Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay

Updated July 5, 2017

Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay

Background

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United

States. Its watershed comprises a 64,000 square-mile area

and includes portions of the District of Columbia and the

states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,

Virginia, and West Virginia (see Figure 1). Freshwater

enters the bay from several tributaries, including the

Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers, and drains into the

Atlantic Ocean. The bay supports thousands of wildlife

species, commercial and recreational fisheries, recreation

activities, shipping, and other commercial activity. The

health of the bay ecosystem has been a concern for

Congress and stakeholders for many years. The decline of

this ecosystem, first noticed decades ago, has been widely

attributed to urban and agricultural development and to

pollution from the bay’s watershed.

Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Source: Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Pollution from point sources, such as sewage treatment

plants, and from nonpoint sources, such as agricultural

runoff and animal waste, has contaminated the bay waters

and ecosystem with excessive nutrients (e.g., phosphorous

and nitrogen), toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. These

substances have affected many plant and animal species and

have led to the decline of fisheries, submerged aquatic

vegetation, and dissolved oxygen levels. Increased

commercial and urban development, loss of riparian and

shore habitat, and overharvesting of fisheries have led to

additional declines in the bay’s ecological health.

The economic importance of the bay and concern about the

decline of its resources are major reasons driving bay

restoration efforts. The federal government has made

significant investments in restoration activities in the bay

watershed for almost 25 years, although federal

involvement in the bay has occurred over a much longer

period of time. Current restoration activities follow the

Chesapeake Bay Agreement (Agreement), which was

signed in 1983 and last updated in 2014. Federal agencies

have made substantial commitments to this effort (in

addition to having long-standing programs and

responsibilities that affect the bay).

Chesapeake Bay Agreement

The Agreement is a pledge to restore the health of the

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. From the Agreement’s

inception in 1983 and latest revision in 2014, the

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council has led activities

carried out pursuant to the Agreement and its amendments.

The council and signatories to the Agreement consist of the

governors of Delaware, Maryland, New York,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; the mayor of the

District of Columbia; the chair of the Chesapeake Bay

Commission; and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Administrator. The council establishes the

policy direction for restoring and protecting the bay and its

living resources. The council also is accountable to the

public for progress made under the Agreement.

Chesapeake Bay Program

The Agreement established the Chesapeake Bay Program

(Program), which is authorized under the Clean Water Act,

as amended (CWA; 33 U.S.C. §1267). The Program

governs restoration activities in the bay and works with

states and stakeholders through a committee structure to

develop actions and strategies for restoration. The Program

sets restoration objectives and indicators, and it implements

and reports on restoration activities. The Program office is

housed within EPA, which provides staff and funding to run

the office. Primary funding for the Program comes from

state governments. Federal funding was authorized under

33 U.S.C. §1267(j) at $40 million annually from FY2001 to

FY2005 to fund environmental studies and grants that

support restoration activities in the bay. Congress has

appropriated funds for the Program after the authorization

for appropriations expired in FY2005.

Federal Involvement in Restoring the Bay

Although multiple federal agencies participate in bay

restoration, EPA is considered the lead agency. In 2009, the

Federal Leadership Committee was established by

Executive Order (E.O.) 13508. Members of this committee

include senior representatives from the departments of

Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD),

Homeland Security, the Interior (DOI), and Transportation,

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay

as well as EPA. The Federal Leadership Committee

coordinates federal programs and the agencies’ activities

with the Program. The committee also creates an annual

action plan that describes how federal funding will be used

in the upcoming fiscal year. Several federal departments

receive funding to conduct activities that directly and

indirectly contribute to restoring the bay. (See Table 1.)

Final appropriations legislation and decisions that will

determine the FY2018 funding for the Program and other

federal restoration activities are unresolved.

Table 1. Chesapeake Bay Restoration Federal

Funding, FY2012–FY2017

($ in millions)

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY201

7

USDA

$121.4

$111.0

$127.9

$160.0

157.0

DOC

$10.1

$8.4

$9.9

$16.0

13.4

DOD

$89.1

$118.8

$137.0

$127.0

50.1

DOI

$20.8

$25.4

$34.0

$39.0

42.5

EPA

$174.8

$197.5

$206.3

$193.8

160.8

Dept.

