Chesapeake Bay Program
i Watershed Partnership
CBP/TRS 260/02
EPA 903-R-02-002
JUNE 2002
THE STATE OF THE
HESAPEAKE BAY
A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region
-------
THE STATE
OF THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY
A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region
June 2002
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 3
A Watershed Partnership 5
Watershed Profiles
CHAPTER ONE: Life in the Bay 9
The Blue Crab 10
Striped Bass 12
Oysters 13
Exotic Species 15
BayScapes
Fish Passage and Shad 17
Fish Passage Designs • Bald Eagles
CHAPTER TWO: Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration 21
Underwater Bay Grasses 22
Wetlands 25
The Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program
Watershed Management 27
Forests . 28
-------
CHAPTER THREE: Water Quality 31
Nutrients and Sediments 32
A Fish Eye's View 34
The Chesapeake Bay and TMDLs 36
The 2001 Storm Water Directive
Chemical Contaminants 38
Chemicals of Concern • Businesses for the Bay • 2001 Fish Advisory
Air Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay 42
Ammonia Emissions
CHAPTER FOUR: Sound Land Use 45
The Legacy of Sprawl 46
Vital Resource Lands 47
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Preserved Lands
A Booming Population 48
CHAPTER FIVE: Stewardship and Community Engagement 51
Bringing the Classroom to the Bay 52
Government by Example 54
Citizen Monitoring Program 54
The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
CHAPTER SIX: Looking Ahead 57
CONTACT INFORMATION . . 59
Charts and Maps
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Map 5
Trends in Blue Crab: Mature Females 11
Striped Bass Spawning Stock 12
Trends in Shellfish: Oysters 14
Stream Miles Opened to Migratory Fish 17
American Shad: Population Trends 19
Acres of Bay Grasses 22
Areas in Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Rivers with Notable Changes in Underwater Grass Beds ... 23
Forest Buffers 29
Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads to the Chesapeake Bay 33
Status of Chemical Contaminant Effects on Living Resources in the Chesapeake Bay's Tidal Rivers . . 39
Airshed and Watershed of the Chesapeake Bay 43
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Population 49
-------
Executive Summary
S nee 1983 the Chesapeake Bay Program has worked with federal,
state and local governments; industry; farmers; environmentalists;
conservation associations; citizen groups and interested individuals
to restore the Bay's water quality by reducing pollution.
Clearly, significant progress has been made, but the job is not finished.
With the signing of the new Bay agreement, Chesapeake 2000,
Bay Program partners have gained a powerful new tool to further
the restoration effort.
Chesapeake 2000—Guiding Restoration in the New Century
In Chesapeake 2000, Bay Program partners pledged to continue
to restore, enhance and protect the Bay's living resources and
their habitats. The Bay Program also inaugurated a new
approach, one that embodies a fundamental shift in per-
spective. While continuing to focus on individual species and
habitats that require specific attention, such as the blue crab,
oyster reefs and shad, the new agreement also recognizes the
intimate linkages among these systems and addresses their
interdependence within the context of a single, broad eco-
system. This additional focus on multispecies management
takes into account the relationships among many species that
comprise the Bay's food web. Chesapeake 2000 also expands the
scope of earlier agreements by recognizing the vital importance
of educating young people and adults in the watershed and by
increasing opportunities for active community engagement in
restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
In this publication, we report on the status of our progress
toward the goals we set or renewed in Chesapeake 2000.
Evaluating the condition of the Chesapeake Bay is a complex
process that must include careful examination of the status
CONTINUED
-------
2 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
and trends of numerous environmental indicators.
The Bay Program uses these indicators to analyze
the health of the Bay. Annual fluctuations may be
caused by changes in seasonal weather patterns and
other biological conditions, therefore it is impera-
tive that we monitor progress over the long term.
Here are some highlights of our current progress:
• Underwater bay grasses: The total acreage of bay
grasses has increased since the low point in 1984
from 38,000 acres to more than 69,000 acres in
2000. The Bay Program's aim is to achieve
114,000 acres by 2005.
• Nutrient progress: A recent analysis revealed that
between 1985 and 2000, phosphorus loads
delivered to the Bay from all of its tributaries
declined by 8 million pounds per year. Nitrogen
loads declined by 53 million pounds per year.
Unfortunately, baywide phosphorus reductions
fell short of the 2000 goal by 2.3 million pounds
per year, while nitrogen loads fell 24 million
pounds per year shy as well. In areas where
excessive nutrient loads most adversely affect the
Bay (the Potomac River and points north),
phosphorus goals were met. We expect to meet
nitrogen goals for those areas once tributary
strategies are fully implemented in 2003.
• Fish passage: In 2000 and 2001, an additional
87 miles of waterways in the Bay watershed were
reopened to migratory fish. Our goal is to open
1,357 miles to migratory fish by 2003. A total of
849 miles were reopened between 1988 and 2001.
• Oyster habitat: As of December 2001, more than
50,000 acres were designated as oyster sanctuar-
ies. Within those designated areas, more than
330 acres of oyster habitat have already been
constructed.
• Blue crabs: The 2001 Chesapeake Bay Blue
Crab Advisory Report indicated that blue crab
abundance is below average and has been in
decline in recent years. In 2001, Bay jurisdictions
adopted a baywide threshold for the blue crab
stock, and agreed to a 15 percent reduction in
harvest levels (based on a 1997-1999 average)
over three years.
• Chemical releases: In December 2000, the
Chesapeake Bay Program adopted the Toxics 2000
Strategy, which commits to meeting voluntary
goals that surpass current regulatory require-
ments and strives to achieve "zero release" of
chemical contaminants into the Bay. Between
1988 and 1998, industries have reduced
chemical releases by 67 percent.
• Water trails: At present, 560 miles of water trails
are located in the Bay watershed and more than
500 additional miles are under development.
Bay Program partners agreed to "increase the
number of designated water trails in the Chesa-
peake Bay watershed by 500 miles" by 2005.
• Bald eagles: Bald eagle counts from 2001 indi-
cated the recovery of the bald eagle population
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has remained
on track. A total of 618 active nests were
counted in 2001 in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and the District of Columbia—up
from 533 active nests the year before.
• Waterfowl: Data released in June 2001 show an
increase in several species of waterfowl living in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with 12 of 21
monitored species or species groups meeting year
2000 population goals.
• Riparian forest buffers: In 2001, 628.5 miles of
riparian forest buffers were planted in the Chesa-
peake Bay watershed, including 255 miles in
Maryland, 266 in Pennsylvania, 102.5 in Virginia
and 5 miles on federal lands. This brings us to a
total of 1,298 miles, or 65 percent of the Bay
Program partners' goal of restoring 2,010 miles
of streamside buffers in the watershed by 2010.
We are encouraged by these achievements, but much remains to be done.
Thanks to the tremendous collaborative effort that yielded Chesapeake 2000,
we have a useful road map for current efforts and the next generation of issues.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The
Chesapeake Bay
is a noble arm
of the sea.
—LORD MORPETH, 1842
The State of the
Chesapeake Bay
he Chesapeake Bay is the largest and most productive
estuary in North America. This vast body of water, in
which salt and fresh waters mix, is one of the most bio-
logically diverse environments in the world. Its intricate system
of rivers and streams provides a fertile habitat for plant and
animal life, a lifeline and livelihood for watermen, and is a
source of spectacular natural beauty. The Bay embodies a rich
heritage that many of us feel bound to bequeath, intact, to
coming generations.
For all its obvious treasures, the Bay has struggled for more
than a hundred years against an increasing tide of pressures,
from pollutants to development, which have compromised its
health and the survival of the plants and animals it shelters.
The rapid growth in the human population during the 19th
and 20th centuries, and the consequent industrialization along
the Bay's 11,684-mile shoreline and throughout its 64,000-
square-mile watershed, have left their mark.
For years the Bay was burdened by the over-harvesting of fish,
crabs and oysters; the destruction of oyster reef habitat and loss
of underwater grasses; the damming of its rivers and streams,
which prevented the passage of migratory fish to their historic
spawning grounds; and a flood of pollution caused by too
much phosphorus, nitrogen, sediments, industrial toxics and
boat waste in the water. By the 1970s, these and other factors
appeared to hold the Bay in their grip; it appeared that the
mark left by human habitation would become indelible.
CONTINUED
-------
4 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Bay studies undertaken during this time concluded that three areas required
immediate attention: nutrient over-enrichment, dwindling underwater bay
grasses and toxic pollution. In 1983 the Chesapeake Bay Program was formed
and the first Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed. Four years later, the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed, calling for the restoration of the Bay's
"living resources"—its finfish, shellfish, underwater grasses and other aquatic
life and wildlife. Fisheries and habitat restoration, nutrient and toxic reduc-
tions, and significant advances in estuarine science were among the Program's
highest priorities.
Looking Back to the Future
In the 1950s, the water was clear enough in the Patuxent River for a certain
fisherman to wade in up to his chest and still see his sneakers. By the 1970s,
the same fisherman, then-Maryland state senator C. Bernard "Bernie" Fowler,
would lose sight of his shoes long before he waded to that depth. Since 1988,
Bernie Fowler Day has been held the second Sunday in June on the banks of
the Patuxent, and his famous wade-in—attended by neighbors and friends,
Bay Program participants and the press—has given us annual clues to our
progress in cleaning up the water. Bernie's goal is to restore his sneaker visi-
bility to chest depth—roughly five feet deep.
While it may not be possible to return the Bay to a largely theoretical, pristine
condition, we are making continuous, if gradual, progress toward restoring the
Bay's water quality and protecting those gains—and with it, restoring our col-
lective heritage of a healthy and productive Bay system.
In this report, you will be reading the logic of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement
at work. We have organized each chapter around the new categories and goals
in the agreement and we discuss the important shifts in perspective that under-
lie our commitments. The text is presented in sections, giving background on
the subject, status and trends, information on what the Bay Program is doing,
and useful tips on what you can do. At the end of the report, we include
contact information.
-------
area through
which water flows
id drains to the lowest
point, in a stream, river, lake
or estuary, is known as a
watershed, Watersheds
collect precipitation and
accumulate water into
"flows" that course across
the landscape, A watershed
may be large or small, may
occupy sloping, moun-
tainous or nearly flat terrain
and cover many landscapes,
including forests, farmland,
small towns and cities,
Human activities in a
watershed eventually
affect the water quality
downstream,
A Watershed
Partnership
The Bay's Watersheds
More than 64,000 square miles of land drain into the Chesa-
peake Bay and its rivers. The Chesapeake Bay watershed
stretches across New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware,
Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. Thread-
ing through the Bay watershed are many "subwatersheds,"
smaller systems that drain into the streams and rivers that
flow into the Chesapeake.
Clean water is essential for life to occur and persist. Human
activities on the land within the watershed in due course
affect the quality of the Bay's water. By protecting the Bay's
many subwatersheds, we not only preserve our heritage; we
also protect the quality of the water that flows in local streams
and rivers. Ultimately this ensures healthy drinking water for
CONTINUED
DE
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
stretches across New York,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware,
Virginia, West Virginia and the
District of Columbia. More than
64,000 square miles of land
drain into the Chesapeake Bay
and its rivers.
Chesapeake Bay D Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-------
6 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
our homes; safe swimming, boating and fishing in rivers, streams and
estuaries; and abundant wildlife and natural resources in and around our
aquatic environments.
For years, water quality and habitat restoration approaches have isolated
single problems and solved them in piecemeal fashion. Chesapeake 2000,
however, tackles water quality and ecosystem problems by addressing them at
the broader, watershed level. Within this larger context, we believe it then
makes sense for local governments and community organizations to create
subwatershed-level management plans. These plans can connect local com-
munities with the Bay Program's commitments and efforts, so that forests,
streams and wetlands can be restored and protected while the local culture and
economy are preserved.
While the Bay Program maintains its individual commitments to protect and
restore bay grasses, forests, wetlands and streams, the new focus on watershed
management planning allows us to devise strategies to improve the local
environment. Ultimately, this method best sustains our progress toward
protecting the Bay's vital habitats.
Watershed Profiles is an innovative Web application that assembles maps,
charts and information about the environmental condition of the Chesapeake's
subwatersheds. The application operates at a variety of scales, providing data on
the entire 64,000-square-mile watershed or on small tributary subwatersheds.
Each profile includes information on landscape changes, areas to visit and current
activities sponsored by the Bay Program and other organizations. All of the infor-
mation is presented through easy-to-read charts, maps and tables, and interactive
mapping is available using the Chesapeake Bay Program website's Bay Atlas.
