A Draft Report to the Citizen,
For Public Review and Comments
www.chesapeakebay.net/assess
'ay Regi
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
Chesapeake Bay 2005
Health and Restoration Assessment
Part Two: Restoration Efforts
-'
*mt— »- ^flOl
<"**§=|lg3£
ijL/''i,i#J»
•JPWSR.* --, -J-:r;,'»»v^i4^g^^--.-^X aESSS »
^fc^^r- v;r -*-:;-" v£^W"*r" -•.-.; "^ - ?
Ti^r«32 - £¥s£J: lfe?^:^^a
w:
5T-?».
adss25« -
" —^v.
%gg£r£r!
V^T
Bay states and the federal government have developed partnerships and 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. As Part One: Ecosystem
Health makes clear, however, a great deal of work remains in our collective effort to restore the Bay.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
The Chesapeake Bay Program brings
together local, state and federal gov-
ernments, non-profit organizations,
watershed residents and the region's
leading academic institutions in a
partnership effort to protect and re-
store the Bay.
Through a series of Chesapeake Bay
agreements, Bay Program signato-
ries - the state of Maryland; the com-
monwealths of Pennsylvania and Vir-
ginia; the District of Columbia; the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
representing the federal government;
and the Chesapeake Bay Commis-
sion representing Bay state legislators
- have committed to reducing pollu-
tion, restoring habitat and sustainably
managing fisheries. Since 2000, the
headwater states of Delaware, New
York and West Virginia have joined
in regional efforts to improve water
quality.
To learn more and find out how you
can help, visit the Chesapeake Bay
Program website at www.chesapeake-
bay.net.
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(800) YOUR BAY
www.chesapeakebay.net
Printed on recycled paper
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
Restoration Summary
Restoration of a complex ecosystem requires a multi-pronged ap-
proach. The Chesapeake Bay Program has divided its restoration
efforts into five broad areas.
Reducing Pollution efforts are the most far-reaching. The part-
ners' goal is to take the actions necessary to remove the Bay and its
tidal tributaries from EPA's list of "impaired waters" by 2010. Over-
all, about half of the pollution reduction efforts needed to achieve
the nutrient goals have been undertaken over the past two decades.
Restoring Habitats work is being measured against a series of goals
established by the Program. Most of the goals have a 2010 deadline.
Overall, habitat restoration efforts are collectively about 40% toward
their goals and steady progress is occurring in several goal areas.
Managing Fisheries focuses on changing from a traditional man- —
agement approach that looks solely at a key species (single species) to
one that recognizes interactions between species (multi-species) and
environmental stressors such as low dissolved oxygen levels (ecosys-
tem based). Progress toward this goal ranges from 40-67% for five
key Bay fisheries. NOTE: this index does not gauge the health of
fisheries, which is covered in Part One: Ecosystem Health.
Protecting Watersheds efforts are also measured against Program -
goals. Many of these efforts help slow the rate of new pollution as-
sociated with population increases in the watershed as well as reduce
current pollution levels. Overall, watershed protection efforts show
good progress, but the critical measure of reducing harmful sprawl
has not been quantified for this year's report.
Fostering Stewardship efforts range from formal outdoor environ-
mental education experiences for school-age children to informal
adult learning opportunities. While critical to the eventual success
of the restoration effort, this priority area has not been quantified
this year.
About This Report
The Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment is pre-
sented in two parts. Part Two: Restoration Efforts is divided into five sec-
tions. In Reducing Pollution, efforts are compared to goals defined by
the Bay states' river-specific cleanup plans. Monitoring data, tracking
information, and computer simulations are used in this section. In the
remaining parts, restoration efforts are compared to goals adopted by the
Bay Program. Monitoring and tracking data are used in these sections.
-------
Summary: 2005 Bay Restoration Efforts
Priority Areas
Percent of Goal Achieved
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Wastewater
Agriculture
Urban/Suburban Lands
Air Pollution
Restoring Habitats
100% of Goal-
Bay Grasses Planted
Wetlands Restored
Fish Passage Restored
Oyster Reef Restored
Protecting Watersheds
100% of Goal-
Current
Restoration
Efforts
Forest Buffers Planted
Watershed Mgmt Plans
Lands Preserved
Reducing Sprawl
Fostering Stewardship
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Sediment
Not Quantified this year
Not Quantified this year
Not Quantified this year
I
Not Quantified this year
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
Most summary graphs are calculated by averaging the
"percent of goal achieved" for each measure within
the priority area. For Reducing Pollution, all data are
used in developing the summary chart even though
the Urban/Suburban Land and Air Pollution sec-
tions could not be reported individually this year.
Expanded analysis and interpretation of data as well
as the methods used to compile the graphs can be found
atwww.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods.
The public may comment on this report through May 31,
2006 by visiting www.chesapeakebay.net/assess. An inde-
pendent science panel also will review this report. Rec-
ommendations will be incorporated into future efforts.
-------
100% of Goal-
Current
Restoration —
Efforts
Clear, oxygen-rich waters are the foun-
dation of the Chesapeake Bay resto-
ration. The Bay and its rivers are cur-
rently receiving one and a half times
the nutrients and sediments that a
healthy ecosystem can handle.
Moderate progress has been made in
installing pollution control equipment
at wastewater treatment plants, with
somewhat lower achievement levels in
putting pollution reduction practices
on agricultural lands. Future reports
will also depict summary measures of
management efforts to control storm-
water pollution washing off urban and
suburban lands, as well as from air
pollution sources.
From 1995-2004 state and federal
government partners invested $2.5
billion in their efforts to cut nutrient
and sediment pollution into the Bay
and its tributaries.
Reducing Pollution
Wastewater
Decreases in the amount of nutrients discharged from wastewater
treatment plants account for a large portion of the estimated nutri-
ent reductions in the watershed to date.
As the region's population continues to grow (an estimated 100,000
people annually in the 1990s), the volume of waste requiring treat-
ment grows. In 2005 the Bay states and the District of Columbia
began putting into place a new regulatory program that requires
hundreds of wastewater treatment plants to install a new generation
of nutrient reduction technology equipment. Bay jurisdictions are
relying on future reductions from wastewater treatment plants for
achieving about 20 percent of their nutrient reduction goals. Since
1985 the partners have achieved three-fifths of their wastewater ni-
trogen reduction goal and four-fifths of their wastewater phosphorus
reduction goal.
?X <*
_
Wastewater Pollution Controls
J
61%
of Nitrogen
Goal Achieved
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
100%
Controlling Phosphorus
Goal
80%
of Phosphorus
Goal Achieved
Accounting Begins
1985
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Data and Methods:www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
Air Pollution
Scientists estimate that one-quarter to one-third of the nitrogen
reaching the Bay and its rivers comes through the air. Pollutants are
emitted into the air primarily from power plants, automobiles, agri-
culture and other industries. These pollutants eventually fall onto
water surfaces and the land where they can be washed into local
waterways.
Federal and state air pollution control programs are being relied
upon to reduce airborne nitrogen emissions significantly by 2010.
Techniques to track these reductions are still under development
and are not reported in the Reducing Pollution section this year.
-------
Agriculture
Urban/Suburban Lands and Septic Systems
The agricultural community is using dozens of
different types of "best management practices"
to reduce the amount of pollution reaching local
waters and the Bay. Computer simulations and
water monitoring data indicate that these nutrient
and sediment reduction efforts have been effective.
Since 1985 the partners have achieved about two-
fifths of their agricultural nitrogen reduction goal
and about half of their agricultural phosphorus
reduction goal.
In part because they are so cost-effective, the Bay
jurisdictions are relying on future reductions from
agricultural lands for more than half of the remain-
ing nutrient reductions needed to meet restoration
goals. The economics of agriculture require that
significant funding and technical assistance will be
needed for this sector to meet its restoration goals.
Agricultural Pollution Controls
44%
of Nitrogen
Goal Achieved
49%
of Phosphorus
Goal Achieved
41%
of Sediment
Goal Achieved
. Accounting Begins
Stormwater that runs across roads, rooftops and
other hardened surfaces carries harmful pollution
to local streams and into the Chesapeake. The rapid
rate of residential and commercial development
has made stormwater the fastest growing segment
of pollution in the Bay watershed. About a quarter
of the nutrient reductions called for in the states'
cleanup plans are expected to come from efforts
to treat pollution from urban/suburban lands and
septic systems.
"Green infrastructure" is used to naturally filter
polluted water before it reaches local streams. These
practices include rain gardens, green roofs, and
buffer strips, and they can be relatively cost-effective.
Repairing and upgrading stormwater sewer systems,
on the other hand, is extremely expensive. Install-
ing nitrogen-removing septic systems is also much
cheaper at the time of construction
than upgrading them later. Pre-
venting pollution is more effective
and less expensive than efforts to
correct stormwater problems. Some
prevention efforts are tracked in
the Protecting Watersheds section,
pages 9-10.
Current tracking of these various
efforts is not uniform throughout
the Bay watershed and is not in-
cluded in this year's report.
J
2000 2005 2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
-------
Current
Restoration
CHUIlb
Restoring high-quality habitat is criti-
cal to bringing this ecosystem back
into balance. Habitats provide access
to food, shelter, and safe areas to
raise young. Restoration efforts have
focused on increasing four habitat
types. A multi-agency effort to plant
underwater grasses has seen little
early success, but the Program's fish
passage efforts are both long-stand-
ing and generally successful. Restor-
ing wetlands is a major focus area,
and the partners agreed to expand
their goal in this area in 2005. Oyster
reefs were once a vital habitat for en-
tire underwater communities. Efforts
to rebuild reefs are underway, but not
quantified this year.
From 1995-2004 state and federal
governments invested a combined
$700 million in efforts to protect and
restore vital habitats in the Bay water-
shed.
Restoring Habitats
Planting Underwater Grasses
Restoring underwater Bay grasses relies overwhelmingly on improv-
ing water quality. Bay managers have begun to supplement pollution
reduction efforts with experimental aquatic grass plantings. These
new meadows, if successful, will provide seed sources to produce
stronger and larger grass beds as water quality improves. In the first
two years of this effort, Bay Program partners have planted about
one-tenth of their initial goal of 1,000 acres by 2008.
Bay Grasses Planted
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100
90 -
70 -
60
u.
11%
of Goal Achieved
. Accounting Begins
• 1,000 Ac re Goal
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
Underwater grasses provide critical habitat to key Bay species such
as striped bass and blue crabs, filter pollution, increase dissolved
oxygen levels and improve water clarity.
Restoring Oyster Reefs
Oyster reefs were once an essential component of the Bay ecosystem,
providing healthy habitat for other bottom-dwelling organisms as
well as schools of fish. Reef restoration efforts include cleaning and
"planting" old oyster shells, developing disease-resistant strains of na-
tive oysters, and placing baby oysters on the restored or newly built
reef. These habitat restoration efforts have been limited by a num-
ber of factors including disease and the lack of suitable hard bottom
surfaces to plant the reefs.
Partners in oyster reef restoration are currently developing a scien-
tifically sound method for quantifying their efforts. For more on the
status of oysters, please see the Part One: Ecosystem Health.
-------
Reopening Fish Passage
Dams, culverts and other obstruc-
tions block the movement of fish
in many of the rivers and streams
of the Bay watershed. By removing
physical obstacles, key species like
American shad are able to return to
their native spawning grounds and
resident fish have increased habitat
available. From 1988 through 2005
the partners had restored 1,838
miles of fish passage, surpassing
their original 1,357-mile restoration
goal. In early 2005 Bay Program
partners committed to increasing
the restoration goal to 2,807 miles by 2014.
Restoring Wetlands
Wetlands serve multiple ecological functions.
Restoring and enhancing wetlands throughout the
watershed can provide critical wildlife habitat.
Opening Rivers to Migratory Fish
Goal Achieved
100
65%
of Goal Achieved
^ Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
In addition to habitat, wetlands help clean the water
of nutrients and sediments. To improve water qual-
ity, the Bay states call for the restoration of some
200,000 acres in their tributary cleanup plans.
Progress toward this water quality goal is measured
in part in the Reducing Pollution summary chart on
page 2.
Wetlands Restoration
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 •
90 -
70 -
60
u
40%
of Goal Achieved
^ Accounting Begins
50 -
40
30 -
20
10 -
0
• 25,000 Acre Commitment
The Bay Program's current strategy commits part-
ners to restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands by 2010,
and as of 2004 they are about 40% of the way toward
this goal.
Data and Methods:www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
-------
Managing Fisheries
100% of Goal-.
Current
Restoration
Efforts
The Chesapeake Bay is a complex
system of interconnected organisms
and habitats. A more complete un-
derstanding of how fish interact with
other organisms and with the Bay's
physical and chemical environments
is necessary before we can accurately
assess how human-induced stress-
ors affect the fish. Multi-species and
ecosystem models are beginning
to provide insights into how various
management actions could benefit
the Bay. However, the models require
more data over longer time periods
before we can accurately simulate the
ecosystem's response to various man-
agement actions. Single-species man-
agement plans provide a solid basis
for advancing towards a more compre-
hensive ecosystem-based approach.
State and federal governments have
invested $305 million from 1995-
2004 in efforts to protect and restore
living resources, including fisheries, in
the Bay watershed.
Managing Fisheries
Current fisheries management is largely based on the traditional
single-species approach. Species interactions and human activities
other than fishing, however, can strongly influence the status of
fished populations. Therefore the Chesapeake Bay Program has ad-
opted a goal of defining and implementing ecosystem based fisheries
management for five key species. This transition involves a number
of steps from establishing single species plans and incorporating
multi-species considerations (such as predator-prey interactions) in
these plans, to full ecosystem based fisheries management.
Fisheries Management Effort Index
T+fr.
Single-Species
Fisheries Management
Multi-Species
Fisheries
Management
Ecosystem Based
Fisheries Management
Overall
Progress
Plan Action Plan Action
100%
Current effort taken GOAL
I 1 Effort still required
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
American Shad
By the mid-1970's, American shad stocks had been greatly dimin-
ished by overfishing, spawning migration obstructions (dams), and
water pollution. In 1980, Maryland implemented an American shad
fishing moratorium and in 1994 Virginia followed, thus effectively
banning direct harvest throughout the Bay. Current restoration
efforts focus on reopening native spawning habitat through dam
removal or the installation of fishways, supplemented with hatchery
stocking programs, and efforts to improve water quality. Before the
fishery is reopened, a new fisheries management plan, including
catch limits (thresholds) and safe restoration levels (targets) will
need to be developed.
i
-------
Blue Crabs
Blue crabs are currently managed as a single species
using minimum catch size and seasonal limits on
harvests to achieve target levels of fishing pressure.
Annual reviews of blue crab stock are conducted
to determine if target levels have been exceeded.
Under the current strategy, fishing pressure is set to
levels that should allow for increased abundance.
Blue crabs play an important role as both predator
and prey in the Bay ecosystem. Interactions between
blue crabs and striped bass have been examined. In
addition, some management recommendations have
been implemented such as special openings in crab
traps to prevent the capture of non-targeted species.
Striped Bass
Maryland instituted a moratorium on all striped
bass fishing in 1985 in response to the collapse of
the fishery during the early 1980s. Virginia followed
suit in 1989. Since the moratorium was lifted in
1990, the stock has been rebuilt and maintained
through an adaptive management approach, based
upon monitoring and the strategic use of quotas
and seasonal closings.
Striped bass are recognized as one of the top
predators in the Chesapeake Bay and impact forage
species such as Atlantic menhaden. The recently
proposed annual cap on Atlantic menhaden har-
vests was based in part upon the dietary importance
of menhaden to the striped bass population.
Atlantic Menhaden
Atlantic menhaden are managed as a coastal popula-
tion under a single species approach.
Menhaden are a significant part of the aquatic
food chain and as such, multi-species management
is critical. Currently, predator-prey and by-catch
interactions are relatively well defined. Menhaden
feed primarily on plankton and are prey for top
predators such as striped bass and bluefish. There
is concern over the steady decline in the number
of young menhaden produced in Chesapeake Bay.
This decline has prompted the current proposal for
five-year cap on the commercial harvest of menha-
den starting in 2006.
Oysters
Oysters are currently managed as a single species
using minimum size limits, seasonal and geographic
closings, and bushel limits. Fisheries targets and
thresholds are not established in the current plan
but designating sanctuaries has been a strategy for
protecting the stock. The Bay Program has a 2010
goal of attaining a 10 - fold increase in biomass rela-
tive to 1994. Restoration efforts for oysters focus on
expanding the amount of clean, hard surfaces for
oyster spat (juvenile oysters) to settle, increasing the
number of breeding adult oysters and strategies for
coping with oyster diseases.
As disease and harvest have combined to reduce
available oyster habitat, concern for the organisms
that depend upon oyster reefs and for the dimin-
ished role oysters play in filtering Bay waters have
been important factors for managing and restoring
the oyster population.
Ecosystem Based Fisheries Plans
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem-based fishery manage-
ment plans are being developed for American shad,
blue crabs, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and
oysters. These plans will build on the single and
multi-species approaches. In the index, points for
ecosystem-based management were given for ongo-
ing restoration efforts, such as nutrient reduction
strategies that decrease dissolved oxygen problems.
All of the ecosystem plans call for improved water
quality as an essential element of species restoration.
-------
Protecting Watersheds
100% of Goal-
Current
Restoration —
Efforts
The human population in the Chesa-
peake watershed grew by 100,000
residents annually during the 1990s
and that rate has increased. Manag-
ing growth is especially difficult in this
watershed because of the vast amount
of land that drains into the relatively
shallow Chesapeake. Restoration ef-
forts center on reforesting stream-
side buffers, developing watershed
management plans, preserving open
space, and reducing harmful sprawl.
Partners appear to be on track with
many of their Protecting Watershed
efforts, but they have not been able to
measure the most important effort of
all: the growth of sprawl development
across the watershed.
From 1995-2004 the Bay program
partners invested $1.8 billion on Pro-
tecting Watersheds efforts, primarily
on land preservation and acquisition
throughout the Bay basin.
Protecting Watersheds
Restoring Forest Buffers
Streamside forest buffers provide habitat for wildlife, stabilize banks
from erosion, and keep river waters cool, an important factor for
many fish. Program partners achieved their original 2010 buffer
restoration goal of 2,010 miles ahead of schedule and in 2003 raised
that target to 10,000 miles. They are roughly on track to meet this
2010 goal with 4,606 miles restored through August 2005.
In addition to preserving the watershed, forest buffers also naturally
absorb nutrients and sediments, thus improving water quality in
neighboring streams. To improve water quality, the Bay states call
for the restoration of some 50,000 miles in their tributary cleanup
plans. Progress toward this water quality goal is measured in part in
the Reducing Pollution summary chart on page 2.
_
Riparian Forest Buffers Planted
Goal Achieved
100 H
10,000 Mile Commitment
46%
of Goal Achieved
A. Accounting Begins
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
Preserving Lands
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and District of Columbia com-
mitted to permanently protect from development 20 percent of the
34.6 million acres by 2010. Parks, wildlife refuges, and private lands
protected through conservation easements are counted in this mea-
sure. By July 2005 a total of 6.7 million acres had been permanently
preserved and the partners are likely to meet the watershed goal of
6.9 million acres.
Reducing Harmful Sprawl
Directing development toward areas with proper infrastructure and
services and away from important resource lands is a major effort
involving state, regional and local planning officials.
-------
Program partners agreed to a 30 per-
cent reduction in the rate of harmful
sprawl by 2012. The increase in the
amount of hardened surfaces such as
roads and rooftops, which grew five
times faster than the population rate
in the 1990s, may be a useful way to
measure "harmful sprawl."
Developing Watershed
Management Plans
Watershed management plans ad-
dress the protection, conservation
and restoration of stream corridors,
riparian forest buffers, wetlands,
parklands and other open space for
the purposes of Preserving Watershed
health while enhancing the quality
of life in local communities. The Bay
Program has a goal of developing
and implementing locally supported
watershed management plans in two-
thirds of the Bay watershed. By the
end of 2004 plans were written for
9.7 million acres with a goal of 22.9
million acres of land covered under
such plans by 2010. Translating these
plans into action will be essential to
restoring water quality (see Part One:
Ecosystem Health, pp. 5-8).
Watershed Land Preservation
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 •
90 -
80
70
60
50 -
40
30 -
20
10 -
0
6.92 Million Acre Goal
97%
of Goal Achieved
^ Accounting Begins
1985
Data and Methods:www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
Watershed Management Plans Developed
Percent of
Goal Achieved
100 •
90 -
42%
50 -
40
30 -
20
10 -
0
• 22.9 Million Acre Goal •
of Goal Achieved
Ak. Accounting Begins
Data and Methods:www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods
Fostering Chesapeake Stewardship
Fostering stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay eco-
system requires promoting environmental under-
standing and expanding public access and resource
interpretation. The partners have committed to
providing a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor
experience for every student in the watershed before
graduation. Every jurisdiction has incorporated
this commitment into its education standards. The
Chesapeake Gateways system connects 150 unique
places into a watershed-wide network that promotes
understanding of the ecosystem as well as its cul-
tural and historic significance. The "Chesapeake
Club" initiative promotes healthy lawn care among
Washington, D.C. area residents in a humorous yet
effective way. Publications promote the importance
of scientific and technical information and engage
the 16 million people living in the watershed in a
dialog about restoration efforts.
From 1995-2004, the partners invested $258 million
in Fostering Stewardship efforts across the Chesa-
peake watershed.
10
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
Chesapeake Bay Pros
410 Severn Avenue, Sui
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
(800) YOUR BAY
www.chesapeakebay.net
Looking Back at 2005
While there are many notable individual accomplish-
ments relating to Chesapeake Bay restoration, Part One:
Ecosystem Health makes clear that the Bay Program part-
ners need to accelerate the pace of water quality improve-
ment efforts. To that end, a number of specific initiatives
in 2005 are worth highlighting:
In Maryland one wastewater treatment plant was fully up-
graded and 19 are under construction or design. The state
launched its first targeted watershed restoration effort on
the Corsica River, created a partnership to raise funds for
Bay restoration, and reached its goal of preserving 20% of
Maryland land from development.
New York State's largest wastewater treatment plant in the
watershed is in the process of being upgraded, and coun-
ties completed Agriculture Environmental Management
strategies in 2005. The Upper Susquehanna Coalition
reports over 20,000 acres of nutrient management plans,
installation of over 200,000 feet of stream bank fencing,
22,000 feet of forested buffers and 492 new wetland acres
added in 2005.
In Pennsylvania, the $625 million Growing Greener II
watershed restoration bond issue and a separate $250
million bond for Sewer Infrastructure were approved.
Nutrient limits are being included in operation permits
for wastewater treatment facilities. The Agricultural,
Communities and Rural Environment (ACRE) initia-
tive increases the number of farms covered by regula-
tions for nutrient and sediment management.
Virginia adopted specific nutrient caps in 2005 for 125
wastewater treatment plants, and it established a nutri-
ent trading program for meeting and maintaining these
caps. Additionally, the state now requires wastewater
treatment plants to achieve technology-based nutrient
concentration limits, with some exemptions for special
facilities that operate nutrient removal facilities at the
treatment levels for which they were designed.
This report was developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership to help inform watershed residents about the health of the Bay and efforts to restore it. Staff from a large number of state
and federal agencies, academic institutions and non-governmental organizations contributed data and interpretation to the report, including The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay
Dept. of Agriculture and the WV Dept. of Environmental Protection. For a full list of contributing partners, visit http://www.chesapeakebay.net/baypartners.htm. Images: Chesapeake Bay Program,
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, NOAA, Duane Raver/USFWS.
------- |