Sources: Federal Leadership Committee, E.O. 13508, Strategy for

Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 2014-2015

Milestones Progress Report, May 2016, and Chesapeake Progress,

Chesapeake Bay Program, 2017.

Total Maximum Daily Load

A central feature of the bay restoration strategy was the

EPA’s development of a Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay in 2010 (Bay TMDL). A

TMDL is a pollution budget stating how much pollutant

loadings must be reduced to achieve state-established water

quality standards developed pursuant to the CWA. The Bay

TMDL is the largest single TMDL in terms of area covered

developed to date. It addresses all segments of the bay and

its tidal tributaries that are impaired from discharges of

nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, with a goal of having

TMDL implementation measures in place by 2025. The

Bay TMDL is implemented through state-specific

watershed implementation plans, which track progress

toward achieving (1) an interim goal of having 60% of

cleanup practices and policies needed to attain water quality

standards in place by 2017 and (2) a final goal of having

100% of practices and policies in place by 2025. Each

jurisdiction also has two-year cleanup goals called

milestones. In June 2016, EPA evaluated progress toward

achieving milestones and the 2017 and 2025 goals.

Reductions of specific pollutants in individual jurisdictions

varied widely. Collectively, the bay jurisdictions were on

track to meet the watershed-wide 2017 targets for

phosphorus and sediment but not nitrogen. For the 2025

goal, progress required to limit loadings and achieve targets

varies across jurisdictions. (See CRS In Focus IF10283,

Restoring Chesapeake Bay’s Water Quality: Where It

Stands.)

Potential Issues for Congress

Congressional involvement in restoring the bay has been

through oversight, appropriations, and laws addressing parts

of the bay restoration effort. Congress likely will continue

oversight over bay restoration and may address certain key

issues identified by stakeholders, including funding for bay

restoration, progress in bay restoration, and the success of

TMDL implementation.

Funding

Stakeholders question whether federal funding for bay

restoration will be sufficient to improve the ecosystem. The

majority of funding for bay restoration comes from states

within the watershed. In FY2016, states contributed

approximately $1.3 billion for restoration, compared to

approximately $536 million from the federal government.

The Administration proposes to eliminate EPA funding for

the Program for FY2018, which would decrease funding for

activities that directly aim to restore the bay and potentially

limit the Program’s ability to coordinate restoration

activities. If EPA funding for the bay is reduced, state and

other federal agencies may continue to fund bay restoration

activities within their authorities. In a hearing on EPA’s

FY2018 budget, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt

emphasized the importance of agency leadership and

management in lieu of federal funds.

Progress in Restoring the Chesapeake Bay

Some contend that progress in restoring the bay has largely

stalled. They note that many ecological problems persist

and that efforts to curb pollution, development, and habitat

alteration have fallen short of expectations. They cite

progress reports put out by nonfederal entities such as the

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which reported that the

overall health index score of the bay slightly improved from

a D+ in 2014 to a C- in 2016.

Proponents of restoration efforts counter these claims by

arguing that the prevention of further deterioration in the

bay watershed, in light of increased development, is

evidence of success. They also cite positive trends in some

ecological indicators, such as an increasing blue crab

population and declining levels of nutrient pollution

through the implementation of the TMDL, as evidence of

progress.

TMDL Implementation

Congress may consider evaluating whether the TMDL has

been effective in reducing the excess nutrients in the

bay. Some contend that the TMDL is successful by noting

the reductions in phosphorus and sediments and estimates

that several nutrient-reduction targets are expected to be

met. Others contend that progress is limited and that the

challenges for successful TMDL implementation continue.

Some challenges, according to stakeholders, include

continuing to reduce nutrients in the face of economic

development and population growth; maintaining adequate

funding for wastewater and stormwater infrastructure

upgrades and improvements and for best management

practices to reduce nutrients; and evaluating whether the

largely voluntary approach to restoring waters impaired by

nonpoint source pollution is an effective method to reduce

nutrients.

Pervaze A. Sheikh, Acting Section Research Manager

Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IF10627

Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to

congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.

Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has

been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the

United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be

reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include

copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you

wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10627 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED