EPA 903-R-00-008
CBP/TRS 241-00
Chesapeake Bay Program
1999 Survey
of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin:
Results and Findings
Issues of Most Concern to Watershed Organizations
^ eF
Report of the Community Watershed Task Force
April 2000
-------
Printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background 3
The Respondents: Did We Reach the Target Audience? 4
Geographic Distribution: Does the Sample Have Bay-wide Representation? 6
Issues: What are the Areas of Common Interest Among Watershed Organizations and the Bay
Program? 10
Activities: What are Groups Doing that Helps Meet Bay Program Goals? Do they Need
Assistance? 12
Conclusion 15
APPENDIX 1: Future Task Force Actions in Response to Survey Findings - A Summary i
APPENDIX 2: List of Survey Respondents iii
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings Page 2
-------
-------
In July 1999 the Chesapeake Bay Program's Community Watershed Task Force issued a survey
to organizations within the Chesapeake Bay basin that are working at the community level to
protect and restore the Bay's rivers and streams. The survey was designed to determine the types
of activities in which these community watershed organizations are engaged, the types of
assistance they need, and the environmental issues that are of most importance to them. This data
will be used to help the Bay Program work more effectively with these important partners in the
Bay restoration effort.
BACKGROUND
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) recognizes that to sustain the results it has accomplished
and to continue to advance its restoration and preservation efforts, the Bay Program must reach
farther upstream and develop effective partnerships with community-based organizations, local
governments and associations that are actively engaged in local resource protection efforts
throughout the Bay Basin. Community watershed organizations are key partners in translating the
Bay Program's message to the local watershed scale, motivating action, and building a
stewardship ethic in communities.
Much of the work CBP has undertaken in the past few years to work more effectively with
watershed groups can be traced back to a survey conducted in 1996 in collaboration with the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. The survey asked watershed groups to identify their activities
and needs, and specifically what they would like to see from the Bay Program. About 60 groups
responded. The survey revealed that groups were most active in the areas of public outreach (e.g.,
fact sheets, meetings, field trips, environmental education, networking), water quality monitoring,
watershed planning, stream and beach cleanups, and growth management and land preservation
activities.
Making its commitment to community watershed groups official, in October 1997 the Chesapeake
Executive Council signed a directive endorsing a watershed approach to working with community
groups. (The Executive Council includes the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia,
the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), representing the Federal
agencies.) The so-called Community Watershed Initiative called for CBP to develop a strategy
identifying specific actions for working with watershed groups to help meet CBP goals. The
Strategy was completed and adopted in December 1998 and is now being implemented.
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings Page 3
-------
A Community Watershed Task Force was formed and charged with implementing the Strategy.
The Task Force consists of state and local government representatives (9), regional and
community watershed organization representatives (9), as well as representatives from the
Chesapeake Bay Commission and USEPA (2). One of the Task Force's first orders of business
was to update the 1996 survey to track changing needs and identify opportunities for more
effective partnerships.
The 1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations ran in the July-August 1999 issue of
the Bay Journal, a Bay watershed-wide publication with a circulation about 50,000. In addition, it
was mailed directly to 290 watershed organizations. Eighty-four (84) organizations responded to
the survey from throughout the watershed. Their responses are summarized below. In addition,
the report includes actions the Task Force commits to undertaking in order to improve
communication between the Bay Program and watershed organizations, and to respond to their
needs, as expressed in the Survey results.
THE RESPONDENTS: DID WE REACH THE TARGET AUDIENCE?
The survey was targeted to a broad audience of "any and all organizations that work to restore
and conserve natural resources and create sustainable communities in the Chesapeake Bay basin."
This audience could include neighborhood associations, Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops, hiking,
biking, boating and hunting clubs, as well as the prototypical "Friends of River X" organizations.
In order to gauge who exactly responded to this call, we characterized respondent organizations
by the type of organization, as well as by their scale.
Types of Organizations
Each of the respondents was assigned to one of thirteen organizational categories.
Results: Respondents predominantly fell into four of these categories: river/stream/watershed
groups (52 of 84 respondents), land trusts/conservancies (12), multi-purpose environmental
groups (11), and state government (6). The remaining five organizations were distributed among
recreational groups (2), academic groups
(1), educational/children's groups (1), and
other government (1).
