Restoration and Protection Efforts

Restoration and Protection Efforts
- Priority Areas Summary: 2008 Bay Restoration Efforts Protecting Watersheds 74% of Goals Achieved Fostering Stewardship 65% Managing Fisheries 51% Restoring Habitats 55% Reducing Pollution 47%, 63%, 64% Goals Achieved N P S Data and Methods: Note: Some jurisdictions may be underreporting existing stormwater management practices. Restoration and Protection Efforts Status: New restoration programs and projects were put in place in 2008, but resulted in only incremental gains toward goals. The measures for restoration and protection efforts averaged 61 percent, a four percent increase from 2007. Reducing Pollution: Based on available data, scientists project that 58 percent of the pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve the goals have been implemented since 1985,which is a 1 percent increase from 2007. Restoring Habitats: Efforts to restore habitats throughout the watershed achieved modest gains in 2008, with progress toward the overall goal at 55 percent, an 11 percent increase from 2007. Managing Fisheries: Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad stands at 51 percent, just a minimal gain from 2007. Protecting Watersheds: Progress was made toward protection of the thousands of smaller watersheds in the region during 2008, with a 3 percent gain toward the overall goal. Overall, the partnership is 74 percent of the way toward its goals for protecting watersheds. Fostering Stewardship: Programs to foster the public’s stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed resulted in a score of 65 percent, which reflects an increase of 5 percent from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: To restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, many measures must be put in place to reduce pollution, restore habitats, manage fisheries, protect watersheds and foster stewardship. For more than 25 years, the partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program have worked to protect and restore the Bay and its watershed. The 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. Goal: Progress is tracked with 20 “reporting-level” indicators grouped into the five priority areas described in the landmark Chesapeake 2000 agreement that represent major elements of the Bay restoration effort: Reducing Pollution, Restoring Habitats, Managing Fisheries, Protecting Watersheds and Fostering Stewardship. Quantitative goals have been set for all of these indicators. When all of the goals for these areas are reached, it should mean that all measures needed for a restored Bay have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indices has only been collected for two years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indices has only been collected for two years. Change from previous year: Index score increased from 56.7% to 60.6%, In the section “Reducing Pollution,” efforts are compared to goals defined by the Bay jurisdictions' river-specific cleanup plans. The most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners and computer simulations are used in this section. In the remaining parts, restoration efforts are compared to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. Monitoring and tracking data are used in these sections. The Restoration and Protection Efforts Overarching Index incorporates scores for the following top level indices: Reducing Pollution Index Restoring Habitats Index Managing Fisheries Index Protecting Watersheds Index Fostering Stewardship Index Percent achievement values for each Top Level Index were averaged to create the overarching index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Restoration & Protection Efforts Index: Multiyear Assessment
Data and Methods: Percent of Goal Achieved 61% of Goal Achieved Restoration and Protection Efforts Index Accounting begins Goal Restoration and Protection Efforts Status: New restoration programs and projects were put in place in 2008, but resulted in only incremental gains toward goals. The measures for restoration and protection efforts averaged 61 percent, a four percent increase from 2007. Reducing Pollution: Based on available data, scientists project that 58 percent of the pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve the goals have been implemented since 1985,which is a 1 percent increase from 2007. Restoring Habitats: Efforts to restore habitats throughout the watershed achieved modest gains in 2008, with progress toward the overall goal at 55 percent, an 11 percent increase from 2007. Managing Fisheries: Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad stands at 51 percent, just a minimal gain from 2007. Protecting Watersheds: Progress was made toward protection of the thousands of smaller watersheds in the region during 2008, with a 3 percent gain toward the overall goal. Overall, the partnership is 74 percent of the way toward its goals for protecting watersheds. Fostering Stewardship: Programs to foster the public’s stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed resulted in a score of 65 percent, which reflects an increase of 5 percent from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: To restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, many measures must be put in place to reduce pollution, restore habitats, manage fisheries, protect watersheds and foster stewardship. For more than 25 years, the partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program have worked to protect and restore the Bay and its watershed. The 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. Goal: Progress is tracked with 20 “reporting-level” indicators grouped into the five priority areas described in the landmark Chesapeake 2000 agreement that represent major elements of the Bay restoration effort: Reducing Pollution, Restoring Habitats, Managing Fisheries, Protecting Watersheds and Fostering Stewardship. Quantitative goals have been set for all of these indicators. When all of the goals for these areas are reached, it should mean that all measures needed for a restored Bay have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indices has only been collected for two years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indices has only been collected for two years. Change from previous year: Index score increased from 56.7% to 60.6%, In the section “Reducing Pollution,” efforts are compared to goals defined by the Bay jurisdictions' river-specific cleanup plans. The most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners and computer simulations are used in this section. In the remaining parts, restoration efforts are compared to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. Monitoring and tracking data are used in these sections. The Restoration and Protection Efforts Overarching Index incorporates scores for the following top level indices: Reducing Pollution Index Restoring Habitats Index Managing Fisheries Index Protecting Watersheds Index Fostering Stewardship Index Percent achievement values for each Top Level Index were averaged to create the overarching index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Reducing Pollution Priority Area 47%, 63%, 64% of Goals Achieved
Data and Methods: Note: Some jurisdictions may be underreporting existing stormwater management practices. Reducing Pollution Status: Based on available data, scientists project that 58 percent of the pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve the goals have been implemented since 1985,which is a 1 percent increase from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: The Chesapeake Bay cannot be restored without water that is clean, clear and rich in oxygen. Currently, the Bay and its rivers receive too much pollution for the ecosystem to remain healthy. The primary sources of pollution are agricultural land, wastewater treatment plants, urban and suburban runoff, and air pollution. Agriculture: Agriculture covers about 25 percent of the watershed, representing the largest intensively managed land use. There are an estimated 87,000 farms covering about 8.5 million acres. Agriculture is the number one source of pollution to the Bay. Improperly applied fertilizers and pesticides flow into creeks, streams and rivers, carrying excess nitrogen, phosphorus and chemicals into the Chesapeake Bay. Tilling cropland and irrigating fields can cause major erosion. Additionally, the nutrients and bacteria found in animal manure can seep into groundwater and runoff into waterways. Urban and Suburban Lands: Human development, ranging from small subdivisions to large cities, is a leading source of pollution for the Chesapeake. In fact, because of the region’s continued population growth and related construction, runoff from urban and suburban lands is the only source of pollution that is increasing. These areas are covered by impervious surfaces – such as roads, rooftops and parking lots – that are hard and don’t let water penetrate. As a result, water runs off into waterways instead of filtering into the ground. This runoff carries pollutants including lawn fertilizer, pet waste, chemicals and trash. Septic systems release pollution that eventually ends up in the water. Developed areas also split up forests, decreasing their filtering capacity. Wastewater: There is a tremendous volume of sewage that must be processed in the watershed. The technology used by the 483 major municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants has not removed enough pollution, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. Upgrading these facilities so they can remove more pollution from the water is extremely expensive and takes time. While there has been significant progress in improving treatment at many wastewater plants, numerous facilities still use old technology. Also, population growth is increasing the need for wastewater treatment. Air Pollution: When pollution is released into the air, it eventually falls onto land and water. Even larger than the Chesapeake Bay’s watershed is its airshed, the area from which pollution in the atmosphere settles into the region. This airshed is about 570,000 square miles, or seven times the size of the watershed. Nitrogen and chemical contaminants – such as mercury and PCBs – from air pollution contribute to poor water quality in the region, and about half of these pollutants come from outside the watershed. Air pollution is generated by a variety of sources, including power plants, industrial facilities, farming operations, and automobiles and other gas-powered vehicles. Goal: Nutrient and sediment pollution control efforts are measured with 4 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to reduce pollution have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? Between , scores increased from 0% to 47.3% for nitrogen (N), 0% to 62.9% for phosphorus (P) and 0% to 64.3% for sediment (S). What is the short-term trend? (10-year) Between , scores increased from 30.3% to 47.3% for N, 52.1% to 62.9% for P and 43.7% to 64.3% for S. Change from previous year: Between , index scores increased from 46.7% to 47.3% for N, 62% to 62.9% for P and 63.7% to 64.3% for S. The states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the District of Columbia have developed strategies for reducing pollution in their jurisdictions. Progress is measured by using the most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners. 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 Reducing Pollution Index incorporates scores for the following indicators Agriculture Pollution Controls Wastewater Pollution Controls Urban/Suburban and Septic Pollution Controls Air Pollution Controls Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the N, P and S categories are weighted according to their contribution to overall loads to create the index scores. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Pollution Control Index: Multiyear Assessment
