Land and the Chesapeake Bay Land and the Chesapeake Bay

Home , Bay, Chesapeake (train), 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

aging; the past fifteen years showed a 20 percent n

14 y 1,400,000

increase in population aged 60 years and older. r

Secondly, household size is declining steadily. Taken M n 1,200,000

d together, these trends translate to vastly different l

. 1,000,000

housing needs in the future than in the past. Seniors r

0 800,000 do not need (and many will not want) large homes on 6

large lots far removed from services and activities. In v o 600,000

2030, households that average 2.5 persons will need i

a 400,000

substantially less space than will households which u

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

10 o Lower Eastern Shore Region respectively. In the same peri - 4,000 and 2,500 residents per h 3.4

s Western Maryland Region

u od, however, the population of year, respectively. This is a o 3.2 Washington Suburban Region

Washington, D.C., and significant decrease from aver - p 3.0

p 2.8

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

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. As their public infrastructure deteriorates, the desirability of cities and towns falters and development pres - sure increases on open lands.

U.S. Census

Although the area’s population continues to grow, an aging popula - tion benefits from smaller homes in densely-populated communities. This offers land-use planners and environmentalists cautious hope. The insidious effects of land conversion The Chesapeake Bay Spread-out, inefficient development patterns Inefficient development patterns Foundation estimates that, also lead to destructive land con - watershed-wide, approxi - have both direct and indirect impacts on a sumption. In the metropolitan mately 36,500 acres of variety of habitats important to the Bay Washington, D.C., area, for forestland convert to example, land was consumed in “urban” lands (residences, region’s quality of life. the 1990s at nearly three times commercial and office use, that of population growth. 17 From industrial space, and roads) Although the watershed has Approximately one quarter of 1990-2000 in the six Bay states every year. Each acre made significant strides to the region’s housing units are and the District of Columbia, converted represents a shift reduce nutrient pollution from homes with septic tanks, not there was a 41 percent increase in the function of land in agriculture and sewage treat - connected to public sewage in impervious surfaces (roads, 6 the watershed. Urban lands ment systems and through treatment plants; watershed- rooftops, and parking lots) but no longer filter stormwater better construction practices, wide they contribute an esti - only an 8 percent increase in and pollutants; they funnel low-density development mated 12-13 million pounds population. 18 There are many pollution directly into challenges the benefits of of nitrogen per year through rational explanations for moves creeks, streams, and the Bay. these investments. their septic systems. 15 16 to the suburbs, from financial ability to purchase a house and perceptions of safety and school quality, to a desire for new con - Washington-Baltimore Population Growth, 2000-2030 struction or more yard space. Businesses move to be close to customers or to utilize cheaper, open land. The most salient explanation, however, is the belief that such a move enhances quality of life. In truth, however, increasing rates of land con - sumption lead to a loss of natural lands and the inevitable degrada - tion of the waters flowing into the Bay. This compromises the character of formerly open land: As “green” turns to “gray,” quality of life declines.

Source: University of Maryland Regional Earth Science Applications Center (2000). Urban lands no longer filter stormwater and pollutants; they funnel pollution directly into creeks, streams, and the Bay. As “green” turns to “gray,” quality of life declines.

16,000 Forestland Decline in Virginia and Pennsylvania Spread-out, inefficient devel - Indirectly, sprawl also adverse - opment patterns have both ly affects the aquatic habitats 15,900

direct and indirect impacts on of the Chesapeake Bay. As s 15,800

n a variety of habitats important noted, the nature of rainwater a s 15,800

o to the Bay region’s quality of runoff changes drastically with h T 15,700

n life. On the land, sprawl sprawl and with more impervi - i

r 15,600 directly causes fragmentation ous surfaces. Water rushes into c

A of formerly large forested streams, scours the bottom, 15,500 Pennsylvania areas. Land-based wildlife that and pulls tons of sediment 15,400 Virginia depends upon contiguous for - into great, cloudy plumes. The 15,300 est for basic habitat needs, suspended sediment—called 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 U.S. Forest Service, 1992 7 such as migratory Neotropical turbidity—inhibits the growth Year bird species, is now in decline. of essential underwater grass - Chesapeake Bay Watershed Farmland Change Large mammals, such as deer, es. Sediment also covers up 1987-2006 are forced into smaller and benthic, or bottom-dwelling, 19,000,000

