A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region CBP/TRS 284/07

EPA 903R-07002

www.chesapeakebay.net April 2007

CHESAPEAKE BAY

2006 Health & Restoration Assessment

PART TWO: Restoration Efforts
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM: A Watershed Par tnership

The Chesapeake Bay Program partners 

have developed science-based plans to 

improve the waters, habitats and fisheries of the Chesapeake. On-the-ground 

efforts are taking place throughout the 

64,000-square-mile watershed and new 

initiatives are being implemented to 

accelerate progress.

The Chesapeake Bay Program brings 

together state and federal governments, 

non-profit organizations, watershed residents and the region’s leading academic 

institutions in a partnership effort to 

protect and restore the Bay.

To learn more and find out how you can 

help, visit the Chesapeake Bay Program 

website at www.chesapeakebay.net

Chesapeake Bay Program

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109

Annapolis, Maryland 21403

800-YOUR-BAY

www.chesapeakebay.net

CHESAPEAKE BAY

2006 Health & Restoration Assessment
1

ABOUT THIS REPORT

The Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment is presented this year in

two parts. 

Part One: Ecosystem Health draws on the most up-to-date monitoring data gathered 

by Bay Program partners to assess the overall health of the Bay ecosystem last year. 

This report, Part Two: Restoration Efforts, uses 20 indicators grouped into the five 

priority areas described in the landmark Chesapeake 2000 agreement that represent major 

elements of the Bay restoration effort. Quantitative goals have been set for most of these 

indicators. For each, a chart shows the current status and a history of percent of progress 

toward achieving the goal. All of the charts have the same time scale: 1985-2010. In cases where 

measurement began or a goal was agreed to after 1985, a symbol on the chart indicates when 

“accounting began.” In the section “Reducing Pollution,” efforts are compared to goals defined 

by the Bay jurisdictions’ river-specific cleanup plans. Monitoring and tracking data and computer 

simulations are used in this section. In the remaining parts, restoration efforts are compared to 

goals adopted by the Bay Program. Monitoring and tracking data are used in these sections.

Electronic versions of the Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment

reports can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/press.htm. Because of space limitations, only 

brief text is included in this report. Detailed information about each indicator can be found at 

www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators.htm. Expanded analysis and interpretation of data as well as 

the methods used to compile the graphs can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/Assess/

1
2

RESTORATION SUMMARY Restoration of a complex ecosystem requires a multi-pronged 

approach. The Chesapeake Bay Program has divided its restoration efforts into five broad areas: Reducing Pollution, Restoring 

Habitats, Managing Fisheries, Protecting Watersheds and 

Fostering Stewardship.

Reducing Pollution efforts are the most far-reaching. The

goal is to take the actions necessary to remove the Bay and its 

tidal tributaries from EPA’s list of “impaired waters” by 2010. 

Overall, about half of the pollution reduction efforts needed to 

achieve the nutrient goals have been undertaken over the past 

two decades.

Progress toward Restoring Habitats is measured against a 

series of goals established by the Program. Most of the goals 

have a 2010 deadline. Overall, habitat restoration efforts are collectively less than half-way to Program goals and there is concern 

about the overall quality of habitats that remain.

Managing Fisheries focuses on promoting a paradigm shift 

from a traditional management approach that looks solely at 

single species to one that recognizes interactions between 

species (multiple species) and environmental stressors such 

as low dissolved oxygen levels (ecosystem based). Success is 

measured by milestones necessary to achieve that shift, not by 

an assessment of fishing stocks (found in Part One: Ecosystem 

Health.) Progress toward this new approach ranges from 37-63 

percent for five key species. 

Protecting Watersheds efforts are also measured against 

Program goals. Many of these efforts help slow the rate of new 

pollution associated with population increases in the watershed 

as well as reduce current pollution levels. Overall, watershed 

protection efforts show good progress and are slightly more than 

two-thirds of the way toward meeting current Program goals.

Fostering Stewardship efforts include a broad range of actions 

from expanding opportunities for residents to experience 

the Chesapeake, to formal outdoor environmental education 

experiences for school-age children, to engaging communities 

and helping move them to action. Overall the Program has 

reached two-thirds of its fostering stewardship goals.

2 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts
3

������������

��������

������������������

����������� ��������

��������

������������������

������������

��������

������������������

� �� �

������������

��������

���������������������

������������

��������

���������������������

������������������������������������

������������������������������������

���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ����

��������

����

������������

������

���������

����������������������

���������������������

�����������������

�������������������

����������������������

����������������������

��������������������

���������������������

���������������������

�������������������������

���������������������������

�������������������������

������������

������������������������

��������������

����������������������

���������������

��������������������������

�������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

� ��� ����� � � � ��� ����� � ��� ������� � ���� �
4 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts

REDUCING POLLUTION

Clearer, oxygen-rich waters are the foundation of Chesapeake 

Bay restoration. The Bay and its tidal rivers receive more nutrients 

and sediment than a healthy ecosystem can handle.

AGRICULTURE

Farmers employ dozens of conservation practices to reduce 

the amount of pollution reaching local waters and the Bay. 

Computer simulations and water monitoring data indicate that 

these nutrient and sediment reduction efforts have been moderately effective. Since 1985 the partners have achieved nearly

half of the goal for agricultural nutrient reduction efforts and

two-fifths of the goal for sediment reduction efforts that have 

been estimated as necessary to reach water quality goals.

In part because they are so cost-effective, the Bay jurisdictions are relying on future reductions from agricultural lands for 

more than half of the remaining nutrient reductions needed to 

meet restoration goals. The history and economics of agriculture 

require that significant funding and technical assistance will be 

needed for this sector to meet its restoration goals.

WASTEWATER

Decreases in the amount of nutrients discharged from 

wastewater treatment plants account for a large portion of the 

estimated nutrient reductions in the watershed to date. As the 

Chesapeake watershed’s population continues to grow (an 

estimated 170,000 annually since 2000), the volume of waste 

requiring treatment grows. In 2005, Bay jurisdictions began 

putting into place a new permitting approach that requires 

hundreds of wastewater treatment plants to install a new 

generation of nutrient reduction technology equipment. Bay 

jurisdictions are relying on additional reductions from wastewater 

���

�����������

�������������

���

�������������

�������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������������

����

����������������������

����

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

����

�

��

��

��

��

����

����������

�������������

�����������������

�� � ���������� � � � �������� ��� � ��

���

������������

�������������

��� �����������

�������������

���

�������������

�������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����� � �� �� � ���� � � � �������� ��� � �

��������������������

����

���������������������� ����

�������������������� ����

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

����

�

��

��

��

��

����

�

��

��

��

��

����

����������

�������������

�����������������

4 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts
5

����

������������

�������������

����

�����������

�������������

����

�������������

�������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������������

����

����������������������

��������������������

������������������������������������������������������

����

���

�

��

����

����������

�������������

�����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����

����

���

�

��

����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����

����

���

�

��

����

��� �� � � �� ��� ����� � � � �������� ��� � �

��

�����������

�������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

������ � � � �������� ��� � �

5

treatment plants for achieving about 15 percent of their nutrient 

reduction goals. Since 1985 the partners have achieved nearly 

three-quarters of wastewater nitrogen reduction goal and more 

than four-fifths of their wastewater phosphorus reduction goal.

URBAN/SUBURBAN L ANDS AND

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Stormwater that runs across roads, rooftops and other hardened surfaces carries harmful pollution to local streams and into 

the Chesapeake. These pollutants include nitrogen, phosphorus, 

sediment and many toxic compounds. About one-quarter of the 

nutrient reductions called for in the states’ cleanup plans are 

expected to come from efforts to treat pollution from urban/

suburban lands and septic systems. To date, it is estimated that 

the pollution increases associated with land development (e.g 

converting farms and forests to urban/suburban developments) 

have surpassed the gains achieved from improved landscape 

design and stormwater management practices, although some 

jurisdictions may be underreporting past stormwater management practices. The rapid rate of population growth and 

related residential and commercial development has made

this pollution sector the only one in the Bay watershed to

still be growing, and thus “progress” is negative.

AIR POLLUTION

Scientists estimate that one-quarter to one-third of the 

nitrogen reaching the Bay and its rivers comes through the 

air. Pollutants are emitted into the air primarily from vehicles, 

power plants, agriculture and other industries. These pollutants 

eventually fall onto water surfaces and the land where they 

can be washed into local waterways. Reducing the release 

of airborne nitrogen pollution is likely to have the additional 

benefit of reducing the release of toxic chemicals. The Bay 

jurisdictions are relying upon federal and state air pollution 

control programs to reduce airborne nitrogen emissions 

significantly by 2010.
6 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

� ����� � � �� ��� � �� ���

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

�� � � ��� ���� � ��� �����

6

RESTORING HABITATS

Restoring high-quality habitat is critical to bringing the Bay 

ecosystem back into balance. Healthy habitats provide animals 

with access to food, shelter and safe areas to raise young. 

