WRRC REPORT N. 172
DC WRRC PROJECT NO. 94-03
CHESAPEAKE- BAY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
By Harvey Lieber, The American University
September 1995
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
FINAL REPORT TO THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
Authored by: Dr. Harvey Lieber, Principal
Investigator Donna M. Jackson, Research
Assistant
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016
"The research on which this report is based was financed in part by the United States
Department of the Interior, through the D.C. Water Resources Research Center."
"The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Department of the Interior."
September 11, 1995
ABSTRACT
This ongoing project assessed current programs and policies of the Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP), from its initiation as a 1975 U.S.A. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
study to the current multifaceted, intergovernmental program.
It reviewed the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed by the states of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia and the EPA and the subsequent agreements
and programs of these signatories. As the CBP evolved it grew and changed from a point
source water pollution program to one that covers land use, habitat and wetlands restoration
and all forms of living resources.
The complex CPB organization is described along with the different orientations and
interests of the main governmental participants, who include many federal government
agencies, and local governments as well. While this is an EPA-initiated and funded program, it
is run in a cooperative, consensual manner. Legislative support on both state and federal levels
has been significant and there has been extensive citizen participation, especially by the
conservationist Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
A special section of this study is devoted to Washington D.C.'s role in the Program. D.C's
environmental administrative arrangements are described, with the Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs having major responsibility for ongoing environmental programs while
the Public Works Department is responsible for the operation and expansion of the Blue Plains
Sewage Treatment Plant.
The third section of this report analyzes the activities, strategies and influence of the
leading conservation group, The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). With more than 80,000
members, 125 staff and a budget close to $7 million, CBF is a key player since it was founded
just thirty years ago.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 3
Introduction ....................................................................…………………...…….. 3
Chesapeake Bay Program Organization and Key Actors......................................... 4
Current Programs: Accomplishments........................................................................9
Factors Behind the Program's Achievements...........................................................10
Future Challenges ................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................13
2.
WASHINGTON, D.C. AND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
14
D.C. Environmental Administrative Arrangements ..................................... 14
Blue Plains ................................................................................................... 16
Anacostia River............................................................................................. 17
Public Information and Education ................................................................ 18
U.S. Corps of Army Engineers and other Federal and
Regional Agencies…..................................................................................... 19
Interest
Groups/Environmental
Organizations
...............................
20
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 21
2. THE CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION ................................................ 23
Programs ............................................................................................................ 24
Departments ....................................................................................................... 25
Key Personnel .................................................................................................... 27
Decision-Making Structure ................................................................................ 29
Interaction with Federal, State and Local Governments ..................................... 30
Funding .............................................................................................................. 33
Heading Toward the Twenty-First Century ....................................................... 36
SOURCES ......................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW
Introduction
This paper is in some ways a status report on the Chesapeake Bay Program (CPB) as well as
my findings to date. As additional research is undertaken there may be some modification of
my conclusions. However, I believe more and more that the evolving program and policies in
the Chesapeake Bay region may very well serve as a model for future environmental policy
and administrative control patterns. After reviewing the nature of regional pollution problems
and past efforts to deal with them, key governmental actors, crucial issues of growth and
intergovernmental cooperation, we will then attempt to assess the emerging and apparently
more successful management strategies.
The Chesapeake Bay is our country's largest estuary and is often described as a "national
treasure". Concern over degradation of the bay and its declining resources led Congress in
1975 to authorize a comprehensive seven-year investigation by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) of the environmental problems and programs in the estuary and its
tributaries.
Publication of the research findings and proposed strategies for remediation led to a landmark
1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed by the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia, the District of Columbia and the EPA. This four-paragraph compact proposed a
"cooperative approach" to deal with the Bay's problems and established an organizational
structure to focus on water quality and pollution control, while recognizing that "EPA and the
States share the responsibility for management decisions and resources."
A followup agreement in 1987 was much more detailed and ambitious. It also covered living
resources, population growth and development, establishing broad goals and objectives with
specific commitments and dates for action. These include a wetlands policy, development
policies and guidelines and fisheries management plans. In addition, a basinwide toxics
reduction strategy has been adopted along with a very specific and demanding commitment to
reduce nutrients from 1985 levels by 40% by the year 2000.
Agreements in 1991 and 1993 and 1994 have further refined and strengthened the nutrient
reduction and other commitments. The Chesapeake Executive Council agreements spurred a
variety of state actions, including new state legislation controlling development along
shorelines to minimize its impact on bay water quality. Especially intriguing is a Maryland
law, establishing the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program which divides the area into
intensely developed, limited development and resource conservation areas, each with different
development criteria and constraints.
Although public concern over the future of the Bay is very high, the implementation of
the agreement's many plans, strategies and policies depend on considerable funding resources
and political commitment and cooperation from the many jurisdictions and local, state and
federal agencies.
The Bay and Its Condition
The Chesapeake Bay region is nearly 200 miles long, stretching from Cooperstown,
New York in the north down to its mouth in southern Virginia. The Bay is fed by 48 major
rivers and 100 small tributaries and includes more than 7,000 miles of shoreline. The 64,000
mile drainage basin includes 94% of the state of Maryland about one-half of Virginia and
one-third of Pennsylvania, as well as much smaller fractions of New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, and West Virginia (see map). While Pennsylvania covers the smallest area of the
three CPB states, 50% of the Bay's freshwater flows come from its Susquehana River.
Chesapeake Bay supports 2700 species of fish, shellfish and plant life; it is the source
of almost half of the nation's catch of blue crabs. The Bay is also used for boating, sailing,
swimming, hunting, fishing, transportation, water supply and disposal of wastes. Worries
over its pollution and declining fish harvests mounted in the 1970's. Concerned citizens also
pointed to increasing toxic materials, eroding shorelines, and disappearing wetlands as signs
that the Bay was "dying", to use the popular, nonscientific term. Monitoring of the Bay's
condition and its complex, fragile eco-system was undertaken in the 1970's with particular
attention to the water pollution problems of excess phosphorus and nitrogen. The increasing
presence of these nutrients was emphasized since they caused oxygen loss which in turn
made it difficult for the Bay's waters to support marine and aquatic life.
Chesapeake Bay Program Organization and Key Actors
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement organizational structure is extremely complex (see
diagram). More recently, A "Who's Who in the Chesapeake Bay Program, published in
August 1994 which listed only government agencies and CPB committees and working
groups in its 79 pages, had an index of 264 government officials and CPB participants (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, August 1994).
A 30-member Implementation Committee, almost all of whom are career officials,
oversees day to day operations and is supposed to coordinate research studies and program
decisions. It is the operation arm of the highest policy level, the Chesapeake Executive
Council(CEC), which consists of the Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia governors, the
District of Columbia Mayor, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator
and the chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, composed of legislators from the
three states. There is also a Principals Staff Committee, which includes directors of the Bay
states environmental protection and natural resources agencies, top level assistants to the
governors, the EPA regional administrator headquartered in Philadelphia and the Chesapeake
Bay Commission Executive Director.
MAJOR COMMITTEES IN THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
Chesapeake
Executive Council
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Principals' Staff
Federal Agencies
Commttee
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Implementation
Commmittee
Scientific & Technical
Advisory Committee
Budget & Workplan
Steering Committee
'91 Nutrient Reevaluation
Workgroup
Nonpoint
Source
Toxics Monitoring
Water Quality
Subcommittes
Modeling
Informati
Living
Public
Growth &
Public
In short, these three committees generally consist of three key governmental levels-bureaucrats
(Implementation Committee), political appointees (Principals Staff Committee) and elected
officials (Chesapeake Executive Council). There are also about six other committees and eight
subcommittees, dealing with various aspects of the Bay's problems (e.g. toxics, living
resources) and representing other interests, such as local government, citizens and scientists.
EPA funds state implementation grants, allocating 30% each to Maryland, Pennsylvania
and Virginia and 10% to the District. In that sense, the three states are equally endowed, but
their stakes and perspectives on the program obviously differ..
Maryland, which is almost entirely located within the watershed, feels most vulnerable
and tends to be the most sensitive to environmental threats to the Bay. In contrast, Pennsylvania
does not have too many citizens who identify with the Chesapeake Bay. Nevertheless, it is a
crucial major upstream polluter whose farming, non-point pollution sources of nitrogen and
phosphorus (mainly from fertilizers) are more numerous than conventional point sources.
Virginia is perhaps the most conflicted of all the participants. While recognizing the need to
protect and restore the Bay its officials feel constrained to undertake strong regulatory
programs, especially when they are initiated by outsiders. The District of Columbia plays a
more limited role, paying particular attention to the Potomac River and the Blue Plains sewage
treatment plant. While the funding formula is not a source of interstate rivalry, there are some
issues such as fishing requirements and limits, in which it is difficult to obtain a consensus
among the states.
More than half a dozen federal agencies are actively involved, especially the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Coast Guard.
However, the role of EPA, the lead federal agency is crucial. It relies more on carrots than
sticks and coordinates the other federal agency programs. It maintains a very active presence
through its Annapolis Liaison office.
