United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Chesapeake Bay Program Office (3CBOO)
Annapolis, Maryland
in cooperation with the Chesapeake Bay Program Partners
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and
Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Report to Congress
-------
TFT
\
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a
comprehensive cooperative effort by federal,
state, and local governments, non-
governmental organizations, academics, and
other entities that share the mission of re-
storing and protecting the Chesapeake Bay
and its watershed.
Created in 1983 and authorized by Section
117 of the Clean Water Act, the Chesapeake
Bay Program is directed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council (EC). The Chesapeake Bay
Program Office (CBPO) is maintained by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
supported and staffed by many partners, and
provides support to the EC and CBP. The
CBPO serves several critical functions, as de-
fined in the authorization, including:
* implementing and coordinating science,
research, and monitoring;
• reporting on the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake
Bay and its watershed;
« in cooperation with other federal, state
and local authorities, assisting in devel-
oping and implementing specific action
plans;
* coordinating the actions of EPA with
those of other federal, state, and local
agencies and organizations; and
• implementing outreach programs for pub-
lic information, education, and steward-
ship.
The Chesapeake Executive Council directs
the CBP through signed agreements and
directives. The most recent agreement
signed by the EC, the Chesapeake 2000
agreement, describes a bold effort to combat
the current trends and to restore the Bay by
2010. A hallmark of the CBP's success has
been its use of science as the basis for build-
ing clear outcome goals for complex, multi-
stakeholder restoration efforts, allocating
those goals through a consensus-based ap-
proach among the partners, and measuring
progress toward meeting those goals. The
partnership has developed unparalleled co-
operative efforts and pioneered clean up
strategies that have resulted in measurable
gains in reducing the flow of pollutants into
the Bay and improving aquatic habitat for the
Bay's living resources.
The CBP reports its comprehensive under-
standing of Bay health and restoration pro-
gress to the public through an annual as-
sessment using a series of related indica-
tors. The most recent assessment, Chesa-
peake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration As-
sessment: A Report to the Citizens of the Bay
Region, was released in April 2008.
Despite substantial effort and progress by
the full spectrum of partners, the Bay's
health remains degraded. Restoration efforts
are being overtaken by current trends. For
example, population in the watershed has
grown nearly 17 million bringing more roads,
homes, industrial and business parks, and
other impervious surfaces which harden the
landscape. Development has drastically al-
tered the natural hydrology and thereby the
natural filtering systems for nutrient and
sediment pollution.
-------
.'.' for
In October 2005, the U.S. Government Ac-
countability Office (GAO) issued its report
Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strate-
gies are Needed to Better Assess, Report
and Manage Restoration Progress. The GAO
report recommended that CBPO:
« complete efforts to develop and imple-
ment an integrated assessment ap-
proach;
« revise its reporting approach to improve
effectiveness and credibility; and
« develop a comprehensive, coordinated
implementation strategy that takes into
account available resources.
In December 2007, Congress passed the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-161). The Act's Explanatory State-
ment directed EPA to:
« immediately implement all of the recom-
mendations of the 2005 GAO Report;
« submit a report to Congress and to GAO,
with supporting evidence, that demon-
strates the GAO recommendations have
been implemented; and
« develop a Chesapeake Action Plan for the
remaining years of the Chesapeake 2000
agreement that contains specified com-
ponents (i.e., realistic annual targets, ac-
tual activities, amount and source of
funding, process to track and measure
progress).
' '•
This Report to Congress describes the
collective efforts of CBP partners to imple-
ment all the GAO recommendations. This re-
port provides documentation and evidence to
demonstrate how these recommendations
have been implemented and will support en-
hanced coordination, collaboration, and ac-
countability among the CBP partners.
In addition, this report describes the CBP's
development of the Chesapeake Action Plan
(CAP), which is an important enhancement of
the CBP's management system that supports
implementation of the GAO recommenda-
tions.
11 -
Consistent with GAO's recommendations and
the Explanatory Statement of the FY 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-
161), the CBP partners have designed, de-
veloped, and begun implementation of the
first version of the CAP.
The CAP includes four primary components,
each of which is described in this report to
Congress:
» a strategic framework that unifies CBP's
existing planning documents and clarifies
how CBP partners will pursue the restora-
tion and protection goals for the Bay and
its watershed;
» an activity integration plan with compre-
hensive, quality assured data for 2007
that identifies and catalogues CBP part-
ners' implementation activities and cor-
responding resources;
» dashboards, which are high-level summa-
ries of key information, such as clear
status of progress, expected progress to-
ward certain Chesapeake 2000 goals,
summaries of actions and funding, and a
brief summary of the challenges and ac-
tions needed to expedite progress; and
-------
Strengthening the Manager
« an adaptive management process that
begins to identify how this information
and analysis will provide critical input to
CBP partners' actions, emphasis, and fu-
ture priorities.
This first version of the CAP includes the im-
plementation activities and corresponding
resources often federal agencies, six states,
the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay
Commission and two non-governmental or-
ganizations.
These components should promote en-
hanced coordination among CBP partners;
encourage the partners to continually review
and improve their progress in protecting and
restoring the Bay; increase the transparency
of CBP's operations for partners and the pub-
lic; and improve the accountability mecha-
nisms of CBP as a whole and of the individ-
ual partners for meeting their Bay health and
restoration goals.
The CAP includes the tools necessary to sup-
port a management system that more closely
aligns implementation responsibilities with
the unique capabilities and missions of the
CBP partners. Through the activity integration
plan, partner activities will be made trans-
parent and maintained in a centralized data-
base to position the CBP to identify potential
activity overlap and gaps. This will improve
our ability to avoid duplication of effort and
better target our resources. As a whole, the
CAP represents an important enhancement
to the way CBP will operate.
It is important to note that CBP partners have
long been engaged in significant actions to
advance the protection and restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay. CBP partners are strongly
committed to achieving CBP's goals for the
Bay. The CAP should place CBP on a course
to accelerate the pace at which the partners
implement actions to improve the Bay.
Ill
The CAP represents an important enhance-
ment in coordination and accountability.
While much has been accomplished in the
design, development, and implementation of
the plan, key next steps include:
« verifying and validating the preliminary
2008 and 2009 funding data currently
contained in the CAP database;
« validating the design of the CAP;
» expanding the scope of the CAP to in-
clude additional watershed partners;
» continuing to refine the breadth and qual-
ity of the information on implementation
activities by CBP partners;
» closely evaluating and considering how
the CAP can better enhance coordination,
collaboration, and accountability; and
» providing information about the CAP to
the public and to other estuary and wa-
tershed programs.
in
-------
Summary of CBP's Implementation of GAO's Recommended Actions
Complete efforts to
develop and im-
plement an inte-
grated approach to
assess overall res-
toration process.
1. Complete plans to de-
velop and implement an
integrated approach to
assess overall restora-
tion progress.
la. April 2005
Ib. May 2006
a. Reduced more than 100 Bay health and
restoration indicators into three indices of
ecosystem health and five indices of resto-
ration effort.
b. Organized 102 Chesapeake 2000 com-
mitments into a six-goal strategy and be-
gan managingthe program accordingto
this design.
Revise reporting
approach to im-
prove the effective-
ness and credibility
of reports.
2. Include an assessment
of the key ecological at-
tributes that reflect the
Bay's current health
conditions.
March 2006
Developed 13 environmental indicators that
directly measure key ecological attributes of
the Bay. These indicators were the basis for
the first integrated health assessment of the
Bay, published in March 2006.
3. Report separately on
the health of the Bay
and on the progress
made in implementing
management actions.
March 2006
Separated restoration activities from ecosys-
tem health and developed an annual report-
ing process for both. Published annual
Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration As-
sessment reports in new format starting in
2006.
4. Establish an independ-
ent and objective re-
porting process.
September
2006
Established a new reporting process based
on an independent review of the first inte-
grated Health & Restoration Assessment and
instituted longer term process for ensuring
continued independent review of the As-
sessments through the Chesapeake Bay re-
gion's scientific community.
Develop a compre-
hensive, coordi-
nated implementa-
tion strategy that
takes into account
available resources.
5. Develop an overall, co-
ordinated implementa-
tion strategy that unifies
the program's various
planning documents.
May 2008
Developed a strategic framework that unifies
CBP's past agreements, policies, plans, and
indicators into a single, integrated implemen-
tation strategy. This action, along with the
action described in response to GAO's sixth
recommended action, constitutes the Chesa-
peake Action Plan.
6. Establish a means to
better target its limited
resources to ensure
that the most effective
and realistic work plans
are developed and im-
plemented.
May 2008
As directed by Congress, designed and pro-
duced an initial activity integration plan that
identifies current and planned protection and
restoration activities undertaken by CBP
partners, as well as funding allocated by CBP
partners for those activities. The activity inte-
gration plan will continue to be revised and
improved. Developed initial realistic annual
targets for the remaining years of the Chesa-
peake 2000 agreement.
IV
-------
Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Executive Summary i
Acronyms vi
Figures viii
Chapters
1. The Chesapeake Bay Program 1
2. The Charge for This Report 5
3. CBP Has Implemented GAO's Recommendations 9
4. Implementing GAO Recommendation 5 - A Unifying Implementation Strategy 17
5. Implementing GAO Recommendation 6 - A Means to Better Target
Limited Resources 25
6. Conclusion 41
Appendices
Appendix A. CBP Strategic Framework Summary A-l
Appendix B. Status of Chesapeake 2000 Commitments B-l
Appendix C. Reviews of CBP C-l
Appendix D. Realistic Annual Targets Background D-l
Appendix E. CBP Dashboards E-l
Appendix F. Quality Assurance Activities for the Chesapeake Action Plan F-l
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Progra
AMD Acid Mine Drainage
BARC USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
CAJO Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
CAP Chesapeake Action Plan
CBC Chesapeake Bay Commission
CBF Chesapeake Bay Foundation
CBP Chesapeake Bay Program
CBPDC Chesapeake Bay Program Data Center
CBT Chesapeake Bay Trust
CBPO Chesapeake Bay Program Office
DC District of Columbia
DE Delaware
DEC Department of Environmental Conservation
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DU Ducks Unlimited
EBFMPs Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management Plans
EC Chesapeake Executive Council
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEP Fisheries Ecosystem Planning for Chesapeake Bay
GAO Government Accountability Office
1C Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation Committee
ICR Information Collection Request
MD Maryland
MSX Oyster parasite Haplosporidium nelsoni
MWEE Meaningful Watershed Educational Experience
N Nitrogen
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
VI
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Progra
NY New York
OL Organizational Liaison
P Phosphorus
PA Pennsylvania
PENNVEST Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority
P.L. Public Law
QA Quality Assurance
QARS Quality Assurance Report System
RFB Riparian Forest Buffer
RLA Resource Land Assessment
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SME Subject Matter Expert
STAC Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
UMCES University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VA Virginia
WV West Virginia
VII
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Progra
1. Chesapeake Bay Program Committee Structure
2. Chesapeake 2000 Strategic Themes and CAP Goals
3. Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Efforts Indices and Indicators
4. Relationship of CAP Goals and Restoration Efforts Indices to Bay Health Indices
5. CBP Strategic Framework
6. CBP Realistic Annual Targets
7. 2007 Funding Data Submitted to CBP Activity Integration Plan Database
8. CBP Partners Providing Data to the CBP Activity Integration Plan Database
9. CBP Dashboards - Tracking and Measuring Progress
10. Chesapeake Bay Program Management System
VIII
-------
CHAPTER 1
The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in
the United States, is part of an extremely
complex ecosystem. This ecosystem consists
of the Bay, its tributaries and the living re-
sources it supports. The Chesapeake Bay wa-
tershed covers more than 64,000 square
miles in six states and the District of Colum-
bia.1 Recognized as the largest and most
productive estuary in North America, the Bay
is home to more than 3,700 species of
plants and animals and is one of this coun-
try's most valuable natural treasures.
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a re-
gional partnership leading and directing pro-
tection and restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay. It was formed in 1983, with the first
Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed by the
Governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Penn-
sylvania, the Mayor of the District of Colum-
bia, the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission (a tri-state legislative body) and
the Administrator of the United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) repre-
senting the federal government. These offi-
cials come together annually as the Chesa-
peake Executive Council (EC) to set policy
direction and call for specific actions. In
2002, the states of Delaware, New York and
West Virginia formally joined the water qual-
ity restoration effort.
The CBP is authorized by Section 117 of the
Clean Water Act and is directed by the EC.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO),
1 Of the total watershed area, 22,552 square miles are
in Pennsylvania, 21,857 in Virginia, 9,256 in Mary-
land, 6,263 in New York, 3,583 in West Virginia, 705
in Delaware, and 63 in the District of Columbia.
also authorized by Section 117, is main-
tained by EPA, supported and staffed by
many partners, and provides support to the
EC and CBP. CBP partners define their collec-
tive actions through formal, voluntary
agreements and provide general policy direc-
tion through consensus documents. While all
agreements are entered into voluntarily, they
may be implemented in various ways by indi-
vidual CBP partners.
CBP's organizational structure (Figure 1) in-
cludes the EC including the governors of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the
EPA Administrator; and the chair of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC). The
Principals' Staff Committee, composed of
cabinet-level representatives from the CBP
partner states and the District of Columbia,
EPA's Regional Administrator, a U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) representative, a
CBC representative, and the Director of the
CBPO, serves as an advisory body to the EC
members. CBP's Implementation Committee
(1C) is composed of senior managers from
each CBP partner, chairs of CBP subcommit-
tees, federal agency representatives, and
other protection and restoration leaders. The
1C directs and coordinates CBP's subcommit-
tees and workgroups. CBP's subcommittees
include partner representatives as well as
academic experts, staff members from advo-
cacy organizations, and others.
The Chesapeake Executive Council directs
the CBP through signed agreements and di-
rectives. The most recent agreement signed
by the EC, the Chesapeake 2000 agreement
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay Program Committee Structure
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Chesapeake Executive
Council
Principals' Staff
Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Implementation
Committee
SUBCOMMITTEES
Federal Agencies
Committee
Budget Steering
Committee
Nutrient
Toxics
Monitoring
and
Analysis
Modeling
Living
Resources
Land, Growth
and
Stewardship
Communications
and
Education
Information
Management
describes a bold effort to combat the current
trends and to restore the Bay by 2010.
While that goal will not be reached by 2010,
the vision remains valid and progress will
continue.
A hallmark of the CBP's success has been its
use of science as the basis for building clear
outcome goals for complex, multi-
stakeholder restoration efforts. The partner-
ship has developed unparalleled cooperative
efforts and pioneered clean up strategies
that have resulted in measurable gains in
reducing the flow of pollutants into the Bay.
The CBP reports its comprehensive under-
standing of Bay health and restoration pro-
gress to the public through an annual as-
sessment using a series of related indica-
tors. The most recent assessment, Chesa-
peake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration As-
sessment: A Report to the Citizens of the Bay
Region, was released in April 2008.
Despite the progress made through the
adoption of uniform water quality standards
across the Bay, establishment of an aggres-
sive permitting approach for wastewater
treatment plants, implementation of the
most cost-effective agricultural best man-
agement practices, restoration of forests and
wetlands, and increases in states' funding of
Bay restoration, the Bay remains degraded.
Restoration efforts are being overtaken by
current trends. Population in the watershed
has grown to nearly 17 million bringing more
roads, homes, industrial and business parks,
and other impervious surfaces which harden
the landscape. While the population of the
Bay watershed increased by about eight per-
cent in the past decade, the amount of the
impervious surface increased by about 41
percent. Development has drastically altered
the natural hydrology and thereby the natural
filtering systems for nutrient and sediment
pollution.
-------
Streng
The CBPO facilitated and coordinated the de- comprehensive coordinating mechanism for
velopment of this Chesapeake Action Plan. a more effective Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA is submitting this Report to Congress on partnership and the means to better report
behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The on partner implementation actions to
CBP partners have contributed to and em- achieve Chesapeake 2000 goals.
braced the Chesapeake Action Plan as the
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
CHAPTER 2
for
In October 2005, the Government Account-
ability Office (GAO) published Chesapeake
Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are
Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Man-
age Restoration Progress [GAO-06-96]. In
that report, GAO set forth the following rec-
ommendations and actions for implementing
those recommendations:
"To improve the methods used by the Bay
Program to assess progress made on the
restoration effort, we recommend that
the Administrator of EPA instruct the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office to com-
plete its plans to develop and implement
an integrated approach to assess overall
restoration progress. In doing so, the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office should
ensure that this integrated approach
clearly ties to the five broad restoration
goals identified in Chesapeake 2000.
To improve the effectiveness and credibil-
ity of the Bay Program's reports on the
health of the Bay, we recommend that
the Administrator of EPA instruct the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office to take
the following three actions to revise its
reporting approach:
» include an assessment of the key eco-
logical attributes that reflect the Bay's
current health conditions,
» report separately on the health of the Bay
and on the progress made in implement-
ing management actions, and
» establish an independent and objective
reporting process.
To ensure that the Bay Program is man-
aged and coordinated effectively, we also
recommend that the Administrator of EPA
instruct the Chesapeake Bay Program Of-
fice to work with the Bay Program part-
ners to take the following two actions:
» develop an overall, coordinated imple-
mentation strategy that unifies the pro-
gram's various planning documents, and
* establish a means to better target its lim-
ited resources to ensure that the most ef-
fective and realistic work plans are de-
veloped and implemented. "
In comments published as Appendix IV to
GAO's report, CBP signatory organizations
generally agreed with GAO's recommenda-
tions and suggested that many of the rec-
ommended actions were already underway.
Since the publication of the GAO report, the
CBP partners have continued to implement
GAO's recommended actions. This Report to
Congress provides detailed descriptions of
the progress the CBP partners have made in
these efforts. The CBP partners believe the
implementation of these recommended ac-
tions is improving the program's effective-
ness, efficiency, and progress toward resto-
ration of the Chesapeake Bay.
.-•!, Act
On page 1255 of the Explanatory Statement
to P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropria-
tions Act, 2008, Congress provided the fol-
lowing direction regarding the Chesapeake
Bay Program:
-------
Strengthening the Manager
' Directives for specific geographic pro-
grams are as follows:
1. Chesapeake Bay Program:
$31,000,000 for this program, instead of
$30,000,000 proposed by the House and
$32,812,000 proposed by the Senate.
The Agency is directed to allocate the
Chesapeake Bay funding as follows:
$21,000,000 for base programs;
$8,000,000 for Targeted Watershed
Grants;
$2,000,000 for Small Watershed Grants.
The Agency is further directed to imple-
ment immediately all of the recommen-
dations contained in the October, 2005
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report. Of the funds provided to the Bay
Program and the Office of the Administra-
tor of EPA, $5,000,000 in administrative
funds shall not become available until 60
days after the EPA Administrator submits
a report to the Senate and House Appro-
priations Committees and to the Comp-
troller General stating, with supporting
evidence, that EPA has implemented the
recommendations contained in the GAO
report.
In addition, the Agency is directed to de-
velop a Chesapeake Bay action plan for
the remaining years of the Chesapeake
2000 Agreement. This plan must: (1)
clearly articulate realistic targets the
Chesapeake Bay Program expects to
achieve in each of the remaining years;
(2) describe the actual activities the
Chesapeake Bay Program will implement
in each year to achieve these annual tar-
gets; (3) identify the amount and source
of funding that will be used to accomplish
each of these activities; and, (4) describe
the process the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram will use to track and measure the
progress of these actions. Finally, the
GAO is directed to conduct periodic per-
formance assessments of progress made
on this action plan. "
This report constitutes CBP's response to
Congress's request for a report on the im-
plementation of GAO's recommended ac-
tions. The report also describes the CBP
partners' development and continued re-
finement of an action plan for the Chesa-
peake Bay. As described in detail in the
chapters that follow, the CBP partners have
developed:
« a strategic framework that unifies CBP's
existing planning documents;
« an activity integration plan that identifies
the activities CBP partners are taking as
well as the amount and source of funding
to accomplish each of these activities2;
« a series of dashboards that track and
measure the progress of the actions
CBP partners are taking; and
» an adaptive management process that
begins to specify how the CBP partners
will track and improve their progress in
the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
The CBP partners agree with Congress and
GAO on the need to continually improve the
effectiveness of the program and to acceler-
2 EPA is working with the partners to identify funding
for planned activities; however, to date these data are
incomplete. This is partially because CBP partners
conduct their budgeting on different cycles and
schedules. Identifying resource availability in future
years, therefore, can involve estimation and is subject
to revision.
-------
Strengther
ate the restoration and protection of the
Chesapeake Bay.
As a whole, the Chesapeake Action Plan
represents an important enhancement to the
way CBP operates. The components of the
CAP promote a strategic approach to en-
hance coordination among CBP partners, en-
gage CBP partners in continual evaluation of
efforts to protect and restore the Bay and its
watershed, increase the transparency of
CBP's operations for partners and the public,
and improve the accountability mechanisms
of CBP as a whole and of the CBP partners
for meeting their goals for Bay health and
restoration. The CBP partners appreciate the
interest of Congress and GAO in the program,
and believe that the implementation of these
recommendations provides the program with
new opportunities to increase cooperation
and accountability that will lead to better pro-
gress in improving the health of the Chesa-
peake Bay.
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
CHAPTER 3
Implementation of the actions recommended
by GAO and Congress is resulting in a
stronger Chesapeake Bay Program and in
enhanced coordination among the CBP part-
ners. This section describes the efforts of the
CBP partners to implement those recom-
mended actions and summarizes the bene-
fits of such efforts.
To the by the
Program to on the
effort,, we the
of EPA the
Bay (CBPO) to com-
its to an
to resto-
ration In so, the CBPO
this
ties to the five
fled in 2000.
CBP has implemented this recommendation
by strategically integrating its obligations un-
der Chesapeake 2000 with its goals and by
using these goals as the organizing principle
for its reporting of annual restoration pro-
gress.
The CBP partners organized the multitude of
separate agreements, policies, strategies,
and plans under the five broad strategic
themes of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
For information on CBP's commitments un-
der Chesapeake 2000, see Appendix B of
this report. CBP partners translated the stra-
tegic themes into five action-oriented goals
(see Figure 2). CBP partners added a sixth
goal, "Enhance Partnering, Leadership, and
Management," to reflect actions related to
CBP's overarching structure and coordina-
tion.
CBP partners use this approach in their an-
nual Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration
Assessment (Assessment). Prior to 2005,
CBP's assessments presented more than
100 indicators in a manner that blurred the
distinction between Bay health and restora-
tion efforts, making it difficult to develop an
overall assessment of ecosystem health or
restoration efforts. In response to GAO's rec-
ommendations, a CBP task force identified
the most important indicators for public re-
porting and categorized these indicators into
three indices of Bay health and five indices
of restoration effort (see Figure 3).
Figure 2. Chesapeake 2000 Strategic Themes and CAP Goals
1. Living Resource Protection and Restoration
1. Protect and Restore Fisheries
2. Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
2. Protect and Restore Vital Aquatic Habitats
3. Water Quality Protection and Restoration
3. Protect and Restore Water Quality
4. Sound Land Use
4. Maintain Healthy Watersheds
5. Stewardship and Community Engagement
5. Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
6. Enhance Partnering, Leadership, and
Management
-------
Figure 3. Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Effort Indices and Indicators3
Water Quality Index
• Dissolved Oxygen Standards
Attainment
• Mid Channel Water Clarity
» Chlorophyll a
« Chemical Contaminants
Habitats & Lower Food Web Index
« Bay Grass Abundance
• Phytoplankton
« Bottom Habitat
• Tidal Wetlands Abundance
Fish & Shellfish Index
« Blue Crab Abundance
• Native Oyster Abundance
« Striped Bass Abundance
• Shad Returning to Chesapeake
Bay
• Juvenile Menhaden Abundance
in Maryland
Managing Fisheries Index
• Blue Crab Fisheries Management Effort
• Oysters Fisheries Management Effort
« Striped Bass Fisheries Management Effort
• Shad Fisheries Management Effort
« Menhaden Fisheries Management Effort
Restoring Habitats Index
• Bay Grasses Planted
« Wetlands Restoration Efforts
• Opening Rivers to Migratory Fish
« Native Oyster Annual Restoration Efforts
Reducing Pollution Index
• Agricultural Pollution Controls
« Wastewater Pollution Controls
• Urban/Suburban Pollution Controls
« Air Pollution Controls
Protecting Watersheds Index
« Riparian Forest Buffers Planted
« Watershed Management Plans Developed
« Watershed Lands Preservation
Fostering Stewardship Index
« Public Access
« Bay Program Website Visits
« Educational Field Experiences Provided
« Bay Partner Communities
; For detailed description of indices and methods refer to www.chesapeakebay.net/indicatorshome.aspx
10
-------
to C
Under this approach, Bay health indices draw
on current monitoring data gathered by CBP
partners to assess the overall health of the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Restoration ef-
fort indices assess the overall progress of
implementation actions by CBP partners
based on a combination of monitoring data,
reported implementation actions, and model
simulations. The streamlined indicators
framework includes three indices of Bay
health (composed of 13 indicators) and five
indices of restoration efforts (composed of
20 indicators).
Since the restoration efforts indices evaluate
the progress CBP is making toward its goals,
CBP partners developed a restoration efforts
index for each of the goals (except the new
sixth goal). These indicators and indices are
related in that progress in CBP partners' res-
toration work should lead to improvements in
the health of the Chesapeake Bay, as meas-
ured by the Bay health indices (see Figure 4).
'", 2
an of the key
that the current
conditions.
CBP has implemented this recommendation
by developing and continually improving
upon a set of environmental indicators that
clearly identify key ecological attributes rep-
resenting the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
In 2004 and 2005, an indicators redesign
task force critically evaluated the existing set
of indicators and made recommendations for
improving the assessment and communica-
tion of the Bay's health and restoration ef-
forts with the use of a new indicators frame-
work.4 Based on CBP's April 2005 decision to
adopt the new framework, the CBP partners
completed development of a new set of 13
indicators that clearly identify key ecological
attributes representing the health of the Bay
(see Figure 3). These indicators are
Figure 4. Relationship of CAP Goals and Restoration Efforts Indices to Bay Health Indices
Protect and Restore Fisheries
Protect and Restore Vital
Aquatic Habitats
Protect and Restore Water
Quality
Maintain Healthy Watersheds
Foster Chesapeake Steward-
ship
Enhance Partnering, Leader-
ship, and Management
Restoring Habitats Index
Reducing Pollution Index
Protecting Watersheds Index
Fostering Stewardship Index
Water Quality Index
Habitats & Lower Food Web Index
Fish & Shellfish Index
4 For more information, visit
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/IC
_04-21-05_handout_4_5509.pdf
-------
combined into three integrated indices for
water quality, habitats and lower food web,
and fish and shellfish (see Figure 4). These
indicators have served as the framework for
assessing the health of the Bay since the
development of CBP's first draft of an inte-
grated health assessment of the Bay,
Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health & Restora-
tion Assessment; A Draft Report to Citizens
of the Bay Region, Part One: Ecosystem
Health.5 In this draft report, CBP also estab-
lished a common metric, the percentage of
the restoration goal achieved, to provide
context for the amount of work remaining to
restore key ecological attributes of Bay
health.
In the Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health & Res-
toration Assessment6, CBP partners further
improved and finalized the assessment by
addressing issues raised in an independent
scientific review by CBP's Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee (STAC).7 The
review recommendations, as well as com-
ments from the public and CBP partners,
guided CBP in improving on the data and
reporting elements of the 2006 Assess-
ment and filling some of the indicator gaps
identified in the 2005 draft Assessment.
CBP's Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Res-
5 EPA A-903-R-06-001A, released in March 2006,
available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publication
s/cbp_12892.pdf
6 EPA 903R-07001, released in March 2007, avail-
able at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publi
cations/cbp_15548.pdf
7 Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee, Monitoring, Assessment, and
Indicator Review Subcommittee. Meeting Report.