Restoration efforts have focused on increasing four habitat 

types. An effort to plant underwater grasses has seen little early 

success, but the Program’s fish passage efforts are both longstanding and generally successful. Restoring wetlands is a major 

focus area, and in 2005 the partners agreed to expand their 

goal in this area. Oyster reefs were once a vital habitat for entire 

underwater communities. Oyster restoration efforts have focused 

on increasing the number of healthy oysters in the Bay. Some 

efforts have resulted in restoring reefs, but these programs are 

still in their infancy.

PL ANTING UNDERWATER GR ASSES

Restoring underwater Bay grasses relies overwhelmingly on 

the natural expansion of beds that comes with improving water 

quality. Bay managers have begun to supplement pollution 

reduction efforts with experimental Bay grass plantings. These 

new meadows, if successful, will provide seed sources to produce 

grass beds as water quality improves. In the first four years of this 

effort, Bay Program partners have planted about 13 percent of 

their initial goal of 1,000 acres by 2008. Not only do bay grasses 

filter the water, they also provide food and habitat for waterfowl, 

fish and shellfish. For more on the status of underwater grasses, 

please see Part One: Ecosystem Health.

RESTORING WETL ANDS

Wetlands serve multiple ecological functions. Restoring and 

enhancing wetlands throughout the watershed can provide critical 

wildlife habitat. The Bay Program’s current strategy commits 

partners to restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands by 2010, and as 

of 2005 they are about 42 percent of the way toward this goal. In 

addition to habitat, wetlands also help clean the water of nutrients 

and sediments. To improve water quality, the Bay states call for 

the restoration of some 200,000 acres in their tributary cleanup 

plans. Progress toward this water quality goal is measured in part 

in the Reducing Pollution summary chart on page 3.

C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts
7

REOPENING FISH PASSAGE

Dams, culverts and other obstructions block the movement of 

fish in many of the rivers and streams of the Bay watershed. By 

removing physical obstacles, key species like American shad are 

able to return to their native spawning grounds and increased 

habitat is available for resident fish. From 1988 through 2005 the 

partners had opened 1,838 miles of fish passage, surpassing their 

original 1,357-mile restoration goal. In early 2005 Bay Program 

partners committed to increasing the restoration goal to 2,807 

miles by 2014, and an additional 305 miles were opened in 2006, 

bringing the cumulative total to 2,144.

RESTORING OYSTER REEFS

Oyster reefs are an essential component of the Bay ecosystem, 

providing healthy habitat for other bottom-dwelling organisms as 

well as schools of fish. Reef restoration efforts include cleaning 

and placing oyster shells, planting hatchery-produced spat 

(juvenile) oysters, setting aside permanent sanctuaries, and 

placing alternate substrate materials. Thousands of acres have 

been treated in this way, sometimes with multiple efforts. The 

success of these habitat restoration techniques has been limited 

by numerous factors including disease, fishing pressure and 

resulting habitat destruction, and poor water quality caused 

by human population growth and land use changes. For more 

information on oysters, please see Part One: Ecosystem Health.

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

���������� ��� �� ������� ������ �� ��

������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������

����������������������

��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

����

��������������

��������������������

����

���������

������������

��������

������

���� ������ ���� ������ ���� ������

�������������

���������

����������

���������������

���������������������

�������

��������

����

��

��

��

��

���

�� ������ ��� �� ������ ��� � ��������� �

MANAGING FISHERIES

While some significant effort was undertaken to improve the 

management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few of 

these efforts resulted in changes to fisheries management plans 

or the implementation of these plans. As a result, the index 

values for all the fisheries assessed, with the exception of Atlantic 

menhaden, remained unchanged. A small increase in Atlantic 

menhaden was recorded due to the adoption of a commercial 

harvest cap in Virginia waters. Progress toward fisheries 

management goals ranges from 37-63 percent for the five

key Bay fisheries. Note: The index does not gauge the health

of the fisheries which is covered in Part One: Ecosystem Health.

