments, commercial buildings, highways and
roads. Approximately 1.7 million acres of wetlands
remain in the Bay watershed. This is less than half
of the wetlands that were here during colonial
times. We are still losing estuarine wetlands, like
tidal marshes, but loss rates are down from 547
acres lost per year between the 1950s and 1970s
to five acres lost per year during the 1980s due to
state and federal wetland regulations. Unfortunately,
the same cannot be said for freshwater wetlands
such as forested swamps. Between the 1950s and
1970s the rate of loss was roughly 2,400 acres per
year. During the 1980s the rate of loss jumped to
2,800 acres per year.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
-------
Pollutants
L
utrient, sediment and toxic pollution enters
the Bay from two major sources: point
sources and nonpoint sources. A point source
is a site where pollutants enter the waterways
from a specific location. Industrial and waste
water treatment facilities are examples of point
sources. It is important to note that point
sources are usually regulated.
Nonpoint source pollution is delivered from
broad areas of the watershed, rather than from
one specific point, which makes these sources
very difficult to control. For example, storm water
picks up pollutants as it flows over parking lots
and roofs, through a suburban development,
over an eroding streambank, through a farm
field and into the river. Nonpoint source pollution
includes runoff from farmland, lawns, roads,
parking lots and other paved areas. Your car, yard,
lawnmower — all of these contribute to nonpoint
source pollution in the Bay system. Another source
of nonpoint pollution is atmospheric deposition,
which occurs when pollutants enter the air and
then fall onto the land. Major sources of pollutants
entering the air include fossil fuel power plant
smokestacks and automobile tailpipes.
Trends in Pollutant Loads from
Various Land Uses
The graph below shows sediment and point and
nonpoint source nutrient load trends for various
land uses. Pollutant loads from agricultural and
urban/suburban lands have generally declined
due to management actions. Two key factors
affect the overall pollutant loads delivered to the
Bay: the pollutant load generated by a land use
and the number of acres of that land use. Forest
lands generate significantly fewer pollutants per
acre than other land uses; however, since they
are the largest land use in the watershed, their
overall contribution is a significant source of
pollutants to the Bay. Agricultural land covers less
acreage than forest land, but since the pollutant
loads per acre are higher, it ends up being the
largest contributor of pollutant loads to the Bay.
On a pound-per-acre basis, taking into account
both point and nonpoint sources, urban/suburban
areas are the biggest culprits in delivering
nutrient pollution to the Bay. However, since
they make up a relatively small portion of the
total •watershed area, the total loads delivered
to the Bay are smaller than those delivered by
agricultural land. As we continue to develop
more of the watershed, we expect these loads
to increase unless appropriate management
action is taken.
I 3°
a?
CD
20
Trends in Nutrient and Sediment Loads by Land Use
Nitrogen
1985
1996
Forest
Phosphorus 80°
700
600
^ 500
CD
-1
o 40°
CD
CO
£ 300
200
100
1985 1996
Sediment
i 1
1985 1996
Urban/Suburban Nonpoint Source Agriculture
Urban/Suburban Point Source
-------
Popuation & Development
opulation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
has steadily increased since the 1950s. By the
year 2020, this area is expected to be home to
17.8 million people, almost three million more than
the present 15 million. Regional development trends
have changed during the 20th century in a manner
that is impacting the Bay. In the 19th and early 20th
centuries, compact urban areas, such as towns and
cities surrounded by farms and forests, were the
dominant development pattern of the Bay region.
After World War II this pattern began to change as
the car facilitated the development of more suburban
areas. Suburban development patterns have
increasingly become low-density and single-use
(separate from other community needs such as
business, schools, jobs, etc.). These recent
development patterns (characterized as "sprawl")
result in an increase of impervious surfaces such
as roads, parking lots and rooftops. With each rain,
runoff picks up pollutants from impervious surfaces
that drain into rivers and eventually into the Bay,
degrading water quality and ultimately the Bay's
living resources.
Sprawl development tends to consume valuable
resource land such as farmlands, wetlands and
forests. These resource lands were consumed
at a rate of roughly 35,000 acres per year from
1985-1997. Between 1985 and 1997, we lost 264,000
acres of forest and wetlands and 158,000 acres of
agricultural land, and gained 413,000 acres of
urban/suburban land. According to the Society of
American Foresters National Office, a total of 1.7
million new homes are projected to be built in the
watershed from 1998 to 2020, potentially consuming
more than 600,000 additional acres of forest and
farmland. According to the American Farmland Trust,
large portions of two of the top-ten most threatened
agricultural regions in the United States are located
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: the northern
Piedmont (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia) and the
mid-Atlantic coastal plain (Maryland and Delaware).
