1. Restoration & Protection Efforts
Restoration and Protection Efforts
New restoration programs and projects were put in place in 2009, but resulted in only incremental gains toward goals. The measures for restoration and protection efforts averaged 64 percent, a three percent increase from 2008.
Reducing Pollution: Bay Program partners have implemented 62 percent of needed efforts to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution, which is a 3 percent increase from 2008.
Restoring Habitats: Efforts to restore habitats throughout the watershed achieved modest gains in 2009, with progress toward the overall goal at 63 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2008.
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.
Protecting Watersheds: Progress was made toward protection of the thousands of smaller watersheds in the region during 2009, with a 2 percent gain toward the overall goal. Overall, the partnership is 77 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 67 percent, which reflects an increase of 2 percent from 2008.
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, Bay Program partners 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 19 reporting-level indicators grouped into five priority areas that are described in the landmark Chesapeake 2000 agreement and 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.
Trends
Long-term trend
N/A -- data for all component indices has only been collected for three years.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
2007: 56.7 percent
2008: percent
2009: percent
Change from previous year ( )
The Restoration and Protection Efforts Index score increased from percent to percent.
Additional Information
In 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, as well as 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.
Percent achievement values for each top-level index were averaged to create the overarching index score.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

2. Restoration & Protection Efforts
Restoration and Protection Efforts
New restoration programs and projects were put in place in 2009, but resulted in only incremental gains toward goals. The measures for restoration and protection efforts averaged 64 percent, a three percent increase from 2008.
Reducing Pollution: Bay Program partners have implemented 62 percent of needed efforts to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution, which is a 3 percent increase from 2008.
Restoring Habitats: Efforts to restore habitats throughout the watershed achieved modest gains in 2009, with progress toward the overall goal at 63 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2008.
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.
Protecting Watersheds: Progress was made toward protection of the thousands of smaller watersheds in the region during 2009, with a 2 percent gain toward the overall goal. Overall, the partnership is 77 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 67 percent, which reflects an increase of 2 percent from 2008.
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, Bay Program partners 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 19 reporting-level indicators grouped into five priority areas that are described in the landmark Chesapeake 2000 agreement and 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.
Trends
Long-term trend
N/A -- data for all component indices has only been collected for three years.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
2007: 56.7 percent
2008: percent
2009: percent
Change from previous year ( )
The Restoration and Protection Efforts Index score increased from percent to percent.
Additional Information
In 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, as well as 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.
Percent achievement values for each top-level index were averaged to create the overarching index score.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

3. Reducing Pollution Reducing Pollution
Bay Program partners have implemented 62 percent of needed efforts to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution, which is a 3 percent increase from 2008.
Importance
The 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 runoff and discharges; wastewater treatment plant discharges; urban and suburban runoff and septic tank discharges; and air deposition.
Goal
Nutrient and sediment pollution control efforts are measured with four indicators:
Agricultural Pollution Controls
Urban/Suburban Lands Pollution Controls
Wastewater Pollution Controls
Air Pollution Controls
Quantitative 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
Long-term trend ( )
Reducing Pollution Index scores for nitrogen increased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reducing Pollution Index scores for phosphorus increased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reducing Pollution Index scores for sediment increased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
Between :
Reducing Pollution Index scores for nitrogen increased from 32.5 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reducing Pollution Index scores for phosphorus increased from 55.8 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reducing Pollution Index scores for sediment increased from 46.8 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Change from previous year ( )
Reducing Pollution Index scores for nitrogen increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reducing Pollution Index scores for phosphorus increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reducing Pollution Index scores for sediment increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reporting Indicators
The Reducing Pollution Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:
Agriculture Nitrogen
Agriculture Phosphorus
Agriculture Sediment
Wastewater Nitrogen
Wastewater Phosphorus
Urban/Suburban Nitrogen
Urban/Suburban Phosphorus
Urban/Suburban Sediment
Air Nitrogen
Additional Information
The states in the 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.
Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment categories are weighted according to their contribution to overall loads to create the index scores.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

