Chesapeake Executive Council
903R88103
Comprehensive
Research Plan
U.S. Environmental frotecttta Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM&)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
TL>
225
.C54
C657
copy 2
July 1988
-------
Comprehensive Research Plan
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
U.S. Environmsntal Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Csnter (3PM52)
341 Chestnut Street
%!"!i:Mphia, PA 19107
Annapolis, Maryland
July 1988
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Comprehensive Research Plan, in fulfillment of Govern-
ance Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
"...by July 1988, to develop and adopt a comprehensive research plan to
be evaluated and updated annually to address the technical needs of the
Chesapeake Bay Program."
We direct the Implementation Committee and the Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee to establish a standing Research Planning Committee, as detailed in the document, to
initiate planning for a Chesapeake Bay Research Directory, an annual assessment of the Bay
Program's research achievements, and the periodic review and modification of research priorities
as necessary.
The process described in this document will be used to plan the research components of the
annual budgets of Bay management and planning agencies. It will also serve as the basis for
developing the longer-term studies necessary for continued improvement in our understanding of
the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources. We recognize that a strong research component of
the Chesapeake Bay Program is necessary to provide the information upon which protection and
restoration strategies and programs can be based.
The Research Planning Committee will annually report to the Executive Council on
research efforts supported by the Bay Program. In addition to reviewing the scientific and technical
findings, this report will identify potential management implications of these findings. The
research report will also be incorporated into the annual report of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
PREAMBLE
The signers of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987, recognizing the
importance of research to the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection
Program, called for the development of a comprehensive research plan. The
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) volunteered to take the
lead in developing this plan. The STAC formed a Research Plan Development
Committee consisting of representatives from Bay research institutions,
federal and state management or policy agencies, and a representative of the
Citizens Advisory Committee.
The Committee solicited wide input to the research plan through two
mechanisms.
a) Distribution of over 350 questionnaires to scientists and resource
managers throughout the Bay region. These questionnaires
solicited specific recommendations for research or statements of
information needs specific to the objectives and commitments in
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
b) A research conference held in Baltimore, Maryland on 29-31 March
1988 which reviewed our understanding of estuarine processes in
several areas critical to the Bay management efforts.
In addition, many institutions provided documents on detailed research
needs, research plans, and management issues. Committee members reviewed
these and other published statements of research needs and research plans
developed for Chesapeake Bay and other estuarine and coastal areas.
The responses to the questionnaires were reviewed by the Committee and
compiled into a statement of specific research needs related to specific
objectives and commitments of the 1987 Bay Agreement. These research
specific questions were also reviewed to develop more generic questions
related to fundamental processes.
The Committee used the results of this effort as well as insight gained
from the research conference and conference background material to develop a
draft research plan and a draft set of research priorities. After public
and agency review, the Committee met and revised the document.
•"*••
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Numerous resource managers, researchers, and interested citizens
contributed to this plan through completion of the questionnaire and review
of the first draft. Recent reports of research needs analyses such as the
"Ten Year Research Plan" (VIMS 1983), the "Six Challenges Facing the
Chesapeake Bay" (Maryland Sea Grant In Press) and "Long-Range Research Needs
for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources" (Houde 1987) provided additional
information to make the plan truly comprehensive. The STAC Research Plan
Development Committee thanks each of the individuals involved in these
activities.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESEARCH PLAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Dr. Ann Brooks
VA Council on the Environment
Mr. James Collier
DC Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Dr. William Dunstan
Old Dominion University
Alternate: Dr. Carvel Blair
Mr. Mike Haire
MD Chesapeake Bay & Special
Projects Program
Dr. Richard Jachowski
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Dr. James Johnson
DC Environmental Research Laboratory
Dr. Walmar Klassen
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Alternates: Dr. Jack Plimmer
Dr. Allan Isensee
Dr. Robert Lippson
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Dr. Maurice P. Lynch
Chesapeake Research Consortium
-------
Dr. Ian Morris
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Sciences
University of Maryland
Alternate: Dr. Wayne Bell
Dr. Kent Mountford
EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
Mr. Larry Nygren
Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation
PA Dept. of Environmental Resources
Dr. Thomas Osborn
The Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Frank 0. Perkins
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Alternate: Dr. Robert Huggett
Dr. Harriette Phelps
University of District of Columbia
Dr. Clifford Randall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dr. Louis Sage
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
Mr. Wayne Sullivan
CAC Representative
Mr. Harry Wells
EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
Staff:
Ms. Karen L. McDonald and Mr. William Reay
Chesapeake Research Consortium
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 7
Research Plan 11
Research Planning Committee 11
Annual Research Assessment and Planning Activities 11
Chesapeake Bay Research Directory 11
Chesapeake Bay Program Research Achievements 13
Research Priorities 13
Research Implementation Committee and Financial Resources 14
Additional Information Exchange 14
1988 Research Priorities 15
Short-term Research Priorities 15
Generic, Longer-term Research Priorities 16
Research Support Priorities 16
Generic. Longer-term Research Needs 19
Understanding Coastal Habitats 19
Research Needs 20
Estuarine Research Reserves 22
Understanding Water Column Processes 22
Research Needs 23
Understanding the Problem of Toxics in the Chesapeake Bay System 23
Understanding the Circulation of Water in Chesapeake Bay 24
Research Needs 25
Understanding the Genetic Variability of Chesapeake Bay Stocks 25
Research Needs 26
Understanding Watershed Processes 26
Research Needs 27
Understanding the Contribution of Groundwater to the Bay 27
Research Needs 28
Understanding the Socio-Legal-Economic Implications of Alternative 29
Management Approaches
Research Needs 29
Other Areas of Potential Research Needs 30
Conclusion 31
Bibliography 33
Literature Reviewed in Preparation of the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive 33
Research Plan
Appendices
I. Analysis of Research Needs Associated with Specific Objectives 35
and Commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay Program is the most ambitious estuarine management
program ever attempted. The success of this attempt will depend upon a
number of factors, not the least of which is a thorough understanding of the
processes affecting the Bay and its living resources.
Our present understanding of the Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries is
based upon several decades of research, much of which has been conducted by
research institutions dedicated to the study of the Chesapeake Bay and its
resources.
Our current understanding of the Bay must be tempered by the
realization that estuaries are our most complex aquatic environment.
Estuaries are neither continental freshwater systems nor oceanic marine
systems but a complex mixture or hybrid of the two. Processes that can be
clearly described or modeled in freshwater or marine systems may not
function the same way in estuaries. Processes or properties that have
temporal or spatial characteristics measured in years or hundreds of
kilometers in the oceans can change over a few hours or a few meters in the
estuary. Basic tenets of oceanography or limnology do not necessarily hold
in the estuary.
The need for additional research on the Chesapeake Bay's problems,
resources and processes is recognized by most participants in and supporters
of the Bay restoration and protection efforts. Discussions and differences,
however, frequently arise as to whether research efforts should be
principally focused on very specific issues raised by management or on
fundamental processes which would provide a broader understanding of a
number of Bay problems.
Dr. Jerry Schubel has pointed out in a recent book that estuarine
science has suffered from sociopolitical pressures to restrict research in
estuaries to "applied, relevant and responsive" programs, often without
concern for the real scientific problems within the estuaries. The
Chesapeake Bay has not escaped this constraint on scientific inquiry. The.
region is fortunate, however, that the principal research institutions have
historically been closely affiliated with institutions of higher education.
The research institutions' independence and charters have encouraged their
scientists to retain a fundamental research perspective while pursuing
management-oriented issues.
This approach to Bay research has lent continuity and insight to the
efforts to preserve and restore the Bay. For example, as early as 1960 the
Director of the Chesapeake Bay Institute put improperly treated sewage and
municipal wastes at the top of a list of Bay problems. In the early 1970's
the National Science Foundation Chesapeake Bay Study, after initiating
studies on a broad range of problems, quickly focused its efforts on two
areas, one of which was wastewater treatment and the impacts of
eutrophication. This series of studies provided the basis for selecting
nutrients as one of the major program areas of the five-year EPA Chesapeake
Bay Study. The nutrient studies conducted by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Study
provided the basis for focusing on nutrient controls in the Chesapeake Bay
7
-------
Restoration and Protection Program. Does all this research mean that we
know all there is to know in order to develop a definitive nutrient control
strategy? Nol Since the completion of the EPA study, new studies have
shown the importance of nitrogen as a limiting nutrient in estuarine waters.
It has become clear that nutrient control strategies must be firmly based on
a good understanding of the temporal and spatial role of nitrogen in
estuarine productivity.
Advances in understanding of estuarine function have primarily been
developed on a disciplinary basis, with biologists working on biological
problems, chemists working on chemical problems, etc. This approach has
provided us with a good basic understanding of some of the processes at work
in estuaries. We are fortunate in that much of what is learned in one
estuarine system has some relevance in other estuarine systems. We have,
however, determined that each estuarine system taken in its entirety has
unique characteristics that must be understood if we are to manage that
system.
To quote Dr. Schubel:
Many of the important first-order disciplinary
scientific questions on estuaries have been addressed;
few of the second-order disciplinary questions have been
considered; and almost none of the most important,
complex interdisciplinary questions that relate to the
interactions of the physical, chemical, biological and
geological processes have been studied. It is this
level of understanding which is required for effective
management. The most important estuarine questions - at
least for management - are fundamentally
interdisciplinary in character.
The second-order questions referred to by Dr. Schubel will require
comprehensive, multi-year interdisciplinary basic studies of both the entire
estuarine system and the subsystems that make up the Chesapeake Bay. The
Restoration and Protection Program that has been launched on the Chesapeake
Bay cannot, however, stay tied up at pierside waiting for all of the answers
to all of the questions before setting sail.
To resolve this dilemma we have, considered research planning in support
of the Chesapeake Bay Program to consist of two parts: consideration of
issues of immediate concern related to the specific objectives and
commitments spelled out in the 1987 Agreement; and consideration of generic
issues that require the study of the fundamental processes at work within
the estuary. We firmly believe that it is necessary to address both
specific and generic issues in developing an effective and comprehensive
research plan in support of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection
Program and more specifically the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The most important part of a comprehensive research plan for the
Chesapeake Bay is a mechanism that encourages communication between the
resource managers and the research community. This mechanism should enable
the managers to review periodically (yearly at a minimum) their immediate
short-term information needs with the principal managers of the Bay's
scientific resources (i.e., laboratory directors, academic/research
8
-------
department heads, major research program managers). The research community,
for its part, should articulate clearly the newest understandings of
estuarine and/or environmental processes and their potential relevance to
Bay management activities.