Findings: It is not surprising that the vast
majority of respondents represented
organizations focused on rivers, streams
and watersheds. While the survey itself
was meant to be inclusive of groups with
a range of interests, it was entitled "A
Survey of Community Watershed
Organizations" [emphasis added], which
required that potential respondents at
Types of Organizations Responding
Land Trusts
13% General
Environ-
^^~^~~~~ mental
Watershed / A/"" \~^^ 12%
Groups 1 ^"~~~~-y state
62% \ m. I— Government
V0ther 7%
6%
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page 4
-------
least peripherally identify with that term to get past the title. Furthermore, water quality is at the
heart of the Chesapeake Bay Program and for this reason the Program likely has a higher profile
with water-oriented organizations. However, other types of organizations remain important
partners in protecting and restoring the Bay and its rivers and streams. For example, a fair number
of land trusts and conservancies responded to the survey. As development and the conversion of
forests and farmland put increasing pressures on the Bay's water and living resources, these
groups, in particular, will become increasingly important partners.
Scale of Organizations
Each of the respondents was associated with one of five categories representing the scale at which
their organization operates. The scales included:
• Community - an organization that works in a small watershed or within a city, county.
• Regional - an organization that works throughout the watershed of a tributary basin or
in multiple counties.
• Statewide - an organization that works throughout one of the Bay states (DE, MD,
NY, VA, PA, WV).
• Chesapeake Baywide - an organization that works throughout the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
• Nationwide - a national organization that includes work in the Chesapeake Bay area.
Results: Of the eighty-four (84) respondents, fifty-nine (59) were community groups; twelve were
regional organizations; seven were state-wide organizations; three had a Chesapeake Bay
watershed-wide orientation; and, two operated nationwide.
Findings: The target audience was organizations working at the community level, and 72 percent
of respondents fell into that category. The majority of the remaining respondents (14 percent of
the total) fell into the regional category. These regional or tributary-focused organizations are
important partners when working at the
community level because they may serve
as the link that connects various
community-based efforts together, and
Scale of Organizations Responding
Community
72%
Regional
14%
Statewide
^ 8%
Baywide
4%
Nationwide
2%
that ultimately ties these efforts to the
Bay.
Future Task Force Actions in
Response to Survey Findings
• Focus attention on regional and
community-based watershed
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page 5
-------
organizations as target audience. Communication and resources will be designed to reach
this audience; however, other types of organizations will not be excluded from accessing
these tools.
Identify and develop relationships with key regional organizations that service community-
based groups. Reaching community groups through such a network will result in a more
efficient use of resources and help facilitate regional watershed partnerships.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION: DOES THE SAMPLE HAVE BAY-WIDE
REPRESENTATION?
Each respondent was asked to describe and indicate on a map the geographic area in which his or
her organization concentrates its work. Each organization was then associated with the
corresponding watershed or watersheds. Watersheds were identified by Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUC) as cataloged by the United States Geological Survey. We used the 11-digit HUC scale, of
which there are 505 watersheds in the Bay basin, averaging just over 125 square miles each. This
watershed scale can be aggregated to any coarser HUC scale (e.g., the more common 8-digit
Cataloging Units).
In addition, respondents provided their mailing addresses. With this data, the respondent
organizations can be organized geographically on many different scales and according to various
boundary delineations (e.g., watersheds, zip codes, counties, states, etc.). The map on the
following page plots each organization's address. A handful of addresses actually fall outside the
Bay watershed; however, the area in which they work is largely within the Bay drainage area.
State Distribution
Organizations were assigned to the state in which their primary office is located. The Chesapeake
Bay watershed includes portions of the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the entire District of Columbia.
Results: Respondents represented five of the seven jurisdictions with the following rates of
response: Virginia - 31 respondents or 38%; Pennsylvania - 28 or 33%; Maryland - 23 or 27%;
District of Columbia - 1 or 1%; and, New York - 1 or 1%. There were no respondents from
either Delaware or West Virginia.
