to the Citizens of the Bay Region
www.chesapeakebay.net
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
CHESAPEAKE BA
Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional part-
nership that directs and conducts the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay by bringing together local, state and federal
governments, non-profit organizations, watershed residents
and the region's leading academic institutions in a partner-
ship effort to protect and restore the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Program signatories — the state of
Maryland; the commonwealths of Pennsylvania and
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency representing the federal government; and
the Chesapeake Bay Commission representing Bay state
legislators - have committed to reducing pollution, restoring
habitat and sustainably managing fisheries since signing the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement of1983.
Subsequent agreements have augmented the original program,
and most recently culminated in signing Chesapeake 2000,
an agreement intended to guide restoration activities
throughout the Bay watershed through 2010. Chesapeake
2000 also provided an opportunity for the headwater states
of Delaware, New York and West Virginia to join in
regional efforts to improve water quality of the Bay and
its tributaries.
To learn more and find out how you can help, visit the new
Chesapeake Bay Program website at www.chesapeakebay.net.
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 1097 Annapolis, MD 21403
1 (800) YOUR BAY
www.chesapeakebay.net
Printed on recycled paper
Printed by the US. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
About This Report
Chesapeake Bay is the largest and still the most
productive estuary in North America, home to more
than 3,700 species of plants and animals. The Bay
has sustained the region's economy and defined its
traditions and culture since Captain John Smith
sailed its waters 400 years ago. But the Chesapeake
is in trouble.
A healthy Bay requires balancing the needs of the
region's people and economy with the needs of the
Bay for clean waters and ample habitat for aquatic
life. The goal of Bay restoration is to restore this
balance by reducing pollution, protecting critical
habitat and ensuring sustainable populations of fish
and shellfish.
Although there are a number of smaller-scale
success stories, the overall ecosystem health of the
Chesapeake Bay remains degraded. For more than
twenty years, restoration efforts have managed to
offset the impact of the region's growing population
while making modest ecological gains in some areas.
Major pollution reduction, habitat restoration, fisher-
ies management and watershed protection actions
taken to date have not yet been sufficient to restore
the health of the Bay.
In December 2007, the Chesapeake Executive
Council met to chart a new course to accelerate
efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution
throughout the Bay watershed. The principals
attending the meeting each agreed to "champion" an
issue or issues that are vital to restore our streams,
rivers and the Bay, intending that the outcomes of
the various projects or programs be models that are
transferable to other states and local communities.
Each leader found that there were specific issues they
could focus on using the expertise available to them.
Some chose to focus on future impacts, such as the
expanding use and impacts of biofuels on the Bay.
Others are focusing on continuing issues, such as
agriculture or assisting local governments to increase
their capacity to reduce pollution from growth and
development and to maintain clean water. As each
"champion" makes progress, they will report back to
the partnership and then encourage others to con-
sider these individual models, modifying them for
their respective uses.
We are very excited about this new direction and
look forward to sharing our collective successes
with you during the year. We encourage you to
visit our new website at www.chesapeakebay.net to
keep abreast of Bay Program news and happenings,
Executive Council updates and most important, ways
that the over 16 million watershed residents can work
together to clean up the rivers, streams and water-
ways of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration
Assessment is presented this year as one document
with four chapters, stressing the health of the Bay,
the stressors to our environment, restoration efforts
and, new this year, a summary of local water
quality assessments which will help you learn about
the health of the streams and rivers in your portion
of the Bay watershed. We hope that, by presenting
data in this manner, watershed residents can better
understand the health of the Bay relative to what is
needed for a balanced ecosystem.
Jeffrey Lape, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
An electronic version of the Chesapeake Bay
2007 Health and Restoration Assessment
can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/
indicatorshome.aspx.
Detailed information about each indicator,
including expanded analysis and
interpretation of data as well as the methods
used to compile the graphs in this publication
can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/
indicatorshome.aspx.
CHAPTER ONE 8
Ecosystem Health
Progress toward a restored
Bay is tracked with 13
indicators grouped in three
priority areas that represent
major components of the
Bay ecosystem. Quantitative
restoration goals have been set
for most of these indicators.
For each indicator, a chart
shows, as a percent of the
goal, current status and a
history of progress toward
achieving the goal. A summary
bar chart shows the current
status of each indicator with
respect to its restoration goal.
CHAPTER TWO 16
Factors Impacting
Bay and Watershed
Health
What are the factors that
impact the health of our
local waters, the Bay and the
landscape throughout the
watershed? This chapter
gives some perspective on
population, land use, river
flow and pollution loads, all of
which impact the ecosystem.
CHAPTER THREE 2O
Restoration Efforts
In this chapter, 20 indicators
are grouped into five priority
areas described in the
landmark Chesapeake 2000
agreement that represent major
elements of the Bay restoration
effort. Quantitative goals have
been set for most of these
indicators. For each, a chart
shows the current status and a
history of percent of progress
toward achieving the goal.
CHAPTER FOUR 32
Health of
Freshwater Streams
and Rivers
This chapter provides a
summary of pertinent local
water quality assessments
developed by Chesapeake
Bay Program state partners as
part of their federal 305b/303d
reporting requirements. This
chapter also directs citizens to
the webpage with links to each
state's assessment reports.
-------
Executive Summary
The Chesapeake Bay is an estuary- a place of transition between the land and the sea,
where incoming fresh water mixes with salty ocean water. The Chesapeake Bay is a productive ecosystem
and is the largest estuary in North America, home to more than 3,700 species of plants and animals.
The Bay watershed Spreads Over 64,000 square miles, creating some of the most special land
and water areas in our country. The Chesapeake's future depends on the choices made every day by
the millions of people who live within the Bay watershed. What each ofus does on the land -
including the use of vehicles, fertilizers, pesticides, electricity and water - (tjjectS our streams, rivers
and ultimately the Bay.
For more than twenty years, restoration efforts have managed to offset a variety of destructive
environmental impacts, while making modest ecological gains in some areas. Recently this imbalance has
intensified because of rapid population growth and land use conversion in parts of the watershed;
thus major pollution reduction, habitat restoration, fisheries management and watershed protection
actions taken to date have not yielded a significant Bay ecosystem response.
Although there are a number of smaller-scale success stories, the overall ecosystem health of the
Chesapeake Bay remains degraded.
It is important to note that progress cannot be calculated on a day-to-day basis. By using detailed scientific
data that have been carefully analyzed and interpreted, we can see changes in the health of the Bay over
time. Change is occurring, but slowly.
Executive Summary
-------
Executive Summary
The way nearly 17
million watershed
residents live and use
natural resources
greatly influences Bay
and watershed health.
Chesapeake Bay Health
Water Quality - Most of the Bay's waters are degraded.
Algal blooms fed by nutrient pollution block sunlight from
reaching underwater bay grasses and lead to low oxygen levels
in the water. 2007 saw fish kills in a number of rivers leading
to the Bay. Suspended sediment from urban development and
agricultural lands, as well as some natural sources, is carried
into the Bay and clouds its waters. Portions of Chesapeake
Bay and its tidal tributaries are contaminated with chemi-
cal pollutants that can be found in fish tissue. In 2007, we
were 21 percent of the way toward meeting Bay water quality
goals, a drop from 23 percent in 2006.
Habitats and Lower Food Web - The Bay's critical habitats
and food web continue to be at risk.
Nutrient and sediment runoff have harmed bay grasses and
bottom habitat, while disproportionate algae growth has
pushed the Bay food web out of balance. Currently, the Bay's
habitats and lower food web are at 44 percent of desired
levels, up from 40 percent in 2006.
Fish and Shellfish — Many of the Bay's fish and shellfish
populations are below historic levels.
• Blue crab abundance continues to be low and the stock is not rebuilding
as had been anticipated.
• Oyster restoration efforts are hampered by disease and the stock
remains at low levels.
• American shad abundance continues to be at depressed levels.
• The striped bass stock returned to high levels of abundance, but now
there are concerns about disease and nutrition.
• Menhaden populations along the Atlantic Coast are healthy, but some
scientists are concerned about low abundance in Chesapeake Bay.
Currently, the Bay's fish and shellfish are at 52 percent of
desired levels, up from 48 percent in 2006.
Factors Impacting Bay and
Watershed Health
The way nearly 17 million watershed residents live and use
natural resources greatly influences Bay and watershed health,
which includes hundreds of local creeks, streams and rivers.
The population in the Bay watershed is now growing by
about 130,000 residents annually and 100 acres of forestland
are lost each day. Pollutant loads continue to exceed target
levels established to restore the Bay's water quality.
Historic over-harvest, compounded by the impacts of poor
water quality, disease and blocked access to historic spawning
grounds, has resulted in low abundances of oysters, crabs
and shad.