September 9, 2006.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/STACIndicat
orReview9-12-06.pdf
toration Assessment, released to the public
on March 31, 2008, continues this pattern
of continual improvement by filling all indi-
cator gaps identified in the previous as-
sessments, improving key indicators, and
integrating into the report assessments of
the health of the freshwater rivers and
streams that feed the Chesapeake Bay.
." . Tt on the of the
on the in
CBP has implemented this recommenda-
tion by developing an annual reporting
process that makes clear the distinction
between ecosystem health and restoration
effort indicators in the Chesapeake Bay
Health & Restoration Assessment.8
In the 2005 and 2006 assessments, CBP
partners reported on the Bay health indica-
tors and restoration effort indicators in two
separate publications to eliminate confu-
sion about the intent of the indicators. For
the 2007 assessment, CBP published a
single document that includes distinctly
separate chapters for the two types of indi-
cators. Also, based on the GAO recommen-
dations and independent review, CBP part-
ners redesigned the way indicator informa-
tion is presented on the CBP website. For
more information, please visit
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicatorsh
ome.aspx.
1 CBP's Health & Restoration Assessments are avail-
able at
http://www.chesapeakebay.neVindicatorshome.aspx
-------
Report to Cc(»g«»Esi
, 4
an independent and objective re-
porting process.
CBP has implemented this recommenda-
tion by establishing two mechanisms that
ensure continued independent and objec-
tive reporting on the Bay's health and resto-
ration efforts.
Since 2006, CBP's STAC has had a stand-
ing team of scientists charged with respon-
sibility for assuring the scientific integrity of
the data, new indicators, and new indices
used in CBP's publications.
In 2007, CBP instituted a separate inde-
pendent and objective reporting process for
its annual Chesapeake Bay Health and Res-
toration Assessment. This reporting process
is conducted by the University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science (UMCES)
with the direct involvement of the Bay re-
gion's scientific community and is issued
publicly in the easy-to-read format of a
Chesapeake Bay report card. The UMCES
report card is released on the same day as
CBP's Chesapeake Bay Health & Restora-
tion Assessment and serves as an inde-
pendent assessment of Bay health.
'• 5
ctii ove
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordinate
dashboards—that will allow the program to
improve its tracking, monitoring, and report-
ing of the activities of CBP partners to pro-
tect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
These resources, along with the strategic
framework, directly address Congress' di-
rection as discussed in Chapter 2 of this
report.
The CBP realistic annual targets are specific
targets that the CBP partners believe can
be met. These targets reflect the annual
progress which can be made by 2010 to-
wards the ambitious goals set forth in the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement. The CBP
partners have developed 16 realistic tar-
gets based upon historic and existing levels
of funding and progress. Discussions with
experts at state and federal agencies re-
garding the capacity to expand efforts and
implement on-the-ground activities also in-
fluenced the establishment of targets.
CBP's activity integration plan is a compre-
hensive catalogue of the activities in which
CBP partners are engaged to protect and
restore the Chesapeake Bay. The activity
integration plan is intended to provide in-
formation (organized by goal) on:
» the actual activities being implemented
by the CBP partners;
» the lead partner for each activity and
any cooperating partners;
» the amount and source of funding dedi-
cated to accomplishing each activity by
all cooperating partners;
» the location of each activity; and
» progress toward the established realis-
tic annual targets.
The activity integration plan is supported by
a database to which CBP partners contrib-
ute through a newly developed, web-based
reporting form. As of May 1, 2008, the data
submitted to CBP's activity integration plan
database for 2007 accounted for 885 part-
ner activities valued at $1.1 billion. The
2007 data represent a comprehensive,
quality data set that constitute the majority
of information in the database due to vary-
ing budget cycles of CBP partners and the
uncertainties associated with future budg-
ets. The activity integration plan and asso-
ciated quality assurance activities are de-
scribed in Chapter 5 and Appendix F of this
report.
CBP's dashboards are high-level summaries
of key information, presented in visual
terms, that is essential for program plan-
ning and management. The dashboards re-
port on CBP's progress toward its protection
and restoration goals. As mentioned above,
progress in the program's restoration ef-
forts should be reflected in improvements
in the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The
dashboards provide an overview of CBP's
progress in meeting its Chesapeake 2000
commitments and realistic annual targets
(given existing programs and resources), as
requested by Congress. The dashboards
also include a strategic analysis of the topic
area, the planned activities in that area,
and gaps in meeting the Chesapeake 2000
goals for that area. The CBP dashboards
developed to date are included as Appendix
E of this report.
In order to use the elements of the CAP ef-
fectively, the CBP partners found that an
explicit process of adaptive management
for the program and its implementation
strategies was important. CBP's activity in-
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Progra
tegration plan, dashboards, and adaptive
management process are described in de-
tail in Chapter 5 of this report.
The CBP partners have worked to meet the
expectations of Congress in the Explanatory
Statement to the Consolidated Appropria-
tions Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) and of GAO
in its October 2005 report.
CBP has developed a meaningful way of
implementing Chesapeake 2000 across all
CBP partners. CBP has made a clear de-
lineation between the measures used to
assess the health of the Bay ecosystem and
those that it uses to measure its progress,
which allows partners to better assess the
effects of its actions and allows observers
to better understand the program's actions.
The remainder of this report details CBP's
implementation of efforts to better target
its resources, articulate realistic targets for
2008 through 2010, identify the activities
CBP plans to implement to reach these tar-
gets, enumerate the amounts and sources
of activity funding for 2007, and track and
measure the program's progress. These
tools signal the evolution of the Chesa-
peake Bay Program to a new, more efficient
organization that is more strategic, effec-
tive, and accountable for meeting its goals.
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
^
16
-------
to ~: - g -"
CHAPTER 4
A
•r Cms* I C^rf
In GAO's words, "restoring the Chesapeake
Bay is a massive, complex, and difficult un-
dertaking. The ultimate success of the resto-
ration hinges on several factors, of which a
well-coordinated and managed implementa-
tion approach is key." To this end, GAO's fifth
recommendation for the Chesapeake Bay
Program was to "develop an overall, coordi-
nated implementation strategy that unifies
the program's various planning documents."
The CBP partners have responded to GAO's
recommendation by creating a strategic
framework, including a set of narrative goal
strategies that unifies the program's existing
multitude of planning documents.
of
CBP partners have long understood that ac-
complishing the program's mission depends
on the commitment of all partners to imple-
ment actions addressing all dimensions of
the Chesapeake Bay's problems. This calls
for an overarching strategy for CBP based on
three guiding principles. These guiding prin-
ciples inform the manner in which partners
developed the CBP strategic framework and
goal strategies.
First, CBP operates as a partnership that
formally includes federal and state agencies
and representatives of the region's local
governments and scientific and business
communities and welcomes participation
from the wide range of stakeholders with an
interest in the health and restoration of the
Bay. Second, CBP approaches the challenges
of protecting and restoring the Chesapeake
Bay in a comprehensive manner that encom-
passes water, land, and air and acknowl-
edges the complexity of the relationships be-
tween these environmental media. Third,
CBP bases its decisions and direction on
sound science.
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983
formally established partnership as a guiding
principle of CBP's strategic approach. The
agreement states that "a cooperative ap-
proach is needed" to protect and restore the
Chesapeake Bay. Partnership is essential
due to the enormous economic, political, and
social challenges inherent in trying to protect
and restore the Chesapeake Bay. An expert
panel convened by the CBP Chesapeake Ex-
ecutive Council in 2003 estimated that re-
storing the Bay would cost $15 billion for res-
toration commitments outlined in the Tribu-
tary Strategies and $28 billion for practices
required by regulation primarily for local wa-
ter quality benefits.9 Moreover, the size of
the Bay and watershed, a growing population
in the Bay watershed that increases stress
on the Bay ecosystem, and the fact that envi-
ronmental challenges do not recognize politi-
cal boundaries demand that multiple juris-
dictions collaborate to address the problems
in the Chesapeake Bay.
To confront these challenges, the federal
government, states, and other partners serve
9 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance
Panel, 2003, Saving a National Treasure: Financing
the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
1?
-------
Strengthening the Managers
on CBP committees and subcommittees,
work side-by-side on protection and restora-
tion projects, and confer on programmatic
decision making. The Chesapeake Action
Plan is intended to strengthen this partner-
ship by more strategically planning, imple-
menting, and evaluating the effectiveness of
the investments CBP partners are making
toward Bay protection and restoration, and
by enhancing the adaptive process by which
the effectiveness of the partnership itself is
examined on a regular basis.
The comprehensive aspect of CBP's strategic
approach also was set forth in the 1983
agreement, which stated that the signatories
recognized that the program needed "to fully
address the extent, complexity, and sources
of pollutants entering the Bay." The 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement provided an
operational framework for the strategic
choice to address all sources of the Bay's
degradation. The 1987 agreement set forth
goals and priority commitments for living re-
sources, water quality, population growth
and development, public information, educa-
tion and participation, public access, and
governance. Though this structure has
been revised in the 21 years since it was
written, those later iterations have main-
tained the commitment of the program to
pursue progress on the totality of the Bay's
pollution sources.
CBP's strategic approach includes a principle
of undertaking scientifically validated protec-
tion and restoration activities in the Bay wa-
tershed. Research, monitoring, and analysis
inform the approaches CBP partners use in
their implementation activities in and around
the Bay. In the agriculture sector, for exam-
ple, the development of effective nutrient
management plans depends on soil analysis,
crop planning, analysis of the effectiveness
of best management practices, and other
information that depends on scientific re-
search. CBP's science program features a
network of researchers in federal and state
agencies, universities, non-governmental or-
ganizations, and other institutions. Further-
more, CBP's Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee has operated since 1984 to in-
dependently ensure the quality of the sci-
ence underlying CBP's decisions, activities,
and policies. An example of the CBP's appli-
cation of science is provided in the "Estab-
lishing Geographic Priorities for Action" side-
bar, illustrating how the partners use map-
ping technologies to direct collective restora-
tion resources towards designated areas of
the watershed.
18
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Establishing Geographic Priorities for Action
CBP has extensive capabilities to
use mapping technologies to de-
termine effective approaches to
meeting identified targets. CBP's
mapping capabilities allow part-
ners to identify where in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed spe-
cific protection and restoration
activities will be most effective.
For example, Chesapeake 2000
called for an "assessment of the
Bay's resource lands including
forests and farms, emphasizing
their role in the protection of wa-
ter quality and critical habitats, as
well as cultural and economic
viability." CBP responded to its
obligation by developing the Re-
source Lands Assessment for the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(RLA), which uses GIS models and
expert knowledge to assess the
value of resource lands within the
watershed. The RLA was the
Chesapeake Bay's first water-
shed-wide attempt to establish
geographic priorities for land pro-
tection for multiple ecological and
socioeconomic benefits.
In 2007, CBP partners used varia-
tions on the RLA water-quality
model to establish state-specific,
place-based priorities and quanti-
tative goals for conservation of
forest lands in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. These efforts
were undertaken to meet the ex-
pectations of the Chesapeake
Executive Council's Forest Con-
servation Directive, and were
greatly enhanced by the RLA ap-
proach. Geographic information
may be useful in a number of
other CBP implementation efforts.
For more information, please visit
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/r
esourcelandsassess-
ment.aspx?menuitem=19096.
Forest Conservation Value
with Threat of Forest Conversion
Chesapeake Bay Watershed - Virginia
12 52.995
11 1,13C,122
10 993,176
9 823,677
3 205,476
7 155,506
5 742,720
5 840.908
4 548.890
3 25,355
2 6.614
" "
This map shows the location of priority forests for the conservation of water quality
using the Virginia prioritization model in conjunction with an overlay identifying
lands under high threat of conversion to non-forest use.
Potential Wetland Restoration Areas and Bird Focus Areas
Hydric Soils, Non-Prime Farmland. High Nitrogen Loads (Delivered) .-
DRAFT
Bird Conservation Region 30
E^UBxt*d
EH Shorctad
Wsterbtrd
This map illustrates areas with high wetland restoration potential in areas of high
nitrogen loading to the Bay, overlaid with areas important to land birds, waterbirds,
and waterfowl as identified by U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative
maps.
19
-------
Strengthening the Management. Coordi
Hi II. GBP
Since the signing of The Chesapeake Bay
Agreement of 1983, CBP partners have for-
mally agreed that more can be accomplished
by working together than working separately.
The CBP partnership has evolved since its
creation from sharing research, monitoring,
and modeling to agreeing to goals and out-
comes, as seen in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement and Chesapeake 2000, as well
as in several other directives and goal state-
ments. These shared goals and measure-
ment systems have allowed for progress to
be measured in comparable ways, while al-
lowing individual jurisdictions the flexibility to
achieve those goals through locally appropri-
ate programs. Implementation strategies,
therefore, have been the responsibility of
each CBP partner, and not necessarily inte-
grated with other strategies.
The next step in CBP's evolution focuses on
better strategic collaboration of federal,
state, and local agencies and organizations.
The CBP strategic framework coordinates the
numerous planning documents that inform
the implementation choices of individual CBP
partners—including annual budgets, Chesa-
peake 2000, organizational strategic plans,
and statutory and congressional require-
ments in order to enhance the partners abil-
ity to focus on achieving the best results with
limited resources.
The CBP partners, therefore, have developed
a strategic framework composed of the six
goal strategies shown in Figure 5. Each goal
strategy includes the following components:
the goal; a rationale that explains why the
goal is important for protecting and restoring
the Bay; the desired results; and a set of
implementation strategies to achieve each
desired result. The implementation strate-
gies account for the partner activities under-
way to meet the expectations of existing CBP
planning documents. Progress toward the
desired result is measured by the realistic
annual targets the CBP partners have devel-
oped and is communicated in CBP's
dashboards. The unification of pre-existing
planning documents in this format allows the
CBP partners to share a common under-
standing of the partnership's agenda of work
and, through the development of realistic
annual targets, establishes a uniform set of
measures to evaluate CBP partners' progress
in improving the Bay.
Figure 5 provides a concise summary of
CBP's strategic framework, including pro-
gram goals, topic areas, desired results, and
implementation strategies. CBP's realistic
annual targets and dashboards are de-
scribed in Chapter 5 of this report. A sum-
mary version of the strategic framework and
the six goal strategies is provided as Appen-
dix A of this report.
20
-------
Figure 5. CBP Strategic Framework
GOAL TOPIC AREA DESIRED RESULTS
STRATEGIES
Fisheries
la. Effective Fisheries
Ecosystem-based
Planning &
Management
Build science infrastructure for ecosystem-based management planning
Improve governance structure and process
Develop new or revised Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management Plans
(EBFMPs) for Chesapeake Bay
Implement EBFMPs for Chesapeake Bay. using adaptive management
Ib. Increased Oyster
Population
Monitor the status of the stock
Increase hatchery production
Develop disease-resistant oysters
Identify, establish, enhance, and seed oyster reefs
Establish a network of permanent sanctuaries throughout the Bay
Support aquaculture
Enforce oyster management laws and regulations
Implement adaptive management
Ic. Increased Blue Crab
Population
Id, Increased Striped
Bass Population
le. Increased Aloslne
Population
If. Increased Menhaden
Population
Monitor to establish and track population and stock health/habitat
Target research to facilitate more effective management
Facilitate science-based management decision-making
Implement adaptive management
and Restore
Vital Aquatic
Habitats
2a. Healthy and Abundant
'.'' Migratory Fish Habitat
Complete multi-objective fish passage projects
Prioritize fish passage in Susquehanna and James watersheds
Lead by example at state and federal dams
Use federal/state engineers for dam removal designs
Regulate installation of new dams/barriers
Ensure streams can support fish populations
2b. Healthy and Abundant
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Accelerate protection of existing SAV beds
Restore SAV through planning and transplanting of SAV beds
Enhance public communication and education
Support research on SAV protection and restoration
', 2c. Healthy and Abundant
'•! Wetlands
Prioritize areas to restore wetland acreage (water quality & habitat)
Restore function of degraded wetlands
2d. Restore Stream Focus actions to reduce nutrients, sediment, and contaminants in watersheds
Health that will provide optimum benefits to improve local stream quality and reduce
loads to the Bay
Understand the causes of fish kills and poor fish health in streams to develop
management solutions
Implement stream restoration actions to improve hydrologic conditions and
decrease sediment erosion
Water Quality
3a. Reduced Loads from
Municipal and
Industrial Wastewater
Facilities
Issue annual N&P caps in NPDES permits during renewal cycle
Seek to fund nutrient reduction upgrades or secure nutrient credits
Determine facility upgrade schedule for significant facilities
Quantify the process to cap loads from non-significant facilities
3b. Reduced Loads from
Agricultural Lands
and Animal
Operations
Set priorities for specific practices in priority watersheds
Accelerate cost-effective practice with greatest N&P reduction
Pursue sustainable reductions (e.g.. animal feed and diet management)
Continue strategy for managing nutrients from manure and poultry litter
Coordinate federal funding to focus on priority watersheds
Seek long-term funding for state agriculture incentive programs
Engage corporate sector in making agricultural production changes
3c. Reduced Loads from
Developed Lands
Control stormwater on developed lands: regulate, restore, redevelop
Evaluate stormwater regulations and strengthen links to water quality goals
Promote progressive strategies to reduce/eliminate runoff
> ,, 3d. Reduced Loads from
j.il, Vj Onslte and Septic
']' i -'•' Systems
Assess adequacy of local requirements for system installation/maintenance
Provide mandates and incentives for new denitrification systems
3e. Reduced Loads from
Streamslde and Tidal
Shoreline Riparian
Areas
Target restoration to areas with highest water quality benefit
Increase incentives to plant and maintain forest buffers
-------
Figure 5. CBP Strategic Framework (cont.)
GOAL
TOPIC AREA DESIRED RESULTS
STRATEGIES
Water Quality
{cont.)
3f. Reduced Sediment
Loads from
Streambanks and
Tidal Shorelines
Identify and target watersheds delivering high sediment loads to tidal waters
Improve targeting tools to better focus management at priority locations
Pilot Regional Sediment Management approach within Bay watershed
Target implementation of living shoreline restoration
3g. Reduced Loads from
Air Emissions
Implement Clean Air Interstate Rule and state programs to meet air standards
Complete research on ammonia emissions from animal operations
Develop management practices for emissions from animal operations
Incorporate practices into tributary strategies and support widespread use
3h. Reduced Acid Mine
Drainage (AMD)
Impacts on Streams
Support research quantifying nutrient benefits of AMD restoration
Target and credit nutrient benefits from AMD restoration projects
31. Reduced Chemical
Contaminant Loads
Identify actions yielding both nutrient and chemical reductions
Prioritize management actions to areas yielding the greatest multiple
benefits to living resources
Healthy
Watersheds
4a. Preserved Valuable
Resource Lands
Support local preservation planning with educational, technical, and
financial assistance
Protect lands of national value
Seek to provide financial support for state & local land protection
4b. Minimized
Conversion of
Forests, Wetlands &
Working Farms
Support local planning and implementation with technical & financial assistance
Technical assistance for small private forest management and conservation
Seek to effectively use forest conservation funding through Farm Bill programs
Facilitate development of ecosystems service markets
Seek to strengthen federal grant requirements through ties to conservation
4c. Minimized Impacts
to Pre-Development
Hydrology
Explore strategies for community level nutrient & sediment allocations
Strengthen state implementation of federal regulatory programs
Seek to use federal implementation funds as leverage
Establish a minimum impact development model and standards
Recognize and certify minimum impact development
Support local implementation of codes and ordinances
Implement minimum impact development in federal projects
Implement Urban Tree Canopy goals
5a. Enhanced Public ; Enhance public access (e.g., Capt J. Smith Chesapeake Trail)
Access Enhance and expand access at Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails
Develop a Bay-wide access plan
..
Chesapeake
Stewardship
5b. High-Quality Bay
Watershed Education
Increase and improve Meaningful Watershed Educational Experience
(MWEE) implementation throughout watershed
Assist environmental education organizations & professionals
Ensure availability of best resources for educators
Increase thoughtful use of technology in delivery of MWEEs
Employ government/research expertise/resources in delivering MWEEs
5c. Hlgh-Qualtty
*'j Interpretation of
the Watershed and
Its Values
Support place-based interpretation at partnerships and along trails
Create Bay-wide interpretive materials, media and programming
Enhance informal educational and lifelong learning opportunities
Enhance heritage tourism marketing and product development
5d. Increased Citizen &
'') Community
Engagement
Develop comprehensive strategic communications plan
Execute timed public relations initiatives to build understanding of restoration
Develop social marketing initiatives targeted to specific audiences
Provide technical assistance to targeted audiences to promote best practices
Support localized citizen volunteer conservation and restoration
Execute internal communications structure
Facilitate public participation through Citizen Advisory Committees
Coordinate CBP communication staffs
Enhance
Partnering
Leaderships
Management
6a. Effective
Infrastructure
Systems
Maintain an integrated "campus" of partners
Advance "green" qualities of current and future facilities
Provide superior information technology support for resident staff and partners
Enhance the quality and delivery of administrative support and services
22
-------
f ,
Report f « Cmiigress; *
Figure 5. CBP Strategic Framework (cont.)
GOAL
TOPIC AREA DESIRED RESULTS
STRATEGIES
o
Enhance
Partnering
Leadership &
Management
(cont)
6b. Responsive and Integrate adaptive management principles into organization
Effective Enhance meeting management to optimize progress and results
Organizational use consensus where appropriate; foster new approaches to partner leadership
Management ane) |nnovatj0n (e g champions)
Implement organizational changes to enhance effectiveness
6c. Effective Coordination,
Accountability, and
Evaluation
Evolve and employ the CAP to coordinate partner actions
Enhance accountability and depiction of progress
Tailor the CAP to address the needs of state partners
Implement approaches to foster ongoing, independent evaluation
6d. Effective Reporting
on Health and
Restoration Progress
and Results
Continue development of annual Health & Restoration Assessment
Use annual reports to inform adaptive management efforts
6e. Effective Grants,
Contracts, and Inter-
agency Agreement*
Management
Continue to follow EPA procedures that demonstrate environmental results and
are linked to EPA's Strategic Plan
Develop work plans that contain well-defined outputs and outcomes that relate
to improved health of the Chesapeake Bay
23
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
CHAPTER 5
to
GAO's sixth recommendation for the Chesa-
peake Bay Program was to "establish a
means to better target its limited resources
to ensure that the most effective and realis-
tic work plans are developed and imple-
mented." EPA understood the direction from
Congress in its Explanatory Statement to the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-161) as providing detail clarifying GAO's
sixth recommendation.
In response to Congress and GAO, CBP has
developed realistic annual targets for many
of its topic areas. CBP plans to develop real-
istic annual targets for most of the remaining
topic areas by the end of calendar year
2008. CBP developed an activity integration
plan for the program, with extensive associ-
ated quality assurance activities, that de-
scribes program activities of CBP partners
and identifies the funding that is used to ac-
complish each of these activities. CBP has
constructed a database of CBP partner ac-
tivities to support the activity integration
plan. Furthermore, CBP has developed a tool,
called dashboards, that summarizes the
available information on CBP topic areas to
track and measure the program's progress.
">
Congress asked CBP to develop "realistic
targets the Chesapeake Bay Program ex-
pects to achieve in each of the remaining
years" of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
In response, CBP has developed 16 realistic
annual targets that cover essential efforts to
restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
Three of the annual targets are Bay-wide
measures supported by all topic areas. The
annual targets developed to date are de-
scribed in Figure 6. These targets are esti-
mates of the work that CBP partners believe
is achievable with current programs and
resources.
The realistic annual targets draw attention to
the gap between what the CBP partners ex-
pect to achieve in the next several years and
Figure 6. CBP Realistic Annual Targets
Basinwide
Nitrogen
Reduction5
Basinwide
Phosphorus
Reduction5
Implementation
of nitrogen re-
duction prac-
tices
Implementation
of phosphorus
reduction prac-
tices
By 2010, 162.5 million pound
reduction from 1985 levels to
achieve an annual cap load of
175 million Ibs (based on long-
term average hydrologic simula-
tions)
By 2010, 14.36 million pound
reduction from 1985 levels to
achieve an annual cap load of
12.8 million Ibs (based on long-
term average hydrologic simula-
tions)
1.2.2.2,
2.4.1.1, 3.1.1,
3.1.2,3.1.2.1,
3.1.2.2,
3.1.2.3
1.2.2.2, 2.2.5,
2.4.1.1, 3.1.1,
3.1.2,3.1.2.1,
3.1.2.2,
3.1.2.3
(75.6 M Ib
reduction)
62% (8.90
M Ib reduc-
tion)
(81.19 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
64% (9.19
M Ib reduc-
tion)
(84.44 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
66% (9.48
M Ib reduc-
tion)
(87. £
M Ib reduc-
tion)
68% (9.76
M Ib reduc-
tion)
25
-------
"m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~™~
Basinwide
Sediment Re-
duction5
Municipal and
Industrial
Wastewater
Municipal and
Industrial
Wastewater
Agricultural
Lands
and Animal
Operations
Agricultural
Lands
and Animal
Operations
Agricultural
Lands
and Animal
Operations
Streamside
Tidal Shoreline
Riparian Areas
Wetlands
SAV
Oysters
Fish Passage
Blue Crab
Land Preserva-
tion
"™™™™™""""""""""""""""""""""""-
Implementation
of sediment
reduction prac-
tices
Wastewater
nitrogen
reduction
Wastewater
phosphorus
reduction
Implementation
of agricultural
nitrogen reduc-
tion practices
Implementation
of agricultural
phosphorus
reduction prac-
tices
Implementation
of agricultural
sediment reduc-
tion practices
Riparian
Forest Buffers
Planted
Wetland
Restoration
Efforts
Submerged
Aquatic Vegeta-
tion Planting
Oyster Reef
Restoration
Fish Passage
Restoration
Blue Crab Fish-
ery Manage-
ment
Forest Land
Protection
By 2010, 1.69 million ton reduc-
tion from 1985 levels to achieve
an annual cap load of 4.15 mil-
lion tons (based on long-term
average hydrologic simulations)
By 2010, 49.9 million pound
reduction from 1985 levels
By 2010, 6.16 million pound
reduction from 1985 levels
By 2010, 96.99 million pound
reduction from 1985 levels
By 2010, 6.48 million pound
reduction from 1985 levels
By 2010, 2.55 million ton reduc-
tion from 1985 levels
10,000 miles restored between
1996 and 2010
MD, VA, PA, DC, and NY to re-
store 28,500 acres between
1998 and 2010
Accelerate SAV restoration by
planting 1,000 acres of new SAV
beds between 2003 and 2008
Implement oyster restoration
practices on 2,466 acres of
oyster bar and reef habitat
between 2007 and 2010
2,807 miles reopened between
1989 and 2014 and 100 pro-
jects completed between 2005
and 2014
By 2007, revise and implement
existing fisheries management
plans to incorporate ecological,
social and economic considera-
tions, multi-species fisheries
management and ecosystem
approaches
Permanently protect 695,000
additional acres by 2020
1.2.2.2,2.2.5,
2.4.1.1, 3.1.1,
3.1.2, 3.1.2.1,
3.1.2.2,
3.1.2.3
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.1,3.1.2,
3.1.2.2,
3.1.2.3
3.1.1, 3.1.2,
3.1.2.2,
3.1.2.3
3.1.1,3.1.2,
3.1.2.2,
3.1.2.3
1.2.2.2,2.2.5,
2.4.1.1, 3.1.2,
3.1.2.1,
3.1.2.2
1.2.2.2, 2.3.1,
2.3.2.1,
2.3.2.2,
2.3.3.2,
4.1.3.3
2.1.1, 2.1.2,
2.1.3
1.1.1.1,
1.1.1.2
1.3.1, 1.3.2
1.5.1
2.2.1, 2.4.3,
4.1.2, 4.1.3.1,
4.1.3.3, 4.1.4,
4.1.5, 4.2.1,
4.2.3
64% (1.07
M ton re-
duction)
69% (34.29
M Ib reduc-
tion)
87% (5.36
M Ib reduc-
tion)
48% (46.57
M Ib reduc-
tion)
51% (3.29
M Ib reduc-
tion)
48% (1.21
M ton re-
duction)
57% (5,722
miles, cu-
mulative)
49%
(13,999
acres, cu-
mulative)5
14% (140
acres, cu-
mulative)
32% (776
acres, cu-
mulative)
81% (2,266
miles; 40
projects,
cumulative)
56%
0%
67% (1.13
M ton re-
duction)
74%
(36.92 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
89% (5.48
M Ib reduc-
tion)
50%
(48.49 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
52% (3.37
M Ib reduc-
tion)
50% (1.28
M ton re-
duction)
62%
(6,182
miles, cu-
mulative)
53%
(15,171
acres, cu-
mulative)
15% (153
acres, cu-
mulative)
53%
(1,306
acres, cu-
mulative)
85%
(2,376
miles; 50
projects,
cumulative)
56%
7%
(50,200
acres, cu-
mulative)
71% (1.20
M ton re-
duction)
79%
(39.42 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
91% (5.61
M Ib reduc-
tion)
52%
(50.43 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
53% (3.43
M Ib reduc-
tion)
52% (1.33
M ton re-
duction)
65%
(6,522
miles, cu-
mulative)
57%
(16,343
acres,
cumulative)
16% (160
acres,
cumulative)
75%
(1,836
acres, cu-
mulative)
89%
(2,486
miles; 60
projects,
cumulative)
56%
15%
(101,000
acres, cu-
mulative)
74% (1.25
M ton re-
duction)
84% (41.91
M Ib reduc-
tion)
93% (5. 73
M Ib reduc-
tion)
54% (52.37
M Ib reduc-
tion)
54% (3.50
M Ib reduc-
tion)
54% (1.38
M ton re-
duction)
68% (6,837
miles, cu-
mulative)
61%
(17,516
acres, cu-
mulative)
17% (167
acres, cu-
mulative)
100%
(2,466
acres, cu-
mulative)
92% (2,596
miles; 70
projects,
cumulative)
56%
23%
(157,200
acres, cu-
mulative)
2S
-------
Watershed
Education
Meaningful
Watershed
Educational
Experience
100% of students receive a
MWEE by their high school
graduation
5.1.1,5.1.2
5.1.4
80% of
students'
81% of
students
82% of
students
84% of
students
1 Please refer to Appendix D of this report for additional information on the origin and development of the goals and realistic annual targets.