Farmland provides economic value to a region.
Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania rank among the
top-ten producing U.S. states per acre of farmland.
From 1970 to 1995 several suburban areas of
the watershed experienced explosions in their
population. In the Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area the outer ring suburbs such as
Loudoun and Calvert counties are growing the
fastest. South central Pennsylvania has begun to
feel the northward push of suburban development
from Baltimore and Washington, D.C., as is
evidenced by the 33% increase in population in
York County and the 48% increase in Adams
County from 1970 to 1995. Coupled with the
increase in population in suburban metropolitan
areas is the ex-migration of people from cities.
There was a 24% decrease in population in
Baltimore City and a 27% decrease in population
in Washington, D.C. from 1970 to 1995. Due to
"urban flight", Baltimore County closed more than
60 schools, only to build the same number in
outlying areas at a cost of $500 million over
20 years.
-------
Population Increases from 1970-1995
PENNSYLVANIA
MONTGOMERY
55%
QUEEN
ANNE'S
101%
MARYLAND
Washington, D.C
FAIRFAX / (
PRINCE
WILLIAM
120%
VIRGINIA
I, 95% 95%
Illll
-------
• U / ith an increase in population, there is a
P' Y corresponding need for an increase in
development. However, development in Maryland
increased by 47% between 1973 and 1990, a rate
of more than twice the 22% increase in population
for those years. Based on these findings, land is
being consumed at a rate that far outpaces the
increase in population.
Population, Number of Households and Density:
Based on the 1980 and 1990 census, the
population in the Chesapeake watershed
15
o
= 12
E
3 9
Q.
s.
ca c
CO o
-------
Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled: Low
density, single-use development increases traffic
congestion and airborne sources of pollution
entering the Bay. These development densities
are often too low to support mass transit. The
car is often the only means of transportation to
work, school and shopping areas. Between 1970
and 1997, vehicle miles traveled increased at four
times the rate of population in the Bay region.
Vehicle miles traveled are expected to increase at
a rate of three times the population by the year
2010. Pollution from car exhaust harms the Bay.
It also contributes to increases in ground level
ozone, which is a human health hazard. Clean
car technologies like emission controls, the use of
reformulated gasoline and the implementation of
other mobile source emission rules have buffered
the impact of increased travel. However, the
benefit of these technologies and regulations
could be greatly enhanced by reductions in the
amount people drive every day. This means living
closer to where we work, shop and go to school.
The dependence of Americans on their cars is
an interesting story in itself. The average person
in the mid-Atlantic region spends almost one out
of every five dollars buying or maintaining their
automobile(s). For the mid-Atlantic region, the
number of vehicles on the road has risen from
200
§ 175
$ 150
CD
c
CD
CO
i
_CD
O
I
125
100
75
50
Vehicle Miles Traveled
O
00
O)
in
oo
O)
•H
cn
•H
in
cn
O)
o in o
o o H
o o o
CM CM CN
20
18
16
£ 14
c
o
jo 12
Q.
2 10
en
CO
CQ
CO
CD
Q.
CO
en
CD
O
Population
CM
-------
roughly 11.5 million to 19 million from 1970 to
1995. Not only are there more ears on the road,
hut the amount of people who drive alone to
work is increasing. There are four times as many
single drivers as there are carpools. There are
eight times as many single drivers as there are
people who use public transportation. Public
transit use has also decreased in the last decade.
People are spending more time commuting in
their cars as development spreads further from
central work areas. One of the greatest stressors
people report is the time they spend away from
their families while commuting to work. All of
these scenarios add up to more congestion on
our roads. The average speed on the D.C.
Beltway decreased from 44 mph to 23 mph
during a seven-year period. A study by the
Texas Transportation Institute estimates that the
average commuter in Washington, D.C. spends
the equivalent of three full days a year in the car
due to road congestion. It also states that road
congestion cost the nation $53 billion in wasted
time and fuel in 1994. These trends will worsen
if current development patterns persist.