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERIES PL ANS

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem-based fishery management plans 

are being developed for five key species — oysters, blue crabs, 

American shad, striped bass and Atlantic menhaden. The index 

shows plans and actions that are single species specific, others 

that are directed toward multiple species, and still others that are 

ecosystem-based. Many of these plans are being implemented 

concurrently. The ultimate goal is to have fully implemented 

ecosystem-based fisheries management. Note: This year there 

was a slight change in the methods used to score progress of 
8 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts

plan development. Due to this change, scores allocated for each 

fishery were slightly less than those allocated last year. The low 

scores reflect a change in methods (to give a more accurate 

assessment) and do not indicate that less management effort has 

taken place.

OYSTERS

Although oysters are important in their own right, oyster reefs 

provide habitat to many species as well as being a food source 

for others and as such should be managed in conjunction with 

these interdependent species. Oysters are effective water filters. 

Management plans should capture this important ecosystem 

function, too. Oysters are currently managed as a single species using minimum size limits, gear restrictions, seasonal and 

geographic closings and bushel limits. Fisheries targets and 

thresholds are not established in the current plan. Restoration 

efforts include expanding the amount of clean, hard surfaces for 

oyster spat (juvenile oysters) to settle, increasing the number of 

breeding adult oysters, establishing sanctuaries and combating 

oyster diseases.

BLUE CR ABS

Blue crabs are currently managed as a single species using 

minimum catch size and seasonal limits on harvests to achieve 

target levels of fishing pressure. Annual reviews of blue crab stock 

are conducted to determine if target levels have been exceeded. 

Under this strategy, fishing pressure is set to levels that should 

allow for increased abundance. Blue crabs play an important role 

as both predator and prey in the Bay ecosystem. Interactions 

between blue crabs and striped bass, their predators, have been 

examined. In addition, some management recommendations 

have been implemented such as special openings in traps to 

allow the escape of non-targeted species.

AMERICAN SHAD

By the mid-1970’s, American shad stocks had been greatly 

diminished by overfishing, water pollution and spawning 

migration obstructions (e.g. dams). In 1980, Maryland 

implemented an American shad fishing moratorium and in 

1994 Virginia followed, thus effectively banning direct harvest 

throughout the Bay. Current restoration efforts focus on 

reopening native spawning habitat through dam removal or the 

installation of fishways, supplemented with hatchery stocking 

programs and efforts to improve water quality. Before the fishery 

is reopened, a new fisheries management plan, including catch 

limits (thresholds) and safe restoration levels (targets) will need

to be developed.

STRIPED BASS

Maryland and Delaware instituted a moratorium on all striped 

bass fishing in 1985 in response to actions by the Congress and 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission following the 

collapse of the fishery during the early 1980s. Virginia and the 

Potomac River Fisheries Commission did so in 1989. Since the 

moratorium was lifted in 1990, the stock has been rebuilt and 

maintained through an adaptive management approach, based 

upon constant monitoring and the use of catch quotas and 

seasonal closings. Striped bass are recognized as one of the

top predators in the Chesapeake Bay and impact forage species 

such as Atlantic menhaden. The recently proposed annual cap 

on the commercial harvest of Atlantic menhaden was adopted in 

part due to the dietary importance of menhaden to the striped 

bass population.

ATL ANTIC MENHADEN

Atlantic menhaden are managed as a coastal population under 

a single species approach.

Menhaden are a significant part of the aquatic food chain and 

as such, multi-species management is critical. Currently, predator-prey and by-catch interactions are relatively well defined. 

Menhaden feed primarily on plankton and are prey for top 

predators such as striped bass and bluefish. There is concern 

over the steady decline in the number of young menhaden produced in Chesapeake Bay. This decline, and other concerns with 

the fishery, prompted Virginia’s adoption of a five-year cap on 

the commercial harvest of menhaden starting in 2006. Critical 

research will be performed while the harvest cap is in effect.

8 C h e s a p e a k e B ay C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: PART TWO: Restoration Efforts Restoration Efforts

Striped Bass American Shad

Atlantic Menhaden
9

PROTECTING WATERSHEDS

The human population in the Chesapeake watershed is now 

growing by more than 170,000 residents annually. Managing 

growth is especially critical in this watershed because of the vast 

amount of land that drains into the relatively shallow Chesapeake. 

Restoration efforts center on reforesting streamside buffers, 

developing watershed management plans and preserving

open space. Partners appear to be on track with many of their

watershed protection efforts and are two-thirds of the way 

toward meeting current Program goals, but these efforts

appear to be inadequate in stemming the decline in water

quality associated with population growth.