To find out more about
your watershed, enter
your zip code in the Find
Your Watershed box on
the Chesapeake Bay
Program's web page, at
www.chesapeakebay.net.
All profile information is
presented in various
degrees of detail to
interest students,
educators, government
officials, private sector
business groups and
anyone who lives in the
Bay watershed.
me WSWUMZ mw wum
In Watershed Profiles,
you'll find information on:
Population and landscape
changes;
Toxic releases through
the EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory;
Businesses for the Bay;
Watershed organizations;
Public access sites;
Submerged aquatic
vegetation distribution;
Water quality status and
trends;
Parks, forests and wildlife
refuges; and
Community resources
and tools.
-------
A WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP 7
A Watershed Protection Approach
The Bay Program has learned, from nearly 20 years of restoration experience,
that working at the watershed level yields definite results. It also requires us to
set meaningful priorities. Experience has taught us that we must encourage a
profound degree of involvement among all stakeholders and solicit their
expertise and authority, and measure our progress through monitoring and
other data collection. Using this approach we can:
• Attain better environmental results
Because watersheds are defined by natural hydrology, they represent the
most logical basis for managing water resources. The resource becomes
the focal point, and managers are able to gain a more complete under-
standing of an area's overall conditions and the stressors that affect those
conditions.
Traditionally, water quality improvements have focused on specific
sources of pollution, such as wastewater discharges, or on a specific part
of a water body, such as a river segment or wetland. Such approaches
often fail to address the more subtle and chronic problems that con-
tribute to a watershed's overall decline. For example, pollution from a
wastewater treatment plant might be reduced significantly after a new
technology is installed, but those pollution reductions may not be
enough. The local river may still suffer if other factors, such as habitat
destruction or runoff, go unaddressed. Watershed management can
uncover many stressors that affect a watershed.
• Save time and money
Whether the task is restoring habitats, monitoring, modeling, issuing
permits or reporting, a watershed framework can simplify and streamline
the workload and save money. For example, synchronizing schedules so
that all monitoring within a given area occurs simultaneously can reduce
costs by eliminating duplication and unnecessary travel.
A watershed protection approach also improves efficiency, by consolidat-
ing and coordinating the efforts of all partners, including federal, state,
tribal and local agencies. These groups can complement and reinforce
each other's activities, avoid duplication and leverage resources to achieve
greater results.
This approach also improves data collection. For example, states expand
their own monitoring programs by factoring in the monitoring activities of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-------
8 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
(NOAA), as well as through citizen-based monitoring programs. In
addition, permittees and other stakeholders that generate monitoring
data can form basin-monitoring consortiums to pool resources and work
consistently to collect and report data.
• Increase Public Support
Watershed protection also invites awareness and support from the public.
Once individuals become interested in their watershed, they often partici-
pate in decision-making and even hands-on protection and restoration
efforts. This process builds a sense of community, reduces conflicts,
increases commitment to achieving environmental goals and, ultimately,
improves our chances of success.
Watershed protection involves setting meaningful priorities, encouraging involvement, soliciting expertise and
authority and measuring our progress,
-------
9
The health and vitality
of the Chesapeake Bay's
living resources provide
the ultimate indicator
of our success in
the restoration and
protection effort.
—CHESAPEAKE 2000
CHAPTER ONE
Life in the Bay
The Chesapeake Bay is North America's most
biologically diverse estuary, home to more than
3,600 species of plants, fish and animals. Approximately
348 species of finfish, 173 species of shellfish and more than
2,700 species of plants live in or near the Bay. The Bay also
provides food and shelter for 29 species of waterfowl, and
more than one million waterfowl winter over annually
in the basin. The Bay is a major resting ground along the
Atlantic Migratory Bird Flyway.
In Chesapeake 2000 the Bay Program recommits to protect
and restore the Bay's "living resources"—in particular, the
Bay's fisheries and the plants and animals that sustain them
and provide their habitat. The new goal is to "restore,
enhance and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living
resources, their habitats and ecological relationships, to
sustain all fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem."
Balance is the key. To present a comprehensive report on
the great variety of plants and animals that inhabit the
watershed, or to try and cover all elements of the ecosystem,
would be an impractical task. Instead, we chose to focus on
three representative species—oysters, blue crabs and striped
bass—that are not only among the most visible and commer-
cially valuable species, but also are useful indicators of the
health of the Bay system.
This chapter also includes our report on the issue of
exotic species management and a discussion of recent
accomplishments in fish passage construction for resident
and migratory fish, such as shad, herring and striped bass.
In the next chapter, Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration,
we develop the information in a broader context, by report-
ing on the diverse habitats that exist in the Bay, species
interactions and watershed protection.
-------
) THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
s author William
Warner demonstrated
in the Pulitzer Prize-winning
Beautiful Swimmers, there is a
mythic language associated with
the crab fishery, and questions
still surround the behavior of
the blue crab, Callinectes
sapidus. This pugnacious,
bottom-dwelling predator is the
object of the most productive
commercial and recreational
fishery in the Chesapeake Bay.
"Ain't nobody really knows
about crabs," Warner quotes a
waterman as saying in the early
1970s. Despite the crabs'
persistent air of mystery, Bay
scientists know considerably
more today than they did
30 years ago.
Blue crabs are members of
the swimming crab family.
Callinectes (from the Greek,
meaning "beautiful swimmer")
sapidus ("savory") is a benthic
or bottom-dwelling predator
that feeds on other crustaceans,
bivalves, fish, annelids (such as
marine worms), plants, detritus
and nearly any other food item
it can find, including dead fish
and decomposing plants.
The blue crab is one of the
most important commercial
species in the Chesapeake Bay
and has the highest value
of any commercial fishery,
with landings in 2001 reaching
51.7 million pounds.
the BLUE CRAB
Crabs at Risk
During the 1970s and 1980s, the widespread disappearance of
underwater grasses, also called submerged aquatic vegetation, or
SAV, resulted in a severe loss of important crab habitat, primarily for
juveniles and crabs in the molting stage. Although the blue crab can
tolerate moderate amounts of certain types of pollution, it thrives in
clean water and uses the entire spectrum of the estuary during its
life cycle, from the deeper channels to the coastal shallows, or
littoral zone.
Immediately after molting, crabs are vulnerable to predators
because their new shells are still soft, so they often hide in bay grass
beds for protection. Bay grass beds serve as nursery areas, and crabs
of all sizes forage for food there. Bay scientists have found that
30 times more juvenile crabs were found in bay grasses than in areas
without grass.
Male crabs prefer lower salinity areas in the upper Bay and trib-
utaries. Females prefer the higher salinity of the lower Bay and the
mid to lower tributaries, and most spend their winters in southern
Bay waters.
Dwindling nursery habitat is not the only threat to the blue crab.
Like other aquatic species, crabs are susceptible to summer's low
oxygen conditions. Fueled by nutrient pollution from farms, waste-
water treatment plants, homes and automobiles, enormous
"blooms" of algae eventually deprive the water of its oxygen and
drive crabs out. Crabs sometimes die from low oxygen levels when
trapped in crab pots under these conditions.
-------
LIFE IN THE BAY 11
Trends in Blue Crab: Mature Females
V
-p
_£!
<7
a--
1-
71 74 77 ftO R3 M 89 9? 95
-------
! THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
he striped bass, or
rockfish, is a migratory
fish that inhabits the salty waters
of the Atlantic and uses the
brackish waters of the
Chesapeake Bay and its
upstream tributaries as
spawning and nursery areas. In
early spring, adult striped bass
begin their journeys up the
Bay's tidal tributaries to spawn.
By June the bass have moved
into the deeper channels of the
Bay and out to sea. In late
autumn they begin returning to
the mainstem of the Bay to
spend the winter.
The Bay and its tributaries are the
primary spawning and nursery
area for between 70 and 90
percent of the Atlantic coast stock
of striped bass. The year-round
stock within the Chesapeake Bay
is composed mainly of pre-
migratory fish, ages five and
younger, which move into the
Atlantic as they mature into
adults.
The striped bass is a crucial fish
to study because of its
relationships with other Bay
species. A mature striped bass
can weigh as much as 70
pounds and is one of the Bay's
top predators. Mature adults
consume large quantities of
smaller fish, such as menhaden,
but in their larval phase they
feed on microscopic animals, or
zooplankton. Their diet alters
not only with age, but with
shifts in season and Bay species.
S" Rl D( } BASS
What the Bay Program Is Doing
By the 1980s, over-fishing and degraded
spawning habitat had reduced stocks of
striped bass to a dangerously low level.
Fisheries management measures first
banned, then limited, striped bass fish-
ing over the next 15 years. The striped
bass responded to these restrictions,
stocking measures and improved habitat
conditions, and were declared "restored"
on January 1, 1995. Since then, the Bay
Program has continued to advocate
protection measures that will ensure an
abundance of striped bass in the Bay in
coming years. We are encouraging a
baywide striped bass harvest quota of
10.5 million pounds each season, and
Bay scientists continue to study striped
bass to determine the size of their pop-
ulations in the Bay.
W
can do
If you want to help conserve
the Bay's stocks of striped bass,
you can:
Practice catch-and-release fish-
ing. It's just as challenging and
minimizes recreational fishing's
impact on the Bay's fisheries.
Use barbless hooks, circle hooks
or other devices designed to
reduce the damage to fish.
Minimize the physical handling
of fish and the time it spends out
of the water.
Use steel sinkers instead of lead,
which is a toxic substance.
Striped Bass Spawning Stock
-------
LIFE IN THE BAY 13
he American oyster has
long been considered
one of the Bay's keystone
species. This unusual-looking
mollusk is valuable not only as a
delicious food source, but for
the role it plays in preserving
the Bay's overall system.
Oyster reefs are complex
structures created by colonies
of oysters over time, which
provide habitat for new oysters
and many other aquatic species.
The three-dimensional surface
area of an oyster reef—up to
50 times the area provided by
a flat surface—allows many
other plant and animal species
to use it as habitat.
Oysters feed by filtering the
water for microscopic plants
and animals, and in the process,
filter nutrients, toxins and
sediment from the water
column. They are voracious
feeders, each capable of filtering
up to 50 gallons of water per
day. It is estimated that at their
peak abundance, the total
population of oysters in the Bay
could filter an amount of water
equal to all the water in the Bay
in three days. Today, due to
decreased abundance, it takes a
year for these animals to filter
the same volume of water.
Oyster restoration is para-
mount to improving the
overall water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay.
OYSTE RS
Status and Trends
For more than a century, until the 1980s, the oyster constituted one of the
Bay's most valuable commercial fisheries. Over-harvesting, dwindling
habitat, pollution and diseases such as Dermo and MSX have caused a
severe decline throughout the Chesapeake Bay. During the 1950s,
approximately 35 million pounds of oysters were harvested annually.
Since then, the catch has declined sharply, and current harvests have
fallen below 3 million pounds. The current oyster harvest levels are
approximately 8 percent of the harvest highs recorded in the 1950s.
What the Bay Program Is Doing
In keeping with our commitment to restore, enhance and protect Bay
shellfish, their habitat and their ecological relationships to provide for a
balanced ecosystem, the Bay Program is working on several strategies. In
Chesapeake 2000 we have committed:
• To achieve a tenfold increase of native oysters in the Bay by 2010.
• To establish oyster reefs and sanctuaries in strategic locations.
CONTINUED
-------
14 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
LJ \u\ - Ko continued
• To study diseases and parasites such as MSX and Dermo to reduce oyster
mortality.
• To develop multispecies management plans that benefit water quality and
Bay habitats.
J5J
t 30-
= T5J
nds in Shellfish: Oyste
S3 i!- 5? &9 61 63 &5 67 69 ?T 73 75 77 79 61 B3 S5 B7 B9 SI 93 ^5 97
W H
can do
Work with organizations that raise native oysters for release on
Bay oyster reefs or build oyster gardens.
Volunteer to help stock native oysters on reefs.
Encourage your local or state governments to construct additional
protected reefs and to protect existing reefs.
Urge strong regulations on harvest.
-------
LIFE IN THE BAY 15
ome plants and animals that
currently live in the Bay haven't
always been part of the Bay's balanced
ecosystem. They either were brought
here for a specific economic or
aesthetic purpose, have entered the
Bay in the ballast waters of ships or via
storms or other accidental releases.
These species are, by definition, living
and reproducing outside their historic
or native range.