4. Agricultural Pollution Controls
As of 2009, Bay Program partners have achieved:
52 percent of the goal for agricultural nitrogen control efforts, a 1 percent increase from 2008.
50 percent of the goal for agricultural phosphorus, the same as the previous year.
50 percent of the goal for agricultural sediment pollution control efforts, a 2 percent increase from 2008.
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.
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.
Learn more about agriculture and reducing pollution from agriculture.
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 to correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010.
Trends
Long-term trend (since 1985)
The agricultural nitrogen pollution controls score increased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
The agricultural phosphorus pollution controls score increased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
The agricultural sediment pollution controls score increased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
Between :
The agricultural nitrogen pollution controls score increased from 34.1 percent to percent of goal achieved.
The agricultural phosphorus pollution controls score increased from 39.8 percent to percent of goal achieved.
The agricultural sediment pollution controls score increased from 34.7 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Change from previous year ( )
The agricultural nitrogen pollution controls score increased from percent to percent of goal achieved).
The agricultural phosphorus pollution controls score did not change (50.07 percent in 2008 and percent in 2009).
The agricultural sediment pollution controls score increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Additional Information
Reducing Pollution
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.
Agricultural Pollution Controls Indicator
These estimates do not account for efforts that cannot 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.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
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. A variety of BMPs are being used:
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.
In part because they are so cost-effective, the Bay jurisdictions are relying on expanded implementation of BMPs on agricultural lands for more than half of the remaining nutrient reductions needed to meet water quality restoration goals.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

5. Wastewater Pollution Controls
As of 2009, the Bay Program partnership has achieved:
78 percent of the wastewater nitrogen reduction goal, which is an 8 percent increase from 2008.
99 percent of the wastewater phosphorus reduction goal, which is a 3 percent increase from the previous year.
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.
Importance
There are 483 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged by these facilities have degraded local waterways and the Bay. As the watershed’s population 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 technology they use to treat wastewater.
Learn more about reducing pollution from wastewater treatment plants.
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 to correct the nutrient-related problems in the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010.
Trends
Long-term trend (since 1985)
The wastewater nitrogen pollution controls score increased from 0 percent to 78.8 percent of goal achieved.
The wastewater phosphorus pollution controls score increased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
Between 2000 and 2009:
The wastewater nitrogen pollution controls score increased from 49.9 percent to 78.8 percent of goal achieved.
The wastewater phosphorus pollution controls score increased from 79.8 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Change from previous year ( )
The wastewater nitrogen pollution controls score increased from percent to 77.8 percent of goal achieved.
The wastewater phosphorus pollution controls score increased from percent to percent.
Additional Information
Reducing Pollution
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.
Reducing Nutrients in Wastewater
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 equipment, such as nutrient removal technology (NRT), to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads.
Phosphate Detergent Ban
After signing the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the signatory jurisdictions (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia) instituted phosphate detergent bans. These bans resulted in significant decreases in the amount of phosphorus entering the Bay from wastewater treatment plants.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

6. Urban/Suburban Lands Pollution Controls
Population growth and development are offsetting the 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.
Importance
When water from storms runs off roads, parking lots, rooftops and other hard surfaces, it carries pollution to local waterways and the 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.
Learn more about reducing pollution from development.
Goal
Implement enhanced pollution controls on urban and suburban land in the watershed portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia to correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010.
Trends
Long-term trend (since 1985)
The urban/suburban nitrogen pollution controls score decreased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
The urban/suburban phosphorus pollution controls score decreased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
The urban/suburban sediment pollution controls score decreased from 0 percent to percent of goal achieved.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
Between :
The urban/suburban nitrogen pollution controls score decreased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
The urban/suburban phosphorus pollution controls score decreased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
The urban/suburban sediment pollution controls score decreased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Change from previous year ( )
The urban/suburban nitrogen pollution controls score increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
The urban/suburban phosphorus pollution controls score increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
The urban/suburban sediment pollution controls score increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Additional Information
Reducing Pollution
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.
Urban/Suburban Lands Pollution Controls Indicator
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 and suburban lands and septic systems. While improvements have been made in landscape design and stormwater management practices, it is estimated that the pollution increases associated with land development (e.g., converting farms and forests to urban and suburban developments) have surpassed any gains.
These estimates do not account for efforts that can not be tracked, such as some stormwater management practices. Also, significant challenges exist in accounting for existing on-the-ground control practices.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