CONSERVING FOREST BUFFERS

Streamside forest buffers provide habitat for wildlife, stabilize 

banks from erosion and keep river waters cool, an important factor 

for many fish. Program partners achieved their original 2010 buffer 

restoration goal of 2,010 miles well ahead of schedule and in 2003 

raised that target to 10,000 miles. Partners are roughly on track to 

meet this goal with 5,337 miles restored through August 2006.

Also in 2006, Bay Program partners produced a report entitled 

“The State of Chesapeake Forests,” which was the impetus for 

an Executive Council Directive Protecting the Forests of the 

Chesapeake Watershed. The Directive seeks to protect riparian 

forest buffers and other forests important to water quality.

In addition to preserving the watershed, well-maintained 

forest buffers also naturally absorb nutrients and sediments, 

thus improving water quality in neighboring streams. To improve 

water quality, the Bay states call for the restoration of some 

50,000 miles in their tributary cleanup plans. Progress toward this 

water quality goal is measured in part in the Reducing Pollution 

summary chart on page 3.

PRESERVING L ANDS

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and District of Columbia committed to permanently protect from development 20 percent of 

their combined 34.6 million acres by 2010. Parks, wildlife refuges 

and private lands protected through conservation easements are 

counted in this measure. By July 2006 a total of 6.83 million acres 

had been permanently preserved. The partners are very likely to 

meet the 2010 goal of 6.92 million acres preserved.

DEVELOPING WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT PL ANS

Watershed management plans address the protection, conservation and restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers, 

wetlands, parklands and other open space for the purposes of 

preserving watershed health while enhancing the quality of life 

in local communities. The Bay Program has a goal of developing 

and implementing locally supported watershed management 

plans in two-thirds of the Bay watershed. By the end of 2006 

������ ��� ���� � ��� � � ��� ��� � �� ���

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�����������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

����� ����� � ������� ��� ������

9
10 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts

catalogs over 600 major public access sites in the Bay area,

listing opportunities for boating, fishing, wildlife observation

and beach use.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network enhances place-based 

interpretation of Bay-related resources and stimulates volunteer 

involvement in resource restoration and conservation. Six new 

Gateway sites were added to the network in 2006, bringing the 

total to more than 150.

A mix of water trails managed by state, local and non-profit 

organizations has blossomed since 2000. The trails exist throughout 

the Bay and its tributaries and offer a variety of low-impact 

paddling experiences, connecting people to the natural, cultural 

and historic resources of the Bay. Last year 53 new water trail miles 

were developed, bringing the total to more than 1,800 miles.

Overall, the partners have achieved 97 percent of established 

goals to enhance public access, create Gateways and establish 

water trails.

COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH

The partners believe that comprehensive and authoritative 

public information is essential to engage all stakeholders in 

the restoration effort. The Program has established a number 

of methods to meet this stewardship need. The Bay Journal

newspaper reaches more than 50,000 print subscribers monthly, 

informing people about issues and events that affect the 

Chesapeake Bay. The monthly e-newsletter Chesapeake Currents

is distributed to more than 850 subscribers, while the daily 

plans were in place for 12.6 million acres, more than half of the 

22.9 million acres that should be covered under such plans by 

2010. Translating these plans into action will be essential to 

restoring water quality (see Part One: Ecosystem Health).

FOSTERING CHESAPEAKE 

STEWARDSHIP

Accomplishing a comprehensive restoration plan for an 

ecosystem as complex as the Chesapeake Bay requires the full 

engagement of restoration leaders, citizens and all stakeholder 

groups throughout the watershed. All of the Bay’s stakeholders 

require a base of information and motivation to take action. By 

providing an array of opportunities we optimize our chance to 

connect with people in the context of their interests, values and 

current level of understanding or motivation. 

PUBLIC ACCESS 

Personal interaction with the Chesapeake Bay can help the 

public recognize the connection between the value of the 

Chesapeake and their own interests. The Chesapeake Bay must 

matter to people in order to gain their support for restoration 

efforts. Since 2000, the Bay jurisdictions have acquired, developed or enhanced more than 100 public access points and in 

2006 Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania added or enhanced

42 sites. A public access guide (call 1-800-YOUR-BAY to order) 

10

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

����� ������ �� ������ ��� � �� ���� �� �����

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�����

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

� �� ���� ���� � �

C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts
11

electronic “Bay News” service goes out to more than 1,100 users. 

