CHESAPEAKE BAY WETLANDS

DRAFT------------------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WETLANDS
By J. Glenn Eugster, Associate Director for Ecosystem Management, U.S. EPA, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD
Revised Draft October 23, 1996

Introduction:

Mike Apperti, a local citizen activist from Crisfield, Maryland wasn’t aware that the Jenkins Creek watershed of the lower Chesapeake Bay was highly valued by the scientists and government managers of the Chesapeake Bay Program when he called the EPA Office in Annapolis . He called to get help to protect and restore nearly 300 acres of wetlands which he and his non-profit group thought were important. Although delighted to know that the area was identified by EPA, the State of Maryland and the NOAA Coastal Zone Management Program for its scientific value as Submerged Aquatic vegetation, a greenway, shellfish habitat and migratory wildfowl habitat, Mike's group had concluded long ago that Jenkins Creek was important.

Apperti and his colleagues, which include a Waterman, a University Professor, an artist, an insurance salesman, and others, were intent on creating the Jenkins Creek Environmental Education & Research Center to save their part of the Chesapeake Bay and contribute to Crisfield's efforts to regenerate its community through ecological-cultural tourism. Without background information on the status and trends of wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay region, Mike, Grant “Hun” Lawson, Jake Bair, Jack Schroeder, and Jay Tawes knew that the Lower eastern Shore of Maryland was changing and the time was right to protect these wetlands for the quality, economy and education of their part of Somerset County, Maryland.

While science continues to be a cornerstone of the Chesapeake bay ecosystem management effort numerous groups like Mike Apperti's are taking voluntary local action to help protect and restore the Nation’s most productive estuary. Working outside of the Bay Program’s Committee, subcommittee and workgroup structure, without sophisticated data analysis and direction by state and federal government agencies, groups like Mike’s present a challenge to the Chesapeake bay Program and the way it has traditionally done business. The ground-swell of local efforts within the Bay watershed are challenging the Program to examine roles and relationships with community-based organizations and redesign protection approaches to enable citizens to help save the estuary.

Although this community initiative isn't a recent Chesapeake Bay phenomena, the number of broad-based groups that have recently set out to protect and restore their part of the watershed is. Private groups and local governments are actively working to prepare and implement community-based plans for small watershed protection, pollution prevention, habitat restoration, ecological and cultural tourism, and other types of sustainable development. These initiatives are challenging the Bay Program to look at ways to merge good science with local advocacy, support local initiative without dictating solutions, share local success stories, and coordinating existing programs to efficiently provide important technical, informational and financial services.

The proliferation of local interest in the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed, which includes 1,653 local governments, has reinforced the evolving fundamental ground-shift in the way that state, federal and regional governments and private groups are viewing wetlands protection and restoration. Limited resources, the residual impact of the controversy over the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands, continued interest in private property rights and local home rule, and more sophisticated non-regulatory approaches to wetlands protection have led to different approaches in public agencies and private organizations.

More and more, organizations and agencies are designing wetland protection efforts to merge good science together with local support. As communities are stepping forward to influence their environmental, community and economic futures, governments and private groups are re-tooling their programs to shift away from strictly regulatory efforts. Voluntary approaches to wetlands protection are now being viewed as important as regulatory measures.


The recent changes within the Chesapeake Bay Program's culture, as well as other organizations, actually represents a convergence of thinking about the essential ingredients for ecosystem management. Community, business, development, environmental, Bay Program, and other leaders seem to agree that future protection and restoration efforts will require good science, consensus building, partnerships between all levels of government and the private sector, community support and increased local capability.

This shift in and convergence of thinking is timely within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed since the public continues to be concerned about the economy of much of the region, the quality of life in many areas is diminished due to traditional development practices and important natural values and functions are being destroyed. Local initiatives are most often the result of an overall concern for the future of a locality or region and the feeling that existing government programs aren’t adequate to accomplish important community goals.