EPA is currently appropriated about $18 million for the program, in addition to other
money spent in the region, such as for local sewage treatment plants. There are about 16 EPA
staff currently attached to the CPB. As the major funding and staff resource, EPA's initiatives
are not always welcomed by the other participants. However, their utility in terms of knowledge
and information, coordination of interstate and other federal programs, makes them at the very
least a necessary evil, in the eyes of some state representatives. More charitably, they could be
viewed as first among equals. However, they play a key role because they generally staff the
key committees as well as being the major funding source. They have been variously described
as facilitators, conveners and catalysts. In many respects, therefore, EPA plays a leadership role
in the Chesapeake Bay Program.
While counties and towns are represented on the Local Government Advisory
Committee, the CBP is basically a federal-state program. The lesser influence of localities
can be shown by the fact that their advisory committee was created only in 1989, very late in
the game. This may be short-sighted because ultimately the local jurisdictions will play a
vital role. It is acknowledged by all that controlled development and wise land use policies
are crucial to protecting, preserving and upgrading the Bay and its resources.
In contrast to the Critical Areas Commission, created by Maryland law as a state
agency to guide development along a relatively thin strip of shoreline, Virginia has taken a
different approach in its Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. This legislation delegates the
regulation of land use to local jurisdictions, rather than creating a new state agency with
such powers.
While the CBP is of course implemented by executive agencies, certain legislators
have played an important role in initiating and sustaining the program. U. S. Senator.
Charles Matthias( R-Md) can be considered to be the father of the Chesapeake Bay Program,
having initiated the original Chesapeake Bay study in the 1970's. He continued to be a strong
advocate for the Bay for more than a decade until he left the Senate. Today, Sen. Barbara
Mikulski(DMd) has also been very helpful in obtaining increased funds for the program, in
her position as an Appropriations subcommittee chairman. Similarly on the state side, the
presence of influential Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland legislators on the Chesapeake
Bay Commission has led them to initiate legislative proposals in their statehouses that have
helped the Bay, especially the ban on phosphate detergents. Thus the CBP has benefited
from forceful legislative patrons on both the state and federal level.
The extent of citizen participation in Chesapeake Bay affairs is staggering. A Guide
to Citizen and Watershed Groups in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, had a 35-page list of
local groups in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware, and then took 30 pages to
list statewide citizen organizations, advisory committees and trade associations and finally
had an additional seven pages covering universities and research organizations which focus
on the Bay (Alliance for Chesapeake Bay, 1993).
Environmental activism in the region is broad-based, ranging from small, volunteer
groups to a few politically sophisticated and well organized conservation groups. In fact,
there was so much support for the Bay restoration effort that some environmental leaders
have questioned whether it was receiving too much support at the expense of other concerns.
Nevertheless, their general conclusion of a report on environmental groups in Maryland was
that the Chesapeake Bay played a significant role in shaping environmental attitudes and in
creating a greater sense of collective responsibility for the environment.
In particular, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been crucial in resource
management issues as well as generally focusing public concern over the condition of the
Bay. In less than a decade the Foundation has quadrupled its membership to more than
80,000. It has excellent
environmental education programs for students and employs sophisticated legal and scientific
tactics and land management planning strategies. In its role as a constant but friendly and
smart governmental critic and watchdog ("Save the Bay"), the foundation has continuously
spurred government officials to do more. Typically, Turning the Tide Saying the Chesapeake
Bay, a book it helped publish, offers constructive proposals and some strong medicine to
preserve the Bay (Horton and Eichbaum, 1991).
The Alliance for Chesapeake Bay, formerly the Citizens Program for Chesapeake
Bay, is another very influential but less militant group. It is an umbrella organization of
conservationists, business representatives and sportsmen which has played a more inside and
even more influential role with its workshops and meetings. It hosted a conference in 1983
which laid the foundation for signed the first Bay agreement. Most of its public information
activities and Bay publications have been funded by the CBP and it also staffs the Citizens
Advisory Committee in its semi-official role.
Despite many future challenges, the CBP is regarded as a model program both
scientifically and administratively.
There are several factors which explain the CBP's successes to date. The first is the
commitment of the three state governors and their officials to cleaning up the Bay and their
willingness to work with each other, despite their political differences, to achieve a
consensus. The Program also has additional legislative clout from the Chesapeake Bay
Commission members who come from the three state legislatures.
Current Programs: Accomplishments
The CBP has gone through several phases. It began in the 1970's as a comprehensive
water pollution study by EPA that in fact was predated by a Corps of Engineers water
resources/modeling study as well as decades of limited surveys and research efforts. The
study phase culminated in the 1980's with two interstate/federal agreements and a joint action
program from 1984 on with specific targets and deadlines. By the 1990's the program had
evolved to a broader perspective, beyond water pollution control to a water-land-air
perspective which at the same time focused on very specific implementation strategies in the
river tributaries of the Bay.
State and federal participants can point to a variety of accomplishments. Extensive
monitoring and modeling activities in the areas of living resources, nonpoint sources and
toxic studies have resulted in a relatively good picture of current conditions and a fairly
accurate understanding of the Bay's ecosystem. There have been agreements on fisheries
management, wetlands and toxic reduction policies. Very significantly, point source loads of
phosphorus have already been reduced by 35 % from 1985 levels, partly as a result of the
phosphate detergent ban and tighter sewage treatment plant controls.
The Chesapeake Bay Program recently issued The State of the Chesapeake Bay 1995
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). Intended as a layman's report card on the
Program's progress and the health of the Bay, it has sections on land use, population and
pollution, water quality and living resources. Its overall conclusion is that
"If the health of the bay could be likened to that of a hospital patient, the doctor would
report that the patient's vital signs, such are living resources, habitat and water quality are
stabilized and the patient is out of intensive care. Overall, the patient still suffers from an
expanding population and changing land use, but is on the road to recovery."
Generally upbeat, the Program participants naturally feel that they have to justify the
effort so far put into monitoring and recovery programs, while not claiming victory, which
would invite complacency or agency cutbacks.
Having delineated key groups and agencies, it should also be noted that crosscutting
personal and working relationships, although hard to discern from the outside, can also be
highly revealing. The facts that an EPA Administrator, Russel Train, had a home on the Bay,
or that U.S. Senator Matthias was his social friend, or that Pennsylvania's Governor, Richard
Thornburgh, had his state join the agreement at the urging of his former Justice Department
colleague, William Ruckelshaus, can all explain quite a lot about the Chesapeake Bay
Program. And individual personalities can make a difference. One example is the
commitment of CEC Chair, Virginia Governor Gerald Baliles in 1987 and his persuading his
fellow governors to adopt the 40% nutrient reduction goal.
Factors Behind the Program's Achievements
Secondly, EPA's participation and strategies have also been crucial. Its success in
obtaining federal funding and staff has moved the program quite far. EPA funds, first for the
Bay study and then for implementation and program grants, jump-started the Chesapeake
Bay Program and continue its momentum.
As catalysts, EPA officials never take a vote, even at the highest decision-making
levels, on key program decisions. They have continually emphasized that the Bay Program
operates on the basis of consensus, not majority rule.
EPA
has
chosen
a
nonconfrontational stance publicly with the states and local government in negotiating over
discharge permits from municipal and industrial point sources. It has deliberately muted its
enforcement powers in dealing with state and local governments in order to achieve greater
participation and involvement.
The Program has greatly benefited from high public concern and active group
involvement, Awareness of citizen concern over the Bay's future and the need to "save" it
has served as an important background factor in spurring government action.
The CPB has been a high profile, popular and favored program, not only in the area
but even nationally. Ronald Reagan, chose to show his environmental credentials by
promoting it in his 1984 State of the Union address. "We will begin the long, necessary
effort to clean up a productive recreational area and a special national resource--the
Chesapeake Bay," Reagan promised. He followed that commitment up during the 1984
campaign, by going to Tilghman Island, the oyster center of the Bay and telling local
officials and watermen:
"This is more than an income for you, it's a way of life.And believe me, we aren't going to
let anyone destroy it. In fact, much of the economic vitality of this region depends on
conserving the bay and its many resources." (Quoted in Stanfield, 1988, p. 1336.)
President Bill Clinton made a similar commitment at an Earth Day celebration on
April 21, 1995. Visiting Havre de Grace on the Bay with Vice President Al Gore,
Maryland's two Senators, Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes, and EPA Administrator
Carol Browner in attendance, he declared:
"If you ever doubt what we can do together to preserve our heritage, all you have to
do is look at this Bay. The beauty you see is G-d-given but it was defended and rescued by
human beings. Not long ago the Chesapeake was a mess. Garbage floated on it. Shellfish
were unsafe to eat. Now I know there is still a lot more to do but you know the Bay is
coming back because people overcame all that divided them to save their common heritage-people from Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, all joined together
with a federal effort as well." (U.S. Government Printing Office, April 24, 1955)
Future Challenges
The Chesapeake Executive Council met in August 1991 to renew Bay commitments
and to set new directions. They decided on a four-point plan to provide "strategic direction"
to Bay restoration activities, including:
l. Achieving a greater rate of nutrient reduction, especially for nitrogen whose levels had in
fact increased;
2. Adopting pollution prevention as the preferred approach for reducing ecological and
human health risks;
3. Reemphasizing and measuring the restoration of fish, shellfish and waterfowl; and
4. Broadening participation and involvement of groups not previously active on Bay issues,
including minorities and rural poor.