Households and Septic/Sewer Use:
According to the 1990 Bureau of the Census data,
24.7% of housing units (roughly 5.7 million) in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed rely on septic
tanks or cesspools to treat their household
wastewater. For the most part, septic systems do
not incorporate technologies to remove nitrogen
from the wastewater they discharge. Nitrogen
released from septic systems leaches into the
groundwater which makes its way into local
waterways and eventually the Bay. Although
there are alternative septic systems that do
remove nitrogen from wastewater, they are
very expensive. Population in the watershed is
expected to increase by 18% between 1997 and
the year 2020. Even if the percentage of septic
use (relative to public sewer use) remains the
Other Means
1.3%
Public
Sewer
74%
Septic Tank
or Cesspool
24.7%
same, we expect the nitrogen loads from septic
systems to increase as population increases.
Overall, total nitrogen loads to the Bay in 1985
were approximately 359 million pounds. Of that
load, around 10 million pounds of nitrogen
were from septic systems. Projections indicate
nitrogen loadings from septic system use will
be 13 million pounds per year by the year 2020.
If the percentage of the population using septic
systems increases relative to the population using
public sewer, the projected loads from septic
tanks will be even higher than current projections.
Innovations at wastewater treatment plants
have been successful in reducing nitrogen
discharges. Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)
is a wastewater treatment technology that
removes nutrients from wastewater as well as
the organic content; whereas conventional
wastewater treatment only removes organic
material. In 1998 31% of the basin's wastewater
from wastewater treatment plants was treated
using BNR with excellent results. Should the
percentage of the population using septic increase
as predicted, the benefits of nitrogen load
reduction from investments in new technologies
at existing public wastewater facilities may not
be maximized.
-------
1 i f'
;"? sf-
he most important water quality goal set by the
• Chesapeake Bay Program was the 1987 goal
of a 40% reduction of the controllable loads of
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay between
1985 and the year 2000. In 1992 the Chesapeake
Bay Program agreed to maintain the reduced
nutrient loading levels beyond 2000. This continues
to be a huge challenge considering population
growth in the region. In addition to the 40%
nutrient reduction goal, the Chesapeake Bay
Program has been instrumental in working with
its state and federal partners to restore the Bay
in other ways. There are a variety of policies and
programs aimed at reducing the impacts from
land upon the Bay.
'I lie Priorities for Action i'«n !;uut Growth
• uid Mev»ardship,
By the year 2020 the region is expected to
become home to almost 18 million people. Growth
pressures will continue to test our ability to meet
Chesapeake Bay restoration goals. Both new and
longtime residents of the region will want to
attain economic prosperity, will expect to live in
communities where the quality of life is high, and
will insist on an environment that is clean and
available for their enjoyment. Alternatives to
sprawl development that include protection of
sensitive areas are essential to improve quality
of life and restore the health of the Bay. Solutions,
such as efficient development patterns, protecting
natural areas and traditional uses of land (farming
and forestry), improve the local tax base as they
require less government services such as roads
and sewer. They also enhance quality of life by
providing open space and conserving those
historic and cultural resources that are so much
a part of community identity.
Adopted in 1996, the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Priorities for Action for Land, Growth and
Stewardship represents a beginning in meeting
this challenge in a manner that is sensitive to local
issues and autonomy and emphasizes the desire to
help communities help themselves. The Priorities
for Action can be viewed as a framework to
address land, growth and stewardship issues in the
Bay region. These priorities are voluntary actions
that will be accomplished through a variety of
public and private partners, including — but not
limited to — the Chesapeake Bay Program. The
goal of the Priorities for Action is: "To encourage
sustainable development patterns that
integrate economic health, resource
protection and community participation."
This approach recognizes that communities are the
basic unit for addressing growth, and all factors
should be considered — the economy, the quality
of life and sense of place in local communities,
and the long-term stewardship of the natural
environment. A variety of stakeholders play a direct
role in land stewardship issues. The Priorities for
Action seeks to increase communication and
dialogue with and among stakeholders, such as
local and regional government representatives,
land developers, realtors, businesses, non-profit
and civic organization leaders, homeowners
and interested citizens. Meeting the goals of the
Priorities for Action will be a challenge for us all.
Tributary Strategies:
A key to the successful reduction of nutrients
regionally has been the effort by the Bay
Program partners to put tributary strategies
in place. In 1992 the Chesapeake Bay Program
partners agreed to address nutrients at their
source: upstream in the Bay's tributaries. As
a result, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and
the District of Columbia began developing
tributary strategies for the ten major tributary
basins to achieve specific nutrient reduction
targets. Where strategies are not yet in place,
there are statutory deadlines to complete them
and to set appropriate goals.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative:
Forests along waterways, known as "riparian
forests" and other vegetated buffers serve as a
trap for nutrients and sediment from upland sites.