Concerns about wetland losses go beyond go beyond the local perspective. For example, Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a non-profit member organization established to promote the welfare and proper management of the Bay, recently wrote to Carol Browner, Administrator of EPA about the trend in wetland losses. "The Chesapeake Bay has lost close to two million acres of wetlands since Colonial times, and the decline continues", wrote Baker. The Foundation proposed a broad and bold goal of restoring 125,000 acres of wetlands by the year 2005 to respond to this situation. Baker indicated, ..."It is clear that the natural filtration and habitat values provided by the original wetlands system must be reestablished. Simply ratcheting down the losses will not get us there".

The Bay-wide restoration goal Baker outlines has considerable merit. Setting targets and measuring success is an important policy ingredient of ecosystem management, is a corner-stone of the Chesapeake Bay program, and it can provide a target for the many, many ongoing community efforts. However, as important and attractive as the policy goal is, successful implementation of the goal is mostly likely to depend on how well the proposed policy supports and is integrates science with community-based efforts. With most of the wetland resource base and losses occurring on private lands, the question is not so much what wetlands do we need to protect or restore but rather how will the work be accomplished.
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s strategy for wetlands protection, as well as the protection of other living, land and water resources has evolved over a decade. Elements of the strategy reflect the foundation of the Program as well as the current trends in wetland losses and community involvement.


Chesapeake Bay Program:

The Chesapeake Bay Program was created by Congress following a major study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the Chesapeake’s decline in health and productivity in the mid-1970's. Although numerous studies existed prior to the 1976 EPA study, there was an absence of scientific documentation and analysis on the ecosystem as a whole.

The findings and recommendations from the study were the basis for the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed in 1983. In that compact, the Chesapeake bay Commission, the governments of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and EPA agreed to develop and implement coordinated plans “to improve and protect the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system”.

Central to this ecosystem compact was the principal that the “productivity, diversity and abundance” of the estuary’s living resource--wetlands, finish, shellfish and other aquatic creatures--are “the best ultimate measures of the Chesapeake Bay’s condition”.

The 1983 agreement was expanded to a series of 29 commitments in the second Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed in December 1987. The commitments spelled out steps to be taken in six areas: living resources, water quality, population growth and development, public information, education and participation, access, and governance.

The Chesapeake Bay Program compact is directed by the Governors of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Administrator of the EPA. The Principal Staff Committee acts as policy advisors for the Executive Council. Three Advisory Committees, Local Government, Citizens, and Scientific and Technical, provide advise to the Principal Staff Committee, as does a Federal Agencies Committee.

The Principal Staff Committee implements decisions, typically in the form of directives or adoption statements, through the Implementation Committee. The Implementation Committee is responsible for the annual work plan and budget, technical and computer support, and public outreach. Within the Implementation Committee are seven Subcommittees, one of which is for Living Resources.

The Living Resources Subcommittee is the group with primary responsibility for wetlands and riparian areas. Within this Subcommittee is a Wetlands Workgroup and other wetland-related Workgroups involved with habitat, riparian forest buffers, fishery management, monitoring and modeling. Other Committees and Subcommittees, such as the Scientific and technical Advisory Committee, are also involved in wetlands as a part of their larger responsibilities.

The Program operates using an interdisciplinary and consensus-based approach. It involves constant communication and collaboration of multiple agencies at multiple levels of government.


1. Wetland Goals

The CBP response to wetland losses noted prior to 1983 was to develop and agree on a Policy Directive on Living Resources. The directive, which was approved by the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1987 outlines a goal to," Provide for the restoration and protection of living resources, their habitats and ecological relationships." Noting the need to.." determine the essential elements of habitat and environmental quality necessary to support living resources and... see that these conditions are attained and maintained", the signatories outlined a series of Objectives which included:

--Protect, enhance and restore wetlands.....and other shoreline and riverine systems important to water quality and habitat.

As part of this policy, commitments were made to develop a Bay-wide policy for protection of tidal and non-tidal wetlands by 1988.


