Restoration Efforts
-------
—•*sj^
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
CHESAPEAKE BAY
2006 Health & Restoration Assessment
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM: A Watershed Partnership
The Chesapeake Bay Program partners
have developed science-based plans to
improve the waters, habitats and fisher-
ies 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.
The Chesapeake Bay Program brings
together state and federal governments,
non-profit organizations, watershed resi-
dents and the region's leading academic
institutions in a partnership effort to
protect and restore the Bay.
To learn more and find out how you can
help, visit the Chesapeake Bay Program
website at www.chesapeakebay.net
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
800-YOUR-BAY
www.chesapeakebay.net
-------
ABOUT THIS REPORT
The Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment is presented this year in
two parts.
Part One: Ecosystem Health draws on the most up-to-date monitoring data gathered
by Bay Program partners to assess the overall health of the Bay ecosystem last year.
This report, Part Two: Restoration Efforts, uses 20 indicators grouped into the 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. All of the charts have the same time scale: 1985-2010. In cases where
measurement began or a goal was agreed to after 1985, a symbol on the chart indicates when
"accounting began." In the section "Reducing Pollution," efforts are compared to goals defined
by the Bay jurisdictions' river-specific cleanup plans. Monitoring and tracking data and computer
simulations are used in this section. In the remaining parts, restoration efforts are compared to
goals adopted by the Bay Program. Monitoring and tracking data are used in these sections.
Electronic versions of the Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment
reports can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/press.htm. Because of space limitations, only
brief text is included in this report. Detailed information about each indicator can be found at
www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators.htm. Expanded analysis and interpretation of data as well as
the methods used to compile the graphs can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/Assess/
» -~
' -
-------
RESTORATION SUMMARY
Restoration of a complex ecosystem requires a multi-pronged
approach. The Chesapeake Bay Program has divided its restora-
tion efforts into five broad areas: Reducing Pollution, Restoring
Habitats, Managing Fisheries, Protecting Watersheds and
Fostering Stewardship.
Reducing Pollution efforts are the most far-reaching. 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, about half of the pollution reduction efforts needed to
achieve the nutrient goals have been undertaken over the past
two decades.
Progress toward Restoring Habitats is measured against a
series of goals established by the Program. Most of the goals
have a 2010 deadline. Overall, habitat restoration efforts are col-
lectively less than half-way to Program goals and there is concern
about the overall quality of habitats that remain.
Managing Fisheries focuses on promoting a paradigm shift
from a traditional management approach that looks solely at
single species to one that recognizes interactions between
species (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 (found in Part One: Ecosystem
Health.) Progress toward this new approach ranges from 37-63
percent for five key species.
Protecting Watersheds 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 slightly more than
two-thirds of the way toward meeting current Program goals.
Fostering 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 two-thirds of its fostering stewardship goals.
-------
SUMMARY: 2006 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%
Protecting Watersheds
69% of Goals-
Achieved
Fostering Stewardship
67% of Goals-
Achieved
Agriculture Nitrogen
Agriculture Phosphorus
Agri
Waste
Wastew
culture Sediment
water Nitrogen
ater Phosphorus
•
•
Air Nitrogen
Bay Grasses Planted
Wetlands Restored
FishF
Oyste
'assage Restored
r Recovery Effort
Blue Crab
Oyster
Striped Bass
Shad'
Menhaden
'
•
Forest Buffers Planted
Watershed Management Plans
Lands Preserved
•
Public Access
Communication & Outreach
Education & Interpretation
Citizen & Community Action
'
^^^^^^^^^
•
I
Urban / Suburba
Urban / Suburba
Urban / Suburba
i Nitroge
i Phosph
i Sedime
-'
n
srus
nt
|
Not quantified in relation to a c
oal
^^^^^^^^^^_
1
—
—
J
1
1
Not quantified in relation to a c
oal
—
1
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
-------
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROLS
45% ' "°"~
43%
of Sediment
Goal Achieved
i Accounting Begins
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
WASTEWATER POLLUTION CONTROLS
Controlling Nitrogen
r—,100*3
72%
of Nitrogen
Goal Achieved 40 I
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Controlling Phosphorus
87%
of Phosphorus
Goal Achieved
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
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.
AGRICULTURE
Farmers employ dozens of conservation practices to reduce
the amount of pollution reaching local waters and the Bay.