7. Air Pollution Controls
As of 2009, the Bay Program partners have met 9 percent of the goal for air pollution controls necessary to reduce nitrogen, which reflects no significant 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.
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 via stormwater runoff.
About half of the air pollution comes from outside the Bay watershed, including places such as Ohio, South Carolina and Canada.
The Bay Program partnership is relying on federal and state laws that regulate emissions to significantly reduce airborne nitrogen. Reducing the release of airborne nitrogen pollution is likely to have the additional benefit of reducing toxic chemicals.
Learn more about air pollution and reducing air pollution.
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
Long-term trend (since 1985)
Between 1985 and 2009, the airborne nitrogen pollution controls score increased from 0 percent to 9.01 percent of goal achieved.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
Between 2000 and 2009, the airborne nitrogen pollution controls score increased from 3.92 percent to 9.01 percent of goal achieved.
Change from previous year
Between 2008 and 2009, the airborne nitrogen pollution controls score did not change (8.53 percent in 2008 and 9.01 percent in 2009).
Additional Information
Reducing Pollution
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.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

8. Restoring Habitats Restoring Habitats
Efforts to restore critical wildlife habitats increased by 8 percent in 2009, with progress toward the overall goal at 63 percent.
Importance
High-quality habitats are required for the overall balance of the 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.
Bay Program partners 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.
Learn more about important Bay habitats and restoring habitats.
Goal
Habitat restoration efforts are measured with four indicators:
Bay Grasses Planted
Restoring Wetlands
Reopening Fish Passage
Restoring Oyster Reefs
Quantitative goals have been set for these indicators.
Trends
Long-term trend
N/A -– data for all component indicators have only been collected for three years.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
N/A –- data for all component indicators have only been collected for three years:
2007: percent
2008: percent
2009: percent
Change from previous year ( )
Restoring Habitats Index score increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reporting Indicators
The Restoring Habitats Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:
Planting Bay Grasses
Additional Information
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.
Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Restoring Habitats category were averaged to create the index score.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

9. Planting Bay Grasses Planting Bay Grasses
In 2009, 9.6 acres of bay grasses were planted, bringing the total to 158 acres. This represents 16 percent of the goal and a 1 percent increase from Future plantings are dependent on available funding.
Importance
Underwater bay grasses, or SAV, depend on good water quality to grow and 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, 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
Amount completed since 2003 (baseline year)
Tracking started in 2003; little or no large-scale restoration was done before that year. Total to date is 158 acres.
Amount completed in 2009
About 9.6 acres were planted in FY 2009.
Additional Information
The effort to plant underwater grasses has had mixed success in recent years. Managers continue to evaluate the best and most cost-effective methods for planting bay grasses.
Both funding and capacity for bay grass planting 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.
Learn more about underwater bay grasses and restoring bay grasses.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

10. Restoring Wetlands Restoring Wetlands
In 2009, 609 acres of wetlands were established or reestablished in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The restored total stands at 13,614 acres, or 54 percent of the goal.
Importance
Because of the many benefits of wetlands – including providing habitat, filtering water and preventing erosion – work is ongoing to increase wetland acreage. This involves establishing wetlands where they do not exist or reestablishing former wetlands to their natural state. Removing invasive species is also a way to rehabilitate degraded wetlands. Additionally, wetlands are often protected through land purchases or conservation easements.
Learn more about wetlands restoration.
Goal
Restore 25,000 acres of wetlands in the watershed portions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia by 2010.
Trends
Amount completed since 1998 (baseline year)
Between 1998 and 2009, 13,614 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands were established or reestablished in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Amount completed since 2000
11,432 acres
Amount completed in 2009
acres total:
acres in Maryland
136 acres in Pennsylvania
132 acres in Virginia
0 acres in the District of Columbia
Additional Information
Functional Gains vs. Acreage Gains
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. 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.
Tidal Wetland Trends in the Bay Region
This indicator tracks documented gains in wetland acreage, but the gains do not necessarily represented a “net resource gain.” Data analysis completed in 2007 shows that there is a negative trend in tidal wetland abundance in the Bay. According to the land change statistics, there was a 2,600-acre loss between 1996 and However, this change is not statistically significant on a Bay-wide 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 on 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.
Wetlands Restoration and Water Quality Improvements
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.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