We call plants and animals that are not
native to their current habitat "exotic
species." Today, approximately 50,000
exotics live in the United States, and
this number constantly increases. The
exotic plants and animals that now live
in the Chesapeake Bay include
mammals such as nutria; plants such as
phragmites; birds such as mute swans;
and other species such as the Asiatic
clam, the rapa whelk and the tiger
mosquito.
Some species, such as the Asiatic clam,
entered the Bay in ballast water, but
others were brought here intentionally.
Nutria were introduced to enhance the
fur industry, and smallmouth bass were
imported for sport fishing. Mute swans,
which consume enormous quantities of
SAV and edge other waterfowl out of
their habitats, were brought to the
Hudson River Valley in the 19th century
to ornament the estates of the wealthy,
and eventually made their way south to
the Chesapeake Bay.
Exotic species can become invasive by
encroaching on habitat and food
sources of native species. Invasive
species such as phragmites or the mute
swan can cost taxpayers in the United
States hundreds of millions of dollars
each year in major environmental
damage and losses. Nationwide, about
42 percent of the plants and animals
listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act are
at risk because of exotic species. But
even introduced species that are not
considered invasive have the potential
to cause significant damage.
EXOTIC
SPECIES
What the Bay Program Is Doing
Exotic species continue to enter the Chesapeake
Bay region. Reducing those introductions has
become a national priority. The National Sea
Grant College Program has taken the lead in edu-
cating the public on exotic species in an effort to
reduce unintentional introductions from all
sources. Other organizations, such as the Smith-
sonian Environmental Research Center and the
U.S. Coast Guard, are working to reduce ballast
water invasions.
Maryland is actively managing nutria, phrag-
mites and mute swans. Pennsylvania is managing
exotic species through inter)urisdictional pro-
grams such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
Great Lakes Commission, the Council of Great
Lakes Governors and the national Aquatic Nui-
sance Species Task Force. Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and the
District of Columbia all have active monitoring
programs to monitor existing exotic species and
new threats.
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement commits to
identify and rank exotic invasive species that are
causing or have the potential to cause significant
damage to the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay Program
has successfully identified and ranked those
species, and management plans will be written
and implemented for those deemed most
problematic to the Bay ecosystem's restoration
and integrity.
CONTINUED
-------
16 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
EXOTIC
SPECIES
continued
W
H VT
can do
As a private citizen, you can help prevent the spread
of exotic species.
Always remove aquatic weeds, zebra mussels or other
accidental hitchhikers from your boat, diving gear, jet-
skis, trailers or other equipment.
Never dump the contents of your aquarium into a waterway or a drain, and do
not try to establish a favorite fish, shellfish or plant species in a new body of
water. Many exotic fish introduced into the Chesapeake Bay have come from
private aquariums.
Consider landscaping your yard with native plant species. Check with your local
nursery or the Department of Agriculture for information about what plants are
invasive and not recommended for use.
When you fish, be certain that your bait is not an exotic species.
BAYSCAPES
If you are interested in creating a wild native habi-
tat in your area or backyard, consider 'BayScaping'
—creating landscapes that are designed to bene-
fit people, wildlife and the Chesapeake Bay. The
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's joint BayScaping program
advocates a holistic approach to landscaping
through principles inspired by relationships pres-
ent in the natural environment. These low-input
landscapes require less mowing, less fertilizer and
fewer pesticides; help protect water quality; use
beneficial native plants and reduce pollution; and
provide diverse habitats for songbirds, small
mammals and butterflies. You can BayScape in
container gardens, schoolyards or your own
backyard. For more information on BayScaping,
turn to Contacts on page 59.
-------
LIFE IN THE BAY 17
any ocean fish
species spawn and
reproduce in salt water; some,
however, migrate to their
native brackish or fresh waters
to spawn and then return to
the ocean as adults. These
anadromous migratory fish
include herring, shad and one
of the Bay's most important
commercial species, striped
bass or rockfish. Catadromous
fish, such as American eels,
reverse the process: they live in
the brackish waters of the Bay
and other rivers and streams
around the world and return in
a mass annual exodus to the
salt waters of the Sargasso Sea
to reproduce.
Populations of anadromous fish
such as shad and herring have
declined drastically due to over-
fishing and the damming of
waterways that prevent them
from returning to their spawn-
ing grounds. Currently there
are more than 2,500 blockages
in the watershed, including
dams, road culverts and bridge
aprons. In 1980 and 1994,
Maryland and Virginia, respec-
tively, placed moratoria on the
baywide shad fishery, and
restocking efforts are under
way throughout the watershed.
FISH PASSAGE
AND SHAD
Restoring Fish Passages
Removing stream blockages and opening spawning habitat are key
components of restoration efforts with respect to shad and herring.
In 1993, the Chesapeake Executive Council established fish passage
goals to reopen 1,357 stream miles by 2003. Four of the largest dams
in the Bay watershed, all located on the Susquehanna River, have
been reopened to migratory fish, including the passage opened by
the fish ladder at the York Haven hydroelectric dam. All five major
dams on the James River have been breached, and with a fish ladder
at Bosher's Dam, the river is now accessible from Richmond to
Lynchburg. A fish passage at the fabri-dam in Sunbury, Pennsylvania,
scheduled for 2003, will give shad access to the upper Susquehanna
all the way to Binghamton, New York.
CONTINUED
»BT 2003gotf (1+337itf
-------
18 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
FISH PASSAGE AND SHADco—
Status and Trends
Recent efforts to reopen streams have been very successful. As of 2001,
849 miles of streams have been restored to anadromous fish, and an addi-
tional 143 miles to resident fish. Restoration efforts and current stream open-
ings have led to greater numbers of shad and herring in the upper Chesapeake
Bay and the Susquehanna. Since the late 1990s American shad migrations
have steadily increased, with 194,000 documented as passing through
Conowingo Dam in 2001. These numbers are very encouraging, however,
much remains to be done.
FISH PASSAGE DESIGNS
The most effective means of restoring fish passage is
to remove the blockage. When this is impractical,
artificial fish passages are constructed. Five fish
passage designs are used most frequently in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed:
Denil: A series of sloped channels allowing fish to
swim over the dam or obstruction. Wooden baffles
are placed at regular intervals within the channels to
slow water velocity. Resting pools between each sec-
tion of the fishway help migrating fish conserve
energy. Denil fishways are the most common design
used in the Bay watershed.
Steeppass: Similar to the Denil, however it usually
has only one sloping section and uses baffles of a
different design. Steeppass fishways are used for
relatively small blockages.
Pool and Weir: A series of pools in step formation that
ascends the dam.
Vertical Slot: A variation on the pool and weir
design, constructed as a series of pools, with two
baffles placed at the entrance to each, leaving a
narrow vertical slot for fish to pass through. It is
important to consider the size of the fish
prevalent at the blockage to ensure they will be able
to fit through.
Fish Lift: Sometimes called a fish elevator, this pas-
sage is generally used only at very large obstructions,
such as the 90-foot-high Conowingo hydroelectric
dam on the Susquehanna River. An attractant flow
of water guides the fish into a large hopper, which
then raises the fish over the dam. At the top, the
fish can either be released into the river or trans-
ferred into holding tanks to be transported to
another tributary for stocking.
-------
LIFE IN THE BAY 19
3.5
3.0
'naf^laiystft-L/yiulinai
:_:-;:;:.
rtl£
What the Bay Program Is Doing
To restore anadromous migratory fish species to their vital historical
spawning grounds, the Bay Program is:
• Reopening 1,357 miles of streams by 2003 by removing dams and
other man-made blockages and constructing fish passages.
• Monitoring fish passage at key locations to determine the success
of our restoration strategies.
• Identifying and working to restore streams and riparian buffers
near removed blockages.
• Assisting with stocking programs. As of 2001, nearly 320 million
American shad fry and fingerlings were cultured and released in
direct support of restoration programs in the Susquehanna, James,
Pamunkey, Mattaponi and Potomac rivers, and several Maryland
tributaries.
W H *MT
can d u
Work with your local water-
shed organization or tributary
team to identify migratory fish
blockages in nearby streams
and for help and funding to
remove those blockages.
Participate in existing efforts,
such as the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation's "Schools in
Schools" program.
Encourage your local or state
government to open blocked
fish passages and remove
low-head dams.
-------
20 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
BALD EAGLES
Getting Better All the Time
Recent data compiled by the Bay Program
report that bald eagle populations have
reached a 24-year high in the Bay watershed.
Results from the annual baywide bald eagle
population count indicated that greater
numbers of eagles were living throughout the
Bay watershed, with 618 active nests fledging
908 eaglets—a 16 percent increase from
the previous year's 533 active nests and
813 young eagles.
Bay scientists credited the increase to the re-
surgence in bald eagle populations specifically
in Maryland and Virginia. In Virginia, 300 active
nests produced 446 young, while in Maryland,
297 active nests produced 432 eaglets.
Pennsylvania is home to 20 active nests and
29 young, and, for the second consecutive
year, an active nest and youngster has been
documented in the District of Columbia near
the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac
Rivers. This nest, first documented in the 2000
survey, marks the first time an eaglet had been
bom in the District since the 1940s.
The Chesapeake may once have provided
habitat for as many as 3,000 pairs of breeding
bald eagles. The population declined
dramatically over the past 300 years, due to
habitat destruction and contamination by
DDT and other chemicals. It reached a low of
72 breeding pairs in 1977. In 1972, the use
of DDT was banned in the U.S., and in 1973,
the bald eagle was listed as endangered in
the lower 48 states except for Michigan,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington and
Oregon, where it was listed as threatened.
After the DDT ban, the population slowly
began to increase, and in 1995 the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reclassified the bald eagle
as threatened throughout the lower 48 states.
-------
Preserve, protect and
restore those habitats and
natural areas that are
vital to the survival and
diversity of the living
resources of the Bay and
its rivers.
—CHESAPEAKE 2000
21
CHAPTER TWO
Vital Habitat
Protection and
Restoration
he Chesapeake Bay's natural infrastructure is
composed of an intricate system of terrestrial and
aquatic habitats, encompassing thousands of miles of
rivers and streams that interconnect the land, water and
living communities of the Bay watershed. These vital
habitats—which include open water areas, underwater
grasses, marshes, wetlands, streams and forests—support
the plants and animals that populate them by providing
food and places to live and breed. For example, under-
water grasses, also called submerged aquatic vegetation,
reduce shoreline erosion, and provide shelter, nursery
habitat and nourishment for aquatic animals, while
forests and wetlands protect water quality by naturally
filtering pollutants before they enter the water. The
health of the entire Bay depends on our efforts to
protect this natural infrastructure over the long term.
-------
! THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
nderwater bay grasses
serve the overall
^^ta^^H
health of the Chesapeake Bay
by producing oxygen,
nourishing a variety of animals,
providing shelter and nursery
areas for fish and shellfish,
reducing wave action and
shoreline erosion, absorbing
nutrients such as phosphorus
and nitrogen and trapping
sediments. Recent improve-
ments in water quality are a
contributing factor in bay grass
resurgence.
Like all plants, bay grasses need
light to grow. The clarity of the
water determines whether or
how much light will reach the
grass. Too much sediment or
algae caused by too many
nutrients decreases water clarity.
UNDERWATER BAY
Status and Trends
In 2000, according to survey data, the distribution of Chesapeake
Bay SAV increased to 69,126 acres baywide, from its low point in
1984 of 38,000 acres. Acreage increases in the upper and lower
portions of the Bay were mostly offset by the loss of bay grasses
in the middle portion, resulting in a 1 percent baywide increase
over previous measurements.
The analysis reveals that total bay grass acreage in the upper
Chesapeake Bay (south from the Susquehanna River to the Ches-
ter and Magothy rivers) increased by 36 percent, to 14,814 total
acres. In the lower Bay, which includes areas south to the Bay's
confluence with the Atlantic Ocean, acreage increased by
5 percent to 20,847 total acres. Data for the Middle Bay,
which extends from the Bay Bridge south to the Rappahannock
River and Pocomoke sound, show a net loss of 9 percent, to
33,465 total acres. Scientists say that the middle Bay losses are
likely due in part to a large-scale algae bloom known as
"mahogany tide" that occurred in the spring of 2000. Such large-
scale blooms block sunlight from reaching grass beds and sharply
inhibit their growth.