smaller areas, and natural creatures including oysters. s

r 18,000,000

predators are driven away. As These sedentary filter feeders A

i lawns displace meadows and are a critical link to keeping d

n 17,000,000

a culverts replace streams, rare the Bay clean, and their reefs L denizens of these special provide important habitat for 16,000,000 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 places, such as bog turtles and other Bay-dwellers. The runoff Year salamanders, are imperiled. from streets, rooftops, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Census, 2005 suburban lawns also carries Sprawl Development large amounts of nutrients and toxic compounds into the Bay.

As development sprawls away from existing communities, the quality of life touted as the suburban dream is degraded along with the health of the Bay. Development’s effect on water quality

It is clear: sprawling develop - By the time the imperviousness of its local watershed Additionally, rainwater runoff ment patterns throughout the from suburban development watershed contribute to trou - reaches 20-25 percent, a stream is virtually devoid of can affect surface drinking bling declines in air and water complex life and, depending upon local conditions, water supplies. Unless ade - quality that threaten both quately buffered by forestland wildlife and human health. may be either “dead” or nearly so. and open meadows, reservoir lakes can experience contami - As natural lands convert to In areas where storm and flush raw sewage, laden with nation, nitrogen pollution, and developed uses, increased sewer lines are not completely bacteria and viruses, into oxygen-deprived “dead zones.” runoff overburdens storm sew - isolated from each other, such streams. With heavy rains, Stormwater runoff to streams ers and streams. Stream flood - as in Richmond, Virginia, over 400 sewer overflows can increase nutrient, 8 ing tears stabilizing plants out Washington, D.C., and urban dump untreated sewage direct - pathogen, and sediment load - of the beds and banks, erodes areas in the Susquehanna ly into streams and Bay tribu - ing in rivers used as drinking habitat, and leads to more watershed in Pennsylvania, taries. 19 water sources. For example, in severe flooding in the future. “combined sewer overflows” recent years both the Suburban Sanitary Commission in Maryland, and the county of Airborne Sources of Nitrogen Oxides Fairfax, Virginia, decided to extend intake pipes farther out into the Potomac River due to

Point Sources increased sediment and other Atmospheric 20% contaminants flowing near- Deposition shore out of suburban streams. 22%

Septic 5%

Urban/ Suburban Source: Chesapeake Bay Program (2006). In this chart, agricultural air Agriculture pollution inputs are included in the agriculture pollution “wedge” instead 42% Runoff of the atmospheric deposition wedge. Additionally, direct deposition of 11% airborne nitrogen to the Bay, about 20.5M lb/yr, is not included in these figures. In 2007, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee indicated that air pollution may actually account for a significantly higher amount of the nitrogen load than is shown here, especially in the eastern part of the watershed where transportation-gener - ated air pollution is not well buffered. Increased development in previously rural areas can threaten human health by drawing down—and polluting—groundwater levels. In 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that there was extensive probability of nitrates in water exceeding three milligrams per liter (the level at which environmental concern arises) especially in the northern part of the Bay watershed (including much of Maryland and southeastern Pennsylvania). The same study also stated that there exists a high probability that nitrates in water exceed 10 milligrams per liter (violating drinking water standards) in southeastern Pennsylvania. High nitrate concentrations can be toxic to newborns and very young children, causing “blue baby” syndrome. 20

According to the Center for Customary suburban “sprawl Streamflow Watershed Protection, when a densities” of one-half to one- Large Higher and Pre-Development Storm more rapid Post-Development peak discharge stream’s watershed approaches acre lots, together with auto- Small Storm ten percent “imperviousness” dependent “strip” commercial More Runoff e

t Volume a

(the percentage of land in a areas, reach well into the 11- r Lower and Less Rapid Peak w o