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings Page 6
-------
[insert map]
-------
Findings: Most of the Bay watershed falls within the borders of Virginia, Pennsylvania and
Maryland, and these three states, along with the District of Columbia, are partners in the
Chesapeake Bay Program. The high and comparable levels of response across the three states
reflect these facts. The low response rate from the District of Columbia largely may be
attributable to DC's small size and high real estate costs. There are many active organizations on
the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers that run through Washington, but most do not have offices in
the high-rent neighborhoods of the city proper. The lack of response from the remaining states
probably is a factor of the Bay Program having few, if any, relationships with community-based
groups in these areas.
Distribution by Watersheds
Chesapeake Basin Watersheds Represented
by Survey Respondents
66%
13%
21%
D Watersheds
w/community
organizations
responding
• Watersheds
w/regional
organizations
responding
D Watersheds w /no
organizations
responding
Respondents were distributed among the
8-digit HUCs, also called Cataloging
Units, in which they operate. At this scale,
there are a total of 56 watersheds within
the Chesapeake Bay basin. Only
organizations working at a regional or
community scale were included in this
analysis; state and national-level
organizations were excluded.
Results: The majority of watersheds were
represented by at least one community organizations (66% or 37 watersheds), and close to eighty
percent of the watersheds (44 out of 56) were represented by either a community or a regional
organization. (See chart above, Chesapeake Basin Watersheds Represented by Survey
Respondents) Of the twelve watersheds with no regional or community representation, nine are
located outside the tidal Bay area. Of the additional seven watersheds that had regional
representation but no community representation, six are in the nontidal areas of the basin. (See
table below, Watersheds Without Regional and/or Community Representation, for a complete
listing of watersheds that are not represented in the survey responses.)
Findings: Overall, respondents represented a broad cross section of the Bay basin; however, there
remain large expanses with no representation in the survey, especially in the mountainous areas of
Virginia and West Virginia, on the Eastern Shore of the Bay, including parts of Virginia,
Maryland and Delaware, and in the northernmost reaches of the basin in New York. There are a
variety of possible reasons why we received so few responses from these areas. It may be because
there truly are fewer watershed groups in these areas. Or it may be that these areas are less likely
to identify with the Chesapeake Bay and therefore respond to a survey from the Chesapeake Bay
Program. And perhaps it is because the Bay Program has not developed contacts in these farther
flung areas.
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
PageS
-------
Task Force Actions
• Target outreach efforts in watersheds with no representation in the survey, including in the
states that are not official partners in the Bay Program - Delaware, New York and West
Virginia. Emphasis will first be given to the 21 percent of watersheds where no
organizations responded. Then outreach will be expanded to the 13 percent of watersheds
with regional, but no community representation in the survey sample. The purpose of this
outreach will be to fill out the survey data to reflect uniform geographic distribution across
the basin, and to raise awareness of Bay Program resources available to communities that
may not be aware of the Bay Program at all.
Watersheds Without Regional and/or Community Representation
Watershed
Upper Susquehanna
Chenango
Owego-Wappasening
Upper West Branch Susquehanna
Sinnemahoning
Pine
Lower West Branch Susquehanna
Blackwater-Wicomico
Pocomoke
South Branch Potomac
North Branch Potomac
Cacapon-Town
South Fork Shenandoah
Middle Potomac-Catoctin
Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock
Western Lower Delmarva
Upper James
Middle James-Buffalo
Rivanna
No Community
Representation in
Survey Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Neither Regional
Nor Community
Representation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ISSUES: WHAT ARE THE AREAS OF COMMON INTEREST AMONG
WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS AND THE BAY PROGRAM?
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page 9
-------
Respondents were asked to identify the issues of most concern to their organizations. A selection
of twelve issues was provided, and respondents also could write in responses. There was no
limitation on the number of issues any one respondent could select. The twelve issues included:
conserving/restoring the Chesapeake Bay,
conserving/restoring rivers and stream,
maintaining/restoring commercial and/or recreation fisheries,
preventing natural disasters (e.g., flood control),
protecting/restoring wildlife and habitat,
maintaining/restoring biological diversity,
conserving green space/open space,
preserving resource lands (e.g., forest and agricultural land),
maintaining sense of community/quality of life,
protecting drinking water quality,
managing growth and development, and
creating/maintaining opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Issues of Most Concern
Results: The distribution among issues is displayed on the bar chart below (Issues of Most
Concern to Water shed Organizations). The top five issues identified included: protecting drinking
water quality (68 of 84 respondents), conserving/restoring rivers and streams (62), preventing
natural disasters (55), protecting/restoring wildlife and habitat (53), and protecting/restoring
commercial and/or recreational fisheries (50). There was almost no geographic variation in the top
five responses.