11. Reopening Fish Passage
The Bay Program’s fish passage efforts are long-standing and generally successful.
From 1988 through 2005, Bay Program partners opened 1,838 miles of fish passage, surpassing their original 1,357-mile restoration goal.
In early 2005, the partners committed to increasing the restoration goal to 2,807 miles by 2014.
In 2009, 16 miles of fish passage were restored. This brings the total to 2,339 miles, or 83 percent of the goal.
Importance
Dams, culverts and other barriers block the movement of migratory fish to their spawning grounds and reduce habitat for local fish species in streams, creeks and rivers. Throughout the Bay watershed, these barriers are being removed or new lifts, ladders and passageways are being installed to allow 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.
Learn more about restoring fish passage.
Goals
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 2005 and 2014, complete 100 projects and open 1,000 miles of river and stream habitat. Dam removal projects opening high quality habitat are a priority.
Trends
Amount completed since 1988 (baseline year)
2, miles
Amount completed since 2000
1, miles
Amount completed in 2009
15.7 miles
Additional Information
Dams, culverts and other obstructions currently block more than a thousand miles of fish spawning habitat on Bay tributaries. Anadromous fish, such as American shad and river herring, rely on access to freshwater streams and rivers. Fish passages help these fish swim past dams and other blockages to reach upstream freshwater spawning habitat.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

12. Restoring Oyster Reefs
In 2009, habitat restoration efforts took place on 1,148 acres of oyster reefs. This brings the total acreage treated since 2007 to 2,867, or 116 percent of the 2010 target (goal).
Although the target has been achieved, oyster reef restoration must continue in order to increase ecological benefits and sustain a commercial fishery.
Importance
Restoring oyster reefs throughout the 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 Bay Program has a target of implementing restoration practices on 2,466 acres of oyster bar and reef habitat between 2007 and 2010.
Trends
Amount completed since 2007 (baseline year)
Tracking in relation to a target did not begin until A cumulative total of 2,867 acres have been treated, sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site.
In 2007, 776 acres were treated
In 2008, 943 acres were treated
In 2009, 1,148 acres were treated
Prior to the target being set, a cumulative total of 15,648 acres were treated between 1994 and 2006, sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site.
Amount completed in 2009
In 2009, 1,148 acres were treated, sometimes with multiple efforts on the same site.
Additional Information
The success of these habitat restoration techniques has been limited by numerous factors including disease, poor water quality, habitat degradation and fishing pressure.
Oyster Restoration Partners
In spring of 2008, oyster representatives from the following organizations analyzed previously reported data for the Oyster Recovery Effort indicator published annually in the Bay Program’s Health and Restoration Assessment (now Bay Barometer) and agreed upon realistic annual targets and a cumulative achievement goal for oyster recovery via reef restoration through 2010.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS)
Virginia Marine Resource Commission (VMRC)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Oyster Recovery Partnership
A 2010 goal was needed for the Bay Program’s Chesapeake Action Plan Oyster Reef Restoration dashboard, which was published in the Report to Congress: Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program in July This goal is applied to the Oyster Recovery Effort indicator so the indicator can be reported in relation to a goal.
Oyster restoration activities have been accomplished through cooperative efforts by DNR, VMRC, VIMS, NOAA, EPA, the Army Corps (Baltimore and Norfolk districts), the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, the Oyster Recovery Partnership and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

13. Managing Fisheries Managing Bay Fisheries
While significant effort went toward improving Chesapeake Bay fisheries management in 2009, very few ecosystem-based actions were completed.
Progress toward this goal has not changed from last year’s value of 51 percent and ranges from percent for the five key Bay fisheries: blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, American shad and Atlantic menhaden.
The current fisheries management index does not fully capture the work being done to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans. In 2010, the Bay Program will create a new index for monitoring progress toward ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Importance
The Chesapeake fishing industry holds tremendous commercial, cultural and historic value. Managing the fisheries for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, shad and menhaden is also critical to restoring and protecting the population of these species and their important place in the ecosystem.
To improve fisheries management, Bay Program partners are developing ecosystem-based plans. This type of comprehensive approach involves three components:
Actions that address a single species
A focus on multispecies interactions
Consideration of the entire ecosystem
Improving water quality and restoring habitats are also part of this management approach.
Goal
Ecosystem-based fishery management 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
Long-term trend
N/A –- data for all component indicators have only been collected for five years.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
N/A –- data for all component indicators have only been collected for five years:
2005: 49.8 percent
2006: 50 percent
2007: 50 percent
2008: 50.8 percent
2009: 50.8 pecent
Change from previous year ( )
While significant effort went toward improving Chesapeake Bay fisheries management 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 is not fully captured using the current fisheries management effort index developed several years ago. As a result, the index has not changed from last year’s value of 51 percent.
The development and adoption of a new index for monitoring progress toward ecosystem-based fisheries management will be one of the first tasks for the new Chesapeake Bay Program’s Fisheries Goal Implementation Team during
Reporting Indicators
The Managing Fisheries Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:
Blue Crab Fishery Management
Oyster Fishery Management
Striped Bass Fishery Management
Shad Fishery Management
Menhaden Fishery Management
Additional Information
Ecosystem-based Fishery Management Plans
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.
Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Managing Fisheries category were averaged to create the index score.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts - -

14. Fisheries Management Effort
Fisheries Management Effort Index (Blue Crab, Striped Bass, Oyster, Shad, Menhaden)
While significant effort went toward improving Chesapeake Bay fisheries management 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 is not fully captured using the current fisheries management effort index developed several years ago. As a result, the index has not changed from last year’s value of 51 percent.
Progress toward fisheries management goals has not changed since last year and ranges from percent for the five key Bay fisheries: blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, American shad and Atlantic menhaden.
Importance
The Chesapeake Bay fishing industry holds tremendous commercial, cultural and historic value. Managing the fisheries for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, shad and menhaden is also critical to restoring and protecting the population of these species and their important place in the ecosystem.
To improve fisheries management, Bay Program partners are developing ecosystem-based plans. This type of comprehensive approach involves three components:
Actions that address a single species
A focus on multi-species interactions
Consideration of the entire ecosystem
Improving water quality and restoring habitats are also part of this management approach.
Learn more about fisheries management.
Goals
Ecosystem-based fishery management 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.
Additional Information
Single-species fishery management plans are already being implemented, but ecosystem-based plans are more complex and will take time to fully develop and implement.
Blue Crab Fishery Management
Blue crabs make up the most valuable commercial fishery in the Bay. To protect the fishery and restore the spawning stock, crab 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.
Learn more about blue crab management and restoration.
Status
Maryland and Virginia were successful at reducing the harvest of female crabs during 2008 and continued commercial regulations to limit the harvest of mature female blue crabs during Both states are conducting a “buy-back” program to reduce the number of commercial licenses and address the issue of latent effort.
Maryland regulations include seasonal closures and harvest limits, size limits for peeler crabs and hard crabs. The recreational fishery was prohibited from harvesting female crabs.
Virginia regulations include an extended closure of the sanctuary, elimination of the winter dredge fishery, size limits for peeler crabs and a gear reduction plan.
Each state received $10 million in federal disaster funds to be distributed over the next three years for projects conducted by watermen, such as habitat restoration, fishery monitoring, industry diversification and aquaculture.
Oyster Fishery Management
Managing the oyster fishery requires a multi-pronged approach.
Sanctuaries are used to protect oysters from harvest and increase the population of spawning adult oysters.
Traditional fishery management measures, including minimum size limits, bushel limits, gear restrictions, and seasonal and areal closings, continue to be implemented.
Restoration efforts focus on rebuilding reefs and planting oysters to maximize ecological benefits, facilitate population recovery and create positive outcomes for the commercial oyster fishery.
Learn more about oyster management and restoration.
Oyster sanctuary areas have been expanded throughout the Bay. There is a new focus on targeted restoration strategies. The jurisdictions are fostering a shift from commercial oyster production to aquaculture techniques starting with revamping leasing laws and regulations. Oyster habitat continues to be rehabilitated and shell reclamation programs are being implemented.
Striped Bass Fishery Management
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 moratoria and proper management led to a rebound, and the striped bass fishery was reopened in 1990.
An annual cap on the commercial harvest of Atlantic menhaden, striped bass’ main prey, 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.
Learn more about striped bass management.
Through the ecosystem-based fishery management process, biological briefs were prepared for striped bass and given to the quantitative ecosystem teams to develop indicators and metrics for assessing progress.
American Shad Fishery Management
Historic overfishing, water pollution and dams that prevented access to spawning areas led to a greatly diminished shad stock in the 1970s. Low stock levels prompted the two states to implement a fishing moratorium: Maryland in 1980 and Virginia in 1994.
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.
Learn more about American shad management and restoration.
Shad stocks in the Bay are at low but stable levels of abundance. Coastal shad stocks are at an all-time low abundance level and do not appear to be recovering.
The ASMFC developed a benchmark rate for total mortality that would preserve 30 percent of the spawning stock. They also prepared an Atlantic Coast Diadromous Fish Habitat document (January 2009) that recommended the following:
provide fish passage
improve water quality
decrease toxic contamination
restore and protect riverine habitat
Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management
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.
Learn more about Atlantic menhaden management.
Through the ecosystem-based fishery management process, biological briefs were prepared for menhaden and given to the quantitative ecosystem teams for the development of indicators and metrics for assessing progress.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

