Chesapeake Bay

Health & Restoration Assessment

A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region CBP/TRS-291-08

EPA-903-R-08-002

March 2008 www.chesapeakebay.net

2007
Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership that directs and conducts the restoration of the 

Chesapeake Bay by bringing together local, state and federal 

governments, non-profit organizations, watershed residents 

and the region’s leading academic institutions in a partnership effort to protect and restore the Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Program signatories – the state of 

Maryland; the commonwealths of Pennsylvania and 

Virginia; the District of Columbia; the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency representing the federal government; and 

the Chesapeake Bay Commission representing Bay state 

legislators – have committed to reducing pollution, restoring 

habitat and sustainably managing fisheries since signing the 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983. 

Subsequent agreements have augmented the original program, 

and most recently culminated in signing Chesapeake 2000, 

Chesapeake Bay Program

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 / Annapolis, MD 21403

1 (800) YOUR BAY

www.chesapeakebay.net

Printed on recycled paper

Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program

an agreement intended to guide restoration activities 

throughout the Bay watershed through 2010. Chesapeake 

2000 also provided an opportunity for the headwater states 

of Delaware, New York and West Virginia to join in

regional efforts to improve water quality of the Bay and

its tributaries.

To learn more and find out how you can help, visit the new

Chesapeake Bay Program website at www.chesapeakebay.net.
About This Report

Chesapeake Bay is the largest and still the most 

productive estuary in North America, home to more 

than 3,700 species of plants and animals. The Bay 

has sustained the region’s economy and defined its 

traditions and culture since Captain John Smith 

sailed its waters 400 years ago. But the Chesapeake

is in trouble.

A healthy Bay requires balancing the needs of the 

region’s people and economy with the needs of the 

Bay for clean waters and ample habitat for aquatic 

life. The goal of Bay restoration is to restore this

balance by reducing pollution, protecting critical 

habitat and ensuring sustainable populations of fish 

and shellfish.

Although there are a number of smaller-scale

success stories, the overall ecosystem health of the 

Chesapeake Bay remains degraded. For more than 

twenty years, restoration efforts have managed to 

offset the impact of the region’s growing population 

while making modest ecological gains in some areas. 

Major pollution reduction, habitat restoration, fisheries management and watershed protection actions 

taken to date have not yet been sufficient to restore 

the health of the Bay.

In December 2007, the Chesapeake Executive 

Council met to chart a new course to accelerate 

efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution 

throughout the Bay watershed. The principals 

attending the meeting each agreed to “champion” an 

issue or issues that are vital to restore our streams, 

rivers and the Bay, intending that the outcomes of 

the various projects or programs be models that are 

transferable to other states and local communities. 

Each leader found that there were specific issues they 

could focus on using the expertise available to them. 

Some chose to focus on future impacts, such as the 

expanding use and impacts of biofuels on the Bay. 

Others are focusing on continuing issues, such as 

agriculture or assisting local governments to increase 

their capacity to reduce pollution from growth and 

development and to maintain clean water. As each 

“champion” makes progress, they will report back to 

the partnership and then encourage others to consider these individual models, modifying them for 

their respective uses. 

We are very excited about this new direction and 

look forward to sharing our collective successes 

with you during the year. We encourage you to 

visit our new website at www.chesapeakebay.net to 

keep abreast of Bay Program news and happenings, 

Executive Council updates and most important, ways 

that the over 16 million watershed residents can work 

together to clean up the rivers, streams and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration 

Assessment is presented this year as one document 

with four chapters, stressing the health of the Bay, 

the stressors to our environment, restoration efforts 

and, new this year, a summary of local water

quality assessments which will help you learn about 

the health of the streams and rivers in your portion 

of the Bay watershed. We hope that, by presenting 

data in this manner, watershed residents can better 

understand the health of the Bay relative to what is 

needed for a balanced ecosystem.

Jeffrey Lape, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program

A Note From Chesapeake Bay Program Director Jeffrey Lape

About This Report 1
An electronic version of the Chesapeake Bay 

2007 Health and Restoration Assessment 

can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/

indicatorshome.aspx.

Detailed information about each indicator, 

including expanded analysis and 

interpretation of data as well as the methods 

used to compile the graphs in this publication 

can be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/

indicatorshome.aspx. 

Chapter One 8

Ecosystem Health

Progress toward a restored 

Bay is tracked with 13 

indicators grouped in three 

priority areas that represent 

major components of the 

Bay ecosystem. Quantitative 

restoration goals have been set 

for most of these indicators. 

For each indicator, a chart 

shows, as a percent of the 

goal, current status and a 

history of progress toward 

achieving the goal. A summary 

bar chart shows the current 

status of each indicator with 

respect to its restoration goal.

Chapter two 16

Factors Impacting 

Bay and Watershed 

Health

What are the factors that 

impact the health of our 

local waters, the Bay and the 

landscape throughout the 

watershed? This chapter

gives some perspective on 

population, land use, river

flow and pollution loads, all of 

which impact the ecosystem. 

Chapter three 20

Restoration Efforts

In this chapter, 20 indicators 

are grouped into five priority 

areas described in the 

landmark Chesapeake 2000 

agreement that represent major 

elements of the Bay restoration 

effort. Quantitative goals have 

been set for most of these 

indicators. For each, a chart 

shows the current status and a 

history of percent of progress 

toward achieving the goal.

Chapter four 32

Health of 

Freshwater Streams 

and Rivers

This chapter provides a 

summary of pertinent local 

water quality assessments 

developed by Chesapeake 

Bay Program state partners as 

part of their federal 305b/303d 

reporting requirements. This 

chapter also directs citizens to 

the webpage with links to each 

state’s assessment reports.

Table of Contents
The Chesapeake Bay is an estuary – a place of transition between the land and the sea, 

where incoming fresh water mixes with salty ocean water. The Chesapeake Bay is a productive ecosystem 

and is the largest estuary in North America, home to more than 3,700 species of plants and animals.

The Bay watershed spreads over 64,000 square miles, creating some of the most special land

and water areas in our country. The Chesapeake’s future depends on the choices made every day by

the millions of people who live within the Bay watershed. What each of us does on the land –

including the use of vehicles, fertilizers, pesticides, electricity and water – affects our streams, rivers

and ultimately the Bay.

For more than twenty years, restoration efforts have managed to offset a variety of destructive 

environmental impacts, while making modest ecological gains in some areas. Recently this imbalance has 

intensified because of rapid population growth and land use conversion in parts of the watershed; 

thus major pollution reduction, habitat restoration, fisheries management and watershed protection 

actions taken to date have not yielded a significant Bay ecosystem response.

Although there are a number of smaller-scale success stories, the overall ecosystem health of the 

Chesapeake Bay remains degraded. 

It is important to note that progress cannot be calculated on a day-to-day basis. By using detailed scientific 

data that have been carefully analyzed and interpreted, we can see changes in the health of the Bay over 

time. Change is occurring, but slowly.

Executive Summary 3

Executive Summary
Chesapeake Bay Health

Water Quality – Most of the Bay’s waters are degraded. 

Algal blooms fed by nutrient pollution block sunlight from 

reaching underwater bay grasses and lead to low oxygen levels 

in the water. 2007 saw fish kills in a number of rivers leading 

to the Bay. Suspended sediment from urban development and 

agricultural lands, as well as some natural sources, is carried 

into the Bay and clouds its waters. Portions of Chesapeake 

Bay and its tidal tributaries are contaminated with chemical pollutants that can be found in fish tissue. In 2007, we 

were 21 percent of the way toward meeting Bay water quality 

goals, a drop from 23 percent in 2006.

Habitats and Lower Food Web – The Bay’s critical habitats 

and food web continue to be at risk. 

Nutrient and sediment runoff have harmed bay grasses and 

bottom habitat, while disproportionate algae growth has 

pushed the Bay food web out of balance. Currently, the Bay’s 

habitats and lower food web are at 44 percent of desired

levels, up from 40 percent in 2006.

Fish and Shellfish – Many of the Bay’s fish and shellfish 

populations are below historic levels. 

• Blue crab abundance continues to be low and the stock is not rebuilding 

as had been anticipated. 

• Oyster restoration efforts are hampered by disease and the stock 

remains at low levels. 

• American shad abundance continues to be at depressed levels.

• The striped bass stock returned to high levels of abundance, but now 

there are concerns about disease and nutrition. 

• Menhaden populations along the Atlantic Coast are healthy, but some 

scientists are concerned about low abundance in Chesapeake Bay. 

Currently, the Bay’s fish and shellfish are at 52 percent of 

desired levels, up from 48 percent in 2006.

Factors Impacting Bay and 

Watershed Health

The way nearly 17 million watershed residents live and use 

natural resources greatly influences Bay and watershed health, 

which includes hundreds of local creeks, streams and rivers. 

The population in the Bay watershed is now growing by 

about 130,000 residents annually and 100 acres of forestland 

are lost each day. Pollutant loads continue to exceed target 

levels established to restore the Bay’s water quality. 