Results of this communication should be:
Identification of priority research activities with short-term
goals to provide immediate feedback to management efforts. A statement
on these needs will provide the research community with guidance in
research planning and a means of evaluating research results in terms of
Chesapeake Bay management needs.
Identification of those fundamental processes which require
attention in preparation for future management efforts. A statement on
these needs will encourage the support of the management community for
longer—term research that supports management activities in a generic
sense.
This Plan proposes a mechanism to produce these results and to provide
continuing assessment of research efforts and achievements.
J.R. Schubel, 1986. Life and Death of the Chesapeake Bay. University
of Maryland Sea Grant College. Publication (UM-SG-86-01).
Life and Death of the Chesapeake Bay, op. cit.
-------
RESEARCH FLAN
RESEARCH PLANNING COMMITTEE
We propose that the Research Plan Development Committee of the STAC be
renamed to the "Research Planning Committee" and continued as a standing
committee of the STAC and Implementation Committee (1C). This committee
will be chaired by a member of STAC and will include at least:
-one STAC representative from each jurisdiction,
-one 1C representative from a planning or management agency of each
jurisdiction,
-one Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) representative,
-one Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) representative, and
-three federal agency representatives (at least one from each of a
research and development agency and a management agency).
ANNUAL RESEARCH ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING ACTIVITIES
To accomplish its task of ensuring the continued improvement of the
scientific information base for use in Chesapeake Bay cleanup activities,
the Research Planning Committee (RPC) will develop and annually update the
following products:
1. a Chesapeake Bay research directory;
2. an assessment of the past year's Bay Program research
achievements; and
3. a list of research priorities (short-term; generic, longer-term;
and resources) and estimates of funding and resource requirements.
Overall guidance for the development of these products should be
provided by STAC and the 1C. Funding for staff support should be included
within the annual STAC budget.
Chesapeake Bay Research Directory (CBRD)
The Research Plan Development Committee (herein the "Committee")
believes that an important component of any research plan is the
identification of existing research activities. In developing the initial
draft of the comprehensive research plan, the Committee relied on the
knowledge of its members, many of whom are heads of the Bay area research
institutions. This "manual sort" of information and needs is sufficient for
a first draft, but the Committee believes a formal inventory or directory of
ongoing research projects should be established and maintained.
11
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Research Directory would list:
1. current research projects and investigators,
2. funding level and sources,
3. summary funding information (i.e. total dollars, percentage for
applied and basic research, trend information),
4. data access information, and
5. interim project products (progress reports, preliminary reports,
etc.) .
It is proposed that the following strategy and schedule for development
of the CBRD be implemented:
a. Phase 1 - System design and compilation of data (begin 1 February
1989, complete 31 January 1990):
-define purpose and scope of directory
-review previous related activities and reports
-identify user audience and estimate potential use
-identify data sources (existing research listings, individual
researchers, etc.)
-determine computer hardware and software needs
-select site for CBRD
-design CBRD system
-initiate data compilation
b. Phase 2 - Data entry (electronic and hard-copy); improvement,
testing, an'd refinement of all software and hardware methods and
equipment; development of maintenance strategy (complete by 31
January 1991):
-specific details of activities to be defined during Phase 1
c. Phase 3 - Continued acquisition, entry, maintenance of system and
liaison with users (ongoing):
-specific details of activities to be defined during Phase 2
Benefits of a CBRD are clear to both managers and scientists. The
managers will be able to rely on the directory as a resource for information
on management questions. Scientists can use the directory as a supplement
to the less formal research network to identify research activities
complimentary to proposed work, or to identify potential voids or areas of
research needs.
12
-------
The Committee supports the development and maintenance of the CBRD and
recommends that the 1C support its development and operation for at least
three years. After that time, its utility to both managers and scientists
should be reviewed and evaluated for further funding.
Chesapeake Bay Program Research Achievements
The Committee believes that the public, managers, and scientists need
periodic assessments of Chesapeake Bay research achievements if support is
to continue at needed levels. Based on its review of the Chesapeake Bay
Research Directory and independent reviews of research activities, the newly
formed Research Planning Committee (RFC) will develop a brief progress
report of the research efforts supported by the Bay Program. The report
will be presented orally on an annual basis to the Executive Council. The
Committee believes that this public accounting will reinforce public and
financial support for both applied and basic research.
The Committee also recommends that the RPC assess on an annual basis
recent advances in selected estuarine research both within and without the
Chesapeake Bay which may have direct relevance to Bay restoration and
protection efforts. This assessment should, in addition to reviewing the
scientific or technical findings, point out the management implications of
these findings.
Research Priorities
The Research Planning Committee will request each Chesapeake Bay
component (task force, subcommittee, key agency, etc.) which perceives a
need for research to review these research needs with the RPC on an annual
basis. If the information to satisfy the research need as stated by the
manager is already available, that information will be provided to the
manager. If the RPC is aware of research underway that may satisfy the
research need, it will also provide the managers with that information.
The RPC will then evaluate the remaining needs and where relevant
combine these needs into a revised statement of prioritized short-term
research needs. The RPC will also evaluate the underlying uncertainties
generating the specific questions and modify the generic, longer-term
research needs that should be addressed through fundamental, process
oriented research.
The prioritized research statements, both program specific and process
oriented, will be presented to the Implementation Committee for
consideration as part of the annual budget process. At the same time, the
RPC prioritization will be made available to the principal research
institutions and research funding agencies active in Bay research.
The annual research priority list and the assessment of the past year's
study results should be promulgated during July of each year to enable these
statements to be used in the subsequent years' program planning.
13
-------
Research Implementation Committee and Financial Resources
The Committee recommends that the 1C establish a Research
Implementation Committee (RIG) to address ways to support the priority
research. The RIC should be chaired by an 1C member and contain:
—representation from the 1C,
-representation from state legislatures [Chesapeake Bay Commission
(CBC)L
-representation from the Principal's Staff Committee,
-representation from STAC,
-representation from LGAC,
-representation from CAC, and
-representations from funding organizations.
The RIC should meet at least twice yearly to evaluate both the
resources and needs based on existing known resources. A standing
subcommittee, chaired by a member of CBC should be established to evaluate
and recommend alternative options for funding new research. While the
subcommittee is not limited in what it reviews, it could consider the
feasibility of options such as:
-regional/state bond issues
-tax check offs
-legislation to dedicate environmental fines to research
The RIC should report its findings/recommendations to the 1C annually.
Additional Information Exchange
To facilitate exchange of ideas, identification and evaluation of
needs, and utilization of research results, a biannual Research Conference
is proposed. In the interim, topical research meetings should be called to
provide for the specific needs of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program.
14
-------
1988 RESEARCH PRIORITIES
The Research Plan Development Committee's work during the past few
months has provided the basis for an initial list of 1988 short-term and
generic, longer-term research priorities which follows. It is expected that
other priority items will be added during the next few months as key
elements of the 1987 Bay Agreement are further developed. In particular, a
toxics research plan is being developed by a STAC subcommittee in parallel
with the toxics strategy. The 2020 Panel (the group of experts reviewing
population growth and impacts) was established during the spring of 1988 and
a research plan will be developed based on their deliberations. Both of
these plans will be promulgated as addenda to this research plan.
SHORT-TERM RESEARCH PRIORITIES
The initial short-term research priorities were developed from the
management oriented research needs in Appendix I:
1) Sediment/water column nutrient flux studies. These studies are
needed to support development of the Time Variable model which
will be a key element of the 1991 nutrient strategy review.
2) Evaluation of BMP effectiveness. These studies are needed to
provide guidance for continued non-point source control
strategies.
3) Analysis of existing living resources data sets. These studies
are needed to provide information for immediate use in fishery and
other living resource management programs.
4) Initiation of appropriate data collection activities to provide
data sets for use in stock assessment models. These studies are
needed to support fishery management and other living resource
management efforts.
5) Evaluation and analysis of monitoring data and techniques to
enable development of cost efficient, cost: effective monitoring to
support proposed strategies. Monitoring is necessary to track the
success of the restoration program, yet can be expensive. The Bay
monitoring program, therefore, should be subject to continuing
review for relevance and efficiency.
6) Determine physiological, cellular, subcellular, reproductive, and
other sublethal responses to toxics to provide us with techniques
suitable for supporting a toxics strategy when developed. Most
toxics management decisions are presently made on basis of
lethability data yet there is potential of minute quantities of
compounds impacting populations through chronic exposure. This
complex problem must be examined further.
15
-------
GENERIC, LONGER-TERM RESEARCH PRIORITIES
Research needs that are applicable to a wide spectrum of management
concerns are described later in this plan. In contrast to the specific
priorities listed above, these form the basis for longer term research
activities. The priorities that emerge from these generic research needs
are listed below.
1) Develop a better understanding of the circulation and mixing
processes in the Chesapeake Bay.
2) Develop better conceptual water quality models and conduct
rigorous calibration and validation of these models.
3) Determine the interactions between various trophic levels
(particularly pelagic) which appear to be implicated in the
regulation of the abundance and structure of adjacent levels.
4) Develop a comprehensive understanding of the genetic makeup of
living resources, particularly exploitable stocks in Chesapeake
Bay.
5) Develop, calibrate, and validate conceptual models of the
multitude of habitats that together make up the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem.
6) Develop an understanding of the significance of groundwater flow
and groundwater contamination to Chesapeake Bay.
7) Develop an understanding of the impacts of specific land uses
throughout the watershed on the aquatic and riparian habitats of
Chesapeake Bay.
RESEARCH SUPPORT PRIORITIES
To conduct the appropriate research it will be necessary to ensure that
the research community within the Chesapeake Region is adequately prepared
with resources. This will require investment in equipment, training, and
facilities in both the near and intermediate term.
Some specific needs that have been identified as requiring particular
attention are:
1) Advanced analytical chemical equipment particularly for
identification of organic and metallo-organic complexes.
2) Development of remote sensing and automated technologies for
providing synoptic, large area data and enumeration and
identification of information presently only obtainable through
tedious manual methods.
16
-------
3) Establishment of a system of research reserves which will provide
the research community with sites for long-term habitat focused
research that will be protected insofar as possible from immediate
threats from development.
