Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
link to page 1 
Updated July 5, 2017
Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
Background
The economic importance of the bay and concern about the
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United
decline of its resources are major reasons driving bay
States. Its watershed comprises a 64,000 square-mile area
restoration efforts. The federal government has made
and includes portions of the District of Columbia and the
significant investments in restoration activities in the bay
states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
watershed for almost 25 years, although federal
Virginia, and West Virginia (see Figure 1). Freshwater
involvement in the bay has occurred over a much longer
enters the bay from several tributaries, including the
period of time. Current restoration activities follow the
Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers, and drains into the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement (Agreement), which was
Atlantic Ocean. The bay supports thousands of wildlife
signed in 1983 and last updated in 2014. Federal agencies
species, commercial and recreational fisheries, recreation
have made substantial commitments to this effort (in
activities, shipping, and other commercial activity. The
addition to having long-standing programs and
health of the bay ecosystem has been a concern for
responsibilities that affect the bay).
Congress and stakeholders for many years. The decline of
this ecosystem, first noticed decades ago, has been widely
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
attributed to urban and agricultural development and to
The Agreement is a pledge to restore the health of the
pollution from the bay’s watershed.
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. From the Agreement’s
inception in 1983 and latest revision in 2014, the
Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed
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
Source: Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
FY2005 to fund environmental studies and grants that
Pollution from point sources, such as sewage treatment
support restoration activities in the bay. Congress has
plants, and from nonpoint sources, such as agricultural
appropriated funds for the Program after the authorization
runoff and animal waste, has contaminated the bay waters
for appropriations expired in FY2005.
and ecosystem with excessive nutrients (e.g., phosphorous
Federal Involvement in Restoring the Bay
and nitrogen), toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. These
substances have affected many plant and animal species and
Although multiple federal agencies participate in bay
have led to the decline of fisheries, submerged aquatic
restoration, EPA is considered the lead agency. In 2009, the
Federal Leadership Committee was established by
vegetation, and dissolved oxygen levels. Increased
commercial and urban development, loss of riparian and
Executive Order (E.O.) 13508. Members of this committee
shore habitat, and overharvesting of fisheries have led to
include senior representatives from the departments of
Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD),
additional declines in the bay’s ecological health.
Homeland Security, the Interior (DOI), and Transportation,
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
as well as EPA. The Federal Leadership Committee
of the bay restoration effort. Congress likely will continue
coordinates federal programs and the agencies’ activities
oversight over bay restoration and may address certain key
with the Program. The committee also creates an annual
issues identified by stakeholders, including funding for bay
action plan that describes how federal funding will be used
restoration, progress in bay restoration, and the success of
in the upcoming fiscal year. Several federal departments
TMDL implementation.
receive funding to conduct activities that directly and
indirectly contribute to restoring the bay. (See Table 1.)
Funding
Final appropriations legislation and decisions that will
Stakeholders question whether federal funding for bay
determine the FY2018 funding for the Program and other
restoration will be sufficient to improve the ecosystem. The
federal restoration activities are unresolved.
majority of funding for bay restoration comes from states
within the watershed. In FY2016, states contributed
Table 1. Chesapeake Bay Restoration Federal
approximately $1.3 billion for restoration, compared to
Funding, FY2012–FY2017
approximately $536 million from the federal government.
($ in millions)
The Administration proposes to eliminate EPA funding for
the Program for FY2018, which would decrease funding for
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
FY201
activities that directly aim to restore the bay and potentially
Dept.
7
limit the Program’s ability to coordinate restoration
activities. If EPA funding for the bay is reduced, state and
USDA
$121.4
$111.0
$127.9
$160.0
157.0
other federal agencies may continue to fund bay restoration
activities within their authorities. In a hearing on EPA’s
DOC
$10.1
$8.4
$9.9
$16.0
13.4
FY2018 budget, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
DOD
$89.1
$118.8
$137.0
$127.0
50.1
emphasized the importance of agency leadership and
management in lieu of federal funds.
DOI
$20.8
$25.4
$34.0
$39.0
42.5
Progress in Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
EPA
$174.8
$197.5
$206.3
$193.8
160.8
Some contend that progress in restoring the bay has largely
Sources: Federal Leadership Committee, E.O. 13508, Strategy for
stalled. They note that many ecological problems persist
Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 2014-2015
and that efforts to curb pollution, development, and habitat
Milestones Progress Report, May 2016, and Chesapeake Progress,
alteration have fallen short of expectations. They cite
Chesapeake Bay Program, 2017.
progress reports put out by nonfederal entities such as the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which reported that the
Total Maximum Daily Load
overall health index score of the bay slightly improved from
A central feature of the bay restoration strategy was the
a D+ in 2014 to a C- in 2016.