2 As reported by CBP partners in the CBP activity integration plan database.
3 See Appendix B to reference Chesapeake 2000 goals.
4 These annual targets are based on existing programs and resources and do not change the CBP commitment to achieve Chesapeake 2000
goals.
5 Progress toward this realistic annual target is evaluated using data from several or all of the following topic areas: Agriculture, Air Emissions,
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater, Onsites and Septic Systems, Stormwater, Streambanks & Tidal Shorelines, and Streamside & Tidal
Shoreline Riparian Areas.
6 2007 progress is different from that reported in the 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment, as the former includes additional commit-
ments and efforts by New York and Delaware.
7 2007 progress is different from that reported in the 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment due to corrected data provided by Pennsyl-
vania.
the ambitious goals set forth in the Chesa-
peake 2000 agreement. The goals estab-
lished in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement
used the best available science to define
how a restored ecosystem could look. While
many of these goals may not be met by
2010, the realistic annual targets are aimed
at showing the incremental progress along
the way to meet the Chesapeake 2000
goals. They help define annual and long-term
expectations.
The realistic annual targets were developed
cooperatively by CBP partners with subject
matter expertise and resource investments
in the relevant topic areas. In many cases,
the realistic annual targets are based on ex-
isting planning documents, while in other
cases CBP partners pooled their expertise to
determine attainable levels for their efforts
through 2010. More information on the de-
velopment of the realistic annual targets is
provided in Appendix D of this report.
Achieving these realistic annual targets is
naturally the result of a suite of activities im-
plemented, in most cases, by multiple CBP
partners. With the development of the CBP
activity integration plan, the CBP partners
now have the ability to identify and track the
activities that all partners are conducting in a
given topic area.
•'
The CBP activity integration plan is designed
to be a comprehensive catalogue of the ac-
tivities in which CBP partners are engaged to
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
The activity integration plan provides infor-
mation on:
» the actual activities being implemented
by the CBP partners;
» the lead partner for each activity and any
cooperating partners;
» the amount and source of funding being
used and, ideally, planned for use to ac-
complish each activity by all cooperating
partners;
» the location of each activity; and
• progress toward the established realistic
annual targets.
The CBP activity integration plan represents
a significant advance in the management of
the program. Prior to the development of the
CBP activity integration plan, CBP had no
-------
FXjisc«f If
means of centrally and consistently account-
ing for the activities of all CBP partners.
The activity integration plan will allow CBP's
partners to review activities to identify suc-
cesses, challenges, and opportunities for
tactical changes, and to provide advice and
guidance to partners on their resource allo-
cation decisions to accelerate the pace of
implementation. This tool allows for far bet-
ter coordination among partners, for better
project prioritization, for improved targeting
of resources, and for better overall program
planning. The activity integration plan is an
essential tool in identifying how the CBP
partners should adapt to meet the program's
targets.
CBP's activity integration plan is generated
by a database to which CBP partners provide
information though a web-based form or
through other means of transferring informa-
tion. CBP staff worked closely with the CBP
partners to verify the accuracy of the data
entered into the activity integration plan da-
tabase. As of May 1, 2008, CBP's activity in-
tegration plan database contained data cov-
ering three years. The data for 2007 ac-
counted for 885 partner activities valued at
$1.1 billion. The 2007 data constitute the
majority of information due to varying budget
cycles of CBP partners and the uncertainties
associated with future budgets. Figure 7
summarizes the information CBP partners
have submitted to the activity integration
plan database for 2007. While the data in
the CBP activity integration database have
been reviewed for accuracy, the CBP part-
Figure 7. 2007 Funding Data Submitted to CBP Activity Integration Plan Database
GOAL
TOPIC AREA
Chesapeake 2000
GOAL SUPPORTED'
TOTAL
($thousands)
FEDERAL
!$ thousands)
STATE NGO
i$thousands) ($thousands)
Fisheries
Ecosystem-Based
Fisheries Management
1,3,3,1.4.2, 1.4.3
5,507'
Oysters
1.1.1.1,1.1.1.2
8.905
Blue Crab
1.5.1
4.199
Striped Bass
13.3,1.3.4, 1.4.3
3.169
Alosirtes
1.3.3,1.4.2, 14.3, 5.1.1
2,138
Menhaden
13.3,1.4.3
1,138
Other Work to Protect and
Restore Fisheries
12.2.2, 13.2,1.3.3.
13.4,1.4.3
2.6145
$ 5.001
506
5.183
3.722
3,634
565
2.587
582
1,697
441
359
779
2,322
292
Vital Aquatic
Habitats
Fish Passage
13.1,1.3.2
1,463
Vital Aquatic Habitats Support
2.3.3.1,4.1.5
302''
Other Work to Protect and
Restore Vital Aquatic Habitats
12.2.2, 2.3.2.2,
2.3.3.1 2.3,4
13.611"
786
677
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation
Wetlands
2.11 2.1.2. 2.1.3
12.2,2, 2.3.1, 2.3.2.1,
2.3,2.2, 2.3.3.2, 4.1.3.3
1555
24246
669
21912
886
1 775
559
302
8.386
5.162
63
Water Quality
Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater
3.12
$ 728,990
Agricultural Lands and Animal
Operations
3.11 3.1.2, 3.12.2,
3.1.2.3
121,253
587
$ 728,403
80,926
40,075
252
Developed Lands
3.1.2. 3.3.2
10.727
1.838
8.685
204
Qnsites and Septic Systems
3.11, 3.1.2
11.057
40
11,017
Streamside & Tidal Shoreline
Riparian Areas
12.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.4.1.1
3.1.2, 3.1.2.1. 3.12.2
3,210
1,264
1.627
319
Air Emissions
3.12
74
74
-------
Report to Congress; '""
1,2
Figure 7. 2007 Funding Data Submitted to CBP Activity Integration Plan Database ' (cont.)
GOAL
TOPIC AREA
Chesapeake 2000
GOAL SUPPORTED'
TOTAL
($thousands)
FEDERAL
($ thousands)
STATE NGO
($thousands) ($thousands)
RNjfeetand
Restore
Water Quality
(cont)
Acid Mine Drainage
Chemical Contaminants
Healthy Waters Support
2.4.1.1, 3.1.2
1,913
3.2.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.1
506
2.4.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2,
3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3,
3.1.2.4, 3.5.1.2
64.743"
704
$ 1.209
506
40,756
22,662
1.325
Land Preservation
2.2.1,4.1.3.3, 4,2.3
48.262
$ 7.759
$ 40.503
Healthy
Watersheds
Land Conservation
2.4.3. 4.1.2, 4.1.3.1.
4.1.4,4.1.5.4.2.1 4.2.3
3.676
873
Pre-Development Hydrology
4.1.4,4.1.5,4.2.10,4.2.3
3.492
269
Healthy Watershed Support
2.2.1,2.2.5,2.4.3,4.1.1,
4.1.2,4.2.3
6.896
2.776
3,178
27
45
Public Access
4.4.1, 4.4,2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4.
5.1.1, 5.3.1.1
2.969
$ 2,753
,
Chesapeake
Stewardship
Watershed Education
5.1.1. 5.12. 5.1.4
8,815
3,907
Place-Based Interpretation
4.4.3, 5.1.1
558
558
Citizen Engagement
5.1.1 5.1.2, 5.1.3.1 5.16.
5.1.7. 5.2.3, 5.2,5, 5.2.6
3.886
2,569
Chesapeake Stewardship
5.1.1. 5.1.2, 5.1.7, 5.2.2
2.027'"
1.127
Other Work to Foster
Chesapeake Stewardship
1.3.3. 5.11
573'
573
216
3.950
744
958
573
900
Enhance
Partnering
Leadership &
Effective Infrastructure
Systems
5.3.11
1,916
$ 1877
Organization Management
20.225
7.865
Other Work to Enhance
Partnering Leadership &
Management
1,327'-'
39
12,360
1,318
Total
$ 1,115,943
$ 216.569
$ 894,149 $ 5,225
NOTES: / 2007 data only are provided, as these data constitute the most robust dataset provided by CBP partners
J "Support" topic areas (e.g.. "Vital Aquatic habitats Support") include administrative costs associated with the goal, including salaries dedicated specifically to that goal.
3 As reported by CBP partners to the CBP operating plan database.
J Of this total, federal sport fish restoration grants account for $1,300,000, and regional technical assistance (fishery management plans, aquatic nuisance species)
accounts for $596,000,
.•> Of this total, fish research, including tagging and monitoring of feeding and reproduction, accounts for $1.300,000.
fi. Of this total, program management support for CBP subcommittees accounts for $150.000.
" Of this total, facilities, operations, and salaries at the Blactavater and Eastern Neck refuge account for $5,650.000; monitoring and analysis of habitat data accounts
for $4.500.000; implementing the Farm Bill Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program accounts for S1,000,000: and production of artificial reefs accounts for $500,000
,s Of this total, federal, state, and nonprofit grants programs account far $52.109.000; water quality related monitonng and assessment investments account for $7.623,000;
and program management, information management, engaging partners, targeting, technical support, management tool management, technical assistance, education,
and research account for $5,012,000.
'/ Of this total, ecosystem protection by augmenting low flows during droughts and dissolving oxygen downstream accounts for $4,300,000,
In Of this total, implementing the Chesapeake Capacity Building Program accounts for $900,000; and support tor state and local implementation and public education
efforts through tributary teams account for $800,000.
/ / Of this total, school and congressional outreach events and trade shows account for $500,000
I- Of this total, federal and state legislative policy development accounts for $950,000
ners are aware that improvements will be
made in future iterations of the database.
CBP has developed the programmatic archi-
tecture and technical infrastructure to ex-
pand the tool to account for the activities of
all CBP partners across all topic areas.
Figure 8 lists the CBP partners who have sub-
mitted data to the CBP database. CBP looks
forward to having additional partners provide
data to the activity integration plan database
and expects that the scope of the informa-
tion and the quality of that information will
increase significantly. Inclusion of additional
non-federal organizations may require com-
29
-------
Figure 8. CBP Partners Providing Data to the CBP Activity Integration Plan Database
— 1"""— 1"— 1"— 1»^^
Federal Agencies
Corporation for National and Community Service
Federal Highway Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
NCAA Chesapeake Bay Office
NPS Chesapeake Bay Program Office
USAGE Baltimore District
USAGE Norfolk District
USAGE Engineer and Research Development Center, Vicksburg
USDA Agricultural Research Service Beltsville Area
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
EPA Office of Water
EPA Region 2 Office of Ecosystem Protection
EPA Region 3 Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division
EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division
USFWS Chesapeake Bay Ecological Services Field Office
USFWS Maryland Fishery Resources Office
USFWS Maryland National Wildlife Refuges
State and Private Forestry
USGS Chesapeake Bay Studies
States and Districts
Chesapeake Bay Commission7
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
State of Delaware
State of Maryland
State of New York
State of West Virginia
PA Department of Agriculture
PA Department of Education
PA Department of Environmental Protection
PA Fish and Boat Commission
PA State Conservation Commission
PENNVEST
VA Department of Conservation and Recreation
VA Department of Education
VA Department of Environmental Quality
VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
VA Environmental Endowment
VA General Assembly
VA Marine Resources Commission
DC Department of Environment
DE Department of Agriculture
DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
MD Department of Agriculture
MD Department of Education
MD Department of Natural Resources
MD Department of Planning
MD Department of the Environment
MD General Assembly
NY Department of Agriculture and Markets
NY Department of Environmental Conservation
WV Conservation Agency
WV Department of Agriculture
WV Department of Environmental Protection
Non-governmental Organizations
Chesapeake Bay Trust
Ducks Unlimited
For the purposes of the CBP data collection effort, the Chesapeake Bay Commission is considered an agency of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia. The states fund CBC's activities through direct appropriations. Individual states periodically appropriate additional funds to
support state-specific efforts. The chairmanship of CBC rotates amongthe states.
-------
pletion and approval of an Information Col-
lection Request as required by the Paper-
work Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).10
The CBP activity integration plan database
provides CBP with the capability not only of
generating an annual report documenting
the activities of all CBP partners, but the da-
tabase will also allow individual CBP partners
to obtain specialized reports. For example, a
state partner could receive a listing of poten-
tially all the efforts being conducted in that
state by CBP partners (assuming full partici-
pation and accurate information). The ability
to obtain comprehensive, comparable infor-
mation about a specific jurisdiction would be
a vital step forward in fostering coordinated
planning and integrated implementation of
CBP partner activities to protect and restore
the Bay.
CBP is making certain elements of this data-
base available to the public through the
CBP's website in the future.
ElIS
Success of the CAP is dependent upon many
factors including, for example, data quality,
assurance and data security. It is imperative
that CBP partners have accurate and compa-
rable information of implementation efforts
and resources to optimize coordination and
integration of partner efforts. CBP took great
care to ensure that comprehensive data
quality and data security measures were es-
tablished and implemented. A summary of
these measures is provided in Appendix F.
10 An Information Collection Request (ICR) is a set of
documents that describe reporting, record keeping,
survey, or other information collection requirements
imposed on the public by any federal agency. Each
request must be sent to and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget before a collection begins.
The ICR provides an overview of the collection and es-
timates the cost and time for the public to respond.
The public may view an ICR or submit comments on
an ICR at any time.
CBP's key performance tracking and meas-
urement tool is its annual Chesapeake Bay
Health & Restoration Assessment, which
draws on the most up-to-date monitoring
data gathered by CBP partners to report on
the overall health of the Bay ecosystem and
tracking and modeling data to report on the
restoration efforts. The Health & Restoration
Assessment provides a detailed and scien-
tifically grounded summary of what CBP has
accomplished in a given year. Program en-
hancements were needed, however, to ac-
celerate progress in achieving CBP goals, To
improve the efficiency of the partnership, not
only long term goals, but annual targets were
needed and tools to evaluate whether effort
was being expended appropriately across the
various program activities.
To improve overall program management,
the CBP partners developed a series of
summary reports, called dashboards, that
unite key pieces of information from the CBP
activity integration plan and other informa-
tion sources (see Figure 9). The dashboards
allow CBP partners to review a succinct sum-
mary of:
• measures of progress toward the pro-
gram's realistic annual targets;
« the resources dedicated to specific activi-
ties within topic areas;
» analyses of what needs to be done to im-
prove implementation and
31
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
• ideally, in the future, the total resources
CBP participating partners have dedi-
cated to the topic area over several
years.
The CBP partners propose to update the
dashboards on a regular basis determined
according to the need for such updates and
the availability of new data. The CBP partners
also expect to enhance the dashboards as
implementation of the CAP moves forward.
The CBP dashboards meet Congress's direc-
tion to CBP to identify a "process [the pro-
gram] will use to track and measure the pro-
gress" of actions undertaken to meet the
annual targets.
To date, the CBP partners have developed
preliminary dashboards for all of the topic
areas for which realistic annual targets have
been developed. The most recent versions of
those dashboards are provided in this report
as Appendix E.
Figure 9. CBP Dashboards - Tracking and Measuring Progress (an illustrative example)
Wetlands Restoration Efforts
10
I9.ZOOJ
GOAL
MO, V*. PA. DC. DE ml NY to restore 28 MO »es Mww 1998 «l 2010
MnMm
Tc ,m3'«i r» s-nxfj, jlw jialnershp t-mst
rininii mi ijliijiii^ii*j Miihiiliiliii»jtit»
olvrilml h|»ctt VtfO^h >IMiw Bit
Mcraased dEnun] Rf btcniel nukes I hod nr EUMdiHunon
Action Needed
IHIIPMII Mil I lull nil I
flirti ruling aul-c< pooial ootfs la
Current Funding (Millions) *
tut
5 °-«
W*m«*;wjHJ ffrictt-^U'yriiFEKwflttalM krkniaK
toaMzMarrfemX&tffiturtt'ftrMd 0*imac**«
K UrAgfc-rm* *4 Mf* H» HTTP**™ 1- " ^.»» fc-m *-.
Topic Area
Realistic Annual Targets*
This bar depicts CBP's goal for
the topic area, progress made
through 2007, and realistic
annual targets developed by
the CBP partners.
Strategic Analysis
This narrative information
summarizes CBP's strategy for
the topic area and identifies
challenges and actions needed
to meet CBP's targets and
goals for the topic area.
Amount and Source of Funding
These charts show the funding
partners have allocated to the
topic area in 2007. The
information is aggregated by the
type of partner contributing
(NGO. state, and federal
agency).
Actual Activities
These charts provide 2007
funding information for the topic
area aggregated by partner, by
activity, and by contributions
toward the performance goal
identified in the top section of
the dashboard.
* Realistic Annual Targets reflect
existing programs and resources
and do not change CBP's
commitment to the Chesapeake
2000 goals.
32
-------
Achieving the level of integration, stake-
holder coordination, and continual perform-
ance improvement called for by the CAP de-
pends on enhanced approaches to the over-
all management of the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram. The programmatic changes fostered by
the CBP goal strategies, activity integration
plan, and dashboards are sustainable only if
the tools themselves are up-to-date, focused
on action, and widely used by CBP and the
CBP partners. To support the Chesapeake
Action Plan, therefore, CBP is implementing
an explicit adaptive management approach.
In short, CBP is enhancing its overall man-
agement and understands that the CAP tools
are in the early stages and will require fur-
ther refinement. Additionally, the program
will continue to enhance the use of adaptive
management to improve the program.
Adaptive management is "a type of natural
resource management in which decisions are
made as part of an ongoing science-based
process. Adaptive management involves test-
ing, monitoring, and evaluating applied
strategies, and incorporating new knowledge
into management approaches that are based
on scientific findings and the needs of soci-
ety. Results are used to modify management
policy, strategies, and practices."11
Most descriptions of adaptive management
include common characteristics such as:
» an iterative, unified planning process that
supports continual improvement;
11 "Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to
Federal Land and Resource Management," Federal
Register 65, no. 202, October 18, 2000, p. 62571.
emphasis on learning by doing and on
experimentation to develop solutions;
« broad stakeholder participation;
* development of cross-sector analysis to
effectively allocate resources;
• integrated, comprehensive information
management; and
» cooperation and transparency in resource
planning.
Adaptive management system approaches
have been used successfully in other restora-
tion programs and government agencies. For
example, the U.S. Department of the Interior
formally adopted an adaptive management
process in March 2007, stating that "adaptive
management has great promise as an effec-
tive means to address significant resource
management challenges under conditions of
uncertainty," and developed an adaptive
management technical guide. Furthermore,
the State of Washington's Salmon Recovery
Project has reported that its use of the Bal-
anced Scorecard, an important element of the
adaptive management system, has yielded
advantages related to program learning and
accountability. The U.S. Coast Guard Office of
Health Services, the Naval Undersea Warfare
Center, and the State of Massachusetts De-
partment of Mental Health use elements of
the adaptive management approach and the
balanced scorecard to structure strategic
planning efforts, to improve strategic direc-
tion, and to improve communication among
organizational sub-units.
In reviewing various adaptive management
models, CBP partners found that the pro-
gram possessed many essential components
of such a system, but lacked a single set of
strategies for achieving program goals, a
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
comprehensive activity plan, and a frame-
work to organize these parts into a cohesive
whole. The first two of these findings are ad-
dressed by the CBP strategy papers and ac-
tivity integration plan. To address the third
finding, the CBP partners adapted Kaplan
and Norton's (2008) five-stage model12 of
adaptive management to CBP's specific
needs and operations. The CBP process es-
tablishes strong relationships between strat-
egy and operations and fosters continual im-
provement of both Bay implementation ac-
tivities and CBP's organizational perform-
ance. The cycle of active strategy develop-
ment, planning, implementation, and evalua-
tion is being applied to all areas of CBP activ-
ity, so that the organization itself, not only
individual partners or partners engaged in
on-the-ground implementation, will learn and
change based on the outputs of the adaptive
management process. CBP's management
system is shown in Figure 10.
As the CBP adaptive management process is
putting the restoration and protection of the
Bay squarely at the center of the program's
operations, the CBP partners expect the ex-
isting support for the process to expand and
Figure 10. Chesapeake Bay Program Management System
Translate the Strategy
• Define strategic objectives & themes
• Select measures & targets
• Select strategic initiatives
At CBP appear in:
- Agreements, directives, and
adoption statements
- Annual performance goals
- Tributary strategies
Develop the Strategy
• Define mission, vision. & values
• Conduct strategic analysis
• Formulate strategy
At CBP informed by:
- CWA Section 117
- Chesapeake 2000
Plan Operations
• Improve key processes & programs
• Determine resource needs
At CBP occurs in:
- CBP committees and
subcommittees
- Individual partner budgeting
Execute programs
and initiatives
Test & Adapt the Strategy
• Conduct performance analyses
• Examine emerging strategies
• Review external analyses
At CBP includes:
- Revision of goal strategies
- Alignment of goals, activities, and
resources
- Review of external analyses
Monitor & Learn
• Strategy reviews
• Operational reviews
At CBP occurs in:
- Monitoring and modeling
- Scientific review
- CBP committee review
12 "Mastering the Management System," Harvard
Business Review, January 2008, pp. 63-77.
34
-------
become incorporated in all facets of partner
activities in the Bay.
An important consideration in the continuing
implementation of the adaptive management
process is that the CBP partners are subject
to agency-specific planning, budgeting, and
management that may not take place on the
same timeframe as CBP's planning proc-
esses. No CBP partner has the authority to
direct another partner to change such proc-
esses. Moreover, the diversity of the roles of
CBP's federal and state partners will likely
mean that partners will embrace adaptations
at different rates. The CBP adaptive man-
agement process relies on the desire of the
individual partners to more effectively im-
plement their activities and to harness and
focus the collective power of the CBP part-
ners for the good of the Bay.
The CBP partners have identified a number
of areas in which the program may improve
as a result of integrating the management
tools described above with an explicit adap-
tive management process. These potential
benefits are described in the following sec-
tions, organized by the guiding principles of
CBP's strategy. This organization is used be-
cause establishing strategy is the first step in
the adaptive management process.
The following section of this chapter de-
scribes potential benefits of adaptive man-
agement for CBP and its partners. The CBP
partners have begun to implement this ap-
proach and will be better able to provide
more specific examples of programmatic
change in the near future.
The comprehensive approach to Bay protec-
tion and restoration, by which CBP partners
undertake a vast range of activities designed
to improve all aspects of the Bay and its wa-
tershed, may give way to more focused ac-
tivities under an adaptive management sys-
tem. This shift may result largely from regular
review of performance activity in the CBP ac-
tivity integration plan and dash-boards, in
that CBP partners may reorient or revise por-
tions of the activity integration plan on the
basis of analysis of activities and the re-
sources being expended on them. The adap-
tive management approach will allow for
much greater transparency across the CBP
partners, so the CBP committees and sub-
committees will have more information on
which to base advice and guidance about
specific partner activities.
Making more informed decisions about what
activities CBP partners should pursue to pro-
tect and restore the Bay may yield numerous
positive results, examples of which are dis-
cussed below:
« Comparing Current Year Actions with An-
nual Targets Using the information in the
CBP dashboards and activity integration
plan, CBP will have a greatly enhanced
ability to determine if the resources being
spent on individual activities are yielding
the expected results. Potential benefits
from this new analytical ability may in-
clude:
o CBP partners should be better able to
characterize the progress of individual
activities and to identify any steps re-
quired to improve implementation;
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordinate
o CBP should have a much stronger ca-
pability for closely tracking activities
and evaluating whether new ap-
proaches to activity strategies are
yielding greater benefits; and
o CBP should be able to track activities
from year to year, adjusting activities,
resources, and expected results to
best support the protection and resto-
ration of the Bay.
» Test and Forecast Alternative Implemen-
tation Progress With multiple years of
data on the progress of CBP partner ac-
tivities, the CBP partners will be able to
forecast future implementation progress
and the effects of external forcing factors.
This strengthened ability to project activ-
ity impacts may yield the following bene-
fits, among others:
o CBP partners should be able to more
effectively identify the environmental
and programmatic effects of change
in resource allocations, geographic
shifts in implementation activities, the
potential effectiveness of more inte-
grated implementation activities, and
other potential adaptations within the
CBP partnership;
o CBP partners should be better able to
incorporate environmental outcome
models and integrated decision-
support systems with cost information
to more strategically choose the types
and locations of management actions
to be implemented in the activity inte-
gration plan; and
o CBP's forecasting ability should im-
prove in accuracy and scope as the
CBP activity integration plan expands,
is more precisely tailored to CBP part-
ner needs, and becomes a routine
part of CBP partner data management
activities.
Evaluating Opportunities for Coordination.
Integration, and Leveraging CBP hopes
that its new tools will provide partners
with information essential to evaluating
and increasing opportunities to work to-
gether toward the improvement of the
Bay and its watershed. Such adaptation
will be necessary to meet annual and
longer-term goals, to realize resource ef-
ficiencies, and to respond to evaluations
of program progress. If the tools are ef-
fectively developed and improved, such
opportunities may include:
o CBP partners should be able to en-
gage in better cooperative planning of
discrete activities (which would also
be supported by CBP's science capa-
bilities, as discussed earlier in this re-
port); and
o CBP partners should see more oppor-
tunities for integration of separate ac-
tivities into a single effort, or leverag-
ing of one activity to support others
with similar goals. While some inte-
grative work is underway at CBP (see
sidebar), these types of opportunities
have been limited due to a lack of
centrally available, comprehensive in-
formation on CBP partner activities.
The CBP activity integration plan is an
important part of filling this important
need.
Developing Comprehensive Budget Data
With the information in the CBP activity
integration plan, CBP is positioned to de-
velop an annual budget report that ac-
counts for all partner activities submitted
to the activity integration plan database.
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordinate
As a result, potential improvements to
CBP processes may include:
o CBP partners could have a more accu-
rate view of the resources dedicated
to protection and restoration of the
Bay. Currently, only EPA submits its
Chesapeake Bay budget (excluding
salary funds) for review by the CBP
Implementation Committee; and
o The adaptive management process
may foster a culture in which CBP
partner budgets are more strongly
aligned to maximize the efficiencies of
partner coordination and cooperation.
Such adaptation will depend on the
continued and expanded participation
of CBP partners in the activity integra-
tion plan reporting and refinement
process.
The CBP adaptive management system is
intended to promote the introduction of new
and more efficient practices in the way the
partnership's work is organized. That is, the
design of the CBP partnership (i.e., CBP's
committees and subcommittees) and the
functions of the partnership's components
should be subject to review and refinement
in the same way that implementation activi-
ties are reviewed in the adaptive manage-
ment process.
Orienting CBP toward an adaptive approach
in the management of the program itself may
allow CBP partners to realize numerous
benefits, including the following examples:
» Refining CBP Partnership Structure Un-
der an adaptive management system, the
CBP committee and subcommittees will
be challenged to consider whether their
structure and functions are appropriate
to foster improvements in partner coordi-
nation (as discussed above) to accelerate
the pace of progress in the Chesapeake
Bay. Maximizing the learning that results
from this review may include:
o CBP partners should be better able to
determine if the CBP structure sup-
ports evaluation of progress toward
CBP targets and the roles of the CBP
committee or subcommittee respon-
sible for that goal.
o CBP partners should be supportive of
adjustments of CBP's structure to bet-
ter achieve the partnership's imple-
mentation goals. In fact, CBP is under-
taking the first phase of an initial
streamlining intended to align the
committee structure with the CBP
strategic framework and to facilitate
greater communication and integra-
tion among the partners. These
changes will allow for further restruc-
turing suggested in the evaluative
processes of the adaptive manage-
ment system.
Defining Committee and Subcommittee
Responsibilities CBP partners are in the
initial stage of developing a standard
process by which partnership subcommit-
tees will meet with the CBP Implementa-
tion Committee to assess progress to-
ward realistic annual targets and longer-
term goals. Such review is expected to
yield benefits such as:
o The CBP Implementation Committee
will be better able to recommend tac-
tical changes to the implementation
effort with the intent of achieving the
partnership's targets and goals.
3?
-------
Strengthening the Manager
o CBP's operations and purpose likely
will place new responsibilities on the
Implementation Committee and sub-
committees to plan their activities, to
review such plans with appropriate
partners and other important entities,
to focus on the data used to assess
the progress of implementation, and
to strive toward the improvements
and efficiencies that a partnership is
intended to support.
Committing to Shared Leadership CBP
partners view the enhanced transparency
of partner activities as a catalyst for fos-
tering shared leadership within the pro-
gram. With the development of its activity
integration plan, CBP will be able to de-
termine which partners are taking explicit
actions and making resource investments
in specific topic areas. This information is
expected to yield benefits such as:
o CBP committees and subcommittees
should be better equipped to assign
coordinating responsibilities for goal
and topic areas to individual CBP
partners, thereby increasing account-
ability and better integrating partners
into the program. This type of leader-
ship is essential for making the most
of the opportunities afforded by CBP's
new management tools and for steer-
ing the cooperating partners in a par-
ticular goal or topic area toward meet-
ing realistic annual targets or longer-
term goals.
o A broad group of CBP partners should
become more strongly involved in
program leadership and accountabil-
ity, and the adaptive management
system should provide the partners
with a framework for making such
leadership effective and meaningful.
« Inspiring Individual Partner Alignment
As the CBP adaptive management proc-
ess establishes milestones for account-
ability on data submission and individual
implementation areas, individual partners
may opt to align their own operations with
the CBP process. This progression may
produce benefits such as:
o Individual CBP partners may rethink
how they engage with the program,
adjust parts of their program related
to CBP, and lead change to facilitate
interactions with the CBP partnership.
o Greater alignment of CBP partners
with the program as a whole should
strengthen CBP and will amplify all
the benefits of the adaptive manage-
ment process discussed in this report.
Scientific knowledge, along with resource
information and implementation measure-
ment, is a key component of a successful
adaptive management process for CBP. The
adaptive management framework will call for
CBP's science programs to focus additional
effort on where and how to best deliver ser-
vices, how program targets are developed,
whether the targets are appropriate, and
whether meeting those targets makes a posi-
tive difference in the Bay watershed. Specific
efforts under this approach to CBP's scien-
tific grounding may include:
« Improved Modeling Tools to Support De-
cision Making The CBP partners have
some existing models that are mostly fo-
cused on testing water-quality manage-
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
ment scenarios and predicting water-
quality response. These models include
the Phase 5 Watershed Model (see Side-
bar), an estuary water-quality model to
predict response to nutrient reduction,
and the SPARROW model to show ranges
of nutrient loads to better focus locations
of management actions. The adaptive
management process will drive the de-
velopment of additional tools, such as:
o CBP partners are developing a land-
change model to forecast changes in
land-use and couple with the Phase 5
Watershed Model to predict changes
in water quality. Additional models are
being developed to address fisheries
and habitat; and
o CBP partners should be involved in
improved efforts to collect data to
support its models. One example of
this is a need for CBP to continually
update its assessment of factors af-
fecting observed free-flowing rivers,
river input, and tidal water trends.
Given the dynamic nature of individ-
ual water bodies and the multiplicity
of factors that affect their quality, CBP
will need to continually review
whether the information its partners
gather is sufficient to promote more
efficient decision making.
The CBP Watershed Model
The Chesapeake Bay watershed covers an area more
than 12 times the size of the Bay itself. The Chesa-
peake Bay Phase 5 Community Watershed Model was
developed to simulate flow and to project nutrient
and sediment loads to the Bay. Phase 5 is the fifth-
generation model of the Chesapeake Bay watershed
since 1982. The model's nutrient inputs are fertilizer
and manure application, point sources, septic, and
atmospheric deposition. The major processes simu-
lated include rain precipitation, infiltration,
evapotranspiration, plant uptake, water and material
movement by surface runoff or groundwater, and
discharge into rivers or tidal waters. The Phase 5
model takes advantage of recent and expanded
monitoring and allows land use to change annually
over the calibration period. Phase 5's improved detail
includes an expansion of land uses to 13 types of
cropland, two types of woodland, three types of pas-
ture, four types of urban land, and other special land
uses such as surface mines and construction land
uses. The Phase 5 Model simulates physical, chemi-
cal, and biological processes for all land uses. For
more information, please visit
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/model phases.aspx.
Phase 5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
River Segmentation
Chesapeake Bay Bathymetry
- State Boundary
- Ptiase 5 Reaches
Pnase 5 River Segi
j | Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Chesapeake Bay Phase 5 Community Watershed Model
39
-------
Strengthening the Manager
Improved Understanding of Ecosystem
Response CBP partners have various
monitoring programs in the watershed
and estuary that are primarily focused on
water quality conditions for large geo-
graphic areas. This information and other
data are used to develop the annual
Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration
Assessment. Improvements to monitoring
efforts under the adaptive management
approach may include:
o CBP partners may consider conduct-
ing additional monitoring to better as-
sess effectiveness of management
actions and other ecosystem compo-
nents (fisheries, habitat, and land-use
change); and
o With better monitoring, CBP may en-
gage in enhanced analysis of the fac-
tors affecting measurable water qual-
ity trends in the Bay (as summarized
in the Health & Restoration Assess-
ment) and develop procedures for as-
sessing the impacts of inputs from the
Bay watershed to the Bay itself.
Developing Integrated Decision-support
Tools The adaptive management process
is largely about making better decisions
about program implementation. Inte-
grated decision-support systems can be
critical to effective adaptive manage-
ment. CBP may wish to improve the sorts
of decision-support tools it currently pos-
sesses. Such enhancements may include:
o CBP likely will continue to develop the
Chesapeake Online Assessment Sup-
port Tool (COAST) for water-quality ac-
tivities. COAST is a series of web-
enabled tools and information to allow
managers to map nutrient loads to
better focus management actions;
test alternative scenarios to imple-
ment different types of management
actions; assess water-quality change
and progress; and better understand
the factors affecting water quality.
o CBP should seek a broader diversity
of information for making decisions.
Committing to a broader view of in-
formation inputs to support decision
making will allow CBP's science part-
ners to fill gaps in the evaluation of
partner implementation efforts and
provide a broader perspective on the
effectiveness of those efforts. The
adaptive management process pro-
vides a framework for testing and im-
proving such evaluation methods over
time.
40
-------
Strengthei
CHAPTER 6
The partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program
have developed the Chesapeake Action Plan
as an adaptive and responsive management
system more appropriate for a dynamic, im-
plementation-oriented, partner-based organi-
zation. The CBP partners believe this ap-
proach will allow the organization to improve
and accelerate implementation of efforts to
protect and restore the Bay. Given the adap-
tive nature of the management system, the
partners expect that CBP will continue to
change and refine its approach to fulfilling its
mission.
Congress and GAO were instrumental in iden-
tifying the types of tools that would lead CBP
to better and quicker implementation of ac-
tions necessary to improve the Bay, and the
CBP partners believe that these tools-
including the CBP strategic framework, activ-
ity integration plan, and dashboards—are the
appropriate ones to achieve these goals. The
CBP partners actively participated in the de-
velopment of the tools, and identified the
need for an adaptive management frame-
work to unify the use of the tools and to con-
tinually improve upon the partnership's exist-
ing and new tools. The nature of adaptive
management implies that the process itself
will continue to be improved and refined. The
CBP partners look forward to making these
improvements for the betterment of the
Chesapeake Bay.
The CBP partners have identified five CAP-
related actions to be addressed immediately
upon the delivery of this Report to Congress.
Those actions include:
« Enhancing Future Versions of the CAP
Throughout the design and development
of this version of the Chesapeake Action
Plan, various partners have identified
possible enhancements. These en-
hancements could maximize the CAP'S
utility for both the CBP partnership and
for individual partner needs. As the CAP is
refined, CBP will revisit the basic design
of the CAP, particularly the database, to
ensure that the effort yields the maxi-
mum utility for all CBP partners.
• Expanding the Scope of the CAP to In-
clude Additional Watershed Partners The
CBP partnership encompasses an array
of partners who contribute to the mission
of protecting and restoring the Chesa-
peake Bay and its watershed. The current
version of the CAP focused on the signa-
tory CBP partners, headwater states, and
a few other partners. Future iterations of
the CAP will address a larger array of
partners and their respective implemen-
tation efforts. This emphasis on an ex-
panded involvement of partners will en-
hance opportunities for coordination and
collaboration. CBP's Local Government
Advisory Committee, in particular, has a
strong interest in having local govern-
ment actions and resources reflected in
the CAP. This is one example of how the
scope of the CAP can be enhanced.
* Improving the CAP Activity Integration
Plan Database The CAP activity integra-
tion plan database is a dynamic tool that
can be continually improved upon in
terms of its content and its form. To those
ends, the CBP partners will work together
-------
Strengthening the Manager
to identify new and easier ways of provid-
ing information to the database, enhanc-
ing the functionality of the system for all
partners, and integrating the outputs of
the system into CBP's daily operations.
Building on the data quality and assur-
ance and data access and security pro-
cedures established for the first version
of the CAP (see Appendix F), the CBP
partners also will strive to improve the
quality and quantity of the data in the da-
tabase.
» Defining the Details of the Adaptive Man-
agement System As mentioned above,
CBP's adaptive management process will
include regular reviews of partner activi-
ties and of the partnership itself. CBP
partners are now engaged in a series of
conversations about redefining the func-
tions of the CBP committees and sub-
committees to orient them toward con-
tinual improvement. CBP looks forward to
sharing the outcomes of these discus-
sions in the very near future.
» Sharing the Successes of the CAP CBP is
one of many estuary and watershed pro-
grams in the United States. The CBP
partners believe that the CAP and the
lessons learned during the development
and implementation of the CAP may be
valuable for other programs, and intend
to generate documentation of this proc-
ess for the benefit of others. Such infor-
mation may provide useful ideas to other
programs and help them develop similar
approaches to the protection and restora-
tion of their water bodies and water-
sheds. In such transfer of information,
the CAP may have a lasting value outside
of the Chesapeake Bay.
The coordination and integration of activities
to protect and restore the Bay has been a
goal of the Bay partners since they first met
to discuss the condition of the Bay. The
Chesapeake Action Plan is a vital step to-
ward full realization of that goal. The CAP is
the right set of tools for the CBP partnership,
and is essential if the partners are to accel-
erate their already positive effects on the
condition of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed.
42
-------
Appendix A CBP Strategic Framework Summary
Appendix B Status of Chesapeake 2000 Commitments
Appendix C Reviews of CBP
Appendix D Realistic Annual Targets Background
Appendix E CBP Dashboards
Appendix F Quality Assurance Activities for the Chesapeake Action Plan
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
••
-
-------
to Congress-
APPENDIX A
the
Purpose A-2
A Shared Vision A-2
Overarching CBP Strategic Framework A-2
Goals - Desired Results and Strategies A-6
1. Protect and Restore Fisheries A-7
2. Protect and Restore Vital Aquatic Habitats A-13
3. Protect and Restore Water Quality A-15
4. Maintain Healthy Watersheds A-21
5. Foster Chesapeake Stewardship A-25
6. Enhance Partnering, Leadership, and
Management A-29
-------
This document summarizes the vision of a
restored and conserved Chesapeake Bay and
watershed set out in the Chesapeake 2000
agreement, provides the overarching strate-
gic framework for achieving that vision, and
sets out the goals, necessary results, and
specific strategies for carrying out the
framework.
This framework is intended to guide all
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) implementa-
tion actions, including an activity integration
plan, and reconcile and align the multitude
of separate planning documents that for-
merly supplied direction for CBP.
ill A
In June 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program
Executive Council adopted the Chesapeake
2000 agreement, setting out a forward-
looking vision of the future of the Chesa-
peake watershed:
We have a shared vision of a system with
abundant, diverse populations of living re-
sources, fed by healthy streams and rivers,
sustaining strong local and regional
economies, and our unique quality of life.
Chesapeake 2000 recognized five major fac-
tors necessary for achieving this vision: sus-
tainable fisheries, vital habitat, clean water,
sound land use, and citizen and community
stewardship. These factors, along with pro-
gram leadership, form the basis for the over-
arching strategic framework for conserving
and restoring the Chesapeake Bay and wa-
tershed.
I
Chesapeake 2000 acknowledged that the
conditions of fisheries, habitat, and water
bodies are inextricably linked to conditions
on the land and stewardship actions taken
by citizens and communities. This document
describes the CBP strategic framework for
restoring and conserving the Bay watershed
based upon this linkage by including work by
many CBP partners towards six intercon-
nected goals depicted in Framework for Re-
storing and Conserving the Chesapeake Wa-
tershed on the next page and in the sum-
mary descriptions that follow.
A-2
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Framework for Restoring and Conserving the Chesapeake Watershed
A Shared
A system with abundant, diverse populations of living resources, fed by healthy streams and
rivers, sustaining strong local and regional economies, and our unique quality of life.
Goal 1: Protect and Restore Fisheries
Restore, enhance and protect the finfish, shellfish and other
living resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to
sustain all fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem.
Goal 2: Protect and Restore Vital Acquatic Habitats
Restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital
to the survival and diversity of the living resources
of the Bay and its rivers.
Goal 3: Protect and Restore Water Quality
Achieve and maintain the water quality necessary to
support the aquatic living resources of the Bay and
its tributaries and to protect human hearth.
Goal 4\ Maintain Healthy Watersheds
Develop, promote and achieve sound land use practices which
protect watershed resources and water quality, maintain
reduced pollutant loadings for the Bay and its tributaries, and
restore and preserve aquatic living resources.
Goal 5: Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
Promote individual stewardship and assist individuals,
community-based organizations, businesses, local governments
and schools to undertake initiatives to achieve these goals
and our shared vision.
Goal 6: Enhance Partnering, Leadership, and Management
Improve and enhance the leadership and management of the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership.
Protect and Restore Fisheries
Restore, enhance and protect the finfish,
shellfish and other living resources, their
habitats and ecological relationships to sus-
tain all fisheries and provide for a balanced
ecosystem.
The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries have
long been renowned for their significant fish-
eries—oysters, blue crabs, rockfish, shad,
menhaden, and other species. These have
been the basis for a great part of the region's
culture, heritage, food supply, and economy.
Yet, most of these fisheries are significantly
less healthy and less abundant than in the
past. Fisheries are indicators of the health of
the habitat on which they depend, the water
in which they live, the land from which that
water flows, and how well the fisheries are
managed.
Protecting and restoring healthy fisheries
depends upon both sound fisheries man-
agement and an ecosystem-based approach
to restoration and conservation. While spe-
A-3
-------
ft sport to €c»ftgras,t»"
cific strategies are detailed in this document
for managing fisheries, overall restoration of
healthy fisheries is also dependent upon
achieving each of four other elements of the
conservation and restoration framework de-
scribed below.
are vita/ to tfte survival diversity of
t/ie /Mug" resources of the Bay and its rivers,
All living things have certain basic require-
ments: oxygen to breathe, food to eat, and
sheltered places to rest and reproduce. Habi-
tats are considered healthy if they are able to
meet these needs. In the Chesapeake Bay,
the needs of living resources are being im-
pacted due to excessive quantities of nutri-
ents and sediment. Compounding this are
the pressures on habitats from development
impacts. Remaining habitats are often frag-
mented and susceptible to invasive species
which crowd out native fauna and flora and
decrease the overall diversity of life.
Restoring these vital habitats is essential for
achieving healthy fisheries and the shared
vision of a healthy Chesapeake watershed.
While specific strategies are detailed in this
document for restoring habitat, overall resto-
ration—and long-term conservation and
maintenance—is also dependent upon
achieving each of the three following ele-
ments of the strategic framework described
below.
the nee-
to support the living re-
of the Bay its and to
health.
People, fisheries, and other living resources
depend on clean, healthy water for life. Wa-
ters are considered healthy when their
chemical and physical attributes support the
ecological needs for robust populations of
living resources such as fish, crabs, and oys-
ters. The Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tribu-
taries are listed as impaired waters under
the Clean Water Act, and CBP partnership's
mission to restore the health and vitality of
the Bay's living resources hinges largely on
efforts to protect and restore water quality.
Since the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, CBP
partners have developed more specific water
quality restoration goals; strategies to accel-
erate implementation actions necessary to
reduce nutrient, sediment, and chemical
contaminants loads to the tidal waters; and
enhanced monitoring to document water-
quality improvements.
Protecting and restoring water quality is es-
sential for achieving all aspects of the shared
vision. While specific strategies are detailed
in this document for protecting and restoring
water quality, overall restoration—and achiev-
ing the shared vision—depends upon not only
habitat restoration, but also on achieving
each of the two other elements of the strate-
gic framework described below.
Develop,
use which re-
quality,
for the Bay its tribu-
taries, liv-
ing resources.
All land drains to streams, rivers, and the
Bay. The use of land directly affects water
quality and thus the health of people, habi-
tat, and all fisheries and other living re-
-------
to -' - i -'
sources. Healthy watersheds in the Chesa-
peake Bay region contain extensive forests,
wetlands, and other resource lands that ab-
sorb storm water like a sponge, thereby regu-
lating stream flow and filtering polluted run-
off before it reaches streams and other water
bodies. As land is developed and used, these
critical resources can be altered or de-
stroyed, eliminating their ability to provide
their vital ecological functions upon which
people, habitat, fisheries, and clean water
depend.
There are, however, ways of developing and
using land that minimize or eliminate im-
pacts to water quality, aquatic habitat, and
forests, wetlands, and other resource lands
while achieving the benefits of development.
Maintaining healthy watersheds through
sound land use practices is necessary and
essential for achieving all aspects of the
shared vision. While specific strategies are
detailed in this document for maintaining
healthy watersheds, long-term success is
dependent upon a stewardship ethic and
practice fostered by the element of the stra-
tegic framework described below.
Promote individual stewardship and assist
individuals, community-based
businesses, local governments, schools
to initiatives to achieve these
our vision.
As leaders in the Bay restoration effort, CBP
partners understand that accomplishing a
comprehensive restoration and conservation
plan for an ecosystem as complex as the
Chesapeake Bay depend on the active en-
gagement of restoration leaders, stakeholder
groups, and citizens throughout the water-
shed.
Action is necessary at all levels—individual,
community, state, and watershed-wide—to
achieve the goals and vision described
above. Fostering Chesapeake stewardship is
a foundation for the other goals and depends
on long-term efforts to connect people with
Chesapeake resources, build understanding
of stewardship needs and options, and
stimulate an active and engaged citizenry
dedicated to long-term restoration and con-
servation of the Chesapeake watershed.
Management
Improve enhance the
management of the Pro-
partnership,
When Congress established the Chesapeake
Bay Program, it recognized the importance
and value in coordinating work, providing
leadership to CBP, and providing necessary
infrastructure and support to the CBP part-
ners so that the common vision for a re-
stored Bay could be achieved. This goal
strategy acknowledges that the structure to
support the work of the CBP partners to im-
plement the goal strategies is an important
component of the work itself. Establishing
and maintaining an effective infrastructure,
supporting the organizational management
structure that coordinates the activities of
the various committees and subcommittees,
providing and managing resource allocations
to demonstrate environmental results, and
institutionalizing a process for improving ac-
countability and coordination are vital to hav-
ing an effective partnership. Ensuring accu-
rate and timely reporting to Congress and the
citizens of the Bay about the progress being
made and the work that remains is para-
mount to building and maintaining the base
A-5
-------
Streng
of support necessary to drive changes in in-
dividual and collective actions.
Ill '•' ..-• ,..." " :::>.' ,< • lid
The strategic framework described in sum-
mary form above is further detailed in the
following pages and in Figure 4 of Report to
Congress: Strengthening the Management,
Coordination, and Accountability of the
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership. Each
of the six goals includes a rationale and ma-
jor desired results, with a list of the strate-
gies for achieving those results. Specific ac-
tions to carry out each strategy are not in-
cluded in this Plan.
A-6
-------
GOAL 1
Restore, enhance and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources, their habitats
relationships to all fisheries provide for a ecosystem.
I.1.
Recognizing the complex interactions among
aquatic species, water quality, and habitats
in the Chesapeake watershed, and the eco-
nomic and ecological importance offish, CBP
set a path toward ecosystem-based fisheries
management. Central to this is an opera-
tional knowledge of species interactions,
habitats, and water quality to ensure that ef-
fective resource management plans can be
developed and implemented.
Toward this end, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Chesapeake
Bay Office coordinated a collaborative effort
by fisheries experts to develop Fisheries
Ecosystem Planning for Chesapeake Bay
(FEP). The FEP provides guidance for ecosys-
tem-based fisheries management in the Bay
and coastal region, including a compilation of
existing information on the structure and
function of the ecosystem such as key habi-
tats and species interactions. The FEP is de-
signed to increase awareness of how man-
agement decisions can affect the ecosystem,
and to facilitate use of ecosystem-based
principles, goals, and policies in fisheries
management. It provides a framework for
refining single-species management and
makes recommendations for incremental
steps toward ecosystem-based fisheries
management. In November 2005, the
Chesapeake Executive Council formally
adopted an ecosystem-based approach to
fisheries management and endorsed the FEP
as strategic guidance.
Protecting and restoring healthy fisheries in
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries de-
pends on ongoing ecosystem-based planning
and management, using as an interim step
single-species management for five priority
species, but also continued transitioningto
ecosystem-based fisheries management in-
volving multiple species. These desired re-
sults are described below.
Better fisheries management will help assure
sustainable fisheries. CBP recognizes that
successful efforts to reduce nutrient loads,
improve water quality, re-establish sub-
merged aquatic vegetation, and restore mi-
gratory fish spawning habitat should bring
about healthier, more abundant stocks of
fish, crabs, and oysters, ultimately leading to
higher fisheries yields from the Bay. To date,
single-species fisheries management has
formed the mainstay of the Bay's fisheries
programs in which regulation of amounts
caught and fishing effort form the primary
management tools. Such single-species
management is the common practice glob-
ally, although the fisheries community widely
recognizes that more effective fisheries
A-7
-------
management could result from a multispe-
cies approach that explicitly considers inter-
actions among predators and prey and their
effects on sustainable fisheries yields.
When CBP formally adopted multispecies
management as a goal in its Chesapeake
2000 agreement, it emphasized the need for
greater understanding of species interac-
tions, habitats, and water quality before ef-
fective multispecies plans can be imple-
mented. Full consideration of such factors in
management plans will provide an ecosys-
tem approach to fisheries management. This
approach builds on single-species manage-
ment within an ecosystem context.
Strategies for achieving effective ecosystem-
based management include: building out the
scientific infrastructure of the FEPto improve
understanding of ecosystem processes and
to enable managers to make informed, holis-
tic natural resource management decisions;
improving fisheries; governance structure
and process; developing new or revised eco-
system-based fisheries and habitat man-
agement plans; and implementing those
plans in an adaptive management frame-
work.
1
The Eastern or American oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) was once so plentiful in the Chesa-
peake Bay that annual landings were in the
millions of bushels. As recently as 100 years
ago, oyster reefs were so massive that they
posed a navigational hazard to ships. These
filter feeders perform functions vital to the
Bay ecosystem.
Filtering up to five liters of water per hour,
oysters consume phytoplankton and detrital
particles with sequestered nutrients; provide
habitat for communities of animals, such as
worms, snails, sponges, small crabs, and fish
through the varied surfaces of oyster reefs;
and supply food for bird species.
Today's Bay oyster population has dropped
to about 1% of its historic level. Factors con-
tributing to this decline include: historic fish-
ing practices, which removed huge volumes
of large oysters and oyster shells and de-
stroyed reef habitat and suitable sites for
oyster spat settlement; two parasites lethal
to oysters within the first two years of life
(MSX and Dermo); loss of habitat due to
sedimentation and accelerated eutrophica-
tion which depletes oxygen in deeper waters
and may impede development of oyster lar-
vae; pollutants such as metals which are
toxic to vulnerable juvenile oysters; siltation
from developed land, farm fields, and forest
logging, which may smother oysters or pre-
vent them from feeding; and a host of natu-
ral predators13.
Strategies for achieving a healthy and sus-
tainable native oyster stock include: monitor
the status of the Chesapeake Bay stock; in-
crease hatchery production; develop disease-
resistant oysters; identify, establish, en-
hance, and seed oyster reefs; establish a
network of permanent sanctuaries through-
out the Bay; support aquaculture; enforce
oyster management laws and regulations;
and implement adaptive management.
13 Chesapeake Bay Program Oyster Management Plan,
2004
-------
Blue crab landings from the Chesapeake Bay
accounted for approximately half of the na-
tional total from the 1950s through the mid
1980s. Since then, the proportion has de-
creased, and Chesapeake Bay landings now
account for roughly one-third of the national
harvest. This species has the highest value
of any commercial fishery in the Bay and
supports a robust recreational fishery. Blue
crab numbers fluctuate annually and are de-
pendent upon the previous years' fishing ac-
tivity and recruitment of small crabs into the
Bay's numerous habitats.
The viability of the Bay's blue crab fishery is
a cause for concern. Since 2001, Maryland,
Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission have shared a conservation goal
of limiting annual blue crab harvest to no
more than 46% of the population. Scientists
estimate that more than 60% of the Bay's
adult blue crab population was harvested in
2007. The current abundance of adult blue
crabs is 120 million crabs, which is slightly
above the established minimum safe thresh-
old of 86 million crabs, 70% lower than 1990
levels, and well below the recently adopted
conservation target of 200 million crabs. A
variety of factors including overfishing, poor
water quality, loss of habitat such as SAV
and oyster reefs, and changing climate con-
ditions have contributed to the decline of the
blue crab population in Chesapeake Bay.
Strategies for achieving a healthy and sus-
tainable blue crab stock include: long-term
monitoring to establish and track population
and stock health metrics; targeting dedicated
research activities to address critical knowl-
edge gaps; periodically assessing population
structure and status as a direct measure of
stock condition and an indirect indicator of
habitat suitability; facilitating science-based
stock and habitat management; and using
an adaptive resource management paradigm
that will take into consideration the efficacy
of management alternatives.
