903R87100
CHESAPEAKE
EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL
SECOND
ANNUAL
PROGRESS
REPORT
UNDER THE
CHESAPEAKE
BAY
AGREEMENT
TD
225
.C54
P763
copy 2
FEBRUARY 1987
-------
CHESAPEAKE
EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL
1986
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
James M. Self, Chairman
Regional Administrator Region III
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Donald Murray
Acting Director
Department of Consumer &
Regulatory Affairs
John Touchstone
Director
Office of Public Works
STATE OF MARYLAND
Hon. Torrey C. Brown, M.D.
Secretary
Department of Natural Resources
Hon. Adele Wilzack, R.N.,
M.S.
Secretary
Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Hon. Nicholas
DeBenedictus
Secretary
Department of Environmental
Resources
Hon. Richard E. Grubb
Secretary
Department of Agriculture
COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA
Hon. John Daniel
Secretary of Natural Resources
Hon. Eva S. Teig
Secretary of Human Resources
Additional copies may be
obtained from'
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE
MARYLAND
William M. Eichbaum
Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene
L.E. Zeni
Department of
Natural Resources
PENNSYLVANIA
Louis W. Bercheni
Department of
Environmental Resources
William Cook
Department of
Environmental Resources
Paul Swartz
Department of
Environmental Resources
Fred Wertz
Department of
Agriculture
VIRGINIA
Richard N. Burton
Water Control Board
Keith Buttleman
Council on the
Environment
Robert Stroube
Department of Health
B.C. Leynes, Jr.
Department of
Conservation & Historic Resources
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
James Collier
Department of
Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Jacqueline Davison
Housing & Environmental
Regulation Administration
Kenneth Laden
Department of
Public Works
Anantha Padmanabha
Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
FEDERAL
Peter Boice
United States Department ol
Defense
Gerald Calhoun
Soil Conservation Service
Herb Freiberger
United States Geological Survey
Glenn Kinser
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
Martin W. Walsh
United States Army Corps of
Engineers
Alvin R. Morris (Chairman)
United States Environmental
Protection Agency-Region 111
James Thomas
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
REGIONAL
Margaret Johnston
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Robert Bielo
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
CITIZENS
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
MARYLAND
Clifford Falkenau
Ron Fithian
Levi B. Miller, Jr.
David P. Sayre
PENNSYLVANIA
Edwina H. Coder
(Chairman 1986)
Alvin N. Myers
Walter L. Pomeroy
Mary Lou Williams
VIRGINIA
B.W. Beauchamp
Betty Diener
Evelyn M. Hailey
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Howard Gassaway
Geneva T. Perry
Lloyd Smith
AT LARGE MEMBERS
Elizabeth Bauereis
(Chairman 1985)
Davidson Gill
W. Calvin Gray
Cranston Morgan
Mitchell Nathanson
Ann Powers
Gerald R. Prout
Wayne L. Sullivan
SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
William Dunstan
Old Dominion University
Lamar Harris
(Alan Taylor-alternate)
University of Maryland
John B. Hunt
Catholic University
James Johnson
Howard University
Walmar Klassen
(Allen Isensee-alternate)
United States Department ot
Agriculture — Agricultural
Research Service
Robert Leppson/
Aaron Rosenfield
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Maurice Lynch
(Chairman 1985-86)
Chesapeake Research Consortium
Archie McDonnell
Pennsylvania State University
Ian Morris
(Wayne Bell-alternate)
University of Maryland
Frank Perkins
Virginia Institute of Marine
Science
Dennis Powers
University of Maryland
Donald Pntchard
State University of New York
Louis E. Sage
Academy ot Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia
Martha Sager
American University
Gordon Smith
Johns Hopkins Um\ersit>
Mamadou Watt
Universitv of District of Columbia
SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIRMEN
DATA MANAGEMENT
Charles Spooner, EPA
MODELING AND
RESEARCH
James Collier
District of Columbia
MONITORING
William Eichbaum
Maryland
NONPOINT SOURCE
Paul Swartz
Pennsylvania
PLANNING
Keith Buttleman
Vireima
-------
Osprey.
Courtesv ol US Hsh & Wildhie Scrv
Photographer Ra\ Whmemofe
ON THE COVER
The osprey, or fish hawk, feeds almost exclusively
on fish, which it catches in spectacular dives to the
water. Ospreys are found throughout much of the
world, but nowhere else is the concentration of
nesting ospreys so great. The Chesapeake Bay sup-
ports over 1,500 nesting pairs of osprey and has been
called the "osprey garden."
Each spring ospreys return from tropical wintering
grounds in South America to nest on the Chesapeake
Bay. They rebuild their bulky stick nests, make hover-
ing searches and smashing dives in pursuit of fish,
and perform elegant, screaming courtship flights
while holding fast to fresh-caught fish. This annual,
highly visible, and somewhat noisy infusion of life to
the Bay is as characteristic as the autumn return of
geese and swans. Each yearly generation of the osprey
is complete when adults and young soar south at the
end of the summer.
In the past, ospreys served as a warning of the
buildup in coastal ecosystems of the organochlorine
pesticides DDT and dieldrin, which caused the death
of breeders, thin eggshells and very poor hatching
rates. These extreme effects are now a decade in the
past. DDT residues are very low in Chesapeake Bay
osprey eggs, and hatching rates are generally high.
The osprey's future as an indicator of environmen-
tal health lies in understanding the bird's relationship
to available fish supply in a changing ecosystem.
Especially important to osprey success is the monitor-
ing of the feeding of their young during the eight
weeks from hatch to fledge. Nestling survival in Bay
tributaries is generally excellent, but certain local
breeding areas along the main Bay, such as the
Poplar Islands, are experiencing some large-scale
nestling starvation. Suitable fish prey may be lacking
in such localities.
Fortunately, problems facing ospreys today are
small compared to the problems of a decade ago.
Success with osprey recovery shows that man can
reverse environmental damage. Recovery of the
Chesapeake Bay as a whole, however, will require the
committed efforts of everyone —governments, in-
dustries, private organizations, and most important,
each individual.
Speues notes contributed b\ noted ospre\ biologist Dr Paul Spitzer Cover Photo b\
William kranu. US Fish & Wildlife Service
U S Environmental Protection Agenqf
Region 111 Information Resource
nter (3PM52)
i Chestnut Street
. pA
Foreword 2
CHAPTER i:
Achievements under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 3
Working Together—The Executive Council
in Action 3
Governance 5
Improving Programs 6
Planning for the Future 6
Toxic Contaminants 7
Interim Report 7
CHAPTER 2:
Monitoring—The State of the Bay 8
Introduction 8
The Harvest: Finfish 9
The Harvest: Shellfish 10
SAV: Habitat and Nursery 10
The Water Quality Base 12
Sediment & Toxic Contaminants 14
Plankton & the Food Chain 18
CHAPTER 3:
Programs to Bring Back the Bay 20
Progress of State Programs 20
Pennsylvania 20
District of Columbia 21
Virginia 23
Maryland 25
Progress of Federal Programs 27
Department of Defense 27
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration 27
Army Corps of Engineers 27
United States Geological Survey 28
Soil Conservation Service 28
Environmental Protection Agency 29
United States Fish and Wildlife Service 29
Program Support 31
Public Information/Participation 31
Data Management 32
Other Support 32
CHAPTER 4:
Outlook 33
-------
Foreword
TO THE SlGNATORS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT AND
THE PEOPLE OF THE REGION:
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve as the Chairman of the Chesapeake Executive
Council in 1986, a year in which 1 believe we have made significant progress under the Chesa-
peake Bay Agreement.
First, the structure which the Council established works. The Implementation Committee and
its subgroups have developed an agenda we call Phase II which will enable us to refine current
efforts and to design and implement the next generation of Bay restoration and protection pro-
grams. We have improved our modeling capabilities to assist in that refinement. The monitoring
network established in 1984 has provided a new baseline from which we can measure the pro-
gress of cleanup efforts. We began to develop habitat and living resources objectives which,
when combined with monitoring data and modeling projections, will tell us how great a reduc-
tion of nutrients and other pollutants is required to bring back the Bay. We launched new toxics
initiatives to pinpoint and better control the sources of contaminants. The states have made
great strides in delivering programs to reduce the loadings of nutrients and toxic substances to
tributaries and the Bay from urban and agricultural nonpoint sources. We are now embarked on
a major reassessment of our pollution control needs and the technology to meet them.
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) challenged us with their report on
the control of nutrients from point sources, and the Council members responded by taking ac-
tion to demonstrate nitrogen removal technologies.
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) reorganized into five task forces to provide the
Council with advice on important issues. With the staff of the Citizens Program for Chesapeake
Bay, Inc., the CAC worked hard in 1986 to increase public interest and participation in Bay issues.
The Council was politically visible in 1986 when it sought to influence the programs of the
1986 Farm Bill to promote maximum effect on the Bay. The Council was among the first to
recognize the problems boat paints containing tributyltin may be causing. Bay Program efforts
were evaluated publicly when agencies of our Implementation Committee and the CAC testified
before a Congressional hearing chaired by Senator Charles McC Mathias in June. A healthy re-
examination of our structure and processes followed and is now to be a continuing effort.
One result of the self-examination was the initiation of the chairmanship rotation procedure
envisioned by the signators of the Agreement. Council chairmanship will rotate between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (representing the federal government) and the states.
EPA will hold the chairmanship on alternate years.
EPA looks forward to being an active member of the Council during 1987. I anticipate it will
be a year when momentum increases and when both the program and the partnership of the
Bay Agreement become even stronger.
'James M. Seif
Chairman
Chesapeake Executive Council
-------
CHAPTER ONE
Achievements under the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
WORKING TOGETHER—
THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL IN ACTION
When the Chesapeake Bay Commission, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA), Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia
(D.C.) signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in
December 1983, they agreed to establish a structure to
oversee the cooperative and comprehensive measures
taken to restore the Bay. The Chesapeake Executive
Council and its Implementation Committee (1C)
began by forming the Planning, Data Management,
Monitoring, and Modeling and Research Subcommit-
tees which report to the 1C. The Council's First An-
nual Report outlined their activities. Representatives
from the three states, the District of Columbia and the
six federal agencies with which EPA signed special
agreements in 1984 participate on these committees.
Through the agreements, this historic partnership
has been expanded and the possibilities for coopera-
tion greatly enhanced. The resources and knowledge
of the Soil Conservation Service (Agriculture), the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(Commerce), Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (Interior), Corps of Engineers, and
Department of Defense now have special geographic
focus on the Chesapeake Bay.
In 1985 and 1986, the Council proved that the
Agreement structure works to coordinate the restora-
tion and protection of the Bay waters and living resources.
We also recognized a need for additional groups.
Late in 1985, the 1C formed the Nonpoint Source
Subcommittee (NFS). It was a logical addition to the
Agreement structure since the Bay Program Study
concluded that much of the pollution of the Bay
comes from nonpoint sources. Further, in 1984 the
Executive Council adopted a policy requiring that not
less than 75 percent of the Bay Program state im-
plementation grant monies must support nonpoint
source pollution control efforts.
The NFS coordinates information exchange to en-
sure technology transfer of the most effective urban
and agricultural BMP's. It has helped the states target
their programs and utilize their funding to speed
adoption of land management practices. These prac-
tices reduce the sediment, nutrient, and chemical
loadings to the tributaries and the Bay from areas
which contribute the highest loadings.
The nonpoint source programs of the states are in
place and on track. Cost-share programs are assisting
farmers throughout the region to reduce soil loss, reduce
nutrient loads to the Bay, and save money through
decreased fertilizer use. Best management practices
(BMPs) are being installed on farms. Sediment con-
trol regulations are being enforced, construction sites
are being inspected, and people are being trained in
construction techniques that protect water quality.
Each state funds demonstration projects showing
how reduced tillage practices can prevent soil loss
from agricultural lands. Public information materials
are available for the farm community, construction
firms, homeowners, and the general public. The
resources of the Soil Conservation Service, Cooper-
ative Extension Service, county soil and water conser-
vation districts and state agencies are being applied to
reduce nonpoint source pollution of the Bay. The
chapter "Programs to Bring Back the Bay" provides
more information.
Soon after the states and D.C. began implement-
ing Bay programs, they recognized the importance of
receiving the best independent scientific and technical
advice available on those programs and on directions
that future efforts should take. To accommodate this
concern the Executive Council established the Scien-
tific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) in
December 1984. STAC reports to the Implementation
Committee. It consists of 23 members who represent
major universities and research institutions in the
three states and D.C. as well as several federal agencies.
After reviewing the overall nutrient reduction pro-
grams throughout the Bay basin, STAC members con-
cluded that both nitrogen and phosphorus loadings
from nonpoint sources and phosphorus from point
sources were being addressed. However, nitrogen from
point sources was not. This was documented in data
presented by EPA showing dramatic reductions in
-------
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Total
Nitrogen
(million', of pounds per yeat)
60 1
40 •
20 •
Municipal
Wastewater
Flow-MOD
1000
Total
Phosphorus
(millions of pounds per year)
16 1
500
Municipal
Wastewater
Flow-MOD
1000
500
1965
1970
1975
Year
1980
1985
1965
1975
Year
1980
1985
Figure 1 A and B: Annual nitrogen and phosphorus discharges and wastewater flows below the fall line and in the lower Susquehanna
from municipal sewage treatment plants.
phosphorus, but essentially no reductions in nitrogen
from conventional sewage treatment plants (Figure 1).
When the STAC completed its report "Nutrient
Control in the Chesapeake Bay" in January 1986, it
concluded that: the wastewater treatment strategy in
the region should address nitrogen control; evidence
exists from operating experience in nine other nations
that nitrogen removal is now economically feasible;
and, nitrogen removal should be considered in all plans
for plant upgrading, expansion, and construction.
The report has already led to plans for expanded
funding of pilot projects to remove nitrogen at sewage
treatment plants and added importance to developing
a Baywide dual (nitrogen and phosphorus) nutrient
policy with parallel state programs. STAC has con-
tinued to examine the nutrients issue and has begun
to review emerging technologies for other aspects of
pollution control.
The Council also formed the Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) in December 1984. Citizen par-
Citizens Advisory Committee
The purpose of the Citizens Advisory Committee
is threefold:
• To provide a forum where issues confronting the
Council can be discussed and commented on;
• To serve as a communication link with the af-
fected interest groups, to keep them informed
about what the Council, and the agencies it
represents, are doing;
• To channel relevant information about values,
views, concerns, priorities, suggestions, ideas and
questions from the Public to the Council.
ticipation had been an important and effective part
of the Bay Program Study, and the Council wished to
continue receiving the valuable perspectives of the
citizens in the region.
The Citizens Advisory Committee functions as the
primary public participation mechanism of the Chesa-
peake Bay Program. CAC is a group of 22 citizens
with diverse backgrounds. They are generally well rec-
ognized in their respective fields and share a common
commitment to the restoration of the Bay. Members
act as ombudsmen for other Bay programs, citizens,
and professional groups. During 1986, the Committee
elected new officers and reorganized itself into five
issue oriented task forces: land use, toxic substances,
nutrient policy, alternative financing, and program
tracking. The task forces are providing valued policy
recommendations to the Executive Council.
The CAC's research in the area of alternative
finance for pollution control programs is already
useful, but will become increasingly important as new
tax rules and federal water quality legislation become
effective. For example, under the 1986 tax code,
restrictions are placed on the use of state bonds.
Cost-shared nonpoint source control programs may
no longer be supported with bonds because, although
the funds benefit more than one person, often the
money is provided to an individual to take action on
private property. Therefore, the states and local
government units may have to find new ways to raise
and leverage monies to finance nonpoint programs.
They are already faced with identifying means to con-
tinue to build and operate sewage treatment plants.
The Committee also played an important role in
public information during 1986 by contributing to the
development of the Council's Communications
Strategy. The strategy identifies 21 constituencies im-
portant to the Bay Program effort, the important
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
issues they need to understand, the methods to
transmit those messages, the actions needed to
develop the necessary information, and provision of
that information. The Council requested that the
Strategy be developed, recognizing the public's right
to know how their state and federal dollars are being
spent on Bay cleanup efforts and how well the pro-
grams are working. Creating the Strategy also reflects
the Council's belief that the future of the Bay Pro-
gram depends upon support from an informed and
concerned citizemy.
In the spring of 1986, the Implementation Com-
mittee formed a Living Resources Task Force. This
group is moving ahead with the development of living
resources and habitat requirements for the state/federal
Chesapeake Bay Program.
GOVERNANCE
During 1986, the Executive Council met four times:
January 16 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; April 10-11
in Easton, Maryland; July 17 at the Blue Plains
Wastewater Treatment Facility in the District of Co-
lumbia; and October 16 in Annapolis, Maryland. The
April meeting was the first annual joint meeting of
the Council with the CAC, STAC and members of the
Implementation Committee.
The Executive Council reviewed its own role and
membership in 1986. Members decided to retain the
size and composition of the Council, but determined
to begin rotating the chairmanship between EPA and
a state every other year. A Governor, the Mayor or
the Regional Administrator will hold the chairman-
ship with the Commonwealth of Virginia assuming
the chairmanship in 1987.
In June, EPA Administrator Lee Thomas sug-
gested strengthening the Bay Agreement with quan-
titative goals and a schedule for meeting those goals.
His idea was presented at a hearing held in June 1986
by the Senate Subcommittee on Governmental Opera-
tions and the District of Columbia. As a result, the
Council reviewed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
compared its processes and progress with those of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Members of the Executive Council concluded that
progress toward quantifying and limiting loadings, as
well as identifying and remedying problems in specific
Bay harbors, parallel the progress and processes of
the Great Lakes compact. Members look forward to
the next two years as an important period to refine
programs, develop target loadings, and reassess prior-
ities under the Bay Agreement and state special initiatives.
In 1986, the Council passed two formal resolu-
tions: one on the Farm Bill and the other on tri-
butyltin. The Council was concerned with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's development of new
acreage set-aside regulations for wheat and feed
grains under the provisions of the Commodity Pro-
gram of the 1985 Farm Bill. The Council expressed
concern that farmers who voluntarily took acreage
out of production to reduce pollution in the Bay and
its tributaries could be penalized by those lands not
being eligible for inclusion in the acreage reduction
program.
The Council, therefore, passed a resolution re-
questing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to con-
sider, when developing new acreage reduction regula-
tions, that Chesapeake Bay drainage basin farmers
who have implemented best management practices
such as filter strips, grassed waterways and forestry
plantings be given credit for these lands within the
cropland base. The Council also requested that provi-
sion be made for county Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service committees and local soil
conservation district officials to review farmer ap-
plications ensuring that best management practices
are implemented on set-aside acreage.
The widespread use of organotin anti-fouling
paint in the Chesapeake Bay, and particularly its
planned fleetwide use by the U.S. Navy and its con-
tinued use on the hulls of recreational boats sailed
and berthed in Bay waters, concerned the Executive
Council. The active ingredient in organotin anti-
fouling paints, tributyltin (TBT), is toxic to aquatic
animals at extremely low concentrations. Therefore,
the Council believed that use of such paints could
have long-term adverse consequences on marine life
and the general environmental health of the Bay. The
potential impacts dictated the need for adequate
study of the matter by the Navy and by others such
as EPA, prior to a decision by the Navy to use these
paints fleetwide.
The Executive Council urged the Navy not to use
organotin paint on ships in the Chesapeake Bay until
it conducted a thorough Environmental Impact State-
ment or until EPA completed a study of comparable
scope and detail on the potential environmental con-
sequences of its use. The Council has subsequently
supported a study that attempts to quantify the
amount of tributyltin in certain areas of the Bay.
With EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO) of EPA
designed and coordinated a tributyltin (TBT) sampl-
ing study to gather data on TBT concentrations in
harbors near marinas, boatyards, and living resources
areas. Weekly water samples were taken at sixteen sta-
tions. Sediment samples were collected twice and
tissue samples once at each station. Samples were sent
to EPA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory in Florida. Results
are still being analyzed and should be available in
February 1987.
-------
r
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program field intern collects samples for
TBT analysis.
The OPP will consider the results during its
special review of the pesticide use in antifouling boat
paints. Presently, EPA is examining studies of TBT's
toxicity to aquatic organisms, exposure of such
organisms to TBT, and the benefits of TBT use. By
comparing laboratory tests of TBT in various concen-
trations with actual TBT concentrations in the en-
vironment, EPA will be able to make preliminary
determinations of the potential ecological hazards. In
the meantime, both Virginia and Maryland are spon-
soring research to test TBT's effects on some of the
species found in Chesapeake Bay.
IMPROVING PROGRAMS
For the past two years, agencies participating in the
Bay Program have concentrated their efforts on clean-
ing up and restoring the Bay by correcting problems
identified during the Chesapeake Bay Study using
proven methods. The "Chesapeake Bay Restoration
and Protection Plan," released in September 1985,
outlined the agreed upon goals and the programs be-
ing implemented in the hope of reaching those goals.
The data gathered and analyzed under the coor-
dinated monitoring program eventually will show the
outcome of these efforts.
However, the Council decided in 1986 that even-
tually will not be soon enough. We need to know
how much more must be done, where, at what cost,
with what results, and for how much longer. The
Council concluded that to continue their long-term
support, elected officials and leaders within govern-
ment, industry, and public groups will need to know
these answers relatively soon. To help formulate
answers, a program development process was designed
during 1985 and adopted in 1986. This Phase II pro-
cess has four basic steps:
1. Establish water quality, living resources and
habitat objectives;
2. Determine reductions in pollution loadings
needed to meet the objectives;
3. Evaluate the technical alternatives and pollution
control measures which could be used, accord-
ing to their costs and effectiveness;
4. Suggest what should be done, where, over what
period of time, at what cost, and with what ex-
pected results.
Some of the activities necessary to the process
began in 1986. For example, Maryland is reevaluating
its designated uses for streams in light of living
resources and habitat concerns. Virginia has begun a
major undertaking with its river basin citizen ad-
visory groups to define water usages and objectives
needed to support those uses. A point source atlas is
being developed to identify critical pollution sources
and to help prioritize necessary remedial actions.
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
Modeling is an essential element of planning for the
Chesapeake Bay. It is an important tool for managers
who need to understand the impacts of loadings on
living resources and water quality. Modeling provides
a simplified representation of those cause and effect
relationships. One key relationship is that between
nutrient loadings and low dissolved oxygen.
Although the Modeling and Research Subcommit-
tee (MARS) was moving forward with refinement of
the watershed model used during the original Study
in addition to developing a steady-state water quality
(2-D eutrophication) model for the Bay, the group
recognized that a more sophisticated model would be
required to assist in planning future programs. MARS
proposed a Bay model which has three spatial
dimensions-a 3-D model (time variable).
During 1986, the workplan for the 3-D model was
prepared using the expertise of the Corps of Engi-
neers' Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg,
Mississippi. In December 1986, the Bay Program and
the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to jointly fund
the model over the next three years. EPA and the
states will fund the water quality aspects of the proj-
ect while the Corps will fund the hydrodynamic work.
The Corps will coordinate the 3-D model activities
under the guidance of the MARS.
The program development process will culminate
in control strategies for nutrients management and
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
toxic substances control. The control strategies will be
designed to meet living resources habitat require-
ments. When these requirements are met, certain key
species (commercially and recreationally harvestable),
and the habitat vital to both their critical life stages
and the sustenance of their prey species, will have
conditions which should encourage their recovery and
sustain healthy future populations. The Living Re-
sources Task Force (LRTF) has developed a list of key
species. The LRTF recently sponsored a workshop
designed to identify both water quality and habitat
conditions that the key species need during their
critical life stages as well as the geographic areas
where those conditions need to be met.
Water quality data ate being collected and ana-
lyzed under the guidance of the Monitoring Subcom-
mittee to build the data base which will be used to
model the effects of selected pollution control
scenarios on the water quality of the Bay and its
tributaries. Results from select runs of the model
scenarios should be completed by spring 1987. The
states and EPA will be able to use the results from
modeling as one tool to assist them in improving the
effectiveness of their present control and regulatory
efforts and in planning future programs.
With water quality criteria supplemented by
knowledge of living resources, habitat protection, cur-
rent pollution loadings, and control techniques, use of
the model will enable target loadings to be developed
for tributaries and the Bay for phosphorus and
nitrogen. To that end, the states, D.C., and EPA are
also working with STAC to review nutrient control
strategies to further define point and nonpoint con-
tributions, and clarify the roles of phosphorus and
nitrogen in the decline of water quality and living
resources.
cipal tributaries and analyzed for heavy metals and
organic chemicals.
Two area specific studies are underway. The Balti-
more Harbor integrated environmental management
study is examining how EPA's regulatory programs
for air, land and water impact environmental deci-
sions in Baltimore. In Virginia, the Virginia Water
Control Board (VWCB) is developing a comprehensive
management plan for the Elizabeth River. In addi-
tion, EPA in cooperation with the VWCB, is assessing
the relative toxicity of effluents and water, the toxicity
and environmental impacts of shipyards, and working
toward the transfer of technology for marine chronic
toxicity testing from EPA to the Commonwealth.
Monitoring and research on toxic contaminants
are necessary to assess sources of pollutants and their
impacts in order to improve present enforcement and
revise NPDES permits in the future.
Commercial vessels in Baltimore Harbor.
Toxic CONTAMINANTS
The states, D.C., and EPA are moving toward
developing a Baywide toxics management strategy,
linking programs like biomonitoring under the Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits, assessing environmental risks from
existing and abandoned hazardous waste sites, area
specific studies, pretreatment, monitoring for TBT,
and intensive monitoring in small watersheds for
pesticides (and nutrients) in runoff and groundwater.
Several projects are already underway. NOAA, in its
National Status and Trends Program, is examining the
long-term health impacts and levels of contamination
at two benthic surveillance and six mussel watch sta-
tions in Chesapeake Bay. Under the Bay Program
coordinated monitoring efforts, sediment is being col-
lected at selected stations in the main Bay and prin-
INTERIM REPORT
By mid-summer 1987, the information gathered and
analyzed through the Phase II program development
process will be summarized in an interim report. The
report will contain the proposed living resources and
habitat requirements. Other information to be
developed for the report includes material on pollu-
tion control technologies and their costs, studies of
population growth and land use change projections,
preliminary review of the effectiveness of present
point and nonpoint control programs, and initial
economic studies of the value of the Bay. Fact gather-
ing for the various portions of the report has begun.
The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, the states,
and D.C. plan to hold public meetings on the report
following its release.
-------
CHAPTER Two
Monitoring —
The State of the Bay
INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes the Second Annual Report
of the Monitoring Subcommittee, "The State of the
Bay," to be published early in 1987. The report covers
the period from June 1984 through September 1985
which includes two summers and the intervening
winter. These data are the baseline from which the
success of the efforts to restore and protect Chesa-
peake Bay will be measured.
The years 1984 and 1985 were very different; 1984
was quite wet and 1985 quite dry. These conditions
cause components of the Chesapeake to react very
differently. Such differences from year to year make it
difficult to distinguish natural annual variability from
long-term trends in environmental quality. A monitor-
ing strategy is being developed so that the small
changes which should result from control of pollution
and harvest pressures may be detected.
Both summers had periods of anoxia, but severity
and duration were substantially greater in 1984, prob-
ably resulting from different frequencies and magni-
tudes of rainfall events as opposed to remedial ac-
tions. During anoxic periods, large pools of ammonia
nitrogen and phosphorus develop in deeper waters.
A young eagle.
Courtesy ol US Fish & Wildlife Service
These pools are mixed periodically by tide and wind
events, apparently feeding phytoplankton (plant
plankton) in surface waters several times a summer.
Extensive surveys have found oxygen-poor waters ex-
tending further into Virginia's portion of the Bay
than earlier believed.
Nutrient inputs to the Bay and nutrient recycling
from deeper water result in phytoplankton and
zooplankton (animal plankton) growth. Phytoplank-
ton and bacteria form the base of a complicated food
chain, beginning with small protozoans, progressing
through larger forms such as copepods and the
planktonic larval stages of barnacles and shellfish, to
other plankton and fish.
In 1986, the Monitoring Subcommittee noted a
few hopeful signs. At sites such as Barren Island on
the east side of the Bay, submerged aquatic vegetation
beds are coming back strongly, some where none had
been before. This could lead to increased numbers of
waterfowl in the future. While many species of birds
are still in trouble, ospreys and eagles are rebounding.
The striped bass controls appear to be succeeding. If
the relatively strong 1982 "rockfish" year-class spawns
successfully as "adults" in 1988 and water quality is
adequate, overall striped bass populations may in-
crease. State fishery teams are working together to
assess the Bay's principal commercial fish stocks.
They are learning how baymouth circulation may con-
trol the success of blue crab populations, one of the
prime Chesapeake commercial fisheries.
Shellfish are still under severe stress, and high
salinities, while conducive to better spat strike as in
1982, allow spread of diseases like MSX and dermo-
cystidium, and predators such as the oyster drill.
In general, benthic populations have greater bio-
mass in the lower portions of the tributaries and the
lower Bay than in the deep waters of the upper Bay.
Deep areas of the mainstem which become anoxic
lose their benthk populations quickly. Populations
along the edges of the main channel of the Bay are
also stressed when wind events set the low oxygen
water "rocking," allowing it to move up into these
shallower areas.
In the tributaries and upper Bay most organisms
are concentrated in the upper few inches of sediment.
They feed primarily by sweeping up decaying
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
plankton and runoff-borne particulates from the sedi-
ment surface. In the clearer, oxygen-rich waters of the
lower Bay, large numbers of benthic organisms feed
on bacteria colonizing the sediments. In turn, spot,
croaker, sea trout and others feed on the benthic
species. A healthy benthic community, fostered by
adequate water quality conditions, is critically linked
to the harvested species.
THE HARVEST: FINFISH
Harvestable anadromous fish, estuarine or marine
fish that spawn in freshwater, continued to decline in
numbers in 1985. Spawning remained poor, and abun-
dance of juveniles low. However, there are hopeful
signs for Bay finfish. The most important anadromous
fish, the striped bass or "rockfish," appears to be
benefiting from recent protective regulations, and
there is optimism about the hatchery release program.
The full ban on striped bass fishing in Maryland
and the partial ban in Virginia are relieving the fish-
ing pressure on the 1982 year class, the last successful
spawn from the upper Bay. Striped bass spawning in
other portions of the Bay has been improving in re-
cent years. A marked increase in striped bass has
been observed in Virginia since 1981, and large
numbers of stripers were caught in unregulated D.C.
waters in 1985.
Harvesting of striped bass was banned because of
concern about the drastic declines in commercial fish-
ery landings for both the Chesapeake and Atlantic
(Figure 2). The landings reveal poor recruitment into
the fishery since the 1970 year-class. The 1982 year-
class of rockfish is the object of protection because it
is the first year-class considered of adequate abun-
dance since 1970. While Virginia is optimistic about
the number of rockfish in its waters, recent stock
assessment work has confirmed that the 1982 year-
class is the only reasonably abundant one in Mary-
land. Data reveal very few fish older than the 1981
year-class in the Potomac, and a very low ratio of
females —the egg layers on which good year-classes
depend —to males. The Potomac pattern appears to
be the general case for Maryland's portion of the Bay.
Maryland striped bass spawning stocks have been
low; lowest in 1982 and 1983, and slightly higher in
1984 and 1985, primarily due to the protected 1982
year-class males. Striper egg and larval abundance
also remained low. Intensive Maryland habitat studies,
which seek to relate water quality and other habitat
factors to larval abundance, are currently underway.
A combination of low pH and low hardness, which
6000
- Commercial striped bass landings 1970- 1985
5000
w 400°
T3
§ 3000
O
rx
2000-
1000
D Maryland
• Virginia
1970 72
74
76 78
Year
80 82 84 85
1-igure 2: Commercial Striped Bass Landings. Data from NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1978-1985 data are
preliminary. Catches are recorded in Maryland in 1985 in spite
of the moratorium due to NOAA's method of dividing total
Potomac River catches between the states.
tends to mobilize naturally high levels of aluminum
found in some Eastern Shore rivers such as the Chop-
tank, may be causing significant larval mortality.
There is a high natural mortality rate in the early
life history stages of striped bass. The mortality rate
declines considerably, however, when individuals reach
the juvenile or "fingerling" (2-5 month old) stage.
Juvenile or young-of-year abundance firmly estab-
lishes the strength of the newly recruited year-class,
and allows projections of its contribution to the
economic fishery in subsequent years. Both Virginia
and Maryland survey juvenile striped bass annually.
Young fish are trapped either by seine net (MD) or by
seining and trawling (VA), the young stripers are
counted, and the totals averaged. Due to differences
in sampling techniques, the juvenile indices in Mary-
land and Virginia are not directly comparable.
In Maryland, year-classes with a juvenile index of
8 or greater have been considered good because
historically they have apparently supported a commer-
cial fishery of 2 million pounds of stripers annually.
Since the 1970 year-class with an index of 30, how-
ever, Maryland juvenile indices have been alarmingly
low. The '"adequate" 1982 index of 8.4 was followed
by low indices in 1983 (1.4), 1984 (4.2) and 1985 (2.9).
The 1985 juvenile year-class (2.3) was only average.
Hatchery rearing may be a bridge to an improved
fishery. Striped bass are now being reared in U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service and Maryland hatcheries until the
fall, when they are less vulnerable and big enough to
be released into the Bay. Experimental tagging and
tag recovery programs were initiated in Maryland in
late 1985. Their results have not yet been assessed.
Stocks of other anadromous fish such as shad, river
herring, and yellow perch remain at all-time lows.
Harvests of marine-spawning fish, dependent on
oceanic rather than Bay conditions, are relatively
good. During 1984-85, harvests of ocean spawners
remained stable or increased.
-------
10
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
THE HARVEST: SHELLFISH
With oyster reproduction, survival, and harvests de-
clining seriously over the last decade (Figure 3), the
higher spatfall in both Maryland and Virginia in 1985
was good news. Over the 1984-85 monitoring period,
however, spat (newly set oysters) survival rates re-
mained unexplainably low. No changes were noted in
the dismal picture for softshell clams, but the blue
crab fishery remains healthy, though unpredictable.
The significant effects of rainfall and temperature
on the productivity and the health of the Bay's re-
sources is evident when one examines the condition of
the Bay's shellfish and crabs, particularly in 1984 and
1985. While there has been no long-term trend in
rainfall/salinity, there has been a distinct trend toward
warmer falls and winters over the last ten years. The
spring of 1985, with below normal rainfall, was fol-
lowed by the third warmest autumn in 30 years. The
drier and warmer fall of 1985, along with higher
salinities, resulted in a considerably longer spawning
season than that of 1984. The oyster spawning season
extended beyond the normal June-September period
into late October.
As a result, both Maryland and Virginia had high
spatfall. Virginia's spatfall was moderate to heavy
during the 1984 and 1985 spawning seasons. The
heavier spat sets generally occurred in 1985, par-
ticularly on the James River seed beds. There was
considerable temporal and spatial variability in the
spatfall. The occurrence of heavy spatfalls despite low
brood stock underscored the importance of local weather
and climate in the determination of year-class strength.
Although its 1984 spatfall continued a downward
trend, Maryland found high numbers of spat on its
55 key oyster bars in 1985. The greater spatfall was
welcome, but was limited mainly to the mouth of the
Potomac River and Maryland's Eastern Shore tribu-
taries. This area is greatly reduced compared with
that area where high spat sets were recorded between
1938 and 1965.
The survival of spat to yearling continues to be of
prime concern. In this regard, 1984 and 1985 were not
exceptions. In Virginia, the statewide poor survival of
spat to yearling was evident in the oyster bar surveys
that followed the heavy 1985 spawning season. Preda-
tion by the blue crab may play an important role in
the low survival rate and unidentified water quality
factors may also be of significance.
MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo
(Perkinsus marinus) can pose serious disease threats
to the oyster industry. Maryland's lower Bay waters
experienced some Dermo mortalities and conditions
conducive to MSX infestation in 1985. Mortalities
resulting from the latter may be seen in 1986. Condi-
tions in 1984 and 1985 were not conducive to the
spread of pathogens in Virginia.
The stocks of Maryland's softshell clams continue
to be low; 1984 and 1985 harvests were each only
about 1 million pounds. Hard clam harvests are being
sustained in Virginia. The crab fishery remains the
one source of "good news" for the Bay's fisheries.
Historically, crab harvests have fluctuated wildly yet
the fishery remains unthreatened. Baywide crab
harvests were 59 million and 46 million pounds in
1984 and 1985, respectively.
SAV HABITAT AND NURSERY
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has been the
focus of intense Baywide study since 1978 because of
its overall importance and widespread decline since
the 1960s. Communities of SAV provide habitat for
co
CD
CO.:
30
20
o co
O c:
_ ID
03 O 10
o Q-
CD.C
8 °
.
Maryland
Virginia
1965 66 68 70 72
74 76
Year
78 80 82 84 85
Figure 3: Commercial Oyster Harvests. Data from NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 1978-1985 data are preliminary.
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
many species which use the plants as a food source
or as protection from predators. SAV reduces currents
and baffles waves, allowing materials to settle which
improves water clarity. The plants bind sediments to
their roots, preventing erosion of underlying material.
They also absorb nitrogen and phosphorus which
helps to control nutrient input to the Bay and may
possibly absorb toxicants as well.
A key to the study of SAV has been the documen-
tation of patterns of plant distribution and abun-
dance through aerial photography and field surveys.
In 1984, EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program began to co-
ordinate a multi-agency effort to record and map SAV.
In 1985 and 1986, the program was jointly funded
by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), EPA, US. Fish & Wildlife Service (F&WS),
the Virginia Council on the Environment (through the
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences) and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Scientific ground surveys
were combined with information from aerial photo-
graphic surveys through EPA's Environmental Photo-
graphic Interpretation Center (EPIC). More ground-
truth information came from fifteen charterboat captains
(through MDNR's Watermen's Assistance Program)
and 150 citizen volunteers organized by the F&WS,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Citizens Program
for Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
All the information was used to produce maps for
164 topographic quadrangles throughout the Bay.
Those maps indicate not only the distribution of SAV,
but also the species of grasses, and the sources of the
reported information.
Survey results show that between 1984 and 1985
the area covered by SAV increased 26 percent. The in-
crease was not consistent Baywide, and total reported
coverage is much less than it was in 1965. The in-
crease may be due to dry conditions rather than
pollution control efforts; still, the signs are hopeful.
The largest increase was found mid-Bay, along the
Eastern Shore. There was a slight decrease in the up-
per Bay, and little change was observed in the dis-
tribution and abundance of SAV in the lower Bay.
There has been a slight improvement in the rate of
decline of migratory waterfowl numbers, especially in
areas where SAV has resurged.
There was a slight decrease (4.5 percent) in the
abundance of SAV in the upper Bay zone, with de-
clines revealed in three of the four sections studied.
There was a 142 percent increase in the sparsely vege-
tated Eastern Shore section, principally along the Elk
and Sassafras rivers. All western shore rivers had SAV
beds. Two-thirds of this zone's SAV was in the Sus-
quehanna Flats area; thirteen species were reported,
although the zone is dominated by wildcelery, Eura-
sian watermilfoil, and hydrilla. Redhead grass and
widgeongrass dominate in the Eastern Shore area.
Chesapeake Bay
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
monitoring zones
Figure 4 1984-1985 SAV Aerial Survey Map SAV Surveys
report data according to this segmentation plan
The 1985 SAV "good news" was the increase in
grasses in all sections of the middle Bay zone over the
previous year, resulting in a 389 percent increase for
the entire zone. Even the Patuxent River, while still
sparsely vegetated, showed a 401 percent increase (22
acres in 1984 to 109 acres in 1985). In the Potomac
River, increases were seen in both the upper (140 per-
cent) and the lower (59 percent) sections. Ten species
of Bay grasses were found in the upper Potomac sec-
tion, with Eurasian watermilfoil and hydrilla the most
prevalent. Widgeongrass was found to be the domi-
nant aquatic plant in the mainstem of the middle Bay
zone. The greatest changes were in the Choptank
River and in the middle section of the Eastern Shore.
The Severn, South, Rhode, and West rivers had no
SAV beds reported, but SAV was reported on the
western shore, particularly in Herring Bay, where
none had been observed in 1984.
There were no major changes in SAV in the nine
sections of the lower Bay zone between 1984 and
1985. The largest change occurred in the Reedville
section, where the 1985 survey revealed a decrease of
34 percent in SAV distribution from 1984. Most of
-------
12
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
the Bay's grasses (59 percent) are in the lower Bay
zone, with 68 percent of this zone's vegetation located
along the Eastern Shore bayside. Bay grasses are still
absent in two of the six areas of historical abundance
in the lower Bay. Widgeongrass and eelgrass are the
dominant SAV in the lower Bay.
Healthy SAV was experimentally transplanted on
the Susquehanna Flats, and in the Choptank, Pian-
katank and York rivers. Another encouraging sign is
that these SAV beds have, in many areas, survived
and propagated.
THE WATER QUALITY BASE
FLOW, SALINITY AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
The U.S. Geological Survey has monitored the flows
of major tributaries into the Bay for many years.
Over the last eighteen years, the average monthly flow
of the Susquehanna River at the Conowingo Dam has
been 41,950 cubic feet per second (cfs). Average flows
in 1984 were 19 percent above normal; in 1985 they
were 27 percent below normal. There were also major
seasonal differences between these two years: the 1984
summer flows were much higher than those of 1985.
River flow patterns in each tributary are unique
because rainfall, topography, land use, and other fac-
tors differ among basins. In the Patuxent River, flows
in 1984 were close to the long-term average (421 cfs),
but 1985 flows were 50 percent below average. In the
James and Rappahannock rivers, flows were 34 and
54 percent higher than normal in 1984 because of
above average winter and summer discharge. Drier
conditions followed with flows 20 and 35 percent
below normal. In November 1985, tropical storm
Juan produced heavy rainfall in western and southern
Bay watersheds. The James and Potomac rivers ex-
perienced major flooding, while the storm had mini-
mal effect on the Susquehanna.
Salinities were higher and the vertical salinity gra-
dient (the difference between surface and bottom
salinity) was less pronounced in the lower-flow sum-
mer of 1985. Surface salinities were approximately 6
parts per thousand (ppt) higher and bottom salinities
about 3 ppt higher during the summer of 1985. In the
Patuxent estuary, salinities were 4 to 7 ppt higher and
stratification (defined layers of water) was reduced in
1985 compared to 1984. Stratification differences be-
tween the two summers are reflected in bottom water
oxygen concentrations.
Figure 5: Stratification. Freshwater streamflow and saltwater
intrusion form two wedges of water moving in opposing
directions.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are high for much of
the year, when water temperatures are low and the
water column is well mixed. In the late spring and
summer, however, high oxygen demand in the sedi-
ments and the settling of organic material into the
lower water column, coupled with limited downward mix-
ing of oxygen, cause oxygen depletion in deeper waters.
Stratification has a significant influence on the
DO characteristics of an estuary (Figure 5). The mix-
ing of surface and bottom waters is inhibited as the
boundary layer between the lighter, fresh water and
the denser, salt water acts as a barrier to oxygen
replenishment from the atmosphere to the deeper Bay
waters. As the warm season progresses, biological ac-
tivity depletes the amount of dissolved oxygen in the
isolated, deeper water. As the amount of freshwater
inflow increases, stratification tends to become more
pronounced. Averaged longitudinal DO profiles for
the summers of 1984 and 1985 demonstrate that high
freshwater input in 1984 resulted in more extensive
regions of low DO waters.
In the mainstem, there were several differences
between the two years, especially in the spatial extent
of low DO waters (DO less than 1 milligram per
liter). In 1984, these hypoxic waters extended well into
Virginia's portion of the Bay, reaching as far south as
the mouth of the Rappahannock River. This did not
happen in 1985, when wind and tides caused more
frequent reoxygenation events and reduced the dura-
tion of hypoxic conditions that summer.
The summer 1984-85 monitoring results show that
mainstem deep water dissolved oxygen concentrations
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
are more dynamic than expected. Even during the
summer of 1984 when the density stratification was
unusually strong, two major reoxygenation events
were also documented in the deep trough region of
the Bay. At least two such events were documented in
the summer of 1985. This means caution must be
used when comparing current data with data from
past years.
In the Rappahannock River, the clearly defined
stratification in the summer of 1984 appeared to have
effects on bottom water DO concentrations similar to
those observed in the mainstem: summer DO deple-
tion was severe and prolonged. In the Patuxent River,
the effects of DO levels from the difference in
stratification between the summers of 1984 and 1985
were not as clearcut as the effects on the mainstem.
The observed differences between oxygen behavior in
the Patuxent and in the Bay indicate that factors
other than salinity stratification influence DO condi-
tions. Topography, localized storm events, periodic
exchanges with mainstem waters, and the biological
impacts of nutrient loadings —conditions unique to
each basin— can also affect DO concentrations.
CHLOROPHYLL
Chlorophyll is found at the highest levels in the tidal-
fresh portion of the tributaries from spring to early
fall. Plankton growth follows tributary enrichment by
nutrient-laden spring flows. The mainstem's highest
concentrations occur in the late winter and early
spring. The die-off and settling of this organic matter
contribute to the spring oxygen demand in both the
water column and sediments. This demand leads to
the development of deep trough hypoxia/anoxia in the
mainstem during the summer.
Chlorophyll patterns in the tributaries were similar
in 1984-85. The highest chlorophyll level; in the
tributaries were observed in the warmer seasons in
tidal and freshwater; in the cooler months the higher
chlorophyll levels were found near river mouths.
Generally, the nutrient rich upper reaches of the
Patuxent and Potomac had higher chlorophyll levels
than those of the James or Rappahannock. The
Patuxent had the highest concentrations of all the
major tributaries.
The lower Potomac estuary experienced average
chlorophyll values of 40 u.g/1 during spring 1985,
with a peak in May over 90 |ig/l. Summer 1985
chlorophyll levels peaked at 100 u,g/l in the tidal-fresh
reaches of both the Potomac and Patuxent rivers.
The peak chlorophyll concentrations in the tidal-
fresh regions of the James and Rappahannock were
20-50 u.g/1 and 20-40 ng/1 respectively, with levels
decreasing downstream to below 10 u.g/1 near the
river mouths. In general, the upper Bay mainstem
had higher chlorophyll levels than those found in the
central and lower Bay mainstem; the lowest levels
were found at the mouth of the Bay. The higher up-
per mainstem levels are largely the result of the
greater supply of nutrients from the Susquehanna
River and other upper Bay sources.
Chlorophyll levels showed strong seasonal patterns
with pronounced differences between mainstem sur-
face and bottom waters. During the late winter of
1984-85 and the spring of 1985, a large region of
high chlorophyll values (30-40 ug/1) was observed in
bottom waters. During summer hypoxia, bottom
chlorophyll was very low (under 5 u.g/1). Sporadic
peaks of surface phytoplankton growth (30-50 ug/1)
could be seen during summer, chiefly in the central
and upper Bay. In the lower Bay, near the York River,
surface chlorophyll was generally low (5-15 ug/1).
NUTRIENTS
Nutrients are a major focus of the Bay restoration ef-
fort. While light, temperature, plankton grazing and
mixing in the water column play roles in plant pro-
ductivity, the levels of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus
(P) are the key elements in undesirable Bay over-
enrichment. Annual loads of total nitrogen and total
phosphorus relative to mean annual flow for the past
8 years are shown in Figure 6.
1978 79 80 81
Year
Annual load of tolal nitroge
Ikli
(/)
E20
03
CO
E,6-
o
~12-
CO
" 8-
1 -
LL
n -
C Annual load of tola phosphorus
-| i-
j D Susquehanna
1 B Potomac
_
!••
1
Ilk
1978 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Year
1978 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Year
Figure 6 A, B, and C Annual Nutrient Loads. Mean annual flow and total annual loads for nitrogen and phosphorus m the Sus-
quehanna and Potomac rivers, showing the relationship between streamflow and nutrient loadings due to rainwater runoff.
-------
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Between July 1984 and September 1985, levels of
total nitrogen (TN) in mainstem surface waters ranged
between 1 and 2 mg/1 at the head of the Bay and
from 0.4 to 0.7 mg/1 in the lower Bay. The higher up-
per Bay levels reflect the strong influence of Sus-
quehanna River input. In summer months, bottom
water concentrations of inorganic N (and P) are high,
but surface water concentrations are generally low
due to nutrient uptake by algae.
Values of TN were higher (at or above 2 mg/1) in
the tidal-fresh regions of the Patuxent and Potomac
rivers than in the upper Bay mainstem (Figure 7A).
In the tidal-fresh portions of the James and Rap-
pahannock, however, TN levels were comparable to
those found at the head of the Bay. In all the
tributaries, TN declined somewhat in the salinity tran-
sition zones, and declined further in the lower
estuaries to levels around 0.5 mg/1.
The nitrogen enrichment found in the tidal-fresh
regions of the tributaries results from both point and
nonpoint source contributions. Peaks in N during
winter and spring high flow periods can be attributed
to high nonpoint source loads.
The pattern of total phosphorus (TP) concentra-
tions is similar to that for nitrogen, but is not quite
as clearly defined (Figure 7B). In the mainstem sur-
face waters, TP peaked in the turbidity maximum
region at about 0.05 to 0.08 mg/1 and declined down-
Bay to levels generally less than 0.04 mg/1.
During summer hypoxia in the deep trough
region, P fluxes from the sediments into the overlying
Po!omac Rapp Jam
Rivers
Figure 7 A and B: Tributary Nutrient Concentrations. Mean
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus for the 1984-1985
monitoring period in selected tributaries showing general
location of major nutrient concentrations.
water. As with the bottom water accumulation of in-
organic N, these higher P levels may nourish summer
algal populations when and where vertical mixing
occurs.
Tributary TP levels in 1984-85 reveal differences
between rivers. The Patuxent River had the highest
TP levels of the four major tributaries, with concen-
trations in the tidal-fresh, transition, and lower
estuarine zones approximately 0.30-0.35, 0.25, and 0.1
mg/1, respectively. The Potomac and James rivers had
similar TP levels of approximately 0.15, 0.1-0.2, and
0.05-0.10 mg/1 in tidal-fresh, transition, and estuarine
reaches, respectively. The lowest TP values were found
in the Rappahannock River, and were approximately
0.05-0.10, 0.05-0.10, and 0.03-0.05 mg/1, respectively.
TP showed surprisingly little seasonal variation.
Together, the Susquehanna, Potomac and James
rivers represent 84 percent of the freshwater flow to
the Bay. The exact proportion of the total input load
represented by these rivers must be determined by ex-
trapolating monitoring data to cover unmonitored
portions of the Bay watershed. Methods of extrapola-
tion range from simple flow-based techniques to
sophisticated computer models.
Based on the monitoring data, it is apparent that
a simple flow-based model is not very accurate. Con-
sidering only the flow and nutrient loads for 1984
and 1985 it is clear that, of the three rivers, the Sus-
quehanna was the major contributor of flow and
nutrients to the Bay. However, of the Susquehanna,
Potomac, and James rivers, the Susquehanna's
nutrient loadings (66 percent TN and 42 percent TP)
were not proportional to its flow (63 percent). If a
simple flow-based model were used, a 21 percent over-
estimate would result. Factors unique to each water-
shed also influence the magnitude of the loads
delivered to the estuary and must be considered in
estimating nutrient loadings.
Still, the strong influence of river flow on nutrient
loads is evident in both long-term records of annual
loads and seasonal loads calculated from the 1984-85
monitoring data. In years and seasons when river
flows are high, nutrient loads are also high.
SEDIMENT AND Toxic CONTAMINANTS
SEDIMENT
Monitoring in 1984-85 confirmed a strong north to
south turbidity gradient in the mainstem. Generally,
turbidity is high in the upper Bay because of the
Susquehanna's large flows and the turbidity max-
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
'5
imum zone; it decreases gradually toward the mouth
of the Potomac.
The maximum turbidity zone in the Bay mainstem
occurs up-Bay of Baltimore near Aberdeen, Maryland.
Monitoring of this area revealed typically low secchi
depths (0.2 to 0.5 meters) and high total suspended
solids (TSS) values (15 to 25 mg/1). Just above the
Potomac's mouth, the secchi depths range from 1 to 3
meters and the TSS values from 5 to 10 mg/1.
In the central Bay, from the Potomac's mouth to
the mouth of the Rappahannock, there is sometimes
an increase in turbidity. Here the secchi depths in
1984-85 were between 0.9 and 2.9 meters, and the
TSS values ranged from 10 to 40 mg/1. From the Rappa-
hannock to the Bay's mouth, the waters increase in clar-
ity. At the mouth, secchi depth readings ranged from
1 to 3 meters, and TSS values from 5 to 15 mg/1.
Lower Bay western shore waters are generally
more turbid than those along the Eastern Shore. The
earth's rotation causes relatively clear oceanic water
to be deflected eastward as tidal currents move up-
Bay, and substantial quantities of more turbid water
are added by the discharges from western Bay tribu-
taries. Between their turbidity maximum zones and
their confluence with the Bay, the tributaries have
turbidity and TSS patterns comparable to those of
the Bay. Unlike the main Bay, tributaries like the
Patuxent, Potomac and James have large stretches of
tidal-fresh water where extensive high turbidity areas
can result, not only from resuspended sediment, but
also from algal blooms.
The Susquehanna's sediment loadings (an average
of 1.8 million tons annually) correspond strongly with
river flow and are delivered directly into the main-
stem. In wetter periods, typically winter and spring,
sediment loads are much higher than in the summer
and fall, when flows are generally lower. The Sus-
quehanna is unusual because several reservoirs can
trap sediment and moderate loadings. The result is
that the sediment contribution is often proportion-
ately lower than its flows.
The Patuxent contributes only 0.5 percent of the
Bay's freshwater flows, but its sediment loadings are
proportionately higher. In the Patuxent's maximum
turbidity zone (near Lower Marlboro), spring TSS
peaks exceeded 80 mg/1. This high turbidity results
not only from loadings, but also from the natural
bottom-to-surface mixing in the water column. Secchi
depths of 0.2 meters and less were observed in the
1984-85 monitoring period.
The Potomac is the second largest source of
freshwater to the Bay, but it proportionately con-
tributes the most sediment to the Bay system. An
estimated 1.5 million tons are discharged at the fall
line in an average year. Most of this sediment remains
in the upper and mid-estuary.
The Potomac's sediment loadings in 1984 and
1985 were 22 and 126 percent higher than average.
The higher figure reflects the effects of tropical storm
Juan; approximately 1,134,000 tons of sediment was
discharged from the upper Potomac basin in Novem-
ber 1985.
In 1985, the average secchi disc readings for the
Potomac in Washington, D.C., where algal blooms
also contribute to turbidity, ranged from just over 1.1
meters down to 0.6 meters. Most of the sediment
laden Anacostia River within the District of Colum-
bia had secchi depth readings under 0.3 meters. The
share of the total sediment loadings into the Bay
from Virginia's James River is 16 percent. The upper
reaches of both the James and Rappahannock have
comparable secchi depths (0.6 m), and both show a
steady decrease in turbidity from their tidal-fresh por-
tion to their mouths. Their lower estuarine zones are
markedly different. The James carries a heavier load
of TSS than the Rappahannock (13.3 and 5.5 mg/1,
respectively, at the fall line), and tends to remain tur-
bid longer. The average secchi reading in the lower
James ranges from 0.9 to 1.4 meters, and from 1.4 to
1.8 meters in the lower Rappahannock.
Toxic CONTAMINANTS
Of the 44 pollutants for which samples were ana-
lyzed, a total of 26 organic pollutants were detected
in sediments, clams, and worms in samples collected
during 1985 in Maryland waters for the coordinated
monitoring efforts of the Bay Program. Polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were the most promi-
nent organic contaminants detected, ranging from
10,000 parts per billion (ppb) in Baltimore Harbor to
less than 1 ppb at the mouth of the Potomac. The
majority of these PAHs were produced by combustion
of carbonaceous fuels. Pesticides were detected in
sediments and biota at four of the eight stations
sampled. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
found only in Baltimore Harbor sediments.
Analysis of the average concentration of the four
most abundant trace metals (zinc, chromium, copper,
and lead) in sediments and clams in 1985 revealed
that, though high concentrations were found in
sediments associated with Baltimore's industry, rela-
tionships between sediment/metal and sediment/biota
concentrations were not consistent. In clams, some
metals varied considerably over the course of the year.
Zinc and copper tended to be higher in clams than in
sediments, while lead and chromium were higher in
sediments than in tissues.
Both clams and worms living in relatively sandy
sediments had lower body burdens of organic chemi-
cals than those of animals living in sediments low in
-------
-------
II
II
2,1 fe *
s-sfc!
. s $ £
c/> *» >*; ir>
looded th
«
THEJ^HESAPEAKE BAY:
• was formed 10,000 years ago when melting glacier
Sasquehanna River Valley;
and one c
UJ
o
"co
th
c
(/>
3
O
gi
8
C
ns •
3
i
"55
s,
in
the most productive estuaries in the world;
•anges in
! miles (5f
— in
.E CO
• has a mainsteni over 195 miles (314 km) long, whit
width frorh 3.4-rrtjles (5.5 km) near Aberdeen, MD. to
km) near tho mouth of the Potomac River;
§
CM_
Cvi^
0)
>
O
• has 7,000 ftules of shoreline and a surface area of
.2
B
square miles^'a figure that doubles with the inclusion
ts entire
ar to refill
= £
tributariesr
• tosTa volume of roughly 1 8 trillion gallons of water;
tidal system were drained, it would take more than a
S. £ -0 0 ~ °
t± O) (rt c O OJ
>• ., 0
OlO) 0 ••- _ «J^ c
jj c .« c a g £ £:
j«ith ,Water from rivers, streams, and runoff;
• is generally shaped like a shallow tray with an avei
less tihan 30 feet except for a few deep troughs runn
mucJjof its length;
• hasjributanes that provide spawning and nursery ;
important species of fish;
/-'is home for 200 fish species and boasts extensive 1
shellfish harvests, representing an annual commerc
approximately $1 billion;
• supports some 2,700 plant and animal species;
• is a major stop along the Atlantic Migratory Bird Fly
• is both a commercial and recreational resource for
12 million people who live in its basin;
• had more than 122,000 pleasure craft registered in
Maryland alone in 1979;
• has two of the U.S.'s five major North Atlantic ports
gers in
n
r.
• receives waste from about 3,000 point-source disc
a >,
a ra
=i -o
V) >-
= &
« I
Maryland and Virginia and another 2,000 dischargei
drainage basin; and
• receives 1 .5 billion gallons of treated sewage eff lui
-------
i8
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
The crab industry appears unthreatened
Oyster body burdens of DDT and its metabolites
decreased steadily from 1965 to 1977. Results also in-
dicate that DDT concentrations (in sediments) are
highly correlated with liver concentrations for Bay
Atlantic croaker, which eat benthic animals. Studies
elsewhere have associated sediment containing PAHs
with the occurrence of cancer in fish. Although
cancerous lesions were not found in Bay croaker and
spot, occurrences of other types of lesions were cor-
related with concentrations of total PAHs in sediment.
Sample sites in the upper Bay yielded consistently
higher levels of metals in oyster tissue than sites in
the lower and central Bay. The relative roles of con-
tamination and natural processes have not been
determined.
sand and higher in organic carbon. Since the latter
sediments had higher toxicant concentrations, especi-
ally in areas near heavy industrial activity, it appears
that bioaccummulation depends on both the organic
content in sediment and the grain size. In the lower
Bay, Virginia sampled and examined sediments for
organic chemicals at eight stations. Virginia scans
samples for a wide range of hydrocarbon toxicants.
Hundreds of compounds were detected in some
samples. As in the upper Bay, PAHs were most abun-
dant, but were not excessively high.
The spatial distribution of concentrations appears
to reflect both the particle size distribution of the
sediments and toxicant input from rivers. Coarse-
grained sediments found near the mouth of the Bay
contained low PAH levels. The PAH concentrations
were generally higher near river mouths than in the
mainstem.
Drawing conclusions for the lower Bay based on a
comparison of 1979 and 1984-85 sampling is difficult
because the sampling stations were not identical and
there are too few stations for an area the size of the
lower Bay. However:
• The 1984-85 samples show increases in overall
toxicant concentrations since 1979;
• There is a slight but insignificant decrease in
total concentrations in 1985 from 1984;
• At Hampton Roads, total PAHs increased four-
fold from 1984 to 1985 possibly reflecting
decreased sediment particle size with a con-
comitant increase in toxicant adsorption.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (NOAA) studies the bioaccumulation of
toxics in coastal regions nationwide. In the Bay,
NOAA focuses on contaminants in sediments, Atlan-
tic croaker livers, and oysters.
General use of the pesticide DDT declined
significantly during the late 1960s and was banned in
1972. Analysis of historical data reflects this decline.
PLANKTON AND THE FOOD CHAIN
The Bay is one of the most productive estuaries in
the world. The plankton form the base of this pro-
ductive food chain. In order to understand the food
chain foundation, a new cooperative Baywide pro-
gram for plankton and benthic monitoring began in
1984-85. Plankton were sampled at 23 Bay stations
simultaneous with the collection of water quality
data. Phytoplankton activity is greatest in the fresh-
water and transition zones (0.5 — 5.0 ppt) of the Bay
and its tributaries where there are high nutrient con-
centrations. Benthic samples were also collected at 86
stations.
Maryland's 12-month sampling revealed high pro-
ductivity in the upper freshwater portions of the
Patuxent and the Potomac; the highest productivity
was found near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge where
salinity ranges from 5-18 ppt. The upper two
freshwater and transition stations in the mainstem of
the Bay showed the lowest productivity. These stations
are located at the mouth of the Susquehanna, where
high productivity was inhibited by high turbidity.
The seasonal pattern of phytoplankton growth in
1984-85 was typical: high late summer productivity
due to long days and warm water; a fall peak fol-
lowed by low winter productivity; and a major spring
peak following an influx of nutrients with the spring
freshwater inflows.
Productivity and seasonal patterns in the Potomac
and Patuxent were similar. The Patuxent, however,
had higher and more frequent peaks of productivity.
Patuxent River carbon fixation rates (a measure of
organic production) were 40 percent higher than Bay
rates, and chlorophyll a values (a measure of bio-
mass) were 50 to 200 percent higher.
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Fish egg and larvae survey underway aboard the University of
Maryland research vessel "Orion."
Photographer Kent Mountford
In terms of composition, diatoms were dominant
during the late winter/spring and fall blooms. Small
coccoid green cells were numerically dominant in the
Maryland part of the Bay the rest of the year. During
1984-85, large quantities of phytoplankton settled in-
to deeper Bay waters where their decomposition fur-
ther depleted oxygen levels in bottom water.
Virginia plankton sampling of the mainstem was
limited to July-September in 1985. The data indicate
diverse population patterns with distinct differences in
phytoplankton composition and concentrations be-
tween the central and lower Bay, significantly greater
abundances and diversity in the deeper water layer,
and a greater diversity and concentration of species
near the Bay's mouth.
During 1984-85, microzooplankton were sampled
in Maryland's portion of the Bay, and mesozoo-
plankton were sampled in both states' waters. As with
phytoplankton, higher biomass was found in the up-
per freshwater and transition zones. Maryland sampl-
ing revealed nothing surprising: shrimp-like crustacean
copepods were the dominant zooplankton. In Vir-
ginia's lower Bay, isolated and unexpected high con-
centrations of copepods were found.
Zooplankton seasonal peaks occurred. Coupled
with phytoplankton growth, there were spring and fall
peaks which were more pronounced in less saline
waters. Monitoring results support the concept of
"coupling" between phytoplankton and zooplankton;
the seasonal microzooplankton peaks coincided with
the phytoplankton peaks or followed them by one
month; mesozooplankton peaks coincided with the
phytoplankton peaks during the spring bloom, but at
other times aligned more closely with microzooplank-
ton abundance. This phenomenon also suggests an
important link between phytoplankton and the larger
mesozooplankton in the food chain during much of
the year.
Over the last several decades, the duration and ex-
tent of low DO in Bay bottom waters during summer
months have increased. With decreasing oxygen levels,
the abundance of short-lived benthic species that are
less suitable prey for finfish and crabs has increased,
while the availability of preferred longer-lived benthic
species has decreased. Lower standing stocks and abun-
dance of benthic biomass were found in the deep-
water mud habitats where summer hypoxia/anoxia occurs.
The deep central portion of the Bay in Maryland,
the lower half of the Potomac River, and the upper Bay
in Virginia support the lowest benthic biomass; the
greatest benthic biomass is found in the brackish and low
salinity habitats. A summary of the more notable
findings from the 1984-85 benthic sampling follow:
• Effects of anoxia are most apparent in deep
waters just downstream from the Bay Bridge
where anoxia is generally most severe. Stress
from hypoxia/anoxia also appears to have af-
fected benthic communities at two Virginia sta-
tions: in the deepwater mainstem and in the
lower Rappahannock;
• Areas not experiencing anoxia confirm that
year-to-year fluctuations in salinity are a major
factor influencing long-term benthic trends;
• In the Patuxent River, populations of a clam
(Macoma balthica) dependent on organic-rich
sediment deposits have declined since 1980. In
this situation, using M. balthica as an indicator
of carbon in the sediment, a decrease in popu-
lation is considered to be a positive sign. This
suggests that secondary sewage treatment and
sediment controls are having a beneficial effect.
-------
CHAPTER THREE
Programs to
Bring Back the Bay
PROGRESS OF STATE PROGRAMS
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Program is based on
the premise that solving the Bay's problems will
ultimately benefit the Commonwealth's farmers. Soil
loss from Susquehanna River basin croplands exceeds
the state average of 5.5 tons per acre per year by 34
percent. Helping farmers to adopt practices to keep
soil and nutrients on farmlands and out of the
streams will help to maintain soil productivity and
improve farm economics.
The state's Departments of Environmental Re-
sources (DER) and Agriculture, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, conservation districts, the federal Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), the Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service (ASCS) and many
volunteers, in cooperation with farm organization
programs, are helping farmers improve their land
management. County conservation districts administer
DER's cost share program with oversight provided by the
State Conservation Commission. In 1985, the Com-
mission established a Chesapeake Bay Advisory Com-
mittee which provides Bay-related recommendations
and support to education efforts. Additionally, in 1986,
Pennsylvania joined the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continued to con-
centrate on the development and implementation of a
comprehensive, four-part agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control program in FY86 with a commit-
ment of $4.35 million, half of which is EPA Bay im-
plementation grant funding. (Total financial commitments
in Pennsylvania since 1984 approach $10 million.) The
four-part program includes: planning, education,
financial assistance, and technical assistance.
Educational activities are conducted to provide in-
formation to landowners and the public to foster
understanding of the need for nutrient management,
erosion control and water quality improvement. The
Pennsylvania Association of Conservation District
Directors, Inc. assists DER in coordinating educa-
tional activities.
Demonstration projects continue to play a major
role in the education program. Efforts focus on
analysis of soil, manure, and the movement of
nutrients through the soil profile. The mobile nutrient
laboratory is a particularly effective educational tool
to reach farmers. Farmers are provided on-farm
analysis of soil, manure, and water to encourage them
to adopt best management practices (BMPs) as part
of a nutrient management program.
Several other projects focus on increasing the use
of reduced tillage and spreading manure on wood-
lands. Projects involving alternative use and handling
of pesticides are in progress. Several crop manage-
ment associations have recently been formed and are
proving to be a useful means of information transfer
to farmers.
To accelerate the installation of BMPs, technical
assistance is provided for the planning, design, layout,
and installation of BMPs on farms in targeted areas
within the Susquehanna River Basin. Technical assist-
ance is also provided to local water suppliers to pro-
mote water conservation.
Manure storage faeilities are an important best management
practice to reduce nutrient runoff.
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
21
Contracts were signed by farmers in the high
priority watersheds to implement nutrient manage-
ment and soil conservation practices. To date, 103
contracts have been signed to implement BMPs and
complete nutrient management programs over a multi-
year period. This represents a small part of the total
of $2.8 million in financial assistance available to this
program. After agreeing to implement a nutrient man-
agement plan, farmers are eligible to receive as much
as 80 percent cost-sharing for BMPs, to a maximum
of $30,000.
POINT SOURCE Toxics CONTROL STRATEGY
DER continued to implement its Point Source Toxics
Control Strategy to address EPA's priority pollutants
and other toxicants through its federally delegated
NPDES Permit Program.
The Departments of Environmental Resources and
Health and the Fish Commission conducted a special
statewide PCB sampling study in 1985. The study
found that fish contaminated above Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) recommended levels were
primarily bottom dwellers that feed on material found
in the sediment. Most sport fish sampled did not
show levels of contamination above FDA recommen-
dations, if at all, in edible tissues.
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAMS
The Commonwealth's Environmental Quality Board
approved a package of regulations in March 1985 to
enable Pennsylvania to apply for delegation of EPA's
Pretreatment Program; delegation is anticipated in
FY87. In the meantime, DER continued to assist EPA
in carrying out the program in Pennsylvania. Of 35
municipal treatment programs, 33 have approved
programs.
In February 1986, Pennsylvania initiated the
development of a comprehensive rural sewage
management project in the Village of Millmont,
Union County. This is the second such project
developed by Pennsylvania to research and evaluate
alternative and innovative technologies for sewage
disposal.
FISHERIES PROGRAMS
The program to restore American shad to the Sus-
quehanna River has shown significant progress. For
the period from 1972 through 1985, a total of 5,400
American shad were captured at the Conowingo Pool
fish trap for possible transportation upstream for
spawning. In the spring of 1986, 5,193 shad were cap-
tured. Of this number, 4,200 were transported up-
stream for spawning in the Susquehanna River near
Harrisburg.
GROUND WATER PROGRAM
Development and implementation of a comprehensive
Ground Water Quality Management Program con-
tinued. As a pilot project, three ambient ground
water quality monitoring systems were established
within high priority ground water basins in Penn-
sylvania. This enabled DER to assess the effectiveness
of this method of monitoring before finalizing its
Ground Water Monitoring Strategy. DER is now pro-
ceeding to implement the monitoring program.
Pennsylvania received final program authorization
(primacy) from EPA in January 1986 to carry out a
federally-delegated Resource Recovery and Conserva-
tion Act (RCRA) Program.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The goal of the District's Bay Program is to improve
water quality in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers,
thereby promoting and protecting the living resources
in those waters and the Bay.
The Bay cleanup efforts within the District are
shared between the Departments of Public Works
(DPW) and Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
(DCRA). DPW designs and constructs demonstration
projects and continues to operate and upgrade the
Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. DCRA
develops, implements and enforces construction ero-
sion regulations and other nonpoint source control ef-
forts. The agencies share development and distribu-
tion of public information which occurs as an integral
part of their programs.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO)
ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Because of the age and design of the District's sewer
system, large quantities of raw sewage mix with rain-
water during periods of heavy precipitation. While
many provisions are made to reduce overflows, sub-
stantial volumes of sewage are discharged directly to
the Anacostia, Rock Creek, and Potomac rivers.
Through the CSO Abatement Program, discharges of
combined sewage will be controlled by structural
-------
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
changes. DPW will construct inflatable weirs (dams)
to hold stormwater until it can be transported to the
Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment.
Swirl concentrators will be constructed to treat
wastewater by centrifugal action before it is dis-
charged to the Anacostia. Once operational, swirls are
expected to reduce the annual overflow volume and
the frequency of overflows in the Anacostia River by
50 percent.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
In 1985, the Council of the District of Columbia
enacted the Wastewater Systems Amendment Act. In
June 1986, the Department of Public Works pro-
mulgated rules and regulations which direct the
pretreatment program, enabling the District to
monitor toxic compounds identified by EPA. Regula-
tions for compost use, discharge permits, wastewater
treatment facility construction, and water quality
management are in various stages of promulgation.
BLUE PLAINS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
In 1985, Blue Plains treated 299 million gallons per
day (MGD) of wastewater from Maryland and Vir-
ginia counties as well as the District. Blue Plains is
Activated sludge treatment at the 299 MGD Blue Plains
wastewater treatment facility.
Courtesy ol Disma of Columbia Department ot Public Works
the largest advanced wastewater treatment plant in the
United States. Processes utilized for treatment include
secondary treatment, nitrification, and phosphorus
removal. Blue Plains has been performing better than
required in the removal of phosphorus from the waste
stream. Regional users and EPA will invest an esti-
mated $100 million to expand treatment capacity to
370 MGD. The District will add another $50 million.
About 1,300 pounds of chlorine is discharged
daily from Blue Plains. Though an excellent disinfec-
tant, chlorine is toxic to many aquatic organisms. To
protect living resources in the Potomac and the Bay,
DPW has begun constructing dechlorination facilities
at Blue Plains to be completed in 1988.
PHOSPHATE BAN
The District's phosphate ban became effective in
September 1986. However, since January 1986, Blue
Plains officials have witnessed a 26 percent decrease
of influent phosphorus concentrations compared with
the 1985 load. They attribute the majority of the
decrease to Maryland's phosphate ban. Because
distributors of detergents operate regionally,
phosphate products were removed from store shelves
in D.C. well as Maryland after Maryland's ban began
in December 1985. Once both bans are fully opera-
tional, the influent phosphorus concentrations to Blue
Plains are expected to be reduced by 30 percent.
The Bay Program estimates that Blue Plains will
experience a 15 percent savings in operating costs.
The Bay Program estimates that annually an esti-
mated $29 million could be saved from a Baywide
phosphate ban due to a decrease in chemical usage
and reduced sludge disposal costs.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
DCRA's Stormwater Management Program became
fully staffed in February 1986. Stormwater manage-
ment regulations have been drafted to implement DC
Law 2-23, the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Con-
trol Act, and are in review. The new regulations will
require developers to contain runoff on construction
sites and release it at or below pre-development rates.
The Stormwater Management Program also issues a
number of guides to inform citizens on how they can
control pollution.
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program emphasis on non-
point pollution control and its grants has enhanced
the programs of the DC Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD). The DC SWCD hosted the Fifth
Annual Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Administrators Conference to discuss government pro-
grams at all levels as well as private sector initiatives.
The DC SWCD also sponsors high school education
programs and awards.
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The new Fisheries Program began participating in
NOAA's Stock Assessment by inventorying the
anadromous fish in the District. A recreational
fishing survey was conducted to establish baseline in-
formation. Draft regulations to manage anadromous
and resident fish populations were published. Follow-
ing review of the license fee schedule, promulgation
will be completed.
Virginia's rainfall simulator is used to demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of conservation tillage practices in reducing erosion.
VIRGINIA
Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiative Program includes
30 initiatives in nine agencies of five different sec-
retariats. Virginia's commitment for Chesapeake Bay
Initiatives has totalled $58,851,193 to date. (Of this
total, $8,004,954 is from EPA grants.) This includes
$14,937,604 for projects during the 1984-86 bienmum
and $43,913,589 for 1986-88. Of the funds allocated
for 1986-88, $20,400,000 is for sewage treatment
plants. Overall program coordination and tracking is
provided by the Council on the Environment.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Virginia concentrates its Chesapeake Bay efforts on a
variety of programs designed to reduce the quantity
of pollutants entering the Bay and its tributary waters.
FARMS. Pollutant-carrying runoff from agricultural
land is being reduced through a combination of
education and cost-sharing grants designed to en-
courage farmers to improve their land management.
So far, 1,444 farmers have installed BMPs on 58,594
acres as a direct result of state cost-sharing funds.
This has resulted in 333,930 tons of sediment which
otherwise would have eroded from farm fields each
year. This also has reduced the sediment load to
streams and rivers by approximately 31,260 tons and
phosphorus carried by soil particles by 33,760 pounds.
Another 51 farmers are installing facilities to manage
114,407 tons of animal waste each year from their
livestock operations.
The education component of Virginia's program
demonstrates the value of using BMPs and convinces
farmers to install BMPs voluntarily. One of the best
means of demonstrating the value of BMPs in a clear,
convincing way is through the rainfall simulator,
which reproduces the effect of a typical summer
cloudburst. It is set up over two side-by-side farm
plots, one of which has been conventionally tilled, the
other using no-till. A demonstration in Essex County
showed that the no-till plot produced half the total
runoff, one-tenth of the sediment and phosphorus
loss, and one-fourth the nitrogen loss, in comparison
with the conventional plot.
URBAN AREAS. The use of urban BMPs is being en-
couraged through cost-sharing and technical assis-
tance. Eleven projects in seven localities include
porous asphalt pavement, an infiltration trench and
grassed waterway, streambank stabilization, an "urban
marsh," and a "wet pond" (manmade rainwater deten-
tion basin). Monitoring at the wet pond site indicates
that the pond is effective in removing up to 87 per-
cent of the silt and 80 percent of the phosphorus
from the runoff. It also removes up to 65 percent of
the lead and zinc. While this wet pond project is
relatively small, its efficiency at pollutant removal is
significant. It and other projects serve to demonstrate
the urban BMP concepts and promote voluntary use
of similar practices in other urban areas.
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS. Other significant
sources of nutrients are the 476 municipal sewage
treatment plants (STP) in the Virginia portion of the
Chesapeake Bay basin. Virginia has become directly
involved in the financing of municipal STPs. The
newly created Virginia Water Facilities Revolving
Fund makes construction loans available to localities
-------
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
at low interest rates. Limited grant funds are also
available.
The Virginia Resources Authority was created to
provide low-interest financing alternatives to localities.
Three bond issues have financed a total of $63,620,000.
Another initiative concerns the correction of
faulty sewer lines. Forty infiltration and inflow pro-
blem areas exist in the Virginia Bay basin. Eliminat-
ing them should result in significant reductions in the
number of occasions when rainfall causes STP over-
flows and discharges of untreated sewage into the Bay
and its tributaries. Four projects are currently under-
way with another six planned for FY87. The Com-
monwealth has also instituted a pilot nutrient removal
program in three localities. Preliminary results from
the York River STP biological nutrient removal pro-
cess indicate that the level of phosphorus discharged
has been reduced about 80 percent —from 8 mg/1 to
less than 1 mg/1.
The State has made significant strides in reissuing
discharge permits so that the limitations imposed on
treatment plants remain current. In addition, a State
standard for chlorine has been adopted, and efforts
are underway to develop nutrient standards and tox-
icity reduction strategies.
LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT
IMPROVEMENT
A number of Virginia's initiatives affect habitat in the
Bay and its tributary waters, and complement on-going
programs such as the management of tidal wetlands
and subaqueous lands.
CHLORINE REMOVAL OR REDUCTION. One effort is
directed towards reducing the amount of chlorine
used and discharged by sewage treatment plants. Ten
localities have been awarded grants totaling $1.8
million for either dechlorination or alternative disin-
fection at their sewage treatment plants. Another $1.7
million has been allocated for future projects. Prior
to the Bay cleanup effort, 6,670 Ibs of chlorine were
being discharged each day; this amount will be reduc-
ed to 3,905 Ibs per day. Because many of the locali-
ties reducing or eliminating chlorine in STP discharges
are adjacent to spawning and nursery areas, an in-
crease in fishery populations is anticipated as the
young marine organisms are able to reach maturity.
FINFISH. Fishery management plans set goals, objec-
tives and strategies for increasing stock, improving
habitat, managing harvest, and ensuring the proper
collection of fisheries data. The first plans to be
developed are for striped bass and oysters.
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION. An experimen-
tal program was started to reestablish SAV beds and
determine what causes their decline. Thirty acres of
eelgrass were transplanted in the first two years of the
program with ten to seventy-five percent survival
rates. Losses are attributed to winter ice scour, tur-
bidity, accidental dredging, cownose ray and crab
uprootings, and other biological factors under in-
vestigation. Still, growth in some areas has been
phenomenal; at one site each transplanted plug has
proliferated by an average of 100 times. Efforts to
reestablish SAV beds, including seed planting, are
continuing.
SHELLFISH GROUNDS. While maintaining its commit-
ment to protect the public from contaminated sea-
food, the State is also working to reopen condemned
shellfish grounds by correcting the causes of the
contamination.
To date, 3,740 acres of productive shellfish grounds
have been reopened, making $1,288,288 in shellfish
available to commercial harvesting during the first
harvest year. These areas should continue to produce
shellfish valued at about half this amount in each
subsequent year. The cost to the State has been $115,016
for an overall benefit/cost ratio of about 11 to 1.
OYSTER ROCK REPLETION. Another initiative added
$1,000,000, an increase of 50 percent, to the oyster
repletion program. As a result, the Marine Resources
Commission was able to plant approximately 3.8
million bushels of shell and 68,500 bushels of seed
oysters between 1984-86. There are plans to plant
another 2 million bushels of shell in each year of the
1986-88 biennium as well as to develop alternative
methods of supplying shell for repletion.
OYSTER HATCHERY. In 1985, VIMS began the
operation of an oyster hatchery which will in future
years help to ensure availability of seed oysters for
both remote setting by oystermen and for scientific
research. To date, 221 million oyster larvae have been
raised for in-house research and use by industry.
RESEARCH
Numerous research projects are on-going, including
the analysis of water quality and living resource
monitoring data. The findings of these studies are
coordinated and shared throughout the State and
Bay region.
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Technicians use high power water guns to plant oyster shells for
improved oyster habitat.
Courles\ ol \lar\land D<.*parlmcm ol Natmal RCSOUUL".
MARYLAND
Since signing the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the
State of Maryland has allocated over $130 million to
support 35 Bay initiatives. Over 1,700 BMP projects
are being installed with 3,000 applications pending,
and there has been substantial improvement in in-
dustrial and municipal compliance.
In Maryland, a number of different agencies are
involved in Bay cleanup: the Department of Natural
Resources, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Office of Environmental Programs. In addition, a
number of councils and commissions have been estab-
lished to carry out specific tasks, such as the Critical
Areas Commission and the Governor's Council on
the Bay.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PROGRAMS (DNR)
The DNR implements resource restoration and
management activities focused on finfish, shellfish,
SAV, land use, erosion and stormwater management,
recreation/conservation, and education.