EPA’s development of a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay in 2010 (Bay TMDL). A
Proponents of restoration efforts counter these claims by
TMDL is a pollution budget stating how much pollutant
arguing that the prevention of further deterioration in the
loadings must be reduced to achieve state-established water
bay watershed, in light of increased development, is
quality standards developed pursuant to the CWA. The Bay
evidence of success. They also cite positive trends in some
TMDL is the largest single TMDL in terms of area covered
ecological indicators, such as an increasing blue crab
developed to date. It addresses all segments of the bay and
population and declining levels of nutrient pollution
its tidal tributaries that are impaired from discharges of
through the implementation of the TMDL, as evidence of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, with a goal of having
progress.
TMDL implementation measures in place by 2025. The
TMDL Implementation
Bay TMDL is implemented through state-specific
watershed implementation plans, which track progress
Congress may consider evaluating whether the TMDL has
toward achieving (1) an interim goal of having 60% of
been effective in reducing the excess nutrients in the
cleanup practices and policies needed to attain water quality
bay. Some contend that the TMDL is successful by noting
standards in place by 2017 and (2) a final goal of having
the reductions in phosphorus and sediments and estimates
100% of practices and policies in place by 2025. Each
that several nutrient-reduction targets are expected to be
jurisdiction also has two-year cleanup goals called
met. Others contend that progress is limited and that the
milestones. In June 2016, EPA evaluated progress toward
challenges for successful TMDL implementation continue.
achieving milestones and the 2017 and 2025 goals.
Some challenges, according to stakeholders, include
Reductions of specific pollutants in individual jurisdictions
continuing to reduce nutrients in the face of economic
varied widely. Collectively, the bay jurisdictions were on
development and population growth; maintaining adequate
track to meet the watershed-wide 2017 targets for
funding for wastewater and stormwater infrastructure
phosphorus and sediment but not nitrogen. For the 2025
upgrades and improvements and for best management
goal, progress required to limit loadings and achieve targets
practices to reduce nutrients; and evaluating whether the
varies across jurisdictions. (See CRS In Focus IF10283,
largely voluntary approach to restoring waters impaired by
Restoring Chesapeake Bay’s Water Quality: Where It
nonpoint source pollution is an effective method to reduce
nutrients.
Stands.)
Potential Issues for Congress
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Acting Section Research Manager
Congressional involvement in restoring the bay has been
Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy
through oversight, appropriations, and laws addressing parts
IF10627
https://crsreports.congress.gov
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
Updated July 5, 2017
Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
Background
The economic importance of the bay and concern about the
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United
decline of its resources are major reasons driving bay
States. Its watershed comprises a 64,000 square-mile area
restoration efforts. The federal government has made
and includes portions of the District of Columbia and the
significant investments in restoration activities in the bay
states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
watershed for almost 25 years, although federal
Virginia, and West Virginia (see Figure 1). Freshwater
involvement in the bay has occurred over a much longer
enters the bay from several tributaries, including the
period of time. Current restoration activities follow the
Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers, and drains into the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement (Agreement), which was
Atlantic Ocean. The bay supports thousands of wildlife
signed in 1983 and last updated in 2014. Federal agencies
species, commercial and recreational fisheries, recreation
have made substantial commitments to this effort (in
activities, shipping, and other commercial activity. The
addition to having long-standing programs and
health of the bay ecosystem has been a concern for
responsibilities that affect the bay).
Congress and stakeholders for many years. The decline of
this ecosystem, first noticed decades ago, has been widely
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
attributed to urban and agricultural development and to
The Agreement is a pledge to restore the health of the
pollution from the bay’s watershed.
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. From the Agreement’s
inception in 1983 and latest revision in 2014, the
Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed
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
Source: Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
FY2005 to fund environmental studies and grants that
Pollution from point sources, such as sewage treatment
support restoration activities in the bay. Congress has
plants, and from nonpoint sources, such as agricultural
appropriated funds for the Program after the authorization
runoff and animal waste, has contaminated the bay waters
for appropriations expired in FY2005.
and ecosystem with excessive nutrients (e.g., phosphorous
Federal Involvement in Restoring the Bay
and nitrogen), toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. These
substances have affected many plant and animal species and
Although multiple federal agencies participate in bay
have led to the decline of fisheries, submerged aquatic
restoration, EPA is considered the lead agency. In 2009, the
Federal Leadership Committee was established by
vegetation, and dissolved oxygen levels. Increased
commercial and urban development, loss of riparian and
Executive Order (E.O.) 13508. Members of this committee
shore habitat, and overharvesting of fisheries have led to
include senior representatives from the departments of
Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD),
additional declines in the bay’s ecological health.