Natural factors, such as temperature and wind, as well as
rainfall which affects the volume of water flowing into the
Bay, also have a great impact on water quality, habitat and
fish and shellfish populations.
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
Percent of Goal Achieved
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000/
Dissolved Oxygen
Mid-Channel Clarity
Chlorophyll a
Chemical Contaminants
Bay Grasses
Phytoplankton
Bottom Habitat
Tidal Wetlands
Blue Crab
Oyster
Striped Bass
Shad
Juvenile Menhaden
•
_^^m
Not quantifie
1
d in relation tc
a goal
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bayhealth.aspx
Executive Summary 5
-------
Executive Summary
Restoration Efforts
The Chesapeake Bay Program partners have developed
science-based plans to improve the waters, habitats and
fisheries of the Chesapeake. On-the-ground efforts are taking
place throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed and new
initiatives are being implemented to accelerate progress. While
there are many notable individual accomplishments relating
to Chesapeake Bay restoration, Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
makes clear that the Bay Program partners need to accelerate
the pace of water quality improvement efforts.
Restoration of a complex ecosystem requires a multi-pronged
approach. The Chesapeake Bay Program has divided its
restoration efforts into five broad areas: Reducing Pollution,
Restoring Habitats, Managing Fisheries, Protecting
Watersheds and Fostering Stewardship.
Reducing Pollution — These efforts are the most far-reach-
ing. The goal is to take the actions necessary to remove the
Bay and its tidal tributaries from EPA's list of "impaired
waters" by 2010. Overall, based on available data, Bay
Program scientists project that little more than half of the
pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve the nutrient
goals have been undertaken since 1985.
Restoring Habitats — Progress toward water habitat restora-
tion is measured against a series of goals established by the
Program. Most of the goals have a 2010 deadline. Overall,
habitat restoration efforts are collectively 48 percent to
Program goals, up from 45 percent in 2006; however, there is
concern about the overall quality of habitats that remain.
Managing Fisheries — These efforts focus on promoting a
shift from a traditional management approach that looks
solely at single species to one that recognizes interactions
between multiple species and environmental stressors such
as low dissolved oxygen levels (ecosystem-based). Success
is measured by milestones necessary to achieve that shift,
not by an assessment of fishing stocks (which can be found
in Chapter One: Ecosystem Health). Progress toward this new
approach ranges from 37 to 63 percent for five key species,
unchanged from 2006.
Protecting Watersheds — These efforts are also measured
against Program goals. Many of these efforts help slow the rate
of new pollution associated with population increases in the
watershed as well as reduce current pollution levels. Overall,
watershed protection efforts show good progress and are 71
percent of the way toward meeting current Program goals, up
from 69 percent in 2006.
Fostering Stewardship — Stewardship efforts include a broad
range of actions from expanding opportunities for residents to
experience the Chesapeake, to formal outdoor environmental
education experiences for school-age children, to engaging
communities and helping move them to action. Overall the
Program has reached 68 percent of its fostering stewardship
goals, a rise of one percent from 2006.
Health of Freshwater
Streams & Rivers
The presence and diversity of snails, mussels, insects and other
freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate communities are good
indicators of stream health because of their limited mobility
and their known responses to environmental pollutants and
stressors. Consequently, these communities are often used as
indicators of the attainment or nonattainment of aquatic life
uses protected by state water quality standards. Benthic macro-
invertebrate communities in rivers and streams throughout the
Bay watershed suffer with increases in pollution, sedimentation
and decreasing oxygen levels.
Each state in the watershed conducts benthic macroinvertebrate
assessments as part of its biennial water quality assessment
report mandated by the Clean Water Act. Where assessed ben-
thic macroinvertebrate communities are degraded, states must
designate those stream segments as impaired and add them to
the list of impaired waters in need of cleanup.
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
SUMMARY: 2007 BAY RESTORATION EFFORTS
Percent of Goal Achieved
Priority Areas -100-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100°/
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_restoration.aspx
-------
Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
The overall
ecosystem
health of the
Bay remains
degraded.
Water Quality
To support a vibrant Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, waters must
become clearer, oxygen levels higher, and the amount of algae
and chemical contaminants in its waters must be reduced.
Water quality goals in this section are based on published
water quality criteria designed to protect aquatic life and
human health in the Bay. Runoff from winter and spring
rains deliver loads of sediment and nutrient pollutants to the
Bay that drive summer water quality conditions in the Bay.
Past observations reveal that summer weather conditions
also contribute to summer water quality when intense storms
increase erosion, which contributes to poor water clarity and
adds to the existing nutrient load in the Bay. The health of
the Bay in the critical summer season will improve as actions
are taken year-round to reduce the level of pollutants in
the watershed.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Like terrestrial animals, the Bay's fish and shellfish need
oxygen to survive. State water quality standards have been
adopted to reflect the dissolved oxygen needs of the Bay's
aquatic life. The standards vary with depth, season and
duration of exposure. Dissolved oxygen concentrations need
to be high enough to support life in aquatic systems and
different aquatic species have different requirements.
Generally speaking, oxygen-rich shallow waters are most
essential in the spring during spawning season. Slightly lower
dissolved oxygen levels are acceptable at other times of the
year, particularly in deeper waters.
When assessing the Bay's tidal water quality, federal and state
regulators examine conditions over the most recent three
years to help remove annual weather-driven fluctuations.
Water quality data gathered between 2005 and 2007 indicate
that about 12 percent of the combined volume of open-water,
deep-water and deep-channel water of the Bay and its tidal
tributaries met dissolved oxygen standards during the
summer months. This is a sharp decrease from 28 percent in
2004 through 2006.
Some scientists believe this is due to the inclusion of data
from the summer of 2007, when dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions did not meet the needs of aquatic life for long periods of
time in open water portions of the middle Bay (from the Bay
Bridge south to the mouth of the Potomac River).
The historic data featured in this indicator changed due
to the inclusion of additional data and the publication of
a new bio-reference curve, as described in Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity
and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries, 2007 Addendum (EPA 2007).
WATER CLARITY
Clear waters are indicative of a healthier Bay, with acceptable
levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and microscopic
life in the water column. Clear waters allow sunlight to
reach underwater plants and fish to see their prey and avoid
their predators.
Good water clarity is one of the most critical factors deter-
mining growth and survival rates of underwater bay grasses,
which are rooted in shallow areas fringing the bay. Also
known as submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV, they provide
vital habitat for a number of living resources. When light is
inhibited from penetrating through the water to the plants'
leaves and stems, the plants are not able to produce enough
food and energy to grow.
Unfortunately, systematic monitoring of water clarity in
shallow water areas has been underway for only the past few
years and there are not yet sufficient data to provide a bay-
wide assessment. In order to provide a baywide assessment,
water clarity data from deeper, mid-channel areas are used to
indicate general conditions and trends. Based on these data,
scientists estimate that only 12 percent of the Bay's waters
had acceptable water clarity in 2007.
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARDS ATTAINMENT
Goal Achieved
12%
of Goal Achieved
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Standards attainment: data represent 3 year period (data year and preceding 2 years)
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_dissolvedoxygen.aspx
MID-CHANNEL WATER CLARITY
Percent of Bay
Meeting Guidelines
100
12%
of Goal Achieved
Data weighted by respective salinity zone.
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_clarity.aspx
-------
Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
Underwater bay
grasses are one of
the most important
habitats in the
Chesapeake Bay.
CHLOROPHYLL A
Scientists measure the amount of chlorophyll a in the Bay's
waters to assess the amount of algae present. The Bay needs
the right amount of phytoplankton, or algae, to maintain a
balanced food web. Algae are microscopic and usually live
suspended in open waters. They are the base of food chains
that support most living resources in the bay, including
oysters and fish.
Excess nutrients can cause large-scale algal blooms that block
sunlight from reaching bay grasses, reducing available habitat
for Bay life. Lower algal levels support improved water qual-
ity and habitat and result in fewer harmful blooms.
Every year harmful algal blooms cover a portion of the Bay
and its tributaries.
In 2007, scientists estimate that about 26 percent of the Bay's
waters had acceptable concentrations of chlorophyll a.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Currently less than 33 percent of the monitored tidal waters
contain no impairment for chemical contaminants. The
remaining 67 percent are impaired or partly impaired due to
chemical contaminants. Nearly all impairments - 95 percent
- identify polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as the source of
impairment.
The prevalence of toxic contamination in fish tissue, sediment
and the water column has both an ecosystem and human
health connection. Due to bioaccumulation, contaminants
monitored in fish tissue give an indication of the overall
presence of these substances in the Bay ecosystem. Also, as
these contaminants bioaccumulate in predatory species, they
can potentially affect humans that consume these fish.
This indicator is different from the one featured in the 2006
Assessment, as it provides a more complete depiction of the
extent of impairments due to chemical contaminants.
Habitats and Lower Food Web
Life in the Bay needs high-quality food and habitat to thrive.
From the clams and worms that live within sediments at the
bottom of the Bay, to the rockfish that prowl its open waters,
to the juvenile fish and crabs darting among underwater
grasses and wetlands, healthy and abundant habitat is critical
for supporting the Bay's aquatic life. When healthy habitat is
supported by a balanced food web, healthy aquatic communi-
ties can flourish. As both of these key environmental elements
improve, the ecosystem's potential to support larger and more
diverse populations of aquatic life expands as well.
BAY GRASSES
Aside from the water itself, underwater bay grasses are one of
the most important habitats in the Chesapeake Bay. As their
health is closely related to the quality of local waters, grasses
serve as an excellent barometer for the overall health of the
estuary. Bay grass abundance has a profound effect on the
Bay and its aquatic life, as it provides critical habitat to key
species such as striped bass and blue crabs while improving
the clarity of local waters.
The most recent baywide data from 2007 show bay grasses
covering nearly 65,000 acres — or about 35 percent of the
185,000-acre restoration goal. Although an increase from
59,000 acres in 2006, grasses have not yet recovered to the
recent high level of 90,000 acres in 2002.
The total Bay grass abundance goal has also been broken
down by three zones. Bay grasses in the Upper Bay in 2007
covered about 19,000 acres or 80 percent of the 23,630-acre
goal. For 2007, Middle Bay grasses covered roughly 30,000
acres or 26 percent of the 115,229-acre goal, while grasses
in the Lower Bay covered 16,000 acres or 35 percent of the
46,030-acre goal.
10
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
CHLOROPHYLL A
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Percent of Bay
Meeting Guidelines
26%
of Goal Achieved
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_chlorophyla.aspx
Percent of Tidal Tributaries without
Partial or River-wide Impairments
due to Chemical Contaminants*
M
33%
of Goal Achieved
70
60
n
"Impairments as determined by Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia
under Clean Water Act requirements.
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_chemicalcontaminants.aspx
BAY GRASS ABUNDANCE
-------
Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
Blue crab abundance
continues to be low
and the stock is not
rebuilding as had
been anticipated.
BOTTOM HABITAT
The health of the Bay's bottom-dwelling - or benthic -
communities is greatly reduced when pollution levels increase
and oxygen levels drop. Benthic habitats serve as a good
indicator of long-term environmental conditions, as the
inhabiting worms and clams are long-lived, have limited
mobility and their responses to stress are well documented.
In 2007, about 43 percent of the Bay's benthic habitat was
considered healthy as measured by the composite Benthic
Index of Biotic Integrity. Reduced amounts of nutrients,
sediment and chemical contaminants flowing into the Bay
will help these bottom dwelling communities improve.
PHYTOPLANKTON
Phytoplankton, or algae, are an excellent indicator of the
health of the Bay's surface waters, as they have shown to be
especially sensitive to changes in nutrient levels, water clarity,
temperature, salinity and grazer communities (i.e., organ-
isms that feed on phytoplankton). Phytoplankton form the
base of the food web in the Bay ecosystem. While increased
populations provide more food to organisms further up the
food web, too much or the wrong type of algae can harm the
overall health of the Bay. In some cases, harmful algal blooms
can impact human health as well.
Scientists assess algal community health with a
Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity. Data from Spring
2007 show that about 55 percent of the Bay's phytoplankton
communities were considered healthy.
The historic data featured in this indicator changed from
the 2006 assessment due to the inclusion of additional data
from Virginia.
WETLANDS
Wetlands link land to the water. In both tidal and non-tidal
parts of the Bay, they serve as critical habitat to terrestrial and
aquatic life, and act as sponges and natural filters by absorb-
ing runoff and removing pollutants from water before they
can reach local streams and the Bay. Many researchers believe
Chesapeake Bay tidal wetlands are threatened by sea level rise,
storms, shoreline development and invasive species.
As of 2005, there were approximately 283,946 acres of tidal
wetlands in the Bay. Assessment of the long-term data show
that there is a declining trend in tidal wetland abundance in
the Chesapeake Bay. According to the land change statistics
there was a 2,600 acre loss between 1996 and 2005. However,
this change is not statistically significant at the baywide scale
due to limitations of the data.
While the changes are not significant on a baywide scale, there
are some significant changes on a local scale. Aerial photo-
graphy in specific locations around the Bay, such as Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge on Maryland's Eastern Shore, has
been used to visually document significant loss of wetlands.
This indicator is not intended to speak to the quality or health
of the wetlands being analyzed; it is simply a quantitative tool.
For more information about wetland improvement efforts, see
Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts.
The long-term health and sustainability of the Bay's fish and
shellfish is critical to restoring the ecosystem. Ample aquatic
habitat, clean water and well-managed fisheries are key compo-
nents for abundant fish and shellfish populations in the Bay.
BLUE CRAB
It is estimated that about one-third of the nation's blue crab
catch comes from the Chesapeake Bay.
Scientists estimate that the population of blue crabs in the
Chesapeake Bay in 2007 is about 78 percent of the 200 million
blue crab interim target. However, blue crab abundance
continues to be low and the stock is not rebuilding as had
been anticipated.
12
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
BOTTOM HABITAT
Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
BLUE CRAB ABUNDANCE
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100-
90
80
70 -
Percent of
Goal Achieved
250-1
of Goal Achieved
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bottomhabitat.aspx
PHYTOPLANKTON
n'.icx oi Bictic Inregniv
Percent of Bay
Meeting Guidelines
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
An abundance of 200 million crabs age 1 + is being considered as a management
target for Chesapeake Bay. This level of abundance would correspond with a level
of exploitation that preserves 20% of the blue crab spawning potential..
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bluecrab.aspx
70
60
50
40
30
20
55%
1990 1995
2000 2005
of Goal Achieved
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_phytoplankton.aspx
TIDAL WETLANDS ABUNDANCE
Acres of Tidal
Wetlands
350,000 -
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
V ^^ - i£ii»^—• :-S3"*
I
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
"1984 & 1992 data to be analyzed; expected completion by 2008.
Data and Methods: www.cn esapeakebay.net/status_tidalwetlands. aspx
-------
Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
Scientists estimate
that the population
of native oysters in
the Chesapeake Bay
in 2006 was about
8 percent of current
restoration goals.
These blue crab population estimates are made through a
winter dredge survey. Currently, the blue crab fishery remains
vulnerable to overexploitation; therefore, harvest restrictions
will continue to remain in place. Proper management of the
blue crab harvest, improved water quality and habitat restora-
tion efforts will help improve the Bay's blue crab populations.
The historic data featured in this indicator in the 2006
Assessment changed because Bay fisheries scientists made a
revision to the interim target population changing it from
232 to 200 million blue crabs.
STRIPED BASS
Striped bass support one of the most important commercial
and recreational fisheries on the Atlantic seaboard. The
Chesapeake Bay is the primary spawning and nursery habitat
for striped bass on the Atlantic Coast. Over-harvesting
during the 1970s and 1980s contributed to the decline of the
spawning stock in Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic
Coast. There was a fishing moratorium in the Bay in the late
1980s and there have been commercial quotas and recreational
harvest limits since the fishery was reopened in 1990.
Striped bass are also one of the top predators in the
Chesapeake Bay food web and prey availability may be an
important factor affecting abundance and growth. In 1995,
the population had increased to the point where the stock
was considered restored. While striped bass biomass remains
high, scientists are particularly concerned with the high
prevalence of disease (mycobacteriosis) and the abundance
of prey, including menhaden, small crabs and other food, to
adequately support the nutritional needs of the population.
Research is underway to better understand the disease's
impact on the Bay's striped bass population. The current
status of Bay striped bass — high abundance but uncertain
health — illustrates the need for an ecosystem-based fisheries
management approach in Chesapeake Bay.
The historic data featured in this indicator changed from
the 2006 Assessment due to a planned update in 2007 of
the models used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) to assess the status of the stock.
OYSTERS
For more than a century, oysters constituted one of the Bay's
most valuable commercial fisheries. Over-harvesting, pollu-
tion and the diseases Dermo and MSX have caused a severe
decline in their numbers throughout the Chesapeake Bay.
Scientists estimate that the population of native oysters in
the Chesapeake Bay in 2006 was about 8 percent of current
restoration goals.
SHAD
This new indicator of shad abundance adds assessments of
shad in the Potomac, York and James rivers to the assessment
of Susquehanna River shad featured in the 2006 Assessment.