Percent of Goal Achieved 63% of Phosphorus Goal Achieved Accounting begins GOAL Controlling Nitrogen 64% of Sediment Goal Achieved 47% of Nitrogen Controlling Phosphorus Controlling Sediment Data and Methods: Reducing Pollution Status: Based on available data, scientists project that 58 percent of the pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve the goals have been implemented since 1985,which is a 1 percent increase from 2007. Importance: The Chesapeake Bay cannot be restored without water that is clean, clear and rich in oxygen. Currently, the Bay and its rivers receive too much pollution for the ecosystem to remain healthy. The primary sources of pollution are agricultural land, wastewater treatment plants, urban and suburban runoff, and air pollution. Agriculture: Agriculture covers about 25 percent of the watershed, representing the largest intensively managed land use. There are an estimated 87,000 farms covering about 8.5 million acres. Agriculture is the number one source of pollution to the Bay. Improperly applied fertilizers and pesticides flow into creeks, streams and rivers, carrying excess nitrogen, phosphorus and chemicals into the Chesapeake Bay. Tilling cropland and irrigating fields can cause major erosion. Additionally, the nutrients and bacteria found in animal manure can seep into groundwater and runoff into waterways. Urban and Suburban Lands: Human development, ranging from small subdivisions to large cities, is a leading source of pollution for the Chesapeake. In fact, because of the region’s continued population growth and related construction, runoff from urban and suburban lands is the only source of pollution that is increasing. These areas are covered by impervious surfaces – such as roads, rooftops and parking lots – that are hard and don’t let water penetrate. As a result, water runs off into waterways instead of filtering into the ground. This runoff carries pollutants including lawn fertilizer, pet waste, chemicals and trash. Septic systems release pollution that eventually ends up in the water. Developed areas also split up forests, decreasing their filtering capacity. Wastewater: There is a tremendous volume of sewage that must be processed in the watershed. The technology used by the 483 major municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants has not removed enough pollution, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. Upgrading these facilities so they can remove more pollution from the water is extremely expensive and takes time. While there has been significant progress in improving treatment at many wastewater plants, numerous facilities still use old technology. Also, population growth is increasing the need for wastewater treatment. Air Pollution: When pollution is released into the air, it eventually falls onto land and water. Even larger than the Chesapeake Bay’s watershed is its airshed, the area from which pollution in the atmosphere settles into the region. This airshed is about 570,000 square miles, or seven times the size of the watershed. Nitrogen and chemical contaminants – such as mercury and PCBs – from air pollution contribute to poor water quality in the region, and about half of these pollutants come from outside the watershed. Air pollution is generated by a variety of sources, including power plants, industrial facilities, farming operations, and automobiles and other gas-powered vehicles. Goal: Nutrient and sediment pollution control efforts are measured with 4 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to reduce pollution have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? Between , scores increased from 0% to 47.3% for nitrogen (N), 0% to 62.9% for phosphorus (P) and 0% to 64.3% for sediment (S). What is the short-term trend? (10-year) Between , scores increased from 30.3% to 47.3% for N, 52.1% to 62.9% for P and 43.7% to 64.3% for S. Change from previous year: Between , index scores increased from 46.7% to 47.3% for N, 62% to 62.9% for P and 63.7% to 64.3% for S. Additional Information: These estimates do not account for efforts that can not be tracked, such as best management practices 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. These measures track the implementation of nutrient and sediment reduction practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed as % of nitrogen, phosphorus and land-based sediment reduction goal achieved. The nitrogen goal is a million pound reduction from 1985 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 175 million lbs (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). The phosphorus goal is a million pound reduction from 1985 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 12.8 million lbs (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). The sediment reduction goal is a 1.69 million ton reduction from 1985 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 4.15 million tons (based on average hydrology simulations). Achieving the cap loads is expected to result in achievement of the restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen. For the nitrogen and phosphorus measures, point source loads are monitored and non-point source loads are simulated based on reported implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that reduce nutrient pollution. For the sediment measure, non-point source loads are simulated based on reported implementation of BMPs that reduce sediment pollution. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to measure the effectiveness of BMP implementation and converts the numerous BMPs, with various pollution reduction efficiencies – depending on type and location in the watershed – to a common currency of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reduction. In the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the CBP committed to reducing controllable nutrient loads 40% by the year In the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, the CBP committed to reduce nutrient loads further and reduce sediment loads in order to correct all nutrient and sediment-related problems in the Bay by 2010. In 2003, the CBP agreed to reduce nutrient loads so that no more than 175 million pounds of nitrogen and 12.8 million pounds of phosphorus will be delivered to the Bay in 2010 (and every year after, based on average hydrology years). They also agreed to reduce land-based sediment loads so that no more than 4.15 million tons will be delivered to the Bay in These reductions in nutrients and sediment are expected to result in improved water quality conditions necessary to support the living resources of the Bay. At the agreed to reductions, the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model predicts that we will see a Bay similar to that in the 1950s. Water quality conditions necessary to protect aquatic living resources will be met in 96% of the Bay at all times, and the remaining 4% will fall shy of fully achieving water quality conditions for only four months a year. Along with watershed-based water quality monitoring, the CBP uses the Watershed Model to help track accomplishment of nutrient and sediment load reduction goals by estimating the nutrient and land-based sediment reductions that may occur when annually reported management practices and pollution reduction technologies are implemented within watershed portions of NY, PA, MD, DC, DE, WV, VA under long-term averaged rainfall conditions. The Watershed model treats reductions from point and nonpoint sources differently. The point source reductions are primarily actual measurements and are influenced by the reporting year’s actual rainfall. The model's nonpoint source load reductions are estimates of what would occur under long-term averaged rainfall conditions based on the years For nonpoint source loads, the use of average 10 year hydrology can skew the run-off volume [and corresponding load] downward or upward from an actual calendar year and be non-reflective of the "current" situation. The model simulation provides an estimate of the projected nutrient and sediment reductions towards the cap load allocation in any given year, based on the reported cumulative implementation of control measures (e.g. nonpoint source Best Management Practices) for that year. Further, the simulation of lag times in groundwater nitrogen and sediment transport is somewhat limited in the Watershed Model, so the simulation estimates are best interpreted as a total annual nonpoint source load, assuming average rainfall conditions, which will occur sometime in the future. Monitoring data (as opposed to Watershed or Water Quality model simulations) are used to evaluate achievement of the goal to “…correct all nutrient and sediment-related problems in the Bay by 2010”. The simulated reductions obtained since 1985 include off-setting a significant increase due to population growth. Maintaining reduced nutrient and sediment levels into the future will be a challenge due to expected growth in human population, shifts in animal manure nutrients and the land available for application of manure nutrients, and changes in land use. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Agricultural Pollution Controls
Percent of Goal Achieved 49% of Phosphorus Goal Achieved Accounting begins GOAL Controlling Nitrogen Data and Methods: 48% of Sediment Goal Achieved 50% of Nitrogen Controlling Phosphorus Controlling Sediment Relative Responsibility of Agricultural Loads Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment Agricultural Pollution Controls Status: As of 2008, the partners have achieved 50 percent of the goal for agricultural nitrogen control efforts, a 2 percent increase from About 49 percent of the goal for agricultural phosphorus has been met, a 2 percent decline from the previous year. Partners have achieved 48 percent of the goal for sediment pollution control efforts, the same as These estimates do not account for all of the best management practices installed voluntarily by private landowners without the use of public funds. Additional Information: Importance: About 25 percent of the land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is dedicated to agriculture. While fertilizers, pesticides, manure and tilled soil are beneficial to crops, they become pollutants when water from irrigation and precipitation washes them into local waterways. Chesapeake Bay Program partners are working with farmers to help control pollution from the watershed’s 8.5 million acres of farmland. Farmers are utilizing conservation practices such as nutrient management plans, cover crops, vegetative buffers, conservation tillage and animal manure and poultry litter controls. Goal: Implement enhanced pollution controls on agricultural land in the watershed portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia in order to correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010. Trends: What is the long-term trend? Between , scores increased from 0% to 50.3% for N, 0% to 49% for P and 0% to 47.7% for S. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) Between , scores increased from 31.8% to 50.3% for N, 37.1% to 49% for P and 32.4% to 47.7% for S. Change from previous year: Between , index scores increased from 48% to 50.3% for N, decreased from 50.8% to 49% for P and did not change for S (47.5% to 47.7%). The states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the District of Columbia have developed strategies for reducing pollution in their jurisdictions. Progress is measured by using the most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners. 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. These estimates do not account for efforts that can not be tracked, such as best management practices 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. 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. 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 more than half of the remaining nutrient reductions needed to meet water quality restoration goals. A variety of BMPs are being used to reduce nutrients and sediment entering the Bay and its rivers from non-point sources. Nutrient and animal waste management on agricultural lands are particularly effective at reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loads. Conservation-tillage and the use of fencing to keep livestock out of streams are examples of practices being used successfully to reduce sediment loads. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Wastewater Pollution Controls
Percent of Goal Achieved 91% of Phosphorus Goal Achieved Accounting begins GOAL Controlling Nitrogen Data and Methods: 67% of Nitrogen Controlling Phosphorus Relative Responsibility of Wastewater Loads Nitrogen Phosphorus Wastewater Pollution Controls Status: As of 2008, the partnership has achieved 67 percent of the wastewater nitrogen reduction goal, which is a 2 percent decrease from Progress towards the wastewater phosphorus reduction goal stands at 91 percent, which is a 4 percent increase from the previous year. These 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. Additional Information: Importance: There are 483 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Historically, the high amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged by these facilities have degraded local waterways and the Bay. And as the population of the watershed continues to grow, so does the volume of water requiring treatment. Bay jurisdictions have reduced the pollution in wastewater through a new permitting process that requires plants to upgrade the processes and technology they use for treatment. Goal: Reduce nutrient loads from municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers in the watershed portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia in order to correct the nutrient-related problems in the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010. Trends: What is the long-term trend? Between , scores increased from 0% to 67% for N and from 0% to 91.3% for P. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) Between , scores increased from 48.5% to 67% for N and from 84.4% to 91.3% for P. Change from previous year: Between , index scores decreased from 68.7% to 67% for N and increased from 87% to 91.3% for P. The states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the District of Columbia have developed strategies for reducing pollution in their jurisdictions. Progress is measured by using the most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners. 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. 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. After signing the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the signatory jurisdictions (MD, PA, VA and DC) instituted phosphate detergent bans. These bans resulted in significant decreases in the amount of phosphorus entering the Bay from wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater treatment plants are employing new technologies, such as nutrient removal technology (NRT), to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Urban/Suburban Lands Pollution Controls
Urban/Suburban Pollution Controls Percent of Goal Achieved Accounting begins GOAL Controlling Nitrogen Some jurisdictions may be underreporting existing stormwater management practices. Data and Methods: -85% of Nitrogen Controlling Phosphorus -74% of Phosphorus Controlling Sediment -61% of Sediment Relative Responsibility of Urban/Suburban Loads Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment Urban/Suburban Lands Pollution Controls Status: Population growth and development are offsetting the Chesapeake Bay Program’s efforts to reduce pollution from urban and suburban land and septic systems. The increases in population and construction have also surpassed the gains achieved from improved landscape design and stormwater practices. Additionally, it is still challenging to comprehensively account for on-the-ground control practices. Additional Information: Importance: When water from storms runs off roads, parking lots, rooftops and other hard surfaces, it carries pollution to local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Runoff from urban and suburban land is currently the only source of pollution that is increasing. This is due to continued population growth and related development. To address this problem, state and local governments are strengthening stormwater regulations and working to manage growth in a sustainable way. This includes an emphasis on using green infrastructure in the construction and retrofitting of buildings, including homes. Goal: Implement enhanced pollution controls on urban/suburban land in the watershed portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia in order to correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010. Trends: What is the long-term trend? Between , scores decreased from 0% to -85.1% for N, 0% to -74.3% for P and 0% to -61.2% for S. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) Between , scores decreased from -73.2% to -85.1% for N, -44.7% to -74.3% for P and -32.3% to -61.2% for S. Change from previous year: Between , index scores decreased from -83.5% to -85.1% for N and -73% to -74.3% for P and increased from -62% to -61.2% for S. The states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the District of Columbia have developed strategies for reducing pollution in their jurisdictions. Progress is measured by using the most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners. 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. These estimates do not account for efforts that can not be tracked, such as some stormwater management practices. 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 stormwater management practices. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Air Pollution Controls
Relative Responsibility of Atmospheric Loads Percent of Goal Achieved Controlling Nitrogen GOAL Nitrogen 9% of Nitrogen Goal Achieved Air Pollution Controls Status: As of 2008, the Chesapeake Bay Program has met 9 percent of the goal for air pollution controls necessary to reduce nitrogen, which is a 1 percent improvement from the previous year. While progress in this area is limited, it is expected to accelerate over the next several years as recently approved air pollution control measures take effect. Additional Information: Importance: About one-third of the nitrogen that reaches the Chesapeake Bay comes from emissions into the air from automobiles, industries, power plants and similar sources. This pollution eventually falls onto water surfaces and land where it can be washed into waterways. About half of the air pollution comes from outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including places such as Ohio, South Carolina and Canada. The partnership is relying on federal and state laws that regulate emissions to significantly reduce airborne nitrogen. Goal: Implement enhanced air pollution controls in the watershed portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia in order to correct the nutrient-related problems in the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010. Trends: What is the long-term trend? Between , scores increased from 0% to 8.5% for N. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) Between , scores increased from 3.34% to 8.5% for N. Change from previous year: Between , index scores increased from 7.97% to 8.5 for N. The states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the District of Columbia have developed strategies for reducing pollution in their jurisdictions. Progress is measured by using the most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners. 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. 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. Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Restoring Habitats Priority Area Trends: 55% of Goals Achieved
Data and Methods: Restoring Habitats Status: Efforts to restore habitats throughout the watershed achieved modest gains in 2008, with progress toward the overall goal at 55 percent, an 11 percent increase from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: High-quality habitats are required for the overall balance of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the health of fish, crabs, birds, mammals and other wildlife. Habitats provide the food, shelter and spawning areas needed for animals to survive. The restoration of habitats throughout the watershed is also beneficial for other reasons, from improving water quality to reducing erosion to increasing recreational opportunities. Partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program have focused their habitat restoration efforts on four key areas. Planting underwater grasses is critical because these areas are used by crabs, fish and waterfowl. Work to restore oyster reefs continues since they can provide habitat for communities of fish and bottom-dwelling organisms. Streams and rivers are being reopened to allow migratory fish to swim upstream to spawn and to increase habitat for local fish populations. While wetlands play many vital roles, they are especially valuable places for a diverse array of land and aquatic species. Goal: Habitat restoration efforts are measured with 4 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to restore these habitats have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. Change from previous year: Index score increased from 44.2% to 54.8%, The most up-to-date tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of habitat restoration efforts relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Restoring Habitats Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Bay Grasses Planted Opening Rivers to Migratory Fish Wetlands Restoration Efforts Oyster Recovery Efforts Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Restoring Habitats category were averaged to create the index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Restoring Habitats Index: Multiyear Assessment