The 1991 meeting with its renewed commitment by the highest officials was
especially significant since they had not met for a year and a half. Follow up meetings and
amendments focused even more attention on specific grassroots implementation strategies
and programs. In
10
1993 the Chesapeake Executive Council directed its participating members to outline
initiatives for nutrient reduction in the Bay's ten major tributaries. In 1994 the Executive
Council also adopted a basin wide toxics reduction and prevention strategy.
Also of special importance for future controls and policies, are two other studies. They serve
to indicate that 1992 marks a turning point in the evolution of the Bay Program, which has
moved past its study and initial implementation phases. The nutrient reevaluation process is
a significant mid-course policy reassessment. It seeks to not only update progress in
reaching the 40% nutrient reduction goal but also to plan future directions, strategies and
control techniques for this crucial component which vitally affects the Bay's food chain, fish
and wildlife and other natural systems. With the aid of computer modeling participants hope
to calculate management scenarios and reasonable reduction strategies and costs.
The Bay Program has also undertaken a strategic planning process with input from
all involved officials and groups. It seeks to determine clear implementation priorities with
increased budgetary resources as well as greater accountability to measure progress. The
outcome of this process as well as the nutrient reevaluation study results, however, have not
fully resolved future program directions, which ultimately are dependent on resource and
political commitments.
Therefore, despite progress to date, including increased state resources and programs, there
are several very difficult problems standing in the way of continued achievement. The first
is the difficulty of lowering nitrogen levels. Since a significant portion is derived from
airborne contaminants originating in New York, Delaware, and, to a lesser extent, West
Virginia. These three states are not parties to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and have little
incentive to participate in the Program. Nitrogen levels may even be increasing. At the very
least, they have levelled off and not come close to meeting the 40% reduction goal.
Second, reduction of nonpoint sources is extremely difficult.
Having recognized
that farming and building activities now contribute more to the Bay's Deterioration than
conventional point source, governments still resort to encouraging farmers to carry out "best
management practices". This voluntary, no coercive approach to the use of fertilizers and
pesticides often appears to be slow and wanting in control achievements. In the current antiregulation environment, however, it is unlikely that stronger measures can be enacted on the
national or state level that would force farmers to drastically change their practices.
Having dealt fairly successfully with conventional industrial and municipal point sources, the
more intractable and numerous nonpoint sources now also have to be brought under greater
control. The CBP use of subsidies and noncoercive inducements may very well be imitated in
other areas.
Finally, current financial stresses in the states do not bode well for a full-fledged government
attack on the Bay's problems. Shortage of federal and state funds will hamper any new or
increased initiatives.
Conclusion
Despite these difficulties and challenges, the Chesapeake Bay Program is still regarded as the
premier estuary management program in the nation and its successes may very well influence
other environmental management programs even in noncoastal areas.
The restoration of Chesapeake Bay has been described as one of the most complex
intergovernmental efforts ever mounted around an estuary. Its two dozen implementation
strategies are generally being carried out with none of the major participants giving up
planning, administration or regulatory authority to a regional superagency. The Chesapeake
Executive Council, the highest level policy body, has no independent executive power, rather
deriving its authority from existing governmental jurisdictions in a cooperative, partnership
manner.
Speculating about the future of environmental management based on the evolving Chesapeake
Bay pattern, there are several intriguing possibilities. The Chesapeake Bay effort began as a
water pollution control program but it is now viewed in a broader, multimedia context.
Nitrogen reduction must require greater air pollution controls over automobiles and power
plants. Land use practices, especially those dealing with erosion control, use of fertilizers,
pesticides and other toxic materials also are part of the problem as well as being part of the
solution.
The District of Columbia, while a major participant in the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), is
less equal than some of the other principals. On the one hand, the mayor of the District is one of
the six members on the Chesapeake Bay Program's highest body, the Chesapeake Executive
Council, along with the governors of the three states, the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator and the head of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
On the other hand, while Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia each receive 30% of federal
program grants, the District is granted the remaining and lesser 10%. Currently this amounts to
almost one million dollars in implementation grants, mainly for DC's staffing and project work
in stormwater management and non point source programs, but also for integrated pest
management programs, and public participation/education programs, among others. DC officials
serve on many of the Chesapeake Bay Program's working committees but seem to be less active
than the other state representatives. And DC's mayor has never served as chair of the
Chesapeake Executive Council.
Next, population growth and development have continued almost unabated, exerting
tremendous pressure on the Bay's fragile resource. A recent study projected that close to
three million more people will be living in the Bay area by the year 2020. Nevertheless, the
Maryland legislature in 1990, at the urging of local government officials, rejected an
ambitious proposal by Governor William Schaeffer which sought to limit growth. This
defeat in an environmentally conscious state serves to remind us of the sensitive nature of
any proposals affecting land use and development. And Virginia has done little but to
occasionally study this issue.
12
The commitment of current participants needs to be maintained if not intensified. This includes
a greater involvement by the District of Columbia as well as renewed activism by local and
regional citizen and conservation groups.
Finally, other outside actors may have to be brought into the picture. The
"contributions" of Delaware, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia are slowly forcing the
original states to expand their outlooks, although this may result in their receiving a smaller
share of the funding pie. Thus the broader nature of the Chesapeake Bay problems may bring
us back to expanded multimedia regional efforts to deal with environmental problems.
The District is of course the smallest of the governmental entities, both in population and in size
a mere 69 square miles. However its strategic location both in the metropolitan area and in the
watershed give it great prominence. DC sits at the head of the tidal portion of the Potomac River
estuary, and the Potomac River accounts for about 20% of the nutrients loading into the
Chesapeake Bay.
Naturally DC government officials have chosen to focus on those parts of the Bay within its
jurisdiction, especially the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, although here too the other states
control a larger portion of these rivers' watershed. Finally, the District's major sewage treatment
focus is on the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant, which also treats a good portion of nonDistrict water wastes.
D.C. Environmental Administrative Arrangements
To the outsider, the District appears to have a bifurcation of responsibilities and programs. The
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs has the major responsibility for ongoing water
pollution programs and for environmental standards. At the same time, the Department of Public
Works is responsible for the operation and expansion of the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant, a
major contributer to the Chesapeake Bay's nutrient load.
13
The District of Columbia's primary unit for addressing environmental concerns is
the Environmental Regulation Administration (ERA), a component of the D.C.
Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). The ERA "administers District
and federal laws, regulations and mayoral initiatives governing the environment and
natural resources of D.C. and the surrounding metropolitan area in order to protect
human health and the environment as they relate to pesticides, hazardous waste
underground storage tanks, water, air, soils and fisheries programs. " (District of
Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs) The Administration is
divided into the following four divisions, each headed by a program manager.
The Water Resources Management Division is divided into four branches:
Fisheries Management, Water Quality Control, Water Quality Monitoring, and the
Environmental Laboratory. Responsibilities of the Division include:
*Monitoring the quality of surface, ground and drinking water and preparing strategies
and plans for protecting them
*Coordinating, regulating and managing point and nonpoint source pollution control
programs
*Responding to oil and toxic substance spills
*Managing and studying the fisheries and aquatic resources on the Anacostia and
Potomac Rivers in the District
*Performing analyses of samples of drinking water, fish, ground water, river water,
storm water, river sediment, etc.
The Soil Resources Management Division has only two branches: Stormwater
Management and Erosion and Sediment Control. Responsibilities include:
*Preventing accelerated soil erosion and sediment deposition in the Potomac and
Anacostia Rivers and their tributaries by managing land disturbing activities
*Promulgating guidelines, standards, and specifications for erosion, stormwater, and
flood hazard controls
*Implementing goals and objectives of the Chesapeake Bay Program
The Pesticides, Hazardous Waste, & Underground Storage Tank Division has
three branches: Hazardous Waste, Pesticide Enforcement and Certification, and the
Underground Storage Tank branch. Responsibilities include:
*Monitoring the improper use of pesticides, the disposal of hazardous waste, and the
releases of hazardous waste materials from underground storage tanks
*Conducting pesticide certification examinations
*Preparing the District Capacity Assurance Plan pursuant to section 104 (c) (9) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
The Air Resources Management Division is also divided into four branches:
Asbestos Abatement, Compliance and Enforcement, Engineering and Planning and
Technical Services. The Division's responsibilities include:
*Developing and implementing plans and programs for protecting and for managing
air resources
*Determining allowable source emissions and issuing construction and operating
permits *Inspecting air pollution sources
*Coordinating and inspecting asbestos renovation and demolition
Until recently, the two main DC participants in the Chesapeake Bay Program
were Ferial Bishop and James Collier. Until the summer of 1995 Ferial Bishop was
the Administrator of the ERA, appointed by Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon. She was a
member of the Principals Staff Committee (PSC) and the Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC). Ms. Bishop attended the PSC meetings regularly and
occasionally the Implementation Committee (IC) meetings.
James Collier is the Program Administrator for the Water Resources
Management Division and a career civil servant. Mr. Collier is probably the most
active of the DCRA contingent in that he is a member of the IC, the Budget Steering
Committee (BSC), as well as the chair of the Modelling Subcommittee. Two other
DCRA employees who listed in the CBP's Who's Who, are the Program Manager for
the Soil Resources Management Division and DCRA's Watershed Coordinator. They
often attend meetings of CBP committees but maintain a low profile and do not
actively participate in the discussions.
Blue Plains
The Washington D.C. Department of Public Works (DPW), Water and Sewer
Utility Administration, oversees the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant and has
related responsibilities for constructing facilities to meet federal and state
environmental regulations, including stormwater management. Two officials from the
plant are members of LGAC: Walter Bailey, Chief, Bureau of Wastewater Treatment;
and Warren Graves, of the Mayor's Office and formerly Director, Division of Water
Conservation.
This advanced waste treatment plant handles about 70 percent of municipally
treated water found in the Potomac River. It serves parts of Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudon, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, as well as the wastes of the
District of Columbia. Plans have been proposed to upgrade the plant's treatment
capacity from 309 million gallons per day (mgd) to 370 mgd, as well as to increase its
nitrogen removal capacity. Recently, the plant was fined $500,000 by the Department
of Justice for "sloppy operations". (Cohn, D'Vera, January 25, 1995) Originally the
federal government sought $12 million in fines because of poor operation and
maintenance.
16
Blue Plains has already reached the Chesapeake Bay Program goal for
phosphorus and the focus has shifted to the Chesapeake Bay Program target of reducing
nitrogen by 40 percent by the year 2000. As part of the Justice Department settlement,
the plant must also undergo significant renovations estimated at $20 million for a twoyear trial of a biological nitrogen removal process. Seventy-five percent of this cost is
expected to be financed by the federal government. The trial run is expected to begin in
April 1996.
The Post article commented, "[t]he Blue Plains settlement gives the EPA an unusual
amount of influence over day-to-day operations at the plant. The District agreed to
draw up detailed specifications for plant operations and submit five quarterly reports to
the EPA listing whether each goal was met. The city also agreed to hire a consultant to
review procurement and hiring rules at Blue Plains, which officials have blamed for
some performance and staffing problems." (bid.)
Anacostia River
The Anacostia River is one of the most polluted rivers in the United States
supporting relatively little fish or vegetation. In the past it has also been a forgotten
river, receiving almost no government or public attention. Yet it is a main tributary of
the Potomac River with headwaters in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties and
its main channel in the District.
Beginning with President Johnson's Administration, great efforts were made to restore
the Potomac River, yet its main tributary, the Anacostia, was left out of the process.
This may have been partly due to the fact that there is no major point source of
pollution as well as its difficult hydrology--complex water swirls--as a tidal basin.
Beginning in the 1980's D.C. officials focused more attention on the degraded
Anacostia, to the point where Kenneth Laden, chief of the Environmental Policy
Division stated that "The District's main purpose in the Bay Program is to try to draw
attention to the Anacostia Restoration Project." (District of Columbia, Department of
Public Works, Winter 1991). It is now one of four spots on the Bay considered of
significant risk to aquatic organisms because of toxic substances. The Anacostia River
has now been identified by the Program as one of the three regions of Concern under
the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy, signed by
the Bay Executive Council in October 1994.
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) is comprised of
representatives from the District, the state of Maryland, Prince Georges County,
Montgomery County, U.S. Corp of Engineers, MWCOG, and the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB). This group developed the Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Agreement by 1987 which is administered by the Metropolitan
Washington
17
Council of Governments. Out of this came a Six-Point Action Plan in 1991. The six
points are as follows:
1.
Pollutant Reduction
The strategy is to reduce the sewage overflow and stormwater loadings from new
developments, to remove trash and debris and prevent future trash from getting into the
river.
2.
Habitat Restoration
This controls runoff by applying stormwater retrofit. It uses stream restoration techniques
to improve habitat in degraded streams as well as land-use controls and stormwater and
sediment controls at new development sites.
3.
Fisheries Management
This would expand spawning range by removing key fish barriers and improve the quality
of spawning habitat.
4.
Wetlands Restoration
This strategy would prevent further net loss of wetlands, restore ecological functions of
degraded wetlands, and create several hundred acres of new wetlands.
5. Reforestation
This would take advantage of existing resources, reforest ten linear riparian miles over the
next three years to create a forest corridor from the river to upper headwater streams.
6.
Citizen Participation
This strategy proposes raising awareness through public education and grassroots
networks. The ICPRB is the lead organization for this effort.
Public Information and Education
The District developed the Aquatic Resources Education Program (AREP) in the
late 1980's. Its goal is to raise public awareness about the natural resources within the
District. Located in Anacostia Park, it is designed to serve as centralized location for
information on aquatic environments and fisheries resources. However, because of limited
resources the AREP functions on an "appointment only," not full-time basis. It involves
three main projects:
1.
In-School Aquatic Education Project
In conjunction with D.C. Public Schools, the project focuses on relating the environment to
the science curriculum. Several schools also have an "Adopt a Mile of the Anacostia
River" program.
18
2.
Fishing Clinics
The clinics were developed to promote fisheries management and provide hands-on
3.
Summer Aquatic Resource Education Project
The project is an eight-week long program for children ages five to 16. The children are
given instruction in biology, ecology, and conservation. Approximately 1,000 youth
participate each year.
In addition to the DCRA and DPW, there are several other governmental
entities involved in the Chesapeake Bay Program efforts.
U.S. Corps of Army Engineers and other Federal and Regional Agencies
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been instrumental in the District's efforts to
restore and preserve Kenilworth Marsh, part of the Anacostia River system. The Corps
developed a plan to establish an additional 80 acres of wetlands to the existing 32
acres. This plan also includes restoring five miles of streams and 33 acres of
bottomland habitat. The Corps estimated the plan to cost about $19 million. The costs
are to be shared by the District, Maryland, MWCOG, and the ICPRB. The Corps has
also planned projects to restore fish habitat and remove barriers to migratory fish.
In the District of Columbia, the federal government is a major landholder,
occupying about 40% of District lands. Although loadings from federal government
activities are low, federal agencies are beginning to work together in helping deal with
storm water management, combined sewer overflows, shoreline problems and nutrient
reduction.
There are two regional agencies which interact with the government of the District,
first as subcontractors and secondly as governmental entitities on which D.C. officials
and residents serve.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) has several roles in
District of Columbia's environmental agenda. MWCOG acts as a subcontractor by
providing technical assistance to the District with regards to the Anacostia restoration
effort by administering the action plan, and through urban nonpoint source management
and wastewater management programs. MWCOG provides planning expertise, water
analyses, and publishes the Blue Plains newsletter. According to COG's FY 1996
budget, it will receive $135,000 in local contributions and $163,380 from federal and
state grants. The local contributions include suburban counties in Maryland and
Virginia as well as the District. Executive Director Ruth Crone says that the local
contributions are proportionate to the population of the MWCOG-member
governments.
19
MWCOG also lends technical and staff support to the CBP Local Government
Advisory Committee. EPA will provide $107,370 for LGAC support, according to
COG'S FY 96 budget. Ferial Bishop and two DPW officials are the only District
officials listed as members of LGAC.
MWCOG does play a role in dealing with air pollution, mainly through its Air Quality
Committee (MWAQC) and Transportation Planning Board (TPB). They work with
local governments, businesses, citizens and interest groups (including the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation) to form plans that dovetail with the Clean Air Act.
Based in Rockville, MD-based study agency, the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) was established in 1940 under an interstate compact and
an Act of Congress. Funding is provided by contributions from Maryland, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the federal government.
The Commission also receives an annual interstate grant from EPA under the
Clean Water Act to partially support water quality and supply program activities along
the Potomac River. Currently, Ferial Bishop serves as chair of its Board of Directors.
Interest Groups/Environmental Organizations
While there are many environmental groups within the Washington Metropolitan area,
they focus on the national government and especially Congress. These eminent,
nationally-recognized organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council,
have large memberships but do not emphasize local District problems. There are some
local community groups with varying memberships and a relatively low level of
activity. Only in the Anacostia area are these active grass roots organizations.
Otherwise, citizen involvement is relatively limited, given the District other major
financial and economic problems.
Among the national groups with local chapters, are the following:
American Rivers was founded in 1973 and has over 10,000 members nationwide and
300 members within the District. As the nation's principal river conservation group, it
concluded that the Anacostia was the most endangered urban river in the U.S. The
Anacostia Watershed Society is a nonprofit conservation organization with about 400
members in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
Founded in 1897, the Audobon Naturalist Society of the Center Atlantic States is the
oldest environmental group in the area, and one of the largest with 10,000 members in
the region and 2,000 within the District. Its objective is to increase public
understanding of natural history and importance of preserving the region's natural
resources. Some of its efforts concentrate on its environmental education programs for
both children and adults.
20
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit environmental group
with over 110,000 nationwide, 1,000 of whom are in the District.
Urban Protectors was organized in 1978, as a protest group which successful fought the
Potomac Electric Power Company proposal to construct and operate two coalfired
generators east of the Anacostia.
Ward Eight Citizens for Environmental Justice is a community organization dedicated
to the protection of the quality of life, health, and environment, including parklands and
waterways, of the Anacostia neighborhoods that comprise Ward Eight.
The Sierra Club and its Legal Defense Fund has 500,000 members nationwide and
2,000 in the District of Columbia. Acting in conjunction with the above environmental
groups, the Defense Fund filed a petition against the District to encourage it to post
warning signs along the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, warning anglers and swimmers
of the polluted waters.
Conclusion
Despite the rhetoric of partnership, there seems to be an informal hierarchy within the
organizational culture of the Chesapeake Bay Program and its four jurisdictions.
Maryland appears to be at the top of the hierarchy with Virginia next in line,
Pennsylvania is third and the District fourth. This is due in large part to geographical
characteristics and administrative priorities.
Maryland has the largest section of the Chesapeake Bay within its borders, and thus
many of the policies and regulations affect it disproportionately more than the others.
Because of this, more Maryland-based people are involved in the Program and tend to
be more vocal. One must also take into account Maryland's status as a progressive state
on environmental issues. (See Fig and Kraft, 1994)
Virginia has the next largest geographical section of the Bay in terms of acreage, and
therefore also has a large stake in the Program's initiatives. Combined with its
traditionally conservative politics, Virginia usually sees considerable value in restoring
the Bay although it often has reservations about regulatory approaches, especially those
initiated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Pennsylvania's primary interest in the Bay Program is the Susquehanna River and its
related agricultural concerns. Other topics such as habitat and wetlands are secondary.
Issues such as nutrient reduction becomes a critical one for a state with such a large
farming constituency.
21
Washington, D.C. does not have the land area that the three states have nor does
it have their budgets. Its concerns are mainly within the context of urban pollution.
However, in a city with so many other urban problems (eg. crime), coupled with
unstable financial and political conditions, environmental issues are not high on the list
of priorities. Consequently, the District is not perceived to have as great a stake in the
Program as the three states. Although the city is one of the Bay Agreement signatories,
it only receives ten perecent of the funding.
It is interesting to note that according to the "Griddle Book II," the only
commitment on which D.C. is listed as the lead group is the implementation of the
toxics reduction strategy. (United State Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.) This
may very well indicate the District's junior status in the Chesapeake Bay Program and
its relatively low level of commitment to overall regional environmental programs in
view of the immediate and serious local financial problems it currently faces.
Chapter Three: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation
A review of the Chesapeake Bay Program would be incomplete without assessing the
impact of a private organization, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). This leading
conservation group seems to be changing its role from an influential outside critic to
that of an inside player, as its influence grows. CBF's proposals and critical comments
are given very respectful attention and consideration by government officials. For
example its recent proposal to ban deep-water harvesting of blue crabs resulted in
Maryland and Virginia officials responding that they would give it serious study
(Shields, Agusut 11, 1995).
The inspiration that led to the formation of CBF was essentially recreational. In
1965, a small group of Baltimore businessmen became concerned about the future of
their favorite hunting and fishing sites. Thus the early years of CBF are characteristic
of what Michael J. Lacey calls the "first generation" of environmental issues (Lacey,
1991, 84). This term mainly refers to issues prior to 1960 where the focus was on land
and wildlife preservation.
However, as CBF advances toward the twenty-first century it has become a firm
part of the "second generation" where broader and more technical issues such as
nutrients and air pollution are covered. According to Donald Snow's definition, CBF is
the quintessential environmentalist group. "Environmental organizations are often
hybrids of the philosophies of conservation, preservation, and the newer emphasis on
pollution, human health, and environmental protection,...and speak at least part of the
language of bioregionalism or deep ecology." (Snow, 1992, 13-14)
What began as a skeleton staff occupying two rooms in Annapolis, has grown to
approximately 125 staff members in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia with almost
100,000 members. Within thirty years the Foundation has become the largest nonprofit
organization focused solely on the restoration of one body of water. The Foundation's
mission statement can be summed up in three words, "Save the Bay." It is a deceptively
simple goal whose resolution goes far beyond water quality and seafood harvests.
CBF, as the dominant interest group, closely follows all developments and
environmental programs in the area. While focusing on the Bay area, it has even taken a
position opposing the aborted Disney Theme Park in western Prince William County. It
issues studies and press releases on a variety of Bay issues, such as opposing offshore
oil drilling and decrying the loss of wetlands. It has issued detailed reports highlighting
deficiencies in the permitting process for wetlands and problems in sewage treatment
plant performance as well as the CBP's toxics inventory. It does not hesitate to propose
legislative restriction on crabbing or an oyster moratorium.
In general, CBF takes a "cooperative" approach to getting legislation passed. It
prefers to work with government officials in a non-confrontational manner while
pushing them for a higher degree of environmental protection.
Programs
CBF has three main programs: Environmental Defense, Environmental
Education, and Lands. The first is directed by Vice President Ann Powers, an attorney
who specializes in several environmental areas including coastal management issues
and private property rights. Environmental Defense has six other staff members, all
located at Headquarters in Annapolis, Maryland. Two are scientists and another is an
attorney who works part time for the program. Their objective is to perpetuate CBF
goals through scientific and legal analysis.
One of the scientists, Dr. William J. Goldsborough, is a highly respected
fisheries specialist who has been instrumental in formulating CBF's oyster and
fisheries management policies. Senior Scientist, Dr. Michael Hirshfield, is also highly
respected as an environmental scientist and frequently lends technical assistance to
Powers on federal legislation such as the Clean Water Act. Hirshfield also sits on the
Science and Technology Committee (STAC) of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP).
Environmental Defense also works with agricultural issues. Using CBF's 285acre Clagett Farm in Upper Marlboro, MD, Defense and the agriculture staff are
studying Best Management Practices, environmentally sound farming practices that
are less reliant on chemicals. There are three staff members on the farm and an
agriculture policy analyst in the Pennsylvania office. Lamonte Garber has been
instrumental in promoting PA's Nutrient Management Act. He was appointed to sit on
the Nutrient Management Advisory Board which will help the State Conservation
Commission to develop regulations for implementation.
The second program, Environmental Education, has the largest staff with
about 40 field educators throughout the watershed and 11 administrative officers,
most of whom are at headquarters in Annapolis. Education is considered the
cornerstone of CBF's operation. The education program began with a fleet of canoes
and a handful of educators. Presently there are 130 education sites throughout the
watershed, ranging from workboats in Baltimore City and Washington, D.C. to island
centers on the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shores, to a 91-year-old skipjack that is
docked in Annapolis. Taking an estimated 35,000 students out on the Bay each year,
the program was presented with the 1992 President's Environment and Conservation
Challenge Medal. The goal is to educate people about their environment and to create
an environmentally-conscious constituency.
Because of its nature, the education program tends to receive the most funding and the
most publicity. A committee of CBF educators, teachers and Maryland state education
officials has introduced, "Chesapeake Choices and Challenges," a curriculum for Maryland
middle school students with the Bay as a focus. The hope is that it would not be limited to
science classes, rather it would extend into the mathematics, social science and English
classes as well. It's based on the premise that a Bay curricula would better integrate field trips
with classroom activities and provide possible community service projects. CBF hopes to
expand the project into the neighboring states and the District of Columbia as well as develop
a second unit on fisheries for Maryland schools.
The third program, Lands, has the smallest staff, four, including two planners and one
attorney. CBF owns over 3,000 acres of land, most of which is utilized for education
purposes. Through outright ownership and easements, the Lands program seeks to provide
protection for exceptional natural areas. The major issues handled by Lands are transportation
planning, land use planning and population growth.
Kristin Pauly is the Transportation Program Coordinator. She frequently meets with
the Washington Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board and has coauthored
a proposal for integrating transportation and development for the Washington Regional
Network for Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality(WRN). Spearheaded by CBF, WRN is
an association of other organizations and coalitions that is working to promote alternatives to
suburban sprawl and highway construction. The Lands program is also active in the Maryland
U.S. 301 South Task Force, a group formed by former Governor William Donald Schaefer to
investigate alternatives to expanding Route 301 South. Lee Epstein, program director and
attorney, formerly with Maryland's Dept. of Natural Resources, has been working with the
American Lung Association to pass legislation that would place stronger incentives to
comply with the Clean Air Act.
Departments
Besides the three program areas, there are several other departments that play key
roles in CBF's operation. The most important of these is Development. It is responsible for
generating the largest percentage of revenue. This includes everything from researching
possible donors and drafting grant proposals to planning and coordinating special promotions.
The department was recently recognized by U.S. Information Agency for its success in
bringing nonprofit and business interests together. Some of its most recent successes have
been the $50,000 grant from Luray Caverns and the $25,000 grant from Ronald McDonald
Children's Charities. The Development Department devised a very successful promotional
campaign in which the CBF logo and toll-free information number was printed on Coca-Cola
cans throughout Maryland, Virginia and D.C. for a limited time period. CBF received ten
cents for each can sold, earning an estimated $10,000. For the past three years, ADC, "The
Map People," have donated a percentage of the sales of their Chesapeake Bay Chartbook as
well as allowed CBF to advertise on the inside front and outside back covers free of charge. It
is a way of creating awareness as well as raising revenue. The staff is comprised of ten
people, including two who
25
research the grants, two who write the grants, two who coordinate promotions and one who operates
out of a small Norfolk office.
The Public Affairs Department often collaborates on Development projects as well as deals
with the press. CBF has four public affair officers: the Director, his assistant, and two coordinators,
one each in VA and PA.
The public affairs office has two main missions: to create news about CBF and to help CBF
capitalize on other Bay-related events. The first involves sending out numerous press releases about
education trips, new publications and new items at the Shop as well as legislative issues. The
education trips are one of the easiest ways to spark reporters' attention.
Most newspapers and
television stations like to have images of children participating in positive activities. These images are
part of the strategy to draw people's attention to the Bay. Sometimes a picture of a heron in a tidal
marsh or a child holding a crab is more effective than an interview. Because the Bay is such a visual
issue, media plans are targeted toward print and television rather than radio.
The second mission is accomplished by alerting the press to the type of expertise CBF has to
offer. CBF wants the media to use it as a resource for Bay-related issues. Not only does it garner
publicity, it also adds to the Foundation's credibility. Media in the watershed have come to recognize
CBF as an authority on the Bay which has helped to establish a positive relationship with
environmental reporters. When environmental events occur, Baker is frequently solicited for his
opinion. For example, during a recent oil spill in Northern Virginia, Baker was quoted in the
Washington Post and interviewed by Channels 7 and 8. Dr. Goldsborough is recognized as an
authority on fisheries management. During the oyster and crab harvest crises, he was solicited by
reporters in Maryland and Virginia. The state executive directors, Ann Powers, Lamonte Garber and
Jackie Savitz, CBF Environmental Scientist, are also frequently asked for interviews. 1993 was a
good year for publicity because it was the Bay Program's tenth anniversary, and it was relatively
simple to book reporters for interviews including a segment on "Sunday Morning with Charles
Kuralt," a national news program.
Another important department is Grassroots. There are three staff members who operate out
of the Maryland office and one coordinator each in Pennsylvania and Virginia. They are responsible
for organizing citizen projects including lobbying, writing letters to state officials, storm drain
stenciling ("Chesapeake Bay Begins Here") and Earth Day activities. Grassroots usually orchestrates
action alert mailings to BayWatchers to notify them of upcoming votes in the state legislatures.
Members are encouraged to contact their local representatives to voice their concerns over
environmental issues. Grassroots Director, Jay Sherman, serves as CBF's unofficial diplomat.
Environmental officials from around the world, including the former Soviet Union and Japan, have
asked to meet with CBF to discuss the Bay's multistate cleanup efforts. Sherman is usually their
contact person and host. Sherman also sits on the Board of Directors of the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay.
26
CBF depends on direct mailing for much of its membership. The Membership
department is located at Headquarters, where it is responsible for the massive mailings sent
out to keep members informed of CBF activities as well as for fielding questions about
membership procedures. It also designs and distributes the popular "Save the Bay" bumper
stickers. Membership begins at $25 (individual) and $30 (family) and goes up to $2,500 for
corporate interests. Members are asked to renew each year.
Ten years after its founding, CBF had only 2,700 members. But membership has
increased from 7,400 in 1979 to 30,000 in 1985 and had reached 85,000 by 1993. This surge
in membership may well be a result of the backlash of what Vig and Kraft call the "Reagan
Interlude." (Vig and Kraft, 1994, 14) The Reagan Administration's perceived lack of
environmental commitment and initiatives resulted in citizens becoming more concerned
about the environment. World Watch Magazine called the late 1980's a "boom time for
environmental groups," (cited in Snow, 1992, 148) and CBF was clearly one of the
beneficiaries of this rising concern. Development Department Director Noelle Richmond has
also helped to diversify CBF's membership by coordinating the Foundation's participation in
the Environmental Fund for Maryland, which obtains donations through employee payroll
deductions as part of a workplace giving campaign.
Three staff members operate the Save the Bay Shop, located on Main St. in Annapolis.
Although from a retail standpoint, the shop doesn't earn its keep, it is valuable for its public
awareness ability. The T-shirts, hats, posters, and the ubiquitous "Save the Bay" motto are
essentially advertisements for the Foundation.
Key Personnel
The most prominent personality of CBF is its president, William C. Baker. Baker is
the son of a prominent Baltimore family, his father a heart specialist, his mother an attorney.
He was a recent graduate of Trinity College, Connecticut, with a degree in journalism and
architecture when he joined CBF as an intern in 1976.
He was promoted to editor of the
newsletter, eventually becoming assistant to then executive director Arthur Sherwood. Baker
managed to be in the right place at the right time. Two executive directors resigned within
two years, therefore, Baker, now assistant director, became acting director. when Sherwood
stepped down.The Board of Trustees originally didn't want to hire Baker because of his youth
(27 years old) but after an extensive search, Baker was judged to be the most qualified
candidate, and was hired as Executive Director in 1982. The title was later changed to
President.
Baker's management style can best be described as democratic. Although he likes to be
kept in the loop, he doesn't micromanage. He expects everyone to know their job well enough
that they don't need to bother him with trivial details. Baker has high expectations of both
himself and the staff. Generally, he puts in much more than 40 hours a week and sometimes
doesn't understand that others aren't always willing to do the same. Because of his high
expectations and his charisma, the staff takes great effort to please him.
27
Baker's strengths are his willingness to listen to others, his accessibility, and his ability to
energize the staff. His main weakness is his tendency toward perfectionism. Baker doesn't like excuses,
rather he expects everyone to his/her part. He has an incredible amount of optimism for the Bay,
strongly believing that the Bay can be saved if everyone works together. Baker understands the
potentially negative impact business interests, politics and economics can have on environmental
efforts, but he chooses to focus on the benefits of cooperation.
Other key personalities include Vice President Robert Hoyt who was formerly the executive
director of the Pennsylvania office and also played a key role in proposing the Nutrient Management
Act. Easing Baker's management burden, his main responsibilities revolve around administration and
interorganizational operations, such as coordinating initiatives between departments and state offices.
Each state office has an executive director. Jane Nishida heads the Maryland office in
Annapolis. As a former legislative aide for Governor Schaefer, she has many contacts at the State
House. Nishida spends much of her time gauging the General Assembly's position toward
environmental issues. When the Assembly is in session, she is active in developing CBF's policy
positions, testifying before the environmental matters committee and soliciting support from principal
legislators.
Joseph Maroon and Jolene Chinchilli, executive directors of the Virginia (Richmond) and
Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) state offices respectively, have similar responsibilities. As head of the tenmember office, Maroon is particularly active in land and population issues and sits on the Virginia
Commission on Population Growth and Development. Chinchilli began as a scientist in the Virginia
office and has continued as both director and senior scientist in Pennsylvania. As the smallest of the
three offices--five staff members--Pennsylvania tends to focus on one issue, agriculture. Its main
objectives revolve around getting farmers, legislators and environmentalists to cooperate.
CBF has a fourth mini-office located in Norfolk, Virginia. Established in 1985, the office had no
full-time staff members until 1990. There are presently only three staff members, a grassroots officer, a
development officer and a receptionist/administrative assistant. They work closely with the Richmond
office and CBF's Virginia Watershed Education Program. In addition to education, the office works
with the Bay Care Chapter, a group of local CBF volunteers.
Since it is located in one of the largest growing areas in Virginia and because of its proximity to
the James and Elizabeth Rivers, CBF hopes the Norfolk office can more effectively influence citizens
and decision-makers. Development officer Lucinda Kellam works from both the Norfolk office and
Headquarters. A resident of Virginia's Eastern Shore, she is working to generate funding sources in the
southern Virginia region. Her family has also established an endowment fund to help operate CBF's Port
Isobel Island education center in Virginia.
28
Finally, there are 40 members on the Board of Trustees, not including honorary trustees (6)
and ex Officio trustees (7). The makeup of the Board is becoming more diverse. Not including ex
Officio trustees, there are six women on the Board, one of whom serves as secretary. There are now
three African American trustees including one high school teacher, one professor and a lawyer from
Alexandria, Virginia.
Most, however, are men with clout. Members include Hal C. Clagett, related to the Clagetts of
southern Maryland and state senator Virginia Clagett; G.R. Klinefelter, real estate magnate and
donator of Port Isobel Island; and philanthropist Jennifer Stanley, who established a $295,000
endowment fund for the environmental defense program. In January, 1994, Thomas Stoner was
elected as the new Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He is founder and CEO of Stoner Broadcasting
and the chairman and director of American Radio Systems, Inc. Stoner's predecessor, businessman
Sumner Pingree, continues to serve on the Board.
Decision-Making Structure
CBF's formal decision-making structure has many components. The Policy Group includes
the president, vice presidents, state and program directors and the director of administration. They
meet every week to discuss operational policies such as personnel procedures, public relation
strategies and new development possibilities. Other staff members are invited to the meeting
depending on the agenda topics. Major decisions, e.g. litigation, are forwarded to the Executive
Committee of the Board for consultation.
The Board of Trustees serves to maintain the direction of the Foundation. They are largely
consulted for strategic planning of the Foundation as a whole. The Board's Executive Committee of
12 members tend to have the most input, particularly former chairman Pingree. The Executive
Committee is the liaison between the Policy Group and the entire board. The Board is divided into
four sub-committees, defense, education, lands and development. The Executive Committee meets
four times a year and the entire board meets three times a year.
Each segment of the staff such as lands, education, support staff, administration, has an annual retreat,
for the purpose of reevaluating short and long-term goals and strategies to meet those goals. The
retreats usually last for two days and take place at one of CBF's island education centers. These
segments meet monthly or biweekly to discuss and resolve department situations or specific projects.
For example, Lands may meet to discuss a presentation before the Washington COG Transportation
Planning Board. Additionally, the entire staff meets twice a year in June and December, mainly to
give everyone an opportunity to see one another as well as generate new ideas.
Submerged Aquatic Visionaries or SAV is a relatively new group comprised of about 24
representatives from all departments and offices who meet bi-monthly. The purpose of this group is to
better coordinate objectives and activities among the various departments and recommendations are
then made to the Policy Group. The unique aspect of this group is that everyone, regardless of
position, is invited to participate and participation is rotated on an
29
annual basis. Other staff members are encouraged to replace those who have already served their oneyear terms.
The purpose of the Cultural Diversity Workgroup (CDW) is to improve cultural diversity
among the staff and the membership. A brainstorming session at an annual staff meeting recognized
that CBF had few minority staff members, and that CBF was not reaching many ethnic communities.
CDW is involved in creating outreach strategies as well as providing cultural activities for staff
members. CDW has been instrumental in proposing personnel policies including the observation of
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday and floating holidays for Jewish staff members. Currently there are
nine minority staff members out of a total of 123.
The informal decision-making structure resides in the executive office. Ultimately, the
president has the final say in most decisions. New projects are not undertaken without his approval.
Almost all grant proposals must be approved before being sent out. Positions on issues are not
publicly announced without his consent. However, certain personnel do have more influence than
others. Generally their influence is correlated to the amount of service they have given to CBF. For
example, the Directors of Administration, Education and Special Field Programs have all been with
CBF for 15 years or more, and typically have an impact on particular decisions.
Interaction with Federal, State and Local Governments
CBF handles issues on federal, state and local levels. CBF's main interaction on the federal
level is its involvement with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) office. In the past CBF
served mainly as a watchdog of the program. The Foundation had been condemned by some
government officials for making public criticisms of the Program before giving the agencies an
opportunity to address their criticisms. This was said to have occurred when it criticized the Toxics
Loading Inventory.
However, CBF has recently taken a more cooperative stance in its relationship with CBP.
CBF has elected to try a more participatory approach in hopes that more will be accomplished "by
reaching the agencies and officials who govern" and by "collaborating with other interests (both likeminded and divergent), searching for a common agenda." (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 1994 Report,
13,1). CBF staff members sit on various committees including the Bay Program's Science and
Technology Advisory Committee, the Citizen Advisory Committee and the EPA's Superfund
Evaluation Committee. The Foundation still aims to be a watchdog, regularly issuing a Bay Report
Card on water quality, habitat and selected species of fish and birds. It remains to be seen whether
CBF's new role as an inside participant will give it more influence as a catalyst for change or whether
it will be coopted by the existing agencies.
In comparison to other environmental groups, CBF is moderate, leaning toward the
conservative side, in that it is willing to work with and through established government
agencies in a manner similar to the National Wildlife Federation. Groups such as Earth First,
Greenpeace, and the Environmental Defense Fund are more confrontational but also
considerably less involved and effective in the Bay Program.
CBF can perhaps best be compared to The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, an umbrella
organization of all interested groups and individuals which includes corporate and business
interests. The Alliance is involved in educational programs as well as communicating in an
objective manner be more conservative because much of its financial support comes issues and
problems of the Bay. Its publication, The Bay Journal, is the most widespread publication
reaching a very large public of interested individual and organizations. Because of its broad and
varied constituency, it will issue "white Papers" of key issues without supporting specific
initiatives and proposals.
It is also a semiofficial participant because of the substantial
amount of funds that it receives from the federal government.
The Alliance is also more
likely to concur with EPA and other government policies as indicated by its publication, The
Bay Journal, which it describes as "a public education service of the Chesapeake Bay Program."
The state level is where CBF is most active and effective. Each state office is actively involved
with their respective legislatures. Duties include testifying before subcommittees and lobbying
for specific issues. Their effectiveness is enhanced by the connections and networking ability of
staff members and trustees.
For the Maryland staff, open lines of communication between CBF and key state senators have
been beneficial. Former Senators Gerald Winegrad and Bernie Fowler have been assets to CBF,
whereas others, most notably, Frederick Malkus have been vocal adversaries. Vig and Kraft
describe Maryland as a "progressive" state regarding environmental issues, whereas Virginia
and Pennsylvania have been called "delayers" (Vig and Kraft, 1994, 63-64). Thus, to a certain
degree, CBF has an easier task in the Maryland assembly compared to the other two states in
that Maryland's track record is more conducive to environmental interests.
On occasion CBF has hired and\or worked with environmental lobbyists on various issues. For
example, former Lands Coordinator Chris Rigby worked with other lobbyists on strategies to
maintain funding for Program Open Space. Currently, the Maryland office has two registered
lobbyists, Jane Nishida and Nita Settina, Grassroots Coordinator. The PA office has four:
Jolene Chinchilli, Lamonte Garber, Jan Jarrett (Grassroots Coordinator) and Barbara Kooser
(Environmental Planner). Virginia has five: Joseph Maroon, Roy Hoagland (Assistant
Director/Attorney), Jeff Painter (Grassroots Coordinator), Kim Coble (Senior Scientist) and
Jeniffer Maloney (Communications Coordinator).
On the local level CBF tends to be grassroots-oriented. Although CBF has 83,000
members, only a small portion of them are active. There are approximately 3,000 BayWatchers.
Coordinated through the Grassroots department, BayWatchers are volunteers who perform a
variety of tasks from helping out in the office to participating in lobbying activities. Two groups
31
of BayWatchers are especially active: the York County (VA) Action Group to Save the Bay and the
Prince Georges County (MD) BayWatchers.
CBF's does not take a position on all environmental issues including recycling or incinerators
because it does not regard them at Bay-specific issues. However, on those it does take a stand, CBF
has had a successful track record. For example, in the 1993 Maryland General Assembly, four bills
that it supported were passed and two that it opposed were defeated. Legislation was enacted dealing
with forest conservation, clean cars, oil drilling protection and open space. On the other hand, CBF
took the position that the Private Property Rights bill, Senate Bill 34, undermined environmental
regulations because it required timeconsuming reviews of possible unconstitutional takings of
property. The Guzzler-Sipper bill (House Bill 70 and Senate Bill 722) would have repealed a law that
encouraged the purchase of fuel-efficient cars and increased revenue for mass transit. These bills
which were opposed by CBF, were not enacted.
CBF has been involved with the Critical Area program from the beginning. It was instrumental in the
drafting and subsequent passage of the act in 1984. Since that time, CBF has worked to ensure that the
criteria are sufficient to carry out the legislation. It has also given technical assistance to localities in
Anne Arundel and Queen Anne's counties so that they could follow critical area guidelines.Through
its grassroots efforts, CBF encourages citizen support of the program's initiatives. CBF recognizes that
it would difficult to strengthen the Act, thus it focuses on enforcing the guidelines that currently exist
and opposed legislation that might weaken them.
CBF has stressed coalition-building. It works with several smaller groups such as the Magothy River
and Severn River Associations and the Anacostia Watershed Society. The Foundation has also
worked with local chapters of the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and Clean Water Action Group as
part of the Maryland Environmental Coalition. Most recently, CBF participated in Maryland
Environmental Lobby Day. Some of these organizations take positions on issues that CBF doesn't
consider Bay-specific, however, CBF may lend a hand if asked. For example, CBF doesn't have a
formal position on lead, but will testify in support of the Lead Bill along with Clean Water Action.
In the Pennsylvania assembly, CBF had a major success with the Nutrient Management Act. More
recently, Pennsylvania passed a bill for a statewide water quality standard for chlorine. Background
information was provided by a CBF-conducted study and it played a crucial role in the passage of the
legislation.
CBF's Virginia office is now working with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to force
Virginia to better comply with the Clean Water Act. CBF and EDF have filed a petition requesting
EPA to review and if necessary, take over the state program if Virginia fails to correct its
inadequacies. According to CBF, toxic levels in fish exceed health standards in one third of the state's
sampling stations and almost thirty percent of shellfish beds are unsafe for harvest.
32
Although CBF has offices in three state capitals, it does not have one in the nation's
capital. CBF maintains an educational facility in the southwestern quadrant of the city whose
main objective is urban outreach. In the past, D.C. legislators have participated in cleanups along the Anacostia and similar activities. CBF has considered opening a Washington
office in order to generate more support among D.C. officials, but there is not yet a
commitment from CBF's Board or President for such action.
Funding
The majority of CBF's funding comes from grants and gifts. More than three quarters
of the money is spent on the three program areas with the bulk of it going to the education
program. This is primarily because the education program has the largest staff and largest
overhead for items such as boat repair and accident insurance. Administration and
fundraising costs are about 16% of CBF spending.
CBF's budget is now almost seven million dollars. About 42 % is raised from grants and gifts
and 35% from membership dues. Education contracts and tuition account for more than 10%
of its funding and the balance is from investments.
CBF depends on the generosity of major donors. For the past year, the largest donors
included Fair Play Foundation, Humana, Inc., Sumner T. McKnight Foundation, Pew
Charitable Trust and the estate of Lou Ella Tawes, all of whom have donated $100,000 or
more. Other large donations have come from the Abell Foundation, the Clayton Fund, Inc.,
and the Surdna Foundation,Inc. Matching gifts have been provided by CIGNA Corp., Fannie
Mae Federal National, IBM and Philip Morris. In addition, there are several endowment
funds, totalling over five million dollars in assets, that generate income.
While CBF will accept money from corporate interests, in the past it has refused to solicit
money from some companies because of ideological or legal conflicts. One notable example
is Waste Management, Inc.
The Foundation's budget has kept pace with its membership. Innovative development
practices combined with effective networking have led to significant increases in its annual
budget. From 1975 to 1980, membership and the budget almost tripled. The budget increased
from $214,000 to $700,000 in 1980. By 1985, the budget had increased to $1.6 million and
tripled again in 1990 to $5.4 million. The latest budget for 1994 totals $6,593,339 with an
estimated 83,000 members. (See Table 1)
Why CBF Succeeds
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been described by a Maryland newspaper as one of the
most powerful lobbies in the state (Blomquist, July 21, 1993). In 1993 it won the National Geographic
Society's Chairman's Award and was praised as "the finest and most effective regional conservation
organization in the country."
Besides its resources and membership there are other reasons for CBF's prominence and clout.
In part, CBF's conservatism has been a part of its success. It does not appear to be too threatening to
powerful economic groups. "One sees CBF members negotiating with industry representatives over
pollution control, not chaining themselves to factory gates." (Cited in Vojteach, 1992) The
organization takes the time to analyze the facts, the politics and the consequences. At times, CBF
appears to move too slowly, but generally it yields higher returns. Vig says, "the most zealous
greens,... are too culturally and politically unsettling to most Americans." (Vig and Kraft, 48) CBF has
managed to maintain the balance between traditional conservation ideology and political savvy,
sometimes appearing to be almost part of the Establishment.
CBF is fortunate to have an extraordinary amount of public support. It can partially be
attributed to the fact that it came of age at a time when the public has become environmentally aware
and more conscious and supportive of conservation efforts over the last two decades.
Additionally, the Bay is a unique estuary in that it has a particularly rich history with
identifiable and immediate resources, such as oysters. For this reason, CBF has focused considerable
time and attention on the decline of this living resource. From watermen to recreational boaters,
people feel a personal connection to the Bay. CBF has also been able to capitalize on the Bay's image
as a "national treasure" with a simple appealing slogan, "Save the Bay."
The nature of CBF's structure contributes to its success. It is still small enough that
bureaucracy hasn't diluted its mission. National environmental organizations have been criticized for
becoming too bureaucratic and losing touch with the grassroots elements of environmentalism (Snow,
1992, 4-6). At CBF, everyone is accessible. Support staff can communicate with top management
without too many layers buffering the exchange.
One of CBF's most crucial assets is its leadership. William C. Baker has been president for the
past ten years and in that decade membership has almost tripled, environmental education has
expanded throughout the watershed, and CBF is considered a model for other nonprofit citizen
organizations, including the Galveston Bay Foundation (TX) and Save the Bay in Rhode Island.
Most recently, CBF has worked to create a new nonprofit organization, POWR (Pennsylvania
Organizations for Watershed and Rivers). It is a coalition of several organizations including CBF and
the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. Outstanding leadership, combined with a dedicated and talented
staff, have contributed to CBF's growth for more than two decades.
35
Heading Toward the Twenty-First Century
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has enjoyed admirable success in its twenty-seven years. However,
building on past achievements may be much more difficult because of changing politics and changing
populations.
The CBF Pennsylvania office has made great strides with the passage of the Nutrient Management Act,
whose implementation can hopefully be continued and expanded. But monitoring Pennsylvania's
progress in dealing with agricultural non-point source pollution under a new Republican governor may
require the energy of more than five staff members. Involving New York, the upstream contributor to
the Susquehanna River, may necessitate expansion of CBF's Harrisburg office.
CBF is also confronted with political unknowns in Virginia and Maryland. In a second term of
Republican Governor George Allen, CBF may find it difficult to even hold the line against
environmental program rollbacks and reductions. Judging from the first year of Allen's administration,
regulations of any kind will be viewed with suspicion, if not antagonism. CBF's Virginia staff will have
to become even more adept at gaining support for environmental initiatives in a state with a reputation
for dragging its feet.
Maryland's role as a pioneer in Bay-related issues can be partly attributed to the strong support of such
strong governors as Schaefer and Harry Hughes. Parris Glendenning has not been recognized in the
past as for his environmental record. Facing fiscal cutbacks and reduced federal aid, he may be very
reluctant to do more than tread water. With the retirement of Senate environmental leaders Gerald
Winegrad and Bernard Fowler, CBF will be faced with defining and attracting new leadership within
Maryland state government.
Changes in the Governors' office in the three states have led to changes and reorganizations in the
environment and natural resource agencies. The new chair of the Chesapeake Executive Council, the
highest policy making body, is now Governor Allen. The Foundation will find it a challenge to identify
the new players and their positions, after many years of a relatively stable and supportive political
atmosphere. And CBF cannot rely on its Capitol Hill allies, Senators Paul Sarbanes and Barbara
Mikulski, since their political influence and appropriation resources have diminished greatly in the new
Republican Congress.
Attracting diverse populations can affect CBF's membership base. The Foundation's membership has
started to plateau at a time when more organizations are competing for a smaller pool of regional
supporters. As membership director Noelle Richmond said the challenge will be to find a different
angle, a different "buy-in", to attract prospective members. The average member is white, educated
and lives in middle and upper class suburbia. But these aren't the people who need to be reached.
Grassroots director Jay Sherman has maintained that CBF is "preaching to the choir." CBF must
make a stronger effort to communicate the Bay's importance to people of color and urban residents.
If CBF neglects this audience, it will do so at the risk of losing prospective members while it is
struggling to retain its current membership.
CBF will continue to take advantage of America's growing awareness of its natural resources.
However, the dominance of other issues, such as crime and health care, in the face of some
environmental successes, will make it more difficult to champion saving the Bay. One key may be to
link social concerns such as health care and jobs to local environmental issues like toxics use
reduction and stream restoration.
CBF has already taken some steps in that direction by supporting pollution prevention and by
extending its hand to the Baltimore Urban League. The two organizations are now developing plans
to increase career incentives and job opportunities for urban youngsters in environmental fields and
to improve the livability for Baltimore for urban citizens.
Such expanded concerns and coalition building may enable the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
to enter the twenty-first century reinvigorated and ready to capitalize upon its past successes.
Finally, the District of Columbia's fiscal distress and financial bankruptcy do not herald progress for the
Potomac and Anacostia rivers. Nevertheless, CBF may want to bring its message to this key urban area
in the watershed while emphasizing Congress more. Thus a District of Columbia CBF office would
enable it to influence federal Bay legislation and appropriations while making some headway with local
D.C. officials and with a diverse population.
Sources
Alliance For the Chesapeake Bay, Annual Report. 1992.
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, The Bay Journal, September, 1993.
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, A Guide to Citizen River and Watershed Groups in the
Blomquist, Brian, "Bay Foundation One of the Most Powerful Lobbies in State," Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Commission. Annual Root to the General Assemblies of Maryland.
Chesapeake Executive Council. The Chesapeake Bay: A Progress Report. 1990-1991. 1991.
Chesapeake Executive Council. The Chesapeake Bay Program: An Action Agenda. 1991. U.S.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annual Reports, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, News, July 1993, November 1993.
Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee, Chesapeake Bay Restoration:
Cohn, D'Vera, "D.C. Agrees to Try New Sewage Technology in Settling Blue Plains Suits,"
District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, "Organization Charts,"
mimeo, n.d.
District of Columbia, Department of Public Works, "D.C. Personnel Helping the Chesapeake
Haire, K.B. and E. Krome, Perspectives on the Chesapeake Bay: Advances in Estuarine
Horton, T. and W.M. Eichbaum, Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay, Washington,
D.C.: Island Press, 1991.
38
Lacey, Michael J, ed., Government and Environmental Politics Historical Developments Since
World War Two. Washington, D.C.: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1991.
Shields, Todd, "No Crabbing Zone Proposed for Bay," Washington Post, August 11, 1955,
Snow, Donald, Inside the Environmental Movement Meeting the Leadership Challenge,
Stanfield, Rochelle L., "Saving the Chesapeake," National Journal, May 21, 1998, 1336.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, The State of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, August
United States Government Printing Office, Wegkly Compilation of Presidential Documents,
Vig, Morman, J. and Michael E. Kraft. Environmental Policy in the 1990's, Second Edition.
Vojtech, Pat.
"In Love With the Bay," The Annapolitan. June, 1992.