Priorities, Progress and Challenges:

Wetland Status & Trends

The 1983 report entitled, "Chesapeake Bay Program Findings & Recommendations", prepared by USEPA indicated that " The Chesapeake Bay is edged by 498,000 acres of wetlands. Increased Federal, state and local regulation, as well as public and private conservancy efforts, seem to have slowed down the loss of tidal wetlands to approximately 50 acres per year. Important non-tidal wetlands still have relatively little protection". Agriculture drainage, channelization, residential development, industrial projects, expansion and development of marinas, dredge and fill activities were noted as some of the major causes of wetlands loss.

Recent CBP literature, reflecting the results of the first wetland status and trends study designed exclusively for the Chesapeake Watershed, “Recent Wetland Status and Trends in the Chesapeake Watershed (1982 to 1989)", indicates that over 37,000 acres of wetlands were destroyed between 1982 and 1989. The major conclusions of the report indicate:

Significant gains in freshwater ponds and substantial losses of vegetated wetlands continue to take place in the Watershed.

While coastal wetlands received much better protection in the 1980's than before, palustrine vegetated wetlands remain in jeopardy. Loss rates of these wetlands continued at high levels in the 1980's despite the existence of federal wetland regulations. All palustrine vegetated wetland types exhibited net losses: Forested--net loss of over 14,000 acres; Scrub-shrub--nearly 1,000 acres; and Emergent--over 4,000 acres.

Seasonally saturated and temporarily flooded forested wetlands are being destroyed at higher rates than other palustrine wetlands. These wetlands have received little or no protection.


The total number of acres of wetlands destroyed, within each of the Bay states, during this period follow.


State Acres Destroyed
(Plaustrine/ Estuarine)

Delaware 3,207/ --
Maryland 5,358/ 733
New York 0/ --
Pennsylvania 3,977/ --
Virginia 23,474/ 412
West Virginia 16/ --


The research also identified several areas that "experienced enormous human-induced losses of vegetated wetlands between 1982 and 1989. These areas called "wetland loss hotspots", described below, are in need of increased wetlands protection to minimize future losses. The “hotspots” mirror population and land use trend information compiled by the Land, Growth & Stewardship Subcommittee which shows sprawl development extending out from most of the major cities of the watershed. Termed “Chesapeake Lands at Risk” by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, these regions have experienced significant growth and are likely to have more development in the future.

Southeastern VA: The Hampton-Norfolk-Virginia Beach area had 2,000 acres of forested palustrine forest converted to dryland or water bodies.

Piedmont Region of VA: The region between Richmond and the Blue Ridge Mts. had 17,000 acres of palustrine vegetated wetlands destroyed. Reservoir, lake and pond construction were the primary cause.

Eastern Shore of MD: Over 4,000 acres of palustrine vegetated wetlands were converted to dryland or water bodies. Most of the loss was attributed to agriculture and pond construction.

Western Delaware: 2,000 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands were destroyed. Most of the loss is attributed to agricultural conversion.

Upper Coastal Plain of Virginia: East of Richmond 2,000 acres of palustrine vegetated wetlands were destroyed. Most of the loss was due to agricultural conversion.

Western Virginia--Blue Ridge and Appalachians: 1,500 acres of marshes and wet meadows were destroyed by agricultural land conversion.

Northeastern PA--Susquehanna, Bradford, and Tioga Counties: 1,270 acres of pallustrine emergent wetlands were converted to dryland and water bodies. Agricultural land conversion and pond construction were the major causes.



Wetlands Protection Strategy

Wetlands Policy

The 1988 Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy established an immediate goal of no-net-loss with a long-term goal of a net resource gain for tidal and non-tidal wetlands. The policy includes four focus areas:

--Defining the resource: The Policy develops and implements a ten year cyclic mapping program to map all tidal and non-tidal wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed at a scale and resolution necessary to support the actions specified in the Policy. Included is a 5 year cyclic analysis of the status and trends of the Bay watershed wetlands.

--Holding the Line: The Plan attempts to protecting existing wetlands through technical guidelines for landowners, developers and regulators to use for the design and evaluation of unregulated and regulated activities. In addition the Plan includes a Bay-wide wetlands protection strategy based on the status of bay wetlands and existing state and federal programs.

