Land and the Chesapeake Bay Land and the Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Bay by the Numbers The watershed includes parts of six states and the District of Columbia, with headwaters in Cooperstown, New York. The Susquehanna River is the source of 45 percent of the Bay’s fresh water. The Chesapeake Bay estuary is 195 miles long and from four to thirty miles wide, with a shallow average depth of only 22 feet. The Bay is home to more than 2,700 plant and animal species. Unless we change the way we use land, sprawling development patterns will overwhelm progress to improve the health of the Chesapeake and the quality of life throughout the watershed. An environmentally sound future for Chesapeake country is far from certain. 1 There is a profound relation - has marked and made the Bay • State and local economies and quality of life throughout ship between the water of the what it is today. The Bay’s are strengthened by new the watershed. We face diffi - Chesapeake Bay and the future, however, will be deter - development; cult but clear choices, and 64,000 square miles of land mined by how we respond to nothing less than the that comprise the Bay’s water - the changes now occurring • “Smart growth” centers Chesapeake Bay is at stake. shed. With only 4,000 square throughout the watershed. In are networked by miles of water in the tidal Bay, 25 years, assuming growth and telecommunications and land surface exceeds water 16 forest conversion in the water - efficient transit systems; times over. Some 50 rivers and shed continues at the same and thousands of streams reach up rate experienced from 1997- into the watershed from the 2006 (roughly 100 acres a • Natural lands are pre- Bay like the roots of a great day 1), the watershed will have served for the continued tree. These tributaries, each lost approximately one million productivity and livabili with their own watershed, acres of forests. Is this the ty of the Chesapeake Bay directly connect farms, forests, future we want for the watershed. and communities with the Bay. Chesapeake Bay? Unless we improve the way we From the quiet, constant shift - Fortunately, we have the use our land, sprawling devel - ing of the tides to the increas - capacity to create a different opment will overwhelm the ing roar of highways, change future, one in which: progress we make to improve the health of the Chesapeake The destruction of the Bay’s natural filters Approximately 400 years ago, million acres, and underwater These natural—but dwin - when Europeans first began to Bay grasses, damaged by nutri - dling—resources regulate the arrive, lands across the ent and sediment pollution, flow of runoff and filter con - Chesapeake region were largely cover only 13 percent of their taminants as water moves in a natural state. Forests cov - historical acreage. 6 across the land and through ered 95 percent of the land, 2 streams and rivers to the wetlands covered over 3.5 Chesapeake Bay. In fact, million acres, 3 and underwater streamside forests and wet - grasses are estimated to have lands can reduce the nutrient covered 400,000 acres. 4 Today, and sediment contamination wetlands cover only four per - in runoff by as much as 90 2 cent of the 64,000 square mile percent. 7 The maintenance of watershed: More than two mil - these filters—particularly those lion acres have been degraded adjacent to waterways—is crit - or destroyed. 5 Forest cover has ical to the Bay’s ability to sup - shrunk to approximately 23 port life, including commer - cially important species like crabs, oysters, and shad. The Bay’s great green filter becomes a dirty gray funnel. The maintenance of forest and wetland filters—particularly those adjacent to waterways—is critical to the Bay’s health. Streamside forest and wetlands can reduce the nutrient and sediment contamination in runoff by as much as 90 percent. As the watershed’s population The destruction of some of the has gradually increased since Bay’s most vital filters con - the early 1600s, forests and tributes significantly to daily grasslands were converted to pollution loads that reach the farm, town, or city use. 8 For Bay. Water quality is degraded 3 the better part of the past four and essential habitats for fish - centuries, the majority of this eries are reduced. In fact, development was concentrated many of the goals that conser - Conversion of natural lands increases the rate and vol - ume of runoff, which washes more sediment and pollu - around central urban areas. vationists consider essential to tion directly into the Bay. A pattern of low-density land assuring the Bay’s future— use for the past 30 to 40 years, such as 225,000 acres of however, has increased the underwater grass coverage or rate of conversion of natural the restoration of 125,000 lands. In late 2002, riparian acres of wetlands and thou - forests buffered only 59 per - sands of miles of forested cent of the watershed’s stream buffers—may not be streams and shorelines. 