watershed covered by impervi - 14 percent imperviousness l f

m Gradual a ous surface), adverse in-stream zone. Even watersheds inten - Recession e Higher Baseflow r t impacts are evident. At 15 tionally zoned for low-density S percent, streams become development in order to 0 highly stressed. By the time remain protective of water Time The green line represents undeveloped watershed stream flow. The impervious surfaces in local quality, such as Northern dashed line indicates the same watershed, post-development. watersheds reach 20 –25 Virginia’s Occoquan watershed, 9 percent, streams are virtually have surpassed the 10 percent devoid of healthy ecosystems danger mark. That watershed, and, depending upon local for example, is predicted to Development conditions, may be either reach 20 percent impervious - “dead” or nearly so. Other ness by 2020. 23 studies have demonstrated similar impact with significant - Urbanized areas with moder - ly less impervious surface— ately high densities and clus - some as low as two or three tered development accommo - percent. 21 According to these date more people over a small - same studies, forest cover also er land area, and present the significantly influences water - opportunity for more efficient shed water quality. 22 treatment of runoff.

Pollutants in runoff relate to development patterns, particularly the total amount of paving and forest cover. Transportation and water quality

We have become As settlement patterns The spread-out, low-density increases from 1980 to 2005, disperse, the likelihood of development patterns that though in 2006 and 2007 that overly reliant upon increased air pollution is have wreaked havoc on the growth slowed considerably a single mode of also virtually assured. The Bay’s ecosystem have also due to much higher fuel relationship between sprawl increased traffic by rigidly iso - prices. 25 On the whole, transportation and air quality is a simple lating watershed residents however, VMT growth remains that serves a one: Spread-out develop - from vital services, at ever- an important determinant ment patterns demand more increasing distances. The of air pollution, and trans - land-use pattern and more driving, and the result of such patterns is an portation is a key source of from which other ever-increasing number of almost total reliance upon the nitrogen pollution in the Bay miles we drive and trips we 26 10 automobile, which becomes and its tributaries. options are take causes air pollution that necessary for virtually any largely excluded. eventually leads to water errand or trip. The issue is not Road building, long pollution problems as well. just population growth: from considered the “answer” to 1970 to 1995 the population transportation problems, is an grew 27 percent while vehicle increasingly dubious solution. miles traveled (VMT) in the Recent studies have demon - watershed increased by 105 strated that “induced travel”—

percent. 24 Nationwide, VMT new auto trips attributed to averaged 2.7 percent per year new or widened roads— A Broken Model The proposed Inter-County Connector (ICC), a six-lane, 18-mile highway stretching across Montgomery County and into Prince George’s County, MD, would connect Interstate 95 to Interstate 270. Official studies show that the ICC would not significantly aid in congestion relief, and an independent study showed that average travel delays would actually increase. 28 The Environmental Impact Statement found that construction of the highway would increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the study area by 20 percent. Smart Mobility, Inc. has concluded that reasonable alternatives to the highway would actually improve travel at reduced air quality and financial costs. 29

account for a substantial pro - driving could easily overwhelm Traffic Congestion portion of traffic on the new those gains. We have become facilities. 27 In 1999, the overly reliant upon a single Surface Transportation Policy mode of transportation—a car- Project analyzed 15 years of data based land-use pattern that from the Texas Transportation largely precludes other trans - Institute to conclude that build - portation options. If current ing roads does not necessarily development and driving pat - reduce congestion. terns continue, Bay-affecting air pollution will not disappear The way in which transporta - any time soon. 11 tion money is expended also raises questions of equity to This reliance on driving accel - As traffic and congestion continue to increase, so will negative the population as a whole. erates climate change as well, impacts on air and water quality. Transportation is about more and will likely have an increas - than roads, but funding has ing impact on the Bay due to Annual CO2 Emissions, Metropolitan Washington Region, long had an overwhelming bias warmer waters, lower oxygen Reductions due to CAL LLEV II and 35 MPG CAFE Standards toward road building: Federal levels, adverse changes to 35,000,000 35,000,000 spending on highways in fiscal grasses and fisheries, and the 30,000,000