Data and Methods: Percent of Goal Achieved 55% of Goal Achieved Restoring Habitats Index Accounting begins Goal Restoring Habitats Status: Efforts to restore habitats throughout the watershed achieved modest gains in 2008, with progress toward the overall goal at 55 percent, an 11 percent increase from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: High-quality habitats are required for the overall balance of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the health of fish, crabs, birds, mammals and other wildlife. Habitats provide the food, shelter and spawning areas needed for animals to survive. The restoration of habitats throughout the watershed is also beneficial for other reasons, from improving water quality to reducing erosion to increasing recreational opportunities. Partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program have focused their habitat restoration efforts on four key areas. Planting underwater grasses is critical because these areas are used by crabs, fish and waterfowl. Work to restore oyster reefs continues since they can provide habitat for communities of fish and bottom-dwelling organisms. Streams and rivers are being reopened to allow migratory fish to swim upstream to spawn and to increase habitat for local fish populations. While wetlands play many vital roles, they are especially valuable places for a diverse array of land and aquatic species. Goal: Habitat restoration efforts are measured with 4 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to restore these habitats have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. Change from previous year: Index score increased from 44.2% to 54.8%, The most up-to-date tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of habitat restoration efforts relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Restoring Habitats Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Bay Grasses Planted Opening Rivers to Migratory Fish Wetlands Restoration Efforts Oyster Recovery Efforts Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Restoring Habitats category were averaged to create the index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Planting Bay Grasses 15% Bay Grasses Planted of Goal Achieved
Percent of Goal Achieved 1,000 Acre Goal Planting Bay Grasses Status: In 2008, 8.5 acres of bay grasses were planted, bringing the total to 148 acres. This represents 15 percent of the goal and a 1 percent increase from Future plantings are dependent on available funding. Additional Information: Importance: Underwater bay grasses depend on good water quality to grow and so that grass beds can naturally expand. For this reason, efforts to reduce pollution in the water can have a positive influence on restoring bay grasses. In addition to pollution reduction measures, there are a number of programs to collect seeds and plant bay grasses in the Bay and its tributaries. These plantings are located in areas without bay grasses but where water quality should support growth. These newly established grass beds then produce seeds, allowing for natural revegetation of adjacent areas. Goal: In 2003, Chesapeake Bay Program partners set a goal to plant 1,000 acres by 2008 as part of a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration of bay grass beds in areas of critical importance to the Bay’s living resources. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? Tracking started in FY 2003; little or no large-scale restoration was done before that year. Total to date is 148 acres. How much has been completed since 2000? Tracking started in FY 2003; little or no large-scale restoration was done before that year. Total to date is 148 acres. How much was done last year? About 8.5 acres in FY 2008 An effort to plant underwater grasses has seen mixed success in recent years. Managers continue to evaluate the best and most cost-effective methods for planting Bay grasses. Both funding for SAV planting, and capacity for doing it, will need to be increased dramatically to meet the goal to plant 1,000 acres. To date the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and the USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) have funded almost all of the large-scale planting, and neither agency has been able to increase the funding enough to meet the annual need. 15% of Goal Achieved Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Wetlands Restoration Efforts
Restoring Wetlands Wetlands Restoration Efforts Percent of Goal Achieved 25,000 Acre Commitment Restoring Wetlands Status: In 2008, 472 acres of wetlands were established or reestablished in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The restored total stands at 13,005 acres, or 52 percent of the goal. Additional Information: Importance: Because of the many benefits of wetlands – providing habitat, filtering water, preventing erosion – work is ongoing to increase the acreage of these areas. This involves establishing wetlands where they did not exist or reestablishing former wetlands to their natural state. Removing invasive species is also a way to rehabilitate degraded wetlands Additionally, these critical habitats are often protected through land purchases or conservation easements. Goal: Chesapeake Bay Program partners have a goal of restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands in the watershed portions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia by 2010. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? Between 1998 and 2008, 13,005 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands were reestablished or established in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. (Establishment: create wetland that did not previously exist; Reestablishment: restore historic functions to a former wetland.) How much has been completed since 2000? 10,823 How much was done last year? acres total ( MD, 261 PA, ? VA, 0 DC) In addition to providing 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 Pollution Control Efforts indicators. This indicator tracks documented gains, but the gains do not necessarily represent a "net resource gain“. Data analysis completed in 2007 shows that there is a negative 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 However, this change is not statistically significant at the Baywide scale due to limitations of the data. Although the changes are not significant on a Bay-wide scale, there are some significant changes on a local scale. Aerial photography in specific locations around the Bay, such as Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland’s eastern shore, has been used to visually document significant loss of wetlands due to sea level rise, land subsidence, coastal erosion and invasive species such as nutria. Not all of the wetlands accounted for in this indicator are functional; they are present but not necessarily serving as a benefit to the bay. Wetlands are “nature’s speed bumps”, acting to slow storm surges associated with natural disasters such as hurricanes. While projects that result in gains in function on existing wetlands are ecologically beneficial, such projects are different than projects that result in the actual gain of wetland acreage and are therefore tracked separately for purposes of clarity and accuracy. 52% of Goal Achieved Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Reopening Fish Passage
Opening Rivers to Migratory Fish Percent of Goal Achieved 2,807 Mile Goal Reopening Fish Passage Status: The Chesapeake Bay Program’s fish passage efforts are long-standing and generally successful. From 1988 through 2005, the partners opened 1,838 miles of fish passage, surpassing their original 1,357-mile restoration goal. In early 2005, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners committed to increasing the restoration goal to 2,807 miles by In 2008, 51 miles of fish passage were restored. This brings the total to 2,317 miles, or 83 percent of the goal, a 2 percent increase from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: Dams, culverts and other barriers currently block the movement of migratory fish to spawning grounds and reduce the habitat of local fish species in streams, creeks and rivers. Throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, these barriers are being removed or new lifts, ladders and passageways are being installed to allow the fish to swim upstream. Priority is given to fish passage restoration projects that open large stretches of habitat, remove dams, enhance the passage of migratory fish and remove impediments in streams that were previously impaired by acid mine drainage. Many of these projects also restore the flow of waterways and reduce the accumulation of sediment. Goal: By 2014, open 2,807 miles of habitat to migratory and resident fishes in the watershed portions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Between complete 100 projects and open 1,000 miles of river and stream habitat. Dam removal projects opening high quality habitat are a priority. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? 2, miles How much has been completed since 2000? 1, miles How much was done last year? 50.8 miles More than a thousand miles of fish spawning habitat on Chesapeake Bay tributaries are currently blocked by dams, culverts and other obstructions. Fish, like shad, that live in the Bay and ocean as adults and migrate to spawn in freshwater are called anadromous fish. Fish passages help these fish swim upstream, past dams and other blockages, to reach freshwater spawning habitat. Restoring and protecting the Bay's vital fishery resources are key parts of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the more recent agreement, Chesapeake Working toward this restoration goal, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners have committed to removing blockages and reopening 1,357 miles of the Bay's tributaries for migratory fish by the year In Chesapeake 2000, the partners committed to set a new goal. The new goal, announced in January 2005 is as follows: "During the period 2005–2014, the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions will complete 100 fish passage and/or dam removal projects, which will open 1,000 miles of high-quality tributary habitat to migratory and resident fishes.” Anadromous fish, such as shad and river herring, rely on access to freshwater streams with suitable bottom and current for spawning. Blockage of these streams, habitat degradation and heavy fishing pressure have resulted in dramatic declines of these fish. 83% of Goal Achieved Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Restoring Oyster Reefs
Data and Methods: Native Oyster Restoration Efforts Accounting begins in relation to 2,466-acre target. Efforts also occurred but were not tracked in relation to a target. 70% of Goal Achieved Percent of Goal Achieved 2,466 Acre Goal Restoring Oyster Reefs Status: In 2008, restoration efforts took place on 943 acres. This brings the total acreage to 1,719, or 70 percent of the goal. The success of these habitat restoration techniques has been limited by numerous factors including disease, poor water quality, habitat degradation and fishing pressure. It should be noted that before this goal was set a total of 15,648 acres were rehabilitated between 1994 and 2006. Additional Information: Importance: Restoring oyster reefs throughout the Chesapeake Bay is a primary part of the strategy for increasing the native oyster population. To rebuild reefs, both oyster shells and alternate materials for oysters to grow on are planted in the Bay. Also, oysters are grown in hatcheries and then planted in natural and man-made habitats. Restoring reefs provides the potential to increase populations of spawning adult oysters and, in turn, larval production. Many of these rebuilt reefs are designated as oyster sanctuaries and protected from harvest. Goal: The Chesapeake Bay Program has a goal of implementing restoration practices on 2,466 acres of oyster bar and reef habitat between 2007 and 2010. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? Tracking in relation to a target did not begin until 2007 (see below). In 2007, 776 acres were treated and in 2008, 943 acres were treated, for a cumulative total 1,719 acres (sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site). Prior to the target was set, a cumulative total of 15,648 acres were treated between 1994 and 2006 (sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site). How much has been completed since 2000? Tracking in relation to a target did not begin until 2007 (see below). In 2007, 776 acres were treated and in 2008, 943 acres were treated, for a cumulative total 1,719 acres (sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site). How much was done last year? In 2008, 943 acres were treated, sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site. In spring of 2008, oyster representatives from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR), Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), US Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia Marine Resource Commission (VMRC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Oyster Recovery Partnership (ORP) analyzed previously reported data for the Oyster Recovery Effort Indicator published annually in the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment and agreed upon realistic annual targets and a cumulative achievement goal for oyster recovery via reef restoration in the Chesapeake Bay through the year A goal was needed for the Chesapeake Bay Program Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP) Oyster Reef Restoration dashboard which was published in the Chesapeake Bay Program Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program in July, This agreed upon goal will be applied to the Oyster Recovery Effort Indicator so the indicator can be reported in relation to a goal. 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. Restoring oyster reefs is an important component of the partners strategy for increasing native oyster populations. Acres of restoration effort varies year to year depending on funding availability. 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. These activities have been accomplished through cooperative efforts by the Maryland DNR, Virginia VMRC and VIMS, NOAA, the EPA, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Baltimore and Norfolk), the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, the Oyster Recovery Partnership and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Managing Fisheries Priority Area 51% of Goals Achieved
- Priority Area Managing Fisheries 51% of Goals Achieved Data and Methods: Managing Fisheries Status: While significant effort went toward improving the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries in 2008, very few of these efforts resulted in the implementation of ecosystem-based actions or the completion of new plans. Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad stands at 51 percent, just a minimal gain from The score was increased by new restrictions on harvesting blue crabs and advancements in oyster research and aquaculture. Progress toward fisheries management goals ranges from percent for the five key Bay fisheries. Additional Information: Importance: The Chesapeake Bay fishing industry holds tremendous commercial, cultural and historical value. Managing the fisheries for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, shad and menhaden is also critical in restoring and protecting the population of these species and their important place in the ecosystem. To improve fisheries management, the partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program are developing ecosystem-based plans. This type of comprehensive approach involves three components: actions that address a single species, a focus on multispecies interactions and consideration of the entire ecosystem. Improving water quality and restoring habitats are also part of this management approach. Goal: 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. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for four years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for four years (2005: 49.8%; 2006: 50%; 2007: 50%; 2008: 50.8%) Change from previous year: Between , index score increased from 50% to 50.8% The most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of fisheries management efforts relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Managing Fisheries Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Blue Crab Fishery Management Effort Oyster Fishery Management Effort Striped Bass Fishery Management Effort Shad Fishery Management Effort Menhaden Fishery Management Effort Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Managing Fisheries category were averaged to create the index score. The index scores for each fishery assess 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. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Managing Fisheries Index: Multiyear Assessment
Data and Methods: Percent of Goal Achieved 51% of Goal Achieved Managing Fisheries Index Accounting begins Goal Managing Fisheries Status: While significant effort went toward improving the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries in 2008, very few of these efforts resulted in the implementation of ecosystem-based actions or the completion of new plans. Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad stands at 51 percent, just a minimal gain from The score was increased by new restrictions on harvesting blue crabs and advancements in oyster research and aquaculture. Progress toward fisheries management goals ranges from percent for the five key Bay fisheries. Additional Information: Importance: The Chesapeake Bay fishing industry holds tremendous commercial, cultural and historical value. Managing the fisheries for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, shad and menhaden is also critical in restoring and protecting the population of these species and their important place in the ecosystem. To improve fisheries management, the partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program are developing ecosystem-based plans. This type of comprehensive approach involves three components: actions that address a single species, a focus on multispecies interactions and consideration of the entire ecosystem. Improving water quality and restoring habitats are also part of this management approach. Goal: 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. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for four years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for four years (2005: 49.8%; 2006: 50%; 2007: 50%; 2008: 50.8%) Change from previous year: Between , index score increased from 50% to 50.8% The most up-to-date monitoring and tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of fisheries management efforts relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Managing Fisheries Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Blue Crab Fishery Management Effort Oyster Fishery Management Effort Striped Bass Fishery Management Effort Shad Fishery Management Effort Menhaden Fishery Management Effort Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Managing Fisheries category were averaged to create the index score. The index scores for each fishery assess 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. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Fisheries Management Effort
Fisheries Management Effort Index Single-Species Fisheries Management Multi-Species Ecosystem Based Progression of fisheries management towards goal of ecosystem based fisheries management. Overall Progress Data and Methods: Fisheries Management Effort (Oyster, Blue Crab, Shad, Striped Bass, Menhaden) Status: While significant effort went toward improving the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few of these efforts resulted in the implementation of ecosystem-based actions or the completion of new plans. Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad stands at 51 percent, just a minimal gain from The score was increased by new restrictions on harvesting blue crabs and advancements in oyster research and aquaculture. Progress toward fisheries management goals ranges from percent for the five key Bay fisheries. Additional Information: Importance: The Chesapeake Bay fishing industry holds tremendous commercial, cultural and historical value. Managing the fisheries for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, shad and menhaden is also critical in restoring and protecting the population of these species and their important place in the ecosystem. To improve fisheries management, the partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program are developing ecosystem-based plans. This type of comprehensive approach involves three components: actions that address a single species, a focus on multispecies interactions and consideration of the entire ecosystem. Improving water quality and restoring habitats are also part of this management approach. Goal: 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. The index scores for each fishery assess 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. Oyster Fishery Management Importance: Managing the oyster fishery requires a multipronged approach. Currently, there are minimum size limits, bushel limits, gear restrictions and seasonal and geographical closings. Additionally, sanctuaries are used to protect oysters from harvest and increase the population of spawning adult oysters. Restoration efforts that focus on rebuilding reefs and planting oysters also benefit the fishery. It continues to be challenging to identify the level of harvest that supports the fishery but does not compromise restoration efforts. Status: The score for oyster fishery management increased by 2 percent, from 37 to 39 percent, because of three actions taken during First, a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that evaluates alternatives for restoring the oyster population was released for public comment. Second, Maryland completed the first year of a pilot study on how best to measure the oyster biomass, which will improve population assessment and management. Finally, development of oyster aquaculture is progressing, which could reduce harvest pressure on wild oysters and provide a viable product for the industry. Blue Crab Fishery Management Importance: Blue crabs make up the most valuable commercial fishery in the Chesapeake Bay. To both protect the fishery and restore the spawning stock the harvest is regulated through a minimum catch size, gear restrictions and seasonal harvest limits. An annual winter dredge survey provides estimates of the percentage of the crab population that is removed by harvest each year. Additionally, because blue crabs play important roles as both predator and prey, scientists have studied their interactions with striped bass, their predators. Status: The score for blue crab fishery management increased by 2 percent, from 56 to 58 percent, because of several actions during Commercial harvest regulations were developed by Maryland and Virginia to reduce the harvest of mature female blue crabs by 34 percent. New Maryland regulations include an early seasonal closure, increased size limits for peeler crabs and commercial catch limits. The recreational fishery was prohibited from harvesting any female crabs. New Virginia regulations include an extended closure of the sanctuary, elimination of the winter dredge fishery, increased size limits for peeler crabs and a gear reduction plan. Also, the commercial blue crab fishery was declared a state of disaster. Each state will receive $10 million for watermen projects such as habitat restoration, fishery monitoring, industry diversification and aquaculture. American Shad Fishery Management Importance: Overfishing, water pollution and dams that prevented access to spawning areas led to a greatly diminished stock of American shad in the 1970s. This led two states to implement a fishing moratorium: Maryland in 1980 and Virginia in In addition to