Historic over-harvest, compounded by the impacts of poor 

water quality, disease and blocked access to historic spawning 

grounds, has resulted in low abundances of oysters, crabs

and shad. 

Natural factors, such as temperature and wind, as well as 

rainfall which affects the volume of water flowing into the 

Bay, also have a great impact on water quality, habitat and 

fish and shellfish populations.

The way nearly 17 

million watershed 

residents live and use 

natural resources 

greatly influences Bay 

and watershed health.

4 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Executive Summary
Summary: 2007 Bay he alth assessment

Water Quality

Habitats and

Lower Food Web

Fish & Shellfish

21%

of Goals

Achieved

44%

of Goals

Achieved

52%

of Goals

Achieved

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

Not quantified in relation to a goal

Not quantified in relation to a goal

Juvenile Menhaden

Shad

Striped Bass

Oyster

Blue Crab

Chemical Contaminants

Chlorophyll a

Mid-Channel Clarity

Dissolved Oxygen

Bottom Habitat

Phytoplankton

Tidal Wetlands

Bay Grasses

Percent of Goal Achieved

Priority Areas

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bayhealth.aspx

SUMMARY: 2007 BAY HEALTH ASSESSMENT

Executive Summary 5
Restoration Efforts

The Chesapeake Bay Program partners have developed 

science-based plans to improve the waters, habitats and 

fisheries of the Chesapeake. On-the-ground efforts are taking 

place throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed and new 

initiatives are being implemented to accelerate progress. While 

there are many notable individual accomplishments relating 

to Chesapeake Bay restoration, Chapter One: Ecosystem Health 

makes clear that the Bay Program partners need to accelerate 

the pace of water quality improvement efforts.

Restoration of a complex ecosystem requires a multi-pronged 

approach. The Chesapeake Bay Program has divided its 

restoration efforts into five broad areas: Reducing Pollution, 

Restoring Habitats, Managing Fisheries, Protecting 

Watersheds and Fostering Stewardship.

Reducing Pollution – These efforts are the most far-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, based on available data, Bay 

Program scientists project that little more than half of the 

pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve the nutrient 

goals have been undertaken since 1985. 

Restoring Habitats – Progress toward water habitat restoration is measured against a series of goals established by the 

Program. Most of the goals have a 2010 deadline. Overall, 

habitat restoration efforts are collectively 48 percent to 

Program goals, up from 45 percent in 2006; however, there is 

concern about the overall quality of habitats that remain.

Managing Fisheries – These efforts focus on promoting a 

shift from a traditional management approach that looks 

solely at single species to one that recognizes interactions 

between multiple species and environmental stressors such 

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

is measured by milestones necessary to achieve that shift, 

not by an assessment of fishing stocks (which can be found 

in Chapter One: Ecosystem Health). Progress toward this new 

approach ranges from 37 to 63 percent for five key species, 

unchanged from 2006.

Protecting Watersheds – These efforts are also measured 

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

of new pollution associated with population increases in the 

watershed as well as reduce current pollution levels. Overall, 

watershed protection efforts show good progress and are 71 

percent of the way toward meeting current Program goals, up 

from 69 percent in 2006.

Fostering Stewardship – Stewardship efforts include a broad 

range of actions from expanding opportunities for residents to 

experience the Chesapeake, to formal outdoor environmental 

education experiences for school-age children, to engaging 

communities and helping move them to action. Overall the 

Program has reached 68 percent of its fostering stewardship 

goals, a rise of one percent from 2006.

Health of Freshwater

Streams & Rivers 

The presence and diversity of snails, mussels, insects and other 

freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate communities are good 

indicators of stream health because of their limited mobility 

and their known responses to environmental pollutants and 

stressors. Consequently, these communities are often used as 

indicators of the attainment or nonattainment of aquatic life 

uses protected by state water quality standards. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in rivers and streams throughout the 

Bay watershed suffer with increases in pollution, sedimentation 

and decreasing oxygen levels.

Each state in the watershed conducts benthic macroinvertebrate 

assessments as part of its biennial water quality assessment 

report mandated by the Clean Water Act. Where assessed benthic macroinvertebrate communities are degraded, states must 

designate those stream segments as impaired and add them to 

the list of impaired waters in need of cleanup. 

Executive Summary

6 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment
Summary: 2007 Bay Restoration Efforts

48% of Goals

Achieved

Restoring Habitats

47%,62%,64%

of Goals

Achieved

Reducing Pollution

50% of Goals

Achieved

Managing Fisheries

N £ S

71% of Goals

Achieved

Protecting Watersheds

68% of Goals

Achieved

Fostering Stewardship

Not quantified in relation to a goal

Not quantified in relation to a goal

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

Menhaden

Shad

Striped Bass

Oyster

Blue Crab

Oyster Recovery Effort

Fish Passage Restored

Wetlands Restored

Bay Grasses Planted

Agriculture Nitrogen

Agriculture Phosphorus

Agriculture Sediment

Wastewater Nitrogen

Wastewater Phosphorus

Urban / Suburban Nitrogen

Urban / Suburban Phosphorus

Urban / Suburban Sediment

Air Nitrogen

Percent of Goal Achieved

Priority Areas

Forest Buffers Planted

Lands Preserved

Watershed Management Plans

Public Access

Citizen & Community Action

Education & Interpretation

Communication & Outreach

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_restoration.aspx 

SUMMARY: 2007 BAY RESTORATION EFFORTS

Executive Summary 7
The overall

ecosystem 

health of the 

Bay remains 

degraded.

Water Quality

To support a vibrant Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, waters must 

become clearer, oxygen levels higher, and the amount of algae 

and chemical contaminants in its waters must be reduced. 

Water quality goals in this section are based on published 

water quality criteria designed to protect aquatic life and 

human health in the Bay. Runoff from winter and spring 

rains deliver loads of sediment and nutrient pollutants to the 

Bay that drive summer water quality conditions in the Bay. 

Past observations reveal that summer weather conditions 

also contribute to summer water quality when intense storms 

increase erosion, which contributes to poor water clarity and 

adds to the existing nutrient load in the Bay. The health of 

the Bay in the critical summer season will improve as actions 

are taken year-round to reduce the level of pollutants in

the watershed. 

D i s s o lv e d O x y g e n 

Like terrestrial animals, the Bay’s fish and shellfish need 

oxygen to survive. State water quality standards have been 

adopted to reflect the dissolved oxygen needs of the Bay’s 

aquatic life. The standards vary with depth, season and 

duration of exposure. Dissolved oxygen concentrations need 

to be high enough to support life in aquatic systems and 

different aquatic species have different requirements. 

Generally speaking, oxygen-rich shallow waters are most 

essential in the spring during spawning season. Slightly lower 

dissolved oxygen levels are acceptable at other times of the 

year, particularly in deeper waters.

When assessing the Bay’s tidal water quality, federal and state 

regulators examine conditions over the most recent three 

years to help remove annual weather-driven fluctuations.

Water quality data gathered between 2005 and 2007 indicate 

that about 12 percent of the combined volume of open-water, 

deep-water and deep-channel water of the Bay and its tidal 

tributaries met dissolved oxygen standards during the

summer months. This is a sharp decrease from 28 percent in 

2004 through 2006.

Some scientists believe this is due to the inclusion of data 

from the summer of 2007, when dissolved oxygen concentrations did not meet the needs of aquatic life for long periods of 

time in open water portions of the middle Bay (from the Bay 

Bridge south to the mouth of the Potomac River).

The historic data featured in this indicator changed due 

to the inclusion of additional data and the publication of 

a new bio-reference curve, as described in Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity 

and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal 

Tributaries, 2007 Addendum (EPA 2007).

Water Clar ity

Clear waters are indicative of a healthier Bay, with acceptable 

levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and microscopic

life in the water column. Clear waters allow sunlight to

reach underwater plants and fish to see their prey and avoid

their predators.

Good water clarity is one of the most critical factors determining growth and survival rates of underwater bay grasses, 

which are rooted in shallow areas fringing the bay. Also 

known as submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV, they provide 

vital habitat for a number of living resources. When light is 

inhibited from penetrating through the water to the plants’ 

leaves and stems, the plants are not able to produce enough 

food and energy to grow.

Unfortunately, systematic monitoring of water clarity in 

shallow water areas has been underway for only the past few 

years and there are not yet sufficient data to provide a baywide assessment. In order to provide a baywide assessment, 

water clarity data from deeper, mid-channel areas are used to 

indicate general conditions and trends. Based on these data, 

scientists estimate that only 12 percent of the Bay’s waters 

had acceptable water clarity in 2007.

8 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
12%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARDS ATTAINMENT

Standards attainment: data represent 3 year period (data year and preceding 2 years)

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_dissolvedoxygen.aspx

12%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Bay

Meeting Guidelines

MID-CHANNEL WATER CLARITY

Data weighted by respective salinity zone.

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_clarity.aspx

Ecosystem Health 9
Underwater bay

grasses are one of 

the most important 

habitats in the 

Chesapeake Bay.

Chlorophyll a

Scientists measure the amount of chlorophyll a in the Bay’s 

waters to assess the amount of algae present. The Bay needs 

the right amount of phytoplankton, or algae, to maintain a 

balanced food web. Algae are microscopic and usually live 

suspended in open waters. They are the base of food chains 

that support most living resources in the bay, including

oysters and fish.

Excess nutrients can cause large-scale algal blooms that block 

sunlight from reaching bay grasses, reducing available habitat 

for Bay life. Lower algal levels support improved water quality and habitat and result in fewer harmful blooms.

Every year harmful algal blooms cover a portion of the Bay 

and its tributaries. 

In 2007, scientists estimate that about 26 percent of the Bay’s 

waters had acceptable concentrations of chlorophyll a. 

Chemi c al Contaminants

Currently less than 33 percent of the monitored tidal waters 

contain no impairment for chemical contaminants. The 

remaining 67 percent are impaired or partly impaired due to 

chemical contaminants. Nearly all impairments – 95 percent 

– identify polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as the source of 

impairment. 

The prevalence of toxic contamination in fish tissue, sediment 

and the water column has both an ecosystem and human 

health connection. Due to bioaccumulation, contaminants 

monitored in fish tissue give an indication of the overall

presence of these substances in the Bay ecosystem. Also, as 

these contaminants bioaccumulate in predatory species, they 

can potentially affect humans that consume these fish. 

This indicator is different from the one featured in the 2006 

Assessment, as it provides a more complete depiction of the 

extent of impairments due to chemical contaminants.

Habitats and Lower Food Web

Life in the Bay needs high-quality food and habitat to thrive. 

From the clams and worms that live within sediments at the 

bottom of the Bay, to the rockfish that prowl its open waters, 

to the juvenile fish and crabs darting among underwater 

grasses and wetlands, healthy and abundant habitat is critical 

for supporting the Bay’s aquatic life. When healthy habitat is 

supported by a balanced food web, healthy aquatic communities can flourish. As both of these key environmental elements 

improve, the ecosystem’s potential to support larger and more 

diverse populations of aquatic life expands as well. 

Bay G rasses

Aside from the water itself, underwater bay grasses are one of 

the most important habitats in the Chesapeake Bay. As their 

health is closely related to the quality of local waters, grasses 

serve as an excellent barometer for the overall health of the 

estuary. Bay grass abundance has a profound effect on the 

Bay and its aquatic life, as it provides critical habitat to key 

species such as striped bass and blue crabs while improving 

the clarity of local waters.

The most recent baywide data from 2007 show bay grasses 

covering nearly 65,000 acres – or about 35 percent of the 

185,000-acre restoration goal. Although an increase from 

59,000 acres in 2006, grasses have not yet recovered to the 

recent high level of 90,000 acres in 2002.

The total Bay grass abundance goal has also been broken 

down by three zones. Bay grasses in the Upper Bay in 2007 

covered about 19,000 acres or 80 percent of the 23,630-acre 

goal. For 2007, Middle Bay grasses covered roughly 30,000 

acres or 26 percent of the 115,229-acre goal, while grasses 

in the Lower Bay covered 16,000 acres or 35 percent of the 

46,030-acre goal. 

10 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
35%

of Goal Achieved

1984 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

BAY GRASS ABUNDANCE

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_baygrasses.aspx 

33%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Tidal Tributaries without

Partial or River-wide Impairments

due to Chemical Contaminants*

CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS

*Impairments as determined by Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia

under Clean Water Act requirements.

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_chemicalcontaminants.aspx

26%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Bay

Meeting Guidelines

CHLOROPHYLL A

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_chlorophyla.aspx 

Ecosystem Health 11
Blue crab abundance 

continues to be low 

and the stock is not 

rebuilding as had 

been anticipated.

Bottom H a b itat

The health of the Bay’s bottom-dwelling – or benthic –

communities is greatly reduced when pollution levels increase 

and oxygen levels drop. Benthic habitats serve as a good 

indicator of long-term environmental conditions, as the 

inhabiting worms and clams are long-lived, have limited 

mobility and their responses to stress are well documented.

In 2007, about 43 percent of the Bay’s benthic habitat was 

considered healthy as measured by the composite Benthic 

Index of Biotic Integrity. Reduced amounts of nutrients,

sediment and chemical contaminants flowing into the Bay 

will help these bottom dwelling communities improve.

P hytoplankton

Phytoplankton, or algae, are an excellent indicator of the 

health of the Bay’s surface waters, as they have shown to be 

especially sensitive to changes in nutrient levels, water clarity, 

temperature, salinity and grazer communities (i.e., organisms that feed on phytoplankton). Phytoplankton form the 

base of the food web in the Bay ecosystem. While increased 

populations provide more food to organisms further up the 

food web, too much or the wrong type of algae can harm the 

overall health of the Bay. In some cases, harmful algal blooms 

can impact human health as well.

Scientists assess algal community health with a 

Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity. Data from Spring 

2007 show that about 55 percent of the Bay’s phytoplankton 

communities were considered healthy. 

The historic data featured in this indicator changed from

the 2006 assessment due to the inclusion of additional data

from Virginia.

Wetlan d s 

Wetlands link land to the water. In both tidal and non-tidal 

parts of the Bay, they serve as critical habitat to terrestrial and 

aquatic life, and act as sponges and natural filters by absorbing runoff and removing pollutants from water before they 

can reach local streams and the Bay. Many researchers believe 

Chesapeake Bay tidal wetlands are threatened by sea level rise, 

storms, shoreline development and invasive species. 

As of 2005, there were approximately 283,946 acres of tidal 

wetlands in the Bay. Assessment of the long-term data show 

that there is a declining trend in tidal wetland abundance in 

the Chesapeake Bay. According to the land change statistics 

there was a 2,600 acre loss between 1996 and 2005. However, 

this change is not statistically significant at the baywide scale 

due to limitations of the data. 

While the changes are not significant on a baywide scale, there 

are some significant changes on a local scale. Aerial photography in specific locations around the Bay, such as Blackwater 

National Wildlife Refuge on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, has 

been used to visually document significant loss of wetlands. 

This indicator is not intended to speak to the quality or health 

of the wetlands being analyzed; it is simply a quantitative tool. 

For more information about wetland improvement efforts, see 

Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts.

Fish and Shellfish

The long-term health and sustainability of the Bay’s fish and 

shellfish is critical to restoring the ecosystem. Ample aquatic 

habitat, clean water and well-managed fisheries are key components for abundant fish and shellfish populations in the Bay.

Blue Cra b

It is estimated that about one-third of the nation’s blue crab 

catch comes from the Chesapeake Bay. 

Scientists estimate that the population of blue crabs in the 

Chesapeake Bay in 2007 is about 78 percent of the 200 million 

blue crab interim target. However, blue crab abundance

continues to be low and the stock is not rebuilding as had

been anticipated.

12 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
55%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Bay

Meeting Guidelines

PHYTOPLANKTON

Index of Biotic Integrity

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_phytoplankton.aspx

Ecosystem Health 13

43%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

BOTTOM HABITAT

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bottomhabitat.aspx 

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Acres of Tidal

Wetlands

TIDAL WETLANDS ABUNDANCE

*1984 & 1992 data to be analyzed; expected completion by 2008.

 Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_tidalwetlands.aspx

BLUE CRAB ABUNDANCE

An abundance of 200 million crabs age 1+ is being considered as a management

target for Chesapeake Bay. This level of abundance would correspond with a level

of exploitation that preserves 20% of the blue crab spawning potential.. 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bluecrab.aspx 

(age 1 and Older)

78%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

Percent of

Goal Achieved

0

50

100

150

200

250

Ecosystem Health 13
Scientists estimate 

that the population 

of native oysters in 

the Chesapeake Bay 

in 2006 was about 

8 percent of current 

restoration goals.

These blue crab population estimates are made through a 

winter dredge survey. Currently, the blue crab fishery remains 

vulnerable to overexploitation; therefore, harvest restrictions 

will continue to remain in place. Proper management of the 

blue crab harvest, improved water quality and habitat restoration efforts will help improve the Bay’s blue crab populations.

The historic data featured in this indicator in the 2006 

Assessment changed because Bay fisheries scientists made a 

revision to the interim target population changing it from 

232 to 200 million blue crabs.

S tripe d Bass

Striped bass support one of the most important commercial 

and recreational fisheries on the Atlantic seaboard. The 

Chesapeake Bay is the primary spawning and nursery habitat 

for striped bass on the Atlantic Coast. Over-harvesting

during the 1970s and 1980s contributed to the decline of the 

spawning stock in Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic 

Coast. There was a fishing moratorium in the Bay in the late 

1980s and there have been commercial quotas and recreational 

harvest limits since the fishery was reopened in 1990.

Striped bass are also one of the top predators in the 

Chesapeake Bay food web and prey availability may be an 

important factor affecting abundance and growth. In 1995, 

the population had increased to the point where the stock 

was considered restored. While striped bass biomass remains 

high, scientists are particularly concerned with the high 

prevalence of disease (mycobacteriosis) and the abundance 

of prey, including menhaden, small crabs and other food, to 

adequately support the nutritional needs of the population. 

Research is underway to better understand the disease’s 

impact on the Bay’s striped bass population. The current 

status of Bay striped bass – high abundance but uncertain 

health – illustrates the need for an ecosystem-based fisheries 

management approach in Chesapeake Bay. 

The historic data featured in this indicator changed from 

the 2006 Assessment due to a planned update in 2007 of 

the models used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC) to assess the status of the stock.

O ysters

For more than a century, oysters constituted one of the Bay’s 

most valuable commercial fisheries. Over-harvesting, pollution and the diseases Dermo and MSX have caused a severe 

decline in their numbers throughout the Chesapeake Bay. 

Scientists estimate that the population of native oysters in 

the Chesapeake Bay in 2006 was about 8 percent of current 

restoration goals.

S h a d

This new indicator of shad abundance adds assessments of 

shad in the Potomac, York and James rivers to the assessment 

of Susquehanna River shad featured in the 2006 Assessment. 

In the last two years, some tributaries have shown signs of 

recovery (Potomac and York rivers), while other areas have 

exhibited a decline (James and Susquehanna rivers); overall, 

shad abundance continues to be at depressed levels. Based on 

the most recent data from four Bay rivers, the baywide shad 

abundance index is 22 percent of goal achieved. 

M enha d e n

Menhaden play a key ecological role in the Bay as an important prey species for top predators such as striped bass, and 

for their ability to filter the water. The menhaden fishery is 

one of the most important and productive on the Atlantic 

Coast, providing fish meal, fish oil and bait for the blue crab 

and other fisheries.

Atlantic menhaden that inhabit the Chesapeake Bay are 

a part of a coastal Atlantic stock. Populations along the 

Atlantic Coast are healthy, but some scientists are concerned 

about low abundance in Chesapeake Bay. The number of 

juvenile menhaden in Chesapeake Bay are significantly lower 

than numbers present in the mid-1970s through the mid1980s, and have remained at fairly stable, but low, levels for 

the last 14 years.

14 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter One: Ecosystem Health
100%

of Goal Achieved

Percent of

Goal Achieved

STRIPED BASS ABUNDANCE

(Spawning Female Biomass)

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_stripedbass.aspx

1982 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

NATIVE OYSTER ABUNDANCE 

(Biomass)

Goal based on ten-fold biomass increase from 1994 baseline. 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_oyster.aspx. 

8%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_shad.aspx

22%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

SHAD RETURNING TO CHESAPEAKE BAY

JUVENILE MENHADEN ABUNDANCE IN MARYLAND 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_menhaden.aspx 

1959 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Mean

0

.10

.20

.30

.40

.50

.60

.70

Proportion of

Positive Hauls

1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Ecosystem Health 15
The Chesapeake 

Bay is affected

by multiple

factors, ranging 

from population 

growth to climate

variability, which 

will challenge

the recovery of

this important 

ecosystem.

Population growth and agricultural lands have contributed to 

an overabundance of nutrients, sediment and contaminants 

entering the Bay, and loss of habitats that can retain these 

pollutants. Climate change and variability have caused water 

temperatures in the Bay to exhibit greater extremes during 

the 20th century than the previous 2,000 years. Sea level rise 

related to climate change is contributing to the loss of vital 

coastal wetlands. 

Historic over-harvest, compounded by the impacts of poor 

water quality, disease and blocked access to historic spawning grounds, has resulted in low abundances of oysters, crabs 

and shad. The cumulative impact of pollutants, habitat loss, 

over-harvesting, invasive species, climate change and disease 

has affected the health of fish and bird populations in the Bay 

and its watershed.

The U.S. Geological Survey, a Bay Program partner, recently 

released a report that provides a comprehensive five-year 

summary of science about the multiple factors affecting the 

degradation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Among the 

key findings on land use and its relation to water quality

and habitats:

• Impervious surfaces increased 41 percent during the 1990s compared to 

an 8 percent increase in population. The rate of increase of impervious 

surface implies there will be more rapid delivery of nutrients to streams 

and an increase in sediment erosion.

• There has been a decrease in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations 

at a majority of the river water quality monitoring sites throughout the 

watershed. However, concentrations are not decreasing at a rate that 

would sufficiently reduce nutrient loads to the Bay to meet water quality 

standards by 2010.

• Sediment continues to have an adverse impact on water clarity and 

underwater grasses in the Bay and stream quality in the watershed. 

• The travel time of nutrients and sediment through the watershed ranges 

from weeks to centuries. This can result in a “lag time” between 

implementing management actions and improvements in water quality. 

• Synthetic organic pesticides and their degradation products have been 

widely detected at low levels in the watershed, including emerging 

contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and hormones. 

Among the key findings on the fish and bird populations:

• The health of fish populations in the Bay is affected by

multiple factors including degraded water quality, pathogens, and 

disease. 

• Fish (principally male bass) in the Potomac watershed have testicular 

oocytes – female eggs growing in their testes – a form of intersex. 

Reproductive abnormalities in fish have been strongly linked with a 

variety of contaminants that affect the endocrine systems of fish.

• Habitat loss, invasive species and poor water quality have affected the 

food sources and habitat for seaduck populations, which have declined 

over the past several decades. 

Among the key findings related to climate change:

• Low dissolved oxygen conditions have been much more extensive and 

severe during the past four decades than at any time in the past 2,500 

years. These conditions are influenced both by climate change and 

population growth in the watershed. 

• Sea level rise due to climate change and land subsidence will continue to 

cause losses and landward migration of tidal wetlands during the coming 

century. Sea level rise is also causing sediment erosion in low-lying 

shoreline areas which has an adverse effect on water clarity in the Bay.

16 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Two: Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
1990 1995 2000 2005 2007

Average Load

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_phosphorus.aspx

Millions of 

Pounds of Phosphorus

Billions of

Gallons of Flow

River Flow

20

0

40

80

RIVER FLOW AND PHOSPHORUS LOADS

REACHING CHESAPEAKE BAY

0

25

50

60 75

100

RIVER FLOW AND NITROGEN LOADS

REACHING CHESAPEAKE BAY

1990 1995 2000 2005 2007

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_nitrogen.aspx

Millions of 

Pounds of Nitrogen

Billions of

Gallons of Flow

Average Load

200

0

400

600

800

0

25

50

75

River Flow

100

Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health 17
Provisional 

estimates indicate 

that approximately 

318 million pounds 

of nitrogen reached 

the Bay during the 

2007 water year.

River Flow and the Pollutant

Loads Reaching the Bay

Annual Bay water quality conditions are largely determined 

by a combination of the amount of pollution deposited on 

the land and the amount of water flowing into the Bay. 

Rainfall affects the volume of water flowing into the Bay 

from its many freshwater streams and rivers. The amount of 

freshwater flowing to the Bay impacts the saltiness (salinity) 

of Bay waters. River flow is generally fast-moving and turbulent, mixing the Bay’s waters and capturing oxygen from the 

air. Total river flow to the Bay during the 2007 water year 

(October 2006-September 2007) was very close to the

long-term average despite several months of extremes.

As river flow increases, its potential to carry additional 

amounts of pollutants increases as well. Scientists estimate 

annual pollutant loads to the Bay through a combination 

of monitored water samples and modeled information. 

Whenever practical, scientists measure pollution levels in 

water samples from the rivers and wastewater pipes that 

flow into the Bay. Model-generated estimates are used where 

monitoring is not practical, when no data are available or data 

do not meet specific requirements and/or are outdated. By 

capturing water samples at the point where large, free-flowing rivers meet tidal waters, scientists can calculate pollution 

loads from 78 percent of the watershed land area. For the 

remaining area, loads from wastewater and model-generated 

estimates are used. This combination of monitoring and 

modeling data allows scientists to provide the most practical 

accounting of the amount of pollution reaching the Bay.

Provisional estimates indicate that approximately 318 million 

pounds of nitrogen reached the Bay during the 2007 water 

year, which is similar to the average load for 1990-2007. This 

amount is almost double the restoration target of 175 million 

pounds of nitrogen. 

Provisional estimates indicate that approximately 15 million 

pounds of phosphorus reached the Bay during the 2007 water 

year, which is below the 1990-2007 average. This amount is 

above the target level of 12.8 million pounds of phosphorus 

to reach the Bay. Additional pollution-fighting measures are 

being put in place throughout the watershed to reduce total 

pollution loads in the future. 

Based on water samples collected at the point where large, 

free flowing rivers meet tidal waters, 2.8 million tons of

sediment were delivered to the Bay in the 2007 water year. 

This is below the average load for 1990-2007. The sediment 

load estimates do not account for sediment from the 

coastal plain areas of the watershed. Scientists are currently 

developing methods to quantify the total loads of sediment

to the Bay. 1950 1970 2000 2020 2030

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_population.aspx

Millions of Acres of

Impervious Surface Millions of People

0.6

0

0.8

1.2

BAY WATERSHED POPULATION

AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

0

15

20

25

1960 1980 1990 2010

1

0.4

0.2

10

5

Population

Impervious Surface

Projections

18 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Two: Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
Land Use

The human population in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed has more than 

doubled since 1950 from 8 to over 16.7 

million, intensifying the stresses that 

affect the Bay and its tidal tributaries. 

Between 1990 and 2000, impervious 

surfaces increased at nearly five times the 

rate of population growth, from 611,017 

to 860,004 acres. At that rate of increase, 

it is estimated that an additional 250,000 

acres will become impervious between 

2000 and 2010. 

Impervious surface is defined as a surface 

or area that is hardened and does not 

allow water to pass through. Roads, rooftops, driveways,

sidewalks, pools, patios and parking lots are all

impervious surfaces.

While the overall population of the Bay watershed continues 

to grow, population changes vary from state to state and 

region to region. Some areas are gaining population at a

high rate, while populations in other areas are leveling out

or declining.

In the 1600s, about 95 percent of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed was forested. Forests now cover only 58 percent, 

or 24 million acres. More than 750,000 acres – equivalent 

to 20 Washington, DCs – have been developed since the 

early 1980s, and the Bay watershed now loses forestland at 

the rate of 100 acres each day. If current trends continue, 

an additional 9.5 million acres of Chesapeake forests will be 

threatened by conversion to residential development by 2030.

Forests protect and filter drinking water for 75 percent of the 

Bay watershed’s residents and provide valuable ecological

services and economic benefits including carbon sequestration, flood control, wildlife habitat and forest products.

Retaining and expanding forests in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed is critical to our success in restoring the 

Chesapeake Bay. Forests are the most beneficial land use for 

protecting water quality, due to their ability to capture, filter 

and retain water, as well as absorb pollution from the air. In 

fact, our watershed forests are excellent assimilators of air

pollution, retaining up to 85 percent of the nitrogen they 

receive from air emission sources such as motor vehicles

and electric utilities. Conversely, a reduction in forest area 

leads to a disproportionate increase in nitrogen loads to

our waterways.

BAY WATERSHED FOREST COVER 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershedforests.aspx 

1650 1750 1800 1900 1950 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Forest Cover

1700 1850

Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health 19
more than half of the remaining nutrient reductions needed 

to meet water quality restoration goals. 

Waste water

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, 

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 treatment plants for achieving 

about 15 percent of their nutrient reduction goals. Since 1985, 

the partners have achieved 69 percent of their wastewater 

nitrogen reduction goal and 87 percent of their wastewater 

phosphorus reduction goal.

U r b an/ S u b u r b an L a n d s an d

S epti c S ystems

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

into the Chesapeake Bay. These pollutants include nitrogen, 

phosphorus, sediment and many chemical contaminants. 

About one-quarter of the nutrient reductions called for in the 

jurisdictions’ cleanup strategies are expected to come from 

efforts to reduce, treat or prevent pollution from urban/suburban lands and septic systems. While improvements have 

been made in landscape design and stormwater management 

practices, significant challenges still exist in accounting for 

existing on-the-ground control practices. 

That aside, to date, it is estimated that the pollution increases 

associated with land development (e.g., converting farms

and forests to urban/suburban developments) have surpassed 

the gains achieved from improved landscape design and 

There are many 

notable individual 

accomplishments 

relating to 

Chesapeake Bay 

watershed

restoration;

however,

Bay Program 

partners need 

to accelerate the 

pace of water 

quality improvement efforts.

Reducing Pollution

Clearer, oxygen-rich waters are the foundation of Chesapeake 

Bay restoration. The Bay and its tidal rivers receive more 

nutrients and sediment than a healthy ecosystem can handle. 

Bay jurisdictions have developed river-specific cleanup strategies detailing activities that need to be implemented to reduce 

the amount of nutrients and sediment delivered to the Bay. 

Monitoring and tracking data and computer simulations 

are used to estimate the amount of pollution control efforts 

implemented in relation to the commitments made by the 

Bay jurisdictions in their cleanup strategies. The data featured 

in this section include efforts through only a portion of 2007.

The pollution control efforts are occurring in four majorareas 

or “source sectors”: agriculture, wastewater, urban/suburban 

and air. The relative contributions of pollutant loads to the 

Bay from these four source sectors are detailed in the

chart on page 21.

A gri c ulture

Farmers employ dozens of conservation practices (also known 

as best management practices or BMPs) to reduce the amount 

of pollution reaching local waters and the Bay. Since 1985, 

the partners have achieved 48 percent and 51 percent of the 

goals for agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus pollution 

control efforts, respectively, and 48 percent of the goal for 

sediment pollution control efforts called for in the jurisdictions’ cleanup strategies. These estimates do not account 

for efforts that can not be tracked, such as BMPs installed 

voluntarily by private landowners without the use of public 

funds. While no pollution reduction can be attributed to 

these private efforts, they will still contribute to the overall 

improvement of water quality that is assessed in Chapter One: 

Ecosystem Health.

In part because they are so cost-effective, the Bay jurisdictions are relying on expanded implementation of BMPs on 

agricultural lands, such as planting winter cover crops, for 

20 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLLUTION

LOADS TO THE BAY (2007)

Wastewater loads based on measured discharges; the rest are based on an average-hydrology year. 

Does not include loads from direct deposition to tidal waters, tidal shoreline erosion or the ocean.

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_reducingpollution.aspx

Nitrogen

Agriculture

42%

Atmospheric

22%

Wastewater

20%

Urban/

Suburban

16%

Phosphorus

Agriculture

46%

Wastewater

22%

Urban/

Suburban

32%

Sediment

Agriculture

72%

Urban/

Suburban

28%

48%

of Nitrogen 

Goal Achieved

48%

of Sediment

Goal Achieved

51%

of Phosphorus

Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROLS

Controlling Nitrogen

GOAL

Controlling Phosphorus GOAL

Controlling Sediment GOAL

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_agriculture.aspx

0

20

40

60

80

100%

0

20

40

60

80

100%

0

20

40

60

80

100%

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

69%

of Nitrogen

Goal Achieved

87%

of Phosphorus

Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Controlling Nitrogen

Goal

Controlling Phosphorus

Goal

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_wastewater.aspx 

0

20

40

60

80

100%

0

20

40

60

80

100%

Percent of

Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Accounting Begins

WASTEWATER POLLUTION CONTROLS 

–20

-83%

of Nitrogen 

Goal Achieved

-62%

of Sediment

Goal Achieved

-73%

of Phosphorus

Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Controlling Nitrogen

GOAL

Controlling Phosphorus

Controlling Sediment

Some jurisdictions may be underreporting existing stormwater management practices.

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_urbansuburban.aspx 

-100

-50

0

50

100%

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

GOAL

-100

-50

0

50

100%

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

GOAL

-100

-50

0

50

100%

URBAN/SUBURBAN POLLUTION CONTROLS

Restoration Efforts 21
An estimated reduction 

of 8 million pounds 

of nitrogen delivered 

to the Bay will be 

achieved by 2010 

through Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

reductions.

8%

of Nitrogen

Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_airpollution.aspx 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS

stormwater management practices. The rapid rate of 

population growth and related residential and commercial 

development coupled with the ongoing issues associated with 

accounting for the existing practices has made this pollution 

source sector the only one in the Bay watershed which 

continues to still be growing, and thus showing the overall 

“progress” as negative.

A ir P ollution

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. This is largely due to mandated 

air regulations on power plant point emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOx). An estimated reduction of 8 million pounds 

of nitrogen delivered to the Bay will be achieved by 2010 

through Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) reductions.

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 mixed 

success in recent years, but the Program’s fish passage efforts 

are both long-standing and generally successful. Restoring 

wetlands is a major focus area, and in 2005 the partners 

agreed to expand their goal in this area. Oyster reefs were 

once a vital habitat for entire underwater communities. 

Oyster restoration efforts have focused on enhancing habitat 

through shell plantings and the use of alternate substrates. 

Efforts also include designating sanctuaries, protecting areas 

from harvest and using hatchery seed to increase the number 

of healthy oysters in the Bay. 

P lant ing Bay G rasses

Not only do Bay grasses help improve water quality, they also 

generate food and habitat for waterfowl, fish, shellfish and 

invertebrates. Restoring underwater Bay grasses to reach the 

healthy habitats goal of 185,000 acres relies overwhelmingly 

on the natural expansion of beds that is highly dependent on 

adequate water quality. Bay managers have begun to supplement pollution reduction efforts with experimental Bay grass 

plantings where predicted improvements in water quality 

would support Bay grasses where none currently exist. These 

newly planted grasses act as seed sources which in turn 

produce more grass beds as water quality improves. 