--Building the base: The Plan develops and implements a replacement mitigation program for wetland impacts, incentive programs to implement no-net-loss and a land acquisition strategy which uses existing acquisition programs to protection important wetlands.

--Extending the vision: The Plan develops programs to provide current information to the public about Bay wetland values and protection needs, a library system and data base and technical assistance programs to support local protection efforts.

Program Efforts

In 1987 Chesapeake Exectuive Council concluded that nutrients were a key contributor to the Bay’s decreased water quality. A goal to reduce by 40% the amount of nutrients and phosphorus reaching the Bay by the Year 2000 was set and the Executive Council directed the CBP to set specific nutrient reduction goals and develop state and watershed strategies to achieve those goals as well as protect and improve aquatic habitats in the rivers.

Each of the states, and the District of Columbia, have completed draft plans and are at different stages in the process of developing final strategies. These plans document the magnitude of the reduction that is to be achieved; the percentage of the reduction which has been attained since 1985, and finally, options for achieving the remaining reductions. The specific strategies for each State and the District are a comprehensive set of engineered projects, best management practices, and technical innovations, all based on a redefinition of the way the State, local governments and people deal with each other and the environment. The strategies, which are underway, will include an assessment of actual water quality, habitat and living resource improvements in the Bay and its tributaries. Actions, to be implemented for riparian areas include stream protection through forest and grass buffers; increased shoreline and sensitive area protection; and watershed planning.

In addition to the “Tributary Strategies” and the 1990 Wetlands Policy Implementation Plan, the Chesapeake Bay Program, through its Committees and member organizations is providing the following services to help community-based groups protect and restore wetlands.

The activities and services provided embrace the following four key principles of wetlands protection in the Bay region.

First, wetlands protection requires evocative wetland values, good science, consensus building, partnerships and strong community support, as indicated earlier. River corridor and watershed organizations, such as the Parkers Creek Watershed Project in Calvert County, Maryland, are using CBP guidance to conduct a functional analysis of wetlands.

Second, wetlands protection must be understood, viewed and pursued in a context which recognizes other community and economic public and private objectives. Communities, such as the City of Cape Charles, Virginia have embraced a watershed context and protection and restoration of riparian systems into the design of the Cape Charles Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park.

Third, the wetlands protection and restoration process must view all stakeholders as a participant-designer. Each person brings a special knowledge that must be listened to in the decision-making process. Community efforts, such as the Hollywood Branch restoration Project in Montgomery County, Maryland, are engaging area residents to help design and implement bioengineering techniques to bind streambank soil, reduce erosion, and enhance the streams ability to support aquatic life.

And finally, wetlands protection and restoration in the Bay region requires the combined efforts of all levels of government and the private sector. Tiner’s report recommended that the CBP, “Develop outreach programs to encourage private landowners to protect their wetlands” and “ Continue to increase public education efforts, since a well informed public will likely select environmentally sound approaches to land use in the future”.




Outreach & Public Information:

Case Studies

The Chesapeake Bay Program has recently document a variety of community-based tools, techniques and programs which are being used to protect and restore wetlands and riparian buffers. The documents describe local success stories in local wetland acquisition, planning, regulation, restoration, land management, conservation, pollution prevention, education and stewardship. The catalogs include:

"Chesapeake bay Communities: Making the Connection (A Catalog of Local Initiatives to Protect and Restore the Chesapeake bay Watershed); CBP, Local Government Advisory Committee, 1995
"Restoring a Bay Resource: Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Sites", CBP, Living Resources Subcommittee, Forestry Workgroup, 1996
“Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed”, CBP Technology Transfer Report, Nutrient Subcommittee, 1995
"Mechanisms for Local Governments to Protect Wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay region", Environmental Law Institute and the CBP Living Resources Subcommittee 1996.


Regional & Community Strategies

The Land, Growth & Stewardship Subcommittee of the CBP responds to requests for local assistance to conserve, protect and restore wetlands and other living resources. Staff assistance and targeted seed grants have been provided recently to assist the following efforts, which included wetland protection strategies.

Crisfield Heritage Tourism Action Plan: EPA assisted a committee appointed by the City to identify an action plan for ecological and cultural tourism for Crisfield, the "Crab capitol of the World". The plan integrates environmental, community and economic goals.