Issues of Most Concern to Watershed Organizations
00 &
£ 0^
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page 10
-------
Findings: While it is good news that over half of the organizations (46 or 55%) identified
conserving and restoring the Chesapeake Bay as an important issue, an even greater number (62
or 74%) identified conserving and restoring rivers and streams. Furthermore, it is probable that
the organizations responding to a Chesapeake Bay Program survey are more likely to be
concerned about Bay issues than those who declined to respond, and/or were not on the Survey
distribution list.
The issue identified most often by survey respondents uniformly and consistently across the Bay
watershed (with 80% of respondents) was that of drinking water quality. While the Bay Program
has not traditionally focused directly on drinking water supply as a Bay restoration priority, much
of what the program does focus upon clearly impacts water quality indirectly as it applies to
drinking water supplies. (Two examples are that of non-tidal and tidal wetlands protection and
preservation initiatives, and efforts to reduce toxic inputs into both surface and ground water
resources.)
There is convergence among respondents' other priorities and those of the Bay Program as well.
For example, stream and habitat restoration, maintaining and restoring fisheries, and wetlands
preservation and restoration whose benefits include flood control, are important issues for both.
In fact, the Bay Program has many ongoing projects that can help communities address these
issues. (See table, Partnership Opportunities, below for examples.)
Partnership Opportunities
Issues of Concern to Community Groups
Protecting Drinking Water Quality
Protecting/Restoring Rivers & Streams
Preventing Natural Disasters (e.g., flood
control)
Wildlife and Habitat Protection/Restoration
Related Bay Program Projects
Wetlands Restoration Grants, Riparian Forest Buffer
Initiatives, Watershed Planning Workshops, Community
Wetlands Planning Tool
Riparian Forest Buffer Initiatives, Watershed
Workshops
Planning
Community Wetlands Planning Tool
Habitat Restoration Grants
Task Force Actions
• Make resources more readily available to communities engaged in addressing these areas
of common interest.
• Raise community awareness of on-going Bay Program projects that address the issues of
most concern to community watershed organizations.
• In areas where watershed groups have expressed concern, but where the Bay Program has
little or no purview, the Task Force will develop referral information, and, when
appropriate, will relate these issues to others in which the Program is more active. For
example, drinking water quality is delegated to individual state governments, however, the
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page 11
-------
Task Force will seek to ensure that community groups know who to contact in each state,
and strive to tie drinking water into the Bay Program's messages about surface and
groundwater quality and runoff.
Improve the Bay Program's messages about local river, steam and watershed
conservation, and shift away from a Bay-focused message.
ACTIVITIES: WHAT ARE GROUPS DOING THAT HELPS MEET BAY
PROGRAM GOALS? Do THEY NEED ASSISTANCE?
Respondents were asked to identify the activities in which they are engaged, and the activities for
which they need assistance. They were provided a list of thirty specific activities in four categories
(public outreach and communications; environmental monitoring; pollution prevention and
restoration projects; and, planning and organizational development). Respondents also could
write-in activities.
Activities in Which Groups are Engaged
Results: Of the activities in which respondents indicated they are engaged, the top five, and seven
of the top ten activities fall into the public outreach and communications category. Pollution
prevention and restoration activities and monitoring activities fall in the middle, with planning and
organizational development activities being the least common. The table below, Activities in
which Organizations are Engaged, shows detailed results for the fifteen most common activities.
Findings: Organizations clearly are active in areas that help meet Bay Program goals, including
activities to raise public awareness of watershed resources, water quality monitoring, tree
plantings, and stream and beach clean ups. Through their public outreach activities, these groups
are especially valuable as partners in communicating a stewardship message to the general public.
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings Page 12
-------
Activities in Which Organizations are
Activity
Engaged
Activity Category
# of Orgs.
Currently
Active
1. Network with other communities/organizations
2. Participate in public meetings and hearings
3. Host/convene public meetings and workshops
4. Produce fact sheets and/or brochures
5. Produce newsletter
6. Organize and lead field trips
7. Water quality monitoring
8. Tree plantings
9. Participate in festivals, fairs and block parties
10. Stream and/or beach cleanups
11. Community visioning
12. Living resources monitoring
13. Community environmental assessment
14. Low input beautification
15. Develop/restore/advocate access points to the
Bay, rivers and streams
public outreach and communications 66
public outreach and communications 62
public outreach and communications 61
public outreach and communications 60
public outreach and communications 60
public outreach and communications 56
environmental monitoring 55
pollution prevention and restoration 54
public outreach and communications 52
pollution prevention and restoration 50
planning/organizational development 37
environmental monitoring 36
planning/organizational development 28
pollution prevention and restoration 25
pollution prevention and restoration 24
Assistance Needs
Respondents were asked to identify the activities for which they need assistance, and also were
asked to write in the types of assistance they would prefer.
Results: Needs were identified most frequently for activities in the planning and organizational
development category with 132 responses. Pollution prevention/restoration activities and
outreach/communications activities showed similar levels of need with 90 and 80 responses
respectively. Environmental monitoring activities showed less need with 56 responses. (See chart
below, Needs Identified Related to Types of Activities}
The types of needs identified fell into nine major categories:
• funding,
• technical assistance and guidance,
• training,
• public relations support,
• general informational materials,
• equipment and materials,
• volunteers,
• networking and information sharing,
• data, and
• other.
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page 13
-------
Needs Identified Related to Types of Activities
Among the five needs cited most often,
funding by far topped the list, appearing
100 times. Clustered in the middle,
receiving between twenty and forty
responses a piece, were technical
assistance and guidance (appearing 37
times), general information materials (28),
and public relations support (22). Finally,
training was cited thirteen times.
When needs were organized according to
types of activities, funding remained the
most common type of assistance identified
for each type of activity, with the notable
exception of planning and organizational
development. For these types of activities,
technical assistance was cited more often than funding. (See table below, Top Needs for Each
Type of Activity)
Top Needs for Each Type of Activity
Planning &
Org.
Development
P2&
Restoration
Public
Outreach &
Comm.
Environmental
Monitoring
Activity Category
Type of Activities
Planning/Organizational Development
P2 and Restoration
Public Outreach/Communications
Environmental Monitoring
Assistance Needs Cited
1 . Technical Assistance
2. Funding
3. General Information
1. Funding
2. Equipment/materials
3. Technical Assistance/Guidance
1. Funding
2. Public Relations Support
1. Funding
2. Technical Assistance/Guidance
Specific Activities with Most Need
water trails planning, community
environmental assessment, community
indicators, ecotourism/heritage planning
low input beautitlcation, Bay grass
plantings, developing access points to the
Bay, tree plantings
produce newsletters, produce fact
sheets/brochures, networking with other
communities and organizations
water quality and living resources
monitoring, stream hydrology monitoring
was a common write-in response
Findings: In the areas where community groups could most directly support Bay Program goals -
pollution prevention and restoration, and planning and organizational development -
organizations have identified the highest levels of unmet need. However, even in the area of
communication and networking, where the activity level is very high, community groups identified
a need for funding and for support with developing content. In many cases the Bay Program has
on-going resources that can be of assistance, if made more readily available on a widespread basis.
In other cases new resources may need to be developed. Regardless, there is an opportunity to
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page 14
-------
help jump start organizations so that they can be of even greater assistance in Bay restoration
efforts.
Task Force Actions
• Take advantage of watershed groups as a resource for communicating information, and
work to develop content and informational materials that can be put to use by these
groups.
• Promote to communities existing Bay Program resources that help fulfill unmet needs
identified in the survey.
• Encourage the Bay Program to support the development of new tools and resources that
help build capacity in communities for planning and organizational development activities.
CONCLUSION
The 1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations identified many opportunities where
CBP and community watershed organizations can work together to meet common goals and
contribute to preserving and restoring the Bay watershed. The Community Watershed Task Force
has tried to focus on actions that will help these partnerships develop to their full potential.