9 achieved unless we can staunch the loss of open land. Natural resource lands provide buffers that filter rainwa - ter before it runs into the Bay. Population trends and settlemen t patterns Uncontrolled In contrast to historic patterns, density development trend recent growth in the Bay region known as sprawl. sprawl has has moved away from the devastating towns and cities that have been This cultural shift away from the region’s social, cultural, and existing towns and cities and social, economic, economic centers for centuries. into previously rural areas The affluence of the last half- accelerates the negative impact and environmental century, and particularly the of population growth on the impacts on the last 30 to 40 years, along with Bay. The most dramatic shift ill-conceived zoning plans and has occurred close to the Bay Chesapeake Bay. other short-term, false-bottom- itself. 4 line policies, has spurred a spread-out, disconnected, low- Settlement Trends 1930-2020 1930s 1990s Vibrant central cities, growing steadily from the mid-1800s, Cities are eclipsed by surrounding counties as growth in the lat - meet residential and business needs throughout the region. ter is fed by abandonment of the former. 1950s 2020s Move to the suburbs is Continuation of current patterns will lead to degradation of underway as most cities previously rural areas and underutilization of central cities. begin to lose population and counties begin rapid growth. An Aging Community: Changing Household Needs in Maryland Significant demographic shifts will influence future 1,800,000 development patterns. First, the region’s population is 1,600,000 d aging; the past fifteen years showed a 20 percent n a l 14 y 1,400,000 increase in population aged 60 years and older. r a Secondly, household size is declining steadily. Taken M n 1,200,000 i d together, these trends translate to vastly different l o . 1,000,000 s housing needs in the future than in the past. Seniors r y 0 800,000 do not need (and many will not want) large homes on 6 r e large lots far removed from services and activities. In v o 600,000 n o 2030, households that average 2.5 persons will need i t a 400,000 l substantially less space than will households which u p o until recently averaged 3.5 persons. The seeds for P 200,000 more efficient, smarter growth are being sown right now. 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year U.S. Census and Transit Advisory Panel, 1999 For example, between 1990 Fortunately, the loss of popula - and 2005, the population of tion and jobs in cities is slow - Household Size Trends in Maryland Loudoun and Stafford Counties ing. In the first half of the new 4.0 in Virginia increased over 200 decade, Washington and Baltimore Region 3.8 percent and 96 percent, Baltimore lost an average of Southern Maryland Region 3.6 Upper Eastern Shore Region d l 10 o Lower Eastern Shore Region respectively. In the same peri - 4,000 and 2,500 residents per h 3.4 e s Western Maryland Region u od, however, the population of year, respectively. This is a o 3.2 Washington Suburban Region h r e Washington, D.C., and significant decrease from aver - p 3.0 e l p 2.8 o Richmond, Virginia, declined age losses of 10,000 residents e p 2.6 11 e by 15 and 11 percent. This each through the 1980s and g a r e 2.4 12 v urban/suburban growth imbal - 1990s. And in the case of the A 2.2 ance is also evident in metropolitan Washington area, 2.0 5 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 employment statistics. While the already dense inner sub - 2025 Maryland Department of Planning, 1999 Year Washington, D.C., saw a urbs will add the largest modest 0.19 percent employ - amount of new jobs (629,000) ment increase from 2000 –005, by 2030. 13 Population Growth in Virginia Counties, 1790 –2010 Maryland and Virginia suburbs each experienced 10 percent Nevertheless, the overall shift increases in numbers of jobs. of growth away from cities has Baltimore lost jobs at a rate of serious implications for their 10 percent from 2000 –2005, economic strength and capacity while its suburbs gained jobs at to support existing infrastruc - a rate of 13 percent. People are ture, such as public schools, overtaking the Bay’s remaining public safety, and transporta - natural lands. tion facilities.