the shad fishing moratorium, researchers and managers are currently stocking hatchery-raised fish, removing dams and installing fish passage on key Bay tributaries to restore this species. Catch limits and safe levels of harvest must be developed before the Bay fishery can be reopened. Also, because shad spend much of their lives in coastal Atlantic waters, continued management by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is crucial. Status: The score for American shad fishery management has not changed. However, new coastal management measures are under development. In response to the 2007 coastal stock assessment, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is developing biological reference points for managing the stocks, developing stock restoration goals, decreasing and restricting fisheries, and planning to develop new management strategies in 2009. Striped Bass Fishery Management Importance: The Chesapeake Bay is the primary spawning and nursery habitat for up to 90 percent of the Atlantic Coast’s striped bass population. The Bay’s fishery for striped bass collapsed during the 1970s and 1980s as the population of this species plummeted. But fishing moratoriums and management led to a rebound and the moratorium was lifted in An annual cap on the commercial harvest of menhaden is in place from 2006 to Fishery management currently involves monitoring, catch quotas and seasonal closings. Ecosystem-based fisheries management is especially important for striped bass because they are among the Bay’s top predators, feeding on Atlantic menhaden. Status: The score for striped bass fishery management did not change. While some important research occurred last year, it has not yet been included into an ecosystem-based fishery management plan. During 2008, biological briefs and background information for such plans were completed. Research continued on the disease mycrobacteriosis. Modeling results provided the first evidence of mycobacteriosis-associated mortality in the striped bass population in the Bay. Scientists also identified priority areas for protection and restoration based on the location of striped bass spawning and larval distribution and water quality conditions. Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Importance: Atlantic menhaden have a unique role in the ecosystem as filter feeders and prey for top predators such as striped bass, which requires a multispecies management plan. Menhaden migrate into Chesapeake Bay and are part of a larger stock along the Atlantic Coast. The coastal population is healthy, but there are concerns about declining numbers of young menhaden in the Bay. In response, a five-year cap on commercial harvest was put in place in During this time, a variety of research projects will occur. Status: The score for Atlantic menhaden fishery management did not change. Research projects were completed but did not lead to any changes to management. Additional research is needed, including linking changes in the environment to recruitment and growth, using remote sensing technology to determine menhaden distribution and abundance, understanding larval movement into the Bay from the mid-Atlantic spawning areas, and determining the level of removal of menhaden by predators such as striped bass. A menhaden team was organized to begin developing an ecosystem-based fishery management plan and background briefs will be ready by March 2009. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Protecting Watersheds
- Priority Area Protecting Watersheds 74% of Goals Achieved Data and Methods: Protecting Watersheds Status: Progress was made toward protection of the thousands of smaller watersheds in the region during 2008, with a 3 percent gain toward the overall goal. Overall, the partnership is 74 percent of the way toward its goals for protecting watersheds. Additional Information: Importance: A watershed is an area of land that drains to a particular river, lake, bay or other body of water. Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed there are tens of thousands of smaller watersheds that drain into local waterways, which all eventually flow into the Bay. Protecting the region’s watersheds is critical because what happens on land has a direct impact on the water. This effort is also important because the human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is increasing, bringing construction and suburban sprawl. This growth and development reduce natural areas such as forests and wetlands. To protect watersheds, Chesapeake Bay Program partners continue to plant buffers of trees, bushes and other vegetation along waterways. Efforts also involve permanently preserving land from development throughout the watershed and preventing sprawl through the use of statewide smart growth programs. Management plans are developed to guide the protection and restoration of nature in watersheds of all sizes. Goal: Watershed protection efforts are measured with 3 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to protect watersheds have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for five years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for five years (2004: 58.8%; 2005: 63.3%; 2006: 69.1%; 2007: 71.6%; 2008: 74.3%). Change from previous year: Index score increased from 71.6% to 74.3%, Note: The historic data featured in the land preservation indicator changed due to corrections by Maryland and Virginia. The most up-to-date tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of watershed protection efforts relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Protecting Watersheds Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Riparian Forest Buffers Planted Watershed Management Plans Developed Watershed Land Preservation Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Protecting Watersheds category were averaged to create the index score. Values that exceed 100% (lands preserved) were converted to 100% for the calculation of this index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Protecting Watersheds Index: Multiyear Assessment
Percent of Goal Achieved 74% of Goal Achieved Protecting Watersheds Index Accounting begins Goal Protecting Watersheds Status: Progress was made toward protection of the thousands of smaller watersheds in the region during 2008, with a 3 percent gain toward the overall goal. Overall, the partnership is 74 percent of the way toward its goals for protecting watersheds. Additional Information: Importance: A watershed is an area of land that drains to a particular river, lake, bay or other body of water. Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed there are tens of thousands of smaller watersheds that drain into local waterways, which all eventually flow into the Bay. Protecting the region’s watersheds is critical because what happens on land has a direct impact on the water. This effort is also important because the human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is increasing, bringing construction and suburban sprawl. This growth and development reduce natural areas such as forests and wetlands. To protect watersheds, Chesapeake Bay Program partners continue to plant buffers of trees, bushes and other vegetation along waterways. Efforts also involve permanently preserving land from development throughout the watershed and preventing sprawl through the use of statewide smart growth programs. Management plans are developed to guide the protection and restoration of nature in watersheds of all sizes. Goal: Watershed protection efforts are measured with 3 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to protect watersheds have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for five years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for five years (2004: 58.8%; 2005: 63.3%; 2006: 69.1%; 2007: 71.6%; 2008: 74.3%). Change from previous year: Index score increased from 71.6% to 74.3%, Note: The historic data featured in the land preservation indicator changed due to corrections by Maryland and Virginia. The most up-to-date tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of watershed protection efforts relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Protecting Watersheds Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Riparian Forest Buffers Planted Watershed Management Plans Developed Watershed Land Preservation Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Protecting Watersheds category were averaged to create the index score. Values that exceed 100% (lands preserved) were converted to 100% for the calculation of this index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Planting Forest Buffers
Riparian Forest Buffers Planted Percent of Goal Achieved 10,000 Mile Commitment Planting Forest Buffers Status: From September 2007 to August 2008, about 449 miles of forest buffers were planted, for a total of 6,172 miles. This is 62 percent of the goal, a 5 percent increase from the previous year. Additional Information: Importance: Trees, bushes and other plants that line the banks of waterways are called forest buffers. This vegetation provides habitat for wildlife, stabilizes stream banks from erosion and keeps river waters cool, an important factor for many fish. Well-maintained forest buffers also naturally absorb pollution, helping to improve water quality in neighboring streams and rivers as well as downstream. Work is ongoing to plant buffers along thousands of miles of streams, creeks and rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Goal: Chesapeake Bay Program partners achieved their original 2010 buffer restoration goal of 2,010 miles well ahead of schedule and in 2003 set a new goal to conserve and restore forests along at least 70 percent of all streams and shoreline in the watershed, with a near-term goal of at least 10,000 miles in the watershed portions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia by 2010. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? 6,172 miles How much has been completed since 2000? 5,716 miles How much was done last year? Between September 2007 and August 2008, 449 miles of riparian forest buffers have been reported as planted in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia have reported 17.6, 355, and 76.7 miles respectively. These numbers reflect a slight increase in forest buffer planting from Pennsylvania and Virginia both had increases in implementation, Maryland had a slight reduction in implementation. We did meet the estimated 2008 level of implementation, but will still fall short of achieving the 2010, 10,000 mile goal. Reasons for the continuing slow progress can be attributed to: The delayed action in approval of the new Farm Bill. There is still a shortage of technical assistants and this will continue to be an issue due to the State government lay off ( MD and VA)of agency personnel to make up budget shortfalls. Uninformed/resistant landowners. In this indicator, streambank and shoreline miles include those buffered by at least a 35 foot wide area of forest in MD, PA, VA and DC. In 1996 the Chesapeake Bay Program committed to restoring riparian forests on 2,010 miles of stream and shoreline in the watershed by 2010, targeting efforts where they will be of greatest value to water quality and living resources. The 2,010 mile goal was met in 2002. In 2003, the partners established a new goal to “Enhance and sustain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems over the long term through conservation and restoration of forests along at least 70% of all streams and shorelines, which translates to about 26,000 miles of additional buffers in our jurisdictions with the near term goal of achieving at least 10,000 miles of riparian forest buffers by We expect that additional miles will be added to our near term goal based on the tributary strategies to achieve the nutrient and sediment allocations, due to be completed by April, 2004.” 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 Pollution Control Efforts indicators. In 2006, Bay Program partners produced a report entitled “The State of Chesapeake Forests,” which was the impetus for an Executive Council Directive Protecting the Forests of the Chesapeake Watershed. The Directive seeks to protect riparian forest buffers and other forests important to water quality. 62% of Goal Achieved Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Developing Watershed Management Plans