Periodic assessment of resource needs such as these is essential due to
the rapid advances in technology. This has been the case with analytical
chemistry in the last decade.
17
-------
GENERIC. LONGER TERM RESEARCH NEEDS
An effective Chesapeake Bay Research Plan must address both the short-
term program specific information needs of the managers and the longer-term
need to improve our understanding of the Chesapeake Bay system and its
functional components. The allocation of resources between these two areas
will undoubtedly be the source of a continuing dialogue between the
management community and the research community. Yet, it is essential that
both are included in a comprehensive research strategy.
The following statements of generic, longer-term research needs were
developed by the Committee from an evaluation of the specific research needs
statements as listed in Appendix I and their experience in dealing with Bay
research and management issues. The needs may vary somewhat from year to
year as we begin to develop answers to some of the questions posed but, in
general, they will be relevant for a long period. Additions to this list
can be expected as new areas of concern emerge or as simple management
solutions are no longer viable.
UNDERSTANDING COASTAL HABITATS
Within the Chesapeake Bay system there are a number of diverse habitats
ranging from tidal freshwater wetlands to oyster reefs to mesohaline and
polyhaline marshes to beds of submerged aquatic vegetation. In addition to
these specific coastal habitats, the entire water column must be considered
as a habitat for planktonic and pelagic species. These habitats possess
unique biological, physical, and chemical characteristics which interact to
make the habitat what it is. The interactions between and among habitats
combine to provide the complex ecosystem of the Bay and tributaries.
Although much of our focus of Bay resource management is on individual
species of concern or the various materials entering the system, the
ultimate focus of management should be maintenance of healthy habitats. At
this time, however, it is not possible to manage for a healthy vigorous
habitat because we do not know what combination of biological, chemical, or
physical factors are required for a healthy habitat. Nor is it possible to
evaluate the condition of a given habitat because we have no criteria for
determining whether a habitat is in a healthy, declining, or improving
condition. (It is sometimes apparent when a habitat has collapsed, i.e.
grasses are gone, benthic populations are buried, etc.).
Bay resource managers are frequently faced with this dilemma as they
must evaluate the potential impact of diverse demands to modify habitats.
The scope of these demands may range from an individual homeowner desiring
to install a short length of bulkhead in front of a vacation cottage to a
municipality desiring to build a many thousand acre reservoir to provide
freshwater to meet demands of residential or industrial growth.
19
-------
Research Needs
To improve our understanding of these issues, a number of research
areas must be pursued.
A) Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitats.
As a result of Chesapeake Bay Program studies, some progress has
been made in our understanding of the requirements for and the recent
fluctuations of SAV habitats in the Bay The importance of SAV
habitats, particularly Zostera marina (eel grass), as nursery areas
refuges for juveniles is beginning to be quantified. This work should
be continued and expanded to other species of SAV's. Specific
attention should be focused on quantifying the importance of SAV
habitats in recruitment of commercially important species such as blue
crabs and various finfish. The value of SAV habitats in comparison to
other shallow water habitats should be assessed.
B) Emergent saline tidal marsh habitats.
An extensive literature exists on the ecology of coastal saline
tidal marshes. We have a qualitative and semiquantitative
understanding of the role of these habitats in the Bay. It is
generally accepted that the tidal marshes must be maintained in order
to maintain a viable Bay. Increasing shoreline use threatens emergent
wetlands. To accommodate legitimate shoreline use while maintaining
the present wetland habitats, mitigation measures involving
construction of new wetlands are often utilized.
Our knowledge of wetlands ecology particularly internal structure
and functional relations does not allow us to fully evaluate the
equivalency of natural marsh systems to manmade marsh systems.
Comparative studies of natural systems and manmade will provide the
information needed to fully evaluate mitigation measures.
C) Tidal freshwater habitats.
The upper reaches of the Bay and major tributaries, beyond the
limit of salt intrusion, but still under the influence of tides are
poorly known as biological systems. What is known is that these are
important spawning areas for anadromous species and nursery areas for
species spawned offshore. These regions are marked by seasonally
emergent wetlands, the function of which in the utilization, storage
and release of nutrients is poorly understood. Population growth and
developmental patterns in the Bay watershed have until recently left
these areas relatively undisturbed. Recent population increases and
new development patterns have begun to threaten these habitats both
directly and as a potential source for freshwater supplies. We must
develop conceptual and functional models of these systems to enable us
to meet the threats to their viability.
20
-------
D) Non-vegetated wetlands.
Intertidal and shoal benthic non-vegetated substrates constitute a
significant estuarine habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. Compared to other
habitats, the resource value and functional ecology of these habitats
is almost unknown. Recent studies have indicated that production
(micro-autotrophic) and metabolism (respiration) in these areas are
relatively high and may be comparable to better studied habitats such
as SAV's and tidal marshes. The resource value of these habitats
should be quantified.
E) Benthic habitats.
The presence of organisms in and on the bottom are reflective of
the type of substrate. These organisms are also modifiers of the
physical structure and stability of the bottom sediments. Benthic
organisms through their living activities can greatly influence or
control the movement of chemicals (both toxic and non-toxic) between
the overlying water column and the sediments. The fundamental
significance of benthic populations, however, pertains to energy flow
in that, like the plankton, they serve as a major link in the food web
of the Bay, passing energy from primary producers to top carnivores
(fish and crabs). The functional importance of these habitats and the
resource value of different benthic regions are major unknowns in our
understanding of the estuary.
F) Oyster reefs.
Oyster reefs are (or once were) dominant habitats within the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Many reefs have been greatly
modified by over a century of active oyster harvest. Attempts to
revitalize oyster reefs by shell planting, transplanting of seed and
other means are frequently not successful. Proposals for using
artificial substrates periodically emerge (tire chips are the most
recent candidate for reef revitalization). The functional
relationships between water quality, circulation, substrate, and reef
relief are poorly understood. This lack of understanding is a major
impediment to rehabilitation efforts.
G) Coastal and Contiguous Habitat Modification.
Habitat modifications include both small disturbances to the
natural system which, by themselves, appear to be relatively innocuous
but which in the aggregate may have significant impact, and larger
projects which, by themselves, could generate significant impacts (e.g.
extensive shore stabilization structures; dredging and dredge material
disposal; interbasin freshwater transfers; impoundments for water
supply, water power, or waterfowl management).
Managers and regulators must evaluate the potential benefits as
contrasted to losses of these modifications and attempt to minimize
21
-------
adverse impacts. Where applicable, this may require mitigation of the
losses by requiring improvements to habitats elsewhere.
Each proposed modification will, of course, require a site
specific evaluation of impacts, but there are a number of boarder
questions that require answers. Are compensation and mitigation
techniques effective? What are appropriate ratios for creating habitat
to mitigate loss of established habitat? For example how much new
habitat should be created to mitigate for loss of a mature, 50 year old
wooded swamp. Are artificial habitats such as reefs an effective
integration tool? Is dispersal of activities such as marinas a useful
approach? Or, is it better to concentrate impact in a few selected
areas?
Kstuarine Research Reserves
The states of Maryland and Virginia have initiated the establishment of
a series of estuarine research reserves in cooperation with the National
Estuarine Research Reserve Program of NOAA.
A comprehensive research reserve system would provide a protected site
within each of the functional segments of the Bay and its major tributaries.
Here long-term studies could be conducted to begin to define the functional
relationships of the various Bay habitats and to provide a basis for
determining the status of the habitats in relation to development within the
tributary watershed.
As has been previously stated, it is not possible at this time to
determine whether a habitat is healthy, declining or improving. The Bay
estuarine research reserve system when complete will at least provide us
with a series of protected sites within which a long-term habitat monitoring
program can be initiated. In the absence of established criteria and
indicator processes for determining habitat "health," the initial thrust of
a long-term habitat monitoring program will of necessity focus on research
on functional relationships.
UNDERSTANDING WATER COLUMN PROCESSES
The statement has been made that Chesapeake Bay is to a great extent a
plankton based system. The bulk of the primary production in Chesapeake Bay
is derived from phytoplankton photosynthesis and it is this production which
supports the high productivity of the Bay in terms of fish and shellfish.
Much of the primary production is consumed and cycled within the
plankton community itself. Since the plankton community constitutes both
the base of the production in the Bay and a substantial part of the aquatic
food web, many of the ecological processes in the estuary are directly
related to the chemical, biological and physical processes interacting
within the water column.
The most immediate expression of water quality changes within the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is found in the water column.
22
-------
Phytoplankton blooms, hypoxia/anoxia, increased turbidity, all result from
excess material additions (particularly nutrients) to the water column.
Research Needs
In order to understand the functional processes occurring within the
water column a number of studies must be continued.
A) Understand the biological, chemical and physical processes related to
the plankton community, particularly those which relate to inorganic
nutrient recycling, replenishment and storage (within organisms and the
bottom sediments). The importance of micro-circulation processes
(spring-neap overturns, upwelling, wind induced mixing) and the cycling
of nutrients between the water column and the bottom sediments must be
understood in order to fully evaluate future pollution control
strategies.
B) Understand the interactions among the mainstern, major tributary,
adjacent shelf, and smaller tributary water bodies and associated
communities. These adjacent water bodies (coastal shelf waters, marsh
creek waters, Eastern Shore embayments, smaller western shore
tributaries) exchange organisms, nutrients and pollutants with the Bay
system water bodies. These smaller water bodies are also those which
first receive the impact of man's activities and serve as conduits,
storage areas and modifiers of many of the additions to the system
generated by these activities.
C) Develop or acquire improved technology and methodologies for studies of
water column processes, particularly those impacting the smaller
phytoplankton (bacteria, microflagellates, etc.) which are estimated to
contribute the major portion of the primary production, yet are among
the least studied and understood portions of the phytoplankton
community. Traditional microscopic approaches to identification and
enumeration have reached the limit of their capability to assist us in
understanding these systems. A concerted effort to develop automated
identification and enumeration systems, automated sampling systems,
high resolution identification systems and the conceptual models for
evaluating the output of these new systems must be made.
UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM OF TOXICS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SYSTEM
[NOTE—The 1987 Bay Agreement calls for the development of a toxics
strategy by December 1988. A toxics workgroup of the STAC is preparing
a toxics research plan to be considered as part of this toxics
strategy.]
A toxics component of the research plan is currently being developed in
parallel with the toxics strategy and will not be presented at this time.
It is already apparent, however, that the research community must address
the critical issue of sublethal and other effects of toxics compounds. The
problem of determining the impacts or effects of toxic compounds short of
23
-------
killing the organisms is one of the key problems facing investigators
dealing with toxics.
Many chemicals are in themselves not toxic, but when assimilated into
specific organisms are modified into toxic entities. On the other hand.
some toxic compounds are detoxified by enzymatic systems of other organisms.
The question of physiological modification of toxics and the determination
of the adverse sublethal physiological effects of toxics is one which must
be addressed before an accurate assessment of the toxics problem can be
made. Such questions as toxic impacts on immune systems, reproductive
systems, growth and development, maturation, etc. must be addressed. The
ability to address these questions will depend upon the ability of
investigators to access state of the art instrumentation and methodology in
the fields of analytical chemistry and cell biology. The Chesapeake Bay
research community must ensure that such capabilities exist in the region.
UNDERSTANDING THE CIRCULATION OF WATER IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
A thorough understanding of circulation (movement of water) is a
necessary factor in our understanding of the distribution of living
resources, the movement (disposal, concentration, or transport) of toxics
and the movement of nutrients. Conceptual models of estuarine circulation,
particularly in the Chesapeake have been dominated by the elegant framework
of a two layered salinity density structure arising from freshwater
discharge overriding and entraining underlying saline water. This structure
results from a net seaward flow in the surface layer and a net landward flow
in the bottom layer, as postulated and validated by Pritchard in the 1950's.
We have come to realize that our present knowledge of the physical
processes that control mixing and circulation in Chesapeake Bay is
incomplete. Forces affecting circulation (tides, winds, solar heating,
freshwater discharge, ocean coupling) have been identified, but their real
time effects are known only in a qualitative sense. It is only in recent
years that the importance of short-term processes (time scale of a tidal
period to a month, i.e. tidal variations, long-period internal waves, cross-
bay seiching) and short period, small scale mixing processes (time scale
less than a tidal period, i.e. short period internal waves, turbulent and
boundary layer mixing) have been recognized.
The importance of a full understanding of circulation in a real time
sense is underscored by the development of advanced models for use in
management decisions. These are being developed to work in a three
dimensional, time variable mode as opposed to the traditional two
dimensional (or quasi three dimensional) steady state models.
24
-------
Research Needs
In order to improve our understanding of Chesapeake Bay circulation a
number of studies should be conducted.
A) Long—term measurements with modern remote sensing and profiling
instruments are needed. A number of new techniques such as radar
backscatter from shore stations, bottom mounted acoustic profiling
current meters, and satellite remote sensing should be used in
combination with each other to quantify the physical processes over a
wide range of time scales.
B) The function, importance and continuity of surface features such as
eddies, fronts and plumes should be examined both spatially and
temporally in context of their possible function in living resource,
nutrient and toxic transport.
C) Specific processes (anoxia, transport of planktonic larvae) should be
examined through field studies designed to capture initiation or
formation, maintenance and breakdown and other physically determinate
factors.
D) The role of wind induced mixing on productivity, concentration and
dispersal of toxics and recruitment and distribution of living
resources, should be studied. Particular emphasis should be placed on
the disruption or interruption of wind induced mixing on physical
processes driven by more predictable factors.
UNDERSTANDING THE GENETIC VARIABILITY OF CHESAPEAKE BAY STOCKS
Although the focus of management efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Program
is on the reduction of excessive introduction of various materials
(nutrients, toxics, sediments, etc.) into the waters of Chesapeake Bay, the
reason for this activity is to improve the water quality and habitat quality
to the point that living resources (particularly exploitable species) are
restored to some higher level than presently found within the Bay.
As management efforts to improve water and habitat quality begin to
have an affect, living resource intervention strategies must be developed to
exploit the improved conditions. Several intervention strategies ranging
from doing nothing and letting nature take its own course to control of
harvesting, creation of enhanced habitats, supplementing natural recruitment
with hatchery reared and released individuals to full replacement of natural
populations with domesticated populations, are possible.
In order to help choose between these strategies and to ensure that the
selected strategy or combination of strategies is successful, an
understanding of the genetic structure of the species of concern is
necessary. A living resource manager must know whether the species of
concern are genetically similar throughout its range or whether there are
25
-------
many highly differentiated subpopulations which might imply genetic
adaptation to highly localized conditions.
Research Needs
Research on the genetics of Chesapeake Bay populations needs to be
conducted on a number of fronts.
A) Present efforts to define the genetic variability and structure of
Chesapeake Bay stocks should be continued until the natural genetic
structure is clearly defined for all species of concern.
B) Genetic selection or genetic engineering should be attempted for those
species which face a specific impediment to their restoration,
rehabilitation, or survival (e.g. MSX or Perkinsus resistant oysters).
UNDERSTANDING WATERSHED PROCESSES
The watershed that funnels billions of gallons of water a day into
Chesapeake Bay represents over 90% of the land area of the Basin. This
water accumulates into less than 10% of the basin area - Chesapeake Bay.
Land based activities in the entire watershed have a direct effect on the
stream and river water delivered to the bay. Streams and rivers collect not
only water from precipitation runoff and groundwater flow, but also
dissolved and suspended particle material from the watershed. The goal of a
restored Chesapeake Bay will be achieved only with great attention applied
to managing watershed activities. Appropriate strategies based on a solid
understanding of watershed dynamics should yield significant results.
Within the watershed are a variety of geological provinces and land use
patterns. Each has a specific effect on stream water quality that usually
is transported to the bay. Urban areas that are situated on the major
rivers contribute a variety of metals and organics from non-point runoff,
combined storm sewer overflow, and groundwater intrusions. The vast
expanses of agricultural lands from which chemicals and sediment flow into
the streams, introduce changes in water quality and biology. There are
substantial shifts in land use such as reversion to forested lands or
development into housing subdivisions that affect the quality and quantity
of water flowing to the Chesapeake. It is important to assess the impact of
these land use changes on the restoration effort since this pattern of
change is expected to continue. Degraded water quality in many estuaries
and large rivers is often associated with poorly controlled land based
activities in the watershed.
26
-------
Research Needs
There are several information needs to be addressed to improve our
understanding of the role of watershed dynamics in stream and river water
quality.
A) The transport of dissolved and suspended (particulate) material within
the watershed and the ultimate fate of this material in the associated
water channel.
B) The processing of dissolved and particulate material within the
watershed by geochemical, microbial, and other biological activity.
C) The effects of various land use activities on water runoff and
groundwater recharge on water quality.
D) The role and extent of water transport and transformation (such as
nutrient cycling) within the stream channel and riparian zones extending
to the fall line.
E) The roles of different land use patterns in controlling or modifying the
effect of seasonal discharge patterns in the different tributaries.
F) The roles of different riparian zones in modifying the effect of
fluctuation in discharge.
G) Development of an accurate baywide land use map with a classification
system to specifically identify various agricultural practices (i.e. no-
till versus conventional till) and coastal habitats (i.e. coastal dunes,
swamp forest, tidal freshwater marshes).
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRIBUTION OF GROUNDWATER TO THE BAY
Groundwater movements are logically an integral part of the circulation
patterns of the Chesapeake Bay. It is probable that groundwater adds flow
to the Bay in some areas while it abstracts flow at other sites. It is also
likely that the extent of the inputs and outputs varies seasonally with
magnitude of precipitation.
The groundwater inputs become sources of both nutrients and toxicants,
but the significance of these inputs is currently unknown. In addition, the
inflowing groundwater must pass through the sediments deposited in the
specific area of inflow, and this will affect the chemical nature of those
sediments and the quantity of chemicals (nutrients, organics, and toxicants)
released from the sediments to the water column in that area. The way the
inflowing groundwater affects sediment chemical release will depend to some
extent on the past history of the groundwater, i.e. does it contain
dissolved oxygen and what is its pH? On the other hand, outflowing
groundwater should actually reduce the release of pollutants from the
sediments to the water column and result in a reduction of soluble chemicals
27
-------
in the Bay. At present, the magnitude of these events, and the areas
affected, are virtually unknown.
Many of the best management practices being considered for
implementation retard or prevent surface runoff (with associated loads of
dissolved and particulate material) from entering the Bay or tributaries.
If this dissolved or particulate material does not enter the Bay, what
happens to it? Is it metabolized or degraded through microbial or
geochemical action or does it merely get diverted to the groundwater?
Diversion of pollutants to the groundwater may not solve the Bay's problems,
it may just postpone them or create worse problems in other areas.
Research Needs
Considering the potential importance of the groundwater movements and
the need to accurately account for all sources of pollutant inputs when
formulating appropriate control strategies, studies are needed to improve
our understanding of groundwater movements and impacts. The following
studies are recommended:
A) Identification of areas of groundwater inputs and outflows within the
Chesapeake Bay, and seasonal changes in the areas affected.
B) Long-term measurements of the net groundwater inputs to the Bay, and
seasonal variations.
C) Quantification of the chemical characteristics and pollutant loads of
the groundwater inputs and outflows, and seasonal variations.
D) Investigation of the impacts of groundwater inputs and outflows on
sediment—water column pollutant interactions, and seasonal variations.
E) Investigation of methods that will potentially reduce groundwater
pollutant transport into the Bay and evaluation of BMP effects on
groundwater contamination.
F) Specific efforts are needed to comprehensively assess the current
extent and magnitude of groundwater contamination by pesticides and
mobile nutrient species (i.e. nitrates). The following goal oriented
investigations are recommended for implementation in both the short and
long-term.
1) Extensive measurement of pesticide and nitrate contamination of
groundwater in the Chesapeake Bay vicinity to enable accurate
quantification of the transport of these pollutants into the Bay
via groundwater flows.
2) Investigation of pesticide transport processes via groundwater.
3) Development of BMP's to reduce groundwater pesticide and nitrate
contamination.
28
-------
4) Development of alternative pest management practices consistent
with the goals of the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort.
5) Development of new technologies for pesticide analysis and
decontamination.
6) Development of new technologies for nitrate decontamination of
groundwater.
UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIO-LEGAL-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Determining the most effective policies to restore and preserve the Bay
demands continual coordination of research with resource management,
environmental monitoring, public education, and technology transfer. By
far, the majority of decisions related to restoration and preservation of
Chesapeake Bay will be social or political decisions. Science and
technology will provide a number of technological fixes that would enable us
to resolve a given problem. Each "fix", however, will involve different
social, legal, economic, political and environmental tradeoffs.
The full extent of these tradeoffs must eventually be understood if the
widespread social and political support for a clean Chesapeake Bay is to be
maintained.
The studies of natural scientists and engineers, therefore, must be
supplemented by and coordinated with research by political scientists, legal
scholars, social scientists, and economists. This will ensure we consider
not only the natural and physical sciences, but also the political
implications of policy planning, cultural traditions, and social values that
influence decision making.
Research Needs
The suite of research needs in the socio-legal-economic area has not
been as clearly defined as in the natural sciences because there is neither
the number of scholars in this area focusing on Chesapeake Bay problems or
as extensive a history of socio-legal-economic studies as in the natural
sciences. The attention paid to this area in the near term should be
increased. Some research areas that have been identified are:
A) Identify and, where possible, quantify demographic, social, and
economic trends within the Chesapeake watershed.
B) Define the ways in which science and policy should interact in the
context of social values, cultural heritage, and political expediency.
C) Evaluate the effectiveness of alternative methods of environmental
protection o'r management using economic criteria such as tax incentives
(e.g. tax credit or pollution taxes, licenses , etc.).
29
-------
D) Evaluate effectiveness of alternative methods of environmental
protection or management using behavioral criteria (moral persuasion,
volunteerism, etc.).
E) Evaluate effectiveness of alternative statutory or regulatory
approaches to environmental protection or management in Chesapeake Bay.
OTHER AREAS OF POTENTIAL RESEARCH NEEDS
A number of other research areas were discussed during the preparation
of this plan. Two of these areas. Toxics and Population Growth and
Development, are being addressed by other components of the Bay Program, and
addenda to this plan can be expected in the near future.
Additional research areas were identified as needing attention. Two of
these. Public Health and the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem and Non-Tidal
Wetlands, are of particular concern, and the Committee agreed that the next
plan iteration should establish research needs statements in these areas.
30
-------
CONCLUSION
Proper management of Chesapeake Bay requires a very broad information
base encompassing many kinds of information. The Chesapeake region is
fortunate that past research activities have provided us with a substantial
information base that has brought us to our present level of understanding
of the Bay's resources, processes, and problems. The Chesapeake Bay
Research Plan can be viewed as the blueprint or roadmap to provide for the
continuing improvement in the information base in an effective and timely
fashion.
31
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LITERATURE REVIEWED IN PREPARATION OF
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN
Beers, R. F. et al. 1971. The Chesapeake Bay - Report of a Research
Planning Study: A report to the National Science Foundation by The
Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science. 211 pp.
Bierman, V. 1986. Technical Information and Research Needs to Support a
National Estuarine Research Strategy. Final Report to EPA, Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection. Prepared by Charles A. Menzie and
Associates for BATTELLE, Washington, D.C.
Chesapeake Bay Program. Research Needs. Interim Report-Chapter 5, Draft 9/03
(mod 1/05/88).
Chesapeake Research Consortium. 1983. Background Papers on Chesapeake Bay
Needs in Research and Related Matters. Chesapeake Research Consortium
Publication 111. 138 pp.
Cronin, L. E. 1983. Ten Critical Questions for Chesapeake Bay in Research
and Related Matters. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication 113.
156 pp. and appendix.
Cronin, L. E. 1987. Actions Needed to Reduce Contamination Problems
Impairing Chesapeake Bay Fisheries, pp 555-566 in Contaminant Problems
and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources. Edited by S.K.
Majumdar, L.W. Hall, Jr. and H.M. Austin. The Pennsylvania Academy of
Science.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Technical Activities Matrix. A
Summary of Current Research Activities in the Chesapeake Bay Region
Addressing Research and Management Questions Related to Nutrients,
Toxicants, Land Use and Living Resources. EPA Region III. Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD
Harvey, S. E. and A. W. Zacherle. 1985. National Marine Pollution Issues—
State and Regional Perspectives, pp. 137-150 in Gambling with the
Shore. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of The Coastal
Society. October 14-17, 1984. Atlantic City, NY.
Houde, Edward D. 1987. Long-Range Research Needs for Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources. Report of a Workshop Sponsored by the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources Tidewater Administration with Support of U. S.
Department of Agriculture. Technical Series TS61-87 Center for
Environmental and Estuarine Studies of the University of Maryland, Port
Deposit, MD.
33
-------
Jaworski, N. 1987. Strategy for Marine Toxicological and Ecological
Research Including Near Coastal Waters. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, Narragansett, RI and Newport, OR.
Krantz, George E. 1987. Synopsis of the Shellfish Mortality Conference,
September 29-October 1, 1987. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Annapolis, MD. 14 pp.
Lynch, Maurice. P. and Elizabeth C. Krome. 1987. Perspectives on the
Chesapeake Bay: Advances in Estuarine Sciences. CRC Publication No.
127. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Gloucester Point, VA. 106
pp.
Magnien, Robert E. and Michael S. Haire. 1987. Monitoring for Management
Action - Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program First Biennial
Report. Maryland Office of Environmental Programs, Baltimore, MD. 62
pp.
Maryland Sea Grant College Program. 1988. Six Challenges Facing the
Chesapeake Bay—Draft. 16 pp.
Maryland Sea Grant College Program. (In Press). Maryland Sea Grant Program
Directory 1988-1989. Maryland Sea Grant College Program, College Park,
MD. 34 pp.
Simon, Raymond C. and William B. Schill. 1987. Progress Report—
Immunologic Discrimination of Striped Bass Stocks. U. S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, WV.
Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee. 1988. Restoration
of American Shad to the Susquehanna River - Annual Progress Report
1987.
VA Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. 1987. Chesapeake Bay
Research/Demonstration Project Summaries, July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1987.
VA Dept. of Conservation and Historic Resources, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation, Richmond, VA. 38 pp.
VA Institute of Marine Science. 1983. Ten Year Research Plan for the
Period July 1, 198T- June 30, 1993. School of Marine Science, VA
Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester
Point, VA. 97 pp.
34
-------
APPENDIX I
Analysis of Research Needs Associated With Specific
Objectives and Commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
Research Plan Questionnaires and coded Chesapeake Bay Agreements were
distributed Bay-wide to scientists and resource managers. Of the 350
distributed questionnaires, 28 percent were completed and returned.
Information and research need responses from the questionnaire were compiled
according to Chesapeake Bay Agreement identified category (i.e. Living
Resources, Water Quality etc.) objectives and commitments.
The compiled information and research needs were distributed to the
STAC Research Plan Committee. The Committee divided into workgroups
according to Chesapeake Bay Agreement categories. Within each workgroup the
following procedure was followed for each objective and commitment:
— inapplicable information and/or research needs were deleted or
transferred;
- closely related information and research needs were grouped, and, if
necessary, reworded;
- for each information need, it was ascertained whether a research need
had been identified to fulfill it and, if not, an appropriate
research need was written;
- closely—related research needs were grouped and, if necessary,
reworded.
These research needs, along with the coded Chesapeake Bay Agreement
objectives and commitments which they aid in fulfilling, were compiled for
review.
The results for this work are presented below. The CBA Code refers to
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement category (LR-Living Resources; WQ-Water
Quality; PC-Population Growth and Development; G-Governance; PA-Public
Access; PI—Public Information, Education and Participation) and the specific
objective or commitment ("...0..." for objective and n...C..." for
commitment). A coded copy of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987 is
attached.
-------
LIVING RESOURCES
GOAL; Provide for the restoration and protection of the living
resources, their habitats, and ecological relationships.
1) COASTAL HABITATS
CBA Code
LRO-01,02
LRC-02
GC-02
LRC-01
LRO-01
LRO-01
Research Needs
LRO-01,02
LRC-05
PGC-03,04
GO-08
GC-02
LRO-01,02
LRC-05
WQO-06
PGC-02,03
04
GO-06
GC-02
WQO-03,11
WQC-01
PGO-06
PGC-04
GC-02
Evaluate and assess the relative contribution of uplands,
riparian vegetation, wetlands, and submerged aquatic vegetation
to energy flow within the Bay system.
Determine the importance and functional roles of various coastal
habitats, vegetated and unvegetated, on the ontogeny of
commercially and ecologically important species.
Determine water quality requirements for growth and survival of
submerged aquatic vegetation in various parts of the Bay; this
should be attempted with the data base using GIS.
Determine the role of sedimentation in changing the suitability
of substrate for submerged aquatic vegetation and the role of
toxic chemicals in hindering growth and reproduction of
submerged aquatic vegetation.
Update Chesapeake Bay Watershed submerged aquatic vegetation and
wetland inventories; inventories should include non-tidal
wetlands and assess the relative "quality" of existing submerged
aquatic vegetation and wetlands.
Monitor existing and future submerged aquatic vegetation and
wetland creation projects and evaluate habitat creation as a
management tool; this includes development of economic,
logistic, and success criteria, and comparison of ecological values
of created and natural submerged aquatic vegetation and wetland
systems..
Determine the importance of wetlands to pollutant assimilation
and determine how function and assimilative capacity are altered
by point sources discharges into such systems.
-------
LRO-02 Determine the ecological value of fringe wetlands versus larger
LRC-01,05 extensive wetlands and evaluate the level of management effort
PGC-04 currently devoted to such wetlands.
GC-02
LRO-02 Determine the community structure and dynamics of the tidal-
LRC-01,05 nontidal wetland interface and evaluate the role and value of
PGC-04 nontidal wetlands and their relation to the Chesapeake Bay
GC-02 system.
LRO-02,05 Determine the response and rates of change of Chesapeake Bay
GC-02 wetland systems to natural (i.e. sea-level rise) and man-induced
(i.e. river impoundments) phenomena.
LRO-02,03 Develop the methodology to design a combined profile for dune,
LRC-01 beach, bar, and underwater mound in order to stabilize and
GC-02 protect shorelines from north-east and hurricane strength storms
at specific recurrence intervals.
-------
2) TROPHIC DYNAMICS
CBA Code Research Needs
LRC-01 Determine essential components of the planktonic and microbial
GC-02 food webs, rates of energy flow among these components, and the
ecological controls over the composition and function of these
food webs.
WQC-01 Examine the role of nutrient recycling in supporting primary
GC-02 production, considering how changes in nutrient ratios (N:Si:P)
affect the phytoplankton community profiles.
LRC-04 Identify and evaluate predator-prey relationships for
GC-02 ecologically and commercially important species.
LRO-04 Determine the relationship of freshwater inflow with impacts
LRC-01 upon habitat and trophic structure of living resources of the
GC-02 Chesapeake Bay system.
-------
3) LIVING RESOURCES PROTECTION, ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
CBA Code Research Needs
LRO-05,06 Develop yield modeling as a tool for fishery management
07 decisions; both single-species and multiple-species population
LRC-03,04 modeling should be undertaken for harvestable living resources.
LRO-05,06
07
LRC-01,02
04
GC-05
LRO-06,07
LRC-02,03
04
GC-05
LRO-06.07
LRC-02,03
04
LRO-05,07
LRC-01,02
GC-05
LRO-05,07
LRC-01,02
LRO-05,07
LRC-01,02
LRO-07
LRC-04
GC-02
LRO-06,07
LRC-03,04
Develop and test of sampling methodology and recruitment,
disease, mortality, and abundance indices in order to provide a
more accurate, comprehensive and standardized assessment of Bay-
wide finfish and shellfish stocks.
Develop better recreational and commercial fishery statistics in
order to determine their impact upon fishery stocks.
Evaluate socio-economic aspects of fisheries management within
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Develop cellular level assays (macrophage function, enzymatic
inhibition) in order to assess the degree of exposure to
environmental stress and monitor the general health of a fish
stock.
Examine the relationship between finfish/shellfish and
parasites and pathogens, including the role of environmental
conditions in affecting susceptibility of finfish/shellfish to
diseases.
Studies of finfish/shellfish relationship between survival of
all life stages (with emphaisis on early life stages) and
natural and anthropogenic factors, such as siltation,
hypoxic/anoxic conditions, toxic chemicals, salinity, and food
availabilty.
Evaluate the suitability of benthic sediments on the recruitment
of planktonic larvae of benthic organisms.
Assess the benefits and risks of developing and releasing biota
that may supplement or replace natural finfish or shellfish
populations.
-------
LRO-05,06
07
LRC-02
GC-05
LRO-06
LRC-04.06
PGC-02
LRO-06
LRC-04.06
PGC-02
LRO-01.06
LRC-04.06
PGC-02
LRO-01.02
04.06
07.08
LRC-01,04
05.06
PGC-02
LRO-01.02
04.08
LRC-01
LRO-08
LRC-01
WQC-02
Identify physiological and genetic differences among key Bay
finfish and shellfish stocks; this information should be
developed for use in fishery management plans in order to
identify stocks and maximize production and restocking efforts.
Inventory dams and other impediments Bay-wide for migratory fish
passage, and identify those impediments no longer in use that
could be breached.
Assess the effectiveness of present fish passageways and develop
more effective designs for finfish passage.
Determine the effect of low freshwater flow on the migratory
behavior of anadromous finfish. and establish minimum in-
stream flow requirements for these finfish.
Explore the relationship between freshwater inflow and the
trophic structure of living resources of the Bay system.
Determine and evaluate the effect of shoreline development, and
of various land-use practices, on the survival and recruitment
of waterfowl and wildlife on the Bay and its watershed.
Determine the effects of toxic chemicals on waterfowl
and wildlife populations of the Bay.
-------
WATER QUALITY
GOAL; Reduce and control point and non-point sources of pollution to
attain the water quality condition necessary to support the living
resources of the Bay.
1) ASSESS NUTRIENT, TOXIC MATERIAL AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STRATEGIES:
CBA Code Research Needs
WQO-03 Evaluate the effectiveness and capabilities of new and
WQC-01 alternative waste water treatment systems that improve nutrient
PGO-02,06 control by performing comprehensive, long-term demonstrations
PGC-02 (i.g., biological nutrient removal, land application of
effluent).
WQO-08 Evaluate the effectiveness and capabilities of the Industrial
WQC-02 Pre-treatment Program on reduction of metals and other
PGO-02 contaminants in sewage and sludge.
PGC-02
WQO-05,13 Evaluate and quantify the effectiveness of existing management
WQC-01,03 practices (including riparian vegetation, buffer strips, buffer
PGO-02 fringe and extensive wetlands, slit-till, no-till, etc.) on
PGC-02 reducing the movement of nutrients, agricultural chemicals,
LRO-03 sediments and other contaminants to the Bay and its tributaries
through groundwater, surface water, sediment, and atmospheric
transport, and develop management practices that maximize
reduction efficiency from a variety of land-use types.
WQC-01,03 Evaluate the effectiveness of shoreline erosion control
PGO-02 strategies (i.e., gapped and headland breakwaters) under various
PGC-02 shoreline conditions, and identify areas of high erosion where
LRO—03 such strategies should be implemented.
WQO-05 Identify, classify and prioritize, by means of available
WQC-01,03 monitoring, research, and/or modeling; the watersheds and Bay
PGO-02 areas where proven sediment and nutrient control strategies for
PGC—02 point and non—point sources should be applied.
LRO-03
-------
2) ASSESS DISCHARGE STANDARDS AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION/ENFORCEMENT:
CBA Code Research Needs
WQO-04 Develop water quality standards for pollutants that enter the
WQC-02 Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries; determination and
LRC-01 prioritization of major pollutants for control should be
accomplished by acute and chronic toxicity tests on Chesapeake
Bay and tributary biota.
WQO-04 Determine the resources and personnel necessary to enforce
compliance with water quality standards and legislation.
WQO-10 Test various emergency response methods and procedures for
minimizing water pollution from hydrocarbon and other pollutant
spills, and identify the most effective responses under various
conditions.
WQO-12 Identify legal considerations and constraints pertinent to the
protection and development of the Chesapeake Bay watershed
groundwater resources.
WQO-11 Develop of long-term assessment from maintenance dredging of
harbors and slip channels of toxics, heavy metals, nutrients,
and other contaminants returned to the water column, and
determine if detrimental effects are localized or widespread.
-------
3) ASSESS NUTRIENT AND TOXIC MATERIAL BUDGETS:
CBA Code
WQO-05
WQC-01
PGC-02
WQO-05
WQC-01
PGC-02
WQO-05.08
WQC-01.02
03.04
PGO-05
PGC-02.03
WQO-08
WQC-02
PGC-02
Research Needs
Determine with greater accuracy the land-use patterns within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, especially in regard to agricultural
classifications (i.e., no-till, conventional practice), to be
used in the Watershed Basin Model; a GIS format is suggested.
Develop on-field nutrient budgets for P and N (accounting for
plant uptake, volatilization, soil storage, surface and
subsurface flow) for a variety of soils, crops, and tillage
practices.
Examine large-scale industrial operations (logging, mining,
shipyards, etc.) and urban land-use practices affect the inputs
of nutrients, toxics, and sediments to the Bay and its
tributaries.
Identify sources of toxic material discharges within the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
WQO-05,08
12
WQC-01,02
04
PGC-02
Determine, qualitatively and quantitatively, the direct
contribution of nutrients and other contaminants from shallow
aquifers to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries under a
variety of land-use patterns.
WQO-05,08
12
WQC-01,02
PGC-02
WQO-05.08
13
WQC-01,02
PGC-02
WQO-05,13
WQC-02
PGC-02
LRC-01
Identify the magnitude and mechanisms of transport of nutrients
(natural and man-made) and agricultural chemicals to
groundwater under various application and tillage practices and
soil types.
Identify and quantify wet and dry atmospheric pollutant
contributions to the Bay and its tributaries.
Identify toxic contaminants found within the water surface
microlayer, and determine their sources, and their impacts upon
Chesapeake Bay living resources.
-------
WQO-05,08 Determine the role and the spatial and temporal variability of
infauna in mediating the flux of nutrients and toxics across the
sediment- water interface.
WQO-05,08 Determine the quantitative importance of sediment and sediment
WQC-01,03 processes in the fate and flux of toxics and nutrients within
PGC-02 the Bay and its tributaries.
WQO-05 Determine the nature and the spatial and temporal variations of
WQC-01,02 redox processes in the water column and the effect of
sedimentary nutrient regeneration on water column nutrient
distributions.
-------
3) TROPHIC RESPONSES
CBA Code Research Needs
WQC-01 Determine and evaluate the quantitative links between nutrient
LRC-01 loadings and response of primary productivity and trophic
GC-02 relationships.
WQO-08 Identify components, mechanisms, pathways and acute/chronic
WQC-02 effects of sediment-associated toxics on Chesapeake Bay biota.
LRC-01
GC-02
4) PHYSICAL PROCESSES
CBA Code Research Needs
WQC-01,02 Determine the Bay-wide circulation dynamics and stratification
03 under a variety of freshwater inflow conditions.
LRO-OA
LRC-01
GC-02
WQC-01,02 Determine and evaluate the temporal and spatial variability of
LRC-01 Bay and tributary low oxygen water and the physical and
GC-02 biological processes regulating it.
WQC-01,02 Determine in greater detail the wind stress fields and the
03 effect of their variation on circulation and mixing patterns
LRC-01 in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries..
GC-02
WQC-01,02 Evaluate and assess with greater spatial resolution the short-
03 term, high-frequency transport and mixing processes within the
LRC-01 Chesapeake Bay system.
GC-02
WQO—11 Evaluate and assess hydrodynamic mechanisms for sediment
WQC-01,02 resuspension, dispersal, and redeposition in the benthic
03 boundary layer.
LRC-01
GC-02
WQC-01,02 Quantify the exchange of materials among the Chesapeake Bay,
03 its major tributaries, and the ocean, and calculate residence
LRC-01 times for materials in the Chesapeake Bay system.
GC-02
-------
POPULATION GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Goal; Plan for and manage the adverse environmental effects of human
population growth and land development in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
CBA Code
PGO-02.03
PGC-02,04
LRO-01.02
03,04
LRC-01.05
WQC-01
PGO-02.03
PGC-04
PAO-04
LRO-01.02
03
LRC-01
04
05
WQC-01
PGO-02,03
LRC-01
WQO-04
PGO-02,06
WQO-01.03
11
PGO-02
PGO-02.06
PGC-02
WQO-05.11
WQC-01.03
PGO-02.06
LRC-01
Research Needs
Develop criteria for local government to utilize in local land
use management and planning for comprehensive land use and
preservation and enhancement of Bay and tributary water quality.
Develop criteria to identify sensitive areas and to govern the
quality of development within these areas; these criteria should
be designed for easy incorporation into local ordinances and
enforced by local governments.