Homeland Security, the Interior (DOI), and Transportation,
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 Ecosystem Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
as well as EPA. The Federal Leadership Committee
of the bay restoration effort. Congress likely will continue
coordinates federal programs and the agencies’ activities
oversight over bay restoration and may address certain key
with the Program. The committee also creates an annual
issues identified by stakeholders, including funding for bay
action plan that describes how federal funding will be used
restoration, progress in bay restoration, and the success of
in the upcoming fiscal year. Several federal departments
TMDL implementation.
receive funding to conduct activities that directly and
indirectly contribute to restoring the bay. (See Table 1.)
Funding
Final appropriations legislation and decisions that will
Stakeholders question whether federal funding for bay
determine the FY2018 funding for the Program and other
restoration will be sufficient to improve the ecosystem. The
federal restoration activities are unresolved.
majority of funding for bay restoration comes from states
within the watershed. In FY2016, states contributed
Table 1. Chesapeake Bay Restoration Federal
approximately $1.3 billion for restoration, compared to
Funding, FY2012–FY2017
approximately $536 million from the federal government.
($ in millions)
The Administration proposes to eliminate EPA funding for
the Program for FY2018, which would decrease funding for
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
FY201
activities that directly aim to restore the bay and potentially
Dept.
7
limit the Program’s ability to coordinate restoration
activities. If EPA funding for the bay is reduced, state and
USDA
$121.4
$111.0
$127.9
$160.0
157.0
other federal agencies may continue to fund bay restoration
activities within their authorities. In a hearing on EPA’s
DOC
$10.1
$8.4
$9.9
$16.0
13.4
FY2018 budget, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
DOD
$89.1
$118.8
$137.0
$127.0
50.1
emphasized the importance of agency leadership and
management in lieu of federal funds.
DOI
$20.8
$25.4
$34.0
$39.0
42.5
Progress in Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
EPA
$174.8
$197.5
$206.3
$193.8
160.8
Some contend that progress in restoring the bay has largely
Sources: Federal Leadership Committee, E.O. 13508, Strategy for
stalled. They note that many ecological problems persist
Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 2014-2015
and that efforts to curb pollution, development, and habitat
Milestones Progress Report, May 2016, and Chesapeake Progress,
alteration have fallen short of expectations. They cite
Chesapeake Bay Program, 2017.
progress reports put out by nonfederal entities such as the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which reported that the
Total Maximum Daily Load
overall health index score of the bay slightly improved from
A central feature of the bay restoration strategy was the
a D+ in 2014 to a C- in 2016.
EPA’s development of a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay in 2010 (Bay TMDL). A
Proponents of restoration efforts counter these claims by
TMDL is a pollution budget stating how much pollutant
arguing that the prevention of further deterioration in the
loadings must be reduced to achieve state-established water
bay watershed, in light of increased development, is
quality standards developed pursuant to the CWA. The Bay
evidence of success. They also cite positive trends in some
TMDL is the largest single TMDL in terms of area covered
ecological indicators, such as an increasing blue crab
developed to date. It addresses all segments of the bay and
population and declining levels of nutrient pollution
its tidal tributaries that are impaired from discharges of
through the implementation of the TMDL, as evidence of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, with a goal of having
progress.
TMDL implementation measures in place by 2025. The
TMDL Implementation
Bay TMDL is implemented through state-specific
watershed implementation plans, which track progress
Congress may consider evaluating whether the TMDL has
toward achieving (1) an interim goal of having 60% of
been effective in reducing the excess nutrients in the
cleanup practices and policies needed to attain water quality
bay. Some contend that the TMDL is successful by noting
standards in place by 2017 and (2) a final goal of having
the reductions in phosphorus and sediments and estimates
100% of practices and policies in place by 2025. Each
that several nutrient-reduction targets are expected to be
jurisdiction also has two-year cleanup goals called
met. Others contend that progress is limited and that the
milestones. In June 2016, EPA evaluated progress toward
challenges for successful TMDL implementation continue.
achieving milestones and the 2017 and 2025 goals.
Some challenges, according to stakeholders, include
Reductions of specific pollutants in individual jurisdictions
continuing to reduce nutrients in the face of economic
varied widely. Collectively, the bay jurisdictions were on
development and population growth; maintaining adequate
track to meet the watershed-wide 2017 targets for
funding for wastewater and stormwater infrastructure
phosphorus and sediment but not nitrogen. For the 2025
upgrades and improvements and for best management
goal, progress required to limit loadings and achieve targets
practices to reduce nutrients; and evaluating whether the
varies across jurisdictions. (See CRS In Focus IF10283,
largely voluntary approach to restoring waters impaired by
Restoring Chesapeake Bay’s Water Quality: Where It
nonpoint source pollution is an effective method to reduce
nutrients.
Stands.)
Potential Issues for Congress
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Acting Section Research Manager
Congressional involvement in restoring the bay has been
Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy
through oversight, appropriations, and laws addressing parts
IF10627
https://crsreports.congress.gov
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