Watershed Management Plans Developed Percent of Goal Achieved 22.7 Million Acre Goal Developing Watershed Management Plans Status: In 2008, watershed plans were developed for 827,204 acres, bringing the total to 13.9 million acres. This represents 61 percent of the goal, which is a 4 percent increase from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: Protecting watersheds is a complicated and challenging task. To successfully protect and restore stream corridors, forest buffers, wetlands, parks and other natural spaces, watershed management plans are needed. These strategic guides preserve not only watershed health, but also the quality of life in communities. For management plans to be acceptable, they must address conservation of natural areas, aim to improve habitat and water quality, have the necessary tools and resources, and garner local support. Goal: Total watershed acreage in MD, PA, VA and DC is estimated to be 34 million acres. The Chesapeake Bay Program has a goal of developing and implementing watershed management plans for two-thirds of this area, or 22.7 million acres, by 2010. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? 2005 was the first year data were reported. As of 2008 there are 13,924,706 acres in the signatory states (MD, PA, VA, DC) that have watershed plans. Translating these plans into action will be essential to restoring water quality. How much has been completed since 2000? 2005 was the first year data were reported. As of 2008 there are 13,924,706 acres in the signatory states that have watershed plans. Translating these plans into action will be essential to restoring water quality. How much was done last year? In 2008 there were an additional 827,204 acres in the signatory states that had watershed plans developed. The human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is now growing by about 150,000 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. 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. One of the key commitments made by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partners in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement is to “by 2010, work with local governments, community groups and watershed organizations to develop and implement locally supported watershed management plans in two-thirds of the Bay watershed covered by this Agreement. These plans would address the protection, conservation and restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers and wetlands for the purposes of improving habitat and water quality, with collateral benefits for optimizing stream flow and water supply.” The CBP partners have agreed to four minimum criteria for the watershed plans represented in this indicator. The plans need to: "address the protection, conservation and restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers and wetlands"; "reflect the goals and objectives of "improving habitat and water quality"; identify "implementation" mechanisms; have demonstrated "local support". Total watershed acreage in PA, MD, VA and DC is estimated to be 34,067,620 acres. The goal is to implement plans on 2/3 or 22,711,747 of those acres. Sources of data: PA - DCNR Rivers Conservation Plan Database; DC - Dept of Health Watershed Restoration Action Strategy and Watershed Implementation Plan Data; MD - MDE, Water Management Administration County Survey; VA - DCR & NFWF grant proposals that required projects to address WMP priorities, DSWC Regional Office data gathering, web google searches, and from a survey conducted with local governments. 61% of Goal Achieved Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Watershed Land Preservation
Preserving Lands Watershed Land Preservation 103% OF GOAL ACHIEVED PERCENT OF GOAL ACHIEVED Preserving Lands Status: In 2008, 112,899 acres were preserved. This brings the total land protected to 7 million acres, which surpasses the goal two years before the deadline. Preservation efforts will continue, because in December 2007 the Bay states committed to permanently conserve an additional 695,000 acres of forested land throughout the watershed by 2020. Additional Information: Importance: Land in the watershed is a finite and fragile resource, and what happens on land has an enormous impact on local waterways. Population growth and construction have increased the need to preserve natural places such as forests. Parks, wildlife refuges and other preserved lands provide habitat for animals and filter pollution before it reaches the Bay and its tributaries. Chesapeake Bay Program partners have pursued land preservation by buying property, accepting donations, arranging for easements and purchasing development rights. Goal: Total watershed acreage in MD, PA, VA and DC is estimated to be 34 million acres. The goal is to permanently preserve from development 20 percent of this area, or 6.8 million acres, by 2010. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? Although 6,993,537 cumulative acres have been preserved, 979,603 acres have been preserved between 2000 (year goal established) and 2008. How much has been completed since 2000? 979,603 acres have been preserved between 2000 (year goal established) and 2008. How much was done last year? In 2008, 112,899 acres were preserved in MD, PA and VA. The historic data featured in this indicator changed from that reported in the 2007 Assessment due to corrections by Maryland and Virginia. For the purposes of this goal, preserved land includes land that is permanently protected from development with a perpetual conservation or open space easement or fee ownership, held by a federal, state or local government or non-profit organization for natural resource, forestry, agriculture, wildlife, recreation, historic, cultural, or open space use, or to sustain water quality and living resources. Parks, wildlife refuges and private lands protected through conservation easements are counted in this measure. In MD, some of this acreage may fall outside the watershed for counties that have land area both inside and outside the watershed. VA lands include military lands under the stewardship of the Department of Defense which are additionally managed for recreation, open space and habitat. While these lands are always available for future military needs, they are also considered by VA as permanently preserved from development so long as so managed. Baseline acreages are estimated using the best information available. In MD, VA and DC the baseline acreages are for 2000; in PA they are for As information on lands protected prior to June 30, 2000 is improved, the baseline may be adjusted, both for overestimates and underestimates of acreage protected. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Fostering Stewardship
- Priority Area Fostering Stewardship 65% of Goals Achieved Data and Methods: Fostering Stewardship Status: Programs to foster the public’s stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed resulted in a score of 65 percent, which reflects an increase of 5 percent from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: For the Chesapeake Bay to be restored and protected, the region’s citizens, communities and other stakeholders must be actively involved. Fostering stewardship of the Bay and its watershed is a top priority for Chesapeake Bay Program partners. Public access is vital to building personal connections to nature. There are also various communication and outreach programs underway to provide information that engages people in the restoration effort. Environmental education opportunities for students and teachers are another area of emphasis. The ultimate measure of stewardship, however, is citizen and community action. The indicators in this section reflect steady progress in providing public access and enhancing environmental education. But programs to increase the number of communities and businesses engaged in restoration have stalled. At the same time, a new project to measure citizen action has been launched. Goal: Efforts to foster stewardship are measured with 3 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to foster stewardship have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. Change from previous year: Index score increased from 60.3% to 64.78%, Note: The historic data featured in the Education and Interpretation indicator changed due to revised methods to calculate MWEE index. The most up-to-date tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of efforts to foster stewardship relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Fostering Stewardship Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Public Access Index Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEE) Index (a measure of Education and Interpretation) Bay Partner Communities (a measure of Citizen and Community Action) Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Fostering Stewardship category were averaged to create the index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Fostering Stewardship Index: Multiyear Assessment
Data and Methods: Percent of Goal Achieved 65% of Goal Achieved Fostering Chesapeake Stewardship Index Accounting begins Goal Fostering Stewardship Status: Programs to foster the public’s stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed resulted in a score of 65 percent, which reflects an increase of 5 percent from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: For the Chesapeake Bay to be restored and protected, the region’s citizens, communities and other stakeholders must be actively involved. Fostering stewardship of the Bay and its watershed is a top priority for Chesapeake Bay Program partners. Public access is vital to building personal connections to nature. There are also various communication and outreach programs underway to provide information that engages people in the restoration effort. Environmental education opportunities for students and teachers are another area of emphasis. The ultimate measure of stewardship, however, is citizen and community action. The indicators in this section reflect steady progress in providing public access and enhancing environmental education. But programs to increase the number of communities and businesses engaged in restoration have stalled. At the same time, a new project to measure citizen action has been launched. Goal: Efforts to foster stewardship are measured with 3 indicators. Quantitative restoration goals have been set for these indicators. When the goals are reached, it should mean that efforts needed to foster stewardship have been implemented. Trends: What is the long-term trend? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. What is the short-term trend? (10-year) N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for two years. Change from previous year: Index score increased from 60.3% to 64.78%, Note: The historic data featured in the Education and Interpretation indicator changed due to revised methods to calculate MWEE index. The most up-to-date tracking data gathered by Bay Program partners are used to provide an assessment of efforts to foster stewardship relative to goals adopted by the Bay Program partners. The Fostering Stewardship Index incorporates scores for the following indicators: Public Access Index Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEE) Index (a measure of Education and Interpretation) Bay Partner Communities (a measure of Citizen and Community Action) Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Fostering Stewardship category were averaged to create the index score. Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Public Access 98% Public Access Index of Goal Achieved