The Program’s combined websites were accessed by more than 

4.6 million different users in 2006. Publications, press releases, 

presentations, events, and other communication and outreach 

efforts are also essential elements of the on-going effort to 

inform the public about the Bay and its watershed.

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION

Formal environmental education opportunities allow for 

in-depth investigation and analysis that enhance a deeper 

understanding of ecological concepts, environmental 

interrelationships and human implications. All signatory 

jurisdictions’ school districts have incorporated curriculum 

that provides a meaningful outdoor watershed educational 

experience. Through 2006, the NOAA B-WET grants program 

has funded training opportunities for more than 8,000 teachers. 

Nearly 3 million Bay watershed students have participated

in a field experience during their K-12 education. 

Overall, the partners have achieved 81 percent of the current 

goal of providing a meaningful outdoor watershed educational 

experience to every student, starting with the class of 2005. 

CITIZEN AND COMMUNIT Y ACTION

Often, our ability to influence the public rests with the success 

we have connecting personal and local issues to the well-being 

of the Bay. By successfully making these connections, we can 

encourage people to take part in restoration programs as 

individuals or with their families; at home, at work and in their 

communities. An essential part of our work is to convert detailed 

technical information and teach skills to stakeholders groups who 

can implement best management practices in arenas such as 

watershed planning or habitat restoration.

Businesses for the Bay is a voluntary effort by businesses 

committed to implementing pollution prevention in daily 

operations and reducing releases of chemical contaminants and 

other wastes to the Chesapeake Bay.

Towns and cities are implementing Bay-friendly measures 

aimed at making their local communities as well as the Bay a 

better place to live, work and recreate. In 2006, two new local 

governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status, and 8 

previous winners were recertified, bringing the current total to 75. 

Overall, the partners have achieved 23 percent of the existing 

goal to certify 330 Bay Partner Communities by 2005.

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

�� �� ����� � �� ��� ���� ��������� ����� �����

���

����������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

����������

�������������

�����������������

� ��������������� ��� ��� �
12 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART TWO: Restoration Efforts

2006 RESTORATION HIGHLIGHTS

Through a series of Chesapeake Bay agreements, Bay Program 

signatories – the states of Maryland, the commonwealths of 

Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency representing the federal 

government; and the Chesapeake Bay Commission representing 

Bay state legislators - have committed to reduce pollution,

restore habitats and sustainably manage fisheries. Since 2000,

the headwater states of Delaware, New York and West Virginia 

have joined regional efforts to improve water quality. 

LOOKING BACK AT 20 06

While there are many notable individual accomplishments relating to Chesapeake Bay restoration, Part One: Ecosystem Health

makes clear that the Bay Program partners need to accelerate the 

pace of water quality improvement efforts. To that end, a number 

of specific initiatives in 2006 are worth highlighting:

Focusing on nutrient and sediment reduction, the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission garnered regional and Congressional support 

for Farm Bill conservation reforms benefiting both farmers and the 

Bay, and helped develop policy to preserve farmland, forests and 

open space. The Commission participated in creating our states’ 

nutrient trading programs and other initiatives reducing nutrient 

pollution through forest and air policy and lowering nutrient content in lawn fertilizer. Congressional awareness was raised on Blue 

Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant’s key role in Bay restoration.

12 C h e s a p e a k e B ay 2006 Health & Restoration Assessment — PART ONE: Ecosystem Health

A restoration project located in the Delaware portion of 

the Choptank River Watershed was completed in a cooperative effort by the property owner, Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and the Kent 

Conservation District. This project restored 1,700 feet of 

stream, installing water control structures to emulate beaver 

impoundments, and creating 2 acres of floodplain wetlands 

adjacent to the original channel. This is an innovative project 

that has created habitat and restored wetland function while 

reducing nutrient loads.

In 2006 the District of Columbia created 6 acres of tidal 

wetlands along the Anacostia River. The city is monitoring this 

site and a prior wetland project, where over 50 plant species 

have been identified since 2003. D.C. passed green building 

legislation in 2006 requiring that new or renovated buildings 

over 50,000 square feet and District government buildings 

over 10,000 square feet meet LEED silver accreditation. 

The District funded construction of several LID retrofits 

– showcasing alternative stormwater treatment techniques. 