In the last two years, some tributaries have shown signs of
recovery (Potomac and York rivers), while other areas have
exhibited a decline (James and Susquehanna rivers); overall,
shad abundance continues to be at depressed levels. Based on
the most recent data from four Bay rivers, the baywide shad
abundance index is 22 percent of goal achieved.
MENHADEN
Menhaden play a key ecological role in the Bay as an impor-
tant prey species for top predators such as striped bass, and
for their ability to filter the water. The menhaden fishery is
one of the most important and productive on the Atlantic
Coast, providing fish meal, fish oil and bait for the blue crab
and other fisheries.
Atlantic menhaden that inhabit the Chesapeake Bay are
a part of a coastal Atlantic stock. Populations along the
Atlantic Coast are healthy, but some scientists are concerned
about low abundance in Chesapeake Bay. The number of
juvenile menhaden in Chesapeake Bay are significantly lower
than numbers present in the mid-1970s through the mid-
1980s, and have remained at fairly stable, but low, levels for
the last 14 years.
14
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
STRIPED BASS ABUNDANCE
f'-pL-iH'i ling '-on ai-3 t •<:• nasa)
SHAD RETURNING TO CHESAPEAKE BAY
Percent of
Goal Achieved
200
100%
of Goal Achieved
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100-
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_stripedbass.aspx
50
40
30
20
22%
of Goal Achieved
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_shad.aspx
NATIVE OYSTER ABUNDANCE
(Biomass)
JUVENILE MENHADEN ABUNDANCE IN MARYLAND
Percent of
Goal Achieved
90 -
70 -
50 -
30 -
10 -
^_^
3 % 1 985 1 990 1 995 2000 2005 201 0
of Goal Achieved . . , ,-«•
Data and Methods: www.cn esapeakebay.net/status_oyster.aspx.
Proportion of
Positive Hauls
1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_menhaden.aspx
Ecosystem Health
15
-------
Chapter Two: Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
The Chesapeake
Bay is affected
by multiple
factors, ranging
from population
growth to climate
variability, which
will challenge
the recovery of
this important
ecosystem.
Population growth and agricultural lands have contributed to
an overabundance of nutrients, sediment and contaminants
entering the Bay, and loss of habitats that can retain these
pollutants. Climate change and variability have caused water
temperatures in the Bay to exhibit greater extremes during
the 20th century than the previous 2,000 years. Sea level rise
related to climate change is contributing to the loss of vital
coastal wetlands.
Historic over-harvest, compounded by the impacts of poor
water quality, disease and blocked access to historic spawn-
ing grounds, has resulted in low abundances of oysters, crabs
and shad. The cumulative impact of pollutants, habitat loss,
over-harvesting, invasive species, climate change and disease
has affected the health of fish and bird populations in the Bay
and its watershed.
The U.S. Geological Survey, a Bay Program partner, recently
released a report that provides a comprehensive five-year
summary of science about the multiple factors affecting the
degradation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Among the
key findings on land use and its relation to water quality
and habitats:
• Impervious surfaces increased 41 percent during the 1990s compared to
an 8 percent increase in population. The rate of increase of impervious
surface implies there will be more rapid delivery of nutrients to streams
and an increase in sediment erosion.
• There has been a decrease in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
at a majority of the river water quality monitoring sites throughout the
watershed. However, concentrations are not decreasing at a rate that
would sufficiently reduce nutrient loads to the Bay to meet water quality
standards by 2010.
• Sediment continues to have an adverse impact on water clarity and
underwater grasses in the Bay and stream quality in the watershed.
• The travel time of nutrients and sediment through the watershed ranges
from weeks to centuries. This can result in a "lag time" between
implementing management actions and improvements in water quality.
• Synthetic organic pesticides and their degradation products have been
widely detected at low levels in the watershed, including emerging
contaminants such as Pharmaceuticals and hormones.
Among the key findings on the fish and bird populations:
• The health of fish populations in the Bay is affected by
multiple factors including degraded water quality, pathogens, and
disease.
• Fish (principally male bass) in the Potomac watershed have testicular
oocytes - female eggs growing in their testes - a form of intersex.
Reproductive abnormalities in fish have been strongly linked with a
variety of contaminants that affect the endocrine systems of fish.
• Habitat loss, invasive species and poor water quality have affected the
food sources and habitat for seaduck populations, which have declined
over the past several decades.
Among the key findings related to climate change:
• Low dissolved oxygen conditions have been much more extensive and
severe during the past four decades than at any time in the past 2,500
years. These conditions are influenced both by climate change and
population growth in the watershed.
• Sea level rise due to climate change and land subsidence will continue to
cause losses and landward migration of tidal wetlands during the coming
century. Sea level rise is also causing sediment erosion in low-lying
shoreline areas which has an adverse effect on water clarity in the Bay.
16
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
RIVER FLOW AND NITR
-------
Chapter Two: Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
Provisional
estimates indicate
that approximately
318 million pounds
of nitrogen reached
the Bay during the
2007 water year.
River Flow and the Pollutant
Loads Reaching the Bay
Annual Bay water quality conditions are largely determined
by a combination of the amount of pollution deposited on
the land and the amount of water flowing into the Bay.
Rainfall affects the volume of water flowing into the Bay
from its many freshwater streams and rivers. The amount of
freshwater flowing to the Bay impacts the saltiness (salinity)
of Bay waters. River flow is generally fast-moving and turbu-
lent, mixing the Bay's waters and capturing oxygen from the
air. Total river flow to the Bay during the 2007 water year
(October 2006-September 2007) was very close to the
long-term average despite several months of extremes.
As river flow increases, its potential to carry additional
amounts of pollutants increases as well. Scientists estimate
annual pollutant loads to the Bay through a combination
of monitored water samples and modeled information.
BAY WATERSHED POPULATION
AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Millions of Acres of
Impervious Surface
Population
Impervious Surface
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_population.aspx
Whenever practical, scientists measure pollution levels in
water samples from the rivers and wastewater pipes that
flow into the Bay. Model-generated estimates are used where
monitoring is not practical, when no data are available or data
do not meet specific requirements and/or are outdated. By
capturing water samples at the point where large, free-flow-
ing rivers meet tidal waters, scientists can calculate pollution
loads from 78 percent of the watershed land area. For the
remaining area, loads from wastewater and model-generated
estimates are used. This combination of monitoring and
modeling data allows scientists to provide the most practical
accounting of the amount of pollution reaching the Bay.
Provisional estimates indicate that approximately 318 million
pounds of nitrogen reached the Bay during the 2007 water
year, which is similar to the average load for 1990-2007. This
amount is almost double the restoration target of 175 million
pounds of nitrogen.
Provisional estimates indicate that approximately 15 million
pounds of phosphorus reached the Bay during the 2007 water
year, which is below the 1990-2007 average. This amount is
above the target level of 12.8 million pounds of phosphorus
to reach the Bay. Additional pollution-fighting measures are
being put in place throughout the watershed to reduce total
pollution loads in the future.
Based on water samples collected at the point where large,
free flowing rivers meet tidal waters, 2.8 million tons of
sediment were delivered to the Bay in the 2007 water year.
This is below the average load for 1990-2007. The sediment
load estimates do not account for sediment from the
coastal plain areas of the watershed. Scientists are currently
developing methods to quantify the total loads of sediment
to the Bay.
18
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
Percent
Forest Cover
Land Use
The human population in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed has more than
doubled since 1950 from 8 to over 16.7
million, intensifying the stresses that
affect the Bay and its tidal tributaries.
Between 1990 and 2000, impervious
surfaces increased at nearly five times the
rate of population growth, from 611,017
to 860,004 acres. At that rate of increase,
it is estimated that an additional 250,000
acres will become impervious between
2000 and 2010.
Impervious surface is defined as a surface
or area that is hardened and does not
allow water to pass through. Roads, rooftops, driveways,
sidewalks, pools, patios and parking lots are all
impervious surfaces.
While the overall population of the Bay watershed continues
to grow, population changes vary from state to state and
region to region. Some areas are gaining population at a
high rate, while populations in other areas are leveling out
or declining.
In the 1600s, about 95 percent of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed was forested. Forests now cover only 58 percent,
or 24 million acres. More than 750,000 acres - equivalent
to 20 Washington, DCs - have been developed since the
early 1980s, and the Bay watershed now loses forestland at
the rate of 100 acres each day. If current trends continue,
an additional 9.5 million acres of Chesapeake forests will be
threatened by conversion to residential development by 2030.
Forests protect and filter drinking water for 75 percent of the
Bay watershed's residents and provide valuable ecological
services and economic benefits including carbon sequestra-
tion, flood control, wildlife habitat and forest products.