15. Protecting Watersheds
There was a 2 percent gain toward the goal to restore and protect the Bay region’s thousands of small watersheds during Overall, the Bay Program partnership is 77 percent of the way toward its goals for protecting watersheds.
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.
To protect watersheds, Bay Program partners are:
Continuing to plant buffers of trees, bushes and other vegetation along waterways.
Permanently preserving land throughout the watershed from development and preventing sprawl through the use of statewide smart growth programs.
Developing management plans to guide the protection and restoration of nature in watersheds of all sizes.
Learn more about watersheds.
Goal
Watershed protection efforts are measured with three indicators:
Planting Forest Buffers
Developing Watershed Management Plans
Preserving Lands
Quantitative goals have been set for these indicators.
Trends
Long-term trend
N/A -- data for all component indicators have only been collected for six years.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
N/A –- data for all component indicators have only been collected for six years:
2004: 58.8 percent
2005: 63.3 percent
2006: 69.1 percent
2007: 71.6 percent
2008: 74.3 percent
2009: 76.7 percent
Change from previous year ( )
Index score increased from 74.3 percent to 76.7 percent of goal achieved.
Additional Information
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.
Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Protecting Watersheds category were averaged to create the index score. Values that exceed 100 percent (Preserving Lands: ) were converted to 100 percent for the calculation of this index score.
Reporting Indicators
The Protecting Watersheds Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts - -

16. Planting Forest Buffers
From September 2008 to August 2009, about 722 miles of forest buffers were planted, for a total of 6,858 miles since This is 69 percent of the goal, a 7 percent increase from the previous year.
Importance
Trees, grasses and other plants that line the banks of waterways are called forest buffers. This vegetation:
Provides habitat for wildlife
Stabilizes stream banks from erosion
Keeps river waters cool, an important factor for many fish.
Well-maintained forest buffers also naturally absorb pollution, helping to improve the health of neighboring streams and rivers as well as downstream waterways.
Work is ongoing to plant buffers along thousands of miles of streams, creeks and rivers in the Bay watershed.
Goal
Bay Program partners achieved their original 2010 buffer restoration goal of 2,010 miles in 2002, well ahead of schedule. In 2003, they set a new, long-term 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
Amount completed since 1996 (baseline year)
6,858 miles
Amount completed since 2000
6,434 miles
Amount completed in 2009
Between September 2008 and August 2009, 722 miles of riparian forest buffers were reported being planted in the Bay watershed. The state-by-state breakdown was:
Maryland: 9.2 miles
Pennsylvania: miles
Virginia: 59.7 miles
These numbers reflect a slight increase in forest buffer planting from the previous year. Pennsylvania had an increase in implementation, while Maryland and Virginia had a slight reduction.
Though forest buffer plantings increased in 2009, Bay Program partners will still fall short of achieving the 10,000-mile goal by
Reasons for the continuing slow progress in planting forest buffers can be attributed to:
Delayed action in approval of the new Farm Bill.
A shortage of technical assistants, which will continue to be an issue due to state governments in Maryland and Virginia laying off agency personnel to make up budget shortfalls.
Uninformed and/or resistant landowners.
All of these issues have been the focus of efforts to improve forest buffer implementation.
•Partnerships with state Natural Resource Conservation Service, state forestry agencies and non-profit organizations were rejuvenated through formation of a Bay-wide CREP group.
•Growing Native, a seed collection program, has provided seed for state forestry nurseries in an effort to increase stock availability.
•A quarterly buffer newsletter has been developed and distributed throughout the Bay watershed. This newsletter highlights new tools, implementation progress, benefits and services of forest buffers.
•New geo-spatial tools will be available in 2010 to assess forest buffer cover of streams and shorelines on a local level within the Bay watershed.
Additional Information
This indicator includes stream bank and shoreline miles in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia that are buffered by at least a 35-foot-wide area of vegetation.
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.
Directive to Protect Chesapeake Forests
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.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