Develop criteria for determining ecological carrying capacity of
coastal lands and waterways (e.g. marinas, oystering,
residential development, vessel traffic).
Identify feasible waste management alternatives for
implementation by municipalities with emphasis on source
reduction and recyling/reuse.
Examine demographics and economic development on land use as
it impacts Chesapeake Bay resources and habitats and to identify
economic growth objectives that are consistent with manageable
population growth rates and environmental protection.
Develop innovative approaches that provide incentives for
landowners to use sound land management practices.
Determine the socio-economic, legal, and political implications
of installation of best management practices in developing
areas.
-------
PGO-02,06 Identify current state policies and actions that reinforce the
concentration of population in coastal areas, as a first step
toward a better balance of coastal versus inland growth.
-------
PUBLIC ACCESS
GOAL; Promote increased opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment
of the Bay and its tributaries.
CBA Code
Research Needs
PAO-01,02 Identify, compile, and evaluate for adequacy, in a readily
PAC-01,02 accessible format, areas offering public access to and enjoyment
of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Incorporating this
information in a CIS format is recommended. Such areas should
include:
- public beaches
- public landings, docks and ramps
- points of historic and other special interests
- unusual habitats
PAO-01,02 Identify, compile, and evaluate for adequacy, in a readily
03,04 accessible format, additional potential areas for acquisition by
PAC-01 local, state, and federal government's for habitat protection
and public access to tidal shoreline areas of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries; and identify and evaluate appropriate
procedures for land aquisition by such governments.
PAO-04 Develop a strategy for increasing public knowledge of
PIO-03,04 environmentally sensitive areas and unique habitats while
providing public access to such areas in a manner conducive to
their long-term preservation.
PAC-01 Evaluate and project, by type of activity, the recreational
demand on the mainstern Chesapeake Bay and individual
tributaries, and determine how to meet the projected demand
while limiting negative environmental impacts.
PAO-02 Identify the legal, policy, and in institutional impediments to
aquaculture development geared toward commercial fisheries in
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries .
NOTES: Emphasis should be placed on increasing low impact activities
and the improving and proper managing of existing accesses and
facilities.
-------
PUBLIC INFORMATION. EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
Goal; Promote greater understanding among citizens about the Chesapeake Bay
system, the problems facing it, and policies and programs designed to
help it, and to foster individual respondsibility and stewardship of
the Bay's resources.
Goal; Provide increased opportunities for citizens to participate in
decisions and programs affecting the Bay.
CBA Code Research Needs
PIO-03 Assess the current level of public knowledge of Chesapeake
PIC-01,03 Bay resources, problems, and issues to aid in developing
education programs.
PIO-01,03 Determine and/or develop an information source to facilitate
06 regular and rapid communication of ongoing research programs and
PIC-02,03 findings within the scientific community and to the general
public, encouraging both peer review and public education.
NOTES: Increased awareness and concern among the general public about
the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources is critical for
continued protection and management. Public education and
participation is encouraged and should be supported through
increased communication processes such as educational programs,
informational literature, and input into Chesapeake Bay policy
and programs.
PIO-03.04
05
PIC-01,03
Support student assistantship and internship program which would
insure that:
graduate students pursuing research in academic and research
institutions are encouraged to work jointly with appropriate
management agencies and begin their professional life with such
agencies.
undergraduate and high-school students participating in work-
study and internship programs work on joint programs with
management agencies.
-------
GOVERNANCE
GOAL: Support and enhance the present comprehensive , coordinated
approach toward the management of the Chesapeake Bay system.
GOAL: Provide for continuity of management efforts and perpetuation of
commitments necessary to ensure long-term results.
CBA Code Research Needs
GC-02 Conduct policy research on various management issues using case
studies as a means for transferring the results (wetlands,
shoreline use, land use management impacts on water quality).
GO-05 Conduct economic studies to ensure most cost effective
PGO-01 approaches to Bay management.
GO-06 Develop a process to identify and track new activities which may
WQO-04,08 have the potential to adversely impact Chesapeake Bay water
quality and living resources.
GO-06 Establish a program which tracks socio-economic and
environmental indicators of Bay llse (possibly reinstate, with
local support, the Chesapeake Bay Assessments terminated by
NOAA).
Develop a system of protected, representative sites that would
be used for long-term habitat health and condition monitoring.
GO-08,09
LRO-01,02
08
GO-03,07
08,09
GC-02,04
05
LRO-05,06
LRC-02,03
04,05
GO-07,08
GC-02.05
LRO-01,02
05,06
LRC-01.02
03,04
05
WQO-13
Inventory all ongoing monitoring programs and identify those
which could contribute to/cooperate with the Baywide monitoring
program.
Evaluate Bay-wide monitoring program for effectiveness and
appropriateness; specifically address:
- consistency among agencies and institutions
- spatial and temporal coverage
- habitat inventory
-------
WQC-01,02
- species health and stock assessment
- appropriateness of monitoring parameters
- incorporation of new monitoring parameters (i.e., toxics,
water column respiration, phytoplankton community composition
and production, etc.)
- the ability of remote sensing and other technologies to
enhance the information obtained through the present
monitoring network (i.e., chlorophyll coverage, sediment
movement, land-use patterns, etc.)
-------
1987 CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT
FINAL DRAFT
DECEMBER 14, 1987
-------
1987 CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a resource of
worldwide significance. Its ecological, economic, and cultural
importance are felt far beyond its waters and the communities
that, line its shores. Man's use and abuse of its bounty,
however, together with the continued growth and development of
population in its watershed, have taken a toll on the Bay system.
In recent decades, the Bay has suffered serious declines in
quality and productivity.
Representing the Federal government and the States which
surround the Chesapeake Bay, we acknowledge our stake in the
resources of the Bay and accept our share of responsibility for
its current condition. We are determined that this decline will
be reversed. In response, all of our jurisdictions have embarked
on ambitious programs to protect our shared resource and restore
it to a more productive state.
In 1980, the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland estab-
lished the Chesapeake Bay Commission to coordinate interstate
planning and programs from a legislative perspective. In 1985,
Pennsylvania joined the Commission. And, in 1983, Virginia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission
formally agreed to a cooperative approach to this undertaking and
established specific mechanisms for its coordination. Since
1983, our joint commitment has carried us to new levels of
governmental cooperation and scientific understanding. It has
formed a firm base for the future success of this long-term
program. The extent and complexity of our task now call for an
expanded and refined agreement to guide our efforts toward the
twenty-first century.
Recognizing that the Chesapeake Bay's importance transcends
regional boundaries, we commit to managing the Chesapeake Bay as
an integrated ecosystem and pledge our best efforts to achieve
the goals in this" Agreement. We propose a series of objectives
that will establish a policy and institutional framework for con-
tinued cooperative efforts to restore and protect Chesapeake Bay.
We further commit to specific actions to achieve those objec-
tives. The implementation of these commitments will be reviewed
annually and additional commitments developed as needed.
-------
GOALS AND PRIORITY COMMITMENTS
This new Agreement contains Goals and Priority Commitments
for Living Resources; Water Quality; Population Growth and
Development; Public Information, Education and Participation;
Public Access; and Governance.
The parties to this 1987 Agreement are the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, representing the Federal government, the
District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Common-
wealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia (hereinafter the
"States"), and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. This Agreement may
be amended and attachments added in the future by unanimous ac-
tion of the Chesapeake Executiv Council.
-------
LIVING RESOURCES
GOAL; PROVIDE FOR THE RESTORATION AND PROTECTION OF
THE LIVING RESOURCES, THEIR HABITATS, AND ECOLOGICAL
RELATIONSHIPS.
The productivity, diversity and abundance of living
resources are the best ultimate measures of the Chesapeake Bay's
condition. These living resources are the main focus of the res-
toration and protection effort. Some species of shellfish and
finfish are of immense commercial and recreational value to man.
Others are valuable because they are part of the vast array of
plant and animal life that, makes up the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem
on which all species depend. We recognize that the entire
natural system must bevhealthy and productive. We will determine
the essential elements of habitat and environmental quality
necessary to support living resources and will see that these
conditions are attained and maintained. We will also-manage the
harvest of and monitor populations of commercially, recrea-
tionally and ecologically valuable species to ensure sustained,
viable stocks. We recognize that to be successful, these actions
must be carried out in an integrated and coordinated manner
across the whole Bay system.
OBJECTIVES;
LRO-01 o Restore, enhance, protect and manage submerged aquatic
vegetation.
LRO-02 o Protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, coastal sand dunes,
forest buffers and other shoreline and riverine systems, im-
portant to water quality and habitat.
LRO-03 o Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation
to protect Bay habitat.
o Maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to sustain es-
LRO-04 tuarine habitats, including, where appropriate, establishing
minimum in-stream flows.
o Develop compatible Bay-wide stock assessment programs.
LRO-05
o Develop Bay-wide fisheries management strategies and develop
LRO-06 complementary state programs and plans to protect and re-
store the finfish and shellfish stocks of the Bay,-espe-
cially the freshwater and estuarine spawners.
LRO-07 o Provide for the restoration of shellfish stocks in the Bay,
especially the abundance of commercially important species.
LRO-08 o Restore, enhance and protect waterfowl and wildlife.
-------
COMMITMENT: To achieve this goal we agree:
LRC-01 o by January 1988. to develop and adopt guidelines for the
protection of water quality and habitat conditions necessary
to support the liviqg.resourc.es found in the Chesapeake Bay
system, and to use t^esQ guidelines in the implementation of
water quality aqd habitat protection programs.
LRC-02 ° by July 1988, to develop, adopt, and begin to implement a
Bay-wide plan for ike- assessment of commercially, recrea-
tionally, and selected ecologically valuable species.
LRC-03 ° by July 1988, to adopt a schedule for the development of
Bay-wide resource management strategies for commercially,
recreationally and selected ecologically valuable species.
LRO04 o by July 1989, to develop, adopt and begin to implement Bay-
wide management plans for oysters, blue crabs and American
shad. Plans for other major commercially, recreationally
and ecologically valuable species should be initiated by
1990.
LRC-05 ° by Pecember 19.88, to develop and begin to implement a Bay-
wide policy for the protection of tidal and non-tidal wet-
lands.
LRC-06 ° to Provide f°r fi-ish passage at dams, and remove stream
blockages wherever necessary to restore passage for
migratory fish.
