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.

-------