The Survey, coupled with this report, is meant to be a form of two-way communication between
community watershed organizations and the Community Watershed Task Force. The purpose of
this report is to reply back to organizations about what we heard in the survey and to let you
know how the Task Force plans to use the information to shape its agenda. This communication is
not meant to be a one-time opportunity, but rather an ongoing conversation. The Task Force
hopes to continue to hear from organizations who did not respond initially, and to hear back from
those organizations that responded and have additional comments about the results and the Task
Force's findings and intended actions.
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings Page 15
-------
-------
APPENDIX 1: FUTURE TASK FORCE ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO
SURVEY FINDINGS - A SUMMARY
• Focus attention on regional and community-based watershed organizations and design
communication and resources to reach this audience.
• Identify and develop relationships with key regional organizations that service community-
based groups.
• Target outreach efforts in watersheds with no representation in the survey, including in the
states that are not official partners in the Bay Program - Delaware, New York and West
Virginia.
• Make resources more readily available to communities engaged in addressing issues of
common interest.
• Raise awareness of on-going Bay Program projects that address the issues of most
concern to community watershed organizations.
• Develop referral information for issues in which watershed groups have expressed
concern, but where the Bay Program has little or no purview. Relate these issues to others
in which the Program is more active.
• Improve the Bay Program's messages about local river, steam and watershed
conservation, and shift away from a Bay-focused message.
• Take advantage of watershed groups as a resource for communicating information, and
work to develop content and informational materials that can be put to use by these
groups.
• Promote existing Bay Program resources that help fulfill unmet needs identified in the
survey.
• Encourage the Bay Program to support the development of new tools and resources that
help build capacity in communities for planning and organizational development activities.
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings Page i
-------
-------
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Organization
Location
Watershed(s)
Accokeek Foundation
American Canoe Association
Anacostia Floodplain Restoration Alliance
Anacostia Watershed Society
Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment
Berks County Conservancy
Bowman's Creek Watershed Association
Cambridge South Dorchester Middle School
Cat Point Creek Watershed Project
Chesapeake Bay Foundation - Juniata Project
Chesapeake Bay Foundation - VA
Chesapeake Bay Foundation - York (VA) Chapter
Chesapeake BIOS Project
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
Chester River Association
Chickahominy Watershed Alliance
Citizens for Preservation of Queenstown Creek
Codorus Creek Watershed Association
Cowans Gap State Park
Donegal Fish & Conservation Association
Earth Conservation Corps
Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Elizabeth River Project
Environmental Concern, Inc.
Fishing Creek Watershed Association
Franklin County Watershed Association
Accokeek, MD
Springfield, VA
Hyattsville, MD
Bladensburg, MD
Arlington, VA
Wyomissing, PA
Harveys Lake, PA
Cambridge, MD
Tappanhannock, VA
Huntington, PA
Richmond, VA
North, VA
Arlington, VA
Easton, MD
Chestertown, MD
Richmond, VA
Queenstown, MD
York, PA
Fort Loudon, PA
Lancaster, PA
Washington, DC
Pottsville, PA
Norfolk, VA
St. Michaels, MD
Benton, PA
Chambersburg, PA
Piscataway Creek and Upper Tidal
Potomac
Nationwide
Anacostia River
Anacostia River
Four Mile Run
Conestoga and Little Swatara
Creeks
Bowman Creek
Choptank River
Cat Point Creek (Lower Middle
Rappahannock)
Juniata River
Statewide
York River
Potomac River
Eastern Shore Rivers
Chester River
Chickahominy River
Queenstown Creek (Chester River)
Codorus Creek
Juniata River
Donegal Creek
National/Anacostia River
Regional
Elizabeth River
Baywide
Fishing Creek
Potomac, Juniata and Lower
Susquehanna Rivers
Friends of Bryan Park
Friends of Chesterfield's Riverfront
Friends of Mattawoman Creek
Friends of Raystown Lake
Friends of the North Fork Shenandoah River
Friends of the Potomac
Friends of the Rivers of Virginia
Friends of the Shenandoah River
Friends of Urbanna Creek
Gifford Pinchot State Park
Herring Run Watershed Association
Hoffler Creek Wildlife Foundation
Howard County Conservancy
Izaak Walton League Save Our Streams - Virginia
James River Association
Jones Falls Watershed Association
Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary
Kettle Creek Watershed Association
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Accokeek, MD
Hesston, PA
Woodstock, VA
Arlington, VA
Roanoke, VA
Front Royal, VA
Urbanna, VA
Lewisberry, PA
Baltimore, MD
Portsmouth, VA
Woodstock, MD
Raphine, VA
Richmond, VA
Baltimore, MD
Lothian, MD
Renovo, PA
James River
James River
Mattawoman Creek
Raystown Lake
North Fork Shenandoah River
Potomac River
Statewide
Shenandoah River
Urbanna Creek (Lower
Rappahannock)
Conewago Creek
Herring Run (Back River)
Nansemond and Elizabeth Rivers
Patuxent River
Statewide
James River
Jones Falls
Patuxent River
Kettle Creek
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page iii
-------
Lackawanna River Corridor Association
Lancaster County Conservancy
Lititz Run Watershed Alliance
Maryland Forest Association
Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers Association, Inc.