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of
Columbia and federal facilities are implementing
a Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative to achieve the
targets established in their tributary strategies. The
biggest commitment of the Riparian Forest Buffer
Initiative is to restore riparian forests on 2,010
miles of stream and shoreline in the watershed by
2010. Implementation of the initiative has been
under way since 1996 with hundreds of new miles
of riparian forest planted in the watershed. In
addition, a public-private partnership with
American Forests called, "Global ReLeaf for the
Chesapeake Bay" is raising private funds to plant
more than 1 million trees by the year 2000.
Numerous local governments have taken action
to protect stream corridors through planning and
zoning guidance, new incentives such as the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
for agricultural landowners and tax relief.
Easement programs have begun to accelerate
accomplishment of Bay Program goals.
The (.omnuinity Watershed
Citizens of the Bay -watershed often make a
connection to the Bay on a small scale — through
their neighborhoods, communities and the local
environment surrounding them. It is also at this
level that decisions are made every day which
affect land use, infrastructure, water quality and
the environment. Depending upon the decisions
made, these actions will either systematically
advance efforts to protect the health of the Bay
or incrementally impair the Bay Program's ability
to achieve watershed-wide restoration objectives.
The Community Watershed Initiative seeks to
address three key needs at the community
watershed level in order to promote watershed
protection and restoration: strengthening the
partnerships among the Chesapeake Bay Program
partners, local governments and community
members; improving access to information and
technical and financial assistance that assist
community watershed efforts; and building
organizations and improving organizational skills
at the community watershed level. By serving as
a catalyst and a resource, the Chesapeake Bay
Program can assist in the development, growth
and success of local community watershed efforts.
If we want a clean, healthy Bay
that can sustain biological diversity and be economically stable,
we must identify, alter and, if possible, eliminate our own
individual actions that impact the Bay. People alter ecosystems.
The solutions to problems threatening the Bay lie in the lifestyles
we choose. The Bay ecosystem is an interconnected whole where
forests are linked to oyster reefs, housing developments to Bay grasses,
and choices to responsibility. Education IS key.
Informed people make decisions that are beneficial to themselves,
their culture, their community and the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
i n e JT TI O I" 11" 11? S fO r A € t "I
"S-/
f:o r La n d, G r o *v Mi .;.*'? : - ,; -\ ' • . 1 % h > f; .
Goal: "To encourage sustainable development patterns that integrate
economic health, resource protection and community participation"
The Chesapeake Bay Region's heritage is a composite of its landscape, people, institutions and
history. The special character, communities and sense of place are important qualities to
residents and a motivation for local protection and restoration efforts.
Increasing the vitality of existing communities will influence development patterns in
the countryside. Revitalization efforts will assist existing communities and help reduce
sprawl development.
Hi i^ivuimus,;-:.- hi'ilck'jH i>e\elopmrns. Pu^cr:^
Efficient development patterns encourage higher density, compact, contiguous, transit-oriented
and mixed-use development which is ecologically sound. Benefits to the Bay include improved
quality of life in our communities, reduced impervious surfaces, conservation of farms, forest
lands, natural areas and reduced reliance on automobiles.
iV r'l'it.iiots- Kconomit' *»iabiH',%
Communities are recognizing the linkage between economic vitality, environmental protection
and a community's social fabric. Economies within the region will need to be designed to
create opportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality of life for current
and future generations.
'%', > i»Mcr Rtsoiirci: Protection :UHJ l.;r.i«." SU'*.>v-.U"t!*>'t;r-
Many public and private landowners and users of Bay resources act as "stewards" of their share of
the Chesapeake region, working to protect characteristics of the land and water while enjoying
social and economic benefits.
i i, ''')t Y('!•';-1? ;i 'j;i*i:l»;t>c lor i a-ul ij'Wk'!'1 ),i,1 *.tt- ••'•"• '•'•\t-\:,i~. :> '.--" ""!. - ; ,•';•- *i- .• •,'',<"'
4i
-------
Regional ("enter loi I tiMionnlcnrat fnforni.iti
US FI'A Region III
1650 Arth St
Philadelphia P\ 101"'
Priorities for Action for Land, Growth and Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay Region
CBP/TRS 152/96
Beyond Sprawl: Land Management Techniques to Protect the Chesapeake Bay
CBP/TRS 190/97
Who Pays for Sprawl? The Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts of
Sprawl Development, A Literature Review
CBP/TRS 203/98
For more information please call
the Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee at 1-800-YOUR-BAY
-------
------- |