WP
5
Acres of Bay Gras-
No Surveys
1979-83
sac;
,
K • ^ n
i?> :
-------
VITAL HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 23
GRASSES
Areas in Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Rivers with
Notable Changes in Underwater Grass Beds, 1999-2000
ABush
AGunpowder *£
A Middle,
' Patapsco*-
A Piscataway
Creek~
Elk A
^" Bohemia A
Sassafrass A
— Upper Chesapeake BayA
/ Lower Chester ^
4r^^
Mouth of Choptank V
Little ChoptankV
A Mattawoman _
Creek ^r
A Upper& Middle /
Potomac "fsi
— -^ J-.
T Lower Potomac —-______ -v^. • j J
•-F3 T ^_^J~,
A Upper %
Rappahannock ^^"^.
' '' r^ J. -
ACorrotomanx
A Lower Rappahannock \ '
APiankatank, -\.
V Upper Mattaponi* -..
Middle Central
Chesapeake Bay •
xManokin A
^ ., Big Annemessex A
^—Tangier Sound A
*S«~~—Lower Central
Chesapeake BayA
1
*w, \" (""^yx
- tZf"/ ^**^~~~i
A Middle York — V * tt>*\
V^r ^- K W
/p"""^
Upper James*
VL '• %-^
,>crr\ -:
J*
>
i<"
-
s
f
\
1 "N^ *^^ \
A Chickahominy > 3v
' ** ^ /**
£^ IVIouth of Jsmes ^^ ;t~
4:M/>
^ i^'v*
* -/
*VSr
X' \
Notable Change 1999-2000
A Increase V Decrease
V Lynnhaven and Back Bays
Includes changes greater than
or equal to 17% and 12 acres
O ~~,J Onnn ,4~.+~
(where 1999 was not mapped)
-------
2 4 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
W H
can
There are several important actions
most of us can take to help protect
bay grasses.
Curtail the amount of fertilizers you
use on your lawn and garden.
Plant trees and vegetation to reduce
shoreline erosion.
Boaters should observe the no-wake
laws and steer clear of shallow
water grass beds.
Several organizations offer
restoration projects in which
the public can participate. The
Chesapeake Bay Foundation offers
restoration activities, including
efforts to plant bay grasses, at many
different locations. The Alliance for
the Chesapeake Bay and the
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources also sponsor events and
educational programs and projects
to promote SAV restoration.
What the Bay Program Is Doing
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement commits to protect and restore
the Bay's vital habitats, and recommits to achieving a goal of
114,000 acres of bay grasses in the Chesapeake Bay.
We gather our data on bay grass distribution annually by analyzing
more than 2,000 black-and-white aerial photographs taken by
Bay Program scientists and partners between the months of May
and October. The 2000 data is the result of 173 flight lines covering
2,340 miles of Bay and tributary shoreline.
To help restore SAV, Bay Program partners are working to improve
water clarity by reducing the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment that enters the Bay and its tributaries.
-------
VITAL HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 2 5
etlands are areas
where the frequent
and prolonged presence of
water at or near the surface of
the soil influences the kinds of
soils that form, the plants that
grow, and the fish and wildlife
that inhabit them. In addition
to functioning as habitat,
freshwater and estuarine
wetlands help maintain
freshwater flow and quality by
moderating the effects of floods
and droughts and by filtering
out nutrients and sediments.
By performing these functions,
tidal and non-tidal wetlands play
a critical role in the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem. It is essential
that we maintain existing
wetlands and restore wetland
acreage and function, in order
to sustain habitats for breeding,
spawning, nesting and
overwintering animals, including
species that are vital to the
regional economy.
WE .AMDS
Status and Trends
More than 1.5 million acres of wetlands exist in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. This number represents about 4 percent of the
64,000-square-mile basin—about one and a half times the size
of Delaware or one-fourth the size of Maryland. Most of our
wetlands—about 1.3 million acres—are inland freshwater
forests or marshes, with only 200,000 acres of estuarine wet-
lands. About 40 percent of the watershed's wetlands occur in
Virginia, with another 27 percent in Maryland. The tidally
flooded lowlands and relatively flat coastal plain landscape in
the eastern portion of these states favor the formation of wet-
lands and result in significant wetland acreage in these states.
New York and Pennsylvania account for another 11 and 14 per-
cent of the watershed's wetlands, respectively. Delaware and
West Virginia, combined, contribute about 7 percent.
While recent emphasis on wetland protection and restoration
has reduced the rate of wetland loss considerably and even re-
sulted in annual net gains in wetlands in some areas, all states in
the watershed remain far below their historic, pre-colonial,
levels. Maryland has lost 73 percent of its original 1.13 million
acres, Delaware 54 percent of its original 480,000 acres,
Virginia 42 percent of its original 1.85 million acres, West Vir-
ginia 24 percent of its original 134,000 acres and Pennsylvania lost
56 percent of its 1.13 million acres.
CONTINUED
-------
2 6 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
WETLANDS
H VT
y
I
can do
Protect and preserve existing
wetlands on your property.
Involve your local community
watershed organization in
locating and studying wetlands
within your watershed, and
help them develop a wetland
protection plan.
Adopt a wetland on your own
or with a local school. For
more information on how to
participate, call the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency's
Wetlands Help Line. See
Contacts on page 59.
What the Bay Program Is Doing
Through the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, Bay Program partners have
committed to achieving a no-net loss of existing wetland acreage and to
restoring an additional 25,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands by
2010. To meet these ambitious goals we are:
• Establishing a wetland restoration tracking system;
• Promoting wetland protection and restoration through the
Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program;
• Developing tools and information resources for local governments
and groups in order to include wetlands protection and restoration in
local planning; and
• Including wetlands status and trends analysis in an overall land cover
mapping initiative.
The Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program
This program promotes community-based efforts to develop conservation strategies to protect and restore the Bay and its
watershed. It gives grants to local governments and organizations working to improve the condition of their local watersheds,
while building citizen-based resource stewardship. The program aims to:
Promote a greater understanding of the Chesapeake Bay
and the connections between the health of the Bay and
the condition of local watersheds; and
Strengthen the links between communities and the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
• Support communities in developing and implementing
watershed management plans;
• Encourage innovative local programs or projects that
improve water quality and restore important habitats in
the Chesapeake Bay basin;
• Develop the capacity of local governments, citizen groups
and other organizations to promote community-based
stewardship and enhance local watershed management;
The program awards modest grants, however, when combined with the contributions of other partners, these funds
make possible projects that can make a measurable contribution in communities. In its first five years, the program awarded
$3.5 million to communities throughout the Bay watershed. The program is administered jointly by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Program. For more information, turn to Contacts on page 59.
-------
VITAL HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 27
hen we talk
about watershed
management, we're referring
to efforts to coordinate and
integrate the programs, tools,
resources and needs of groups
operating within a watershed,
in order to help them
conserve, maintain, protect and
restore the habitat and water
quality of the watershed.
Groups that have a stake in
planning the future of a
watershed (community
organizations, local govern-
ments, business leaders and
environmental organizations)
often will produce a watershed
management plan with a
detailed vision and strategy,
usually at the local level, to
manage their small watershed.
These plans incorporate
information on the biological,
economic and cultural
resources of the watershed,
and reflect the issues that
stakeholders believe are
important and will benefit
habitat and water quality
within their watershed.
Many environmental, economic
and social decisions must be
made at the local level.
Through the Chesapeake 2000
agreement, the Bay Program
partnership has committed to
"work with local governments,
community groups and
watershed organizations to
develop and implement
watershed management
plans in two-thirds of the
Bay watershed."
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
What the Bay Program Is Doing
Our role is to support community watershed organizations and local
governments in developing informed watershed management plans
by providing tools, funds and information to these groups. Our activ-
ities include:
• Funding the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program to
help existing community watershed organizations and to establish
new ones.
• Running a community watershed organization listserv to allow the
Bay Program to communicate its efforts and help watershed organ-
izations communicate with each other.
• Creating a community environmental assessment handbook that
helps citizens, local governments and watershed groups assess
their watersheds—a valuable first step in watershed management
planning.
• Designing the Clearinghouse of Community Resources—
a Web-based catalog of tools and literature that helps watershed
organizations find the information they need.
In addition, Bay Program states are developing strategies to promote
watershed management to local governments and community water-
shed organizations.
w
H rt
can do
Work with your local community watershed organiza-
tion (or if one does not yet exist in your area, help
get one started) to develop a watershed plan.
Participate in activities that help protect and restore
your local streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands, and the
land that surrounds them.
-------
THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
FORESTS
Imost four centuries
have passed since the
first European colonists arrived
on the shores of the
Chesapeake Bay and began
exploring the vast forest that
covered nearly 95 percent of
the watershed, stretching from
what is now Virginia to New
York. These forested acres
generally were seen as a
boundless obstacle to over-
come. The newcomers did not
understand the role forests play
in regulating the environment
and controlling the flow of
water and nutrients from the
headwaters of the region's
rivers to the Chesapeake Bay.
Dramatic changes followed the
colonists' arrival, and forests
were gradually cleared for fuel
and to make way for farms and
a growing population. By
the mid-1800s, less than
40 percent of the original
forests remained.
Forests are resilient, and by the
early 1900s many had re-
established themselves or
were replanted. Since the
1970s, unfortunately, many of
these forests are again being
lost to development or are
being converted to agricultural
lands and pastures, at a rate of
100 acres per day. The greatest
losses are occurring in areas
closest to the Bay, due to
suburban development
spurred on by population
growth. Today's forest
landscape has become an
increasingly fragmented
mosaic of land uses.
Status and Trends
Forests are the primary land cover in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
encompassing nearly 24 million acres or 58.5 percent of the land area.
Recent studies of forest trends reveal, undeniably, that forest loss and
fragmentation is increasing and may have adverse ecological and eco-
nomic consequences.
Watershed health in urban and developing areas is seriously threat-
ened by the increased runoff and fragmentation or destruction of
habitats that occur when forests are cleared to make way for sprawling
growth. It's likely that forests will continue to be cleared daily to yield
ground to new homes and developments, but how that land is devel-
oped can make a difference. Communities can conserve forests and
protect green infrastructure if they plan with natural resources in
mind. Foresters and conservation groups in the Bay area have made it
their priority to help communities assess the linkage, extent and con-
dition of their forests and to integrate this information in local plan-
ning and decision-making.
Trees are as essential today as they ever were for maintaining water
quality and quality of life. Forests are directly linked to the health and
resilience of our rivers and streams, and ultimately, to the health of
the Bay. Acting as living filters, forests capture rainfall, reduce storm
water runoff, protect soil from erosion, trap nutrients and stabilize
-------
VITAL HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 29
stream banks. Studies demonstrate that forests are the most beneficial land use for
clean water. Also, through a complex food web, trees are intimately connected to our
living resources, providing food for aquatic insects and diverse aquatic habitats, on
which many fish depend. Millions of people in the Bay watershed also depend on
forests to protect their drinking water supplies. Besides preventing erosion and clean-
ing our air and water, forests also provide special places for recreation and the raw
materials for many of the products we use every day.
Riparian Forests: Linking the Land and Water
Although the loss of any forest land causes concern, we pay particular attention to
forests that grow along the shoreline and stream banks of the Bay and its tributaries.
These are called riparian forests. When they are conserved and managed as "buffers,"
riparian forests can help dramatically to reduce the effects of adjacent, potential
harmful, land-use activities. Trees that grow alongside a stream help to filter runoff
and groundwater by removing nutrients, sediment and pesticides. Streamside forests
also reduce the downstream effects of flooding, and help create shade, thus moder-
ating temperatures and oxygen levels for fish and other wildlife. In urban areas,
forests help reduce storm water runoff, and riparian corridors can determine whether
a stream can support aquatic life.
In 1996, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted the Riparian Forest Buffer
Initiative, a baywide set of goals and recommendations aimed at conserving and
restoring these critical forests. Overall goals to protect existing buffers
and to restore 2,010 miles of riparian forests by 2010 are some of the
most aggressive in the nation. We've made dramatic progress toward the
2,010 goal, with an estimated 1,298 miles restored through October
2001, and efforts are under way to reevaluate and potentially increase
this target.
Forest Buffers
2000-
FT^
OJ
In 2000, Pennsylvania and Virginia became participants in the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, to which Maryland already
belonged. The conservation program matches federal funds with state
and private investments, and has proved to be a powerful tool for restor-
ing riparian buffers, particularly for owners of crop and pasture land. It
allows landowners to share costs with the government when they install
buffers, and provides them with an annual rental payment to compen-
sate for loss of agricultural commodities yielded by the land. This is truly
a collaborative effort, combining the work of federal and state agencies
and non-profit groups. With hundreds of miles of streamside being pro-
tected from livestock and crop production, water quality and fish habitat
are being reclaimed.