Mil '<;
,N
-'; 33
1011
The striped bass, or Rockfish, has been one
of the most sought-after commercial and rec-
reational finfish in the Chesapeake Bay since
colonial times. Striped bass is an anadro-
mous species and migrates along the Atlan-
tic coast. Adult fish return to tidal tributaries
to spawn in spring months. The Chesapeake
Bay forms the largest nursery for juvenile
striped bass on the Atlantic coast, serving as
spawning and nursery grounds for 70-90%
of the Atlantic population.
Following record high catches in the early
1970s, reported catches from commercial
and recreational fisheries declined precipi-
tously. Declines in striped bass landings,
abundance, and recruitment levels were at-
tributed primarily to overfishing, which may
have made the population more susceptible
to stresses from pollution and natural envi-
ronmental variability. In response to this
downturn, Congress passed the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act and several
states imposed fishing moratoria in the late
1980s. The Chesapeake Bay fishery re-
opened in 1990 after stocks rebounded, and
as a testament to the success of the man-
agement actions, the fishery was declared
A-9
-------
St
Bay f og ar
"restored" in 1995. Although fishing mortal-
ity remains tightly controlled in the present
fishery, concerns exist regarding striped bass
health and condition, due to environmental
and nutritional stressors and the prevalence
of the disease mycobacteriosis.
Strategies for achieving and maintaining a
healthy and sustainable striped bass stock
include: long-term monitoring to establish
and track population and stock health met-
rics; targeting dedicated research activities
to address critical knowledge gaps; periodi-
cally assessing population structure and
status as a direct measure of stock condition
and an indirect indicator of habitat suitabil-
ity; facilitating science-based stock and habi-
tat management; and using an adaptive re-
source management paradigm.
'• ': le
1 I
American shad, hickory shad, alewife, and
blueback herring, collectively termed "Alosi-
nes," are important anadromous species that
historically supported large commercial fish-
eries along the east coast of the United
States. American shad once supported the
most valuable finfish fishery in the Chesa-
peake Bay. Alosines play an important eco-
logical role in freshwater, estuarine, and ma-
rine food webs. Through their return migra-
tions as adults, they may also play a signifi-
cant role in the transfer of nutrients from the
marine system to freshwater rivers.
Stocks of Alosines in the Chesapeake and
along the Atlantic coast are low relative to
historic levels and no longer support robust
commercial fisheries. These declines have
been attributed to overfishing, habitat loss
due to impediments (dams and blockages),
spawning migrations, and poor water quality.
Recent indications, however, suggest that
greater numbers of American shad and hick-
ory shad are returning to Chesapeake Bay
spawning tributaries. Factors contributing to
the increases are dam removals, stocking of
hatchery-reared shads, construction offish
passages, and restrictions on Atlantic coastal
intercept fisheries.
Strategies for achieving and maintaining
healthy and sustainable Alosine stocks in-
clude: long-term monitoring to establish and
track population and stock health metrics;
targeting dedicated research activities to ad-
dress critical knowledge gaps; periodically
assessing population structure and status as
a direct measure of stock condition and an
indirect indicator of habitat suitability; facili-
tating science-based stock and habitat man-
agement; and using an adaptive resource
management paradigm.
• \ If
I
i I
The Atlantic menhaden is a schooling fish in
coastal and estuarine waters and is both
economically and ecologically important in
Chesapeake Bay and coastwide. The Bay's
commercial purse seine fishery is one of the
most productive on the Atlantic coast. The
adult menhaden is a filter feeder that grazes
on plankton and forms an important link in
the coastal marine food chain, influencing
the conversion and exchange of energy and
organic matter within the coastal ecosystem.
Menhaden is a favored forage species for
many predatory fish including striped bass.
A-10
-------
Kr.\ntrt I o
Due to Atlantic menhaden's ecological impor-
tance, concern has grown over the effect of
intensive fishing and potential for population
decline. Although the spawning stock is cur-
rently considered healthy, recruitment levels
have dropped over the past 15 to 20 years
and are now contributing to a decline in
stock size (numbers and biomass). Causes of
recruitment declines remain unknown, al-
though scientists have cited changing envi-
ronmental conditions in ocean or estuary
nursery areas, possible increases in preda-
tion mortality, and heavy fishing on adult
stock as contributing factors.
Strategies for achieving and maintaining a
healthy and sustainable menhaden stock in-
clude: long-term monitoring to establish and
track population and stock health metrics;
targeting dedicated research activities to ad-
dress critical knowledge gaps; periodically
assessing population structure and status as
a direct measure of stock condition and an
indirect indicator of habitat suitability; facili-
tating science-based stock and habitat man-
agement; and using an adaptive resource
management paradigm.
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
A-12
-------
Rtpwrt fo
A i
GOAL 2
and
Restore those aquatic habitats and natural areas that are vital to the survival and diversity of
the living resources of the and its rivers.
.
Habitats of particular importance to Chesa-
peake watershed fisheries and other living
resources are wetlands, submerged aquatic
vegetation, and in-stream fish habitat. These
provide the most vital sheltering, feeding,
and breeding environments for fisheries.
Healthy, vital habitats are reliant upon ad-
dressing habitat degradation on two fronts:
(1) elimination of the causes of the problem,
or "stressors," combined with (2) restoration
efforts to help jump-start the "response" of
vital habitats. This long-term restoration goal
focuses on achieving results and implement-
ing strategies for the latter of these fronts,
as Goal 4 (Maintain Healthy Watersheds) en-
compasses strategies for the former.
Successful restoration relies on significant
federal, state, local, and nongovernmental
participation in large- and small-scale resto-
ration efforts in targeted areas, combined
with both incentive and grant programs for
restoration on private lands, and govern-
ment-sponsored restoration on public lands.
Achievement of this goal depends on habitat
restoration results in four areas: healthy and
abundant migratory fish habitat, healthy and
abundant submerged aquatic vegetation,
restored streams, and restored wetlands
providing habitat and water quality. These
desired results are described below.
Hsh
Chesapeake Bay tributaries were once cru-
cial habitat for migratory (anadromous and
catadromous) fish species. The installation of
dams and other barriers along all major
streams blocked these migratory routes,
vastly diminishing the abundance of these
species. Yet, progress is being made towards
opening up these routes. Of particular impor-
tance is restoring habitat for American shad,
as nearly 50% of the species' potential resto-
ration in the Chesapeake Bay lies in the wa-
ters upstream of the Conowingo Dam on the
Susquehanna River and the Boshers Dam on
the James River.
Strategies for achieving healthy and abun-
dant migratory fish habitat focus on: com-
pleting dam removal projects that restore as
many habitat and stream functions as possi-
ble; prioritizing fish passage in the Susque-
hanna and James Rivers/watersheds; help-
ing federal and state dam owners to set the
example for fish passage projects at their
own facilities; using federal and state engi-
neers to provide low-cost dam removal de-
signs for Chesapeake Bay watershed pro-
jects; regulating installation of new dams and
other blockages; and ensuring streams can
support fish populations.
A-13
-------
2b
anil
Underwater Bay grasses, or submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), provide critical
sheltering, feeding, and/or breeding habitat
for blue crabs and other Bay fish species.
Bay grasses have declined significantly over
decades, primarily as a result of declines in
water clarity due to high nutrient and sedi-
ment pollution in Bay waters.
Restoration of Bay grasses depends first and
foremost on restoring water clarity in areas
for SAV growth. Water quality criteria reflect
the light requirements for growth and main-
tenance of SAV populations throughout the
shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay and
its tidal tributaries. Restoration of water qual-
ity, including water clarity, is addressed
separately in goal three below.
In addition, however, strategies for restora-
tion are needed to provide adequate SAV
habitat: accelerating the protection of exist-
ing SAV beds; restoring SAV through planting
and transplantation; enhancing public com-
munication and education regarding SAV;
and conducting research to support SAV pro-
tection and restoration.
,' r 2c
and
Wetlands are unique, as they provide multi-
ple benefits in addition to their vital habitat
value: buffering shorelines from storm dam-
age; mitigating flooding; and absorbing and
filtering storm water. In particular, healthy
and abundant wetlands help maintain water
quality, making their restoration and conser-
vation a double priority.
This result focuses primarily on wetlands res-
toration and includes strategies for restoring
wetland acreage and restoring the function
of degraded wetlands. In both cases, these
strategies employ geographically focused ef-
forts aimed towards areas with high wetland
restoration potential, high potential benefit
to water quality, and habitat value for living
resources.
Sill Ds!Sin>fI R«siilf ?fi
Streams provide the interconnection be-
tween people's activities in the 64,000
square-mile watershed and conditions in the
Bay. Restoring the health of streams will pro-
vide (1) improved conditions for fish and liv-
ing resources in local watersheds, (2) re-
duced amounts of nutrients, sediment, and
contaminants being delivered to the Bay, and
(3) safer drinking water quality for people.
There needs to be improved coordination of
efforts to implement actions to remove local
streams from the "impaired water lists," re-
duce pollutants to the Bay, and address the
increased numbers offish kills and observa-
tions of poor fish health in streams and riv-
ers of the Bay watershed and the Bay itself.
Strategies for restoring stream health in-
clude: focus actions to reduce nutrients,
sediment, and contaminants in watersheds
that will provide optimum benefits to improve
local stream quality and reduce loads to the
Bay; understand the causes offish kills and
poor fish health in streams to develop man-
agement solutions; and implement stream
restoration actions to improve hydrologic
conditions and decrease sediment erosion.
-------
GOAL 3
Ac/7/eve and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living resources of
the Bay its tributaries to protect
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement set the
following objective: "By 2010, correct nutri-
ent- and sediment-related problems in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries suf-
ficiently to remove the Bay and tidal portion
of tributaries from the list of impaired waters
under the Clean Water Act."
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards,
adopted into state regulations in Maryland,
Virginia, Delaware and the District of Colum-
bia in the last several years, define the water
quality conditions necessary to support rock-
fish, crabs, oyster, underwater Bay grasses
and other aquatic organisms found in the
Bay's tidal waters. The partners used a
combination of scientific research findings,
long term monitoring results and computer
model simulations to determine what level of
reductions in nutrient and sediment pollut-
ants were necessary to meet these water
quality standard regulations.
These nutrient and sediment pollutants
emanate from a series of pollution source
sectors. Strategies in this plan are prioritized
into the sectors where they can produce the
most cost-effective and greatest nutrient and
sediment reductions: agricultural lands and
wastewater treatment plants. As a focus
area, the CBP partnership is relying on these
two source "sectors" to achieve about 80%
of the nutrient reductions necessary to re-
store the Bay while providing additional
benefits of reducing the loads of chemi-
cals14. With permitting of all the significant
wastewater discharging facilities well under-
way and upgraded treatment systems com-
ing on-line, reaching the parallel set of reduc-
tion goals for agricultural lands by working
with farmers and producers is a major focus
of the partnership.
In addition, partners are working to: control
loads of nutrients, sediments, and chemical
contaminants that originate from developed
lands by using regulatory and voluntary
strategies; reduce nitrogen loads from on-
site and septic systems; reduce nutrient and
sediment loads into streams by expanding
forest buffers; control streambed and shore-
line sediment sources; manage air pollution
emissions that generate airborne nitrogen
deposits; and reduce acid mine drainage im-
pact on streams.
All of these core actions needed to improve
water quality conditions have been identified,
but may be modified in the future based
on improved monitoring, assessment of the
effectiveness of management actions, and
potential influences of climate change and
variability. Desired results are described
below.
14 Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2004. Cost-Effective
Strategies for the Bay: Six Smart Investments for Nutri-
ent and Sediment Reductions. Annapolis, Maryland.
A-15
-------
'• 3a
and
Discharges from 483 significant municipal
and industrial wastewater treatment facilities
represent more than 95% of the total flow
from all treatment facilities in the Bay water-
shed, and currently contribute 20% of the
nitrogen and 22% of the phosphorus loads
entering the Chesapeake Bay.
CBP's priority is to fully implement the bas-
inwide National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permitting approach
that calls for permit limits on annual nutrient
loads from these 483 facilities. Load reduc-
tions will be achieved through constructing
nutrient reduction technology upgrades and
implementing nutrient trading programs. A
related priority is to provide treatment facility
operators with information on how to reduce
releases of certain chemicals from wastewa-
ter facilities while implementing their treat-
ment technology upgrades.
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: issuing new annual nitrogen and
phosphorus cap load limits in the NPDES
permit for each respective significant mu-
nicipal or industrial wastewater treatment
facility by 2010 during the five-year permit
renewal cycle starting in August 2005; fund-
ing the necessary facility-specific nutrient
reduction technology upgrades or undertak-
ing nutrient credit exchanges to achieve and
maintain the facility-specific permitted limits;
determining the schedule for individual
treatment facility upgrades (through 2030)
for each of the 483 significant facilities; and
quantifying the loading contributions from
non-significant facilities, then proceeding to
cap their loads into the future.
The six Chesapeake Bay watershed states
are calling for getting two-thirds of the nutri-
ent reductions needed to restore Bay water
quality from the agricultural sector. This sec-
tor contributes over 42% of the nitrogen,
47% of the phosphorus and 76% of the
sediment loads to the Bay.
Partners will work to reduce loads from agri-
cultural lands and animal operations, imple-
menting conservation practices on 6.5 mil-
lion acres of agricultural lands. The partners
will prioritize implementation of conservation
practices in those watersheds where agricul-
tural nutrient and sediment reductions can
make a significant contribution to restoring
valuable Chesapeake Bay living resources.
Emphasis will also be placed on accelerating
implementation of the most cost-effective
conservation practices that will result in the
greatest nutrient and sediment reductions,
while not contributing increased pesticide
loadings.
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: setting priorities for specific prac-
tices in watersheds where reductions can
make a significant contribution to restoring
water quality; accelerating implementation of
the most cost-effective conservation prac-
tices that produce the greatest nutrient re-
ductions; pursuing sustainable nutrient and
sediment reductions such as animal feed
and diet management, enhanced nutrient
management, and development of niche
markets for products that are produced in a
-------
Bay-friendly way; continuing expanded im-
plementation of the Strategy for Managing
Surplus Nutrients from Agricultural Animal
Manure and Poultry Litter in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed; coordinating major federal
funding programs to focus efforts in priority
watershed areas; seeking long-term and
consistent funding for state agricultural in-
centive programs; and engaging the corpo-
rate sector in defining how agricultural prod-
ucts are produced, backed up with third party
verification and direct economic conse-
quences for the producer.
Reduced Uwjcfs imm Developed Lm»dy
Developed lands contribute nutrients (16% of
the nitrogen, and 32% of the phosphorus) as
well as 24% of the sediment loads to the
Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram partnership seeks to: (1) reduce and
then cap nutrient and sediment loads from
developed lands at 44.3 million pounds of
nitrogen, 3.7 million pounds of phosphorus,
and 0.6 million tons of sediment; and (2) ul-
timately achieve "no net increase" in nutrient
and sediment loads from developing lands.
Strategies for achieving reductions on devel-
oped lands include: controlling storm water
from existing development with no or failing
storm water management (through a combi-
nation of regulatory programs and redevel-
opment projects); and evaluating federal,
state, and local storm water regulations and
programs to strengthen the links between
these programs and local/regional water
quality goals.
Significantly, loads from developing lands
represent a growing source sector. Strategies
for controlling loads from developing lands
are detailed within Goal 4.
••I
Relative contributions from onsite and septic
systems will continue to grow due to reduc-
tions in other sources and an overall expan-
sion in the numbers of systems installed.
With a cap on loads being put in place for
hundreds of significant municipal wastewater
treatment facilities, many local and state
agencies are concerned about the potential
for developers and homeowners to turn to
installation of septic systems or onsite treat-
ment systems for small groups of homes as
local municipal treatment facilities reach
their caps on loads.
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: getting a better understanding of
existing local requirements and restrictions
governing installation and maintenance of
these treatment systems, and providing
mandates and incentives for installation of
new systems with denitrification capabilities.
ft R«siiflt 3«
Storm events carry nutrients and sediment
across the land areas along streams and
shorelines and into water bodies. Restoring
and conserving forest buffers along streams
and shorelines significantly reduces these
nutrient and sediment flows, while also pro-
viding other habitat benefits.
A-17
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program partners seek to
expand riparian forest buffers, particularly in
those areas of highest value to restoring or
protecting water quality. Strategies for ex-
panding riparian forest buffers include: tar-
geting riparian buffer restoration towards
those areas that will give the best water qual-
ity benefits and are most vulnerable to loss
from development; and increasing incentives
to plant and maintain riparian forest buffers.
Strategies for conserving existing forest buff-
ers are detailed in Goal 4.
n'
Sil l«*nd'» horn kifru;mi
lidal
In 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Program part-
ners agreed to a basinwide cap on sediment
loads of 4.15 million tons from the current
estimated 5.83 million tons per year. Achiev-
ing this goal will help improve Bay water clar-
ity and assist in the restoration of 185,000
acres of SAV.
The long transport times of sediment from
the watershed to the estuary, and the multi-
ple sources of sediment to the estuary, have
implications for targeting management ac-
tions to improve water clarity. In general,
sediment reduction to improve conditions in
the estuary should be focused at sources
that are closest to tidal waters or deliver the
finest sediments. The partners are currently
focusing sediment reduction strategies on
implementing non-point source best man-
agement practices, such as agricultural cover
crops and states' erosion and sediment con-
trol programs in the upland/watershed ar-
eas, as part of achieving the needed phos-
phorus load reductions. In the tidal areas,
the focus is on establishing living shorelines
and SAV plantings. However, a better under-
standing of the sources of sediment is
needed for the partners to further target im-
plementation actions.
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: identifying watersheds and associ-
ated streams with high sediment delivery po-
tential to tidal waters and targeting them for
sediment reduction and stream restoration
actions; improving scientific understanding
and modeling tools necessary to refine sedi-
ment reduction targets and better focus
management approaches at areas that sig-
nificantly contribute to water clarity and SAV
degradation; piloting a Regional Sediment
Management approach within the Chesa-
peake Bay watershed; and targeting imple-
mentation of "living shorelines."
R(,tSitf,**tS i.ffi
A»
The Chesapeake Bay watershed receives ni-
trogen compounds via air deposition from an
airshed of 570,000 square miles encom-
passing 17 states. Atmospheric deposition is
estimated to contribute 22% of the nitrogen
load delivered to the Bay.
Additional air pollution controls are expected
for meeting human health-based air quality
standards, and the states are revising their
federally-approved State Implementation
Plans accordingly. CBP partners determined
that implementation of such regulations
would achieve nitrogen reductions of about
15 million pounds annually by 2010.
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: fully implementing the federal Clean
Air Interstate Rule and state air regulatory
programs required to meet air quality stan-
A-18
-------
dards; completing research on practices to
reduce agricultural ammonia emissions from
animal operations; developing new man-
agement practice definitions and efficiencies
for agricultural ammonia emissions from
animal operations; and incorporating new
management practices into the states' tribu-
tary strategies along with establishing the
necessary cost share and technical support
delivery systems for their widespread imple-
mentation.
In addition, implementation of land man-
agement practices (e.g., forest buffer resto-
ration, stormwater management using natu-
ral systems, agricultural conservation prac-
tices) reduces the transfer of atmospheric
nitrogen from land to water bodies. These
practices are addressed in other sections of
this strategic framework.
on
There is a growing body of scientific evidence
that supports the conclusion that a healthy
stream— one with abundant, balanced
aquatic life— can actively remove nitrogen
and assist with needed downstream nutrient
reductions. A healthy stream's aquatic life,
usually in the form of attached benthic algae,
can uptake excess nitrogen. These algae, in
turn, would either be consumed within the
stream's food web and be retained in the lo-
cal stream's biological community, or de-
composing algal nitrogen would undergo the
natural process of denitrification and be re-
leased as gas back to the atmosphere.
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: supporting the ongoing research ef-
forts to better quantify the nutrient reduction
benefits of restoring streams impacted by
acid mine drainage into ecologically healthy
streams; and using that information to both
credit and geographically target such stream
restoration efforts for multiple local and
downstream benefits.
'!•', D«SI»l,'i1 31
Currently less than 33% of the monitored
tidal waters contain no impairment for
chemical contaminants15. Of the more than
67% with chemical impairments, nearly all
(95%) identify PCBs as the source. Addition-
ally, the health offish in the Bay and nontidal
rivers is adversely impacted by chemical con-
taminants. Many of the same wastewater
treatment and non-point source reduction
actions that are needed for nutrients and
sediments apply to reducing chemical con-
taminants because they share many of the
same sources and conveyance mechanisms
(i.e., stormwater runoff, wastewater dis-
charge, and atmospheric deposition).
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: identifying management actions that
will provide concurrent reduction of nutri-
ents, sediment, and chemical contaminants
to the estuary and in the watershed; and
identifying the priority areas where manage-
ment actions will have the greatest benefit
for improving water quality conditions for liv-
ing resources in the estuary and fish popula-
tions in the watershed.
15 Additional information on monitored tidal waters is
available at
www.chesapeakebay.ne1/status_chemicalcontamin
ants.aspx.
A-19
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
A-20
-------
GOAL 4
Develop, promote use
quality, for the Bay its tributaries, re-
living
'. '
What happens on the land has a direct effect
on water quality and living resources, espe-
cially in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
where the land area to water volume ratio is
extremely high. While Goals 2 and 3 above
focus on reducing pollutants from existing
land uses and restoring certain ecological
functions, this goal addresses prevention of
future harm and maintenance of existing
ecological functions.
A growing source of nutrient and sediment
pollution in the watershed stems from the
conversion of existing forest, wetlands, and
other resource lands to developed, hardened
surfaces and the subsequent disruption of
these lands' natural filtration and absorption
capabilities. This problem can be addressed
with three key strategy areas: permanent
preservation of valuable resource lands that
have the greatest value for maintaining wa-
ter quality and protecting living resources;
minimizing the conversion of forests, wet-
lands, and working farms; and minimizing
the disruption of pre-development hydrology
during land development. Desired results are
described below.
>'j
Key resource lands—especially forests and
wetlands—are vital to maintaining water qual-
ity. For example, forests prevent millions of
pounds of nitrogen and other pollutants from
reaching the Bay each year. While trends
vary locally, the watershed has lost 100
acres of forest land per day since the mid-
1980s. Every acre of forest converted to
other uses means more nutrients enter the
Bay, making it more difficult to mitigate de-
velopment impacts and resulting in addi-
tional loss and fragmentation of forest habi-
tat. If this forest loss continues, nitrogen
loads alone will increase by 1,300 pounds
per day to the Bay.
Retaining forests across the watershed is a
cost-effective strategy for maintaining caps
on nutrients in the future. It would be costly
to replace with technology
the services that forests provide naturally for
free, such as drinking water source filtration,
flood control, stormwater management, en-
ergy conservation, and greenhouse gas and
air pollution control.
Strategies for preserving valuable resource
lands include: supporting local preservation
planning with educational, technical, and fi-
nancial assistance; protecting lands of na-
tional value for conservation and recreation
A-21
-------
purposes; and providing financial support for
state and local land protection.
''!'.
Of
Just as it is vitally important to permanently
preserve those lands of highest value for
maintaining water quality, it is equally impor-
tant to conserve other resource lands that
help maintain healthy watersheds—forests,
working farms, and wetlands. These lands
allow rain and melting snow to slowly perco-
late into the ground, filtering the water and
replenishing ground water supplies. They re-
duce the rate and flow of unmanaged
stormwater into streams, rivers, and the Bay,
and consequently directly reduce in-stream
nutrient and sediment levels.
The conversion of these lands to impervious
cover—hardened surfaces created during de-
velopment—is a significant source of increas-
ing nutrient and sediment pollution. Water
flows rapidly off impervious surfaces carrying
pollutants into streams, rivers, and the Bay.
This can be addressed through minimizing
the conversion of forests, wetlands, and
working farms to developed uses (as well as
paying attention to the specific practices of
development addressed separately under 4c
below).
Strategies for achieving this desired result
include: supporting local conservation plan-
ning and implementation with educational,
technical, and financial assistance; support-
ing small private forest management and
conservation with technical assistance; mak-
ing effective use of available funding for
working forest conservation in Farm Bill pro-
grams; and facilitating the development of
ecosystems services markets.
;f
on
The human population in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed has more than doubled since
1950, from 8 million to over 16.7 million.
The population in the watershed is now grow-
ing by 130,000 residents annually. This
trend is expected to continue. Between
1990-2000, population increased 8% while
impervious cover increased by 41%. This in-
creased imperviousness of the watershed
has resulted in increased stormwater runoff,
changes to flows in local streams, increased
flooding, decreased forest and vital riparian
habitat, and increased nutrient and sediment
loads to the Chesapeake Bay.
In 2005, members of the Executive Council
acknowledged the need to control increasing
loads from new development and signed Di-
rective 04-2 "Meeting the Nutrient and
Sediment Reduction Goals." The directive
urged the CBP to develop a prevention- and
preservation-oriented approach to stormwa-
ter and new development, with regulatory
and incentive tools to encourage environ-
mentally sensitive development practices
that incorporate natural site features into
stormwater management.
Strategies for achieving this result include:
providing community level nutrient and
sediment allocations; strengthening states'
federal regulatory programs (e.g., NPDES and
Section 404); strengthening requirements for
using federal Clean Water Act state imple-
mentation funds to support stormwater re-
duction; establishing a minimum develop-
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Progra
ment impact model and standards; recogniz-
ing and certifying minimum impact develop-
ment; promote design and implementation of
green infrastructure; supporting local imple-
mentation of codes and ordinances with
educational, technical, and financial assis-
tance; implementing minimum impact devel-
opment in federal projects; and expanding
Urban Tree Canopy goals.
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
••
-
A-24
-------
f'j t!i»iij!CM«
Hu
-------
the Chesapeake watershed through mean-
ingful watershed educational experiences
(MWEEs). Increasing knowledge and literacy
through such experiences will create oppor-
tunities for in-depth investigation and analy-
sis that enhance a deeper understanding of
ecological concepts, environmental interrela-
tionships, and human implications. Student
matriculation and teacher turnover means
that the MWEEs commitment depends on
ongoing support.
Strategies for achieving this result include:
increasing and improving MWEE implemen-
tation throughout the watershed; providing
technical and financial assistance to envi-
ronmental education organizations and pro-
fessionals; ensuring availability of best re-
sources for educators; increasing thoughtful
use of technology in the delivery of MWEEs;
and ensuring that unique expertise and ex-
tensive resources of government and re-
search partners are utilized in delivering
MWEEs.
. Dusm/a 5c
of the
There is a rich natural and cultural heritage
that has long filled many Chesapeake citi-
zens with a deep appreciation of the special
qualities of the region and its resources.
Maintaining this appreciation is a crucial
element in fostering Chesapeake steward-
ship. Many studies demonstrate that this oc-
curs most strongly through place-based in-
terpretive experiences. Interpretation facili-
tates connections between the meaning of
the resource and the interests of the visitor.
CBP partners strive to provide opportunities
for informal education and meaningful ex-
periences with the cultural, historic, natural,
and recreational richness of the Chesapeake
Bay and its watershed.
Strategies for achieving this result include:
supporting place-based interpretation at
partner sites and along trails; creating Bay-
wide interpretive materials, media, and pro-
gramming; increasing and improving informal
educational and lifelong learning opportuni-
ties; and enhancing Heritage Tourism mar-
keting and product development.
, ' i:tes"*lmii Re-suit tie!
liicMiiiib ,Kl t?iti»'.*jn Liiv.i Coinmunitj
rut'/igement
Providing comprehensive public information
and building the broad base of awareness of
Bay health and ecological issues forms the
basis for support of the comprehensive res-
toration plan and furthers engagement of all
stakeholders. Such information, technology,
skills, and increased confidence— through
collaboration, training, technical assistance,
and mentoring— not only help increase en-
gagement, but also enhance the ability of
citizens and community groups to participate
in Bay restoration activities on their proper-
ties and in their watersheds.
Strategies for achieving this result include:
developing a comprehensive strategic com-
munications plan to address all aspects of
citizen and community engagement; execut-
ing year-round, timed public relations initia-
tives year round that proactively build public
understanding of Bay program partner sci-
ence and restoration work; developing social
marketing initiatives targeted to specific au-
diences; providing technical assistance to
targeted audiences to promote best prac-
tices; supporting localized, citizen-based vol-
-------
unteer conservation and restoration activi- veloping a public involvement plan; and co-
ties; executing an internal communications ordinatingthe CBP partnership communica-
structure; facilitating public participation tions staffs.
through the citizens advisory committee; de-
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
A-28
-------
GOAL 6
Improve and enhance the leadership and management of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Partnership.
CBP was created in 1983 on the fundamen-
tal basis of a partnership among the State of
Maryland, the Commonwealths of Virginia
and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia,
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, repre-
senting the federal government. In 1987,
Congress authorized the creation, and in
2000, the subsequent continuance, of CBP
through Section 117 of the Clean Water Act.
Referred to as a "comprehensive cooperative
program," CBP was authorized by Congress
to perform the following critical coordinating
functions:
» Implementing and coordinating science,
research and monitoring
• Reporting on the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake
Bay and its watershed
• In cooperation with other federal, state
and local authorities, assisting in devel-
oping and implementing specific action
plans
• Coordinating the actions of EPA with
those of other federal, state, and local
authorities
• Implementing outreach programs for pub-
lic information, education, and steward-
ship
While not explicitly identified in Chesapeake
2000, this sixth goal is set forth to acknowl-
edge the important roles of coordination,
leadership, infrastructure and governance
that are central to the effective management
of the CBP partnership. Desired results re-
lated to sustaining and improving CBP's ef-
fectiveness are described below.
CBP provides critical infrastructure support
and services that are the foundation for the
partnership. The infrastructure includes fa-
cilities, administrative support, and informa-
tion technology services that contribute vi-
tally to the overall work of the partnership.
Strategies for maintaining and improving this
infrastructure and support include: maintain-
ing an integrated "campus" reflecting the full
spectrum of partners; advancing "green"
qualities of current and future facilities; pro-
viding superior information technology sup-
port for resident staff and partners; and con-
tinuing to enhance the quality and delivery of
administrative support and services to CBP
partners.
and
Management
The CBP partnership is supported by a robust
and evolving organizational structure that
provides for leadership, direction, implemen-
-------
tation, and deliberation among the various
watershed CBP partners and stakeholders.
This structure currently includes:
» The Chesapeake Executive Committee
(i.e., Governors of MD, VA, and PA, Mayor
of DC, EPA Administrator, and the Chair of
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-
state legislative body), which meets an-
nually to set the broad direction of the
Program;
» The Principals'Staff Committee (i.e.,
State Secretaries, EPA Regional Adminis-
trator), which meets quarterly to oversee
strategy development and implementa-
tion;
» The Implementation Committee, which
meets monthly to guide and coordinate
implementation efforts of the CBP part-
ners;
• Three independent Advisory Committees
(Citizens, Local Government, and Science
and Technical); and
« Numerous subcommittees and working
groups.
Strategies for maintaining and improving the
organization of the partnership include:
integrating adaptive management principles
into the culture and structure of the organi-
zation; continuing to enhance meeting man-
agement to optimize progress and results;
relying on consensus, where necessary, yet
also fostering new strategies that encourage
partner leadership and innovation; and im-
plementing program enhancements to im-
prove the partnership's effectiveness.
on
CBP includes an extensive range of federal,
state, local, non-governmental, and other
partners who share a common mission to
restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and
its watershed. Each partner utilizes different
tools, resources, and authorities in imple-
menting actions to restore the Bay. To opti-
mize the delivery, implementation and effec-
tiveness of these actions, the Chesapeake
Action Plan provides a new mechanism for
the partners to optimize delivery of and to
coordinate programs, activities and imple-
mentation actions in ways never before pos-
sible. The CAP will also enhance accountabil-
ity for these actions and results.
CBP's partnership also values independent
feedback and evaluation from its own
Advisory Committees and from external
sources. In the period from 2003 to 2008,
the Chesapeake Bay Program was the
subject of over 20 evaluations, studies and
reports (Appendix C). These efforts provide
important feedback for improving CBP.
Strategies for enhancing coordination, ac-
countability, and evaluation include: evolving
and employing the Chesapeake Action Plan
as a tool to coordinate partner actions, en-
hancing accountability and depiction of pro-
gress; tailoring the CAP to address the needs
of state partners to the greatest extent pos-
sible; and implementing approaches to foster
ongoing, independent evaluation of the CBP
partnership's efforts.
-------
tin and
and
CBP coordinates the science, monitoring,
and analysis that underpin the ongoing re-
porting of the health of the Bay. Annually,
CBP develops and issues a comprehensive
assessment of the health and restoration
progress in the watershed and Bay. Together
with other periodic CBP reports, these serve
as a key means of informing the public and
others on actions, progress, and results.
Strategies for effectively reporting on health
and restoration progress and results include:
continuing development of the annual
Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration As-
sessment; and using the annual assess-
ments to inform CBP partners' efforts to
adaptively manage the program.
v- 8e
and
Of the funds provided by Congress to the EPA
CBP Office, over $15 million annually is for
grants to support implementation efforts by
states and others. CBP plays a key role in the
effective management of grants, contracts,
and interagency agreements. In 2006, EPA's
Inspector General evaluated CBP's grant
management efforts and issued a report pro-
viding no recommendations for improve-
ment.
Strategies for achieving this result are: con-
tinuing to follow EPA procedures and proto-
cols that demonstrate environmental results
and are linked to EPA's Strategic Plan; and
developing work plans that contain well-
defined outputs and outcomes that relate to
improved aquatic health of the Chesapeake
Bay.
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
.,
A-32
-------
APPENDIX
Subsection
Ref. No.
Commitment
Due Date
Complete
L/V/ng Resource Protection and Restoration
Oysters
Exotic
Species
Fish
Passage and
Migratory
and
Resident
Fish
Multi-
species
Manage-
ment
Crabs
1.1.1.1
1.1.1.2
By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline.
By 2002, develop and implement a strategy to achieve this increase by using
sanctuaries sufficient in size and distribution, aquaculture, continued disease
research and disease-resistant management strategies, and other manage-
ment approaches.
2010
2002
No
Yes
In 2000, establish a Chesapeake Bay Program Task Force to:
1.2.1.1
1.2.1.2
1.2.2.1
1.2.2.2
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.5.1
Work cooperatively with the U.S. Coast Guard, the ports, the shipping indus-
try, environmental interests and others at the national level to help establish
and implement a national program designed to substantially reduce and,
where possible, eliminate the introduction of non-native species carried in
ballast water.
By 2002, develop and implement an interim voluntary ballast water man-
agement program for the waters of the Bay and its tributaries.
By 2001, identify and rank non-native, invasive aquatic and terrestrial spe-
cies, which are causing or have the potential to cause significant negative
impacts to the Bay's aquatic ecosystem.
By 2003, develop and implement management plans for those species
deemed problematic to the restoration and integrity of the Bay's ecosystem.
By June 2002, identify the final initiatives necessary to achieve our existing
goal of restoring fish passage for migratory fish to more than 1,357 miles of
currently blocked river habitat by 2003 and establish a monitoring program to
assess outcomes.
By 2002, set a new goal with implementation schedules for additional migra-
tory and resident fish passages that addresses the removal of physical block-
ages. In addition, the goal will address the removal of chemical blockages
caused by acid mine drainage. Projects should be selected for maximum
habitat and stock benefit.
By 2002, assess trends in populations for priority migratory fish species. De-
termine tributary-specific target population sizes based upon projected fish
passage, and current and projected habitat available, and provide recom-
mendations to achieve those targets.
By 2003, revise fish management plans to include strategies to achieve tar-
get population sizes of tributary-specific migratory fish.
By 2004, assess the effects of different population levels of filter feeders
such as menhaden, oysters and clams on Bay water quality and habitat.
By 2005, develop ecosystem-based multi-species management plans for
targeted species.
By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to in-
corporate ecological, social and economic considerations, multi-species fish-
eries management and ecosystem approaches.
By 2001, establish harvest targets for the blue crab fishery and begin imple-
menting complementary state fisheries management strategies Baywide.
Manage the blue crab fishery to restore a healthy spawning biomass, size and
age structure.
2000
2002
2001
2003
2002
2002
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2001
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
i-i
-------
Report to Congress:
Subsection
Ref. No.
Commitment
Due Date
Complete
Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Watersheds
Wetlands
Forests
2.2.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.3.1
2.3.2.1
2.3.2.2
2.3.3.1
2.3.3.2
2.3.4
2.4.1.1
2.4.1.2
2.4.2
Recommit to the existing goal of protecting and restoring 114,000 acres of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
By 2002, revise SAV restoration goals and strategies to reflect historic abun-
dance, measured as acreage and density from the 1930s to the present. The
revised goals will include specific levels of water clarity that are to be met in
2010. Strategies to achieve these goals will address water clarity, water qual-
ity, and bottom disturbance.
By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration of
SAV beds in areas of critical importance to the Bay's living resources.
By 2010, work with local governments, community groups and watershed
organizations to develop and implement locally supported watershed man-
agement plans in two-thirds of the Bay watershed covered by this Agreement.
These plans would address the protection, conservation and restoration of
stream corridors, riparian forest buffers and wetlands for the purposes of
improving habitat and water quality, with collateral benefits for optimizing
stream flow and water supply.
By 2001, each jurisdiction will develop guidelines to ensure the aquatic
health of stream corridors. Guidelines should consider optimal surface and
groundwater flows.
By 2002, each jurisdiction will work with local governments and communities
that have watershed management plans to select pilot projects that promote
stream corridor protection and restoration.
By 2003, include in the "State of the Bay Report," and make available to the
public, local governments and others, information concerning the aquatic
health of stream corridors based on adopted regional guidelines.
By 2004, each jurisdiction, working with local governments, community
groups and watershed organizations, will develop stream corridor restoration
goals based on local watershed management planning.
Achieve a no-net loss of existing wetlands acreage and function in the signa-
tories' regulatory programs.
By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal and
non-tidal wetlands.
To do this we commit to achieve and maintain an average restoration rate of
2,500 acres per year basin wide by 2005 and beyond. We will evaluate our
success in 2005.
Provide information and assistance to local governments and community
groups for the development and implementation of wetlands preservation
plans as a component of a locally based integrated watershed management
plan.
Establish a goal of implementing the wetlands plan component in 25% of the
land area of each state's Bay watershed by 2010. The plans would preserve
key wetlands while addressing surrounding land use so as to preserve wet-
land functions.
Evaluate the potential impact of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay wa-
tershed, particularly with respect to its wetlands, and consider potential man-
agement options.
By 2002, ensure that measures are in place to meet our riparian forest buffer
restoration goal of 2,010 miles by 2010.
By 2003, establish a new goal to expand forest buffer mileage.
Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.
2002
2002
2010
2001
2002
2003
2004
2010
2005
2010
2002
2003
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
No
Yes
Ongoing
Yes
Ongoing
Yes
No
Yes
Ongoing
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
1-2
-------
Report to Congress: Strer
Subsection
Ref. No.
2.4.3
Commitment
Promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests through conser-
vation easements, greenways, purchase and other land conservation mecha-
nisms.
Due Date
Complete
Yes
Water Quality Protection and Restoration
Nutrients
and Sedi-
ments
Chemical
Contami-
nants
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.2.1
3.1.2.2
3.1.2.3
3.1.2.4
3.1.2.5
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
3.2.3.1
3.2.3.2
3.2.4
Continue efforts to achieve and maintain the 40% nutrient reduction goal
agreed to in 1987, as well as the goals being adopted for the tributaries
south of the Potomac River.
By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment- related problems in the Chesa-
peake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal
portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired waters under the Clean
Water Act. In order to achieve this:
By 2001, define the water quality conditions necessary to protect aquatic
living resources and then assign load reductions for nitrogen and phosphorus
to each major tributary.
Using a process parallel to that established for nutrients, determine the
sediment load reductions necessary to achieve the water quality conditions
that protect aquatic living resources, and assign load reductions for sediment
to each major tributary by 2001.
By 2002, complete a public process to develop and begin implementation of
revised Tributary Strategies to achieve and maintain the assigned loading
goals.
By 2003, the jurisdictions with tidal waters will use their best efforts to adopt
new or revised water quality standards consistent with the defined water
quality conditions. Once adopted by the jurisdictions, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency will work expeditiously to review the new or revised standards,
which will then be used as the basis for removing the Bay and its tidal rivers
from the list of impaired waters.
By 2003, work with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and others to
adopt and begin implementing strategies that prevent the loss of the sedi-
ment retention capabilities of the lower Susquehanna River dams.
We commit to fulfilling the 1994 goal of a Chesapeake Bay free of toxics by
reducing or eliminating the input of chemical contaminants from all controlla-
ble sources to levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on the
living resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health.
By fall of 2000, reevaluate and revise, as necessary, the "Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy."
Complementing state and federal regulatory programs to go beyond tradi-
tional point source controls, including nonpoint sources such as groundwater
discharge and atmospheric deposition, by using a watershed-based ap-
proach; and
Understanding the effects and impacts of chemical contaminants to increase
the effectiveness of management actions.
Through continual improvement of pollution prevention measures and other
voluntary means, strive for zero release of chemical contaminants from point
sources, including air sources.
Particular emphasis shall be placed on achieving, by 2010, elimination of
mixing zones for persistent or bioaccumulative toxics.
Reduce the potential risk of pesticides to the Bay by targeting education, out-
reach and implementation if Integrated Pest Management and specific Best
Management Practices on those lands that have higher potential for contrib-
uting pesticide loads to the Bay.
2010
2001
2001
2002
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
2010
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
No
Ongoing
-------
Report to Congress: Strer
Subsection
Priority
Urban
Waters
Air Pollution
Boat
Discharge
Ref. No.
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.4.1
3.5.1.1
3.5.1.2
3.5.2
Commitment
Support the restoration of the Anacostia River, Baltimore Harbor, and Eliza-
beth River and their watersheds as models for urban river restoration in the
Bay basin.
By 2010, the District of Columbia, working with its watershed partners, will
reduce pollution loads to the Anacostia River in order to eliminate public
health concerns and achieve the living resource, water quality and habitat
goals of this and past Agreements.
By 2003, assess the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds and chemical
contaminants on the Bay ecosystem and help establish reduction goals for
these contaminants.
By 2003, establish appropriate areas within the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries as "no discharge zones" for human waste from boats.
By 2010, expand by 50% the number and availability of waste pump-out fa-
cilities.
By 2006, reassess our progress in reducing the impact of boat waste on the
Bay and its tributaries. This assessment will include evaluating the benefits of
further expanding no discharge zones, as well as increasing the number of
pump-out facilities.
Due Date
2010
2003
2003
2010
2006
Complete
No
No
Ongoing
Yes
No
Ongoing
Sound Land Use
Land
Conservation
Develop-
ment,
Redevelop-
ment, and
Revitaliza-
tion
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3.1
4.1.3.2
4.1.3.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
By 2001, complete an assessment of the Bay's resource lands includingfor-
ests and farms, emphasizing their role in the protection of water quality and
critical habitats, as well as cultural and economic viability.
Provide financial assistance or new revenue sources to expand the use of
voluntary and market-based mechanisms such as easements, purchase or
transfer of development rights and other approaches to protect and preserve
natural resource lands.
Strengthen programs for land acquisition and preservation within each state
that are supported by funding.
Target the most valued lands for protection.
Permanently preserve from development 20% of the land area in the water-
shed by 2010.
Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or
revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the con-
servation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.
In cooperation with local governments, develop and maintain in each jurisdic-
tion a strong GIS system to track the preservation of resource lands and sup-
port the implementation of sound land use practices.
By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and agri-
cultural land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30% measured as an av-
erage over five years from the baseline of 1992-1997, with measures and
progress reported regularly to the Chesapeake Executive Council.
By 2005, in cooperation with local government, identify and remove state and
local impediments to low impact development designs to encourage the use
of such approaches and minimize water quality impacts.
Work with communities and local governments to encourage sound land use
planning and practices that address the impacts of growth, development and
transportation on the watershed.
By 2002, review tax policies to identify elements which discourage sustain-
able development practices or encourage undesirable growth patterns. Pro-
mote the modification of such policies and the creation of tax incentives
which promote the conservation of resource lands and encourage invest-
ments consistent with sound growth management principles.
2001
2010
2012
2005
2002
Yes
Ongoing
Ongoing
No
No
Ongoing
Ongoing
No
Ongoing
Ongoing
Yes
B-4
-------
to Strengthei
Subsection
Transporta-
tion
Public Ac-
cess
Ref. No.
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.2.10
4.2.11
4.2.12
4.2.13
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
Commitment
The jurisdictions will promote redevelopment and remove barriers to invest-
ment in underutilized urban, suburban and rural communities by working with
localities and development interests.
By 2002, develop analytical tools that will allow local governments and com-
munities to conduct watershed-based assessment of the impacts of growth,
development and transportation decisions.
By 2002, compile information and guidelines to assist local governments and
communities to promote ecologically-based designs in order to limit impervi-
ous cover in undeveloped and moderately developed watershed and reduce
the impact of impervious cover in highly developed watersheds.
Provide information to the development community and others so they may
champion the application of sound land use practices.
By 2003, work with local governments and communities to develop land-use
management and water resource protection approaches that encourage the
concentration of new residential development in areas supported by
adequate water resources and infrastructure to minimize impacts on water
quality.
By 2004, the jurisdictions will evaluate local implementation of stormwater,
erosion control and other locally-implemented water quality protection pro-
grams that affect the Bay system and ensure that these programs are being
coordinated and applied effectively in order to minimize the impacts of devel-
opment.
Working with local governments and others, develop and promote wastewater
treatment options, such as nutrient reducing septic systems, which protect
public health and minimize impacts to the Bay's resources.
Strengthen brownfield redevelopment. By 2010, rehabilitate and restore
1,050 brownfield sites to productive use.
Working with local governments, encourage the development and implemen-
tation of emerging urban storm water retrofit practices to improve their water
quantity and quality function.
By 2002, the signatory jurisdictions will promote coordination of transporta-
tion and land use planning to encourage compact, mixed use development
patterns, revitalization in existing communities and transportation strategies
that minimize adverse effects on the Bay and its tributaries.
By 2002, each state will coordinate its transportation policies and programs
to reduce the dependence on automobiles by incorporating travel alternatives
such as telework, pedestrian, bicycle and transit options, as appropriate, in
the design of projects so as to increase the availability of alternative modes
of travel as measure by increase use of those alternatives.
Consider the provisions of the federal transportation statutes for opportuni-
ties to purchase easements to preserve resource lands adjacent to rights of
way and special efforts for stormwater management on both new and reha-
bilitation projects.
Establish policies and incentives which encourage the use of clean vehicle
and other transportation technologies that reduce emissions.
By 2010, expand by 30% the system of public access point to the Bay, its
tributaries and related resource sites in an environmentally sensitive manner
by working with state and federal agencies, local governments and stake-
holder organizations.
By 2005, increase the number of designated water trails in the Chesapeake
Bay region by 500 miles.
Enhance interpretation materials that promote stewardship at natural, rec-
reational, historical and cultural public access points within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
Due Date
2002
2002
2003
2004
2010
2002
2002
2010
2005
Complete
Ongoing
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
No
Ongoing
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
Ongoing
No
Yes
Ongoing
B-5
-------
Report to Congress: Strer
Subsection
Ref. No.
4.4.4
Commitment
By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 sites to enhance place-based
interpretation of Bay-related resources and themes and stimulate volunteer
involvement in resource restoration and conservation.
Due Date
2003
Complete
Yes
Stewardship and Community Engagement
Education
and Out-
reach
Community
Engagement
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3.1
5.1.3.2
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.1.7
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.2.7
Make education and outreach a priority in order to achieve public awareness
and personal involvement on behalf of the Bay and local watersheds.
Provide information to enhance the ability of citizen and community groups to
participate in Bay restoration activities on their property and in their local
watershed.
Expand the use of new communications technologies to provide a compre-
hensive and interactive source of information on the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed for use by public and technical audiences.
By 2001, develop and maintain a web-based clearing house of this informa-
tion specifically for use by educators.
Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful Bay or stream out-
door experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation
from high school.
Continue to forge partnerships with the Departments of Education and institu-
tions of higher learning in each jurisdiction to integrate information about the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed into school curricula and university pro-
grams.
Provide students and teachers alike with opportunities to directly participate
in local restoration and protection projects, and to support stewardship ef-
forts in schools and on school property.
By 2002, expand citizen outreach efforts to more specifically include minority
populations by, for example, highlighting cultural and historical ties to the
Bay, and providing multi-cultural and multi-lingual educational materials on
stewardship activities and Bay information.
Jurisdictions will work with local governments to identify small watersheds
where community-based actions are essential to meeting Bay restoration
goals— in particular wetlands, forested buffers, stream corridors and public
access— and work with local governments and community organizations to
bring an appropriate range of Bay program resources to these communities.
Enhance funding for locally-based programs that pursue restoration and pro-
tection projects that will assist in the achievement of the goals of this and
past agreements.
By 2001, develop and maintain a clearing house for information on local wa-
tershed restoration efforts, includingfinancial and technical assistance.
By 2002, each signatoryjurisdiction will offer easily-accessible information
suitable for analyzing environmental conditions at a small watershed scale.
Strengthen the Chesapeake Bay Program's ability to incorporate local gov-
ernments into the policy decision making process. By 2001, complete a re-
evaluation of the Local Government Participation Action Plan and make nec-
essary changes in Bay program and jurisdictional functions based upon the
reevaluation.
Improve methods of communication with and among local governments on
Bay issues and provide adequate opportunities for discussion of key issues.
By 2001, identify community watershed organizations and partnerships. As-
sist in establishing new organizations and partnerships where interest exists.
These partners will be important to successful watershed management ef-
forts in distributing information to the public, and engaging the public in the
Bay restoration and preservation effort.
2001
2005
2002
2001
2002
2001
2001
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
Ongoing
Yes
Yes
Ongoing
Yes
Ongoing
-------
st
Subsection
Government
by Example
Partnerships
Ref. No.
5.2.8
Commitment
By 2005, identify specific actions to address the challenges of communities
where historically poor water quality and environmental conditions have con-
tributed to disproportional health, economic or social impacts.
Due Date
2005
Complete
No
By 2002, each signatory will put in place processes to:
5.3.1.1
5.3.1.2
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.4.1
5.4.2
Ensure that all properties owned, managed or leased by the signatories are
developed, redeveloped and used in a manner consistent with all relevant
goals, commitments and guidance of this Agreement.
Ensure that the design and construction of signatory-funded development
and redevelopment projects are consistent with all relevant goals, commit-
ments and guidance of this Agreement.
Expand the use of clean vehicle technologies and fuels on the basis of emis-
sion reductions, so that a significantly greater percentage of each signatory
government's fleet of vehicles use some form of clean technology.
By 2001, develop an Executive Council Directive to address stormwater man-
agement to control nutrient, sediment and chemical contaminant runoff from
state, federal and District owned land.
Strengthen partnerships with Delaware, New York and West Virginia by pro-
moting communication and by seeking agreements on issues of mutual con-
cern.
Work with non-signatory Bay states to establish links with community-based
organizations throughout the Bay watershed.
2002
2002
2001
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Yes
Ongoing
Ongoing
1-7
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
\ J I
B-8
-------
E N D I X C
External Reviews
Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed,
EPA Office of the Inspector General, Report No. 08-P-0049, January 8, 2008
Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay, EPA Office of the
Inspector General, Report No. 2007-P-00031, September 10, 2007
Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed Generally Comply with Major Clean Water Act Permits, EPA Of-
fice of the Inspector General, Report No. 2007-P-00032, September 5, 2007
EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and
its Watershed, EPA Office of the Inspector General, Report No. 2007-P-00009, February 28, 2007
Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Re-
sources, EPA Office of the Inspector General, Report No. 2007-P-00004 and USDAOIG Report No. 50601-10-Hq,
November 20, 2006
EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay, EPA Office of the Inspector General, Report No. 2006-P-
00032, Septembers, 2006
Congressionally Requested Review of EPA Region 3's Oversight of State National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System Permit Programs, EPA Office of the Inspector General, Report No. 2005-S-00002, October 29, 2004
Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration
Progress, GAO-06-96 Washington, D.C., July 12, 2006
Taking Environmental Protection to the Next Level: An Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Services Delivery
System, National Academy of Public Administration, April 2007
Chesapeake Bay Program Assessment, Office of Management and Budget, 2006, Program Assessment Rating
Tool, Program Code #10004302
Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities, National Re-
search Council, 2008
Saving a National Treasure: Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, A Report to the Chesapeake Bay Ex-
ecutive Council, Chesapeake Bay Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, October 27, 2004
Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay, by Howard Ernst, Rowman and Little-
field Publishers, Inc., June, 2003
Turning the Tide: Saving the Bay, by Tom Morton, Island Press, July, 2003
Internal Reviews
Requested Review of Procedures for the MAWQ/UMD Best Management Practices Project, CBP Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee, July, 2007
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Ecosystem Advisory Panel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Advisory Chesapeake
Bay Office, 2006
Recommendations for Refinement of a Spatially Representative Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network for
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, August, 2005
Review of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Modeling Effort, CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee,
June, 2005
C-1
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Cost Effective Strategies for the Bay: Smart Investments for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction, Chesapeake Bay
Commission, December, 2004.
Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st Century, Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee, July, 2003
Technical Review of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Basinwide Monitoring Program, CBP Scientific and Techni-
cal Advisory Committee, December, 2000
Review of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model, CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, February,
2000
"Chesapeake Renewal Project Findings," prepared by Lisa Keir under contract to the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay, submitted to the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement Planning Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
C-2
-------
Strengthening the Management, Cc
APPENDIX D
Topic Area
Basinwide
Nitrogen
Reduction
Basinwide
Phosphorus
Reduction
Basinwide
Sediment
Reduction
Measure
Implemen-
tation of
nitrogen
reduction
practices
Implemen-
tation of
phosphorus
reduction
practices
Implemen-
tation of
sediment
reduction
practices
Goal
By 2010, 162.5
million pound re-
duction from 1985
levels to achieve
an annual cap load
of 175 million Ibs
(based on long-
term average
hydrology simula-
tions)
By 2010, 14.36
million pound re-
duction from 1985
levels to achieve
an annual cap load
of 12.8 million Ibs
(based on long-
term average
hydrology simula-
tions)
By 2010, 1.69
million ton reduc-
tion from 1985
levels to achieve
an annual cap load
of 4.15 million tons
(based on long-
term average
hydrology simula-
tions)
Background Informa-
tion on Development of
the Goal
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum and the OMB
PART for CBP.
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum and the OMB
PART for CBP.
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum and the OMB
PART for CBP.
Base
Year
1985
1985
1985
Baseline
0% of
goal
achieved
(0
pound
reduc-
tion)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0
pound
reduc-
tion)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0 ton
reduc-
tion)
2007
Progress
47%
(75.6 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
62%
(8.90 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
64%
(1.07 M
ton
reduc-
tion)
2008 An-
nual Target
50%
(81.19 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
64% (9.19
M Ib re-
duction)
67% (1.13
M ton
reduction)
2009 An-
nual Target
52%
(84.44 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
66% (9.48
M Ib re-
duction)
71% (1.20
M ton
reduction)
2010 An-
nual Target
54%
(87.69 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
68% (9. 76
M Ib re-
duction)
74% (1.25
M ton
reduction)
Background Information on Develop-
ment of the Realistic Annual Target
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to refine the Targets for 2008-
2010. These refinements will be
reflected in future targets for PART.
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to refine the Targets for 2008-
2010. These refinements will be
reflected in future targets for PART.
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to develop Targets for 2009-
2010.
D-i
-------
Topic Area
Municipal
and Indus-
trial Waste
Water
Municipal
and Indus-
trial Waste
Water
Agricultural
Lands and
Animal
Operations
Agricultural
Lands and
Animal
Operations
Measure
Waste water
nitrogen
reduction
Waste water
phosphorus
reduction
Implemen-
tation of
agricultural
nitrogen
reduction
practices
Implemen-
tation of
agricultural
phosphorus
reduction
practices
Goal
By 2010, 49.9
million pound re-
duction from 1985
levels.
By 2010, 6.16
million pound re-
duction from 1985
levels.
By 2010, 96.99
million pound re-
duction from 1985
levels.
By 2010, 6.48
million pound re-
duction from 1985
levels.
Background Informa-
tion on Development of
the Goal
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum and the OMB
PART for CBP.
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum and the OMB
PART for CBP.
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum.
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
Base
Year
1985
1985
1985
1985
Baseline
0% of
goal
achieved
(0
pound
reduc-
tion)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0
pound
reduc-
tion)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0
pound
reduc-
tion)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0
pound
reduc-
2007
Progress
69%
(34.29
M Ib
reduc-
tion)
87%
(5.36 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
48%
(46.57
M Ib
reduc-
tion)
51%
(3.29 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
2008 An-
nual Target
74%
(36.92 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
89% (5.48
M Ib re-
duction)
50%
(48.49 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
52% (3.37
M Ib re-
duction)
2009 An-
nual Target
79%
(39.42 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
91% (5.61
M Ib re-
duction)
52%
(50.43 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
53% (3.43
M Ib re-
duction)
2010 An-
nual Target
84%
(41.91 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
93% (5.73
M Ib re-
duction)
54%
(52.37 M
Ib reduc-
tion)
54% (3.50
M Ib re-
duction)
Background Information on Develop-
ment of the Realistic Annual Target
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to refine the Targets for 2008-
2010. These refinements will be
reflected in future targets for PART.
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to develop Targets for 2009-
2010.
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to develop Targets for 2009-
2010.
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
-------
Topic Area
Agricultural
Lands and
Animal
Operations
Streamside
Tidal
Shoreline
Riparian
Areas
Wetlands
SAV
Measure
Implemen-
tation of
agricultural
sediment
reduction
practices
Riparian
Forest Buff-
ers Planted
Wetland
Restoration
Efforts
Submerged
Aquatic
Goal
By 2010, 2.55
million ton reduc-
tion from 1985
levels.
10,000 miles re-
stored between
1996 and 2010.
MD, VA, PA, DC,
and NY to restore
28,500 acres be-
tween 1998 and
2010
Accelerate SAV
restoration by
Background Informa-
tion on Development of
the Goal
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum.
Goal generally stated
in Chesapeake 2000.
Specific numbers
derived from alloca-
tions agreed to by
state partners and
EPA as documented in
March 2003 memo-
randum.
Goal is generally
stated in Chesapeake
2000. Chesapeake
Executive Council
adopted expanded
forest buffers goal in
2003.
Goal derives from
Chesapeake 2000.
with the addition of
acres from the head-
water states.
Goal is generally
stated in Chesapeake
Base
Year
1985
1995
1997
2002
Baseline
tion)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0 ton
reduc-
tion)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0 miles)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0 acres)
0% of
goal
2007
Progress
48%
(1.21 M
ton
reduc-
tion)
57%
(5,722
miles,
cumula-
tive
49%
(13,999
acres,
cumula-
tive)1
14%
(140
2008 An-
nual Target
50% (1.28
M ton
reduction)
62%
(6,182
miles,
cumula-
tive
53%
(15,171
acres,
cumula-
tive)
15% (153
acres,
2009 An-
nual Target
52% (1.33
M ton
reduction)
65%
(6,522
miles,
cumula-
tive
57%
(16,343
acres,
cumula-
tive)
16% (160
acres,
2010 An-
nual Target
54% (1.38
M ton
reduction)
68%
(6,837
miles,
cumula-
tive
61%
(17,516
acres,
cumula-
tive)
17% (167
acres,
Background Information on Develop-
ment of the Realistic Annual Target
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to develop Targets for 2008-
2010.
Targets are based on the assess-
ment used to develop ambitious yet
realistic targets for the OMB PART.
The PART targets were based on an
assessment conducted in 2005
using historic progress, historic fund-
ing, and new funding anticipated at
the time. Additional data and infor-
mation available since 2005 were
used to develop Targets for 2009-
2010.
MD: NRCS, FSA, and MD DNR used
current planting season contracts,
assumption of no policy changes in
2008, and current rate of approxi-
mately 20 miles per year in 2006
and 2007 to develop targets.
VA: NRCS, VA OCR and VA Depart-
ment of Forestry assessed current
contracts, amount of fundingfor
2009, and recent implementation
progress (86 miles in 2006 and 48
miles in 2007) to develop targets.
PA: NRCS and PA DEP assessed their
recent implementation (615 miles in
2006 and 315 miles in 2007) to
develop targets.
Target is the average of 2005 and
2006 accomplishments (excluding
DC).
Targets are the sum of what SAV
partners identify as realistic for their
-------
Topic Area
Oysters
Fish Pas-
sage
Blue Crab
Land Pres-
ervation
Measure
Vegetation
Planting
Oyster Reef
Restoration
Fish Pas-
sage Resto-
ration
Blue Crab
Ecosystem-
based
Fishery
Manage-
ment
Forest Land
Protection
Goal
planting 1,000
acres of new SAV
beds between
2003 and 2008.
Implement oyster
restoration prac-
tices on 2,466
acres of oyster bar
and reef habitat
between 2007 and
2010.
2,807 miles re-
opened between
1989 and 2014
and 100 projects
completed be-
tween 2005 and
2014.
By 2007, revise
and implement
existing fisheries
management plans
to incorporate
ecological, social
and economic
considerations,
multi-species fish-
eries management
and ecosystem
approaches.
Permanently pro-
tect 695,000 addi-
tional acres by
2020
Background Informa-
tion on Development of
the Goal
2000. Chesapeake
Executive Council
adopted submerged
aquatic planting goal
in 2003.
Goal is proposed and
derived from partner
consensus.
Goal is generally
stated in Chesapeake
2000. Chesapeake
Executive Council
adopted new numeric
goal in 2005.
Goal is stated in
Chesapeake 2000.
Goal is generally
stated in Chesapeake
2000. Chesapeake
Executive Council
adopted numeric goal
in 2007.
Base
Year
2007
1988
for
miles
and
2005
for
pro-
jects
2004
2007
Baseline
achieved
(0 acres)
0% (0
acres)
0% of
goal
achieved
(0 miles
and 0
projects)
0% of
goal
achieved
0 acres
2007
Progress
acres,
cumula-
tive)
32%
(776
acres
81%
(2,266
miles;
40 pro-
jects,
cumula-
tive)
56%
0%
2008 An-
nual Target
cumula-
tive)
53%
(1,306
acres,
cumula-
tive
85%
(2,376
miles; 50
projects,
cumula-
tive)
56%
7%
(50,200
acres,
cumula-
tive)
2009 An-
nual Target
cumula-
tive)
75%
(1,836
acres,
cumula-
tive
89%
(2,486
miles; 60
projects,
cumula-
tive)
56%
15%
(101,000
acres,
cumula-
tive)
2010 An-
nual Target
cumula-
tive)
100%
(2,466
acres,
cumula-
tive)
92%
(2,596
miles; 70
projects,
cumula-
tive)
56%
23%
(157,200
acres,
cumula-
tive)
Background Information on Develop-
ment of the Realistic Annual Target
organizations.
Targets are the sum of what the
oyster partners identify as realistic
for their organizations.
Project targets are based on part-
ners' evaluation of what is attain-
able. Mileage targets assume an
average number of miles opened per
project, based on past efforts.
Actions taken in the past three years
have yielded no increases in the Blue
Crab Ecosystem-based Fishery Man-
agement Effort Index, so near-term
future increases are not anticipated.
The Forest Land Protection target
stems from the Response to Direc-
tive 06-1, signed December 5, 2007,
which includes the commitment to
protect 695,000 acres of high-value
forest for water quality that is also
vulnerable to development. State
forestry contacts provided realistic
D-4
-------
Topic Area
Watershed
Education
Measure
Meaningful
Watershed
Educational
Experience
Goal
100% of students
receive a MWEE by
their high school
graduation
Background Informa-
tion on Development of
the Goal
Goal is stated in
Chesapeake 2000.
Base
Year
2005
Baseline
79% of
students
2007
Progress
80% of
stu-
dents2
2008 An-
nual Target
81% of
students
2009 An-
nual Target
82% of
students
2010 An-
nual Target
84% of
students
Background Information on Develop-
ment of the Realistic Annual Target
forest land protection estimates for
2008, 2009, and 2010.
State partners provided data to de-
termine the percentage of their stu-
dents receiving an MWEE before
graduation. Each jurisdiction made
targets for their student populations.
These were used to create a
weighted average for the targets.
12007 progress is different from that reported in the 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment, as it includes additional commitments and efforts by New York
and Delaware.
22007 progress is different from that reported in the 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment due to corrected data provided by Pennsylvania.
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
D-6
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has de-
veloped preliminary dashboards to summa-
rize and synthesize information from the CBP
activity integration plan and goal strategies
so the program partners can understand at a
glance the progress CBP has made in key
program areas. The dashboards include
measures of progress, information about the
resources CBP partners have dedicated to
the efforts described, and strategic analyses
of what needs to be done to improve imple-
mentation.
The dashboards provide vital information to
the CBP partners to support decision making.
When used within CBP's adaptive manage-
ment system, the dashboards will allow CBP
partners to identify opportunities for
strengthening efforts toward achieving an-
nual and longer-term goals. The dashboards
themselves are also subject to change as
CBP refines its targets, goals, strategies, and
other components of program implementa-
tion under its adaptive management system.
The dashboards synthesize data submitted
by CBP partners to the CBP activity integra-
tion plan database. As such, the dashboards
are subject to the limitations of the submit-
ted data. CBP is aware that the submitted
data include certain systematic limitations,
including:
» The data were reported in April 2008.
CBP partners may have revised their
plans and budgets since data were sub-
mitted.
» The dashboards reflect only the activities
of the partners who provided data to the
CAP activity integration plan database.
The future inclusion of additional part-
ners will increase the amount of activities
reflected in the dashboards. The dash-
boards also do not reflect the priority as-
signed to specific activities by individual
CBP partners.
• The dashboards are a component of
adaptive management and therefore are
dynamic in nature. Subsequent dash-
boards will reflect changes resulting from
implementation of CBP adaptive man-
agement system.
» The dashboards represent a subset of
restoration effort measures tracked by
CBP. For information about additional
measures of restoration effort, refer to
Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Resto-
ration Assessment
(http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicato
rshome.aspx).
Data on activities for 2007 are generally
more complete than for later years. The data
submitted to the CBP activity integration plan
database in April 2008 account for $1.1 bil-
lion of activities in 2007. The data for 2008
and 2009 were incomplete due to several
factors:
« Activities funded in 2007 have been im-
plemented, allowing CBP partners more
reliable accounting for the year.
• Activities and funding for 2008 and 2009
are subject to ongoing planning and
budgeting, as well as the inability of some
CBP partners to make activity and fund-
ing projections for future years.
-------
The submission of additional data will allow
CBP to more fully understand and explain
year-to-year changes in activity and funding
level.
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Implementation of Pollution
Reduction Practices
;s Nitrogen
ibs GOAL
By 201 0, 1 62.5M Ibs reduction from 1 985 levels to achieve an
annual cap load of 175M Ibs. "*
B Phosphorus
its GOAL
20W
50% -, ,-
81-19MII»i] I 8?
2007 J L2009
20)0
54%
69Mlbs
75.6M Ibs 84.«M Ibs 2008
64%
By 2010, 14.36M Ibs reduction from 1995 levels to achieve an annual cap
load of 12.8M Ibs, "
is Sediment
to GOAL
By 2010, 1 69M Ion reduction from 1985 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 4, 1 5M
9.19Mlbs|
I :
2007
8.8M Ibs
2007
64% ~
I.OTMUms
2010
88%
F9.76H Ibs
• 1
2009
8.48M Ibs
2008 2010
67% 74%
mSMtons n.2SMtons
2009
U 71%
1.20MBOS
GOAL"
150%
GOAf
1
100%
GOAL-
100%
; ' I .
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19,2008
Progress from
_ 1985 thru 2007
Realistic
Annual Target
based on etisbng resoi/tes.
acovity Bves art piogrsns
ccmmlment lomeel ttte goal,
nnfu the liming Sea Appendix
DforinfoimdffionRAT
deuetpnanl
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_reducingpollution.aspx
" yij/ goafe ftasetf on fong^erm average ft vdrotogv Sfmu/aftons.
Background
The Chesapeake Bay Program partners have agreed that reducing and then capping nutrient and sediment loads at 175 million pounds of nitrogen, 12,8 million
pounds of phosphorus, and 4.15 million tons of sediments will result in restoration of Bay water quality. To date, the watershed's farmers, local, state, and federal
governments, watershed organizations, and many others have collectively implemented almost half of the nitrogen and two-thirds of the phosphorus and sediment
pollution load reduction actions, practices, and technologies required for restoring Bay water quality. Pollution reduction includes efforts in agriculture and
wastewater. Most reductions occurred in wastewater pollution prevention and opportunity exists for increased reductions from agriculture,
Strategy
To address this shortfall, the partnership must act strategically to:
• Reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads from municipal and industrial wastewater;
• Reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads from agricultural lands and animal operations;
• Reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads from developed lands;
• Reduce nitrogen loads from onsite and septic systems;
• Reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads from streamside and tidal shoreline riparian areas via forest buffers;
• Reduce nitrogen loads from air emissions;
• Reduce sediment loads from streambanks and tidal shorelines;
• Reduce acid mine drainage impacts on streams; and
• Reduce chemical contaminant loads. BMPs that reduce nutrients and sediments also reduce chemical contaminants.
Challenges
There remain significant challenges to overcome in order to not only continue past reductions in nutrient and sediment loads in the face of continued population
growth in the watershed (130,000 new people every year), but to accelerate the rate of on-the-ground implementation. More capital investments in advanced
wastewater treatment technologies, increased cost snaring of agricultural conservation practices, expanded technical assistance to agricultural and developing
lands sectors, and dramatic changes in how we develop into the future are some of the principal challenges.
Action Needed
• Compare current year actions with annual targets and understand reasons behind the shortfalls or exceedances.
• Forecast alternative implementation scenarios to more strategically choose management actions.
• Identify and evaluate opportunities for coordination, integration, and leveraging of individual partners' actions.
• Assess whether partners are taking the most cost-effective, outcome-efficient actions.
• Factor these findings and opportunities into state, federal, and eventually local implementation programs' annual operating plans.
Current Funding (Millions)
2007 Funding
o>
12
JB
"5
D
ONGO
D Slate
• Federal
2008-09 Dafa
Under Development
2007
2008
2009
" NOTE Dala on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete than for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented. Data on activities
and funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due lo several factors (e.g.,
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to project
future budgets) and are not summarized here. These data will he improved in
future iterations of the CBP dashboards. Funding data as of April 25, 2008.
Reporting organizations include ARS, USAGE, EPA. FHWA, FWS. NOAA,
NRCS, USFS, DC, DE, MD. NY. PA, VA, WV, CBC, and CBT.
by Partner by Activity toward* Perfermince Boil ""
" Other includes: EPA/CBPO. EPA/Region 3, DE, NY, EPA/OW. CBT. USFS, ARS. USAGE. WV, FWS, NOAWCBO,
CBC. DC, and FHWA
*** Other includes: Program Management. Habitat, Technical Support. Restoration. Assessment, Monitoring,
Research, Education, TMDL Development, Engage Partners, Management Tool Development, Enforcement,
Enhancement. Information Management Regulation, and Targeting
"** Included Activities: Funding/Finance. Remediation, Protection, Restoration, Regulation. Mitigation. Trading/Credit,
and Technical Assistance
E-3
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Implementation of Agricultural
Pollution Reduction Practices
CAP Version 1.0
Produced on May 19,2008
mi Nitrogen
£s GOAL
By 2010, 96.99M Ibs reduction from 1985 levels. "
(985 Phosphorus
I
0% GOAL
te By 201 0, 6.48M Ibs reduction from 1985 levels. **
1985 Sediment
o* GOAL
tons By 2010, 2 55M Ion reduction from 1985 levels. "
4aSftsl r5237Mlte
!007 I I 20M
48% J L 62*
46 57M IDs 50.43M Ibs
mi mm
5W -i i- 64%
3.37Mlbs | | 3_50Mlbs
I :
! 1
2007 2m
51% -1 L 53%
3.29Mlbs 3.43Mlte
2008 20W
50% -t r- 54%
128WBns | M38MtDns
2007 2009
1.21Mtons 1.33Mtons
GOAL-
— -j
lorn
9699MI6S
GOAf
I
100%
E 48M Ibs
GOAL'
law
2 55M tons
™ Progress from
J 1985 thru 2007
Realistic
Annual Target
Una raafiBtc anrafll target 13
' ' '
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net'status_agricullure.aspx
:. ... :
oily tfls timing SBS.to«nd'l
DforhtofmaioiaiRAT
devstapmenl
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
' Goaf/sge/iejdi'iys-fS'teo ID Chesapeake 2000, bomver specific numbers iteiived train allocations
sgrvsd to by slate partners a/^c.1 £/*/! as ttocumenfed fn Ma«:fi ?0£?3 memorandi/m.
"* Afl goa's are based on long-tern average hydrology smutatfons.
Background
The six Chesapeake Bay watershed states are calling for getting two-thirds of the nutrient reductions needed to restore Bay water quality from the agricultural sector.
The Chesapeake Bay watershed's farmers, in partnership with local, state, and federal conservation agencies, will have implemented about half of the practices needed
to achieve the loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments loads from agricultural lands to Bay tidal waters to the required level. These efforts are accounted for in
the pollution reduction practices measures.
Strategy
To address this shortfall, the partnership must act strategically to:
• Prioritize implementation of specific agricultural practices in specific watersheds where agricultural nutrient and sediment reductions can make a significant
contribution to restoring water quality.
• Accelerate implementation of the most cost effective conservation practices that will result in the greatest nutrient reductions.
• Seek opportunities to employ nutrient and sediment reductions that will result in sustainable reductions and farming.
• Coordinate and increase collaboration among the major federal funding programs.
• Seek long-term and consistent funding for implementing the state agricultural incentive programs.
• Engage the corporate sector.
Challenges
• With more than 87,000 independent and privately operated farms basin-wide, achieving substantial nutrient and sediment reductions by obtaining voluntary
implementation of unprecedented levels of conservation practices will be a challenge.
• Greatly enhanced cost share and technical assistance programs will be required, among other changes to current delivery systems.
Action Needed
• Reach agreement among the partners on a set of tools to assist the partners in prioritizing implementation of specific agricultural practices in specific watersheds
where agricultural nutrient and sediment reductions can make a significant contribution to restoring water quality for the Chesapeake Bay living resources.
• Continue expanded implementation of the Strategy for Managing Surplus Nutrients from Agricultural Animal Manure and Poultry Litter in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, focusing on the three primary management areas for litter and manure: reducing nutrient content through feed management, developing new markets and
technology for alternative products, and coordinating manure management programs across the watershed.
• Increase collaboration among the U.S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants and Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants programs, National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation's Chesapeake Bay Small and Targeted Watershed and Grants Programs, the USDA-NRCS's EQIP, CSP, AMA and CIG programs and the USDA-FSA's
CRP program, to focus efforts in the priority watershed areas and technical assistance programs.
Current Funding (Millions) *
2007 Funding
2008-09 Data
Under Development
' NOTE. Data on activities and funding lor 2007 are more complete than tor later years
because aclivities funded in 2007 have been implemented. Dala on activities and
funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due lo several factors (e.g , ongoing
planning and budgeting and Ine inability, in some cases, to project future budgets)
and are nos summarized here. These data will be improved in future derations of
Ihe CBP dashboanls Funding dala as of April 25,2008. Reporting organizations
include ARS. EPA, NRCS. DE, MD, NY, PA,VA.WV, CBC, and CBT.
by partner by Activity towards Perlormance Goll "
• Other includes: MD, NY, DE, WV, EPA/OW, ARS. CBT. EPA/Region 3, and CBC
"' Other includes. Program Management, Habilat, Technical Support. Assessment, Research, Education,
Restoration, Engage Partners. TMDL Developmenl, Enforcement, and Targeting
"" Included Activities: Funding/Finance. Remediation, Protection, Restoration, Regulalion, Mitigation,
Trading/Credit, and Technical Assistance
E-4
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Wastewater Pollution Prevention
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19, 2008
(965
0%
DM Ibs
(985
0%
OM Ibs
Nitrogen
GOAL
By 2010, 49.9M Ibs reduction from 1985 levels.
Phosphorus
GOAL
2008 1010
74% 84%
3692Mlbs 41.91MIDS
| 1
1 1
2007 2009
69% 79%
34.29MlbS 3S.42MI6S
88% 93%
5.4JMIbs-j 5.73Mlbs
;
i
2007 L 2009
87% 91%
5.36Mlbs 5.61Mlbs
GOAL'
100%
tsauitK
GOAL-
Zl
100%
SISMIbs
• Progress from
1985 thru 2007
Realistic
Annual Target
The jeaiiibc amua! brgel is
aid do« rwl[*iar>^ the
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
By 2010,6.16M Ibs reduction from 1985 levels.
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/statusjAiastewater.aspx
' Goal is gwefafly stated if? Chesapeake 2000, towewr specific numterc dewgd ftum
aflocatiorts agreed to fry state partners a/id £ W as documented in Mareri 2003
memorandum and the QMS P/Wrfor CSP
Background
In the Chesapeake watershed there are currently 483 facilities designated as significant dischargers. The total effluent flow from these significant facilities
represents more than 95% of the total flow from all wastewater treatment facilities in the Bay watershed and currently contributes 20% of the nitrogen and 22%
of the phosphorus loads entering the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program partners are 69% and 87% towards achieving the required reductions
in nitrogen and phosphorus wastewater loads, respectively, to Bay tidal waters. These efforts are accounted for in the pollution reduction practices measures.
As the Chesapeake Bay watershed's population continues to grow, the volume of waste requiring treatment will grow as well, requiring ongoing investment to
maintain achievement of the goal.
Strategy
To address this shortfall, the partnership must act strategically to:
• Issue the new annual nitrogen and phosphorus cap load permit limits to each significant municipal or industrial wastewater treatment facility by 2010;
• Fund the necessary facility-specific nutrient reduction technology upgrades;
• Undertake the required nutrient credit exchanges in order to achieve and maintain the facility-specific permitted limits; and
• Determine the schedule for individual treatment facility upgrades and/or anticipated nutrient credit exchanges (through 2030) for each of the 483 significant
facilities to ensure maintenance of the facility-specific and tributary basin wastewater treatment nitrogen and phosphorus cap load allocations.
Challenges
Maintaining the cap on loads in the face of continued population growth will require facility upgrades, process changes, operational modifications or
enhancements, nutrient trading with other facilities and non-point sources, land application, and recycling/reuse of treated effluents.
Enhancing treatment operations will require specialized training and information sharing to optimize the treatment performance and efficiency of the nutrient
reduction systems.
Action Needed
• Issue nitrogen and phosphorus cap load permit limits to the remaining significant municipal and industrial facilities by 2010.
• Ensure completion of treatment upgrades to be operational by 2010 at the facilities across the six-state watershed.
Current Funding (Millions) *
2007 Funding
2
—
"5
a
2008-09 Data
Under Development
2007
2009
1 NOTE Data on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete than for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented. Data on activities
and funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several (actors (e.g.
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to project
future budgets) and are not summarized here. These data will be improved in
future iterations of the CBP dashboards. Funding data as of April 25 2008.
Reporting organizations include EPA, DE, MD, NY, PA, and VA.
0
a
to
in
"5
a
by Partner by Activity
" Other includes: EPA/CBPO, DE, NY. and EPA/Region 3
*" Qltier Includes: Assessment Technical Support. Program Management, TMDL Development, and Information
Management
"" Included Activities: Funding/Finance, Regulation, Mitigation, Trading/Credit, and Technical Assistance
E-5
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Blue Crab Fishery Management
0>
2004
2007
GOAL'
100%
Progress from
2004 thru 2007
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
GOAL
By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to incorporate
ecological, social, and economic considerations, multi-species fisheries
management, and ecosystem approaches as stated directly in Chesapeake 2000,
:! in cttesapeake SOW}
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx
Background
While some significant effort was undertaken to improve the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries in 2007, very few of these efforts resulted in changes to
fisheries management plans or implementation of these plans. The goal for blue crab fishery management reflects progress toward full implementation of
ecosystem-based fisheries management for blue crabs; however, the activities described below focus on near-term actions to improve single-species management
of blue crabs.
Strategy
To address the declining abundance of blue crabs, the partnership must act strategically to:
• Monitor stock status and habitat condition.
• Take management actions aimed at achieving the interim rebuilding target,
• Protect the female portion of the stock in a coordinated manner across jurisdictions.
• Produce population assessments based on monitoring data,
• Facilitate science-based management decision making.
• Carry out the adaptive management cycle.
Challenges
• Collaborative interjurisdictional management of blue crabs using common fisheries goals considerate of ecosystem dynamics.
• Effort control is an available means of reducing mortality in the fishery but perhaps not the most direct or effective method for controlling harvest due to latent
effort.
• Variability in the annual estimates of abundance due to factors not controlled by fisheries managers (water quality, habitat, etc,).
• Need for additional coordinated monitoring that is designed to provide a robust index of summer abundance.
Action Needed
• Establish reliable population and stock health metrics.
• Draft and distribute an Annual Blue Crab Advisory Report.
• Coordinated Bay-wide management to meet interim rebuilding target.
• Establish a steering committee of managers, watermen, NGOs, and scientists to refine management objectives and options,
• Improvements in both fisheries management and water quality/habitat are needed to restore the fishery.
Current Funding (Millions)
2007 Funding
Q
2008-09 Data
Under Development
£
JB
O
0
NOWCBQ 3 63M
2007 2008 20W-
' N-:/;Tb Data on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete than for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented. Data on activities
and funding fot 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several factors (e.g.,
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to project
future budgets) and are not summarized here. These data will be improved in
future iterations of the GBP dashboards, Funding data as of April 25.2008,
Reporting organizations include NOAA and MD,
" No funding was reported for 2009
by Partner
towards Performance Goal ™
* Activity level funding data was not available because the activities are focused on
single species blue crab management and therefore do not show up as ecosystem
based fisheries management activities.
E-6
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Fish Passage Restoration
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19, 2008
o>
100S 1010
S5% 92%
2.376 miles 2.596 miles
(50 projects) |70 projects!
0%
0 miles
(0 projects)
1 '
2js the
Kmnvlrcenl K rrosl She goal,
only lie tlmog. Sea 2fpend»
D IK information on RAT
rtegelofmant
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
• Goal is geiiefal!y staled in Chesapeake 2000 Cnesapeate Executive Cotjiicil alleged new
numeric goal in 2005.
Background
From 1988 through 2004, CBP Fish Passage Coordinators opened 1,838 mites offish passage, surpassing their original 1,357-mile restoration goal. In
2005, Bay Program coordinators committed to increasing the restoration goal to 2,807 miles by 2014. During 2005 to 2007, an additional 427 miles of
habitat were made available, bringing the cumulative total to 2,266 miles, 81% of the 2014 goal. From 2008 to 2010, the CBP coordinators agreed to a
realistic annual target of completing 10 projects per year (equivalent to 110 miles per year).
Strategy
Continue to effectively open rivers to migratory fish passage:
• Complete fish passage projects at priority fish habitat sites with stream restoration, and watershed management and team assistance,
• Prioritize fish passage in the Susquehanna and James Rivers due to an abundance of known impediments such as dams and culverts.
• Lead by example with dam removal projects at state and federal dams.
• Consider using USFWS fish passage engineers to reduce project costs.
Challenges
• Identify and coordinate with watershed groups to develop dam removal projects.
• Educate dam owners on the benefits of dam removal.
• Implementation of state fish passage requirements to promote dam projects.
• Train existing USFWS engineers to design dam removals.
• Reduce removal costs to private dam owners.
Action Needed
• Improved access to state funding for dam removal projects.
• Implementation of state fish passage requirements to promote dam projects,
• Improved state agency coordination to identify and complete dam removal projects.
Current Funding (Millions) *
2007 Funding
2
n
i
2008-09 Data
Under Development
' NOTE Data on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete lhan for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented. Data on activities
and funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several factors (e.g..,
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to project
future budgets) and are not summarized here. These data will be improved in
future iterations of the CBP dashboards. Funding data as of Apnl 25, 2008.
Reporting organizations include USAGE. EPA, FHWA, FWS, PA, and VA.
by Patlnef by Activity towards Performance Goal "
* Included Activities: Monitoring, Technical Assistance, Restoration, and Targeting
E-7
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Riparian Forest Buffers Planted
2008 Sim
62% 68%
6.182 miles 6.837 rules
GOAL-
2007 2009
57% 65%
5.722 rules 6,522 miles
100%
10 ODD miles
GOAL
10,000 miles restored between 1996 and 2010
Progress from
1995 thru 2007
Realistic
Annual Target
rhe reatslir arnua lai^sl is
based w etsBng Tewnires.
and
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Forest Land Protection
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19, 2008
2007 2008 2009 2010
0% 7% 15% 23%
Oacres 50.200 101,000 157.200
GOAL
Permanently protect 695,000 additional acres by 2020,
• Goal is geoeratf staled in Ctesapeate 20M. Chesapeake Executive Council adopted
new numeric goal in 2007.
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
www.chesapeakebay.net/statusjandpreserved-aspx
Background
Chesapeake forests prevent millions of pounds of nitrogen and other pollutants from reaching the Bay each year. While trends vary locally, the watershed has
lost, on average, 100 acres of forest land per day since the mid-1980s. If this forest loss continues, nitrogen loads alone will increase by 1,300 pounds per day
to the Bay. In 2007, CBP established a Forest Land Protection goal of 695,000 acres by 2020, in addition to taking steps that help landowners conserve their
forests.
Strategy
The goal to protect priority forest land is new. There is a set of collective goals (applicable watershed-wide) and by 2008, each state, Washington DC, and the
federal government will have an implementation plan for achieving this goal. Tracking toward the goal will be coordinated at CBP. Overall progress in
maintaining tree cover will be intensively tracked on the local watershed scale using high-resolution imagery and an automated mapping tool. This will allow
local governments to better assess and plan for the conservation of their forests,
Challenges
• The ability to acquire easements.
Action Needed
• Support and assess progress of jurisdictions with their Implementation Plans.
• Work with the Trust for Public Land to realize the potential for local funding for land protection.
• Conduct the Chesapeake Forest Land Conservation Summit (May 28-30, 2008) to identify itemized steps for working more effectively with forest landowners,
land trusts, and local governments,
• Develop the self-service package that enables local governments and interested parties to assess the change in their forested landscape over time.
Current Funding (Millions)
2007 Funding
0
DNGO
Q State
• Federal
EPWCBPO 134K
pFtVSSISK
| FHWA3W
USF5-H1M
2008-09 Data
Under Development
CO
tfl
JS
"5
o
2006
2009
toward* Pirforniinc* Gttil "*
' NOTE, Data on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete than for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented. Data on activities
and funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several factors (e.g.,
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to protect future
budgets) and are nol summarized here These data will be improved in Future
iterations of tne CBP dashboards- Funding data as of April 25, 2008- Reporting
organizations include EPA, FHWA. FWS, USFS, and MD. Funding information
provided pertains to land preservation not forest land protection per se.
* Other includes- Other, Engage Partners. Information Management Technical Assistance, and Technical
Support
" Included Activities: Land Preservation
E-9
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Oyster Reef Restoration
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19,2008
GOAL-
53%
1306 acres
75%
1.836 acres
GOAL
_ Implement oyster restoration practices on 2,466 acres of oyster bar and reef habitat
between 2007 and 2010.
t
Note: Some acres will be double counted due to multiple treatments. Also, the unit of
analysis is not a restored acre but rather an acre of restoration practice, hence total restored
acres will be lower than 2,466.
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
www.chesapeakebay.net/status_oysterrecovery.aspx
100%
2.4« acres
Progress for
2007
Realistic
Annual Target
The leelBic arenial larga is
Msec on existing resources.
aclMty leasts, and prwjams
and does not change tfla
comjnitfrent ID men! ?w goal,
cnty ttie fijpinfl Seeflraerxf*
D la teaman on RAT
' Goat is proposed arid dewett fom partner consensus.
Background
The CBP goal is to "By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters," Since 2000, achieving this baywide goal has not shown marked
progress, but some local measurable increases in oyster abundance have been observed. Substantial efforts have been focused in sub-estuaries. By 2010, if
restoration commitments continue, some increase in oyster abundance can be expected on a sub-estuary scale. Shifts in strategies may occur after three
comprehensive reviews are completed in 2008.
Strategy
• Establish a network of permanent sanctuaries throughout the Bay.
• Increase hatchery production.
• Identify, establish, enhance, and seed oyster reefs.
• Expand efforts to achieve natural disease resistance.
• Support aquaculture - address regulatory impediments, provide technical assistance.
• Enforce oyster management laws and regulations - protect all managed areas from poaching.
• Implement adaptive management - adjust strategies based on new information.
• Monitor the status of the stock - develop improved metrics, data, and analysis tools for evaluating progress.
Challenges
Disease, poor water quality, along with continued harvest pressure (including overharvesting when it occurs), and limited habitat challenge oyster restoration
efforts. Another challenge is the allocation of limited resources between restoration for ecological benefits and management for economic benefits.
Action Needed
• Continued, sustained, long-term investment in oyster restoration and a network of sanctuaries.
• Completion of oyster restoration evaluations currently underway and modification of effort in light of evaluation findings.
• Training, technical assistance, and hatchery establishment to support oyster aquaculture.
Current Funding (Millions) *
2007 Funding
_ 2008-09 Data
.2 Under Development
'NOTE. Data on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete tfian for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented. Data on activities
and funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several factors (e.g.,
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to project
future budgets) and are not summarized here. These data will be improved
in future iterations of ihe CBP dashboards. Funding dala as of April 25,
2008 Reporting organizations include USAGE, EPA, NGAA, MD, and VA,
" Other includes: Research, Program Management. Information Management, and Communication
** Included Activities: Restoration
E-10
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Planting
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19, 2008
2008
1514
153aoB5~~|
•E
^^^^•_L^u
2007 J
14%
HO acres
2010
17%
167 acres
2009
16%
60 acres
GOAL'
I
100%
1,000 acre
0%
a acres
GOAL
Accelerate SAV restoration by planting 1,000 acres of new SAV beds between
2003 and 2008.
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
www chesapeakebay net/status_baygrassesplanted.aspx
Progress from
2002 thru 2007
Realistic
Annual Target
The realise annual target is
r.'i'yljlc- iv-g ^;Jif:nil'
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
• Goal is genera^ stated in Chesapeake 20W Chesapeake Executive Council adopted
submerged apt/ate planting goaf in 2003
Background
CBP partners have set a goal to plant 1,000 acres of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV). As of 2007,14% of the goal has been achieved with 139.5
acres planted. Partners have committed to planting 27 acres of SAV between 2008 and 2010 (FY2008 -13 acres; FY2009 - 7 acres; FY2010 - 7 acres).
Based on photographic evidence of the historic abundance of SAV in the Bay, CBP has established an SAV recovery goal of 185,000 acres by 2010. By
1984, SAV had shrunk to a low of about 38,000 acres, and by 2007 there were still only 64,911 acres of Bay grasses Bay-wide.
Strategy
To increase SAV abundance;
• Protect and restore water quality.
• Protect existing SAV beds,
• Accelerate restoration of SAV through planting and transplanting of SAV beds.
• Improve coordination of protection and restoration activities.
Challenges
• SAV has not demonstrated significant recovery toward the 185,000-acre goal. Achieving this goal relies overwhelmingly on the natural expansion of beds
that is highly dependent on adequate water quality.
• Planting has, as expected, contributed little to SAV recovery, but has demonstrated that new techniques can accelerate its recovery in areas where water
quality is suitable.
Action Needed
• Continue water quality improvement programs Bay-wide.
• Research and improve site selection criteria.
• Research and develop new SAV propagation techniques.
Current Funding (Millions) *
2007 Funding
1
Q
2008-09 Data
Under Development
' NOTE Data on activities and funding (or 2007 are more complete than for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented Data on activities
and funding lor 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several factors (e.g.,
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to project
future budgets) and are not summarized here. These data will be improved in
future iterations of the CBP dashboards Funding data as of April 25.2008.
Reporting organizations include USAGE, EPA, NOAA, MD, and VA,
by Partner by Activity
" Included Activities; Monitoring, Research, Restoration, and Targeting
E-11
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Meaningful Watershed
Educational Experience
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19, 2008
GOAL-
Progress from
2006 thru 2007
Realistic
Annual Target
GOAL
100% of students receive a MWEE by their high school graduation.
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
www chesapeakebay net/status_education.aspx
• Goal dsiived fan ClTes»pe«*« 2000
and does not charts ff
comnitment la nwei Ite tpst
orty&ieBrmg SeeA««ndn
DlnrlnfcfnHlmcnRAT
devdcpmeffl
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
" Please note, ffie 26Q&-10W progress is difererrf from that repotted in tfte 2007 Assessment
dire to corrected data provided ty PA
Background
In school year 2006-2007,80% of the Meaningful Watershed Educational Experience (MWEE) goal was achieved. This number is different from that reported in
the 2007 Assessment due to an improved data gathering protocol and the reporting of more reliable numbers by Pennsylvania (which were lower than previously
reported). By 2010, CBP partners anticipate reaching 84% of the MWEE commitment. These numbers assume continued funding of federal and state MWEE
programming. In 2007, an independent evaluation showed a significant increase in student environmental stewardship characteristics after completing MWEEs
funded by NOAA B-WET.
Strategy
CBP partners have successfully incorporated the elements of a MWEE into state learning standards; they now must work to have MWEE well-represented in
testing protocols. To achieve long-term sustainability, CBP partners must also work with local school systems to systemically incorporate MWEEs into their local
curricula and operating procedures. The nature of the commitment will also necessitate ongoing financial support.
Challenges
The success of this effort is influenced by external factors such as federal and state legislation and school system/local buy-in. Student matriculation and teacher
turnover means that this commitment will require ongoing support to maintain the impressive levels that have been attained. While 100% implementation remains
the spirit of the MWEE commitment, it is not practical to expect perfection to be reached and maintained in perpetuity.
Action Needed
• Work with school divisions to ensure systemic implementation, including alignment with curriculum and identification of funding.
• Ensure hands-on field experiences are part of full MWEEs for students.
• Provide training and support for environmental education providers.
• Secure participation of leadership of state departments of education in CBP to garner high-level support for MWEE commitment.
Current Funding (Millions) *
2007 Funding
ONGO
D State
•
If)
JO
o
Q
I
2008-09 Data
Under Development
I
' NOTE Data on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete than for later
years because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented, Data on
activities and funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several
factors (e.g.. ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some
cases, to project future budgets) and are nol summarized here. These data
will be improved m future iterations of trie CBP dashboards. Funding data as
of April 25. 2008. Reporting organizations include EPA, FWS. NOAA. NPS,
DC, and Corporation for National and Community Services,
" Other includes: Corporation for National and Community Services, EPA/CBPO. EPA/Region 3- FWS, NPS,
andVA
"' Other includes: Funding/Finance and Program Management
"" Included Activities: Education
E-12
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Wetlands Restoration Efforts
CAP version 1.0
Produced on May 19, 2008
o>
2008 20«
53% 61%
15,171 KIBS 17,516 acn
60*1.'
Progress from
1997 thru 2007
Realistic
Annual Target
The rsaliaie annual target 19
based 01 wislirq resources
BcHwty levHlE ard pragrarrs efl
In mxl Ilia goal, orty Dig Brnmj.
See /¥part*i 0 tor inl
2009
57%
13,999 acres" 16,M3aoK
100%
28.500 acres
GOAL
MD, VA, PA, DC, DE and NY to restore 28,500 acres between 1998 and 2010.
For more information on the start date, progress, and data, refer to:
wwwchesapeakebay.net/stalus_wetiandsrestored,aspx
Difference
between expected
progress and goal
• Goal is from tfiar slated in Chesapeake 2000, wtfr? tne addtfion erf acres from (he headwater
" P/ease rtofe. We ?00 7 progress is different from ffoaf reported 1/1 fte 2007 Assessment es it
induces srfdrtional commflms/its and efforts by ffw states of rVY and DE
Background
Together, MD, VA, PA, DC, DE, and NY can realistically restore 1,172 acres of wetlands per year in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This is less than
half (47%) of the 2,500 acres per year committed to by just three states (MD, VA, and PA) in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
Strategy
To address this shortfall, the partnership must act strategically to:
• Accelerate restoration in areas with high potential for success.
• Protect existing high-quality wetlands through both voluntary and regulatory actions.
• Improve function of existing degraded wetlands.
• Strengthen avoidance of wetland impacts through effective and flexible compensatory mitigalion.
• Strengthen permitting and enforcement under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Challenges
• Increased land values and demand for land make permanent conservation measures less financially attractive for landowners.
• Increased demand for biofuel makes it hard for publicly-funded incentive programs to compete with crop prices.
Action Needed
• Increase economic incentives for private landowners by eliminating out-of-pocket costs for conservation.
• Implement National Mitigation Rule in a way that promotes flexible and effective mitigation for regulated wetland impacts.
• Streamline Federal and State programmatic authorities, appraisals, and application processes for funding and technical assistance.
Current Funding (Millions)
2007 Funding
21.19 2008-09 Data
Under Development
NGOSS9K
SU«3H)K
&y Partner
by Activity
towards Performance Goal •
' NOTE Data on activities and funding for 2007 are more complete than for later years
because activities funded in 2007 have been implemented Data on activities
and funding for 2008 and 2009 are incomplete due to several factors (e.g..
ongoing planning and budgeting and the inability, in some cases, to project
future budgets) and are not summarized here. These dala will be improved in
future iterations of the C6P dashboards. Funding dala as ol April 25 2008.
Reporting organizations include ARS. USAGE. EPA, FHWA, FWS, NRCS,
USGS, NY, PA, VA. CBT, and Ducks Unlimited.
" Other includes: Ducks Unlimited. EPA/Region 3. NY, USGS, ARS. CBT. and FHWA
*" Other includes: Assessment, Research, Habitat, Funding/Finance, Enforcement, Technical Support, and Miration
**" Included Activities: Restoration
E-13
-------
Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
.,
E-U
-------
ffeporf to €c»ftgres,t»"
APPENDIX F
'' '
The Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP) serves
many critical functions to enhance the coor-
dination, management and accountability of
CBP partner's actions to protect and restore
the Chesapeake Bay and watershed. The
CAP includes a comprehensive data system
that captures extensive information about
partners' efforts (e.g., implementation activi-
ties, resources, type of activity, location). In
order to ensure accurate and reliable infor-
mation, the design and development of the
CAP contained extensive procedures, proto-
cols, training and data security.
For example, to ensure quality of the data
output, significant measures were taken to
make data input both accurate and consis-
tent across the partnership, including: de-
tailed reporting guidance, development and
communication of data entry conventions, a
network of quality assurance experts at vari-
ous levels of the partnership, data entry
workshops for various reporting communi-
ties, and a Quality Assurance Report System
(QARS) and data "freezing" process. The sys-
tem includes many features to ensure the
integrity of the data, including: password pro-
tected access, validation controls, selected
domain values, a record cloning feature, au-
thentication requirements, maintenance of
auditing tables, and automated database
backups.
This appendix highlights the quality assur-
ance efforts that were integral in the design
of the CAP.
I' •
The Chesapeake Action Plan Reporting Sys-
tem is a web-based application that allows
CBP partners to enter information on imple-
mentation activities conducted for restora-
tion and conservation of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. The system includes many fea-
tures to ensure the integrity of the data en-
tered into the application. Each organization
receives a specific user name and password
that allows access to the system. These user
names and passwords are centrally managed
by staff at the Chesapeake Bay Program Of-
fice.
In all possible cases, specific data domains
are used that allow the reporting community
to select the appropriate choice from within
the domain values, typically through a drop-
down control. Additional control validation is
added to numeric fields to ensure the en-
tered information matches the expected data
type. Lastly, the latitude and longitude fields
include additional validation that flag entries
deemed to be outside the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. The following table summarizes
the data fields, control type, domain values
and validation rules.
The reporting system also includes a record
"cloning" feature that allows the reporting
community to view and copy existing records.
This feature is used to copy multi-year activi-
ties from one fiscal year to the next. Addi-
tionally, organizations that collaborate on
projects can simply copy the activity record
and add information specific to their organi-
zation. This feature allows the reporting
community to quickly populate multiple years
F-l
-------
Reporting System Design Elements
Pillar/Goal
Topic Area
Activity Category
C2K Commitment
Activity Description
Lead Organization
Point of Contact
Collaborating Orgs
Funding Status
FundingYear
Dollars
FTEs
State
Longitude
Latitude
Measure
Unit
Milestone Date
Milestone Description
mmmmmmmmmmmmm^^
Dropdown
Dropdown
Dropdown
Dropdown
Free Text
Dropdown
Free Text
Free Text
Dropdown
Dropdown
Free Text
Free Text
Dropdown
Free Text
Free Text
Free Text
Dropdown
Date Picker
Free Text
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^™
Restoring Healthy Waters; Restoring Healthy Habitats;
Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management; Chesapeake
Stewardship; Partnership, Leadership & Management
Wastewater Treatment; Agriculture; Stormwater; Atmos-
pheric Deposition; Riverine/Shore Erosion; Chemical
Contaminants; Acid Mine Drainage; On-Sites & Septics;
SAV; Wetlands; Fish Passage; Oysters; Striped Bass;
Alosa Species; Menhaden; Blue Crab; Land Conserva-
tion; Development; Land Preservation; Public Access;
Community & Citizen Engagement; Watershed Educa-
tion; Place-Based Interpretation; Support; Other
Monitoring; Regulation; Program Management; Informa-
tion Management; Technical Support; Research; Fund-
ing/Finance; Mitigation; Trading/Credit; Remediation;
Management Tool Development; Targeting; TMDL De-
velopment; Habitat; Communication; Restoration; Aqua-
culture; Land Preservation; Engage Partners; Protection;
Enhancement; Education; Technical Assistance; Land
Conservation; Enforcement; Assessment; Other
102 C2K Commitments
Domain of reporting community organizations
Completed; Current; Planned
2007; 2008; 2009
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
Various
MtmiiiimiM««»mmmmm
Integer
Decimal (2)
Decimal (6)
Decimal (6)
of funding for multi-year activities without
loss of data integrity. As the reporting com-
munity enters data into the system, the
credentials used to authenticate to the sys-
tem are captured with each individual record.
In order to edit or delete a record, the user
must authenticate with the same credentials
under which the record was originally
entered.
The system maintains a detailed set of audit-
ing tables that includes the authenticated
F-2
-------
user information, date/time stamps for each
new record, and an audit trail for each de-
leted record or edited record. This allows for
the retrieval of any previous state of the da-
tabase should the need arise. Additionally,
incremental database backups are con-
ducted hourly during the reporting period
with full database backups nightly. With this
backup scheme, the maximum amount of
data that could theoretically be lost would be
that which was entered within a single hour.
A detailed reporting guidance ("Reporting
Guidance for the CAP Application Reporting
System", March 17, 2008) was created to
assist CBP partners with entering data. The
full reporting guidance is available directly
from the reporting system and will be avail-
able on the CBP CAP website. In addition, a
context sensitive version of the reporting
guidance is linked to the reporting system so
that the reporting community can access
specific sections of the guidance depending
on their physical location within the reporting
system form.
The reporting guidance provides background
information on the CAP, a list of organiza-
tions that were invited to report, the report-
ing schedule, and a description of how the
activity data will be used to support the part-
nership.
In addition to providing detailed instructions
on entering activities into the reporting sys-
tem, the reporting guidance contains a com-
prehensive list of system acronyms and de-
tailed data element definitions. The defini-
tions are critical to standardizing the use of
the reporting elements across the reporting
community.
The reporting guidance includes a detailed
table of all the reporting elements which in-
cludes the element name, description, pur-
pose, rules and guidance, and clear exam-
ples of the element's use. The appendices of
the reporting guidance include community
specific conventions that govern the stan-
dardized entry of activities across particular
thematic communities.
\i
air;
CBP identified subject matter experts (SMEs)
for each of the pillar/goal areas and topic
areas to assist the various CBP partners. The
SMEs were responsible for reviewing all ac-
tivities entered into the reporting system.
Their particular focus is ensuring the consis-
tent and standard entry of activities across
all partners. In addition, they are responsible
for identifying any double counting of activi-
ties. The SMEs remained in close contact
with the CBP partners throughout the report-
ing and Quality Assurance (QA) periods.
Each reporting organization has a corre-
sponding organizational liaison (OL) at CBP.
The role of the OL is to provide assistance to
the reporting organization during the report-
ing period, conduct workshops with the or-
ganization as necessary, ensure entry of ac-
tivities are completed per the schedule, vali-
date the completeness of entries with the
organization, and assist in the confirmation
of the data entries.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Data Center
(CBPDC) is responsible for ensuring that the
system was operational twenty-four hours
per day, seven days per week. Additionally,
the CBPDC is responsible for monitoring sys-
tem performance, technical support, issuing
credentials, system authentication and au-
-------
thorization, providing user assistance and
ensuring the system is backed up according
to a robust and backup schedule.
Throughout the reporting process, the CAP
Team conducted reporting community work-
shops for CBP partners to demonstrate the
reporting system and train the reporting com-
munity on the appropriate use of the system.
Two types of workshops were conducted:
thematic workshops and organizational work-
shops.
Thematic workshops focused on subject ag-
gregations of CBP partners who focus on a
specific effort such as partners within the
oyster community During these thematic
workshops, partners adopted a specific re-
porting convention to standardize the report-
ing of activities across the community. The
SMEs led these workshops and are the leads
for documenting conventions agreed upon
for data entry, which in turn facilitate consis-
tency in reporting.
Organizational workshops focused on assist-
ing CBP partners from a particular agency or
organization. For example, specific work-
shops were conducted for Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia and also various partner
agencies and organizations such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and Ducks Unlim-
ited. These workshops were led by the OLs.
Cross-functional quality assurance and
analysis runs concurrently with the reporting
period and is extending for a period of time
beyond the data call closing date. For exam-
ple, in 2008, the data call opened on March
17, 2008 and ran for five weeks, closing on
April 18th with quality assurance and analysis
extended to April 25, 2008.
,
In addition to the reporting guidance, a CAP
re porting system help desk is staffed during
regular business hours during the reporting
period. The help desk is responsible for
fielding and responding to inbound calls for
assistance. The CBP help desk staff handles
calls for technical assistance for the system
immediately. Questions related to commu-
nity specific standards are forwarded to the
appropriate SMB.
The CBPDC utilizes a web-based Quality As-
surance Report System (QARS) that allows
authorized users to view their data entries
using a number of pre-determined QA re-
ports. For example, the QARS allows author-
ized users to view their organizational data
entries by year, by pillar/goal, by topic areas,
and by activity category. While the reporting
community can view their data entries, no
changes can be made to the underlying data.
Access to the system is tightly controlled by
the CBPDC using the same credential, au-
thorization and authentication scheme used
by the CAP Reporting System.
At the end of each reporting period, the data
is "frozen" by revoking the reporting commu-
nity's access to the system. Revoking access
to the system is critical to managing QA ac-
tivities - it is impossible to QA data while the
reporting system is still open for new entries
or modification to existing entries. The
CBPDC is responsible for freezing the data
-------
Strengther
and strictly controlling access during the QA
period.
Each organization within the reporting com-
munity is responsible for "confirming" their
data entries. The OL is responsible for coor-
dinating this activity with their corresponding
organizations. The reporting community is
instructed to use the QARS to view and re-
view their entries to ensure the system cap-
tured their activities as entered.
If an organization identifies issues with the
data that prohibited them from confirming
their entries, their access to the reporting
system may be restored for a predetermined
amount of time to make necessary changes.
The process is closely monitored by the
CBPDC. After making the necessary
changes, the access is again revoked and
the organization is responsible for confirming
their data entries.
Once all the organizations confirm their data
entries, a robust set of SME-led QA proce-
dures are instituted. The SMEs received sev-
eral hard copy reports from the QARS for
their review. The pillar/goal area SMEs re-
ceived two hard copy reports: one that identi-
fies all activities that are characterized with
"Other" for the topic area and one that iden-
tifies all activities that are included in the
"Support" topic area for their respective pil-
lar/goal areas. The pillar/goal SMEs are
then instructed to closely review these en-
tries to see if the activity was captured in the
correct topic area. The SMEs work closely
with the organization that entered the data to
identify any necessary changes. These
changes are marked up on the hard copy
and delivered to the CBPDC for correction in
the CAP reporting system.
The topic area SMEs received reports that
include all activities for their respective topic
area. The instruction to the topic area SMEs
was to review all activities to ensure they
were accurately captured and categorized.
The SMEs work closely with the reporting or-
ganization when issues are identified. Any
necessary changes are marked up on the
hard copy and delivered to the CBPDC for
correction in the CAP reporting system.
Organizational leads for the District of Co-
lumbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia
and the headwater states of Delaware, New
York and West Virginia have the additional
QA task of ensuring the states entered any
necessary match to EPA implementation
grants.
Necessary changes to the data are then de-
livered to the CBPDC on the hard copy
spreadsheets. The CBPDC is responsible for
making the necessary changes to the data
system. These changes are captured in a
detailed QA log that documents specific
changes to the data as identified by the
SMEs.
Once the SME reviews are complete, the QA
activities are deemed complete. The frozen
data is updated with all necessary changes
by the CBPDC and documented in the QA log.
The frozen data then becomes the authorita-
tive source of funding information for the
Chesapeake Bay Program and its partners.
ill
Dashboards were developed for 11 key the-
matic areas. In most cases, the dashboards
mapped directly to a topic area. This was not
the case for the riparian forest buffer (RFB)
and basinwide loads dashboards. In the
case of riparian forest buffers, the SME was
-------
Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program
required to review entries in the healthy wa-
tersheds pillar to identify activities that would
be included on the RFB dashboard. The SME
manually reviewed all data entries and
flagged the appropriate activities for inclu-
sion on the dashboard. The CBPDC inserted
a special flag into the database to identify
these activities as RFB activities and ensure
they would not be counted on other
dashboards.
Summing the activities across many topics of
the healthy waters pillar created the nutrient
loads dashboard. These included agricul-
ture, wastewater treatment, stormwater, at-
mospheric deposition, on-sites and septics,
riverine/shore erosion and support.
Activities documented in the CAP system
were summarized by the fiscal year the funds
were allocated. Fiscal years vary by organi-
zation and the CAP system does not recon-
cile the variations among state and federal
fiscal years. For the purposes of reporting,
this approach was agreed to be acceptable
to the partnership.
I III
All CBP partners included in the first version
of the CAP were able to enter detailed data
for 2007. The fiscal year 2007 entries rep-
resent the most complete, comprehensive
data for CAP activities. For 2008 and 2009,
many of the organizations were unable to en-
ter data for various reasons. In some cases,
organizations were able to report an incom-
plete set of activities for 2008 and 2009. In
other cases, the documented activities do
not represent a comprehensive accounting of
all program areas of the organization.
F-i
------- |