2002 exceeded funding for all Bay’s water level rising faster e 25,000,000

e 20,000,000 other forms of transportation than wetland areas can p Baseline Emissions

n 15,000,000 CALLEV II Benefits

(public transit, bike, and T expand. Sprawling growth 10,000,000 CAFE Benefits pedestrian access) by 19 billion directly contributes to climate 5,000,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 dollars. 30 change through transportation- Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (June 2007) derived greenhouse gas emis - Greenhouse gas emissions accelerate climate change conditions. Single-minded transportation In the metropolitan Washington, D.C., region, these emissions will sions, and by sprawl’s displace - increase by 22 percent in 25 years even with the introduction of “solutions” have serious Bay ment of carbon-absorbing “California car” standards, and by 16 percent even if new “CAFE” (better mileage per gallon) standards are added. implications. Improvements in forests and well-managed vehicle technology have farmland. 31 reduced air pollution from motor vehicles, but increased The community economics of land use

The long-held assumption that growth Current practices of devel - opment around the water - equals economic development has, in shed reach directly and numerous studies across the country, indirectly into the pockets of every resident. Rapidly proven inaccurate. growing areas, often con - sidered desirable precisely because of lower costs, suddenly become bur - dened with exponential increases in service 12 demands, from road and school construction to fire and police protection. From 1995 to 2001,

Clustering Can Help Preserve Farm and Forest Land The true cost of development must also consider impacts on local and regional natural resource-dependent industries.

Virginia’s Loudoun County Harford County, Maryland, The true cost of development to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife experienced a 74.4 percent estimated that for every dollar must also consider impacts on Service, in 2001 more than increase in school enrollment, of revenue generated by resi - local and regional natural 1.9 billion dollars were spent leading to the need for an dential property in fiscal year resource-dependent industries. in Virginia on wildlife-associ - additional 590 classrooms. 32 2003, $1.11 went to providing In 2004, the Chesapeake Bay ated recreation expenditures. Building roads for sprawling services to those newly devel - Watershed Blue Ribbon In the state of Maryland that development patterns costs, oped areas. In Culpeper Finance Panel suggested that tally reached $1.7 billion, and on average, about 13.4 percent County, Virginia, $1.22 was inflation would push the in Pennsylvania, wildlife-asso - more, and water and sewer required as an outlay for every 1987-estimated value of the ciated expenditures totaled $3 systems cost about 7 percent dollar of new revenue generat - Bay ($678 billion) to over a billion. In Maryland, anglers more, than in more concentrat - ed. 34 In many instances, leav - trillion dollars today. 35 In alone spent $480 million on ed development. 33 Current ing land in agricultural use 2003, the forest industry in fishing expenses in 2001. 36 13 low-density growth patterns generates greater net revenues Maryland—the fifth largest These values depend on the challenge the ability of local than development. industry in the state—was esti - protection of the Bay water - communities to maintain the mated to generate more than shed’s resource lands. quality of life that initially 2.2 billion dollars. According made them desirable places to live. Traditional Development The long-held assumption that residential growth equals eco - nomic development has been proven inaccurate by numerous studies across the country. In 2002, fast-growing Hopewell Township, Pennsylvania, paid out $1.27 in services for every dollar it collected from residen - tial property taxes.

Rapid growth requires abrupt increases in local spending, while tradition - al patterns can support full utilization of public investments and foster community identity. Alternatives for a better More efficient and intelligent growth patterns Aging in place can help save the Bay, as can transportation