In 2003, Bay Program partners adopted the “Strategy for the 

Protection and Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

in the Chesapeake Bay,” including a commitment to plant 

1,000 acres by 2008. About 14 percent of the goal has been 

22 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
met, commensurate with the amount of funding received. 

Managers continue to evaluate the best and most cost-effective methods for planting Bay grasses. For more on the status 

of Bay grasses, please see Chapter One: Ecosystem Health. 

R estoring O yster R eefs

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 planting oyster shells and alternate substrate 

materials to rebuild habitat and planting hatchery-produced 

spat (juvenile) oysters on natural and man-made oyster 

habitats throughout the Bay. In 2007, 776 acres were treated, 

sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site.

Restoring oyster reefs is an important component of the 

partners strategy for increasing native oyster populations. 

The success of these habitat restoration techniques has been 

limited by numerous factors including disease, fishing 

pressure and resulting habitat destruction, and poor water 

quality caused by human population growth and land use 

changes. For more information on oysters, please see Chapter 

One: Ecosystem Health. 

R eopening F ish P assage

Dams, culverts and other obstructions block the movement of 

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

By removing physical obstacles, key species like American 

shad are able to return to their native spawning grounds and 

increased habitat is available for resident fish. In addition to 

opening habitat to migratory fish, fish passage projects also 

restore flow, stream continuity, mediate sediment load and 

reduce habitat fragmentation.

From 1988 through 2005 the partners had opened 1,838 

miles of fish passage, surpassing their original 1,357-mile 

restoration goal. In early 2005, the Bay Program partners 

committed to increasing the restoration goal to 2,807 miles 

by 2014. During 2006 and 2007 an additional 427 miles of 

14%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1,000 Acre Goal

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_baygrassesplanted.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

BAY GRASSES PLANTED

NATIVE OYSTER ANNUAL RESTORATION EFFORTS

Accounting Begins Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_oysterrecovery.aspx 

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Acres of Annual Effort

Restoration Efforts 23
habitat were made available, bringing the cumulative total to 

2,266 miles – achieving 81 percent of the 2014 goal.

R estoring Wetlan d s

Wetlands serve multiple ecological functions. Restoring and 

enhancing wetlands throughout the watershed can provide 

critical wildlife habitat 

for many diverse species 

including finfish, shellfish, 

amphibians, birds and mammals. The Bay Program’s 

current strategy commits 

partners to restoring 25,000 

acres of wetlands by 2010, 

and as of 2007 they are 

50 percent of the way toward 

achieving this goal. 

In addition to habitat, 

wetlands also help clean 

the water by filtering excess 

nutrients and sediments. To 

improve water quality, the 

Bay watershed states call for 

the restoration of 200,000 

acres of wetlands in their 

tributary cleanup plans. 

Progress toward this water 

quality goal is measured 

in part in the Reducing 

Pollution summary chart in 

the Executive Summary.

Managing Fisheries

Ec osystem-Base d F isheries P lans

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem-based fishery management plans 

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

American shad, striped bass and Atlantic menhaden. The 

index shows the three basic steps to expanding fishery 

management to include ecosystem considerations: actions 

that are species specific; actions that include multi-species

interactions; and other actions that will broaden the management perspective to include ecosystem structure and 

function. Single species plans are already being implemented 

but ecosystem-based plans are more complex and will take 

time to fully develop and implement.

While some significant effort was undertaken to improve the 

management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few 

of these efforts resulted in changes to fisheries management 

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

index values for all the fisheries assessed remains unchanged 

from the 2006 Assessment. Progress toward fisheries 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 Chapter One: Ecosystem Health. 

O ysters

Oysters provide important ecological services to the Bay 

including important structural habitat for finfish and shellfish, filtering capabilities and sediment stabilization. The 

new ecosystem-based management approach will take these 

important ecological services into consideration. Oyster 

harvest is currently managed using minimum size limits, gear 

restrictions, seasonal and geographic closings and bushel 

limits. Fisheries targets and thresholds have not been 

established in the current plan. Restoration efforts include 

expanding the amount of clean, hard surfaces for oyster spat 

(juvenile oysters) to settle, increasing the number of breeding 

50%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

25,000 Acre Commitment

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_wetlandsrestored.aspx 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

WETLANDS RESTORATION EFFORTS

81%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

2,807 Mile Goal

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fishpassage.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

OPENING RIVERS TO MIGRATORY FISH

24 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
adult oysters, establishing sanctuaries and combating 

oyster diseases.

While the effort score did not change this year, there was 

some notable progress on the research and management front, 

including the use of genetically modified strains of oysters, 

modeling the transport of larvae, modeling population 

fluctuations under different environmental circumstances, 

implementing new monitoring protocols and compiling a 

comprehensive baywide database of oyster information.

Blue Cra b s

Blue crabs are currently managed as a single species using 

biological reference points, abundance and exploitation 

targets. The fishery is managed through minimum size limits, 

gear restrictions and seasonal limits on harvest to keep fishing 

pressure at acceptable levels. An annual review of the blue 

crab stock is conducted to determine the status of the stock. 

Currently, fishing pressure is set to levels that should allow 

for increased abundance. Blue crabs play an important role 

as both predator and prey in the Bay ecosystem. Interactions 

between blue crabs and striped bass, their predators, have 

been examined. In addition, some management recommendations have been implemented such as special openings in 

traps to allow the escape of non-targeted species.

While the effort score did not change this year, there were a 

host of research and monitoring activities in 2007, including 

investigations into the potential effects of ghost crab pots on 

blue crab mortality estimates, as well as improved growth

rate estimates for stock assessment updates. However, none

of these activities has at present led to change in the

management plan.

A meri c an S h a d

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

diminished by overfishing, water pollution and spawning 

migration obstructions (dams). In 1980, Maryland implemented an American shad fishing moratorium and in 1994 

Virginia followed, thus effectively 

banning direct harvest throughout the Bay. 

Current management measures to 

promote the recovery of American 

shad in Chesapeake Bay include a 

moratorium on shad fishing with 

a limited bycatch allowance; the 

release of hatchery-raised fish; 

the removal of obstructions to 

migration; and the installation of 

fish passages. Over the last two 

decades shad stocks have been 

slowly rebuilding.

Before the fishery is reopened, 

catch limits (thresholds) and safe 

levels of harvest (targets) will 

need to be developed through the 

ecosystem-based fishery management process.

While some significant and 

important management and 

research has been conducted over 

the past year, including a coastal 

stock assessment report and the 

development of a new indicator 

of population health, no changes 

have been made to the fishery 

management plan, hence no 

increase in score.

S tripe d Bass

Maryland and Delaware instituted a moratorium on all 

striped bass fishing in 1985, following the collapse of the

fishery during the early 1980s. Virginia and the Potomac 

River Fisheries Commission did so in 1989. Since the 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx

Progression of fisheries management towards goal of ecosystem based fisheries management

 Current effort taken

 Effort still required

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Single-Species

Fisheries Management

Shad

Blue Crab

Striped Bass

Menhaden

Oyster

Plan Action Plan Action Plan Action

Multi-Species

Fisheries

Management

Ecosystem Based

Fisheries Management 

Overall

Progress

GOAL

38

56

63

56

37 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EFFORT INDEX

RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS PLANTED

57%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

10,000 Mile Commitment

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_forestbuffers.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

Restoration Efforts 25
moratorium was lifted in 1990, the stock has been rebuilt 

and maintained through an adaptive management approach, 

based upon constant monitoring and the use of catch quotas 

and seasonal closings. Currently the stock is at high levels 

of abundance. Striped bass are recognized as one of the top 

predators in the Chesapeake 

Bay and impact forage species 

such as Atlantic menhaden. The 

recently proposed annual cap 

on the commercial harvest of 

Atlantic menhaden was adopted 

in part due to the dietary 

importance of menhaden to the 

striped bass population.

While some significant and 

important management and 

research has been conducted 

over the past year including the 

completion of tagging studies within the Bay leading to 

improved estimates of natural 

mortality rates, it has not led 

to any changes in the fishery 

management plans, hence no 

increase in score.

Atlanti c M enha d e n

Atlantic menhaden are managed as a coastal population 

under a single species approach. 

Atlantic menhaden that inhabit 

the Chesapeake Bay are a part 

of a coastal Atlantic stock. 

Populations along the Atlantic 

Coast are healthy, but some scientists are concerned about low 

abundance in Chesapeake Bay.

Menhaden are a significant part of the aquatic food chain 

and as such, multi-species management is critical. Currently, 

predator-prey and by-catch interactions are relatively well 

defined. Menhaden feed primarily on plankton and are prey 

for top predators such as striped bass and bluefish.

There is concern over the steady decline in the number of 

young menhaden produced in Chesapeake Bay. This decline, 

and other concerns with the fishery, prompted Virginia’s 

adoption of a five-year cap on the commercial harvest 

of menhaden starting in 2006. Critical research will be 

performed while the harvest cap is in effect.

There has been no progress towards developing an ecosystem-based management plan in 2007. All management 

considerations have occurred at the coastal level.

Protecting Watersheds

The human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is 

now growing by about 130,000 residents annually. Planning 

for this growth is especially critical in this watershed because 

of the vast amount of land that drains into the relatively 

shallow Chesapeake. Restoration efforts center on reforesting 

streamside buffers and developing watershed management 

plans, as well as preserving open space and forests. Partners 

appear to be on track with many of their watershed protection efforts and are two-thirds of the way toward meeting 

current Bay Program goals, but these efforts appear to be 

inadequate in stemming the decline in water quality

associated with population growth.

Conserving F orest Buffers

Streamside or riparian forest buffers provide habitat for wildlife, stabilize banks from erosion and keep river waters cool, 

an important factor for many fish. The Bay Program partners 

achieved their original 2010 buffer restoration goal of 2,010 

miles well ahead of schedule and in 2003 raised that target to 

10,000 miles. There have been 5,722 miles restored through 

99%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

6.92 Million Acre Goal 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_landspreserved.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

WATERSHED LAND PRESERVATION

57%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

22.9 Million Acre Goal

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershedmanagement.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS DEVELOPED

26 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
Restoration Efforts 27

2007, putting the Bay Program partners at 57 percent of

goal achieved.

In addition to preserving the watershed, well-maintained 

forest buffers naturally absorb nutrients and sediments, thus 

improving water quality in neighboring streams. Riparian 

forest buffers also provide a source of large woody material 

input to streams that helps form and maintain important fish 

habitat and provides for channel stability. To improve water 

quality, the Bay watershed states call for the restoration of 

some 50,000 miles of riparian forest buffers in their tributary 

cleanup plans. Progress toward this water quality goal is 

measured in part in the Reducing Pollution summary chart 

in the Executive Summary.

P reserving L a n d s

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 2007, a 

total of 6.88 million acres had been permanently preserved. 

With 99 percent of the goal achieved, the partners are very 

likely to meet the 2010 goal of 6.92 million acres preserved. 

The historic data featured in this indicator changed from the 

2006 Assessment due to corrections by Virginia.

At its annual meeting in December 2007, the Chesapeake 

Executive Council signed the Forestry Conservation 

Initiative, committing the Bay states to permanently conserve 

an additional 695,000 acres of forested land throughout the 

watershed by 2020.

Developing Watershe d

M anagement P lans

Watershed management plans address the protection, 

conservation and restoration of stream corridors, riparian 

forest buffers, wetlands, parklands and other open space for 

the purposes of preserving watershed health while enhancing 

the quality of life in local communities. The Bay Program 

has a goal of developing and implementing locally supported 

watershed management plans in two-thirds of the Bay 

watershed. By the end of 2007 plans were in place for 13.1 

million acres, more than half of the 22.9 million acres that 

should be covered under such plans by 2010. Translating 

these plans into action will be essential to restoring water 

quality (see Chapter One: Ecosystem Health).

Fostering Chesapeake Stewardship

Accomplishing a comprehensive restoration plan for an 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. 

P u b l i c Acc e s s 

Personal interaction with the local rivers, streams and 

the Chesapeake Bay itself can help the public recognize 

the connection between the value of the Chesapeake and 

their individual interests. Local waterways that flow to the 

Chesapeake Bay, as well as the Chesapeake Bay itself, must 

matter to people in order to gain their support for restoration efforts. Since 2000, the Bay jurisdictions have acquired, 

developed or enhanced more than 100 public access points, 

and in 2007, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of 

Columbia added or enhanced 14 sites. 

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network enhances placebased interpretation of Bay-related resources and stimulates 

volunteer involvement in resource restoration and conservation. Four new Gateway sites were added to the network in 

2007, bringing the total to 156.
In 2007, 328 new 

water trail miles were 

developed, bringing 

the total to more than 

2,000 miles.

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

organizations has blossomed since 2000. The trails exist 

throughout the Bay and its tributaries and offer a variety of 

low-impact paddling experiences, connecting people to the 

natural, cultural and historic resources of the Bay. In 2007, 

328 new water trail miles were developed, bringing the total 

to more than 2,000 miles. 

In 2007, the National Park Service began the process to 

develop a comprehensive plan for managing and interpreting 

the nearly 3,000-mile-long Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail. The Interpretive Plan will provide a 

vision for the future of interpretation and education for the 

trail and define long-term goals for meaningful connections 

between visitors and Bay resources.

Overall, the partners have achieved 98 percent of established 

goals to enhance public access, create Gateways and establish 

water trails.

BAY PROGRAM WEBSITE VISITS

Accounting Begins Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_commoutreach.aspx

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

4

5

6

7

8

Millions of visits (cumulative)

3

2

1

98%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_publicaccess.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

PUBLIC ACCESS

Communi c ations an d O utrea c h

The partners believe that comprehensive and authoritative 

public information is essential to engage all stakeholders in 

the restoration effort. The Program has established a number 

of methods to meet this stewardship need. The Bay Journal

newspaper reaches more than 50,000 print subscribers 

monthly, informing people about issues and events that affect 

the Chesapeake Bay. The monthly e-newsletter Chesapeake 

Currents is distributed to more than 1,000 subscribers, while 

the daily electronic Bay News service goes out to more

than 1,100 users. 

Publications, press releases, presentations, events and other 

communication and outreach efforts are also essential 

elements of the on-going effort to inform the public about

the Bay and its watershed. The Bay Program’s suite of 

websites was accessed by more than 5.6 million different 

users in 2007.

28 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
confident in their ability to use field experiences in teaching 

about the watershed and are more likely to do so. 

Overall, the partners have achieved 84 percent of the current 

goal of providing a meaningful outdoor watershed educational experience to every student, starting with the class of 2005. 

Citizen an d Community Ac tion

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 

Ed u c ation an d I nterpretation

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 2007, the NOAA Bay Watershed 

Education & Training (B-WET) grants program has funded 

training opportunities for more than 15,000 teachers. More 

than 2.5 million Bay watershed students have participated in 

a field experience during their K-12 education. 

The B-WET program, with support from the Chesapeake 

Bay Trust and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the 

Environment, recently completed an intensive multi-year 

evaluation that shows that students are more knowledgeable 

about the watershed and more likely to take action to protect 

the Bay after participating in B-WET supported programs. 

The study also showed that B-WET trained teachers are more 

23%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

330 Bay Partner Communities Goal

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_citizenaction.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

BAY PARTNER COMMUNITIES

84%

of Goal Achieved

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

2.8 Million Students Goal 

Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_education.aspx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of

Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

EDUCATIONAL FIELD EXPERIENCES PROVIDED

Restoration Efforts 29
The overall 

ecosystem 

health of the 

Bay remains 

degraded.

operations and reducing releases of chemical contaminants 

and other wastes to the Chesapeake Bay.

Towns and cities are implementing Bay-friendly measures 

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

better place to live, work and recreate. In 2007, two new local 

governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status, 

bringing the current total to 77.

Overall, the partners have achieved 23 percent of the existing 

goal to certify 330 Bay Partner Communities by 2005.

2007 Restoration Highlights

Through a series of Chesapeake Bay agreements, Bay Program 

signatories – the states of Maryland, the commonwealths 

of Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representing the 

federal government; and the Chesapeake Bay Commission 

representing Bay state legislators – have committed to reduce 

pollution, restore habitats and sustainably manage fisheries. 

Since 2000, the headwater states of Delaware, New York

and West Virginia have joined regional efforts to improve 

water quality. 

L ooking Ba c k at 2007

While there are many notable individual accomplishments 

relating to Chesapeake Bay restoration, Chapter One: 

Ecosystem Health makes clear that the Bay Program partners 

need to accelerate the pace of water quality improvement 

efforts. To that end, a number of specific initiatives in 2007 

are worth highlighting:

The Chesapeake Bay Commission focused on reducing agricultural and point source pollution. By working 

with Congress, pending versions of the Farm Bill provide 

up to $100 million annually in new conservation funding 

Bay-wide. Pennsylvania Commission members created the 

Resource Enhancement and Protection Program, a statewide 

agricultural tax credit to accelerate agricultural conservation. 

The Commission published a widely-praised biofuels report 

and helped the watershed’s largest wastewater treatment 

plant, Blue Plains, receive a $65 million authorization in the 

Water Resources Development Act.

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control Division of Fish and Wildlife’s 

Landowner Incentive Program, in cooperation with Ducks 

Unlimited and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners 

for Wildlife Program, recently restored 5 acres of Coastal 

Plain Ponds and established 42 acres of grassland habitat on 

a previously farmed field in New Castle County, Delaware.

This restoration improved habitat for several threatened

species of amphibians, enhanced nesting habitat for grassland 

birds, and improved ground and surface water quality.

In 2007, the District of Columbia pushed forward major 

stream restoration projects and continued to monitor successfully restored wetlands. In 2007, the District completed the 

designs, obtained permits and initiated pre-implementation 

monitoring for the 1.9 mile Watts Branch stream restoration 

project. The District initiated stream restoration designs on 

Pope Branch, where the District and DCWASA (Water and 

Sewer Authority) will restore the stream and replace an aging 

sanitary sewer line. District Department of the Environment 

(DDOE) monitored the River Fringe and Heritage wetland 

restorations, both of which continue to thrive.

Together with federal and state partners, EPA is helping to 

pick up the pace of Bay restoration by reducing sediment 

and nutrient pollution. In 2007, EPA and the District 

of Columbia began implementing a landmark green 

infrastructure agreement to curtail storm water runoff. 

The Navy enacted a low impact development policy that 

calls for no net increase in storm water volume, sediments 

and nutrients from construction projects. EPA provided 

$6 million in funding to promote innovative solutions 

to reduce nutrients and sediments entering the Bay. EPA 

30 Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment 2007

Chapter Three: Restoration Efforts
Region 3 worked with jurisdictions in the watershed to 

implement a common permitting approach for more than 

480 wastewater treatment facilities that unites both upstream 

and downstream jurisdictions in the enforcement of new 

water quality standards and allocations. To help accelerate 

the issuance of permits, the partners have utilized several 

innovative steps including general watershed permits 

consistent with the requirements of the nutrient permitting 

strategy. In fiscal year 2007, 150 permits were issued, for a 

total of 165 facilities in compliance with nutrient permits as 

of September 2007. A modification to the Washington, DC 

Blue Plains facility permit was issued by EPA Region 3 in 

April 2007. This modification to the single largest discharger 

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed included significant 

nutrient reductions – 4.6 million pounds from former limits.

Under the leadership of Governor Martin O’Malley, 

Maryland launched several innovative programs to accelerate 

Bay restoration. BayStat was created, a powerful new statistical tool being used to assess, coordinate and target programs 

and resources and inform citizens on progress. New land

conservation criteria were adopted to identify acquisitions 

based on benefits to ecosystems, communities and the Bay. 

The 2010 Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund was established, 

providing $50 million in new funding annually for implementation of non-point source nutrient reductions. Governor 

O’Malley also hosted the Chesapeake Executive Council 

meeting, leading partners to champion regional Bay issues.

In 2007, Pennsylvania enacted the Resource Enhancement 

and Protection Program, a $10 million tax credit initiative 

encouraging farmers to implement conservation best management practices. The commonwealth also invested $1.8 million 

to advance an innovative nutrient trading program in partnership with the state’s agricultural community, and worked 

to establish nutrient limits in wastewater treatment plant 

permits. Since 1999, Pennsylvania has invested $20 million 

in state funds and $83 million in federal funds to build the 

nation’s largest Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

New York targets implementation based on landowner interest and high potential for nutrient and sediment reduction 

and habitat improvement. The Upper Susquehanna Coalition 

and its partners restored 634 acres of wetlands, constructed 

154 new vernal pools and initiated prescribed grazing on 

4,892 acres of pasture and row crops. Grazing generates wallto-wall buffers, reduces nutrient sources and runoff and helps 

sustain farms. New York also is evaluating road drainage 

systems as they are critical pathways for atmospheric nitrogen 

deposition and runoff. 

Governor Kaine announced that Virginia expects to meet 

their point source nutrient reduction goals by the end of

2010 through aggressive state cost-share funding, pollution 

control technologies and efficient local government planning. 

Nonpoint source progress includes focusing 80 percent of 

available agricultural cost-share funding on five priority,

cost-effective conservation practices. In addition, the 

Commonwealth has partnered with Virginia’s poultry

industry on several major initiatives including a litter 

transport program and maximizing the use of feed additives 

to reduce phosphorus in poultry litter. 

West Virginia gained momentum in Tributary Strategy 

implementation by focusing work in priority watersheds. 

Successful projects such as a rain barrel workshop and a rain 

garden demonstration resulted from partnerships between 

volunteers, local governments and state agencies. These 

partners are now exploring ways to further promote such 

innovative stormwater practices in the quickly developing 

eastern panhandle. West Virginia’s implementation team also 

worked with NRCS to encourage poultry litter transport and 

nutrient management plans and to promote the Conservation 

Reserve Enhancement Program.

Restoration Efforts 31
The presence and diversity of snails, mussels, insects and 

other freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate communities are 

good indicators of stream health because of their limited 

mobility and their known responses to environmental 

pollutants and stressors. As a result, these communities are 

often used as indicators of the general health of freshwater 

streams and rivers. 

The sources and causes of degraded streams and rivers are 

many and varied across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Causes of benthic community impairment are generally 

attributed to pollutants such as metals, acidity, sediment, 

pesticides and nutrients introduced into the water body by 

sources such as mining, agriculture, storm water and municipal or industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Such sources 

consequently result in water bodies with high bacteria counts, 

elevated nutrient levels, low pH (high acidity) and stressful 

dissolved oxygen levels.

These are important local water quality issues that also have 

implications for the water quality in the Bay itself. Put simply, healthier waters throughout the watershed will contribute 

to a healthier Bay; everyone living in the watershed benefits 

from having cleaner, healthier water locally and regionally.

Each state in the watershed conducts benthic macroinvertebrate assessments as part of its biennial water quality 

assessment report mandated by the Clean Water Act. Where 

assessed benthic macroinvertebrate communities are deemed 

the most degraded, states must designate those stream segments as impaired and add them to the list of impaired 

waters in need of cleanup.

The Bay Program state partners – Delaware, Maryland, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia – used the 

data and results from their 2006 water quality assessments 

to prepare summaries of stream conditions in each state. 

The methodologies for benthic macroinvertebrate assessment 

vary by state, therefore a synthesis of results across the entire 

watershed was not attempted at this time The map presents 

a summary of each state’s assessment results within the 

boundaries of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The partners 

are examining other potential sources of information and 

approaches to develop a Chesapeake Bay watershed-specific 

indicator in the future.

For more information on individual states’ water quality 

impairments go to www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershed

health.aspx.

Put simply, healthier 

waters throughout 

the watershed will 

contribute to a 

healthier Bay.

32 Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health & Restoration Assessment

Chapter Four: Health of Freshwater Streams and Rivers
NY

PA

MD

VA

DC

WV

DE

% Not Impaired

% Not

Assessed

% Impaired

Legend

Degraded Benthic

Macroinvertebrate

Community

93%

3% 4%

89%

7% 4%

53%

39%

8%

60%

40%

53%

35

12

%

%

82%

17%

1%

New York

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

Maryland

Delaware

Virginia

Benthic Marcroinvertebrate Impairments

Fresh water Streams and Riv ers Health As Sessment

NOTE: Pie charts are not directly comparable since each state monitors 

and assesses benthic macroinvertebrates on different scales with different 

methodologies and criterion. For more information on these differences, 

please refer to: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershedhealth.aspx.

Data Sources: DE: EPA (2004)

MD: MDE (2006)

NY: New York DEC (2006)

PA: Pennsylvania DEP (2006)

VA: Virginia DEQ (2006)

WV: West Virginia DEP (2006)

DC: Data not included
This report was developed by the Chesapeake Bay 

Program partneship to help inform watershed residents 

about the health of the Bay and efforts to restore 

it. Staff from a large number of state and federal 

agencies, academic institutions and non-governmental 

organizations contributed data and interpretation to the 

report, including The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 

Chesapeake Bay Commission, Delaware Department 

of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 

District of Columbia Department of the Environment, 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 

Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland 

Department of the Environment, Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources, National Park Service, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, New York 

Department of Environmental Conservation, Old 

Dominion University, Pennsylvania Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania 

Fish and Boat Commission, Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission, University of Maryland Center for 

Environmental Science, University of Maryland College 

Park, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Environmental 

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

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia 

Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia 

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia 

Institute of Marine Science, Virginia Tech, Versar, 

West Virginia Department of Agriculture and the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.

For a full list of contributing partners,

visit www.chesapeakebay.net/

partnerorganizations.aspx.

Chesapeake Bay Program

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109

Annapolis, Maryland 21403

800-YOUR-BAY

www.chesapeakebay.net

Images courtesy: Scott Bauer; Anthony DePanise; 

Starke Jett; Mike Land; Russ Mader; Maryland 

Dept. of Natural Resources; NASA; NOAA 

Chesapeake Bay Office; Alicia Pimental; Kara 

Turner; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service; Virginia Institute of Marine Science;

IAN Image Library: Jane Hawkey, Adrian Jones, 

Don Merritt, Jane Thomas and Joanna Woerner.

Cover images courtesy: IAN Image Library:

Jane Hawkey and Jane Thomas; NOAA 

Chesapeake Bay Office.