Maury River Alliance
Mid-Atlantic Council of Trout Unlimited
Monocacy Canoe Club
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
Nature Conservancy - Virginia
Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy
Northern Swatara Creek Watershed Association
Octoraro Watershed Association
Oyster Recovery Partnership
Parks and People Foundation
Peanut Soil and Water Conservation District
Perm York Bentley Creek Watershed Association
Piankatank River Watershed Project
Potomac River Association
Queen Anne's Conservation Association
Quittapahilla Watershed Association
Rivanna Conservation Society
Save Our Creek
Save The Ole Piankatank
Severn River Association
Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance
Spring Creek Watershed Community
Sugar Creek Watershed Association
SUNY, College at Oneonta, Biological Field Station
Swatara Creek Watershed Association
Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District
Tidewater Resource Conservation & Development
Tioga River Watershed Reclamation Projects
Towanda Creek Watershed Association
Trust for Public Land
Virginia Canals and Navigation Society
Virginia Dare Soil and Water Conservation District
Weems Creek Conservancy
Williamsburg Land Conservancy
Yellow Creek Coalition
Scranton, PA
Lancaster, PA
Lititz, PA
Grantsville, MD
Walkerton, VA
Lexington, VA
Reisterstown, MD
Frederick, MD
Tyaskin, MD
Charlottesville, VA
Williamsport, PA
Pine Grove, PA
Nottingham, PA
Annapolis, MD
Baltimore, MD
Smithfield, VA
Towanda, PA
Tappanhannock, VA
Valley Lee, MD
Queenstown, MD
Annville, PA
Palmyra, VA
Ephrath, PA
North, VA
Crownsville, MD
Mt. Canmal, PA
State College, PA
Towanda, PA
Cooperstown, NY
Lebanon, PA
Charlottesville, VA
Tappahannock, VA
Blossburg, PA
Towanda, PA
Washington, DC
Lexington, VA
Virginia Beach, VA
Annapolis, MD
Williamsburg, VA
Stoystown, PA
Lackawanna River
Lower Susquehanna River
Lititz Run (Conestoga Creek)
Statewide
Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers
Maury River
Baywide
Potomac, Susquehanna, Patapsco,
and Back Rivers
Nanticoke River
Statewide
Upper and West Branch
Susquehanna
Swatara Creek
Octoraro Creek
Statewide
Jones and Gwynns Falls, and
Baltimore Harbor
Nansemond and Tidal James
Rivers
Bentley Creek
Piankatank River
Potomac River
Choptank and Upper Eastern
Shore Rivers
Quittapahilla Creek
Rivanna River
Cocalico Creek
Piankatank River
Severn River
Shamokin Creek
Spring Creek
Sugar Creek
Otsego Lake
Swatara Creek
James, Rappahannock, Potomac,
Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers
Rappahannock River
Tioga River
Towanda Creek
Nationwide
Statewide
Nansemond and Elizabeth Rivers
Weems Creek
James and York Rivers and Lower
Chesapeake
Yellow Creek
1999 Survey of Community Watershed Organizations
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Report and Findings
Page iv
-------
-------
410 Severn Avenue
Chesapeake Bay Program
Annapolis, MD 21402
1-800-YOUR BAY
Available on line at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/cwi.htm
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (30% Postconsumer)
------- |