As suggested earlier, the aging This unprecedented increase in systems that move people, things, and ideas, of America’s baby boom genera - the senior population will not simply automobiles. tion will have significant impli - require suburbs originally cations for housing and land designed for the ease of autos As CBF has said before, there • Fully utilizing use. In the next decade, the to re-engineer themselves; 40 are “better ways to grow.” To investments already made 14 population of America’s seniors one of the biggest needs of reduce the ecological impacts in public infrastructure; will increase at a rate of nearly aging in place is sufficient of our growing population, we and 36 percent, four times faster transportation. The South must make the decisions than the population as a whole. Atlantic region of the United necessary to preserve the • Improving transportation Counties outside of States (which in a recent watershed’s natural functions. choices. Washington, D.C., are leading Minneapolis Star-Tribune survey Measures to achieve this this trend: By 2040, suburbs of includes the District of include: These same decisions can large cities will be significantly Columbia, Maryland, and decrease economic waste, older than the population in Virginia) ranks fourth in the • Preserving and restoring increase return on public and the cities themselves. 37 Virginia nation for worst areas of the resource lands; private investment, bring new and Maryland estimate that 15- country for isolation of non- energy to older communities, 20 percent of their populations drivers 65 and older, with 57 • Minimizing the amount of mitigate the effects of climate will be over the age of 65 by percent of non-drivers 65 and water-borne nutrient and change, and—by focusing 2025 (increased from the cur - over staying at home when sediment contamination development in and around rent 5-15 percent), while they are not able to drive. 41 reaching tributaries and existing communities—reduce Pennsylvania has predicted that This demonstrates the critical the Bay through better the need to replace natural 20-25 percent of its population need to improve our trans - stormwater infiltration; filtering functions with will be over age 65 (an increase portation system to include man-made systems that are from the current 15-20 public transit and alternatives • Minimizing air pollution less reliable. percent). 38 Surprisingly, tradi - for the elderly and disabled. washing into the Bay, by tional nuclear families comprise More compact, mixed-use making new development only one in four households forms of development would more compact and locat- today, yet most zoning codes be of significant benefit to this ing development within favor the production of large burgeoning community, pro - or immediately adjacent single-family homes. 39 viding proximity and access to to existing communities; basic services and amenities. Bay Old Town Alexandria, Virginia–Infill

An effective transportation Lexington Terrace, an inner system will include a variety city neighborhood redevelop - of options—from cars to light ment in Baltimore; the reuse rail, from bicycles to comput - and revitalization of down - ers—to move people, things, town Silver Spring, Maryland; and ideas. This ability to York, Pennsylvania’s down - connect communities without town rehabilitation; and the additional reliance on cars dense business, retail, and resi - and roads is critical to envi - dential development at ronmentally and economically Potomac Yards in Alexandria, Pennsylvania–Traditional village 15 sound development. Virginia. Each of these com - bines smart transportation and We have the opportunity and compact, multi-use develop - ability to make intelligent ment in areas with existing decisions about quality of life infrastructure. Smart growth as we accommodate water - can be seen in numerous new shed population growth. development projects through - “Smart growth” describes out the watershed. more efficient land use pat - terns, and there are already examples in place of what King Farm, Rockville, M aryland–New smart or managed growth can Development look like. Examples include

Infill utilizes existing infrastructure and revitalizes communities; traditional compact patterns preserve natural lands; and new development can minimize neg - ative impacts through intelligent planning and design. The choice is ours Implementing smarter growth Which future do we want: One in which current patterns throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed unsustainable land-use trends continue? Or will require changes to long- one in which motivated, informed citizens standing state and local poli - cies, practices, and assump - promote environmentally and economically tions. It will require changes 16 in the way we live on the land. sound development patterns? The choice is In the face of more than a mil - ours. We can choose a better way to grow, lion new residents every ten years, such challenges pose and in the process, help to save the Bay. significant obstacles, but our objectives are achievable. Without land use change, we cannot save the Bay. With these changes, saving the Bay as a functioning ecological, cultural, social, and economic system becomes possible. Endnotes