Computer simulations and water monitoring data indicate that
these nutrient and sediment reduction efforts have been moder-
ately effective. Since 1985 the partners have achieved nearly
half of the goal for agricultural nutrient reduction efforts and
two-fifths of the goal for sediment reduction efforts that have
been estimated as necessary to reach water quality goals.
In part because they are so cost-effective, the Bayjurisdic-
tions are relying on future reductions from agricultural lands for
more than half of the remaining nutrient reductions needed to
meet restoration goals. The history and economics of agriculture
require that significant funding and technical assistance will be
needed for this sector to meet its restoration goals.
WASTEWATER
Decreases in the amount of nutrients discharged from
wastewater 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 (an
estimated 170,000 annually since 2000), 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 technology equipment. Bay
jurisdictions are relying on additional reductions from wastewater
CHESAPEAKE BAY 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts
-------
treatment plants for achieving about 15 percent of their nutrient
reduction goals. Since 1985 the partners have achieved nearly
three-quarters of wastewater nitrogen reduction goal and more
than four-fifths 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. These pollutants include nitrogen, phosphorus,
sediment and many toxic compounds. About one-quarter of the
nutrient reductions called for in the states' cleanup plans are
expected to come from efforts to treat pollution from urban/
suburban lands and septic systems. 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 Stormwater management practices, although some
jurisdictions may be underreporting past Stormwater man-
agement practices. The rapid rate of population growth and
related residential and commercial development has made
this pollution sector the only one in the Bay watershed to
still be growing, and thus "progress" is negative.
AIR POLLUTION
Scientists estimate that one-quarter to one-third of the
nitrogen reaching the Bay and its rivers comes through the
air. Pollutants are emitted into the air primarily from vehicles,
power plants, agriculture and other industries. These pollutants
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 emissions
significantly by 2010.
URBAN/SUBURBAN POLLUTION CONTROLS
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Controlling Phosphorus
- GOAL
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Controlling Sediment
AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS
Percent of
Goal Achieved
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
^m
7%
f Nitrog
al Achie
;countinc
90
70
50
30
10
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
en ^
ved
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
-------
BAY GRASSES PLANTED
RESTORING HABITATS
40
30
- 1,000 Acre Go.
13%
of Goal Achieved
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
WETLANDS RESTORATION
ofG
_
42%
oal Ach'
,
eved
90
80
70 -
60
50
40
30
20 -
10
A
X
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Current status is based on cumulative voluntary efforts through 2005
in MD, VA and DC, and through 2004 in PA.
A Accounting Begins Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
Restoring high-quality habitat is critical to bringing the Bay
ecosystem back into balance. Healthy habitats provide animals
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 little early
success, 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 increasing the number of healthy oysters in the Bay. Some
efforts have resulted in restoring reefs, but these programs are
still in their infancy.
PLANTING UNDERWATER GRASSES
Restoring underwater Bay grasses relies overwhelmingly on
the natural expansion of beds that comes with improving water
quality. Bay managers have begun to supplement pollution
reduction efforts with experimental Bay grass plantings. These
new meadows, if successful, will provide seed sources to produce
grass beds as water quality improves. In the first four years of this
effort, Bay Program partners have planted about 13 percent of
their initial goal of 1,000 acres by 2008. Not only do bay grasses
filter the water, they also provide food and habitat for waterfowl,
fish and shellfish. For more on the status of underwater grasses,
please see Part One: Ecosystem Health.
RESTORING WETLANDS
Wetlands serve multiple ecological functions. Restoring and
enhancing wetlands throughout the watershed can provide critical
wildlife habitat. The Bay Program's current strategy commits
partners to restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands by 2010, and as
of 2005 they are about 42 percent of the way toward this goal. In
addition to habitat, wetlands also help clean the water of nutrients
and sediments. To improve water quality, the Bay states call for
the restoration of some 200,000 acres in their tributary cleanup
plans. Progress toward this water quality goal is measured in part
in the Reducing Pollution summary chart on page 3.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
.
-------
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. From 1988 through 2005 the
partners had opened 1,838 miles offish passage, surpassing their
original 1,357-mile restoration goal. In early 2005 Bay Program
partners committed to increasing the restoration goal to 2,807
miles by 2014, and an additional 305 miles were opened in 2006,
bringing the cumulative total to 2,144.