BAY WATERSHED FOREST COVER
1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershedforests.aspx
Retaining and expanding forests in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed is critical to our success in restoring the
Chesapeake Bay. Forests are the most beneficial land use for
protecting water quality, due to their ability to capture, filter
and retain water, as well as absorb pollution from the air. In
fact, our watershed forests are excellent assimilators of air
pollution, retaining up to 85 percent of the nitrogen they
receive from air emission sources such as motor vehicles
and electric utilities. Conversely, a reduction in forest area
leads to a disproportionate increase in nitrogen loads to
our waterways.
A*
Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
19
-------
Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
There are many
notable individual
accomplishments
relating to
Chesapeake Bay
watershed
restoration;
however,
Bay Program
partners need
to accelerate the
pace of water
quality improve-
ment efforts.
Reducing Pollution
Clearer, oxygen-rich waters are the foundation of Chesapeake
Bay restoration. The Bay and its tidal rivers receive more
nutrients and sediment than a healthy ecosystem can handle.
Bay jurisdictions have developed river-specific cleanup strate-
gies detailing activities that need to be implemented to reduce
the amount of nutrients and sediment delivered to the Bay.
Monitoring and tracking data and computer simulations
are used to estimate the amount of pollution control efforts
implemented in relation to the commitments made by the
Bay jurisdictions in their cleanup strategies. The data featured
in this section include efforts through only a portion of 2007.
The pollution control efforts are occurring in four majorareas
or "source sectors": agriculture, wastewater, urban/suburban
and air. The relative contributions of pollutant loads to the
Bay from these four source sectors are detailed in the
chart on page 21.
AGRICULTURE
Farmers employ dozens of conservation practices (also known
as best management practices or BMPs) to reduce the amount
of pollution reaching local waters and the Bay. Since 1985,
the partners have achieved 48 percent and 51 percent of the
goals for agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus pollution
control efforts, respectively, and 48 percent of the goal for
sediment pollution control efforts called for in the jurisdic-
tions' cleanup strategies. These estimates do not account
for efforts that can not be tracked, such as BMPs installed
voluntarily by private landowners without the use of public
funds. While no pollution reduction can be attributed to
these private efforts, they will still contribute to the overall
improvement of water quality that is assessed in Chapter One:
Ecosystem Health.
In part because they are so cost-effective, the Bay jurisdic-
tions are relying on expanded implementation of BMPs on
agricultural lands, such as planting winter cover crops, for
more than half of the remaining nutrient reductions needed
to meet water quality restoration goals.
WASTEWATER
Decreases in the amount of nutrients discharged from waste-
water treatment plants account for a large portion of the
estimated nutrient reductions in the watershed to date. As
the Chesapeake watershed's population continues to grow,
the volume of waste requiring treatment grows. In 2005,
Bay jurisdictions began putting into place a new permitting
approach that requires hundreds of wastewater treatment
plants to install a new generation of nutrient reduction tech-
nology equipment. Bay jurisdictions are relying on additional
reductions from wastewater treatment plants for achieving
about 15 percent of their nutrient reduction goals. Since 1985,
the partners have achieved 69 percent of their wastewater
nitrogen reduction goal and 87 percent of their wastewater
phosphorus reduction goal.
URBAN/SUBURBAN LANDS AND
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Stormwater that runs across roads, rooftops and other hard-
ened surfaces carries harmful pollution to local streams and
into the Chesapeake Bay. These pollutants include nitrogen,
phosphorus, sediment and many chemical contaminants.
About one-quarter of the nutrient reductions called for in the
jurisdictions' cleanup strategies are expected to come from
efforts to reduce, treat or prevent pollution from urban/sub-
urban lands and septic systems. While improvements have
been made in landscape design and Stormwater management
practices, significant challenges still exist in accounting for
existing on-the-ground control practices.
That aside, to date, it is estimated that the pollution increases
associated with land development (e.g., converting farms
and forests to urban/suburban developments) have surpassed
the gains achieved from improved landscape design and
20
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLLUTION
LOADS TO THE BAY (2007)
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Sediment
Wastewater loads based on measured discharges; the rest are based on an average-hydrology year.
Does not include loads from direct deposition to tidal waters, tidal shoreline erosion or the ocean.
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_reducingpollution.aspx
WASTEWATER POLLUTION CONTROLS
Controlling Nitrogen
• Goal •
69%
of Nitrogen
Goal Achieved
1990 1995 2000 2005
Controlling Phosphorus
• Goal
2010
H
87%
of Phosphorus
Goal Achieved
L Accounting Begins
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_wastewater.aspx
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROLS
48%
of Nitrogen
Goal Achieved
51%
of Phosphorus
Goal Achieved
1995 2000
Controlling Phosphorus
GOAL-
A Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_agriculture.aspx
URBAN/SUBURBAN POLLUTION CONTROLS
-62%
of Sediment
Goal Achieved
A. Accounting Begins
Some jurisdictions may be underreporting existing stormwater management practi.
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_urbansuburban.aspx
Restoration Efforts 21
-------
Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
An estimated reduction
of 8 million pounds
of nitrogen delivered
to the Bay will be
achieved by 2010
through Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR)
reductions.
stormwater management practices. The rapid rate of
population growth and related residential and commercial
development coupled with the ongoing issues associated with
accounting for the existing practices has made this pollution
source sector the only one in the Bay watershed which
continues to still be growing, and thus showing the overall
"progress" as negative.
AIR POLLUTION
Pollutants are emitted into the air primarily from vehicles,
power plants, agriculture and other industries. These pollut-
ants eventually fall onto water surfaces and the land where
they can be washed into local waterways. Reducing the
release of airborne nitrogen pollution is likely to have the
additional benefit of reducing the release of toxic chemicals.
The Bay jurisdictions are relying upon federal and state air
pollution control programs to reduce airborne nitrogen emis-
sions significantly by 2010. This is largely due to mandated
air regulations on power plant point emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOx). An estimated reduction of 8 million pounds
AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100
LL
8%
of Nitrogen
Goal Achieved
k Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_airpollution.aspx
of nitrogen delivered to the Bay will be achieved by 2010
through Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) reductions.
Restoring Habitats
Restoring high-quality habitat is critical to bringing the Bay
ecosystem back into balance. Healthy habitats provide ani-
mals with access to food, shelter and safe areas to raise young.
Restoration efforts have focused on increasing four habitat
types. An effort to plant underwater grasses has seen mixed
success in recent years, but the Program's fish passage efforts
are both long-standing and generally successful. Restoring
wetlands is a major focus area, and in 2005 the partners
agreed to expand their goal in this area. Oyster reefs were
once a vital habitat for entire underwater communities.
Oyster restoration efforts have focused on enhancing habitat
through shell plantings and the use of alternate substrates.
Efforts also include designating sanctuaries, protecting areas
from harvest and using hatchery seed to increase the number
of healthy oysters in the Bay.
PLANTING BAY GRASSES
Not only do Bay grasses help improve water quality, they also
generate food and habitat for waterfowl, fish, shellfish and
invertebrates. Restoring underwater Bay grasses to reach the
healthy habitats goal of 185,000 acres relies overwhelmingly
on the natural expansion of beds that is highly dependent on
adequate water quality. Bay managers have begun to supple-
ment pollution reduction efforts with experimental Bay grass
plantings where predicted improvements in water quality
would support Bay grasses where none currently exist. These
newly planted grasses act as seed sources which in turn
produce more grass beds as water quality improves.
In 2003, Bay Program partners adopted the "Strategy for the
Protection and Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
in the Chesapeake Bay," including a commitment to plant
1,000 acres by 2008. About 14 percent of the goal has been
22
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
met, commensurate with the amount of funding received.
Managers continue to evaluate the best and most cost-effec-
tive methods for planting Bay grasses. For more on the status
of Bay grasses, please see Chapter One: Ecosystem Health.
RESTORING OYSTER REEFS
Oyster reefs are an essential component of the Bay eco-
system, providing healthy habitat for other bottom-dwelling
organisms as well as schools offish. Reef restoration efforts
include planting oyster shells and alternate substrate
materials to rebuild habitat and planting hatchery-produced
spat (juvenile) oysters on natural and man-made oyster
habitats throughout the Bay. In 2007, 776 acres were treated,
sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site.
Restoring oyster reefs is an important component of the
partners strategy for increasing native oyster populations.
The success of these habitat restoration techniques has been
limited by numerous factors including disease, fishing
pressure and resulting habitat destruction, and poor water
quality caused by human population growth and land use
changes. For more information on oysters, please see Chapter
One: Ecosystem Health.
REOPENING FISH PASSAGE
Dams, culverts and other obstructions block the movement of
fish in many of the rivers and streams of the Bay watershed.