Jenkins Creek Environmental Research & Education Center: State of Maryland and EPA staff assisted a private group to acquire 300 acres of wetlands, address a toxic dump issue and seek funds for further research and education.

Annapolis Summit: EPA and Maryland State staff provided assistance to the Alliance for Sustainable Communities to hold four community forums on sustainable development and implement a storm water retro-fit demonstration project.

International Countryside Stewardship Exchange: The Subcommittee provides financial and technical assistance through The Countryside Institute and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, to localities to develop and implement community-based approaches for sustainable development. teams of U.S. and international resource experts are provided to communities to help shape action plans.

The CBP helps to implement ideas developed by the resource experts and the communities. Plans have been developed for the Chester River Watershed and Wicomico River Watershed in Maryland, the Spring Creek Watershed and Cumberland County in Pennsylvania, and Vriginia's Eastern Shore. Locally-designed strategies without objective outside expertise offer fresh perspectives about how a community can protect its natural resources while achieving other important objectives.

Strategy Design: EPA and Maryland State staff have provided assistance to county governments to develop strategies for environmental, community and economic resources. Technical support for data analysis, consensus building and implementation has gone to shape community strategies for wetlands and other natural, cultural and tourism values for Dorchester County, MD; the Upper Chesapeake Bay-Lower Susquehanna River Region, (Harford and Cecil Counties and Havre de Grace) MD; Lower Eastern Shore, (Worcester, Somerset, and Wicomico Counties) MD; Whitehaven, MD; Delaware River Watershed; PA and NJ; Potomac River Watershed, MD, PA, VA, DC; Upper Susquehanna River Watershed, PA, NY; Southern Maryland; Accomack and Northampton Counties, VA; and the Delmarva Advisory Council for a regional ecotourism effort in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.

Wetland protection on private lands must take into account the varying ecological, economic, cultural, and political forces at work. Community-based multi-objective strategies which look at a range of land and water uses and management have the potential to protect more wetlands than single purpose efforts.


New Initiatives:

More and more emphasis is being placed on the need to work with local governments, communities and the private sector to protect and restore the resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The Program has moved it's focus beyond the Bay, upstream and into each of the watersheds of the region. The broader focus recognizes the inter-relationships between the management of these watershed areas and the health of the Bay and its tributaries. It also realizes that although the Bay is commonly viewed as a "commons" by the public, the watersheds which surround it are almost entirely privately owned and within the purview of State and local governments.

The Bay Program has initiated several programmatic changes that demonstrate the shift to a community-based watershed focus. The Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategies, Toxics reduction and Prevention Strategy, Riparian Forest Buffer Strategy, the Local Government Partnership Initiative, Habitat Restoration Initiative, and the development of Priorities for Land, Growth & Stewardship all reflect a holistic approach to the protection of wetlands and other environmental, community and economic resources. Each of these efforts, and others, represent the next generation of community-based Chesapeake bay region protection and restoration approaches.

Not surprising is the fact that wetlands and riparian corridors, the transition between terrestrial and aquatic systems, are major features of each of these initiatives. Highlights of each of these ongoing efforts follow.

Riparian Forest Buffer Strategy: The CBP adopted recently further recognized the importance of wetlands and riparian forests when it adopted a directive for "Riparian Forest Buffers". The directive sets a goal of protection and restoration of 2010 miles of riparian forest buffers by the Year 2010. The policy directs each State and the federal government to establish a riparian buffer implementation plan with conservation and restoration benchmarks by June 1998. The new policy will help reinforce local efforts, such as the Lancaster Stream Team in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania to voluntarily protect and restore streams flowing through farmland.

Local Government Partnership Initiative: The Local Government Participation Action Plan, approved in October 1996, establishes a strategy to broaden the role of local governments in the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Plan calls for actions to "Implement measures to coordinate and support individuals, community associations, local conservancies, watershed organizations and non-profit/ private interests to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, forest buffers and stream corridors important to water quality and fish and wildlife habitat". Communities, such as Pocomoke City, Maryland can expect this new policy to provide them with additional assistance in their efforts to protect the Cypress swamps of the Pocomoke River.