Percent of Goal Achieved Goal Public Access Status: In 2008, 11 public access sites were acquired, developed or enhanced, bringing the total to 754. Six new Gateways sites were added, raising the total to 161. About 23 miles of water trails were developed, for a total of 2,184 miles. With these additions, the partnership has reached 98 percent of its public access goal. Additional Information: Importance: For people to deeply value the Chesapeake Bay and the thousands of streams, creeks and rivers that flow into it, they need access to nature throughout the watershed. This allows people to enjoy activities such as fishing, swimming, kayaking, hiking and picnicking, which creates a personal connection with nature and builds public support for restoration efforts. Program partners continue to increase and improve access in an environmentally sensitive manner through the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, water trails and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. For more information and a map of public access locations, visit Goals: Public Access: By 2010, expand by 30% the system of public access points to the Bay, its tributaries and related resource sites in an environmentally sensitive manner. Gateways: By 2003, develop partnerships with at least 30 sites to enhance place-based interpretation of Bay-related resources and themes and stimulate volunteer involvement in resource restoration and conservation. Water Trails: By 2005, increase the number of designated water trails in the Chesapeake Bay region by 500 miles. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? Public Access: The Bay jurisdictions have acquired, developed or enhanced 754 public access points, achieving 94% of the public access goal (805 by 2010). Gateways: Since 2000, 161 Gateway sites have been added to the network. Water trails: Since 2000, 2,184 water trail miles have been developed. How much has been completed since 2000? Public Access: Since 2000, the Bay jurisdictions have acquired, developed or enhanced 138 public access points. How much was done last year? Public Access: In 2008, 11 sites were acquired, developed or enhanced (4 in Maryland; 3 in Pennsylvania; 4 in VA). Gateways: In 2008, 6 new Gateway sites were added to the network. Water trails: In 2008, 23 new water trails miles were developed (all in MD). 98% of Goal Achieved Data and Methods: Accounting begins Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Education and Interpretation
Meaningful Watershed Educational Experience Index Percent of Goal Achieved Goal Education and Interpretation Status: About 73 percent of the goal was achieved during the school year. Also, since 2002 the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program (B-WET) grant program has funded Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences for more than 150,000 students and training opportunities for more than 15,000 teachers. Additional Information: Importance: Perhaps the best way to foster stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay is through education, especially for the millions of children who live in the watershed. The long-term health of the environment will depend on their interest and ability to protect nature. Chesapeake Bay Program partners continue to promote environmental education at elementary, middle and high schools, with a focus on providing a Meaningful Watershed Educational Experience (MWEE) for all students before they graduate. Partners also provide lifelong learning opportunities for citizens of all ages, with information and interpretation at a multitude of locations in the region. Goal: In 2000, the partnership set a goal to provide a MWEE for every student in the watershed portions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia before graduation from high school. In 2008, the partnership increased the number of experiences provided for each student to three, which will mean a MWEE in elementary, middle and high school. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? MWEE Index: 73% of goal achievement in school year. The index score is based on average of the achievement of individual goals for elementary, middle and high school students. Elementary School Students: 75% of goal achievement in school year (878,525/1,171,686 students). Middle School Students: 78% of goal achievement in school year (502,195/647,137 students). High School Students: 65% of goal achievement in school year (490,491/753,691 students). How much has been completed since 2000? Same as above. How much was done last year? MWEE Index: 73% of goal achievement in school year compared to 60% in The index score is based on average of the achievement of individual goals for elementary, middle and high school students. Elementary School Students: 75% of goal achievement in school year (878,525/1,171,686 students) compared to 57% in (726,471/1,271,736 students). (Note: MD was not able to provide data, so data were used for both years.) Middle School Students: 78% of goal achievement in school year (502,195/647,137 students) compared to 65% in (425,821/652,218 students). (Note: MD was not able to provide data, so data were used for both years.) High School Students: 65% of goal achievement in school year (490,491/753,691 students) compared to 57% in (428,398/751,152 students) . (Note: MD was not able to provide data, so data were used for both years.) 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. The NOAA B-WET, with support from the Chesapeake Bay Trust and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment, recently completed an intensive multi-year evaluation that shows that students are more knowledgeable about the watershed and more likely to take action to protect the Bay after participating in B-WET supported programs. The study also showed that B-WET trained teachers are more confident in their ability to use field experiences in teaching about the watershed and are more likely to do so. The Executive Summary of the evaluation is available online: Systematic education is essential to change the long-term stewardship ethic of the population. Research has shown that intensive, sustained experiences with the resource are very effective and increasing the stewardship ethic. While no baseline exists for the MWEE commitment, input received from those agencies in charge of implementing and tracking this data indicates that tremendous progress has been made since This progress represents not only an increase in raw numbers of students and teachers served with MWEE experiences, but also in depth and quality of programming, and overall coordination of the effort within each jurisdiction and among jurisdictions. The NOAA B-WET grants have been cited by all jurisdictions as being instrumental in assisting the states to meet the C2K commitment. 73% of Goal Achieved Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Citizen and Community Action
Bay Partner Communities Percent of Goal Achieved 330 Bay Partner Communities Goal Citizen and Community Action Status: To date, 77 local governments have been awarded Bay Partner Community status, which is 23 percent of the goal. However, the program is no longer funded. To measure citizen action, the first Chesapeake Volunteer Count was launched. This effort asked watershed organizations to report the number of volunteers for the year. Based on preliminary data collected from 73 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, 50,590 volunteers participated in restoration activities in The majority of the organizations reported that volunteerism rates remained the same or increased from 2007. Additional Information: Importance: The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed will never be restored and protected without the action of its 17 million residents and the involvement of local government. That many people can surely have a tremendous impact if they are actively involved in the cleanup. A top priority for the Chesapeake Bay Program is encouraging the public to participate in activities that are positive for nature, including at home, at work and in the community. It is also important for towns and cities to put measures in place that create clean water. Goal: For community action, the partnership has a goal of establishing 330 local governments, or 20 percent of those in the watershed, as Bay Partner Communities. A goal has yet to be established for citizen action. Trends: How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? Between 1997 and 2007, 77 local governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status. Overall, the partners have achieved 23 percent of the existing goal to certify 330 Bay Partner Communities by 2005. How much has been completed since 2000? 25 local governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status. How much was done last year? In 2007, two new local governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status. No data are available for 2008 since the program is no longer funded. Based on preliminary data collected from 68 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, 45,564 volunteers participated in restoration activities in The majority of the organizations reported that volunteerism rates remained the same or increased from 2007. 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. Launched in 1997, the Bay Partner Communities program worked with towns and cities to implement Bay-friendly measures aimed at meeting the goals set forth in the most recent Bay restoration agreement, Chesapeake However, the program is no longer funded. Local jurisdictions were selected as a Chesapeake Bay Partner Community based on their completion of a set of programs and activities, or benchmarks, that aim to protect and restore their part of the Bay watershed. The benchmarks were grouped in four theme areas based on goals set forth in Chesapeake Communities received varying levels of recognition -- Gold, Silver and Bronze – based on the community's population and the percentage of benchmarks met in the four theme areas. Bronze and silver communities were encouraged to strive for higher status in the program. Communities meeting the criteria were recognized for their efforts and presented roadside signs denoting the jurisdiction as a Chesapeake Bay Partner Community. 23% of Goal Achieved Accounting begins Data and Methods: Chesapeake Bay Health & Restoration Assessment: Restoration & Protection Efforts 03/10/09

Restoration and Protection Efforts

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Restoration and Protection Efforts"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Restoration and Protection Efforts

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Restoration and Protection Efforts"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback