United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
903R83100
September 1983
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM:
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
£EPA
TD
225
.C54
C57
copy 3
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM:
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and institutions have been involved in
the Chesapeake Bay Program effort It would be virtually
impossible to acknowledge all of them and their unique
contributions. However, the following institutions are
gratefully acknowledged for their cooperation, active sup-
port, and sustained interest in the Chesapeake Bay
Program:
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Research Consortium
Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay
District of Columbia Department of
Environmental Services
Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Virginia Council on the Environment
Virginia State Water Control Board
-------
CONTENTS
Ill
Introduction.
1
History of the Bay Program 1
The Research Phase 1
Characterizing the Bay 2
Managing the Bay 3
The Chesapeake Bay System 5
General Description 5
The Bay's Ecological Processes 7
Geological Composition 7
Water and Sediments 8
Key Biological Communities 10
Food Production and Consumption 12
Population and Land Use Trends 14
Population Trends 14
Increased Urbanization 15
Changes in Agricultural Activities 15
Loss of Wetlands 16
Summary 17
The State of the Bay 19
Introduction 19
Summary of Scientific Findings 21
Trends in Living Resources 21
Water and Sediment Quality Trends 22
Relationships between Living Resources
and Water Sediment Quality 24
Nutrients 24
Nutrients and the Living Resources 24
Sources of Nutrients 25
Nutrient Loadings 29
Toxic Compounds 31
Toxic Compounds and Living Resources 31
Sources of Toxic Compounds 33
Loadings of Toxic Compounds 33
Summary 34
A Framework for Action 35
Introduction 35
Monitoring and Research 35
Monitoring and Research Recommendations 37
Nutrients 37
Bay-wide Nutrient Recommendations 39
Toxic Compounds 42
Bay-wide Toxicant Recommendations 44
Bay Management 47
-------
IV
-------
FOREWORD
The water and related land resources of Chesapeake
Bay serve over 12 million people in five states. The beauty
and richness of the region have been well known since the
area was first settled by the Susquehannock and other In-
dians. Although Chesapeake Bay is still enjoyed today, 400
years later, the estuary and its resources are pressured from
growth and development. The future will bring additional
stresses as population continues to grow and the region
seeks the expanded economic base needed to provide a de-
cent standard of living for all of its citizens. It is hoped
that the needs of the future will be met and the quality of
the Bay preserved. But first, the Bay ecosystem must be
understood; then patterns of growth must respect the
capabilities of the Bay's system to assimilate human
pressures and, finally, areas and resources which are par-
ticularly vulnerable must be ardently protected through
controlling pollution.
This report provides an overview of the major research
findings and range of pollution controls recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP), in accordance with P.L. 94-116 passed by
the 94th Congress on October 17, 1975. The report sum-
marizes three main phases of the program: research on
nutrient enrichment, toxic substances, and submerged
aquatic vegetation; a characterization of the Bay's water
quality and resources; and a management framework for
ameliorating current pollution problems and preserving the
future quality of Chesapeake Bay. Chapter 1 of the report
provides a brief education on the ecological processes gov-
erning the Bay and the complex ways that animals, plants,
and humans make use of the ecosystem. In the second
chapter, the state of the ecosystem and the sources of pollu-
tants are described. The final chapter recommends and
specifies actions or approaches which appear to be most
necessary and effective to improve and maintain the well-
being of this ecosystem.
-------
VI
While the Chesapeake Bay Program significantly ad-
vanced the technical understanding of the nation's largest
and most productive estuary, it also promoted a unique
regional management ethic. This ethic was encouraged by
the Chesapeake Bay Program Management Committee
which guided the Program's efforts over the years. The
committee, representing the EPA, the state governments,
and the citizens of the area, has been a unique example of
regional cooperation. The Chesapeake Bay Program hopes
that the findings and recommendations presented in this
report will encourage a continued commitment by both the
governments and the people of the Chesapeake Bay region.
Greene Jones
Chairman,
Chesapeake Bay Program
Management Committee
V. .
Virginia K. Tippie
Director,
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF THE BAY PROGRAM
Concern for the well-being of Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries prompted Congress to direct the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a five-year
study of the Bay's water quality and resources, and to
develop management strategies to preserve the Bay's quality
(P.L. 94-116). A technical program was set up in 1976 to
identify and study the major environmental problems in
Chesapeake Bay. Concurrently, a study on environmental
management was established to determine available
management mechanisms on the Bay and develop alter-
native controls. In 1981, the technical program ended, and
during 1982 and 1983 the GBP analyzed and integrated
their findings, leading to conclusions and recommendations
for actions needed to preserve the environmental quality of
the Bay.
THE RESEARCH PHASE
Numerous studies existed in 1976 documenting the
negative effects of pollution. However, an absence of scien-
tific documentation and analysis existed on several serious
problems which were disturbing leaders and citizens
throughout the Bay region namely, a trend of disappear-
ing Bay grasses (submerged aquatic vegetation) and of
declining fish landings among certain species. Arguments
centered on questions of whether the losses of fish and Bay
grasses were cyclic or permanent occurrences, and due to
natural or human causes.
State personnel from Maryland and Virginia, the scien-
tific community, and citizens from around the Bay iden-
tified 10 primary water quality problems of the Bay, and
suggested methods needed to investigate them. These 10
problems were:
Wetlands alteration
Shoreline erosion
-------
Effects of boating and shipping on
water quality
Hydrologic modification
Fisheries modification
Sellfish bed closures
Accumulation of toxic substances
Dredging and dredged material disposal
Nutrient enrichment
Decline of submerged aquatic vegetation
Three critical areas were chosen from the 10 for intensive
investigation nutrient enrichment, toxic substances, and
the decline of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
State and GBP staffs, together with EPA personnel,
wrote plans of action and asked interested scientists to res-
pond with suggestions and proposals for researching the
three problem areas. Nearly 40 research projects, grants,
and cooperative agreements were funded. Many of the
studies were conducted by major scientific research institu-
tions in the Chesapeake Bay region. These investigations
have greatly increased the understanding of sources of
pollutants, their transport and fate within the estuary, as
well as impacts on a major ecosystem component, SAV.
Products
Approximately 40 final research and survey reports pre-
sent the methodology, findings, and recommendations of
the GBP's scientific studies; these are available through the
National Technical Information Service and in the libraries
of the management agencies and principal research institu-
tions of the region. In addition, the CBP has produced
several major summary documents: Chesapeake Bay: In-
troduction to an Ecosystem explains some of the important
components and interactions within the Bay ecosystem;
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis
pulls together all available research from the three study
areas in one volume which is structured to address the
questions pertinent to managers. These research findings
contributed to the second phase of the program, the
characterization effort.
CHARACTERIZING THE BAY
The second phase of the CBP concentrated on determin-
ing trends in the Bay's water quality and the health of its
resources. The goal of this phase was to provide an infor-
mation base for evaluating human impacts on the
ecosystem and a framework for guiding management
options.
-------
As in the research phase, a diverse group of people,
from scientists to citizens, helped the GBP formulate an ap-
proach for this characterization. For ease of comparison
and organization, the Bay was divided into segments based
on natural factors such as circulation patterns and salinity.
To characterize how water quality has changed over time,
the CBP looked at levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
organic compounds, and heavy metals in those segments
over the past 30 years. Available data was assessed for
phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, benthic
animals (including shellfish), and finfish. In some areas, it
was possible to analyze both water quality and resource
trends over a hundred years. For nearly two years, CBP
staff collected present and historical data from institutions
and agencies throughout the Bay region. The Program's
data base is one of the largest on any single estuary.
After trends were established for most segments of the
Bay, potential relationships between water and sediment
quality, and resources were examined. Several positive cor-
relations were found, indicating that there may be cause-
and-effect relationships between certain trends in water
quality and the abundance of resources. These relationships
point to specific management needs, such as pollution con-
trols in particularly sensitive areas, and to future monitor-
ing strategies.
Products
The major product of the second phase is Chesapeake
Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change. This report
presents the current state of the Bay and trends in its water
quality and resources. It also suggests possible causes of
some of the changes observed and thereby provides a useful
management tool. An important non-technical product of
this characterization effort is the public concern for the Bay
that it has generated.
MANAGING THE BAY
The technical studies and Bay-wide characterization
provided a foundation for determining appropriate manage-
ment strategies, the third and final phase of the CBP.
Several steps were involved in developing management op-
tions for Chesapeake Bay. One was to examine the effec-
tiveness of current control programs for present and future
situations. To this end, predictive models were developed to
evaluate the effectiveness of various pollution controls.
Another step in the management phase involved setting up
-------
monitoring strategies. These strategies can enhance the
ability to distinguish natural from human-influenced
events, provide a framework for future research, and fill in
the gaps in the present base of knowledge. In a final step
in the management process, the GBP recommended institu-
tional arrangements for implementing results of the Pro-
gram and directing future management of Chesapeake Bay.
Developing and implementing a comprehensive manage-
ment plan for Chesapeake Bay is a public choice process.
Therefore, the GBP, together with the Citizen's Program
for the Chesapeake Bay (CPCB), established a Resource
User's Management Team comprised of users of the Bay,
and a Water Quality Management Team comprised of state
managers who influence Bay activities. Throughout the
management process, the Citizen's Program and these teams
have reviewed findings and conclusions and have been in-
volved in developing strategies. These teams were an in-
valuable component of the CBP, particularly in guiding the
Program's third phase. Their help exemplifies the kind of
participation and cooperation necessary for effective im-
plementation of any environmental management plan.
Products
The major product from the third Program phase is
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. This report
presents a framework for the actions that need to be taken
by users to restore and maintain the ecological integrity of
Chesapeake Bay. Additional products of this phase include
predictive models and a comprehensive data management
system. Lastly, the third program phase encouraged a
regional management approach which will guide the future
of the Bay.
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SYSTEM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United
States and biologically, one of the most productive systems
in the world. It is part of an interconnected system which
includes a portion of the Atlantic Ocean and rivers draining
parts of New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, and Virginia. The main Bay and all of its tidal
tributaries compose the Chesapeake Bay system as that
term is employed in this document.
The Bay proper is approximately 200 miles long and
ranges in width from about four miles near Annapolis,
Maryland to 30 miles at its widest point near the mouth of
the Potomac. The water surface of the Bay proper encom-
passes more than 2,500 square miles. That figure nearly
doubles when its tributaries are included. However, the
Bay is a relatively shallow body of water, averaging 28 feet
in depth, making it very sensitive to temperature and wind.
The Bay draws from an enormous 64,000 square-mile
drainage basin. Of the more than 150 rivers, creeks, and
streams flowing through portions of six states and the
District of Columbia, and contributing freshwater to the
Bay, 50 are considered major tributaries. Eight of these
fifty rivers contribute about 90 percent of the freshwater
contained in the Bay main-stem: they are the Susquehanna,
Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, York, James, Choptank
Rivers and the West Chesapeake Drainage Area. The Sus-
quehanna is by far the largest river in the basin, discharg-
ing approximately 50 percent of the freshwater that reaches
the Bay. In addition, it has the highest freshwater dis-
charge rate of any river on the East Coast of the United
States a mean annual rate of 40,000 cubic feet per se-
cond. These eight major tributaries and the ocean shape
the circulation and salinity characteristics of the estuary.
Thus, the way in which land is used and managed within
each of the river basins largely determines the volume and
chemical properties of the freshwater discharged to the
Bay.
-------
6
1. Susquehanna
2. Eastern Shore
3. West Chesapeake
4. Patuxent
5. Potomac
6. Rappahannock
7. York
8. James
The major drainage basins of
the Chesapeake Ba\ system.
-------
_7
THE BAY'S ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Natural processes have subjected the Chesapeake
ecosystem to unending modifications. In the Chesapeake's
long history, beginning when sea level changes started to
form it about 15,000 years ago, humans have only recently
emerged as leading actors in this reshaping process. Follow-
ing is a brief overview of the Bay ecological processes and
characteristics. This information helps to show how natural
and human actions continuously initiate chains of events
that can alter the condition of the Bay's environment. This
description is divided into four major areas: geological com-
position; water and sediments; key biological communities;
and food production and consumption.
Geological Composition
In geological terms, the Chesapeake is very young. If
the entire geological calendar from the earliest fossil forma-
tions were equated to one year, the Bay would be less than
one minute old. The birth of Chesapeake Bay followed the
most recent retreat of glaciers that once covered the North
American continent during the final part of the Pleistocene
epoch (which began one million years ago). The melting
glacial ice resulted in a corresponding rise in sea level that
submerged coastal areas, including the Susquehanna River
Valley and many of the river's tributaries. The complex of
drowned river-beds now forms the basin of Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries.
The Bay proper lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain, a
relatively flat, low land area with a maximum present
elevation of about 300 feet above sea level. The Coastal
Plain extends from the edge of the continental shelf on the
east to a fall line that ranges from 15 to 90 miles west of
Appalachian Province
Piedmont
Province
Coastal Plain Province
-------
8
the Bay. The fall line forms the boundary between the
Piedmont Plateau and the coastal plain. Waterfalls and
rapids clearly mark this line where the elevation sharply in-
creases because of erosion of the soft sediments of the
coastal plain. Cities such as Fredericksburg and Richmond,
Virginia; Baltimore, Maryland; and Washington, D.C.
have developed along this fall line for reasons that include
the limits of navigability, the abundance of freshwater, and
the water power potential of the falls .»nd rapids.
The Chesapeake's shoreline has undergone constant
modification by erosion, and by the transport and deposi-
tion of sediments. Areas of strong relief, like peninsulas and
headlands, are eroded and smoothed by currents, tides, and
storms, and the materials are deposited in other areas of
the Bay. Sediments carried by a river are left on the floor
of the Bay and major tributaries, depositing mud and silt.
Grasses and other plants colonize and stabilize the
sediments, developing marshes. Build-up of land in the
marshes causes the area to eventually become part of the
shoreline.
The forces of erosion and sedimentation are continually
reshaping the Bay. For example, erosion caused a histori-
cally swift submersion of Sharp's Island which was, in col-
onial times, a rich plantation of six hundred acres situated
off the Eastern Shore. Mooring piles foi sailing ships are
visible at Joppatowne, Maryland, more than a mile from
open water today, demonstrating the rapidity with which
sediments can fill an estuary like the Gunpowder River.
Water and Sediments
Of all bodies of water, estuarine systems offer the
greatest diversity in water composition. Freshwater mixing
with salt water creates unique chemical and physical en-
vironments, each of which supports different communities
of organisms particularly suited to that type of water.
Temperature, salinity, and circulation are three very
important physical characteristics which affect the location
and stability of Bay environments. Fluctuations in water
temperature affect the rates of chemical and biochemical
reactions within the water, which in turn influence pro-
cesses such as phytoplankton growth. Salinity refers to the
concentration of dissolved salts in the water. Because sea
water enters the Bay through its mouth, the salinity is
highest at that point and gradually diminishes toward the
northern end of the estuary. Salinity levels are also
graduated vertically and horizontally; that is, deeper water
and the waters on the eastern side of the estuary are saltier.
This characteristic distribution is due to differences in the
density of fresh and salt water, and the effects of circula-
-------
9
River
Ocean
i
Fresh Water
> Lighted
Zone
Bottom
tion and fresh-water inflow. These salinity gradations and
the water circulation play enormously important roles in
the distribution and well-being of various organisms living
in the Bay. The movement of water transports plankton,
eggs and juveniles of fishes, shellfish larvae, sediments,
minerals, nutrients, and other chemicals.
The waters of the Chesapeake are a complex chemical
mixture, containing dissolved organic and inorganic
materials, including dissolved gases, nutrients, and a vari-
ety of other chemicals.
Dissolved Oxygen Among the chemical constituents
most important to the Bay is dissolved oxygen which is
essential for animals inhabiting the Bay. Oxygen is trans-
ferred from the atmosphere into the surface waters by the
aerating action of the wind and by adsorption. It is also
added at or near the surface as a by-product of plant
photosynthesis. As a result, floating and rooted aquatic
plants increase dissolved oxygen levels. Because the ex-
istence of plants also depends on the availability of light,
the oxygen-producing processes occur only near the surface
or in shallow waters. Due to the natural variations in tem-
perature and salinity throughout the year, the concentra-
tion of dissolved oxygen tends to diminish in deeper areas
of the Bay and tributaries in the summer and then increase
in the fall.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus The plant nutrients,
nitrogen and phosphorus, are also key constituents in the
Bay's system. In addition to being supplied by natural pro-
cesses, they enter the Bay in significant quantities through
discharges from sewage treatment plants, food processing
industries, and in runoff from agricultural land, urban
areas, and forests. Nitrogen plays a principal role in pro-
ducing plant and animal tissue. Phosphorus is essential to
Freshwater and saltwater
mix in the Bay creating a
unique environment.
-------
10
cellular growth and the reproduction of phytoplankton and
bacteria. Just as fertilizer aids the growth of agricultural
crops, both nitrogen and phosphorus are vital to the
growth of plants within the Bay. Too much nutrients,
however, can lead to an over-abundance of phytoplankton,
creating dense populations, or blooms, of plant cells. These
blooms become a nuisance because oxygen is used up as
they decompose. This can lead to anoxic conditions, mean-
ing that the affected water area becomes devoid of oxygen
and, therefore, of life.
Sediments Suspended in the waters of the Chesapeake
are huge quantities of particulate matter composed of both
organic and inorganic materials, including detritus, living
plankton, and suspended sediments. Individual sediment
particles have a large surface area, and many molecules
easily adsorb, or attach, to them. As a result, suspended
sediments act as chemical sweeps by adsorbing metals,
nutrients, oils, organic chemicals, and other potentially tox-
ic compounds. For this reason, areas of high sediment
deposition can possess high concentrations of long-lasting
toxicants. Accumulation of sediments can cause other
undesirable consequences. Settling of sediments on the bot-
tom can fill in channels and other waterways; bottom
dwelling plants and animals (benthos) can be smothered;
and, when the sediments are suspended, the water becomes
turbid and thus decreases the amount of light available for
plant growth.
Key Biological Communities
The Chesapeake provides critical types of habitat for
various stages of animal and plant life and serves as a sup-
plier of seafood to humans. More than 2,700 species of
plants and animals inhabit the Chesapeake and its
shoreline. All depend on the Bay and their fellow in-
habitants for food and shelter. Each, in turn, contributes to
the continued life of the entire Chesapeake ecosystem. Five
major communities that interact closely are the marshes,
submerged aquatic vegetation communities, bottom
residents (benthos), the floaters (plankton), and swimmers
(nekton). Each community makes use of particular habitats
within the Bay.
Marshes Marshes, or wetlands, form a natural boun-
dary between land and water. Most wetlands consist of
moist vegetated areas kept wet by runoff, ground-water
seepage, adjacent streams, and the Bay's tides. These types
of wetlands usually have bountiful supplies of nutrients and
are among the most productive areas known for plant
growth. The abundance of food and shelter offered by the
-------
11
marsh plants results in valuable habitat for other members
of the Bay community. A host of invertebrates, for exam-
ple, feed on decomposed plant material and, in turn, pro-
vide food for many species of higher animals. Many game
birds, animals, and furbearers depend on wetlands for food
and shelter, as do the young of commercially important fish
and shellfish.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Ten major species of
Bay grasses are found in the Chesapeake Bay. They are col-
lectively termed submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Most
cannot withstand excessive drying and must live with their
leaves at or below the surface of the water. They are also
found only in shallow waters where light reaches the bot-
tom. Like the marsh grasses, the different species are
generally distributed according to salinity. These sub-
merged grasses are important links in the Bay's food chain.
They serve as protective cover and food to a diverse com-
munity of organisms. For example, many species of in-
vertebrates feed on decaying grasses and then, in turn, pro-
vide food for small blue crabs, striped bass, perch, and
other small inhabitants of the Bay. Wading birds such as
herons often feed on small fish which shelter in the SAV
beds. Another important ecological function of the Bay
grasses is their ability to slow down water velocities, caus-
ing particulate matter to settle at the base of their stems;
this makes water clearer in the SAV zones. Finally, like
marsh grasses, Bay grasses act as nutrient buffers, taking up
nitrogen and phosphorus and releasing them later in the
season when the plants decay.
Benthic organisms The organisms that live on and in
the bottom of the Bay outside of the marshes and grass
beds form a complex assemblage of communities, primarily
composed of invertebrate animals. Commonly termed ben-
thos, they are usually described in terms of the animal
components, although plant and bacterial groups are
crucial parts of the ecosystem as well. Again, salinity and
sediment type help dictate the distribution and specific
kinds of benthos residing in the Bay.
Some benthic organisms are commercially important,
such as clams, oysters, and blue crabs, and are widely
distributed. Salinity determines the locale of hard-shell and
soft-shell clams, the former requiring highly saline waters
and the latter being able to thrive in lower salinity. Certain
benthic predators, diseases, and parasites of oysters are
unable to tolerate lower salinities so they are far less a
problem in upper Bay areas than they are in the lower
Bay.
Plankton The tiny organisms that float and drift with
the water's movements are the plankton of the Bay. This
community includes phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria,
-------
12
and jellyfish. Phytoplankton are microscopic, one-celled
plants which often occur in colonies known as algae.
Zooplankton, are the microscopic animals of the Bay. The
bacteria are essentially the undertakers or decomposers
they break down dead matter, particularly plants. The
jellyfish include sea nettles, and comb jellies.
In general, the phytoplankton and zooplankton of the
Bay provide the major food source for the larger organisms
of the Bay. Like all plants, the phytoplankton require light
and, therefore, are found near the surface. They include
diatoms, dinoflagellates, golden algae, green algae, and
blue-green algae. Most of the zooplankton are copepods, a
particular type of crustacean that is only about a milli-
meter long. Also, the tiny larvae of benthic animals and
fish are considered to be zooplankton. The zooplankton
feed on the phytoplankton and, in turn, they may be con-
sumed by larger organisms.
Nekton Nekton, including fish, certain crustaceans,
squid, and other invertebrates, are the swimmers of the
Bay. The approximately 200 species of fish living in the
Bay are classified as either permanent residents or
migratory. The residents tend to be smaller in size, and are
therefore less capable of negotiating the distances often
covered by the larger migratory species. The resident fish
include killifishes, anchovies, and silversides.
The migratory fish fall into two categories: those who
spawn in the Bay or its tributaries, and those whq^spawn
on the ocean shelf. The members of the Bay-spawning
category migrate varying distances to spawn in freshwater.
For example, yellow and white perch travel quite short
distances from their residence areas in 1:he slightly salty
(brackish) water of the Bay to freshwater areas in the up-
per parts. Striped bass also spawn in low salinity areas. On
the other hand, shad and herring fit the definition of
anadromous fish more completely; they travel from the
ocean to freshwater to spawn, and return to the ocean to
feed. Other migratory fish use the Bay strictly for feeding
and they spawn in the lower Bay or on the ocean shelf.
Croakers, drum, menhaden, weakfish, bluefish, and spot
fall into this group. Menhaden, which Feed on plankton,
occupy the Bay and nearby coastal waters in particularly
great abundance and, in fact, support a major commercial
fishery.
Food Production and Consumption
The Food Web The production of the Chesapeake's
important species of fish and plants depends on the produc-
tion of plant biomass in the Bay. The animals, plants, and
-------
13
SECONDARY
CONSUMERS
Fish, Invertebrates
and their Larvae
DETRITUS FEEDERS AND
DECOMPOSER COMMUNITY
Phytoplankton
microbes of the Bay
are connected by a
complex network of
feeding interactions,
called the food web.
Direct and indirect link-
ages make up the food web.
Typically, the direct food
web encompasses several princi-
pal linkages. For example, a
predominant feeding pattern in
the open waters of the Bay starts
with phytoplankton converting sunlight
and nutrients into living tissue. They,
in turn, are eaten by copepods, members of
the zoo-plankton community. The copepods are then
swallowed by anchovies or other small fish, which are later
eaten by bluefish. The indirect (detritus) pathway leads
from dead organic matter to benthic animals or decom-
posers such as bacteria, and then to higher animals. Food
webs dependent on marsh and Bay-grass production are
largely dominated by this pathway.
Several important ecological processes characterize these
food-web patterns. For one, energy flows through an eco-
system via the food web. In the process of photosynthesis,
energy from the sun is used by plants to produce organic
matter. Phytoplankton, SAV, and marsh plants are thus the
primary producers of the Bay's food web, and constitute
the lowest trophic level. Energy and materials are then
transferred from plants *.o consumers at higher trophic
levels. Because energy is lost at each transfer, relatively few
animals are supportable at the highest trophic level. For in-
stance, massive amounts of plant production are required
to support the various trophic levels that eventually support
the top carnivores such as the striped bass or bluefish. Car-
nivores consume many times their weight in food during
Benthic
Invertebrates
Simplified food web for
Chesapeake Bay,
illustrating important
communities and pathways.
-------
14
their lifetime. If this food contains a toxic chemical, even
in small amounts, the fish or animal may be exposed over
time to large amounts of the chemical. Heavy metals and
organic chemicals can be concentrated and stored in tissues
of the animal. As a result, the body may contain a much
higher concentration of the chemical than did its food. This
phenomenon is called biological magnification. It can have
serious implications when the animal is used as food by
humans.
POPULATION AND LAND-USE TRENDS
For over 300 years the Bay region has been used to sup-
port a number of regional requirements and economic
needs. Its beauty, richness, and other values have attracted
people since the early colonial days. Today over 12.7
million people live in the region, and virtually every type
of economic activity and land usage is found within the
basin. Forestry uses occupy large areas of the Piedmont.
Agriculture dominates many portions of the soil-rich coastal
plain. Poultry, seafood, and vegetable processing are im-
portant industries on the Eastern Shore, while animal
husbandry and agricultural processing activities take place
throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin area. Industrial
facilities for steelmaking and shipbuilding, leather tanning,
plastics and resin manufacturing, paper manufacturing,
and chemical production are located on the major tribu-
taries. As the population continues to increase, the land-use
patterns and the economic activities of the region will
change.
Population Trends
Basin-wide, the population grew by 4.2 million between
1950 and 1980 and is expected to grow an additional 1.9
million, to a total of 14.6 million by 2000. Although the
largest increases in population (1.4 million) will occur in
the three largest basins, the Susquehanna, Potomac, and
James Rivers, the highest rates of increase between 1980
and 2000 are expected in the York (43 percent), Rappahan-
nock (40 percent), and Patuxent (27 percent) River basins.
More people living in the drainage basin could place addi-
tional stress on the Chesapeake because of increasing
freshwater withdrawal and larger amounts of wastes
(sewage, urban runoff, construction activity, intensified
agricultural activities, additional industrial activity, etc.)
which the Bay will have to assimilate unless necessary ac-
tions are taken.
Population growth in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage
basin, 1950-2000 (projected).
Total Population of
Chesapeake Bay
Millions
-15
-10
-5
1950 1980 2000
-------
15
Increased Urbanization
The steady trend of population growth in the Bay
region has had major impacts on the land use. During the
last thirty years, conversion to residential, urban, and
suburban areas has taken place at an increasingly rapid
rate. Although less than 15 percent of the land in the
watershed is utilized for these purposes, it represents an in-
crease of 182 percent since 1950. The conversion of land to
residential areas has been concentrated in areas surrounding
existing development. In particular, the West Chesapeake
and Patuxent River basins have had dramatic increases in
urban and residential development, losing cropland,
pasture, and forest area, and gaining rapidly rising popula-
tions between 1950 and 1980. For example, in the Patuxent
River basin, the percent of developed land has risen from
approximately three percent in 1950 to over 35 percent in
1980. These physical changes in the uses of land, coupled
with changing perceptions of the Bay, have had a signifi-
cant impact on the system and the ways humans have tried
to manage it.
Changes in Agricultural Activities
In the eight major basins, cropland has decreased by an
average of 24 percent over the last 30 years. At the same
time, agriculture in the watershed has shifted from a labor-
intensive to a capital-intensive activity. More specifically,
three major changes in agricultural activity have increas-
ingly emerged in the region over the past thirty years: a
growing number of farmers have adopted low tillage or
conservation practices; agricultural land is being farmed
more intensively; and the size of the average farm has in-
creased due to a steady consolidation of land. These chang-
ing practices are affecting the Bay.
Conversion to Conservation-Tillage Practices
Conservation-tillage is economically advantageous to the
farmer for it decreases energy consumption and therefore,
costs. However, it can increase the use of herbicides and
pesticides. Conservation-tillage also reduces soil erosion
and, therefore, decreases the runoff of sediments and
nutrients.
Intensification of Agricultural Activity The intensifica-
tion of agricultural activity requires the use of increased
fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide inputs. In addition,
newer technologies used to increase the efficiency and speed
of soil preparation, crop maintenance, and harvesting have
led to abandonment of many of the basic conservation
techniques.
-------
16
1950
1980
Q
Consolidation of Agricultural Land Consolidation of
agricultural land refers to a pattern of fewer and larger
farms and more absentee owners, including corporations,
who lease the land to tenants. Tenants have few incentives
to reduce soil erosion and chemical loss, especially when
there are high initial costs and slow pay-backs.
Land-use patterns in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage
basin, 195()"and 1980.
Loss of Wetlands
Today, Chesapeake Bay is edged by 498,000 acres of
wetlands. Although statistics vary widely regarding the
trends of wetlands loss, research indicates:, for example,
that several thousand acres of Bay wetlands were destroyed
each year during the 1960's. Increased Federal, state, and
local regulation, as well as public and private conservancy
efforts, seem to have slowed down the loss of tidal wetlands
to approximately 50 acres per year. However, important
non-tidal wetlands still have relatively little protection.
Losses are attributable to various forms of wetlands modifi-
cation. For example, agriculture drainage is a principal
cause of wetlands loss in Maryland; channelization projects
(particularly for agriculture) play a dominant role in
destroying wetlands in Virginia. In addition, residential
development, industrial projects, expansion and develop-
ment of marinas, and dredge-and-fill activities have also
caused the continuing decrease in wetlands in the Bay area.
-------
17
SUMMARY
The physical and ecological processes of the Bay make it
a complex support system for many forms of life. Diverse
habitats are sustained, exchanging materials and com-
plementing one another's resources. The existence of the
two major food webs direct (plankton-based) and indirect
(detritus-based) promotes overall stability. If one pathway
falters, resources can be used from the other. Some
organisms are even able to switch food sources. However,
while complex food webs provide a degree of resiliency,
they, alone, cannot restore and maintain high levels of
desirable biological productivity in the Bay.
It is also evident that the population growth and
changes in land use within the drainage basin are stressing
the Bay's ecological health. Population growth and urban
development have caused increases in municipal wastewater
discharges and concentrations of industrial processes and
their effluents in certain areas. Changes in agricultural
practices and other human activities also contribute to the
problems of the Bay. Forecasts predict that the increase in
population will continue. Because the Bay's ecological "per-
formance" is highly subject to the intervention of humans
as well as to natural forces, the manner in which human
activities are managed in the upcoming years will deter-
mine to a great extent the degree to which the Bay's en-
vironment can be maintained or improved.
The chapter that follows gives an account of the ways
in which the Bay is degrading and describes the sources
and loadings that are contributing to its problems.
-------
19
THE STATE OF THE BAY
INTRODUCTION
"The Bay is an organic whole. If one part is
damaged, all parts are affected. It is of little use
to study one link in an environmental chain
without relating it to the whole. If the Chesa-
peake Bay is to survive, it must be addressed as
an entity, as a total system without duplication
and without omission."
Charles McC. Mathias
United States Senator,
Maryland
The Chesapeake Bay Program utilized all available
scientific analyses to assess the Bay as an 'organic whole.'
Research findings were integrated on a continuous basis to
further the understanding of the Bay as a total system. The
Program's scientific investigations, in conjunction with
other studies, essentially documented that the Bay has
dramatically changed in the last century; this change has
accelerated in the last thirty years. Increasing population
growth over time has resulted in major land-use changes,
large increases of municipal waste water, and other out-
comes which, in turn, have caused substantial increases in
the amounts of pollutant loads entering the Bay. For many
years, these activities had a relatively minor impact on the
Bay's aesthetic beauty and productivity. Understandably,
many people believed that the Bay had an unlimited
capacity to assimilate human wastes. This belief was only
questioned when dramatic changes in resources were
observed and concerned citizenry asked why. As a result of
CBP research, it is now known that contaminants entering
the Bay are not readily flushed out into the ocean but,
because of the unique circulation pattern in the Bay, they
accumulate within the estuary. Over time, this process has
gradually changed the nature of the Bay.
-------
-------
21
SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS
Trends in Living Resources
The major changes documented by the Bay Program
follow:
In the upper Bay, an increasing number of blue-
green algal or dinoflagellate blooms has been observ-
ed in recent years. In fact, cell counts have increased
approximately 250-fold since the 1950's. In contrast,
the algal populations in the upper Potomac River
have recently become more diverse, with the massive
blue-green algal blooms generally disappearing since
nutrient controls were imposed in the 1960's and
early 1970's in this segment of the Bay watershed.
Since the late 1960's, submerged aquatic vegetation
has declined in abundance and diversity throughout
the Bay. The decline is most dramatic in the upper
Bay and western shore tributaries. An analysis over
time indicates that the loss has moved progressively
down-stream, and that present populations are mostly
limited to the lower estuary.
Landings of freshwater-spawning fish such as shad
and alewife have decreased. Striped bass landings,
after increasing through the 1930's and 1940's, have
also decreased, especially since 1973. Harvests of
marine-spawning fish such as menhaden and bluefish
have generally remained stable or increased. The in-
creased yield of marine spawners and decreased yield
of freshwater spawners represent a major shift in the
Bay's fishery. Over the 100 year period from 1880 to
1980, marine spawners accounted for 75 percent of
the fishery; during the interval from 1971 to 1980,
they accounted for 96 percent.
Oyster harvests have also decreased Bay-wide. Oyster
spat set has declined significantly in the past 10 years
as compared to previous years, particularly in the up-
per Bay and western shore tributaries and some
Eastern Shore tributaries such as the Chester River.
The decline in oyster harvest has been somewhat off-
set by recent increases in the harvest of blue crabs
which may be due to increased fishing effort. As a
result, the Bay-wide landings of shellfish have not
changed greatly over the last twenty years. However,
overall shellfish harvest for the western shore has de-
creased significantly during this period.
20,000 r-
15,000
10,000
f- 5,000
Shad
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
Year
600,000
§ 400,000
0.
O
tJ
O 200,000
Menhaden
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
Year
100
90
80
| 70
8 60
050
c
I 40
I 30
20
10
0
Blue crabs
1880 1895 1910 1925 1940 1955 1970 1982
Yiar
120
110
100
«90
I80
07°
S 60
o
J50
40
30
20
Shucked oyster meat
101
1880
1925 1940 1955 1970 1982
Year
-------
99
£t£t ~
Water and Sediment Quality Trends
Increasing levels of nutrients are entering many parts
of the Bay: the upper reaches of almost all the
tributaries are highly enriched with nutrients; lower
portions of the tributaries and eastern embayments
have moderate concentrations of nutrients; and the
lower Bay does not appear to be enriched. Data
covering 1950 to 1980 indicate that, in most areas,
water quality is degrading, partially because increas-
ing levels of nutrients are entering the waters. Only
in the Patapsco, Potomac, and James Rivers (and
some smaller areas) is there improvement in water
quality; this is evidently largely due to pollution con-
trol efforts in those areas.
The amount of water in the main part of the Bay
which has low or no dissolved oxygen has increased
about fifteen-fold between 1950 and 1980. Currently,
from May through September in an area reaching
from the Annapolis Bay Bridge to the Rappahannock
River, much of the water deeper than 40 feet has no
oxygen and, therefore, is devoid of life. The dissolved
oxygen levels in the Bay have been affected by
nutrient enrichment. The excessive loads of nutrients
which enter the Bay stimulate the growth of undesir-
able large algal blooms. As the algae die and settle to
the bottom, they decay and consume the oxygen that
is crucial for Bay organisms such as crabs, oysters,
and finfish. Although these processes occur naturally
in an estuarine system, they appear to have become
far more severe in the Bay in recent years as nutrient
inputs have increased.
High concentrations of toxic organic compounds are
in the bottom sediments of the main Bay near known
sources such as industrial facilities, river mouths, and
areas of maximum turbidity. Highest concentrations
were found in the Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers
where several sediment samples contained concentra-
tions exceeding 100 parts per million. These general
patterns suggest that many of these toxic substances
adsorb to suspended sediment and then accumulate in
areas dominated by fine-grained sediments. Benthic
organisms located in such areas tend to accumulate
the organic compounds in their tissues.
Many areas of the Bay have metal concentrations in
the water column and sediment that are significantly
higher than natural (background) levels. In fact,
many violations of water quality criteria were noted.
Also, Bay sediments in the upper Potomac, upper
James, small sections of the Rappahannock and York
-------
23
Low enrichment
High enrichment
Limited
data
The Bay is enriched
with nutrients.
-------
24
Rivers, and the upper mid-Bay had high levels of
metal contamination. The most contaminated
sediments with concentrations greater than 100
times natural background levels- are in the in-
dustrialized Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers.
Relationships between Living Resource;; and
Water Sediment Quality
In summary, valued resources of the Bay are declining.
This trend parallels an increase in nutrients and toxicants
throughout the Bay. A geographic characterization and
analysis of segments of the Bay suggests a relationship be-
tween the resources, and the water and sediment quality.
In areas of the Bay afflicted by high concentrations of
nutrients and toxicants such as Baltimore Harbor and the
Elizabeth River, there is no submerged aquatic vegetation.
In fact, only a few hardy organisms can survive in this
hostile environment. On the other hand, in certain areas of
the Eastern Shore where the nutrient and toxicant concen-
trations are still fairly low, submerged aquatic vegetation
still grows, and crabs, oysters, and finfish are plentiful.
Although the circumstantial evidence appears to be
compelling, the GBP cannot definitively link the trends
seen in the resources to the Bay's deteriorating water qual-
ity. There are other factors affecting the abundance of the
grasses and fish, including over-fishing, climatic trends, and
physical alterations of the Bay associated with dredging and
filling. It is quite probable that there is no 'single bullet,'
but rather a myriad of ecological stresses. However, it is
clearly estalished that nutrient loadings have substantially
increased, that massive quantities of todcants have entered
this sytem, and that the unchecked increases of these
pollutants threatens important resources.
NUTRIENTS
Nutrients and the Living Resources
The increase in nutrients and the corresponding
decrease in dissolved oxygen are affecting the living
resources of the Bay. Conceptually, one would expect to see
a positive relationship between nutrients and Bay produc-
tivity. As these nutrients (which are essentially fertilizer) in-
crease, one would expect to see an increase in plant pro-
duction and, as a result, an increase in fish harvests.
However, if too many nutrients are added, the excessive
growth of undesirable weed-like plants such as blue-green
-------
25
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
" °-<''-''.> " -'' '''' °' ; '' *
Bloom ;
Loss of
Spawning
and Nursery
Grounds
Surface Growth
on Leaves
algae is encouraged. This prevents the growth of desirable
plants such as submerged aquatic vegetation. Chesapeake
Bay Program findings suggest that this situation is occurr-
ing in the Bay. Areas of the Bay that have relatively low
nutrient concentrations, such as the eastern embayments,
have abundant submerged aquatic vegetation; however,
areas of the Bay that have high nutrient concentrations,
such as the upper Bay, have very little vegetation.
There is also a similar, but not as precise, relationship
between nutrients and Bay fisheries. Fish that spawn in the
freshwater, nutrient-enriched upper sections of the
tributaries are decreasing. Also, oysters and other commer-
cial shellfish that live all their life on the Bay bottom are
reduced in abundance, possibly in part due to the elimina-
tion of their habitat by low dissolved oxygen. Although the
decline in desirable resources cannot be definitively linked
to the increase in nutrients, there is sufficient evidence to
recommend corrective actions in controlling nutrient
discharges to the Bay.
Nutrients affect the
ecology of the Bay in
many ways.
Sources of Nutrients
The Bay Program examined in detail the sources of
nutrients entering the Bay, and the relative contributions of
different types of sources. In addition, an assessment was
-------
26
Dissolved oxygen levels
in Chesapeake Bay
in 1950
-------
27
Dissolved oxygen levels
in Chesapeake Bay
in 1980
-------
28
made of changing land-use activities, such as the inten-
sification of agricultural activities and urbanization, which
have strong implications for the levels of pollutants going
into the Bay. For example, as the population continues to
increase in and around the metropolitan areas of the Bay,
the volume of municipal effluent will also increase propor-
tionately. If current projections prove true, and, if present
treatment practices continue, the volume of municipal ef-
fluent generated and discharged is expected to increase 36
percent by the year 2000.
Special attention was also given to assessing the relative
importance of point versus nonpoint sources in various sec-
tions of the Bay watershed as a basis for targetting manage-
ment and control strategies. For example, the nutrient in-
put from the Susquehanna River basin is principally from
nonpoint sources, particularly from agricultural lands; in
contrast the input into the West Chesapeake Bay basin
(which is composed of several rivers, including the
Patapsco, Back, and Gunpowder basins) is dominated by
point sources, particularly municipal sewage treatment
plants. A strategy for nutrient reduction in each of these
basins would logically focus on controlling the dominant
sources. Below is a more detailed summary of the varia-
tions in the sources of nutrients entering the Bay.
Point Sources Point sources are concentrated waste
streams discharged to a water-body through a discrete pipe
or ditch. Although there may be daily or seasonal fluctua-
tions in flow, they are essentially continuous, daily
discharges which occur throughout the year. The signifi-
cance of point sources increases during the summer and
other periods of low rainfall because the dilution of effluent
by receiving water is reduced. Conversely, their relative
significance decreases during periods of wet weather when
rainfall, runoff, and nonpoint loading*; increase. Examples
of point sources include discharges from industrial produc-
tion facilities and discharges from publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs). The CBP data base contains an in-
ventory of over 5,000 industrial and municipal point
sources located within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
Nonpoint Sources Nonpoint sources of nutrients in-
clude runoff from forests, farmland, residential and com-
mercially developed lands, ground-water flow, and at-
mospheric deposition on land and water. Within the major
river basins discharging to Chesapeake Bay, changes in
population, land use, and land management are occurring
which alter storm-water runoff quality and the rate of
discharge. These changes affect the si2;e and nature of non-
point source loadings to the Bay. The diffuse nature of
nonpoint sources render them difficult both to quantify and
control. In addition, nonpoint source loads are largely
determined by unpredictable rainfall patterns. In wet
-------
29
Phosphorus
Dry Year
Wet Year
Average Year
12,084,000lbs
13,758,000lbs
Nitrogen
23,810,000 Ibs
Wet Year
I Point Sources
263,273,000 Ibs
I |Non-
I I point Sources
Relative contribution of
point and non-point
sources of nutrients in
wet, dry and average years.
years, nonpoint source loads are generally very high and in
dry years, low. The nonpoint source runoff from cropland
contributes the largest share of the nonpoint source nutrient
load to the Bay. Although a minor contributor to the Bay-
wide nutrient load, urban runoff causes localized water
quality problems.
Nutrient Loadings
The Chesapeake Bay Program estimated present (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loadings delivered to the Bay
from throughout its drainage basin. The fractions of
nutrient loadings originating from point sources and non-
point sources (agricultural and urban runoff) were also
determined. In general, the nitrogen entering Bay waters is
contributed primarily by nonpoint sources which are
dominated by cropland runoff loadings. Point sources, on
the other hand, and especially sewage treatment plants, are
the major source of phosphorus to Chesapeake Bay. It is
important to note again that point source nutrient
discharges tend to be more dominant in dry years than in
wet years. In contrast, nonpoint sources which enter water-
ways primarily in stormwater runoff contribute a greater
share of total nutrient loadings during wet years.
Basin-wide Nutrient Loadings Basin-wide, point
sources contribute about 33 percent of the total nitrogen
-------
30
load to the Bay. However, point sources contribute a larger
share of the phosphorus load, averaging 61 percent. Non-
point sources contribute the difference in the nitrogen and
phosphorus loads, making up 67 and 39 percent of the total
loads, respectively. Most of the nitrogen entering Chesa-
peake Bay waters has been transported from watersheds
throughout the Bay basin; phosphorus loadings originate
mostly from sources adjacent to the Bay (below the fall
line).
The three largest tributaries of the Bay, the Susque-
hanna, Potomac, and James Rivers, carry most of the
nitrogen (78 percent) and phosphorus (70 percent) loads
that enter the tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay. Although
the West Chesapeake basin, centered near Baltimore, is not
a large land area compared to other basins, it contributes
significant amounts of nutrients to the Bay. The Eastern
Shore, and the Patuxent, Rappahannock, and York River
basins contribute the smallest portion of the Bay-wide
nutrient loads.
Nutrient Loadings by Major River Basin To link
loadings of nutrients with specific areas where nutrient and
dissolved oxygen concentrations potentially limit aquatic
resources, it is necessary to understand the relative con-
tributions of point and nonpoint sources by major river
basin. It is also necessary to determine inputs in dry,
average, and wet years. Only then can decisions be made
on the best course of action to reduce nutrients contributing
to a certain problem.
Analysis by a computerized model demonstrates that
point source loads of phosphorus exceed the nonpoint
source loads from the Potomac and James River basins in
almost all rainfall conditions. In contrast, the nonpoint
sources contribute most of the phosphorus from the Sus-
quehanna River basin under all conditions. This finding
reflects the fact that the James and Potomac River basins
contain major population centers which contribute large
point source loadings to tidal waters, unlike the more rural
Susquehanna basin. It is not surprising that in the urban-
ized Patuxent and West Chesapeake basins, the phosphorus
loadings from point sources exceed those from nonpoint
sources, and in the largely rural Eastern Shore, and Rap-
pahannock and York River basins, nonpoint contributions
are always the dominant source of phosphorus.
Nitrogen loadings from the major river basins are more
often dominated by nonpoint sources than are phosphorus
loadings. In the Susquehanna, nonpoint sources provide
most of the nitrogen under all conditions. In the Potomac
River basin the nonpoint sources of nitrogen dominate
under all hydrologic conditions. Most of the nitrogen load
in the James River comes from point sources, however,
nonpoint sources become important in a wet year. Point
Importance of point or non-point
sources for phosphorus in the major
drainage basins.
Phosphorus
Point source dominated
jNon-point source dominated
-------
31
source loads of nitrogen always exceed nonpoint sources in
the West Chesapeake; however, in the Patuxent River
basin, point sources of nitrogen are only dominant under
dry conditions. Loadings of nitrogen from the Eastern
Shore, and the Rappahannock and York River basins origi-
nate primarily from nonpoint sources, as do those of
phosphorus.
TOXIC COMPOUNDS
Toxic Compounds and Living Resources
Toxic compounds are affecting the Bay's resources
especially in urbanized areas. These compounds include
metals such as cadmium, copper, and lead; organic chem-
icals such as PCBs, Kepone, and DDT; and other chemicals
like chlorine. Low concentrations of these toxic compounds
have little effect on organisms. However, increasingly
higher concentrations of toxic compounds can cause re-
duced hatching and survival, gross effects such as lesions or
fin erosion in fish, and eventually the mortality of an entire
population. Toxicants can affect the ecosystem by eliminat-
ing sensitive species, and producing communities dominated
by a few pollution-tolerant forms. In localized areas of the
Bay, the CBP has found evidence of such toxic stress.
Chesapeake Bay Program research has shown a relation-
ship between the levels of toxic compounds found in the
sediments in certain areas, and the survival of individual
organisms and the resulting health of the ecosystem.
Bioassay studies of a small amphipod that lives in the bot-
tom sediments of the Bay indicate that its chance of sur-
vival significantly decreases when it is exposed to polluted
Bay sediments. When the amphipods were exposed to "un-
contaminated" Bay sediment that had natural levels of
metals and organic substances, they all survived. However,
when the amphipods were exposed to highly contaminated
sediments from the inner harbors of the Patapsco and
Elizabeth Rivers, they all died. Moderately contaminated
sediments produced intermediate levels of mortality.
The fact that this particular organism could not live in
these highly contaminated sediments suggests that other
organisms cannot live in such conditions. Studies of these
areas confirm this theory. Those areas of the Patapsco
River that have highly toxic sediments support only a few
types of organisms primarily worms (low diversity); areas
that are not as contaminated have many different
organisms, including crabs, clams, oysters, and amphipods.
These findings reinforce the need for careful control of
toxic compounds.
Reduction of diversity of
benthic communities along
a gradient of toxic pollutants
in Baltimore Harbor.
Baltimore City
P2
Patapsco
River
| Low diversity
Moderate diversity
High diversity
-------
32
Metals
Low contamination
High contamination
No data
Sediments contaminated with toxic compounds
are found in many areas of the Bay.
-------
33
Sources of Toxic Compounds
Toxic materials enter the Bay from a variety of sources,
including industrial effluents and other point sources,
runoff from urban areas and agricultural lands, at-
mospheric inputs, and disposal of contaminated dredge
spoil. Except for long-range atmospheric deposition, the
primary sources are located within the basin.
Point Sources Industrial facilities and sewage treat-
ment plants discharge a variety of metals and synthetic
organic compounds. Chlorine and chlorinated organics are
also common constituents of effluent from industries,
POTWs, and power plants. The GBP analyzed the effluent
from 20 industries and eight POTWs; over 75 percent of
the facilities had toxic substances in the effluent. Point
sources of toxics appear to be most significant in in-
dustrialized areas such as Baltimore and Norfolk.
Nonpoint Sources The three major tributaries to
Chesapeake Bay, the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James
Rivers, deliver metals and organic compounds from urban
and agricultural lands. In addition, deposits of air pollution
are delivered directly to Bay waters and also indirectly
through urban runoff. One example is automobiles which
contribute large amounts of lead from gasoline. Another
important nonpoint source is shore erosion which con-
tributes significant amounts of iron and other metals to the
Bay. Also, maritime ships and leisure and work boats occa-
sionally leak or spill petroleum and are regularly treated
with copper-based anti-fouling paints. The toxicants
associated with maritime activities reach their highest levels
in harbors and marinas where these activities are most con-
centrated and natural flushing is low.
Loadings of Toxic Compounds
The Chesapeake Bay Program estimated metal loadings
delivered to the Bay from the entire drainage basin.
Although the CBP was unable to quantify the loadings of
organic compounds to the Bay, it is probable that the
relative contribution of different sources would be similar
to that estimated for metals. In general, the Susquehanna,
Potomac, and James Rivers are major sources of toxicants
entering the tidal Bay. Effluent from industries and sewage
treatment plants located directly on the Bay are also impor-
tant. In urbanized areas such as Baltimore; Washington,
D.C.; and Hampton Roads, urban runoff can contribute
significant loadings of toxicants.
Organic Compounds The CBP detected over 300
organic compounds in the water and sediments of the Bay;
up to 480 organic compounds were detected in Baltimore
Harbor. Most of the compounds identified were toxic. The
-------
34
mean concentrations of all organic compounds detected
were typically in hundreds of parts per million. Priority
pollutants were detected in all areas sampled and about
half were found in concentrations greater than 50 parts per
billion. In general, the compounds observed showed a trend
of high concentrations adjacent to urbanized areas such as
Baltimore and Hampton Roads. High concentrations are
also found in the Susquehanna Flats. In the southern Bay,
high concentrations exist near river mouths.
Although the CBP is unable to quantify the loadings of
organic compounds, the fact that high concentrations of
many of these compounds were detected in analyses of ef-
fluents from industries and sewage treatment plants sug-
gests that the major source of toxic loadings is point
sources. Furthermore, in several instances, the CBP was
able to link the compounds with specific industrial sources.
It is essential that the release of such compounds be
substantially reduced and that Bay sediments and point
source effluents be thoroughly monitored.
Metals The James, Potomac, and Susquehanna River
systems are by far the major transport mechanisms for each
metal examined by the CBP. Collectively, they account for
69 percent of the cadmium, 72 percent of the chromium,
69 percent of the copper, 80 percent of the iron, 51 percent
of the lead, and 54 percent of the zinc discharged to the
Bay system. The other principal source of each metal is: for
cadmium, industry (13 percent); for chromium and iron,
shore erosion (13 percent and 18 percent, respectively); for
copper, industrial and municipal point sources (21 percent);
for lead, urban runoff (19 percent); and for zinc, at-
mospheric deposition (31 percent).
SUMMARY
The Chesapeake Bay Program's research has
documented the serious impact of the nutrients and toxic
chemicals released from point and nonpoint sources on the
Bay's water and sediment quality and on the vitality and
abundance of its living resouces. Moreover, forecasts in-
dicate that the sources of these pollutants will continue to
grow in number and change in nature, resulting in cor-
responding increases in the levels of the pollutants entering
the Bay. The present state of the Bay and the forecast for
the future provide the basis for the recommendations set
forth in the following chapter. It is essential that we act
now to control and alter human activities and practices on
land if we are to halt the deterioration of the Bay and the
subsequent losses of animal and plant life they produce.
High levels of toxic organic
compounds are found near
industrialized areas of the Bay.
-------
__^ 35
A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
INTRODUCTION
Chesapeake Bay Program findings clearly indicate that
the Bay is an ecosystem with increasing pollution burdens
and declines in desired resources. It is also evident that ac-
tions throughout the Bay's watershed affect the water
quality of the rivers flowing into the Bay. Degradation of
the Bay's water and sediment quality can, in turn, affect
the living resources. Thus, effective management of the
Chesapeake Bay must be based on an understanding of,
and an ability to control both point and nonpoint sources
of pollution throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin. To
achieve this objective, it is essential that the states and
Federal government work closely together to develop spe-
cific management plans to reduce the flow of pollutants
into the Bay, and to restore and maintain the Bay's ecologi-
cal integrity. In the text that follows, specific recommenda-
tions are outlined for monitoring and research, control of
nutrients, reduction in toxic compounds, and management
of the environmental quality of the Bay system.
MONITORING AND RESEARCH
The relationships observed between the water quality
and resource trends enabled the GBP to begin to identify
cause-and-effect. For example, Bay-wide, the areas ex-
periencing significant losses of SAV had high concentrations
of nutrients in the water column. The high levels of
nutrients evidently enhance phytoplankton growth and
epiphytic fouling of plants, thus reducing the light reaching
SAV to below critical levels. However, it is also probable
that high levels of sediment-induced turbidity and herbi-
cides contributed to the SAV problem in localized areas. In
another analysis, the reduced diversity and abundance of
benthic organisms in urbanized areas was related to toxic
contamination of the sediments. Low dissolved oxygen in
the summertime also appears to be a major factor limiting
-------
36
the benthic population, particularly in the upper and mid-
Bay. The increase in the volume of water with low dis-
solved oxygen is attributed to increased algal production
and decay triggered by nutrient enrichment. Lastly,
nutrient enrichment and increased levels of toxicants
occurred in major spawning and nursery areas for
anadromous fish, as well as in areas experiencing reduced
oyster spat. This information was utili2;ed to develop a
preliminary Environmental Quality Classification Scheme
(EQCS) that related water quality criteria to resource-use
attainability.
The characterization of the Bay, and the attempt to link
water quality trends to living resource trends, has made
science useful to managers and citizens. This retrospective
approach is imperfect though, because large gaps in the
data base and necessary assumptions limit our ability to
make strong scientific causal inferences. We have correla-
tions, not proof. We also do not know with certainty to
what extent levels of pollution must be reduced to achieve
a quality of water that can support resource objectives.
Mathematical models, which will someday enable us to ar-
rive at these answers, have not yet been perfected for the
complex Chesapeake estuary. Based on these significant
gaps in our understanding, some would argue that proof of
the urgency for action is incomplete. However, the
evidence of increased pollution loads, accumulation and
retention of toxicants in the system, and declines of valued
resources are compelling reasons for prompt and effective
correction. Nonetheless, whatever actions are taken, we
must bear in mind that our ability to assess the effec-
tiveness of control programs and redirect our efforts will
depend on the adequacy of our monitoring and research
efforts.
Pollutants enter the Bay
from many sources.
-------
37
MONITORING AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
To ACQUIRE INFORMATION TO REFINE THE GBP EN-
VIRONMENTAL QUALITY CLASSIFICATION SCHEME AND
TO DEVELOP STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BASED
ON RESOURCE-USE ATTAINABILITY.
The states and Federal governments, through the
Management Committee, should design and implement
a coordinated program of Bay-wide monitoring and
research by July 1, 1984.
This program should include the following components:
A baseline (descriptive and analytical) long-term
monitoring program;
A coordinated and sustained, interpretive program of
monitoring and research to improve the understand-
ing of relationships between water and sediment
quality, and living resources; and
A research effort to identify important resource
habitats and guide their preservation and restoration.
NUTRIENTS
Nutrients enter the Bay from point sources, such as
sewage treatment plants, and from nonpoint sources, such
as agricultural and urban runoff. In general, the nitrogen
entering Bay waters is contributed primarily by nonpoint
sources, which are dominated by cropland runoff loadings.
Point sources on the other hand, and especially sewage
treatment plants, are the major source of phosphorus to
Chesapeake Bay. It is important to note that in dry years,
point source nutrient discharges tend to be more dominant
than in wet years. In contrast, nonpoint sources, which
enter waterways primarily in stormwater runoff, contribute
a greater share of total nutrient loadings during wet years.
Also, different river basins tend to be dominated by dif-
ferent sources and, therefore, require different control
strategies. For example, nutrient loadings in the Susque-
hanna River are primarily associated with nonpoint
sources, although nutrient loadings to the James River are
primarily attributed to point sources. The major findings
and information regarding nutrient sources, loadings, and
control programs are summarized below:
The Susquehanna, Potomac, and James Rivers are
major sources of nutrients to the Bay. They con-
tribute, respectively, 40, 24, and 14 percent of the
nitrogen and 21, 21, and 28 percent of the
phosphorus in an average year.
-------
38
Runoff from cropland and other nonpoint sources are
the major sources of nitrogen to the nutrient enriched
areas in the Bay. Nonpoint sources contribute 67 per-
cent, whereas point sources contribute 33 percent, of
the total nitrogen load to the Bay in an average year.
Point sources, such as sewage treatment plants, are
the dominant source of phosphorus to the nutrient-
enriched areas of the Bay. Point sources contribute 61
percent, whereas nonpoint sources contribute 39 per-
cent, of the total phosphorus load to the Bay in an
average year.
Agricultural runoff control strategies, such as conser-
vation tillage, best management practices, and
animal manure waste management, can effectively
reduce nutrient loadings from areas dominated by
agricultural nonpoint sources (e.g., the Susquehanna
River basin).
Urban runoff control efforts have been shown to be
effective in reducing nutrient loadings to small
tributaries located in the Baltimore, D.C., and
Hampton Roads areas.
Point source controls, such as restrictions on nutrient
discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants or
limitations on phosphate in detergents, can effectively
reduce nutrient loadings to those areas where point
sources are significant (e.g., the James and Patuxent
River basins).
Point and nonpoint source controls in combination
achieve consistent reductions in pollutant loadings
during varying rainfall conditions in all basins.
The Federal government and the states have a variety
of control programs for point and nonpoint sources to
reduce loadings to the Bay. However, GBP research has
shown that many areas of the Bay are over-enriched with
nutrients and that the Bay acts as a sink, essentially trap-
ping and recycling nutrients through the system. Additional
actions designed to reduce the nutrient loads to the Bay
will ultimately be beneficial. In response to these findings,
the states are already taking bold nt;w initiatives, as well as
providing additional funding for proven old ideas. For ex-
ample, Maryland is attempting to provide state dollars to
pay for phosphorus and nitrogen removal at selected
sewage treatment plants which are not eligible for Federal
funding. Virginia has already established an innovative new
incentive program for farmers, paying them from the state
coffers for removing from production buffer strips along
waterways. Pennsylvania is initiating a pilot manure
management program that may decrease nutrient loadings
to the lower Susquehanna. These are vigorous first steps
toward achievement of sustained improvement, still, there
is much more that needs to be done.
-------
39
BAY-WIDE NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
To REDUCE POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT
LOADINGS TO ATTAIN NUTRIENT AND DISSOLVED OXY-
GEN CONCENTRATIONS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE
LIVING RESOURCES OF THE BAY.
General Recommendations
1. The states* and the EPA, through the Management
Committee, should utilize the existing water quality
management process to develop a basin-wide plan by
July 1, 1984 that includes implementation schedules, to
control nutrients from point and nonpoint sources.
2. The states and the EPA, through the Management
Committee, should continue the development of a Bay-
wide water quality model to refine the ability to assess
potential water quality benefits of simulated nutrient
control alternatives. This model should be continuously
updated with new information on point source
discharges, land use activities, water quality, etc.
Point Source Recommendations
3. The States and the EPA should consider CBP findings
when updating or issuing NPDES permits for all point
sources discharging directly to Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. Furthermore, the States should enforce
NPDES permit limitations.
4. Technical data from CBP findings should be considered
when evaluating funding proposals for POTWs under
the EPA's Advanced Treatment Policy.
5. The States of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia should consider by July 1, 1984, as one of
several control alternatives, a policy to limit phosphate
in detergents to 0.5 percent by weight, in light of the
immediate phosphorus reductions which would be
achieved.
6. The following administrative procedures should be
reviewed for action by January 1, 1985, by the States,
counties, and/or municipalities:
' To increase POTW efficiency, improve operator
*The states refers to those states within the Chesapeake Bay
drainage basin.
-------
40
training programs, and provide or encourage incen-
tives for better job performance, such as increased
salaries, promotions, bonuses, job recognition, etc.
The states should consider CBP findings when rank-
ing construction grant projects.
Accelerate the development and administration of
state and local pre-treatment programs.
Continue to evaluate and utilize innovative and
alternative nutrient removal approaches.
Improve sampling and inspection of point source
discharges.
Develop plans to ensure long-term operation and
maintenance of small, privately-owned sewage treat-
ment facilities.
Institute educational campaigns to conserve water to
reduce the need for POTW expansion as population
in the Chesapeake Bay basin increases.
Nonpoint Source Recommendations
7. The states and the EPA, through the Management
Committee, should develop a detailed nonpoint source
control implementation program, by July 1, 1984, as
part of the proposed basin-wide water quality manage-
ment plan.
Initial efforts should concentrate on establishing
strategies to accelerate the application of best management
practices in priority sub-basins to reduce existing nonpoint
source nutrient loadings. Long-term strategies should seek
to maintain or further reduce nutrient loads from other
sub-basins to help restore Chesapeake Bay water quality.
The implementation program should not be limited to
traditional approaches toward soil and water conservation;
an intensified commitment of resources for educational,
technical, and financial assistance is warranted and may re-
quire innovative administration of available resources.
Long-term funding must be assured at the outset of the im-
plementation program, and a detailed plan to track accom-
plishments, including water quality improvement, should
be developed by the states through the Management Com-
mittee. The framework for this program should include the
following stages:
Stage 1 -
A program that emphasizes increased education,
technical assistance, and cost-sharing, as well as
other financial incentives, should be in place by
July 1, 1985 in priority sub-basins (i.e., those
determined through nonpoint source modeling to
-------
41
be significant contributors of nutrients to iden-
tified problem areas of the Bay). Full implemen-
tation of the stage 1 abatement program should
occur by July 1, 1988.
Stage 2-
The Stage 1 program should be expanded to in-
termediate priority sub-basins based on additional
basin-wide nonpoint source modeling and Bay-
wide water quality modeling assessments that
should determine both the need for additional
nonpoint source nutrient reductions and the addi-
tional sub-basins to be targetted for nonpoint
source control.
Stage 3 -
Provide the necessary educational, technical, and
financial assistance to maintain or improve the
level of soil and water resource protection
throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin. Soil con-
servation districts should establish annual conser-
vation goals and report annually on accomplish-
ments and technical, financial, educational, and
research needs.
Concurrently with stages 1 through 3, the states and the
EPA, through the Management Committee and the agri-
cultural research community, should initiate research to
evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing the loss of
soluble nutrients from farmland, to improve soil-testing
procedures to refine recommended fertilizer application
rates (especially with respect to nitrogen), and to explore a
range of financial incentives, disincentives, or other
measures that would accelerate the BMP-adoption process.
Regulatory alternatives should be evaluated and, where
necessary, implemented if the above approaches do not
achieve the needed nutrient reductions.
8. The USD A and the EPA, in consultation with the
Management Committee, should strengthen and coor-
dinate their efforts to reduce agricultural nonpoint
source pollution to improve water quality in
Chesapeake Bay.
Specifically, an agreement that establishes a cooperative
commitment to work toward the goal of improved water
quality in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries should be
developed. The agreement should outline ways that pro-
grams could be targetted to reduce loadings of a) nutrients
(from soil, fertilizer, and animal wastes), b) sediment, c)
agricultural chemicals, and d) bacteria from animal wastes.
Also, the agreement should encourage the tar getting of EPA
and USDA technical assistance and computer modeling per-
sonnel to Chesapeake Bay priority sub-basins.
-------
42
9. Federal agencies, states, and counties should develop
incentive policies by July 1, 1984 that encourage
farmers to implement BMPs.
Policies that could be considered include: incentives to
maintain sensitive or marginal farmland out of production,
such as the USDA Paymefit-in-Kind Program or other
similar state or local efforts; cross-compliance; changes in
the Internal Revenue Code, or state and local tax structures
that will encourage landowner investment in BMPs or
discourage the lack of adequate BMPs; the establishment of
Federal, state, or local agricultural conservation trust funds
for additional cost-share, education, or technical assistance
resources; user fees; dedicated taxes; or expanded im-
plementation funding.
10. The states, counties, and municipalities located in sub-
basins adjacent to tidal-fresh and e&tuarine segments of
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries should implement
fully and enforce existing urban stormwater runoff con-
trol programs.
Although nonpoint source loadings of nutrients from ur-
ban land were not found to contribute to overall nutrient
loads, unnecessary loadings of nutrients, sediment, heavy
metals, and other pollutants from urbanized or developing
watersheds should be avoided because of their potential im-
pact on living resources in isolated or sensitive reaches of
the Bay. In addition, stormwater management programs
should place equal emphasis on control techniques for runoff
quality and runoff quantity; they should also either establish
owner-developer responsibility for long-term maintenance of
urban stormwater BMPs or else include innovative finance
mechanisms to pay for long-term BMP maintenance.
11. The States of Maryland and Virginia and local govern-
ments should consider strengthening wetland protection
laws to include non-tidal wetlands because of their
value as nutrient buffers and living resource habitat.
TOXIC COMPOUNDS
Toxic compounds enter the Bay from point sources,
such as industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants,
and from nonpoint sources such as urban runoff, dredged
material disposal, and atmospheric deposition. The three
major tributaries to the Chesapeake, the Susquehanna,
Potomac, and James Rivers, are the major sources of metals
and organic compounds to the Bay. Industrial facilities and
sewage treatment plants discharging directly to the Bay are
signficant sources of cadmium, copper and organic com-
-------
43
pounds. Urban runoff is an important source of lead, and
atmospheric deposition is an important source of zinc to the
Bay. The toxic problem is most severe in industrialized
areas such as Baltimore and Norfolk, where the water and
sediments have high metal concentrations and many
organic compounds. The major findings regarding the toxic
compound sources and controls are summarized below:
The James, Potomac, and Susquehanna Rivers are the
major sources of metals to the Bay. Collectively, they
account for 69 percent of the cadmium, 72 percent of
the chromium, 69 percent of the copper, 80 percent
of the iron, 51 percent of the lead, and 54 percent of
the zinc discharged to the Bay system.
Over 300 organic compounds were detected in the
water and sediments of the Bay; up to 480 organic
compounds were detected in Baltimore Harbor. Most
of the compounds detected are toxic and many are
priority pollutants.
An analysis of effluent from 20 industries and 8
publicly owned treatment works revealed that over
75 percent of the facilities had toxic substances in the
effluent, principally metals, chlorine, and chlorinated
organic compounds.
Point source control programs resulted in significant
reductions in metal loadings between 1970 and 1980
to areas such as Baltimore Harbor. However, these
programs focus only on the 129 EPA priority
pollutants. Large quantities of metals and organic
pollutants continue to enter the Bay system.
Nonpoint source control efforts, such as urban runoff
controls, integrated pest management, and the
regulation of dredge spoil disposal, have probably
resulted in reduced loadings of toxic compounds to
the Bay.
Toxic pollution control tools, and information
developed by the GBP, such as the toxicity index, the
toxicity testing protocol, and the effluent and sedi-
ment fingerprinting procedure, will help managers
address the toxic substance problem.
The Federal government and the states have made
significant advances in the control of toxic substances.
However, alarmingly high levels of toxic compounds are
still found in certain "hot spot" areas of the Bay. It is also
disconcerting that present regulatory monitoring efforts
would not detect an illegally discharged or dumped bioac-
cumulative compound which exceeded chronic toxicity
levels. This would suggest that a Kepone-type incident as
occurred in the James River in 1975 could easily occur
again. Such a possibility is frightening in light of the fact
that toxic materials tend to adsorb to sediment and remain
trapped in the Bay. They are often recycled throughout the
-------
44
system, causing repeated damage, until they are eventually
buried by the accumulation of clean sediment. These find-
ings suggest that current permitting, monitoring, and en-
forcement programs do not sufficiently control toxic
loadings to the Bay.
BAY-WIDE TOXICANT RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
CONTROL AND MONITOR POINT AND NONPOINT
SOURCES OF TOXIC MATERIALS TO MITIGATE THE
POTENTIAL OR DEMONSTRATED IMPACT OF TOXICANTS
ON THE LIVING RESOURCES OF THE BAY
General Recommendations
1. The States and the EPA, through the Management
Committee, should utilize the existing water quality
management process to develop a basin-wide plan, that
includes implementation schedules, to control toxicants
from point and nonpoint sources by July 1, 1984.
Point Source Recommendations
2. The States, through the NPDES permit and general en-
forcement authority program, should use biological and
chemical analyses of industrial and municipal effluents
to identify and control toxic discharges to the Bay and
its tributaries.
Biomonitoring and chemical analyses (GC/MS "finger-
print") of effluents can be used to identify toxic discharges
and to assess potential impacts on receiving waters. Initial
focus should be on all major discharges, facilities known or
thought to be releasing priority pollutants, and POTWs
receiving industrial wastes. In developing this protocol, the
States should follow EPA policy and recommendations .
Priority areas for implementation should be the Patapsco,
Elizabeth, and James Rivers, to be expanded to other areas
as appropriate. All effluent biological and chemical data
will be stored in EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS),
as well as in the CBP data base. Monitoring of effluents
should be coordinated with the Bay-wide monitoring plan;
this includes analysis of toxicant levels in sediments, water
column, and in tissues of finfish and shellfish.
3. The states and the EPA, through the Management
Committee, should utilize Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
45
findings in developing or revising water quality criteria
and RtnnAnrds inr tnri.r.nnt.K.
and standards for toxicants.
Initial priority should be given to pollutants identified
as highly toxic and prevalent in the Bay, specifically
chlorine, cadmium, copper, zinc, nickel, chromium, lead
and, in tributaries, atrazine and linuron. Numerical criteria
should be developed when needed and incorporated into
state water quality standards as soon as feasible. Site-
specific criteria that are developed should be based on
biological and chemical characteristics of individual receiv-
ing waters according to EPA guidelines and appropriate
estuarine research.
4. The states should base NPDES permits on the EPA ef-
fluent guidelines or revised state water quality stan-
dards, whichever are more stringent. Furthermore, the
states should enforce all toxicant limitations in NPDES
permits.
The EPA should maintain its current schedule for prom-
ulgating best available technology (BAT) effluent
guidelines. To facilitate the writing of permits, the EPA
should continue to transfer knowledge and expertise
developed during the effluent guideline process to the
states. The states should also consider increasing the
number of training programs for permit writers.
5. Pre-treatment control programs should be strengthened
where needed to reduce the discharge of hazardous and
toxic materials.
The pre-treatment program in various basins has con-
tributed to reductions of toxicants in some municipal
discharges, but the GBP has found that, as a group, treat-
ment plants continue to be major contributors of heavy
metals, organic compounds, and other toxicants, including
chlorine. Current EPA regulations require pre-treatment
programs to be developed by July 1, 1983. Municipal
dischargers who have not submitted their program should
do so as soon as possible. The EPA and the states should
enforce these programs.
6. Chlorine control strategies should be implemented (or
continued, where now in place) in areas of critical
resource importance. Strategies should focus on the
reduction or elimination of chlorination, use of alter-
native biocides, and the reduction of the impact of
effluents.
Major areas of emphasis would include fresh or brackish
fish spawning and nursery areas, and shellfish spawning
areas. Maryland and Virginia have already begun to reduce
-------
46
chlorine residuals, evaluate site-specific effects of chlorine,
and consider environmental effects in siting and permitting
of dischargers.
Nonpoint Source Recommendations
7. The EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
States should utilize CBP program findings and other
new information in developing permit conditions for
dredge-and-fill and 404 permits
Information developed (or assembled) by the
Chesapeake Bay Program includes: a measure of the
relative enrichment of sediments by six metals, concentra-
tions of organic materials in surface sediments, shoaling
and erosion patterns, distribution of sediment types, loca-
tion of submerged aquatic vegetation beds, shellfish beds,
fish spawning and nursery areas, and relationships between
habitat quality and living resources.
8. A Bay-wide effort should be made to ensure proper
handling and application techniques of pesticides and
herbicides, particularly in light of the potential increase
in use of these materials in low-till farming practices.
Innovative strategies, such as integrated pest manage-
ment (IPM) and reduction and timing of application have
proven to be successful in the Bay area. The States should
encourage the use of these reduction strategies, support
runoff and erosion control programs, demonstration proj-
ects, and monitor the fate and effects of those substances
on the Bay's aquatic environment.
9. Research, monitoring programs, and control strategies
to reduce urban runoff should be continued and
strengthened by the localities which are most directly
affected.
The states and urban areas should develop and imple-
ment plans which identify urban management strategies to
protect water quality in those areas where urban runoff
controls provide the most effective results.
10. The States and the EPA should evaluate the magnitude
and effects of other sources of toxicants, including at-
mospheric deposition, acid precipitation, contaminated
ground-water, acid mine drainage, hazardous waste
disposal and storage sites, accidental spills, and anti-
fouling paints.
As information becomes available, it should be factored
into control and permit processes, etc. For example, models
-------
indicate that 30 to 40 percent of the atmospheric emissions
generated within the Bay area are deposited there. The
GBP has estimated potentially significant inputs of metals
from acid mine drainage and anti-fouling paints, par-
ticularly in tributaries. Many of these toxicant sources are
currently being investigated by Federal and state agencies.
47
BAY MANAGEMENT
To effectively manage the Bay, both its variability and
its unity must be recognized. The Bay's water quality needs
vary from region to region as do the controls necessary to
support specific regional resource-use objectives. The in-
dustrialized Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers have a very dif-
ferent water quality problem than do the Choptank or
Rappahannock Rivers. Also, the desired and actual use of
these areas varies significantly (i.e., industrial versus
agriculture and fishing). It is apparent that our control
strategies must be targetted by geographic area. The GBP
report, A Framework for Action describes the different
areas of the Bay and recommends actions to address their
specific regional needs. The Bay is a complex interactive
ecosystem and actions taken in any part of the watersehed
may result in water quality degradation and impacts on
aquatic resources downstream. For this reason, it is essen-
tial that a Bay-wide management mechanism with appro-
priate representation coordinate the respective activities of
the Federal and state planning and regulatory agenices.
Therefore, it is recommended that the CBP Management
Committee be maintained and expanded to provide a coor-
dinating mechanism to ensure that actions are taken to
reduce the flow of pollutants into the Bay, and to restore
and maintain the Bay's ecological integrity.
The Management Committee's specific responsibilities
should include:
Coordinating the implementation of the Chesapeake
Bay Program's recommendations;
Developing a comprehensive basin-wide water quality
planning process in conjunction with ongoing plan-
ning efforts;
Investigating new regional approaches to water qual-
ity management, including creative financing
mechanisms;
Resolving regional conflicts regarding water quality
issues; and
Reviewing related ongoing Bay research efforts and
recommmending additional research needs.
It is hoped that the needs of the future can be met and
the quality of the Bay preserved. It is apparent that some
o
-------
48
governmental change, long-term commitments, and money
are necessary. There will be no quick-fix for the
Chesapeake's problems. We will need to continue to study
and to monitor, but while we do that, we will also need to
focus concerted remedial action on some of the most severe
problems in the system. Above all, we will need to con-
tinue the dialogue among the states and among the users of
the Bay. The new spirit of cooperation and awareness
generated by the Chesapeake Bay Program has brought us
to the point of believing that we can manage the Bay for
the benefit of all.
------- |