By removing physical obstacles, key species like American
shad are able to return to their native spawning grounds and
increased habitat is available for resident fish. In addition to
opening habitat to migratory fish, fish passage projects also
restore flow, stream continuity, mediate sediment load and
reduce habitat fragmentation.
From 1988 through 2005 the partners had opened 1,838
miles offish passage, surpassing their original 1,357-mile
restoration goal. In early 2005, the Bay Program partners
committed to increasing the restoration goal to 2,807 miles
by 2014. During 2006 and 2007 an additional 427 miles of
BAY GRASSES PLANTED
14%
of Goal Achieved
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_baygrassesplanted.aspx
NATIVE OYSTER ANNUAL RESTORATION EFFORTS
1985 1990 .1995 2000 2005 2010
Accounting Begins Data anc' Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_oysterrecovery.aspx
Restoration Efforts 23
-------
Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
WETLANDS RESTORATION EFFORTS
Percent of
Goal Achieved
20
10
-25,000 Acre Commitment
50%
of Goal Achieved
j^ Accounting Begins
OPENING RIVERS TO MIGRATORY FISH
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100
habitat were made available, bringing the cumulative total to
2,266 miles — achieving 81 percent of the 2014 goal.
RESTORING WETLANDS
Wetlands serve multiple ecological functions. Restoring and
enhancing wetlands throughout the watershed can provide
critical wildlife habitat
for many diverse species
including finfish, shellfish,
amphibians, birds and mam-
mals. The Bay Program's
current strategy commits
partners to restoring 25,000
acres of wetlands by 2010,
and as of 2007 they are
50 percent of the way toward
achieving this goal.
In addition to habitat,
wetlands also help clean
the water by filtering excess
nutrients and sediments. To
improve water quality, the
Bay watershed states call for
the restoration of 200,000
acres of wetlands in their
tributary cleanup plans.
Progress toward this water
quality goal is measured
in part in the Reducing
Pollution summary chart in
the Executive Summary.
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_wetlandsrestored.aspx
81%
of Goal Achieved
A. Accounting Begins
Managing Fisheries
Data and Methods: www.cnesapeakebay.net/status_fishpassage.aspx
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERIES PLANS
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem-based fishery management plans
are being developed for five key species - oysters, blue crabs,
American shad, striped bass and Atlantic menhaden. The
index shows the three basic steps to expanding fishery
management to include ecosystem considerations: actions
that are species specific; actions that include multi-species
interactions; and other actions that will broaden the manage-
ment perspective to include ecosystem structure and
function. Single species plans are already being implemented
but ecosystem-based plans are more complex and will take
time to fully develop and implement.
While some significant effort was undertaken to improve the
management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few
of these efforts resulted in changes to fisheries management
plans or the implementation of these plans. As a result, the
index values for all the fisheries assessed remains unchanged
from the 2006 Assessment. Progress toward fisheries manage-
ment goals ranges from 37-63 percent for the five key Bay
fisheries. Note: the index does not gauge the health of the
fisheries which is covered in Chapter One: Ecosystem Health.
OYSTERS
Oysters provide important ecological services to the Bay
including important structural habitat for finfish and shell-
fish, filtering capabilities and sediment stabilization. The
new ecosystem-based management approach will take these
important ecological services into consideration. Oyster
harvest is currently managed using minimum size limits, gear
restrictions, seasonal and geographic closings and bushel
limits. Fisheries targets and thresholds have not been
established in the current plan. Restoration efforts include
expanding the amount of clean, hard surfaces for oyster spat
(juvenile oysters) to settle, increasing the number of breeding
24
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
adult oysters, establishing sanctuaries and combating
oyster diseases.
While the effort score did not change this year, there was
some notable progress on the research and management front,
including the use of genetically modified strains of oysters,
modeling the transport of larvae, modeling population
fluctuations under different environmental circumstances,
implementing new monitoring protocols and compiling a
comprehensive baywide database of oyster information.
BLUE CRABS
Blue crabs are currently managed as a single species using
biological reference points, abundance and exploitation
targets. The fishery is managed through minimum size limits,
gear restrictions and seasonal limits on harvest to keep fishing
pressure at acceptable levels. An annual review of the blue
crab stock is conducted to determine the status of the stock.
Currently, fishing pressure is set to levels that should allow
for increased abundance. Blue crabs play an important role
as both predator and prey in the Bay ecosystem. Interactions
between blue crabs and striped bass, their predators, have
been examined. In addition, some management recommen-
dations have been implemented such as special openings in
traps to allow the escape of non-targeted species.
While the effort score did not change this year, there were a
host of research and monitoring activities in 2007, including
investigations into the potential effects of ghost crab pots on
blue crab mortality estimates, as well as improved growth
rate estimates for stock assessment updates. However, none
of these activities has at present led to change in the
management plan.
AMERICAN SHAD
By the mid-1970s, American shad stocks had been greatly
diminished by overfishing, water pollution and spawning
migration obstructions (dams). In 1980, Maryland imple-
mented an American shad fishing moratorium and in 1994
Virginia followed, thus effectively
banning direct harvest through-
out the Bay.
Current management measures to
promote the recovery of American
shad in Chesapeake Bay include a
moratorium on shad fishing with
a limited bycatch allowance; the
release of hatchery-raised fish;
the removal of obstructions to
migration; and the installation of
fish passages. Over the last two
decades shad stocks have been
slowly rebuilding.
Before the fishery is reopened,
catch limits (thresholds) and safe
levels of harvest (targets) will
need to be developed through the
ecosystem-based fishery manage-
ment process.
While some significant and
important management and
research has been conducted over
the past year, including a coastal
stock assessment report and the
development of a new indicator
of population health, no changes
have been made to the fishery
management plan, hence no
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EFFORT INDEX
increase in score.
Single-Species
Fisheries Management
Multi-Species
Fisheries
Management
Ecosystem Based
Fisheries Managemenl
Plan Action Plan Action
38
56
63
56
100%
I I Current effort taken GOAL
Effort still required
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/statusjisheriesmanagementindex.aspx
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS PLANTED
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 •
50 -
40 -
10,000 Mile Commitment
57%
of Goal Achieved
A. Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_forestbuffers.aspx
STRIPED BASS
Maryland and Delaware instituted a moratorium on all
striped bass fishing in 1985, following the collapse of the
fishery during the early 1980s. Virginia and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission did so in 1989. Since the
Restoration Efforts 25
-------
Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
WATERSHED LAND PRESERVATION
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 •
50
40
20
10
- 6.92 Million Acre Goal
99%
of Goal Achieved
A Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/statusjandspreserved.aspx
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS DEVELOPED
moratorium was lifted in 1990, the stock has been rebuilt
and maintained through an adaptive management approach,
based upon constant monitoring and the use of catch quotas
and seasonal closings. Currently the stock is at high levels
of abundance. Striped bass are recognized as one of the top
predators in the Chesapeake
Bay and impact forage species
such as Atlantic menhaden. The
recently proposed annual cap
on the commercial harvest of
Atlantic menhaden was adopted
in part due to the dietary
importance of menhaden to the
striped bass population.
While some significant and
important management and
research has been conducted
over the past year including the
completion of tagging stud-
ies within the Bay leading to
improved estimates of natural
mortality rates, it has not led
to any changes in the fishery
management plans, hence no
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 -
-22.9 Million Acre Goal
57%
of Goal Achieved
Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershedmanagement.aspx
increase in score.
ATLANTIC MENHADEN
Atlantic menhaden are man-
aged as a coastal population
under a single species approach.
Atlantic menhaden that inhabit
the Chesapeake Bay are a part
of a coastal Atlantic stock.
Populations along the Atlantic
Coast are healthy, but some sci-
entists are concerned about low
abundance in Chesapeake Bay.
Menhaden are a significant part of the aquatic food chain
and as such, multi-species management is critical. Currently,
predator-prey and by-catch interactions are relatively well
defined. Menhaden feed primarily on plankton and are prey
for top predators such as striped bass and bluefish.
There is concern over the steady decline in the number of
young menhaden produced in Chesapeake Bay. This decline,
and other concerns with the fishery, prompted Virginia's
adoption of a five-year cap on the commercial harvest
of menhaden starting in 2006. Critical research will be
performed while the harvest cap is in effect.
There has been no progress towards developing an eco-
system-based management plan in 2007. All management
considerations have occurred at the coastal level.
Protecting Watersheds
The human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is
now growing by about 130,000 residents annually. Planning
for this growth is especially critical in this watershed because
of the vast amount of land that drains into the relatively
shallow Chesapeake. Restoration efforts center on reforesting
streamside buffers and developing watershed management
plans, as well as preserving open space and forests. Partners
appear to be on track with many of their watershed protec-
tion efforts and are two-thirds of the way toward meeting
current Bay Program goals, but these efforts appear to be
inadequate in stemming the decline in water quality
associated with population growth.