Using $50,000 in State General Funds, the DNR
selected 18 locations for SAV transplanting demon-
stration projects. Preliminary results are encouraging.
In order to ameliorate dwindling oyster harvests,
in 1985 DNR planted dredged oyster shells, fresh
oyster shells and oyster seeds on 565 acres at a cost
of about $505,000. In 1986 about 5.6 million bushels
of dredged shell, 461,000 bushels of fresh shell, and
315,000 bushels of oyster seed were planted at a cost
of about $2 million.
Maryland is also involved in a joint DNR, Fish &
Wildlife Service (F&WS) striped bass stocking and
tagging program, releasing about 200,000 tagged fish
in 1985.
In the land use arena, the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Areas Commission is Maryland's major achievement.
The Commission set up criteria and guidelines to
assist local governments to regulate growth and devel-
opment within the 1,000 foot "critical area" zone sur-
rounding the Bay and its tributaries.
Non-tidal wetland activities focused on completing
the digitization of the F&WS National Wetland Inven-
tory Maps for the western shore in FY86. Other ac-
tions included reviewing projects for potential impact
on non-tidal wetlands and implementing the initial
phases of a wetland assessment and monitoring
system.
In FY85 and 86, the Maryland Environmental
Trust negotiated conservation easements on 2,470
acres (8 miles of shoreline) and reduced the permis-
sible population density on these easements from 1
dwelling unit per 5 acres to 1 unit per 55 acres. DNR
awarded over $1.46 million in State General Funds for
stormwater management grants-in-aid funds during
FY86. This brings the total expenditure of the pro-
gram to $2.64 million. In efforts to retain existing
forestland, four Bay watershed foresters prepared 93
forest management plans for 7,878 acres within the
critical area. In addition, sediment control plans on
3,471 acres were prepared, development site reviews
were performed on 2,864 acres, and 124 acres of trees
were planted along two miles of shoreline.
Supporting the freshwater conservation initiatives,
DNR staff provided technical assistance for the estab-
lishment and maintenance of water conservation pro-
grams in several counties.
DNR contracted with the Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River basin for a study to analyze
operation rules for reservoirs in the Potomac River
basin to determine if it is possible to increase fresh-
water inflows to Chesapeake Bay during low flow
periods. Up to 10,000 acre-feet of water may be avail-
able without significantly affecting water supply,
flood control, and water quality purposes of up-
stream reservoirs. Up to 100,000 acre-feet of addi-
tional storage may be available in reservoirs in the
Susquehanna River basin.
DNR receives an annual appropriation of $500,000
designated specifically for research. To date, nine
projects have been funded, including stormwater
management, nutrient modeling, resource manage-
ment and toxic substances.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of stormwater
BMPs in reducing pollution, and as an incentive to
local governments to undertake similar projects, the
OEP administers a cost-share effort to help local
governments implement stormwater runoff controls.
Six projects are now underway.
Shore erosion control demonstration projects have
been undertaken to protect 8,895 linear feet of
-------
26
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Grasses are planted on exposed shoreline as a nonstructural
erosion control practice.
Courtcs\ ot Maryland Department ot Natural Resources
shoreline at a cost of $20-$80/foot ($250,000
Md/$345,000 EPA). For privately owned lands, a
total of 21 matching grant projects have been selected
for shoreline stabilization. These projects incorporate
a total of 6,158 linear feet of shoreline protected at
an average cost of $53/foot ($327,283 MD).
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS
The Department of Agriculture's efforts in Bay
cleanup focus on assisting in the implementation of
best management practices. The Department created
17 new positions in FY86. That expansion enabled
completion of 952 soil and water conservation plans
in FY86. The Department was authorized $5 million
of state funds and received $1 million in EPA funds
for agricultural cost-sharing. More than 3,000 farmers
have applied for funds to implement best manage-
ment practices.
Since 1983, in the agricultural nonpoint area, over
1,700 projects have been completed at a cost of $4
million. The goal is to have conservation plans on all
farms in Maryland's priority watersheds by 1989 and
on every farm in the State by 1994.
Outreach and education activities continued to en-
courage better land management and implementation
of BMPs. In addition, the Department formally
adopted regulations to govern the design, construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of agricultural
drainage projects.
PROGRAMS—IkE OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
The Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) within
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
manages programs under authorities delegated by
state and federal laws and regulations. OEP is respon-
sible for implementing programs related to point and
nonpoint water pollution, air pollution, safe drinking
water, toxic substances, hazardous wastes, and com-
munity health.
The OEP's point source control programs have
shifted from study and planning to construction and
implementation. Every sewage treatment plant (STP)
in the State has been affected; with the completion of
the Havre de Grace plant's upgrade in late 1986, all
major plants in the State have achieved secondary or
advanced treatment capabilities. This translates to a
40 percent improvement in the plants' ability to
remove conventional pollutants.
Phosphorus removal technology is now on line at
17 STPs throughout the State. At 120 of the 150 STPs
in the state, chlorine is being removed. Nitrogen
removal capability, now being initiated at two Patux-
ent River facilities with an additional two to come,
will help to determine the cost and effectiveness of
nitrogen removal processes in the Patuxent basin. The
results will indicate whether nitrogen removal should
be implemented at treatment plants throughout the
Bay basin. As a result of implementing pretreatment
in Baltimore City, there have been significant reduc-
tions in heavy metals. In addition, the State now con-
siders the Back River Treatment Plant sludge to be
clean enough for on land disposal.
In 1986, the Waste Management Administration
more than doubled the number of enforcement ac-
tions it took against noncomplying industries over the
number of 1985 cases; from 39 to over 80. The com-
pliance rate of the 163 publicly owned treatment
works increased from 39 percent in 1983 to an esti-
mated 60 percent in 1986.
OEP is funding two major research projects: a
Patuxent River model and an investigation of carbon
cycling processes in Chesapeake Bay. The Patuxent
River Water Quality Model will evaluate the interac-
tions of numerous conditions within the Patuxent
ecosystem. It will provide managers with a tool for
predicting the effects of various nutrient control
strategies.
The project on carbon cycling is investigating
plankton populations in relation to the processes of
carbon and oxygen cycling. The study also focuses on
how algal blooms affect benthic oxygen demand. The
research will provide answers to questions about how
carbon cycling and deposition contribute to anoxia in
the Bay.
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
27
PROGRESS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
With the signing of the Joint Resolution on Pollution
Abatement with the EPA in 1984, the Department of
Defense (DoD) pledged to give priority consideration
to funding pollution control projects and studies
which would enhance the Bay's quality.
Two major ongoing studies were initiated in the
fall of 1985. The first is a three part study to deter-
mine the relative impact of DoD activir'es on the
water quality and living resources of the Bay and its
tributaries. Phase I of this study screened 66 DoD in-
stallations to identify existing and potential water
quality impacts. Current efforts are concentrating on
37 installations which have been identified as needing
further study. The second study is a pilot program to
enhance the operation of wastewater treatment facili-
ties. Demonstration projects are now being conducted.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NOAA's involvement in the cleanup of the
Chesapeake Bay is focused primarily on the restora-
tion of living resources. In FY85, NOAA signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the EPA, estab-
lished a new Estuarine Programs Office (EPO) res-
ponsible for the coordination of NOAA activities
within the Chesapeake Bay Program, developed a
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Study Plan, sponsored and
coordinated a number of Bay research related semi-
nars, and continued active involvement of its offices
in the Chesapeake Bay area. In sum, NOAA spent
about $5 million in Chesapeake Bay during FY85.
A federal/state/academia Chesapeake Bay Stock
Assessment Committee (CBSAC) has been formed, at
NOAA's suggestion, to determine the effects of
climate, fishing pressure, and contaminants on fishery
stocks. CBSAC has established a framework for its
activities and funded initial research to improve
fishery statistics and stock assessments.
During 1985, Maryland and Virginia Sea Grant
researchers examined the cause and dynamics of oxy-
gen depleted Bay waters. Researchers are also examin-
ing the effects of low dissolved oxygen bottom waters
on the Bay's living resources.
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is examining the etiology of diseases in such
Chesapeake Bay species as the soft clam (Mya arenaria),
menhaden, shad, and river herring. It coordinates
with and assists the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Manage-
ment Council and the various fishery commissions
dealing with Chesapeake Bay in the development of
their Fishery Management Plans. NMFS also pub-
lishes annual commercial and recreational fishery
statistics of Chesapeake Bay.
NOAA's National Ocean Survey (NOS) produces
nautical charts, tide and current tables, atlases and
catalogues, detailed field surveys, and coordinates
coastal resource management through grants to states
and a National Estuarine Research Reserve Program.
Along these lines NOS is developing a National
Estuarine Inventory Atlas (delineating some of the
physical characteristics of 185 estuaries) and a Na-
tional Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory. Both in-
clude Chesapeake Bay. Ultimately these data will be
used in the water quality models being developed by
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
In FY85, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
received NOAA funds (under Section 309 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act) to coordinate inter-
state coastal management programs. Maryland is
assessing habitat quality in spawning areas and study-
ing habitat quality and circulation in the Eastern Bay;
Virginia is examining nutrient loads, fishery statistics,
and improved data management; and Pennsylvania
has applied its grant toward the assessment of toxics
in surface waters and collection of nutrient and sedi-
ment runoff data.
NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data
and Information Service (NESDIS), with the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, produces a quarterly and
annual summary document, "Marine Environmental
Assessment-Chesapeake Bay," which examines
weather impacts on marine environmental activity
(e.g. commercial fishing, boating, pollution events,
and shipping). NESDIS has also transferred tidal and
current information to the Chesapeake Bay Program
to assist in the development and calibration of
hydrodynamic models.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The Corps of Engineers is involved in numerous proj-
ects affecting the water quality and living resources
of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion
Study, authorized in June 1983, is the first compre-
hensive study of the critical erosion problems affec-
ting the Bay. The reconnaissance phase report, com-
pleted in March 1986, recommends development of a
-------
28
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Shoreline erosion can have costly and devasting effects.
Counes\ ot the US Armv Corps ot Engineers
comprehensive plan for 135 miles of identified criti-
cally eroding shoreline. The second part of the study
will examine the feasibility of a range of possible
solutions and is to be completed by September 1989.
At the request of Maryland and Virginia, the
Corps began the Potomac River Hydrilla Study in
1984 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and en-
vironmental impacts of hydrilla control. The final
report was approved in March 1986. The recommen-
dation for mechanical harvesting of about 290 acres
over ten years by Maryland and Virginia is being suc-
cessfully implemented. In 1984, EPA's Bay Program
initiated a multiyear effort to map and record the
distribution of SAV. The Corps contributed $161,000
and $60,000 to this work in 1985 and 1986. Extensive
data were collected through aerial photography and
field surveys between 1984 and 1986. This effort will
enable Bay researchers to quantify the link between
improved water quality and improved habitat.
In late 1985, the Dredging Division of the Water
Resources Support Center at Fort Belvoir, Virginia in-
itiated a series of meetings with federal and state
agencies from Maryland and Virginia to discuss the
beneficial uses of dredged material in the Bay and to
develop a list of potential sites for habitat restoration.
Five potential oyster enhancement sites have been
identified, and additional fisheries habitat candidate
sites are under review.
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The USGS has several programs directly related to
assessing the water quality in major tributaries of
Chesapeake Bay as well as evaluating the effectiveness
of agricultural and urban BMPs in various geologic
formations of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.
In the Susquehanna, Choptank, Patuxent, Potomac,
Rappahannock, Mattaponi, Pamunkey, and James
rivers, the USGS is collecting suspended sediment and
chemical data, including nutrient data at the fall line.
In Pennsylvania's Conestoga River, the USGS op-
erated a surface and ground water agricultural BMP
monitoring program for the fifth year. USGS is moni-
toring the nutrient loadings from two headwater
farms in York and Adams counties. In the Lower Sus-
quehanna basin, the Susquehanna River Basin Com-
mission (SRBC) is assessing the differences in nutri-
ent loadings between base loads and storm events at
thirteen sites.
In the Patuxent River basin, the USGS began col-
lecting hydrologic information at thirteen sites to eval-
uate BMPs during FY86. Also in Maryland, drilling
and instrumentation has recently been completed in
three infiltration basins to determine their effective-
ness in confining urban stormwater as well as to quan-
tify the effects of infiltration on ground water quality.
A geographic information system is being used in
Virginia's Elizabeth River to assist in hydrologic inter-
pretations. The first phase of the project, which
began in April 1986, is to input data on land and
water uses, pollution sources, and critical habitats.
USGS will assist in interpreting transport directions
and the impact of contaminants as a function of sur-
face and ground water movement.
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) philosophy and
strategy are to integrate water quality considerations
into all of its programs and activities. In FY86, SCS
SCS Accomplishments for
BMP Implementation
(1984-1986):
Conservation Plans prepared (acres)
Technical help to farmers (numbers)
Soil saved (tons)
Animal waste systems (number)
MD
155,000
13,000
231,000
58
PA
142,730
14,070
1,285,430
245
VA
232,000
14,000
571,000
57
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
29
increased resources in the districts and the three states
participating in the Bay Program with a total of
$1,140,000 and 31 staff positions. In addition, it pro-
vided one fulltime SCS Liaison and Resource Conser-
vationist headquartered at the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office. SCS obligated $17,785,000, which in-
cluded 215 staff years, in FY86 to benefit water qual-
ity throughout the Chesapeake Bay area. Major SCS
activities included: providing technical assistance for
agricultural and urban BMPs; supplying technical
standards and specifications for the states' cost-share
programs; providing training for conservation district
technicians; and educating farmers to encourage parti-
cipation in volunteer nonpoint source pollution con-
trol programs.