1. The Conservation Fund for the U.S. Forest Service, The State of Chesapeake Forests (2006) . 2. Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Chesapeake Bay Program. 3. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, State of the Bay , T.E. Dahl (1990), and Chesapeake Bay Program wetland workgroup (1998). 4. Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Chesapeake Bay Program. 5. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2006 State of the Bay Report , (November 2006), 6. 6. Chesapeake Bay Foundation literature. 7. Center for Watershed Protection and Chesapeake Bay Foundation studies. 8. Kent Mountford, Chesapeake Bay Program. 9. Chesapeake Bay Program, Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Chesapeake Futures, (January 2003), 70. 10. United States Census. 11. Ibid. 12. United States Census. 13. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Growth Trends to 2030: Cooperative Forecasting in the Washington Region, (Fall 2006). Maryland Department of Planning, Historical and Projected Total Jobs by Place of Work for Maryland’s Jurisdictions , (November 2006). 14. Ibid. 15. Chesapeake Bay Foundation literature. 16. Chesapeake Bay Program, Sources of Nitrogen Loads to the Bay (2006) . 17. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Development, Community, and Environment Division, Our Built and Natural Environments , (January 2001), 6. 18. Chesapeake Bay Program. 19. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Waters at Risk: Pollution in the Susquehanna Watershed – Sources and Solution s, (June 2006) 5, 6. 20. Earl A. Greene, Andrew E. LaMotte, and Kerri-Ann Cullinan. Ground-Water Vulnerability to Nitrate Contamination at Multiple Thresholds in the Mid-Atlantic Region Using Spatial Probability Models . Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5118. USGS (2005), 22. 21. D. Boward, P. Kazyak, S. Stranko, M. Hurd, and A. Prochaska. From the Mountains to the Sea: The State of Maryland’s Freshwater Streams . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/903/R-99/023, 2000 22. Center for Watershed Protection, Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Ecosystems , (2003). 23. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Development, Community, and Environment Division, Our Built and Natural Environments , (January 2001), 13. 24. Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Chesapeake Futures, (January 2003), 52. 25. USA Today, “Drivers cut back – a 1st in 26 years,” (May 18, 2007). 26. Chesapeake Bay Program, Science and Technical Advisory Committee, Workshop on Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen (May 30, 2007). 27. Robert B. Noland, William A. Cowart, “Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity & the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel,” Transportation 27(4), (2000), 28. Smart Mobility, Inc. The Inter-County Connector: Performance and Alternatives , (January 2005). 29. Ibid.; Sierra Club, Why Oppose the ICC . 30. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Government Transportation Financial Statistics 2003 as of December 2006 . 31. Reid Ewing et al., Growing Cooler, Smart Growth America and Urban Land Institute (September 2007). 32. Phillip M. Dearborn, Brookings Institution Greater Washington Research Program, Financing Suburban Enrollment Increases, (April 2002), 1. 33. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Consequences of How Pennsylvania is Growing , (December 2003), 55. 34. American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies , (August 2006), 3,5,6. 35. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, “Saving a National Treasure: Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay: A Report to the Chesapeake Executive Council from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel,” (2004), 9. 36. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation , (Revised 2003). 37. The Star Tribune (Minneapolis, Minnesota), “Suburbs to be Hit with Senior Boom,” June 11, 2007. 38. Linda Bailey, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options , (April 2004), 10. 39. Ibid, 17. 40. The Star Tribune (Minneapolis, Minnesota), “Suburbs to be Hit with Senior Boom,” June 11, 2007. 41. Linda Bailey, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options , (April 2004), 10. Maryland Philip Merrill Environmental Center 6 Herndon Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 410/268-8816 410/269-0481 (from Baltimore metro) 301/261-2350 (from D.C. metro)

Pennsylvania The Old Water Works Building 614 North Front Street, Suite G Harrisburg, PA 17101 717/234-5550

Virginia Capitol Place 1108 East Main Street, Suite 1600 Richmond, VA 23219 804/780-1392

Web site: cbf.org E-mail: [email protected] ABOUT THE COVER: Membership information: 888/SAVEBAY Sprawling development replaces healthy landscapes with hard surfaces like roads, parking lots, and buildings. Healthy water in the Bay region is dependent on protecting natural lands, from forests to wetlands to farms.

PHOTO CREDITS: page 1: CBF page 2: illustration: John Norton CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED page 3: top: Laura Fabian page 4: illustration: John Norton page 7: CBF page 9: CBF staff page 10: illustration: John Norton page 12: illustration: John Norton page 13: CBF staff page 14: illustration: John Norton page 15: top: Eakin/Youngentob Assoc., Inc.; middle: CBF Staff; bottom: SKG Architects & Planners

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Authors and reviewers: Steve Libbey, Courtney St. John, Lee Epstein, and Alex MacLennan. Special thanks to the Surdna Foundation, the Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Town Creek Foundation, the Prince Charitable Trusts, the Naomi and Nehemiah Cohen Foundation, and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation. Copyright 2000 by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Reprinted 2007. All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this publication may be reproduced without written permission of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The Chesapeake Bay’s 64,000-square-mile Revised and reprinted 2007. watershed covers parts of six states and is home to more than 17 million people.

Printed on recycled, recyclable paper. 10/07.