Habitat Restoration Initiative: CBP funding for habitat restoration began in FY 1992. Targeted financial assistance is provided on a competitive basis, using "Chesapeake Bay habitat restoration: A Framework for Action" to set priorities which have included fish passage, rebuilding island habitat, aquatic reefs and various stream, wetland and riparian restoration projects. The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance in Maryland and Delaware hopes to use this program to help their efforts to return American Shad to the river.

Priorities for land, Growth & Stewardship: The CBP adopted "Priorities for Land, Growth & Stewardship", in October 1996, which are intended to "Encourage sustainable development patterns, which integrate resource protection, community participation and economic health". The Priorities include recommendations to "Promote the integration of natural and community infrastructure in public and private planning, development and protection efforts" and "Use cooperative local watershed protection planning to link individual development projects and larger watershed objectives". The Alliance for Sustainable Communities will benefit from this new policy as they receive additional assistance to support their efforts to protect “Sacred Places”---places that connect the people of Annapolis, Maryland to the land and waters of their area.


Next Steps

The most challenging aspect of wetlands protection within the Chesapeake Bay watershed is determining how to design protection policies and approaches which merge science with the thousands of ongoing local government and private sector efforts, within an ecosystem context. Science for the sake of study and “the tyranny of small solutions” have both kept the Chesapeake wetland protection effort from reaching its optimum potential.

The trends within the Watershed are similar to those elsewhere. The situation calls for holistic approaches which focus on community-based strategies which use scientific data and understanding to compliment local energy, consensus-building and visions for the future action. What makes the Chesapeake uniquely well-positioned to meet this challenge is the wealth of scientific data and the socio-political infrastructure which is in place to guide decision-making.

Discussions and research over the last two years indicate that the Program can achieve the partnership between good science and good democracy, and the wetlands sustainability it will result in, through several strategic actions.

First, Chesapeake science must provide the data, at specific levels to describe what are the essential wetland and riparian systems which need to be protected and restored to save the Bay ecosystem. The pattern, distribution, and configuration of terrestrial, subsurface, and aquatic resources that contribute to the health and productivity of the Bay must be identified. Efforts such as Florida’s “Green Infrastructure” and Maryland’s “Integrated natural Resource Management Plan” are prototypes for identifying important wetland “natural infrastructure” values and functions in a ecosystem context.

Second, future wetland policy and protection efforts must respect and support local initiatives. Communities must not be forced or coerced to participate in protection efforts but rather encouraged to be stewards of their portions of the watershed. Local efforts need to be cataloged, analyzed to determine their capability to protect, and their priorities for protection, and factored into strategies for wetlands protection. A systematic approach to seemingly independent voluntary efforts will give better insights into technical, informational, and financial assistance needs and where the work of service providers is most needed.

The combination of a “natural infrastructure plan” with an assessment of community-based land and water management efforts has the potential to identify those wetland and riparian areas which are most important to the ecosystem and which have strong community support. Such as natural infrastructure plan will provide local interests a “vision” to voluntarily contribute to while maintaining a sound scientific focus for the allocation of resources and services.


Closing

Mike Apperti’s group routinely invited visitors to see the Jenkins Creek watershed as they raised money to protect their wetlands. After the long drive to reach Crisfield, a plane-ride to view the site and a crab-cake sandwich or world-renown, visitors were lead
to Hun Lawson’s crab shack to see and hear about this part of the Chesapeake. Potential project supporters were afforded the opportunity to walk the boardwalk, look out over Jenkins Creek wetlands and the Tangier Sound, and listen to a Waterman’s insights about the values of the Bay. Not surprisingly, when you use the place and people of a watershed like Jenkins Creek, its easy to make a case, and find support and resources, for wetlands protection.




Maps & Charts
1. Wetlands Indicator: Net Wetland Losses
2. Chesapeake Bay Watershed map
3. Freshwater Forested Wetland Destruction in the Bay Watershed