RESTORING OYSTER REEFS
Oyster reefs are an essential component of the Bay ecosystem,
providing healthy habitat for other bottom-dwelling organisms as
well as schools of fish. Reef restoration efforts include cleaning
and placing oyster shells, planting hatchery-produced spat
(juvenile) oysters, setting aside permanent sanctuaries, and
placing alternate substrate materials. Thousands of acres have
been treated in this way, sometimes with multiple efforts. 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 Part One: Ecosystem Health.
MANAGING FISHERIES
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, with the exception of Atlantic
menhaden, remained unchanged. A small increase in Atlantic
menhaden was recorded due to the adoption of a commercial
harvest cap in Virginia waters. Progress toward fisheries
management 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 Part One: Ecosystem Health.
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 plans and actions that are single species specific, others
that are directed toward multiple species, and still others that are
ecosystem-based. Many of these plans are being implemented
concurrently. The ultimate goal is to have fully implemented
ecosystem-based fisheries management. Note: This year there
was a slight change in the methods used to score progress of
OPENING RIVERS TO MIGRATORY FISH
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EFFORT INDEX
76%
of Goal Achieved
^ Accounting Begins
Single-Species
Multi-Species
Fisheries
Overall
Progress
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
100%
I Current effort taken GOAL
Effort still required
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
-------
plan development. Due to this change, scores allocated for each
fishery were slightly less than those allocated last year. The low
scores reflect a change in methods (to give a more accurate
assessment) and do not indicate that less management effort has
taken place.
OYSTERS
Although oysters are important in their own right, oyster reefs
provide habitat to many species as well as being a food source
for others and as such should be managed in conjunction with
these interdependent species. Oysters are effective water filters.
Management plans should capture this important ecosystem
function, too. Oysters are currently managed as a single spe-
cies using minimum size limits, gear restrictions, seasonal and
geographic closings and bushel limits. Fisheries targets and
thresholds are not 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 adult oysters, establishing sanctuaries and combating
oyster diseases.
BLUE CRABS
Blue crabs are currently managed as a single species using
minimum catch size and seasonal limits on harvests to achieve
target levels of fishing pressure. Annual reviews of blue crab stock
are conducted to determine if target levels have been exceeded.
Under this strategy, 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 recommendations
have been implemented such as special openings in traps to
allow the escape of non-targeted species.
AMERICAN SHAD
By the mid-1970's, American shad stocks had been greatly
diminished by overfishing, water pollution and spawning
migration obstructions (e.g. dams). In 1980, Maryland
implemented an American shad fishing moratorium and in
1994 Virginia followed, thus effectively banning direct harvest
throughout the Bay. Current restoration efforts focus on
reopening native spawning habitat through dam removal or the
installation of fishways, supplemented with hatchery stocking
programs and efforts to improve water quality. Before the fishery
is reopened, a new fisheries management plan, including catch
limits (thresholds) and safe restoration levels (targets) will need
to be developed.
STRIPED BASS
Maryland and Delaware instituted a moratorium on all striped
bass fishing in 1985 in response to actions by the Congress and
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission following the
collapse of the fishery during the early 1980s. Virginia and the
Potomac River Fisheries Commission did so in 1989. Since the
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. 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.
ATLANTIC MENHADEN
Atlantic menhaden are managed as a coastal population under
a single species approach.
Menhaden are a significant part of the aquatic food chain and
as such, multi-species management is critical. Currently, preda-
tor-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 pro-
duced 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.
I
CHESAPEAKE BAY 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts
-------
PROTECTING WATERSHEDS
The human population in the Chesapeake watershed is now
growing by more than 170,000 residents annually. Managing
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,
developing watershed management plans and preserving
open space. Partners appear to be on track with many of their
watershed protection efforts and are two-thirds of the way
toward meeting current Program goals, but these efforts
appear to be inadequate in stemming the decline in water
quality associated with population growth.
CONSERVING FOREST BUFFERS
Streamside forest buffers provide habitat for wildlife, stabilize
banks from erosion and keep river waters cool, an important factor
for many fish. 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. Partners are roughly on track to
meet this goal with 5,337 miles restored through August 2006.
Also in 2006, Bay Program partners produced a report entitled
"The State of Chesapeake Forests," which was the impetus for
an Executive Council Directive Protecting the Forests of the
Chesapeake Watershed. The Directive seeks to protect riparian
forest buffers and other forests important to water quality.
In addition to preserving the watershed, well-maintained
forest buffers also naturally absorb nutrients and sediments,
thus improving water quality in neighboring streams. To improve
water quality, the Bay states call for the restoration of some
50,000 miles in their tributary cleanup plans. Progress toward this
water quality goal is measured in part in the Reducing Pollution
summary chart on page 3.