17. Developing Watershed Management Plans
In 2009, watershed plans were developed for 20,661 acres, bringing the total to 13.9 million acres. This represents 61 percent of the goal.
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
The Bay Program has a goal to develop and implement watershed management plans for two-thirds of the total watershed acreage in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia, or 22.7 million acres, by The total watershed acreage of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia is estimated to be 34 million acres.
Trends
Amount completed since 2005 (baseline year)
As of 2009, there are 13,945,367 acres that have watershed plans. Translating these plans into action will be essential to restoring water quality.
Amount completed in 2009
20,661 acres had watershed plans developed
Additional Information
The human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is now growing by about 150,000 residents annually. Planning for this growth is especially critical because of the vast amount of land that drains into the relatively shallow Bay.
Watershed Management Plan Criteria
Bay Program 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.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

18. Preserving Lands Preserving Lands
In 2009, 132,873 acres were preserved. This brings the total amount of land protected to 7.14 million acres, which surpasses the 2010 goal. 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.
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 development 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. Bay Program partners have pursued land preservation by buying property, accepting donations, arranging for easements and purchasing development rights.
Goal
The goal is to permanently preserve from development 20 percent of the total watershed acreage in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia, or 6.8 million acres, by The total watershed acreage of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia is estimated to be 34 million acres.
Trends
Amount completed since 2000 (baseline year)
1,119,915 acres have been preserved between 2000 (the year the goal was established) and Cumulatively, 7,140,143 acres have been preserved.
Amount completed in 2009
132,873 acres were preserved in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia
Additional Information
Land Included in this Indicator
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. These easements are held by federal, state or local governments or non-profit organizations 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 Maryland, some of this acreage may fall outside the watershed for counties that have land area both inside and outside the watershed.
Virginia lands include military lands under the stewardship of the Department of Defense that are additionally managed for recreation, open space and habitat. While these lands are always available for future military needs, they are also considered by Virginia as permanently preserved from development so long as so managed.
Baseline Acreages
Baseline acreages are estimated using the best information available. In Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, the baseline acreages are for 2000; in Pennsylvania, 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.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

19. Fostering Stewardship
Programs to foster public stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and its local waterways increased by 2 percent in 2009, achieving 67 percent of the goal.
Importance
For the 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 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 three indicators:
Public Access
Education and Interpretation (Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences)
Citizen and Community Action (Bay Partner Communities).
Quantitative goals have been set for these indicators.
Trends
Long-term trend
N/A -- data for all component indicators have only been collected for three years.
Short-term trend (10-year trend)
N/A -- data for all component indicators have only been collected for three years:
2007: 60.3 percent
2008: percent
2009: percent
Change from previous year ( )
The Fostering Stewardship index score increased from percent to percent of goal achieved.
Reporting Indicators
The Fostering Stewardship Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:
Citizen and Community Action (Bay Partner Communities)
Additional Information
Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Fostering Stewardship category were averaged to create the index score.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

20. Public Access Public Access In 2009:
Four public access sites were acquired, developed or enhanced, bringing the total to 761.
Five new Gateways sites were added, raising the total to 166.
Updates for water trails were not available, so the total remains at 2,184 miles.
The Bay Program partnership has reached 98 percent of its public access goal.
Importance
For people to deeply value the Bay and the thousands of streams, creeks and rivers that flow into it, they need access to wildlife and the outdoors. Public access areas allow people to enjoy activities such as fishing, swimming, kayaking, hiking and picnicking. Access to natural areas helps people create a personal connection with the Bay watershed and builds support for restoration efforts.
Bay 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.
Goals
Public Access: By 2010, expand by 30 percent the system of public access points to the Bay, its tributaries and related resource sites in an environmentally sensitive manner.
Bay 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
Amount completed since 2000
Public Access: The Bay jurisdictions have acquired, developed or enhanced 142 public access points. Cumulatively, 761 public access points have been acquired, developed or enhanced, which is 94 percent of the public access goal.
Bay Gateways: 166 Gateway sites have been added to the network
Water Trails: 2,184 water trail miles have been developed
Amount completed in 2009
Public Access: Four sites were acquired, developed or enhanced (four in Maryland; Virginia and the District of Columbia were not able to provide updates this year)
Bay Gateways: Five new Gateways were added to the network
Water Trails: Updates for 2009 were not available
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