The EPA, working with funding partners the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and the Maryland Chesapeake Bay 

Trust, provided $7.7 million for 10 “targeted watershed” 

grants. The 10 projects funded in 2006 will reduce more 

than nine million pounds of nitrogen and nearly seven million 

pounds of phosphorous annually to the Bay. The projects 

reduce pollution from a range of sources and explore 

market-based incentives to encourage more widespread 

implementation of pollution-fighting programs. 

In 2006, Maryland dedicated a record $360 million in funding for land preservation, and celebrated achievement of its 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement goal of preserving 20 percent of 

the state’s natural landscape. Ten wastewater treatment plant 

upgrades were initiated and one completed with Chesapeake 

Bay Restoration Fund dollars. In 2006, the first year that the 

Chesapeake Bay Restoration Funds were available for cover 

crops, 128,638 acres were planted. Maryland’s Corsica River 

Watershed Action Strategy was named best watershed-based 

plan in the nation in an EPA report.
III

IMAGES/CREDITS: 

Pennsylvania supported nutrient reduction through its $625 

million Growing Greener II watershed restoration bond and $250 

million Sewer Infrastructure bond. A stakeholder outreach process was completed to refine Pennsylvania’s Point Source Strategy 

and Nutrient Trading Policy. Nutrient limits are being included in 

permits for wastewater treatment facilities to reach compliance by 

2010. Agriculture initiatives included Conservation District grants 

to build understanding of regulatory requirements. To address 

nutrient loads from developed lands, Pennsylvania issued a new 

Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. 

June record floods caused loss of life and substantial property and natural resource damage throughout much of the 

Susquehanna watershed in New York. Implementation priorities 

consider the need to effect recovery and flood damage prevention. The NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee awarded 

11 projects to Upper Susquehanna Coalition counties in 2006, 

totaling $3.5 million, emphasizing grass based agriculture and 

involving more than 100 farms. Wetlands are a priority with over 

370 acres restored under various state and federal programs.

Virginia permanently protected 49,837 acres of land and created new state parks on the Potomac, York, Shenandoah and James 

Rivers. Agricultural Cost-Share Programs were expanded with an 

emphasis on five “priority practices” and a comprehensive rewrite 

of stormwater management regulations is underway. Virginia also 

adopted a Chesapeake Bay Watershed General Permit regulating 

the discharge of nutrients from 125 significant wastewater treatment facilities. Compliance plans, describing how each discharger 

will meet their nutrient load caps, are due August 1, 2007.

West Virginia gained momentum in Tributary Strategy implementation by focusing work in priority watersheds. Successful 

projects such as a rain barrel workshop and a rain garden demonstration resulted from partnerships between volunteers, local 

governments and state agencies. These partners are now exploring ways to further promote such innovative stormwater practices 

in the quickly-developing eastern panhandle. West Virginia’s 

implementation team also worked with NRCS to encourage 

poultry litter transport and nutrient management plans and to 

promote the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

III

This report was developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership

to help inform watershed residents about the health of the Bay and efforts 

to restore it. Staff from a large number of state and federal agencies, 

academic institutions and non-governmental organizations contributed data 

and interpretation to the report, including The Alliance for the Chesapeake 

Bay, Chesapeake Bay Commission, Del. Dept. of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control, D.C. Dept. of Health, Interstate Commission on the 

Potomac River Basin, Md. Dept. of Agriculture, Md. Dept. of the Environment, 

Md. Dept. of Natural Resources, National Park Service, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation 

Old Dominion University, Pa. Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection, Pa. Fish and Boat Commission, 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, University of Md. Center for 

Environmental Science, University of Md. College Park, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Va. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Va. Dept. of 

Conservation and Recreation, Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries, Va. 

Institute of Marine Science, Va. Tech, Versar, W.Va. Dept. of Agriculture and

the W.Va. Dept. of Environmental Protection.

For a full list of contributing partners, visit

www.chesapeakebay.net/baypartners.htm

Images: Chesapeake Bay Program; Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network;

Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Donna Morelli; George 

Grall©National Aquarium in Baltimore; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA); Glenda Powell©NOAA; United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); Virginia 

Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

State boundaries

Chesapeake Bay and Rivers

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

WEST VIRGINIA

MARYLAND

NEW

JERSEY

VIRGINIA

DC DELAWARE

T H E

CHESAPEAKE BAY

W A T E R S H E D
Chesapeake Bay Program

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109

Annapolis, Maryland 21403

800-YOUR-BAY

www.chesapeakebay.net

Printed on Recycled Paper

Printed by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

for the Chesapeake Bay Program