PRESERVING LANDS
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and District of Columbia com-
mitted to permanently protect from development 20 percent of
their combined 34.6 million acres by 2010. Parks, wildlife refuges
and private lands protected through conservation easements are
counted in this measure. By July 2006 a total of 6.83 million acres
had been permanently preserved. The partners are very likely to
meet the 2010 goal of 6.92 million acres preserved.
DEVELOPING WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Watershed management plans address the protection, conser-
vation 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 2006
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS PLANTED
WATERSHED LAND PRESERVATION
Goal Achieved
53%
of Goal Achieved
70
60
so
20
10
10,000 MileCorr
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
99%
of Goal Achieved
A Accounting Begins
- 6.92 Million Acre Go.
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
-------
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS DEVELOPED
PUBLIC ACCESS
Goal Achieved
100 -
Goal Achieved
80
70
55%
of Goal Achieved
A Accounting Begins
x
Data and Methods:'
yv.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
97%
of Goal Achieved
^ Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
plans were in place for 12.6 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 Part One: Ecosystem Health).
FOSTERING CHESAPEAKE
STEWARDSHIP
Accomplishing a comprehensive restoration plan for an
ecosystem 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 stakeholders
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 Chesapeake Bay can help the
public recognize the connection between the value of the
Chesapeake and their own interests. The Chesapeake Bay must
matter to people in order to gain their support for restoration
efforts. Since 2000, the Bay jurisdictions have acquired, devel-
oped or enhanced more than 100 public access points and in
2006 Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania added or enhanced
42 sites. A public access guide (call 1-800-YOUR-BAY to order)
catalogs over 600 major public access sites in the Bay area,
listing opportunities for boating, fishing, wildlife observation
and beach use.
The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network enhances place-based
interpretation of Bay-related resources and stimulates volunteer
involvement in resource restoration and conservation. Six new
Gateway sites were added to the network in 2006, bringing the
total to more than 150.
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. Last year 53 new water trail miles
were developed, bringing the total to more than 1,800 miles.
Overall, the partners have achieved 97 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 Chesapea/ce Currents
is distributed to more than 850 subscribers, while the daily
-------
electronic "Bay News" service goes out to more than 1,100 users.
The Program's combined websites were accessed by more than
4.6 million different users in 2006. 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.
EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION
Formal environmental education opportunities allow for
in-depth investigation and analysis that enhance a deeper
understanding of ecological concepts, environmental
interrelationships and human implications. All signatory
jurisdictions' school districts have incorporated curriculum
that provides a meaningful outdoor watershed educational
experience. Through 2006, the NOAA B-WET grants program
has funded training opportunities for more than 8,000 teachers.
Nearly 3 million Bay watershed students have participated
in a field experience during their K-12 education.
Overall, the partners have achieved 81 percent of the current
goal of providing a meaningful outdoor watershed educational
experience to every student, starting with the class of 2005.
CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY ACTION
Often, our ability to influence the public rests with the success
we have connecting personal and local issues to the well-being
of the Bay. By successfully making these connections, 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
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 2006, two new local
governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status, and 8
previous winners were recertified, bringing the current total to 75.
Overall, the partners have achieved 23 percent of the existing
goal to certify 330 Bay Partner Communities by 2005.
EDUCATIONAL FIELD EXPERIENCES PROVIDED
Percent of
Goal Achieved
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2.8 Million Students Goal
1985 1990 1995 2000 2
81%
of Goal Achieved
A Accounting Begins Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
BAY PARTNER COMMUNITIES
Goal Achieved
u
23% 198S
of Goal Achieved
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
-------
2006 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 2006
While there are many notable individual accomplishments relat-
ing to Chesapeake Bay restoration, Part 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 2006 are worth highlighting:
Focusing on nutrient and sediment reduction, the Chesapeake
Bay Commission garnered regional and Congressional support
for Farm Bill conservation reforms benefiting both farmers and the
Bay, and helped develop policy to preserve farmland, forests and
open space. The Commission participated in creating our states'
nutrient trading programs and other initiatives reducing nutrient
pollution through forest and air policy and lowering nutrient con-
tent in lawn fertilizer. Congressional awareness was raised on Blue
Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant's key role in Bay restoration.
A restoration project located in the Delaware portion of
the Choptank River Watershed was completed in a coopera-
tive effort by the property owner, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and the Kent
Conservation District. This project restored 1,700 feet of
stream, installing water control structures to emulate beaver
impoundments, and creating 2 acres of floodplain wetlands
adjacent to the original channel. This is an innovative project
that has created habitat and restored wetland function while
reducing nutrient loads.
In 2006 the District of Columbia created 6 acres of tidal
wetlands along the Anacostia River. The city is monitoring this
site and a prior wetland project, where over 50 plant species
have been identified since 2003. D.C. passed green building
legislation in 2006 requiring that new or renovated buildings
over 50,000 square feet and District government buildings
over 10,000 square feet meet LEED silver accreditation.
The District funded construction of several LID retrofits
- showcasing alternative stormwater treatment techniques.
The EPA, working with funding partners the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation and the Maryland Chesapeake Bay
Trust, provided $7.7 million for 10 "targeted watershed"
grants. The 10 projects funded in 2006 will reduce more
than nine million pounds of nitrogen and nearly seven million
pounds of phosphorous annually to the Bay. The projects
reduce pollution from a range of sources and explore
market-based incentives to encourage more widespread
implementation of pollution-fighting programs.
In 2006, Maryland dedicated a record $360 million in fund-
ing for land preservation, and celebrated achievement of its
Chesapeake Bay Agreement goal of preserving 20 percent of
the state's natural landscape. Ten wastewater treatment plant
upgrades were initiated and one completed with Chesapeake
Bay Restoration Fund dollars. In 2006, the first year that the
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Funds were available for cover
crops, 128,638 acres were planted. Maryland's Corsica River
Watershed Action Strategy was named best watershed-based
plan in the nation in an EPA report.
CHESAPEAKE BAY 2006 Health & Restoration.;
Ecosystem Health
-------
Pennsylvania supported nutrient reduction through its $625
million Growing Greener II watershed restoration bond and $250
million Sewer Infrastructure bond. A stakeholder outreach pro-
cess was completed to refine Pennsylvania's Point Source Strategy
and Nutrient Trading Policy. Nutrient limits are being included in
permits for wastewater treatment facilities to reach compliance by
2010. Agriculture initiatives included Conservation District grants
to build understanding of regulatory requirements. To address
nutrient loads from developed lands, Pennsylvania issued a new
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
June record floods caused loss of life and substantial prop-
erty and natural resource damage throughout much of the
Susquehanna watershed in New York. Implementation priorities
consider the need to effect recovery and flood damage preven-
tion. The NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee awarded
11 projects to Upper Susquehanna Coalition counties in 2006,
totaling $3.5 million, emphasizing grass based agriculture and
involving more than 100 farms. Wetlands are a priority with over
370 acres restored under various state and federal programs.
Virginia permanently protected 49,837 acres of land and creat-
ed new state parks on the Potomac, York, Shenandoah and James
Rivers. Agricultural Cost-Share Programs were expanded with an
emphasis on five "priority practices" and a comprehensive rewrite
of Stormwater management regulations is underway. Virginia also
adopted a Chesapeake Bay Watershed General Permit regulating
the discharge of nutrients from 125 significant wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Compliance plans, describing how each discharger
will meet their nutrient load caps, are due August 1, 2007.
West Virginia gained momentum in Tributary Strategy imple-
mentation by focusing work in priority watersheds. Successful
projects such as a rain barrel workshop and a rain garden dem-
onstration resulted from partnerships between volunteers, local
governments and state agencies. These partners are now explor-
ing 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.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
WATERS H ED
This report was developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership
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, Del. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, D.C. Dept. of Health, Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin, Md. Dept. of Agriculture, Md. Dept. of the Environment,
Md. Dept. of Natural Resources, National Park Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Old Dominion University, Pa. Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources,
Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection, Pa. Fish and Boat Commission,
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, University of Md. Center for
Environmental Science, University of Md. 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, Va. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Va. Dept. of
Conservation and Recreation, Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries, Va.
Institute of Marine Science, Va. Tech, Versar, W.Va. Dept. of Agriculture and
the W.Va. Dept. of Environmental Protection.
For a full list of contributing partners, visit
www.chesapeakebay.net/baypartners.htm
/mages: Chesapeake Bay Program; Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network;
Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Donna Morelli; George
Grall©National Aquarium in Baltimore; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA); Glenda Powell©NOAA; United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS)
MD8414 AJ
II
*
fe
MJtiJjJD
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
800-YOUR-BAY
www.chesapeakebay.net
------- |