21. Education and Interpretation
About 80 percent of the goal was achieved during the school year (2.17 million of 2.72 million students). Also, since 2002, the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) grant program has funded Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs) for more than 180,000 students and training opportunities for more than 19,000 teachers.
Importance
Perhaps the best way to foster Bay stewardship 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. Bay Program partners continue to promote environmental education at elementary, middle and high schools, with a focus on providing MWEEs 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.
Learn more about education and interpretation.
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 to provide each student to three, which means that students will receive MWEEs in elementary, middle and high school.
Trends
Amount completed since 2000
The Chesapeake Executive Council adopted the Meaningful Watershed Educational Experience (MWEE) initiative in 2000, pledging to provide a meaningful bay or stream outdoor experience to every student in the watershed before graduation from high school, beginning with the class of Since the adoption of this initiative, all signatory states have incorporated curriculum that provides a MWEE into their school divisions. States continue to encourage the implementation of full MWEEs.
Amount completed since 2006
80 percent of the goal was achieved during the school year, compared to 60 percent in This MWEE index score is based on the average of the achievement of individual goals for elementary, middle and high school students:
Elementary school students: 81 percent of goal achieved (1,017,822 out of 1,261,599 elementary school students received a MWEE) in , compared to 57 percent (726,471 out of 1,271,736 students) in
Middle school students: 81 percent of goal achieved (529,757 out of 674,474 students received a MWEE) in , compared to 65 percent (425,821 out of 652,218 students) in
High school students: 80 percent of goal achieved (627,043 out of 782,117 students) in , compared to 57 percent (428,398 out of 751,152 students) in
Amount completed in 2009
In 2008 the Bay Program partnership expanded this goal to providing three MWEEs to each student over the course of their academic career. Under this enhanced goal, each student will receive a MWEE in elementary, middle and high school, leading to a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation of the Bay.
States continue to encourage and support the implication of Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs). Based on this more rigorous standard, 80 percent of students in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania received a MWEE during the school year, or 2.17 million of 2.72 million students.
Additional Information
Incorporating MWEEs in formal education is essential to change the long-term stewardship ethic of the population. Research has shown that intensive, sustained experiences with the Bay watershed’s resources are very effective and increase stewardship ethics.
NOAA B-WET Evaluation
The NOAA B-WET Program, with support from the Chesapeake Bay Trust and the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment, recently completed an intensive multi-year evaluation that shows that students are more knowledgeable about the watershed and more likely to take action to protect the Bay after participating in B-WET supported programs. The study also showed that B-WET trained teachers are more confident about and more likely to use field experiences to teach about the watershed.
Progress toward Providing MWEEs
While no baseline exists for the MWEE commitment, input received from the 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 the amount 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.
State Department of Education funding is also a key indicator of the year-to-year success of MWEE implementation. When state funding is directed away from the Department of Education, MWEE implementation falls.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts

22. Citizen and Community Action
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.
Based on data collected from 76 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, 13,038 volunteers participated in restoration activities in 2009.
Importance
The Bay and its watershed will never be restored and protected without action by its nearly 17 million residents and the involvement of local governments. That many people can surely have a tremendous impact if they are actively involved in the cleanup.
One of the Bay Program’s top priorities is encouraging the public to participate in Bay-friendly activities at home, at work and in their community. It is also important for towns and cities to put measures in place that protect local waterways that flow to the Bay.
Goals
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
Amount completed since 1997 (baseline year)
Between 1997 and 2007, 77 local governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status.
To measure citizen action, the first Chesapeake Volunteer Count was launched in This effort asks watershed organizations to report the number of people who volunteered for the organization that year. Since the number of organizations reporting has changed each year, results can not be directly compared to a baseline. However, annual results from the 2008 and 2009 counts indicate the following:
2008 results: 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.
2009 results: Based on data collected from 76 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, 13,038 volunteers participated in restoration activities in The majority of the organizations reported that volunteerism rates remained the same or increased from 2008.
Amount completed since 2000
25 local governments were awarded Bay Partner Community status.
Annual results from the 2008 and 2009 Chesapeake Volunteer Count indicate the following:
Amount completed in 2009
No data are available for 2008 since the Bay Partner Community program is no longer funded.
Based on data collected from 76 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, 13,038 volunteers participated in restoration activities in The majority of the organizations reported that volunteerism rates remained the same or increased from 2008.
Additional Information
About the Bay Partner Community Awards Program
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 or 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 that received Bay Partner Community awards were recognized for their efforts and presented with roadside signs denoting the jurisdiction as a Bay Partner Community.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009
Restoration & Protection Efforts