TJOCV-
E
|
_ja
i
5
300
ff ff* A ^m* 'O'
O C1 D
** *•• f* TV m
-------
30 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
l~ LJ K L. u \ u continued
w H jyv
can
To help protect and restore
forest areas in the Bay
watershed, you can:
Plant native trees on your
property, especially along
waterways.
Organize or volunteer for
streamside forest restoration
and stream monitoring proj-
ects in your community.
Encourage your local
government to incorporate
forest conservation and stream
corridor protection in local
land use planning and zoning.
Call your state forestry agency
or the U.S. Forest Service if
you have questions about
forests in your area.
What the Bay Program Is Doing
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement addresses forest loss and fragmentation
due to growth and development, while renewing previous commitments
to riparian forest restoration and conservation. The agreement pledges:
• By 2002, to ensure measures are in place to meet our riparian forest
buffer restoration goal of 2,010 miles by 2010. By 2003, establish a new
goal to expand buffer mileage.
• To conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.
• To promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests
through conservation easements, greenways, purchase and other land
conservation mechanisms.
The Bay Program and its partners are working toward these goals through
several other measures:
• The Chesapeake Bay Commission, U.S. Forest Service, state forestry
agencies, the Environmental Law Institute and forestry leaders in the Bay
region completed an analysis of programs, laws and regulations affect-
ing forest lands in the Bay states. In addition to leading to changes in
land use law, taxation and incentive and regulatory programs, the Forests
for the Bay report will help shape future changes in forest conservation.
• In 2000 the Potomac Watershed Partnership of the U.S. Forest Service
convened state and regional groups in one of 15 Forest Service-spon-
sored, large-scale watershed restoration efforts. The effort focuses on
four Potomac River tributaries most in need of restoration—the
Monocacy River, Antietam Creek, and the north and south forks of the
Shenandoah—and expands collaborative relationships among relevant
agencies and community groups. One of its chief objectives is to accel-
erate wetland and riparian buffer restoration, as well as other forest
stewardship efforts in the Potomac River Basin. For more information
on this effort, see Contacts on page 59.
• Through a grant from the U.S. Forest Service, in 2001 the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources Forest Service completed a major
study of riparian forest buffer restoration that reviewed all the forest
buffers planted over the past five years or more, to determine if and
how well the trees survived. Overall, the buffers have been successful
and are growing, although it will take at least 10 years to see the true
effects provided by a mature forest.
-------
Achieve and maintain
the water quality
necessary to support
the aquatic living
resources of the Bay
and its tributaries and
to protect human health.
—CHESAPEAKE 2000
31
CHAPTER THREE
Water Quality
When we talk about restoring and protecting the
Chesapeake Bay, we're really talking first about
addressing the resource that lies at the heart of the Bay:
the quality of its water. After all, water is the element
that gives life to the ecosystem and to the plants,
animals and humans that draw from it.
Excess nutrients and sediment can travel from as far
away as New York and West Virginia through streams
and tributaries to affect dissolved oxygen, water clarity
and algal blooms in the tidal waters of the Chesapeake
Bay. Toxics or chemical contaminants differ from
nutrients in the way that they affect the Bay system,
but their influence can be just as harmful. Air
pollution contributes to both of these problems,
either depositing pollutants directly into the water
or onto the surrounding watershed.
-------
32 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
NUTRIENTS AND SEDIMENTS
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, we made real progress toward our goals of
improving the Bay's water quality and reducing pollution. A recent analysis
revealed that between 1985 and 2000, phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay
from all of its tributaries declined by 8 million pounds per year. Nitrogen
loads declined by 53 million pounds per year. Unfortunately, baywide
phosphorus reductions fell short of our year 2000 goal by 2.3 million pounds
per year, while nitrogen loads fell 24 million pounds per year shy as well. In
areas where excessive nutrient loads most adversely affect the Bay (the
Potomac River and points north), phosphorus goals were met. We expect to
meet nitrogen goals for those areas once tributary strategies are fully im-
plemented in 2003.
Nutrients from Point Sources
A point source is a specific location or point of entry, such as a pipe, where
nutrients enter waterways. Point sources account for 20 percent of the total
load of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Bay. Industrial point sources in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed are making progress in reducing nutrients by tak-
ing pollution prevention measures, and wastewater treatment plants are
implementing nutrient removal technology, such as biological nutrient
removal. Nitrogen loads delivered to the Bay from point sources declined by
31 percent between 1985 and 2000, and we could see an additional 11 percent
reduction by 2010 from planned treatment facility upgrades. Phosphorus loads
delivered to the Bay from point sources declined by 52 percent between 1985
and 2000 due to improved treatment capability and the implementation of
phosphate detergent bans from the mid-1980s to 1990.
Today, 73 of the 305 significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the
Bay watershed operate using nutrient removal technology. By 2010, that num-
ber is likely to increase to 153 facilities, or almost 80 percent of the collective
flow. Exponential advances in the development of nutrient removal technol-
ogy in recent years, along with performance levels beyond what was tradition-
ally expected, have clearly shown the potential for this technology to achieve
much lower levels of nitrogen in discharges than the traditionally accepted
performance level. At present, plants are operating nutrient removal technol-
ogy to achieve an effluent concentration of 8 mg/L total nitrogen; with addi-
tional funding, the potential exists for this number to decrease to 3 mg/L.
Indeed, even today, the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant in the District
of Columbia, which is by far the largest point source discharger in the Bay
watershed, has been operating at average effluent levels of 5.5 mg/L of total
nitrogen. In the past five years Blue Plains has reduced its direct discharge of
nitrogen into the Potomac by 6 million pounds per year.
Industrial nutrient reduction efforts have yielded encouraging results as well.
For example, two major chemical manufacturing facilities located on the
-------
WATER QUALITY 33
James River in Virginia have collectively reduced their nitrogen load by almost
8 million pounds per year since 1985, due primarily to pollution prevention
measures. In addition, three chicken processing plants in the Bay watershed
have collectively reduced their nitrogen-delivered loads by 361,000 pounds
per year. While this is a smaller reduction than other, larger industries, because
these facilities are located in smaller watersheds, this still provides a significant
benefit to local waterways. To date, 12 of the 49 significant industrial nutrient
dischargers located in the Bay watershed are practicing some form of nutrient
removal, and we expect that number to increase to 16 by 2010. Significant
progress could be made if more of these industries implemented nutrient
reduction technology.
As we have noted, these point sources collectively have achieved a 52 percent
reduction in phosphorus loads and a 31 percent reduction in nitrogen loads
since 1985, despite the 15 percent increase in population since then. But
because the watershed's population is expected to increase by an additional
14 percent by 2020, we must do more to encourage the implementation of
nutrient removal technology in all our facilities, while simultaneously reach-
ing for greater performance levels.
Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads to the Chesapeake Bay
Mned
RtttttftW)
Phosphorus
Mined
-------
34 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Nonpoint Source Nutrients
Nonpoint source pollution is the largest contributor of nutrients to the
Chesapeake Bay and is particularly difficult to prevent and measure. The term
refers to pollution that stems from no clear single source, but is diffuse, such
as runoff that enters waterways from agricultural lands and lawns. This runoff
also includes nutrients that enter waterways from air pollution and ground-
water sources, including septic systems.
Throughout the watershed, runoff is increasing due to the development of
forested and agricultural lands. Runoff from farms is generally declining as
farmers adopt nutrient management and runoff control techniques, but also
because the overall amount of farmland is declining.
Bay Program partners are using several techniques to control nonpoint source
pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed:
• Nutrient management plans are being developed to balance crop need with
nutrient applications. The plans take into account the crops being grown,
the residual nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil, the nutrient content of
manure and soil productivity. Nutrient management plans consider nutri-
ent applications from all sources, including commercial fertilizer. In 2000,
2.3 million acres of land in the Chesapeake Bay basin were protected under
nutrient management plans.
• Farm plans, which combine field-specific conservation practices to reduce
soil erosion while maintaining soil productivity and crop yields, are being
used in areas throughout the Bay basin. Such plans combine all engineering
and agronomic practices applied to all fields on each farm to meet the
objective. In 2000, 3.7 million acres of all agricultural lands, including crop,
hay and pasture lands, were covered under farm plans.
• Streambank fencing is used along pasturelands to control pollution where
cattle cross streams. Fences prevent the direct deposition of nutrient-laden
manure to streams and controls damage to streambanks, which can increase
sediment deposition. They are usually installed in conjunction with other
techniques to protect stream crossings and watering facilities. In 2000,
801 miles of streambank fencing were installed throughout the Chesapeake
Bay basin.
A FISH'S EYE VIEW
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement shifts the focus of our efforts to improve the
quality of the Chesapeake Bay's water systems in important ways. Instead of
concentrating chiefly on categories of pollutants in an effort to control and
reduce them, we are developing new criteria based on the diversity of what are
called designated uses, or habitat zones, which provide food and shelter for
different organisms during different times of the year. Bay Program partners
-------
WATER QUALITY 35
also have begun working with the headwater states of Delaware, New York and
West Virginia to further reduce the amount of nutrients and sediments flowing
into the Bay. The Bay Program is essentially moving toward a "fish's eye view"
of the Bay, and we are adjusting our plans accordingly.
The new approach considers what a restored Chesapeake Bay would look like
from the perspective of the plants and animals that inhabit it—including
finfish, crabs, oysters, underwater grasses, even bottom-dwelling worms. Con-
sider the diversity of habitat that the Bay offers: shallow areas necessary for
spawning, underwater grasses that serve as nursery areas for juvenile fish and
shellfish, open waters where adult fish and their young feed on fish or plank-
ton, and deep waters, where many fish find refuge during winter months.
In past years, water quality goals for reducing harmful nutrients and sediment
were based on the best scientific estimates available at the time. Current
science enables us to base reduction goals specifically on the needs of the
plants and animals that use the Bay as habitat. By focusing on their seasonal
needs, we will be better able to determine the necessary levels of nutrient and
sediment reductions.
A series of designated uses have been identified, along with water quality
conditions, or criteria, that are required to protect and sustain aquatic life in
those habitat zones. These designated uses and their respective criteria will be
adopted as legally binding water quality standards by the partner jurisdictions
that contain tidal waters: Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and the District of
Columbia.
New Water Quality Criteria
Prior to 2000, the water quality criteria that applied to the Chesapeake Bay did
not take into account the natural variability of the Bay's waters. The new Bay
criteria will vary based on the needs of a healthy ecosystem. Scientists will ana-
lyze the relationships among these criteria and thus be able to better under-
stand and monitor the ecosystem's health.
The new water quality criteria that the states and the District are considering
for the Bay and its tidal tributaries include:
• Water clarity, which ensures that enough sunlight reaches underwater bay
grasses that grow on the bottom in most shallow areas.
• Dissolved oxygen, which ensures that enough oxygen is available at the
right time during the right part of the year, to support aquatic life, including
fish larvae and adult species.
• Chlorophyll a, the pigment contained in algae and other plants that
enables photosynthesis. In the Bay the optimum level would reduce blooms
of harmful algae while promoting beneficial algae growth, to support the
base of the Bay's food chain.
-------
36 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Designated Uses
The habitat zones, which we now call designated uses, take into account the
Bay's varied uses as habitat for aquatic plants and animals during many stages
of life, as well as navigational, agricultural, recreational and industrial uses. To
support the states and the District of Columbia in adopting new water quality
standards based on the needs of the Bay's living resources, the Bay Program is
developing five new designated uses for the Chesapeake Bay—shallow water,
open water, deep water, deep channel and migratory finfish spawning and
nursery areas.
Water Quality Criteria + Designated Uses = Water Quality Standards
New Water Quality Standards
To attain the new water quality standards, significant reductions in sediment
and the harmful nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen will be required.
Even so, meeting this goal would not return the Bay to its "pristine" condition,
or to the state in which Captain John Smith is thought to have found it in
1607. However, we will be closer to a realistic, shared vision of a restored Bay,
one that contains high-quality habitats in all zones, from the shallows to the
deep waters.
Current state water quality standards require 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of
dissolved oxygen throughout the Bay's tidal waters, from the deeper channels
to the shallows at the head of the Bay. But scientists believe that, due to natu-
ral conditions, some sections of the Bay, such as the deep trench in the middle
of the Bay, have never achieved that standard during the summer. Scientists
also believe that other areas, such as spawning habitats, require higher levels
than 5 mg/L to sustain new life. In addition to dissolved oxygen, other im-
pairments in the Chesapeake Bay include reduced light conditions (which
negatively affect the growth of SAV) and an overabundance of algae.
Meeting the new water quality standards also would mean a reduction of the
damaging algal blooms that deplete the water of oxygen and could increase
coverage of the Bay's underwater grasses to hundreds of thousands of acres.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND TMDLS
In 1998 the Chesapeake Bay and many of its tidal tributaries were placed on the
federal List of Impaired Waters. This action, prescribed by the federal Clean
Water Act, is normally followed by the development of a "total maximum daily
load" (TMDL) through a regulatory process. A TMDL is the maximum amount
of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality stan-
dards. It is calculated by totaling the allowable loads of a single pollutant enter-
ing a body of water from all contributing point and nonpoint sources.
-------
WATER QUALITY 37
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement sought to achieve the same water quality
improvements before a baywide TMDL would need to be established. The new
water quality approach will incorporate elements found in the regulatory
TMDL process, such as criteria, standards and load allocations, but it would be
developed and applied through a cooperative process involving all the Bay
Program partners and involved citizens.
According to the standard regulatory approach, TMDLs would need to be com-
pleted for the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2011. Typically, the TMDL process
requires a strict implementation plan, and it is unlikely that innovative or
untested solutions would be approved.
However, due to the success of the Bay Program's partnership over the past
20 years, the partners have agreed to implement a cooperative approach to
remove water quality impairments by 2010. This approach will allow the states
and the District of Columbia more flexibility in deciding how to reduce
pollutant loads. The tidal and non-tidal states are jointly developing the new
water quality criteria, designated uses and cap load allocations required to
restore the Bay's water quality. These load reductions will be allocated to the
nine major tributaries and then apportioned by jurisdiction.
The 2001 Storm Water Directive
On December 3, 2001, the Chesapeake Executive Council signed a directive designed to manage storm water runoff
on state, federal and District-owned lands and facilities. The storm water directive (Directive 01-1) addresses the
commitment in Chesapeake 2000 in which we promise by 2001 to "develop an Executive Council Directive to address
storm water management to control nutrient, sediment and chemical contaminant runoff" from these lands. The new
directive commits Bay Program partners to the following:
Regions of Concern. By 2008, to achieve at least a
30 percent reduction of chemicals of concern found in
storm water sources from public lands in the three
Regions of Concern—the Anacostia River, Baltimore
Harbor and the Elizabeth River.
Create an inventory of target public lands.
By 2002, we will inventory all public lands and facilities
within the Bay basin that are owned by the signatories.
We will then identify target lands for enhanced storm
water management.
Demonstrate how to manage storm water.
The Bay Program commits to lead others in preventing
and managing storm water runoff on lands developed or
redeveloped, and on roadways.
Analyze the economics and effectiveness of
demonstration projects. We commit to evaluate
progress regularly and to share information and lessons
learned with other landowners.
Educate others on how to manage storm water.
We commit to set an example for local governments,
businesses and the public through demonstrations of
effective storm water management.
Develop innovative storm water technologies. We
commit to develop economically and environmentally
sustainable storm water management technologies.
Coordinate with communities and local
governments. This commitment addresses the
need to participate in small watershed planning efforts
and to encourage local governments and communities
to undertake measures to control storm water runoff
from their lands.
-------
38 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Toxic chemicals, or chemical contaminants that harm plants, animals and
humans, contribute significant stress to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The
nature, extent and severity of toxic effects vary widely throughout the water-
shed. Three Regions of Concern, the Anacostia River, Baltimore Harbor and
the Elizabeth River, bear the most serious regionalized problems, but other
areas show potential for toxic effects as well.
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement recommits to the following goal:
A Chesapeake Bay free of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of
chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to levels that result in
no toxic or bio-accumulative impact on the living resources that inhabit the
Bay, or on human health.
The Bay Program's Toxics 2000 Strategy is a watershed-wide plan to achieve that
goal. The strategy targets chemicals that pose risks to the Bay's plants and
animals, human health, geographic areas where contaminants are problematic
and areas that are at risk of becoming affected.
To achieve our goals, the Bay Program partners commit to voluntary efforts
that reach beyond compliance with existing federal and state programs in
hopes of avoiding costly regulations and future cleanup efforts. The Bay Pro-
gram will implement a four-pronged approach:
• Undertaking restoration, protection and prevention activities;
• Addressing point sources;
• Addressing nonpoint sources; and
• Conducting monitoring, assessments and research activities.
Chemicals of Concern
In the Toxics 2000 Strategy, the Bay Program identified what we call the chem-
icals of concern for the Chesapeake Bay. These are contaminants that have
been determined to exist in the waters within the Chesapeake Bay watershed
at levels that can negatively affect living resources. Chemicals of concern
include:
• Chemical contaminants identified in the 1999 Toxics Characterization whose
levels may have toxic effects on Bay plants and animals;
• Chemical contaminants whose presence in particular water bodies qualifies
the latter to be listed in their jurisdictions as impaired or threatened;
• Chemical contaminants responsible for finfish and shellfish consumption
advisories.
-------
Status of Chemical Contaminant Effects on Living Resources
in the Chesapeake Bay's Tidal Rivers
Susquehanna River
Bush River
Gunpowder River
Anacostia River
Middle River
Back River
Baltimore Harbor/
Patapsco River
Magothy River
Severn River
Northeast River
Elk River
Bohemia River
Sassafras River
.
-------
40 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Chesapeake Bay Program's
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium
Copper
DDT
Dieldrin
Dioxin
Kepone
Lead
Lindane
Malathion
Mercury
Mi rex
Nickel
PAHs
PCBs
Selenium
Silver
TBT
Zinc
• Chemicals of concern include chemicals that are currently
being used and those that were used historically, were dis-
continued, but persist in the environment at levels that pose
risks to life.
The chemicals listed will be targeted for reduction and pre-
vention actions. However, not all chemicals are considered
damaging throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There-
fore we will focus our management efforts only on those
chemicals that pose risks for particular areas in particular
watersheds. We anticipate that the lists will change as new
data become available.
Sources of Chemical Contaminants
Although point sources are subject to regulatory controls, the Bay Program
partners have committed to taking additional voluntary steps to further reduce
and prevent point source contaminants from entering the Bay. The Chesapeake
2000 agreement commits to work toward zero release of chemical contami-
nants from point sources, including the following actions:
• By 2010, to phase out mixing zones for persistent or bio-accumulative
chemical contaminants through pollution prevention and other voluntary
measures. Initial plans emphasize phasing out mixing zones in affected and
at-risk areas.
• By 2005, to reduce by at least 20 percent the 1998 Toxics Release Inventory
chemical releases and off-site transfers for treatment and disposal from
1998 levels by working with treatment plants and industries.
• Treatment plants will work with the Bay Program to encourage industries
and watershed residents to reduce their chemical contaminant loads to the
treatment plants.
• Businesses for the Bay participants will prevent at the source, or recycle, a total
of one billion pounds of hazardous substances between 1999 and 2005.
Zero release is a goal that we believe can be achieved principally by voluntary
pollution prevention measures. Many success stories already exist in the Bay
watershed. Several companies have achieved the complete elimination of cer-
tain contaminants from their waste discharge streams, while others have elim-
inated the waste stream altogether.
The zero release concept can be implemented in many different ways, and we
welcome as many variations on this theme as can be engineered. A voluntary
phase-out of point source mixing zones is a prime example of working toward
zero release. Mixing zones allow the discharge of pollutants that exceed a
-------
WATER QUALITY 41
stream's water quality requirements, on the theory that the water body will
dilute it by the time it reaches the predetermined edge of the mixing zone.
However, because the waters in the mixing zone have a lower level of
protection, there is a growing national movement to find ways of eliminating
mixing zones altogether, and the Bay Program has committed to achieving this
by 2010.
Nonpoint sources of chemical contaminants consist of agricultural, urban or
suburban storm water runoff, atmospheric deposition and groundwater load-
ings. Estimates reveal that some nonpoint sources such as urban storm water
runoff can represent a substantial load of chemical contaminants to the water-
shed. Our strategy aims for "zero-release of chemical contaminants from non-
point sources." Chesapeake 2000 commits to:
• By 2010, to reduce nonpoint sources of chemicals of concern to the Regions
of Concern by at least 30 percent through implementing pollution preven-
tion and other voluntary nonpoint source programs.
• By 2010, to achieve a no-net increase of chemical contaminants from devel-
oping lands by using a combination of pollution prevention, sound land
use practices and innovative technological solutions.
Businesses for the Bay brings together
businesses, industries, government
facilities and others within the Bay
watershed committed to implement-
ing pollution prevention in their daily
operations and reducing the release
of chemical contaminants and other
pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay.
The group's mission is to build support for pollution
prevention among businesses throughout the watershed.
Businesses for the Bay's more ambitious goal is to contribute
to the long-term improvement of quality of the Bay and its
rivers through widespread, voluntary implementation of
pollution prevention practices.
New members to the program can choose how their com-
pany will contribute, either as a member, mentor, partner,
or as all three. Members develop a set of annual pollution
prevention goals, and report on those activities annually.
Mentors go further to provide assistance and expertise to
other businesses on pollution prevention and related
environmental issues. Partners are generally larger
jjL^ ^^JLfftJ
BUSINESSES
organizations such as trade associ-
ations, civic groups, chambers of
commerce or environmental groups
which voluntarily promote Bus/-
nesses for the Bay, advocate pollution
prevention on a larger scale or
recruit new members.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
accelerated efforts to expand membership in 2001, with
Pennsylvania quadrupling its membership to 101, including
its first local government members. Maryland membership
has grown to include 112 businesses, while Virginia mem-
bership has increased to 226. The District of Columbia is
home to 23 members.
Benefits to participating businesses include:
• Cost savings through pollution prevention;
• Positive publicity and recognition for the business;
• Access to the Businesses for the Bay mentor program;
and
• Ultimately, a cleaner, healthier Bay.
-------
4 2 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
2001 Fish Advisory
The EPA and individual states publish
fish consumption advisories designed
to protect residents from the risk of
eating contaminated fish and shell-
fish. The Maryland Department of
the Environment posted its latest
advisory in December 2001.
To view the latest information
on the Chesapeake Bay fish ad-
visories, go to the Chesapeake Bay
website (www.chesapeakebay.net)
and click on Bay Pollutants, or
see Contacts on page 59.
AIR POLLUTION AND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
To restore the Chesapeake Bay, we must also clean up the air. Air
pollution is a major stressor on the Bay's ecosystem. Airborne
nitrogen and chemical contaminants deposit directly into the
waters of the Bay and the land. The sources of airborne pollu-
tion include automobile emissions, power generating facilities,
industries and agriculture. Natural sources, such as lightning
and forest fires, also contribute to air pollution.
It is important to determine how and where emissions of pol-
lutants are changing over time because the resulting deposition
can have a direct effect on water quality. With this connection
in mind, resource managers are beginning to factor air pollu-
tion into their decisions about water quality improvements.
Status and Trends
The Bay Program uses computer models to identify the relative
contribution of nitrogen loads to the Bay from each source.
Their percentages are estimates; the computer models are only
as good as the information put into them. Therefore, continu-
ous research and monitoring are necessary to improve and
update the models.
Recent Bay Program model estimates for the year 2000 indicate
that approximately 32 percent of the total nitrogen load to the
Bay comes from atmospheric deposition. Of that number,
7 percent falls directly onto Bay tidal waters, and 25 percent
comes from the land, via runoff and groundwater flow, after the
nitrogen has deposited from the atmosphere.
What the Bay Program Is Doing
One of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement's commitments is to
decrease the total load of nitrogen from all sources, including
atmospheric, point and nonpoint sources. The agreement
addresses air pollution in the context of water quality restora-
tion and protection:
By 2003, to assess the effects of airborne nitrogen com-
pounds and chemical contaminants on the Bay ecosystem
and help establish reduction goals for these contaminants.
-------
WATER QUALITY 43
The role of atmospheric deposition also is addressed under the chemical
contaminant section, which requires that we use a watershed-based
approach to "go beyond" traditional point source controls, including
nonpoint sources such as groundwater discharge and atmospheric
deposition.
These commitments reflect the necessity of integrating air quality into all
components of the Bay's restoration, rather than treating it as a separate
issue. The Bay Program is making strides in incorporating air deposition
into pollution prevention management efforts. Managers are using
advanced computer model simulations to measure the benefits from air
pollution regulations included in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
In addition, the Bay Program continues to track the effects of voluntary
emissions controls, as they too benefit the Bay.
/
w H
can do
To help decrease air pollution,
you can:
/ Organize a carpool, tele-
commute, use public trans-
portation, ride a bike or walk.
This will directly reduce the
amount of nutrients and
toxic substances that enter
the watershed.
/ If you must drive, plan your
trips carefully. Combine your
errands to reduce the number
of miles you drive each day.
/ Use electric lawn mowers and
tools instead of gas-powered
ones. These tools have ineffi-
cient engines that produce more
pollution per hour than cars.
-------
4 4 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Ammonia Emissions
Recent studies conducted in several coastal waters,
including the Chesapeake Bay, indicate that ammonia
emissions are a significant source of nutrient loadings to
land and water ecosystems. Ammonia is a gas that reacts
quickly with other pollutants in the air to form fine
particulate matter. These particles can adversely affect
human health when they are inhaled and can create a
regional haze. Small particles of ammonia can be
transported short or long distances through the air
before falling onto the surrounding land and water.
In the Bay watershed, ammonia emissions are estimated
to come primarily from animal agriculture. However,
more study is needed to define all the primary sources
of ammonia.
The nitrogen part of the ammonia deposition, in the
short term, acts as a fertilizer to the terrestrial landscape
and influence the growth of forests, for example, but
over the long term it may prove detrimental by con-
tributing to acidification and the saturation of soils with
nitrogen. Increased soil acidity can decrease the
availability of good nutrients, such as calcium and
magnesium, and can increase toxic aluminum, which
kills plants and can be detrimental to aquatic life. Soils
that are nitrogen-saturated, particularly forest soils,
eventually will leach their nutrients into surface and
groundwater, which eventually drains into the Bay.
What the Bay Program Is Doing
In November 2000, the Bay Program joined NOAA's
Air Resources Laboratory, the EPA Great Waters
Program and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association to conduct the third workshop in a series on
airsheds and watersheds, entitled "The Significance of
Ammonia to Coastal and Estuarine Areas." The work-
shop focused on the effects of ammonia on the environ-
ment, and included discussions on primary emission
sources and the atmospheric transport and fate of
ammonia on a local and regional scale.
In addition, an ammonia airshed for the Bay region
recently has been determined. The airshed, which is
4.5 times the size of the Bay's watershed, represents
the areas where ammonia emission sources have the
greatest potential for depositing nitrogen to the water-
shed. Given the size of the airshed, it is important to
consider local ammonia sources, as well as sources
beyond the watershed.
Collaboration among air quality, water quality and
agricultural agencies is fundamental to dealing with the
ammonia issue. Another pressing need is for better
emissions data, to determine the causes and extent of
fine particulate air pollution and regional haze.
-------
Enhancing, or even
maintaining, the quality
of the Bay while
accommodating growth
will frequently involve
difficult choices.
—CHESAPEAKE 2000
45
CHAPTER FOUR
Sound Land Use
he historical landscape of the Chesapeake Bay
evokes for some the image of meandering streams,
lush green forests, sweet-smelling farms and sun-
dappled open waters. This vision has receded in recent
years, at an alarming rate: there is now compelling
evidence that the entire landscape and character of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed is being threatened by the
harmful effects of sprawl development. In fact, poor
land use practices may undermine almost 20 years of
restoration efforts in the Bay, if current trends continue.
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement recognized that
". . . there is a clear correlation between population
growth and associated development and environmental
degradation in the Chesapeake Bay system." In response
to this obvious threat, the signatories of the Chesapeake
2000 agreement established aggressive goals to reduce
the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and
agricultural lands by 30 percent by 2012, and per-
manently to preserve from development 20 percent
of the land in the watershed by 2010.
A* IL
JBPF^^B^^I^V
-------
"^ran
it
• • . 1 •
JL/ >^
ltt£*/5
THE LEGACY OF SPRAWL
The harmful effects of sprawl are associated with low-density development
that stretches beyond the edge of services and employment. Sprawl can drive
a wedge between where people live and where they shop, work, play and go to
school, and force the population to rely chiefly on the automobile to get
around. It is also associated with increased air and water pollution; the loss of
farmland, open fields, forests and wetlands; increased flooding and traffic con-
gestion; and longer commutes.
Harmful effects of sprawl lead to specific environmental consequences,
including:
• Air pollution: While today's automobiles produce fewer emissions, more
cars are driving more miles, which offsets the gains we have made in emis-
sion controls.
• Water pollution: Development has increased impervious surfaces such as
roads, parking lots and rooftops. Runoff from moderate and heavy rains
cannot be absorbed into the soil through these surfaces; instead, chemical
contaminants and excessive nutrients drain into local water bodies and then
into the Bay, degrading water quality and damaging aquatic plants and ani-
mals. According to the Center for Watershed Protection, more than 30 dif-
ferent studies have documented that streams, lakes and wetland quality
decline sharply when the area of impervious surfaces located in upstream
watersheds exceeds 10 percent of total land area.
-------
SOUND LAND USE 47
• Flooding: The rapid expansion of impervious surfaces in the Bay watershed
increases the velocity of the water and inhibits rainwater from recharging
the groundwater.
The Transportation Connection
Development patterns in the Bay watershed have changed significantly since
World War II. Today, thanks to the automobile and the interstate highway
system, people have far greater access to outlying, previously undeveloped
areas. More homeowners live on larger lots (known as low-density develop-
ment), travel greater distances by car to reach their schools, services and
businesses and to go to work. Traffic congestion has increased; so has airborne
pollution, which eventually enters the Bay. In many areas, the car is the only
means of transportation to work, school and shopping.
VITAL RESOURCE LANDS
Resource lands, including forests, wetlands and farmland, are fundamental to
the health of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains two of the top-
10 most-threatened farmland areas in the United States, including the Pied-
mont region of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia and the mid-Atlantic
coastal plain in Maryland and Delaware. Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania
rank among the top-10 states in terms of production per acre of farmland.
Unfortunately, harmful sprawl development is consuming some of the
nation's best agricultural lands. In the Bay watershed, 1.12 million acres of
agricultural land were lost between 1985 and 2000.
Local governments increasingly are realizing the growing economic and social
costs of sprawl. The U.S. Forest Service studied the cost of community services
and found that open space and farmland save local governments money. On
average, a residential landowner requires $1.14 in services for every $ 1 paid in
taxes—services that include schools, utilities, water, wastewater treatment, and
police and fire protection. By contrast, farmland and forests only require about
$.42 in services for every dollar paid.
-------
4 8 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Preserved Lands
Chesapeake 2000 pledges to permanently preserve from development
20 percent of the land area in the watershed (approximately 7.8 million acres)
by 2010. According to the July 2000 baseline, 6.7 million acres already have
been preserved in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia
portions of the watershed. An estimated 1.1 million more acres need to be
preserved to reach the Chesapeake 2000 goal.
A BOOMING POPULATION
In 1970, the Bay watershed's population was 11,342,157; by 2000, that figure
had grown to 15,710,840. Between 1970 and 2000, the Bay watershed's popu-
lation grew by 38 percent. In Loudoun County, Virginia, 30 miles northwest of
the District of Columbia, the population increased 96.8 percent from 1990 to
2000. The Bay watershed population is expected to increase to 17.8 million by
2020. This means that the watershed's population is growing by about 300
new residents every day, and more homes will need to be built. If current
development patterns remain constant, many of these new homes will be
located at a distance from schools and shopping, requiring people to drive
more miles.
Housing Units and Lot Sizes
A total of 1.7 million new homes are projected to be built in the watershed by
2020, potentially consuming more than 600,000 additional acres of forest and
farmland. It's expected that larger homes will be constructed on larger lots. The
average size of new single-family homes grew 37 percent, from 1,645 square
feet in 1975 to 2,250 square feet in 1999. Lot sizes increased too: in Maryland,
average lot size increased 36 percent between 1985 and 1993.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The Bay Program projects an additional 32 percent increase in vehicle miles
traveled by 2010. This dramatic increase is related to development patterns that
locate services such as shopping and schools away from residences.
The good news is that clean car technologies led to an 18 percent decrease in
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions between 1985 and 1997, despite a 41 percent
increase in vehicle miles traveled. However, the increasing popularity of less
fuel-efficient automobiles such as sport utility vehicles, combined with the
increase in vehicle miles traveled, may offset the gains we have made through
increased emission controls.
-------
SOUND LAND USE 49
liny Watershed Fopnhtinn
O VI O
C> — i— I"*
O £3 O O
n* rt* I-M n*
What the Bay Program Is Doing
Two of the Bay Program's principal sound land use goals are to:
• permanently preserve from development 20 percent of the land area in the
watershed by 2010, and
• by 2012, to reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and
agricultural land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent.
To this end, the Bay Program funds projects that promote and support low-
impact design and smart growth, including training workshops for local gov-
ernments on practical site and watershed planning, and on "green design." The
program also produced Visual Planning Tools, a handbook for local com-
munities, which illustrates environmentally sensitive development techniques,
and offers an internet-based document, the Environmentally Sensitive Develop-
ment Practices Database.
-------
50 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
/ To achieve the sound land use goals established in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, local
/ governments and watershed organizations must encourage low-impact development and
W H fy T work to change the public attitudes that drive harmful development. There are several
'V 7'f^^jff 'f ways you can help.
C j n d O / Get involved in local land use decisions to promote environmentally sensitive develop-
ment. Attend planning commission meetings and help educate local leaders about the
economic, social and environmental costs of poor land use decisions. Excellent
resources are available to support sustainable development in communities, including:
• Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community,
the Center for Watershed Protection.
• CITYgreen Program, sponsored by American Forests, maps urban ecology and
measures economic benefits of trees, soils and other natural resources.
• The Low Impact Development Center provides information on protecting the
environment and our water resources through proper site design techniques that
replicate pre-existing hydrologic site conditions.
In addition, you can:
/ Use porous surfaces, such as pavers that allow water to filter into the soil, for parking
areas and driveways, instead of asphalt and other impervious materials. Redirect down-
spouts to gardens or rain retention barrels to decrease nonpoint source pollution.
/ Encourage new developments close to transit stops. Support other forms of transporta-
tion, such as walking and biking, by developing bike lanes, bike paths and sidewalks.
/ Drive fewer miles every week. Driving less reduces nutrients and chemical contaminants
entering the watershed. Consider telecommuting.
Some families take their commitment a step further, by moving to or remaining in a
traditional town or community, many of which were designed with pedestrians in mind,
within walking distance to schools and shops.
-------
To promote individual
stewardship and assist
individuals, community-
based organizations,
businesses, local
governments and
schools to undertake
initiatives to achieve the
goals and commitments
of the new agreement.
—CHESAPEAKE 2000
51
CHAPTER FIVE
Stewardship and
Community
Engagement
he state of the Chesapeake Bay is influenced
by natural events, human activity, the positive
interventions of scientists, policy makers, resource
managers—and by you. The people most likely to
make a difference are those who live, work and play
along the Bay and its tributaries. Therefore, one of
the most important additions to the Chesapeake 2000
agreement is its focus on educating and involving the
people who live within the watershed, who depend
on the Bay and its tributaries for their livelihood and
recreation. Science alone can't bring about the funda-
mental improvements that truly engaged individuals
could accomplish. Our goal is to enable all the people
living in the Bay watershed, regardless of their age, to
understand and to influence, for the better, the state of
the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
5 2 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
There may be no greater goal in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement than to con-
tinue to unite individuals, businesses, schools and universities, communities
and governments in this effort. To succeed we must share our vision of a
restored, healthy Bay—a system with abundant, diverse populations of plants
and animals, fed by healthy streams and rivers, sustaining strong local and
regional economies and the watershed's unique quality of life.
More than 15 million people live on the land that drains into the Chesapeake.
In order to restore it, we must educate each one of those people about the Bay,
and show how their actions directly affect the quality of local waters and even-
tually the entire Bay system. Restoring the Bay is not only up to government;
we need everyone living in the watershed to do their part to protect and restore
the estuary.
To meet our Chesapeake 2000 commitments, we focus on four avenues of
action:
• Education and outreach
• Community engagement
• Government by example
• Strengthening current partnerships while forging new ones
BRINGING THE CLASSROOM TO THE BAY
Individual and community stewardship of the Bay includes restoration, pro-
tection and conservation. Protecting and conserving the Bay's resources is
clearly less expensive and more effective than restoring a degraded ecosystem.
Chesapeake 2000 focuses on involving individuals and groups in undertaking
initiatives to help meet our goals. To encourage a sense of individual steward-
ship—developing an abiding interest in and responsibility toward the future
of the Bay—we developed two primary objectives:
• Beginning with the class of 2005, to provide a meaningful Bay or stream
outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before gradu-
ation from high school.
• To give students and teachers alike opportunities to participate directly in
local restoration and protection projects, and to support stewardship efforts
in schools and on school property.
To develop a rich understanding of the watershed and its needs requires that
people experience, first-hand, the Bay's importance to their way of life and the
problems that beset it. The Bay Program recently developed a set of criteria that
-------
STEWARDSHIP AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 53
enable jurisdictions to create widespread programs to educate students
about the Bay. This required us to define a "meaningful" Bay or stream
outdoor experience. Each experience should be:
• Investigative or project-oriented.
• Richly structured and based on high-quality instructional design.
• An integral part of the instructional program.
• Part of a sustained activity.
• Based on the watershed as a system.
Experiences should also:
• Involve external sharing and communication.
• Invite the expertise of natural resources personnel.
• Interest and inform all students.
-------
5 4 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
w
can do
Prevent pollution from entering the
Bay and rivers by planting trees,
especially along streams and
shorelines.
Conserve electricity and water and
reduce the number of miles you
drive.
Plant native vegetation that
requires the use of less fertilizer,
pesticides and water.
Limit your use of fertilizer and
apply at appropriate times.
Use safer, nontoxic alternatives for
cleaning and controlling pests and
weeds.
Properly dispose of household
hazardous waste, antifreeze, oil
and boat waste.
Prevent pollution by reducing,
reusing and recycling.
Get involved in community groups
and watershed organizations to
develop and implement watershed
management plans.
As part of the strategy, the Bay Program is analyzing each jurisdiction
to determine how many students are currently receiving such Bay
experiences, and which curricula include them. Then we will begin
to implement more such programs across the Bay watershed, to
ensure that all students can become stewards of the Bay's precious
resources.
GOVERNMENT BY EXAMPLE
It often seems easier to insist on high standards from others than to
demand it of oneself. It is essential, however, that we set the stan-
dard, not fall beneath it. The Chesapeake 2000 agreement contains
several commitments that focus on ensuring that the signatory gov-
ernments maintain policies that are aligned with our new commit-
ments for restoring and protecting the watershed. The signatories
agreed that by 2002 they would ensure that all properties they
owned, managed or leased would be developed, redeveloped and
used in a manner consistent with all the agreement's relevant goals,
commitments and guidance. They also pledged to ensure that the
design and construction of signatory-funded development and rede-
velopment projects remain consistent with the agreement.
Signatory partners also pledged to use clean vehicle technologies
and fuels on the basis of emission reductions, so that a significantly
greater percentage of their respective fleet of vehicles use some form
of clean technology. They further committed to develop an Executive
Council directive to address storm water management to control
nutrient, sediment and chemical contaminant runoff from state,
federal and District-owned lands, and this directive was completed
(see page 37).
CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAM
The Bay Program works with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay's
Citizen Monitoring program, a regional network of more than 145
trained volunteers who perform weekly water quality tests that help
track the condition of waters flowing toward the Chesapeake Bay.
These dedicated volunteers monitor rivers across the Chesapeake
region in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Some have worked
with the Alliance for more than ten years, watching their rivers
through the seasons and regularly submitting the valuable data they
collect. For more information on how to participate in this program,
go to the Chesapeake Bay Program website ("Get Involved"), and see
Contacts, page 59. The website also contains other extensive tips for
people from all walks of life on how to participate in other monitor-
ing, protection and restoration activities.
-------
STEWARDSHIP AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5 5
Bernie Fowler's 2001 "Sneaker Index"
Bernie Fowler Day has been held the second Sunday of June since 1988. On
this day, former Maryland state senator C. Bernard Fowler wades into the
Patuxent River at Broomes Island, Maryland, to see how deep he can walk and
still see his white sneakers. During the 1950s and 1960s, Bernie could see his
sneakers with the water up to chest or shoulder depth, but has been unable to
do so for many years.
The Bernie Fowler's "Sneaker Index," it turns out, has proved useful; in part
because it makes an important concept related to water quality understand-
able to a wide audience, and there's excellent anecdotal and historic data based
on Bernie's experience.
Bernie Fowler
commenting on his
"Sneaker Index."
Citizens wade into the Patuxent River during
the 2001 Bernie Fowler Wade-In.
-------
5 6 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
'•f •—!••
' ''b
'. ', * ~~-
The Gateways Network
was formed by the Chesa-
peake Bay Initiative Act of
1998, which calls for the
National Park Service to
work with state and local
governments, the private
sector and other federal
agencies to build a partner-
ship network of gateways
and water trails in the
Chesapeake Bay water-
shed. Planning for the
Gateways Network began
in late 1999. The first Gate-
ways were designated in
summer 2000; more are
being added regularly. The
network is designed to:
• Help visitors better
understand the Chesa-
peake by embracing a
common cause of devel-
oping new and better
ways of communicating
coordinated messages
to the public through
enhancing placed-based
interpretation and edu-
cation about the Bay
watershed's special
places and stories.
• Facilitate both informa-
tion and physical access
to the Bay through a sys-
tem of Gateways, land
and water routes.
• Help Bay watershed residents and visitors appreciate their role in the Bay's survival, and learn how they
can become involved in conserving and restoring the natural, cultural, historical and recreational
resources of this national treasure.
Gateways are primary destinations where people can access, experience, learn about and contribute to
specific Bay-related resources. They are divided into four categories: sites, water trails, regional informa-
tion centers and hubs. Gateways include parks and wildlife refuges, historic sites, outdoor museums, and
other natural, cultural, historic or recreational resources. New sites are continually being added through
a nomination and designation process. For more information on the Gateways Network, see the Bay
Program website or turn to Contacts on page 59.
-------
57
We must manage for
the future. We must
have a vision for our
desired destiny and put
programs into place that
will secure it.
—CHESAPEAKE 2000
CHAPTER SIX
Looking Ahead
he Bay Program partnership has come a long way
since the first Chesapeake Bay agreement was
signed in 1983, combining the efforts of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission and the EPA. Today, the
Chesapeake Bay Program serves as a national and
international model of successful estuarine restoration.
Expanded monitoring efforts have given Bay scientists a
better understanding of the Bay's ecosystem. Improved
computer modeling programs have allowed us to target
nutrient reduction efforts and track their progress with
greater accuracy throughout the entire 64,000-square-
mile watershed. Innovative technologies have enabled
partners to accelerate efforts to reduce pollutants
entering the Bay and its tributaries. Recent policies
have targeted Bay watershed regions in need of the
most help, while expanded outreach efforts have
sought to involve more people in the fight to
restore and protect the Bay.
-------
5 8 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Bay Program partners also recognize, however, that these efforts may not be
enough. Consequently they have turned upstream to Delaware, New York and
West Virginia for help in reducing the amount of nutrients and sediments
flowing into the Bay. We believe these new relationships will lead to an
enriched watershed partnership that will keep the Bay Program on the cutting
edge of estuary management.
As growth and development expand throughout the watershed, we must
meanwhile redouble efforts to minimize their impact on local streams and
rivers. New technologies reducing nutrients from wastewater treatment plants
must be installed. Agricultural lands
must be wisely managed. Eco-
logically important lands must be
targeted and preserved. Innovative
pollution reduction strategies must
be developed and implemented, and
new resource management plans
must be adopted and followed. These
are not easy tasks to complete, but as
in the past, Bay Program partners will
rise to the challenge.
The cost of solving the Bay's prob-
lems will be significant—but the cost
of failing to do so will be signifi-
cantly higher. New ways of funding
Bay restoration programs must be
found. In an era of shifting national
and regional priorities, we must not
allow the plight of the Chesapeake to
be forgotten.
There is hope. The Bay and the plants and animals that inhabit it may appear
slow to respond, but many critical species and vital habitats have begun to
show signs of recovery. Bay grasses have increased 45 percent from the all-time
low. Rockfish have reached their highest populations since the 1950s. The
number of shad returning to the Bay's tributaries is increasing by leaps and
bounds. Each of these achievements points to a brighter future for the Bay.
If we are to succeed in restoring the Bay, we will need help from everyone who
lives and works in the Bay watershed. Through the Bay Program partnership,
plans will be developed; through the efforts of citizens and stakeholders, con-
sensus will be formed; through federal, state and local governments, programs
will be implemented—and through all of these efforts, the Chesapeake Bay
will be restored.
-------
59
Contact Information
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(800) YOUR BAY / (410) 267-5700
www.chesapeakebay.net
D.C. AND STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
(302) 739-4403
www. dnrec. state, de. us
District of Columbia
Department of Health, Watershed Protection Division
(202) 535-2240
dchealth.dc.gov
Maryland Department of the Environment
(800) 633-6101
www.mde.state.md.us
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(877) 260-8DNR / (410) 260-8100
www.dnr.state.md.us
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
(518) 402-8233
www.dec.state.ny.us
Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Education Office
(717) 545-8878
www.pacd.org
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
(717) 787-9306
www.dcnr.state.pa.us
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
(717) 783-2300
www.dep.state.pa.us
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
(804) 786-1712
www.dcr.state.va.us
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(800) 592-5482 / (804) 698-4000
www.deq.state.va.us
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
(804) 367-1000
www. dgif. state, va. us
West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection
(304) 558-2107
www.dep.state.wv.us
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Enforcement
Coalition
(800) 377-5879
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Chesapeake Bay Office
(410) 267-5660
http: //noaa. chesapeakebay. net
National Park Service
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
(800) YOUR BAY / 410-267-5700
www. bay gate ways .net
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Maryland Office
(410) 757-0861
www.md.nrcs.usda.gov
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District Office - Baltimore
(410) 962-7608
www. nab. usace. army, mil
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District Office - Norfolk
(757) 441-7500
www. nao. usace. army.mil
U.S. Army Environmental Center
(410) 436-7113
http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/env/cbi/
U.S. Forest Service
(410) 267-5706
www.fs.fed.us
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Chesapeake
Bay Program Office
(800) YOUR BAY
www. chesapeakebay. net
-------
60 THE STATE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region III
(800) 438-2474 / (215) 814-2020
www. epa. gov/region3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wetlands
Information Hotline
(800) 832-7828
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
(410) 573-4500
www.fws.gov/r5cbfo
U.S. Geological Survey
(410) 238-4200
http: //Chesapeake, usgs.gov
COMMISSIONS AND INTERSTATE AGENCIES
Chesapeake Bay Commission
(410) 263-3420
www.chesbay.state.va.us
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
(301) 984-1908
www. potomacriver. org
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(202) 962-3200
www.mwcog.org
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
(717) 238-0423
www.srbc.net
ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS
Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium
(410) 798-1283
www. Chesapeake, org
Cornell Cooperative Extension (New York)
(607) 255-2237
www. cce. Cornell. edu
Maryland Sea Grant
(301) 405-6371
www.mdsg.umd.edu
Pennsylvania State University
Cooperative Extension Service
(814) 863-3438
www.extension.psu.edu
University of Delaware
Cooperative Extension
(302) 856-2585
http://ag.udel.edu/extension
University of the District of Columbia
(202) 274-5000
www.wrlc. org/udc. htm
University of Maryland
Maryland Cooperative Extension
(301) 405-2907
www.agnr.umd.edu/mce
University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science
(410) 228-9250
www.umces.edu
Virginia Cooperative Extension Office
(540) 231-6704
www.ext.vt.edu
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(804) 684-7000
www.vims.edu
Virginia Sea Grant
(434) 924-5965
www.virginia.edu/virginia-sea-grant/
Virginia Tech
(540) 231-6000
www.vt.edu
West Virginia University
West Virginia Extension Service
(304) 293-4221
www. wvu. edu/~exten/
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
(410) 377-6270
www.alliancechesbay.org
Center for Watershed Protection
(410) 461-8323
www.cwp.org
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
(888) SAVE BAY / 410-268-8816
www.cbf.org
Low Impact Development Center
(301) 982-5559
www.lowimpactdevelopment.org
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(202) 857-0166
www.nfwf.org
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
1-800-YOUR BAY
www.chesapeakebay.net
Report written by Robin Herbst
® Recycled/Recyclable—Printed with vegetable-oil-based inks on
recycled paper (30% postconsumer)
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
------- |