Chesapeake 2000 Agreement

Chesapeake 2000 Agreement
Name	Chesapeake 2000 Agreement
Date signed	June 2000
Participants	United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, State of Delaware, State of New York, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Purpose	Restore water quality, habitats, and fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay
Location	Annapolis, Maryland

Chesapeake 2000 Agreement The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional pact signed in June 2000 to restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem through coordinated actions by federal, state, and local partners. The accord united agencies and institutions including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the signatory states around quantitative commitments for water quality, habitat protection, and living resource recovery. It built on prior accords such as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement (1983) and the Chesapeake Bay Agreement (1987), linking science, policy, and funding from entities like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Smithsonian Institution.

Background and Negotiation

Negotiations drew on watershed science from organizations including the United States Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, and academic centers such as the Horn Point Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William & Mary, and researchers at Johns Hopkins University, University of Delaware, and Penn State University. Political leadership from the offices of the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia interfaced with federal officials from the White House and congressional delegations including members of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the United States House Committee on Natural Resources. Negotiations incorporated input from non-governmental organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the National Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the Environmental Defense Fund, as well as industry stakeholders like the National Association of Realtors and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Tribal governments including the Piscataway Conoy Tribe and local governments such as Baltimore City and Norfolk, Virginia participated through advisory structures of the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Key Goals and Commitments

The agreement established numerical targets for reductions in nutrient loading and sediment from point and nonpoint sources, aligning with models produced by the Bay Program's Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, the U.S. Geological Survey SPARROW model, and assessments from the Living Resources Subcommittee and the Water Quality Steering Committee. Commitments included expanded protection of submerged aquatic vegetation supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service, restoration of riparian buffers with guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and recovery strategies for fisheries such as the Atlantic menhaden, blue crab, and migrating alewife. Habitat goals referenced protections for wetlands under the Ramsar Convention-aligned guidance and incorporation of standards from the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act for species like the Atlantic sturgeon and the Chesapeake Bay distinct population segment of species. The pact also advanced stormwater retrofit targets referencing municipal programs in Philadelphia, Baltimore County, and Alexandria, Virginia.

Implementation and Programs

Implementation relied on collaborative programs from federal agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, urban stormwater initiatives led by the Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, and habitat restoration projects executed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and state departments like the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Programs emphasized agricultural best management practices promoted through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, shoreline and wetland restoration through partnerships with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and fishery management coordination via the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Science and monitoring were supported by institutions including the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and the Maryland Sea Grant College Program.

Monitoring, Accountability, and Funding

Accountability mechanisms used indicators produced by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Health and Restoration Metrics and the Bay Program's annual Chesapeake Bay Program Biennial Report. Monitoring networks included deployments by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office, the United States Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Studies, and citizen-science contributions coordinated with groups like Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s grassroots programs and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. Funding combined federal appropriations from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture with state budget allocations from Maryland General Assembly, the Virginia General Assembly, and the Pennsylvania General Assembly and private grants from foundations like the Annapolis Area Community Foundation and corporate partners. Legal and regulatory enforcement drew on the Clean Water Act framework administered by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and state environmental agencies.

Outcomes and Environmental Impact

The agreement coincided with measurable but uneven improvements in some water quality and habitat indicators reported by the Chesapeake Bay Program and researchers at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Reports indicated increases in submerged aquatic vegetation in locales monitored by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and partial recovery of blue crab populations tracked by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Nutrient reductions were reported in some tributaries monitored by the United States Geological Survey, while persistent hypoxia events remained documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and academic studies published through outlets like the Journal of Applied Ecology and Estuaries and Coasts. Economic and community benefits appeared in waterfront restoration projects in Baltimore Harbor, Annapolis, and Havre de Grace, supported by agencies including the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 and the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Criticisms and Legal Challenges

Critics including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and some state legislators argued that the agreement lacked enforceable mechanisms and depended on voluntary measures. Lawsuits and policy disputes involved actors such as state governments, federal agencies, and environmental groups, invoking statutory authorities under the Clean Water Act and administrative oversight by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and appellate courts. Scholarship from institutions like Duke University and Georgetown University highlighted limitations in accountability, funding stability, and cross-jurisdictional coordination, while agricultural stakeholders and municipal coalitions raised concerns through bodies like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association of Counties.

Category:Chesapeake Bay