SCS achievements in water quality improvement
are dependent upon close cooperation of federal,
state, and local units of government, and conservation
districts. Through this cooperation, SCS achieved
several accomplishments in FY86. SCS assigned staff
to the MD Department of Agriculture, PA Depart-
ment of Agriculture, PA Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation, and VA Division of Soil and Water
Conservation to assist with the implementation of
state cost-share programs and demonstration water-
sheds, train conservation district technicians, and
develop standards, specifications, and program
guidelines.
SCS and USGS are working together to develop a
CIS for the Bay watershed. SCS is providing soils
and land use information. In addition, SCS along
with other USDA agencies initiated action to imple-
ment the 1985 Farm Bill which will compliment Ches-
apeake Bay cleanup efforts.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
The EPA is the lead federal agency in the Chesapeake
Bay restoration and protection effort. It staffs the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office in Annapolis and has
provided close to $24 million (1984-1986) for its
Chesapeake Bay Program.
Annually, approximately $7 million is provided in
grants to Bay states for projects to control agricul-
tural and urban nonpoint source pollution problems.
These grants supplement state cost-sharing and educa-
tion efforts which encourage farmers and others to
use BMPs.
EPA provided $1.6 million (1984-1986) to support
Bay mainstem monitoring efforts in Maryland and
Virginia. An additional $1 million was supplied for
the Data Management Center in Annapolis which
stores and processes monitoring data and carries out
the mathematical modeling efforts underway to
predict point and nonpoint source pollution loadings.
The Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay,
Inc. received grants totaling nearly $638,000 (1984-
1986) for public information, citizen monitoring, sup-
port of the CAC, and citizen participation.
The Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC),
through a cooperative agreement with EPA, supports
the STAC. CRC also assists the Bay Program in ob-
taining scientific and technical advice and analysis to
support monitoring and modeling.
In addition to efforts coordinated under the
Chesapeake Bay Program, the EPA is already in-
volved in numerous federal programs which benefit
the Bay. In FY85, $170 million was provided for
wastewater treatment facility upgrading and construc-
tion in Bay states. In FY85, $15 million was provided
for states to support baseline environmental programs
and special water quality efforts supporting point and
nonpoint source control programs. Under Superfund
and RCRA, the Agency performs on-site investiga-
tions and cleanup programs, and issues waste disposal
permits. The EPA is responsible for enforcing the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and wetlands
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Since signing a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with EPA, F&WS has done extensive work in
monitoring and analyzing water quality data, and
relating the results to living resource health. F&WS
has also played an important role in public relations.
The broad aim of the F&WS nonpoint source work is
to document water quality conditions and relate them
to land use practices and affected biological resources.
One of the highlights of F&WS research is its
Choptank watershed program. For two years, water
quality was sampled at 35 stations in the Choptank
Watershed in order to develop recommendations for
the agricultural community on which BMPs are most
beneficial to water quality. In related work, F&WS
has identified six subwatersheds with nitrate concen-
trations higher than 5 ppm.
F&WS point source studies included sampling
three National Permit Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) outfall sites for organisms and sediment in
1985. Analysis of the Chesterfield, Virginia power
-------
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Aerial photographs show the dramatic resurgence of SAV off the coast of Barren Island on the Eastern Shore from 1984 to 1985.
C OLirles\ ot US EPA, I mironmental Photographic Interpretation (. enler
plant fly ash site indicated high selenium levels in the
settling area. At the Indian Head Maryland U.S.
Naval Explosive facility, several inorganic metal levels
appeared high. In 1986, F&WS revisited all 1985 sites
and added bioassay testing and histopathology anal-
ysis. Preliminary results from the first two sites in-
dicated chronic toxicity to small invertebrates.
F&WS is involved in several activities to track and
assess key Chesapeake Bay living resources, particu-
larly SAV. In both 1985 and 1986, F&WS jointly sup-
ported comprehensive aerial photography and a Bay-
wide map report program of SAV.
The Service also completed a list of Chesapeake
Species of Special Emphasis (CHESSE's) and began
trend analysis on 35-40 waterfowl species on this list.
A special study of black duck habitat changes in
three eastern shore counties was completed. A report
on this project and one on the status of ospreys on
the mid-Eastern Shore are due early in 1987. A report
on the photo-interpretation of shoreline alterations in
two western shore Maryland counties between 1950
and 1980 will be released in the spring of 1987.
The broad aim of the F&WS Striped Bass Pro-
gram is to supplement and restore low breeding
stocks. In the autumn of 1985, F&WS cooperated
with Maryland fisheries personnel to release about
200,000 specially tagged, 4-10 inch rockfish into rivers
where parent fish were taken in spring. Maryland's
production goal in 1986 was 1 to 1.5 million released
fish. Virginia joined the program in 1986. Both states
used federal and state hatcheries for fish rearing.
F&WS had a very active public information pro-
gram in 1985-86. The Service developed and set up
exhibits at numerous public events. It has produced a
coloring book on the mythical Chessie monster and
several fact sheets on Bay fish and wildlife species.
F&WS worked with the Corps of Engineers to pro-
duce a guide for SAV identification, and the Service
cooperated in a television film on striped bass.
Courtesy ol US f-ish & VVildltte Service
-------
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
PROGRAM SUPPORT
Program support functions provide the administrative
and analytic services needed to knit together the
substantive elements of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
These functions include public information/participa-
tion, data management and analysis, grant and con-
tract administration, committee support, and provi-
sion of technical advice and coordination.
PUBLIC INFORMATION/PARTICIPATION
The Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
(CPCB) continued to produce educational and infor-
mational materials and to organize opportunities for
interested citizens to become directly involved in the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
Highlights of the year included distribution of the
first printing of 21,000 copies of "Baybook: A Guide
to Reducing Water Pollution At Home." Initial
response to the publication was so enthusiastic that
CPCB solicited funds from a number of agencies, or-
ganizations and corporations, and was able to pro-
duce a second printing of 36,000 copies. Baybook is
being distributed through soil conservation districts,
garden stores, and community and civic associations.
CPCB also produced a brochure describing the kinds
of services it provides to the public. The brochure was
mailed to garden clubs, service organizations, schools,
and community groups. Four issues of Chesapeake
Citizen Report were published and distributed to over
12,000 people.
The volunteer monitoring program was expanded.
The success of the initial efforts on the James and
Patuxent rivers, where 30 volunteers continue to take
weekly samples, led to the establishment of a pro-
gram on the Choptank River under the auspices of
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Planning and recruiting for a program on the Con-
estoga River in Pennsylvania began in the fall of
1986. CPCB staff also assisted the City of Annapolis
in training volunteers for Back Creek. They trained
the West River Association to start a citizen monitor-
ing group on that river. The handbook which CPCB
developed has been revised and is used by each
volunteer. Data have been entered into the computer
at the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office in Annapolis,
MD. Monitors are kept informed about the program
through a bimonthly newsletter called "Rivertrends."
CPCB expanded its program into Pennsylvania by
awarding three contracts to the Pennsylvania Associa-
tion of Conservation District Directors, the League of
Volunteers testing \\ater quality of Jug Ba> Wetlands Sanctuar>
on the Patuxent River in \lar\land
lourtcs\ at C iti/cnv Program loi [he ( licsapi'akL H,i\ IIK
Women Voters and the Susquehanna River Tri-State
Association. These groups conducted a wide variety
of educational activities, including town meetings,
tours, slide shows, educational brochures, a farm
survey and a series of fact sheets on the Susquehan-
na's connection to the Bay. In May 1986, CPCB hired
a full-time staff person in Harrisburg who is working
with citizens and agencies.
The citizen volunteers submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion (SAV) monitoring project initiated on a small-
scale in 1985, grew to a sizable effort in 1986. Yacht
clubs and marinas were enlisted to participate in map-
ping submerged grasses. Over 500 citizen volunteers
participated.
In Virginia, the need for timely information
related to the new river basin citizen advisory com-
mittees was met with the creation of a monthly news-
letter called "Chesapeake River Report." The newslet-
ter highlights statewide issues of interest and focuses
each month on specific activities in each of Virginia's
major river basins. It is being used as a model for
similar publications in the other states.
The CPCB provides staff support to the Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) and its five issue oriented
-------
SECOND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
task forces. In 1986, support included participation
on the task force which developed a Bay Program
Communication Strategy, secretariat support for four
quarterly meetings of the CAC, and numerous task
force activities. CPCB also assisted the CAC to sub-
mit testimony to Senator Charles Mathias for an
oversight hearing concerning future directions for
the Bay Program.
The Chesapeake Citizen Directory was updated.
This involved contacting over 300 agencies and
organizations. The new edition of the directory in-
cludes a number of groups not included in the first
publication. CPCB staff participated in numerous
citizen organization meetings, worked with Chesa-
peake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Junior League
of Annapolis to develop a slide show for home-
owners, gave many presentations to groups, and filled
hundreds of requests for information. Staff helped
plan a major Bay-related conference in Baltimore
County, Maryland, produced an exhibit on citizens
monitoring, participated in a number of outdoor
festivals, and consulted with organizations needing
help to arrange Bay-oriented functions.
The goal of monitoring within discrete watersheds
was pursued. A project to develop a handbook for
rivershed associations was initiated and the CPCB
staff assisted with the planning of and participated in
several basin events. These events included a Chester
River workshop and a Baltimore County River and
Streams conference. Mailing lists are being coded by
basin to allow easy access to citizens in particular
watersheds.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Achievement of the goals of protecting and restoring
Chesapeake Bay relies directly on acquiring, analyz-
ing, and presenting data. The integrity of Chesapeake
Bay Program (CBP) data directly affects the ability of
governments to formulate justifiable laws, regulations,
and policies. Data management includes editing, re-
formatting, and documenting incoming data in addi-
tion to appraising and potentially incorporating new
methods of data organization such as a geographic
information system (CIS).
Chesapeake Bay data are stored and managed at
the CBP Computer Center in Annapolis, MD. The
data base now includes a fully documented historical
component dating back to 1880. It also contains the
information from CBP's water quality monitoring
program that began in June 1984 which includes
water chemistry data for the main Bay and tidal
tributaries. Climatic, shoreline location, bathymetric,
and biological data have also been contributed.
Additional software applications installed in FY86
have placed increased demand on the CBP Computer
Center. A watershed model and steady state, water
quality model have been loaded onto the computer. A
geographic information system has also been installed
to provide analysis and presentation of data with
varying spatial resolution.
To meet the FY86 demand on the Computer
Center, EPA and the CBP partners purchased addi-
tional equipment and software. Contractor support
staff doubled from FY85 to FY86 up to 12 members.
EPA hired a full-time Data Management Coordinator
to oversee Computer Center operations and to func-
tion as the CBP contact for data processing support.
The Data Management Subcommittee has pro-
duced documentation standards and data submission
policy for water quality and biological data. These
plans have become the cornerstone of CBP grants
and contracts to ensure that data are produced in
quality assured formats. Additional policy and plans
have been developed for CBP GIS and Computer
Center FY87 procurement needs.
OTHER SUPPORT
Another important management element performed
through CBLO staff is the coordination of monitor-
ing activities through support of the Monitoring Sub-
committee and management of the mainstem moni-
toring grants to Maryland and Virginia. The Model-
ing and Research Subcommittee (MARS) activities on
the watershed model, steady-state model, and plan-
ning for the time-variable model required extensive
technical and contract management support in 1986.
Grant and contract administration, including pro-
cessing awards, modifications, evaluation of deliv-
erable products, and closeouts is essential to the
management of most Bay Program work. Finally,
committee support is provided by the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office. The Executive Council and Implemen-
tation Committee and their five subcommittees are
joined by numerous ad hoc task forces requiring
preparation of agendas, briefing materials, reports,
and minutes.
Technical support is provided to the Program
through the services of the STAC, Chesapeake Re-
search Consortium, the Model Evaluation Group and
Chesapeake Bay Program staff. CBLO staff supple-
ments the Citizens Program efforts in public information,
media relations and other public affairs activities.
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
Outlook
Through an effective partnership of state, federal and
regional agencies, and citizens concerned about the
Bay, we have made progress in the past two years.
Still, the Chesapeake Bay Program has only begun.
We have much to do to restore and protect the living
resources and water quality of the Bay.
We have much to learn about the Bay ecosystem.
For example, we do not fully understand how nutri-
ents and toxic substances are transported and
modified as they move within the ecosystem. We have
not clearly defined how nutrients are released from
the sediments and how they can then contribute to
the algae and dissolved oxygen problems. We also
need to better understand the fate and transport of
toxic contaminants, both organic chemicals and heavy
metals, in the estuarine environment. Without a
clearer knowledge of their behavior, it will remain
difficult to propose and adopt criteria and standards
for these contaminants.
Despite the unknowns, our programs are develop-
ing and will improve. As we learn more about the
Bay ecosystem and better define goals, programs are
modified to make them more effective. As we change
programs, we may also modify how and through
whom they are implemented. Through the Agreement
partnership, we have created new institutions —
committees cutting across agencies, states, and the
region. What we learn through the partnership will
lead us to form more effective working arrangements.
As we move forward, other estuarine programs
around the country are tracking our progress and
using our Program as a model for structuring their
own cleanup efforts.
The activities of each federal agency and political
jurisdiction for the Bay will continue to be reported
to the people of the region. The Bay Program will
also address public concerns and welcome advice
about the Bay's problems from a variety of sources.
Our program, policies, and laws are important, but
without the long-term support and participation of an
informed citizenry we cannot succeed. Only long-term
public support will enable the necessary work to con-
tinue. People of the region and the nation must
understand that the Bay's problems have no instant
solutions. Decades of hard, creative work and many
dollars will be required.
The Executive Council pledges to continue the
work to bring back the Bay. The three new governors
who have taken office in Virginia, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania since 1985, have reaffirmed the commit-
ment to the restoration and protection effort.
Although ours is a long-term effort, we are proud
of the incremental improvements already attained,
and hope to be able to point to accelerated progress
in the near future.
------- |