CONSERVING FOREST BUFFERS
Streamside or riparian forest buffers provide habitat for wild-
life, stabilize banks from erosion and keep river waters cool,
an important factor for many fish. The Bay Program partners
achieved their original 2010 buffer restoration goal of 2,010
miles well ahead of schedule and in 2003 raised that target to
10,000 miles. There have been 5,722 miles restored through
26
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
2007, putting the Bay Program partners at 57 percent of
goal achieved.
In addition to preserving the watershed, well-maintained
forest buffers naturally absorb nutrients and sediments, thus
improving water quality in neighboring streams. Riparian
forest buffers also provide a source of large woody material
input to streams that helps form and maintain important fish
habitat and provides for channel stability. To improve water
quality, the Bay watershed states call for the restoration of
some 50,000 miles of riparian forest buffers in their tributary
cleanup plans. Progress toward this water quality goal is
measured in part in the Reducing Pollution summary chart
in the Executive Summary.
PRESERVING LANDS
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and District of Columbia
committed to permanently protect from development 20
percent of their combined 34.6 million acres by 2010. Parks,
wildlife refuges and private lands protected through conserva-
tion easements are counted in this measure. By July 2007, a
total of 6.88 million acres had been permanently preserved.
With 99 percent of the goal achieved, the partners are very
likely to meet the 2010 goal of 6.92 million acres preserved.
The historic data featured in this indicator changed from the
2006 Assessment due to corrections by Virginia.
At its annual meeting in December 2007, the Chesapeake
Executive Council signed the Forestry Conservation
Initiative, committing the Bay states to permanently conserve
an additional 695,000 acres of forested land throughout the
watershed by 2020.
DEVELOPING WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Watershed management plans address the protection,
conservation and restoration of stream corridors, riparian
forest buffers, wetlands, parklands and other open space for
the purposes of preserving watershed health while enhancing
the quality of life in local communities. The Bay Program
has a goal of developing and implementing locally supported
watershed management plans in two-thirds of the Bay
watershed. By the end of 2007 plans were in place for 13.1
million acres, more than half of the 22.9 million acres that
should be covered under such plans by 2010. Translating
these plans into action will be essential to restoring water
quality (see Chapter One: Ecosystem Health).
Fostering Chesapeake Stewardship
Accomplishing a comprehensive restoration plan for an eco-
system as complex as the Chesapeake Bay requires the full
engagement of restoration leaders, citizens and all stakeholder
groups throughout the watershed. All of the Bay's stake-
holders require a base of information and motivation to take
action. By providing an array of opportunities we optimize
our chance to connect with people in the context of their
interests, values and current level of understanding or
motivation.
PUBLIC ACCESS
Personal interaction with the local rivers, streams and
the Chesapeake Bay itself can help the public recognize
the connection between the value of the Chesapeake and
their individual interests. Local waterways that flow to the
Chesapeake Bay, as well as the Chesapeake Bay itself, must
matter to people in order to gain their support for restora-
tion efforts. Since 2000, the Bay jurisdictions have acquired,
developed or enhanced more than 100 public access points,
and in 2007, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of
Columbia added or enhanced 14 sites.
The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network enhances place-
based interpretation of Bay-related resources and stimulates
volunteer involvement in resource restoration and conserva-
tion. Four new Gateway sites were added to the network in
2007, bringing the total to 156.
Restoration Efforts 27
-------
Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
In 2007, 328 new
water trail miles were
developed, bringing
the total to more than
2,000 miles.
A mix of water trails managed by state, local and non-profit
organizations has blossomed since 2000. The trails exist
throughout the Bay and its tributaries and offer a variety of
low-impact paddling experiences, connecting people to the
natural, cultural and historic resources of the Bay. In 2007,
328 new water trail miles were developed, bringing the total
to more than 2,000 miles.
In 2007, the National Park Service began the process to
develop a comprehensive plan for managing and interpreting
the nearly 3,000-mile-long Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Trail. The Interpretive Plan will provide a
vision for the future of interpretation and education for the
trail and define long-term goals for meaningful connections
between visitors and Bay resources.
Overall, the partners have achieved 98 percent of established
goals to enhance public access, create Gateways and establish
water trails.
COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
The partners believe that comprehensive and authoritative
public information is essential to engage all stakeholders in
the restoration effort. The Program has established a number
of methods to meet this stewardship need. The Bay Journal
newspaper reaches more than 50,000 print subscribers
monthly, informing people about issues and events that affect
the Chesapeake Bay. The monthly e-newsletter Chesapeake
Currents is distributed to more than 1,000 subscribers, while
the daily electronic Bay News service goes out to more
than 1,100 users.
Publications, press releases, presentations, events and other
communication and outreach efforts are also essential
elements of the on-going effort to inform the public about
the Bay and its watershed. The Bay Program's suite of
websites was accessed by more than 5.6 million different
users in 2007.
PUBLIC ACCESS
BAY PROGRAM WEBSITE VISITS
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 -
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 -
0
98%
of Goal Achieved
Accounting Begins
Millions of visits (cumulative)
1990 1995 j^oo 2005 2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_publicaccess.aspx
1985 1990 1995 2000 . 2005 2010
Accounting Begins Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_commoutreach.aspx
28
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION
Formal environmental education opportunities allow for
in-depth investigation and analysis that enhance a deeper
understanding of ecological concepts, environmental inter-
relationships and human implications. All signatory
jurisdictions' school districts have incorporated curriculum
that provides a meaningful outdoor watershed educational
experience. Through 2007, the NOAA Bay Watershed
Education & Training (B-WET) grants program has funded
training opportunities for more than 15,000 teachers. More
than 2.5 million Bay watershed students have participated in
a field experience during their K-12 education.
The B-WET program, with support from the Chesapeake
Bay Trust and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the
Environment, recently completed an intensive multi-year
evaluation that shows that students are more knowledgeable
about the watershed and more likely to take action to protect
the Bay after participating in B-WET supported programs.
The study also showed that B-WET trained teachers are more
confident in their ability to use field experiences in teaching
about the watershed and are more likely to do so.
Overall, the partners have achieved 84 percent of the current
goal of providing a meaningful outdoor watershed education-
al experience to every student, starting with the class of 2005.
CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY ACTION
Often, our ability to influence the public rests with the suc-
cess we have connecting personal and local issues to the
well-being of the Bay. By successfully making these connec-
tions, we can encourage people to take part in restoration
programs as individuals or with their families; at home, at
work and in their communities. An essential part of our work
is to convert detailed technical information and teach skills
to stakeholders groups who can implement best management
practices in arenas such as watershed planning or habitat
restoration.
Businesses for the Bay is a voluntary effort by businesses
committed to implementing pollution prevention in daily
EDUCATIONAL FIELD EXPERIENCES PROVIDED
BAY PARTNER COMMUNITIES
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 •
Percent of
Goal Achieved
2.8 Million Students Goal •
84%
of Goal Achieved
Accounting Begins
2005
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_education.aspx
ofG
90 -
70 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
10-
23% 1985 199° 1995 200° 2005 201°
Dal Achieved
k Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_citizenaction.aspx
Restoration Efforts 29
-------
Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
operations and reducing releases of chemical contaminants
and other wastes to the Chesapeake Bay.
Towns and cities are implementing Bay-friendly measures
aimed at making their local communities as well as the Bay a
better place to live, work and recreate. In 2007, two new local
governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status,
bringing the current total to 77.
Overall, the partners have achieved 23 percent of the existing
goal to certify 330 Bay Partner Communities by 2005.
2007 Restoration Highlights
Through a series of Chesapeake Bay agreements, Bay Program
signatories — the states of Maryland, the commonwealths
of Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representing the
federal government; and the Chesapeake Bay Commission
representing Bay state legislators - have committed to reduce
pollution, restore habitats and sustainably manage fisheries.
Since 2000, the headwater states of Delaware, New York
and West Virginia have joined regional efforts to improve
water quality.
LOOKING BACK AT 2OO7
While there are many notable individual accomplishments
relating to Chesapeake Bay restoration, Chapter One:
Ecosystem Health makes clear that the Bay Program partners
need to accelerate the pace of water quality improvement
efforts. To that end, a number of specific initiatives in 2007
are worth highlighting:
The Chesapeake Bay Commission focused on reduc-
ing agricultural and point source pollution. By working
with Congress, pending versions of the Farm Bill provide
up to $100 million annually in new conservation funding
Bay-wide. Pennsylvania Commission members created the
Resource Enhancement and Protection Program, a statewide
agricultural tax credit to accelerate agricultural conservation.
The Commission published a widely-praised biofuels report
and helped the watershed's largest wastewater treatment
plant, Blue Plains, receive a $65 million authorization in the
Water Resources Development Act.
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control Division of Fish and Wildlife's
Landowner Incentive Program, in cooperation with Ducks
Unlimited and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners
for Wildlife Program, recently restored 5 acres of Coastal
Plain Ponds and established 42 acres of grassland habitat on
a previously farmed field in New Castle County, Delaware.
This restoration improved habitat for several threatened
species of amphibians, enhanced nesting habitat for grassland
birds, and improved ground and surface water quality.
In 2007, the District of Columbia pushed forward major
stream restoration projects and continued to monitor success-
fully restored wetlands. In 2007, the District completed the
designs, obtained permits and initiated pre-implementation
monitoring for the 1.9 mile Watts Branch stream restoration
project. The District initiated stream restoration designs on
Pope Branch, where the District and DCWASA (Water and
Sewer Authority) will restore the stream and replace an aging
sanitary sewer line. District Department of the Environment
(DDOE) monitored the River Fringe and Heritage wetland
restorations, both of which continue to thrive.
Together with federal and state partners, EPA is helping to
pick up the pace of Bay restoration by reducing sediment
and nutrient pollution. In 2007, EPA and the District
of Columbia began implementing a landmark green
infrastructure agreement to curtail storm water runoff.
The Navy enacted a low impact development policy that
calls for no net increase in storm water volume, sediments
and nutrients from construction projects. EPA provided
$6 million in funding to promote innovative solutions
to reduce nutrients and sediments entering the Bay. EPA
30
Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment 2007
-------
Region 3 worked with jurisdictions in the watershed to
implement a common permitting approach for more than
480 wastewater treatment facilities that unites both upstream
and downstream jurisdictions in the enforcement of new
water quality standards and allocations. To help accelerate
the issuance of permits, the partners have utilized several
innovative steps including general watershed permits
consistent with the requirements of the nutrient permitting
strategy. In fiscal year 2007, 150 permits were issued, for a
total of 165 facilities in compliance with nutrient permits as
of September 2007. A modification to the Washington, DC
Blue Plains facility permit was issued by EPA Region 3 in
April 2007. This modification to the single largest discharger
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed included significant
nutrient reductions — 4.6 million pounds from former limits.
Under the leadership of Governor Martin O'Malley,
Maryland launched several innovative programs to accelerate
Bay restoration. BayStat was created, a powerful new statisti-
cal tool being used to assess, coordinate and target programs
and resources and inform citizens on progress. New land
conservation criteria were adopted to identify acquisitions
based on benefits to ecosystems, communities and the Bay.
The 2010 Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund was established,
providing $50 million in new funding annually for imple-
mentation of non-point source nutrient reductions. Governor
O'Malley also hosted the Chesapeake Executive Council
meeting, leading partners to champion regional Bay issues.
In 2007, Pennsylvania enacted the Resource Enhancement
and Protection Program, a $10 million tax credit initiative
encouraging farmers to implement conservation best manage-
ment practices. The commonwealth also invested $1.8 million
to advance an innovative nutrient trading program in part-
nership with the state's agricultural community, and worked
to establish nutrient limits in wastewater treatment plant
permits. Since 1999, Pennsylvania has invested $20 million
in state funds and $83 million in federal funds to build the
nation's largest Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.
New York targets implementation based on landowner inter-
est and high potential for nutrient and sediment reduction
and habitat improvement. The Upper Susquehanna Coalition
and its partners restored 634 acres of wetlands, constructed
154 new vernal pools and initiated prescribed grazing on
4,892 acres of pasture and row crops. Grazing generates wall-
to-wall buffers, reduces nutrient sources and runoff and helps
sustain farms. New York also is evaluating road drainage
systems as they are critical pathways for atmospheric nitrogen
deposition and runoff.
Governor Kaine announced that Virginia expects to meet
their point source nutrient reduction goals by the end of
2010 through aggressive state cost-share funding, pollution
control technologies and efficient local government planning.
Nonpoint source progress includes focusing 80 percent of
available agricultural cost-share funding on five priority,
cost-effective conservation practices. In addition, the
Commonwealth has partnered with Virginia's poultry
industry on several major initiatives including a litter
transport program and maximizing the use of feed additives
to reduce phosphorus in poultry litter.
West Virginia gained momentum in Tributary Strategy
implementation by focusing work in priority watersheds.
Successful projects such as a rain barrel workshop and a rain
garden demonstration resulted from partnerships between
volunteers, local governments and state agencies. These
partners are now exploring ways to further promote such
innovative stormwater practices in the quickly developing
eastern panhandle. West Virginia's implementation team also
worked with NRCS to encourage poultry litter transport and
nutrient management plans and to promote the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program.
Restoration Efforts 31
-------
Chapter Four: Health of Freshwater Streams and Rivers
Put simply, healthier
waters throughout
the watershed will
contribute to a
healthier Bay.
The presence and diversity of snails, mussels, insects and
other freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate communities are
good indicators of stream health because of their limited
mobility and their known responses to environmental
pollutants and stressors. As a result, these communities are
often used as indicators of the general health of freshwater
streams and rivers.
The sources and causes of degraded streams and rivers are
many and varied across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Causes of benthic community impairment are generally
attributed to pollutants such as metals, acidity, sediment,
pesticides and nutrients introduced into the water body by
sources such as mining, agriculture, storm water and munici-
pal or industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Such sources
consequently result in water bodies with high bacteria counts,
elevated nutrient levels, low pH (high acidity) and stressful
dissolved oxygen levels.
These are important local water quality issues that also have
implications for the water quality in the Bay itself. Put sim-
ply, healthier waters throughout the watershed will contribute
to a healthier Bay; everyone living in the watershed benefits
from having cleaner, healthier water locally and regionally.
Each state in the watershed conducts benthic macroin-
vertebrate assessments as part of its biennial water quality
assessment report mandated by the Clean Water Act. Where
assessed benthic macroinvertebrate communities are deemed
the most degraded, states must designate those stream seg-
ments as impaired and add them to the list of impaired
waters in need of cleanup.
The Bay Program state partners — Delaware, Maryland, New
York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia - used the
data and results from their 2006 water quality assessments
to prepare summaries of stream conditions in each state.
The methodologies for benthic macroinvertebrate assessment
vary by state, therefore a synthesis of results across the entire
watershed was not attempted at this time The map presents
a summary of each state's assessment results within the
boundaries of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The partners
are examining other potential sources of information and
approaches to develop a Chesapeake Bay watershed-specific
indicator in the future.
For more information on individual states' water quality
impairments go to www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershed
health.aspx.
32
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
-------
BENTHIC MARCROINVERTEBRATE IMPAIRMENTS
FRESHWATER STREAMS AND RIVERS HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Legend
% Not
Assessed
% Not Impaired
Degraded Benthic
Macro! nvertebrate
Community
New York
Pennsylvania
Data Sources: DE: EPA (2004)
MD: MDE (2006)
NY: New York DEC (2006)
PA: Pennsylvania DEP (2006)
VA: Virginia DEQ (2006)
WV: West Virginia DEP (2006)
DC: Data not included
West Virginia
Maryland
Delaware
Virginia
NOTE: Pie charts are not directly comparable since each state monitors
and assesses benthic macroinvertebrates on different scales with different
methodologies and criterion. For more information on these differences,
please refer to: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershedhealth.aspx.
•
_ -
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
This report was developed by the Chesapeake Bay
Program partneship to help inform watershed residents
about the health of the Bay and efforts to restore
it. Staff from a large number of state and federal
agencies, academic institutions and non-governmental
organizations contributed data and interpretation to the
report, including The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
Chesapeake Bay Commission, Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
District of Columbia Department of the Environment,
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin,
Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland
Department of the Environment, Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, National Park Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, Old
Dominion University, Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission, Susquehanna River
Basin Commission, University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science, University of Maryland College
Park, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Virginia Tech, Versar,
West Virginia Department of Agriculture and the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
For a full list of contributing partners,
visit www.chesapeakebay.net/
partnerorganizations.aspx.
Images courtesy: Scott Bauer; Anthony DePanise;
Starke Jett; Mike Land; Russ Mader; Maryland
Dept. of Natural Resources; NASA; NOAA
Chesapeake Bay Office; Alicia Pimental; Kara
Turner; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service; Virginia Institute of Marine Science;
IAN Image Library: Jane Hawkey, Adrian Jones,
Don Merrill, Jane Thomas and Joanna Woerner.
Cover images courtesy: IAN Image Library:
Jane Hawkey and Jane Thomas; NOAA
Chesapeake Bay Office.
-------
|