WATER QUALITY
GOAL: REDUCE AND CONTROL POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES OF
POLLUTION TO ATTAIN THE WATER QUALITY CONDITION NECES-
SARY TO SUPPORT THE LIVING RESOURCES OF THE BAY.
The improvement and maintenance of water quality are the
single most critical elements in the overall restoration and
protection of the Chesapeake Bay. Water is the medium in which
all living resources of the Bay live, and their ability to sur-
vive and flourish is directly dependent on it.
To ensure the productivity of the living resources of the
Bay, we must clearly establish the water quality conditions they
requ|ire and must then attain and maintain those conditions.
Foremost, we must improve, or maintain dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions in the Bay and Its tributaries through a continued and ex-
panded commitment to the reduction of nutrients from both point
and nonpoint sources. We must do the same for toxics and conven-
tional pollutants. To be effective, we will develop basin-wide
implementation plans for the control and reduction of pollutants
4
-------
which are based on our best understanding (including that derived
from modeling) of the Bay and its tributaries as an integrated
system.
OBJECTIVES;
WQO-Olo Provide timely construction and maintenance of public and
private sewerage facilities to assure control of pollutant
discharges.
WQOH020 Reduce the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage into Bay waters from such sources as combined sewer
overflows, leaking sewage systems, and failing septic sys-
tems.
WQO-03° Evaluate and institute, wbere appropriate, alternative
technologies for1 point source pollution control, such as
biological nutrient removal and land application of effluent
to reduce pollution loads in a cost-effective manner.
WQO-OAO Establish and enforce pollutant limitations to ensure com-
pliance with water quality laws.
WQO-050 Reduce the levels of nonpoint sources of pollution.
WQO-06O Reduce sedimentation by strengthening enforcement of exist-
ing sediment control regulations.
WQO-07o Eliminate pollutant discharges from recreational boats.
WQO-08o Identify and control toxic discharges to the Bay system,
including metals and toxic organics, to protect water
quality, aquatic resources and human health through im-
plementation and enforcement of the states' National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System permit programs and
other programs.
Reduce chlorine discharges in critical finfish and shellfish
areas.
Minimize water pollution incidents and provide adequate
response to pollutant spills.
Manage sewage sludge, dredged spoil and hazardous wastes to
protect the Bay system.
Manage groundwater to protect the water quality of the Bay.
Quantify the impacts and identify the sources of atmospheric
inputs on the Bay system.
WQO-090
WQO-lQO
WQO-11>0
WQO-120
WQO-130
COMMITMENT; To achieve this goal we agree:
WQC-Olo by July 1988, to develop, adopt, and begin implementation of
5
-------
a basin-wide strategy to equitably achieve by the year 2000
at least a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus
entering the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy
should be based on agreed-upon 1985 point source loads and
on nonpoint loads in an average rainfall year.
bv December 1991, to re-evaluate the 40 percent reduction
target based on the results of modeling, research, monitor-
ing and other information available at that time.
WQC-02 o by December 1988. to develop, adppt, and begin implementa-
tion of a basin-wide strategy to achieve a reduction of
toxics consistent with the Water Quality Act of 1987 which
will ensure protection of human health and living resources.
The strategy will cover both point and nonpoint sources,
monitoring protocols, enforcement of pretreatment regula-
tions and methods for dealing with in-place toxic sediments
where necessary.
WQC-03 0 by July 1988, to develop and adopt a basin-wide implementa-
tion strategy for the mnnaRoment and control of conventional
pollutants as required by the Water Quality Act of 1987, en-
tering the Chesapeake Bay system from point and nonpoint
sources.
WQC-04 o by July 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting
for the federal government, will develop, adopt, and begin
implementation of a strategy for the control and reduction
of point and nonpoint sources of nutrient, toxic, and con-
ventional pollution from all federal facilities.
POPULATION GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
GOAL; PLAN FOR AND MANAGE THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED.
There is a clear correlation between population growth and
associated development and environmental degradation in the
Chesapeake Bay system. Enhancing, or even maintaining, the
quality of the Bay while accommodating growth will frequently in-
volve difficult decisions and restrictions and will require con-
tinued and enhanced commitment to proper development standards.
The States and the Federal government will assert the full
measure of their authority to mitigate the potential adverse ef-
fects of continued growth.
Local jurisdictions have been delegated authority over many
decisions regarding growth and development which have both direct
and indirect effects on the Chesapeake Bay system and its living
resources. The role of local governments in the restoration and
-------
protection effort will be given proper recognition and support
through State and Federal resources.
States will engage in an active partnership with local
governments to establish policy guidelines to manage growth and
development.
OBJECTIVES;
PGO-Olo Designate a state-level office responsible for ensuring con-
sistency with this Agreement among the agencies responsible
for comprehensive oversight of development activity, includ-
ing infrastructure planning, capital budgets, land preserva-
tion, and waste management activities.
PGO-02o Provide local governments with financial and technical as-
slgtance to continue and expand their management efforts.
PGO-03o Consult with local government respresentatives in the
development of Chesapeake Bay restoration and" protect ion
plans and programs.
PGO-04° Identify and give public recognition to innovative and
otherwise- noteworthy examples of local government restora-
tion and protection-related programs..
PGO-05O Assure that government development projects meet all
vironmental requirements.
en-
PGO-06O Promote, among local, State, and federal governments, and
the private sector, the use of innovative techniques to
avoid and, where necessary, mitigate the adverse impacts of
growth.
COMMITMENT; To achieve this goal, we agree:
o to commission a panel of experts to report by December
PGC-01 1988, on anticipated ^population growth and land development
patterns in the Bay region through the year 2020, the in-
frastructure requirements necessary to serve growth and
development, environmental programs needed to improve Bay
resources while accommodating growth, alternative means of
managing and directing growth, and alternative mechanisms
for financing governmental services and environmental con-
trols. The panel of experts will consist of twelve members:
three each from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and
one each from the District of Columbia, Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
o by January 1989, to adopt development policies and
guidelines designed to reduce adverse impacts on the water
PGC-02 quality and living resources of the Bay, including minimum
best management practices for development and to coopera-
tively assist local governments in evaluating land-use and
-------
development decisions within their purview, consistent with
the policies and guidelines.
PGC-03 o to evaluate state and f-;'r>ral development projects in light
of their potential irn^ict.s on the water quality and living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay, and design and carry out
each State and Federal development project so as to serve as
a model for the private sector in terms of land use
practices.
PGC 04 ° b5f December 1988- to develop a strategy to provide incen-
tives, technical assistance and guidance to local govern-
ments to actively encourage them to incorporate protection
of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and fragile natural areas in
their land-use planning, water and sewer planning, construc-
tion, and other growth-related management processes.
PDBLIC INFORMATION, EDDCATION AND PARTICIPATION
GOAL: PK 'K GREATER DNDERSTANDING • AMONG
CITIZENS ABOUT THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SYSTEM, THE
PROBLEMS FACING IT, AND POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
DESIGNED TO HELP IT, AND TO FOSTER INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE BAY'S
RESOURCES.
GOAL: PROVIDE INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS AND PROGRAMS
AFFECTING THE BAY.
The understanding and support of the general public and in-
terests groups are essential to sustaining the long-term commit-
ment to the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay sys-
tem and its living resources. Citizens must have opportunities
to learn about that system and associated management policies and
programs and must be given opportunities to contribute ideas
about how best to manage that natural system.
OBJECTIVES:
PIO-01 o Provide timely information on; the progress of the restora-
tion program.
PIO-02 o Assure a continuing process of public input and participa-
tion in policy decisions affecting the Bay.
o Enhance Bay-oriented education opportunities to increase
PIO-03 public awareness and understanding of the Bay system.
o Provide curricula and field experiences for students.
PIO-05
PIO-04
o Promote opportunities to involve citizens directly in Bay
8
-------
-------
r
'
*c.
•a?
»•*',
*tf
v <, ^;.. ^isftS^
y°/-« ce = a
^SXsfs
ro/.
°y
to
^
t^: ac,
The
<>^0 ^^
f<:>s
icf32
^
voi;rnrotect^o su«ta • ^^ , ^
,.in«'tuton0,le" ^°a^ b^f^e0' eac^e^
te
Co
^o
an
ro
Of
Of
.0
-------
restoration efforts.
PIO-06 o. Coordinate the production and distribution of Bay informa-
tion and education materials.
COMMITMENT; To achieve these goals, we agree:
o to conduct coordinated education and information programs to
PIC-01 inform the general public, local governments, business, stu-
dents, community associations, and others of their roles,
responsibilities, and opportunities in the restoration and
protection effort, and to promote public involvement in the
management and decision-making process.
o to provide for pu,blic review and comment on all implementa-
tion plans developed pursuant to this 'agreement.
° ky March 1988, to develop state and federal cpmmunication
plans for public information, education, and participation,
and by May 1988, to develop a unified, Bay-wide communica-
tion plan.
PIC-04 ° to Promote Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts by estab-
lishing an annual Bay-wide series of Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Awareness events, to include a Governors' Cup
Fishing Tournament.,,
PUBLIC ACCESS
GOAL; PROMOTE INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC
APPRECIATION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE BAY AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES.
Interest In and commitment to the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries are greatly affected by personal contact with that
natural system. Consequently, improved opportunities for access
to the shores and waters of the system are essential if public
awareness an'd support are to be maintained and increased.
OBJECTIVES:
PAO-01 o Improve and maintain a<"> ess t o the Day including publir
beaches, parks and forestpd lands.
PAO-02 o Improve oppor tun i t i t^> for recreational and commercial fish-
ing.
PAO-03 o Secure shoreline1 a." r e ;i ^«• ro maintain open spare and provide-
opportunities for passive recreation.
-------
PAO-04 o Secure necessary acreage to protect, unique habitat and en-
vironmentally sensitive areas.
COMMITMENT; To achieve this goal we agree:
PAC-01 o to intensify our effgrts to improve and expand public access
opportunities being made available by the Federal govern-
ment, the States, and local governments, by developing a
strategy, which includes an inventory of current access op-
portunities by July 1988T which targets state and federal
actions to secure additional tidal shorefront acres by
December 1990 along the Bay and its tributaries.
PAG-02 o by December 1988, to prepare a comprehensive guide to access
facilities andthe natural resource system for the tidal
Chesapeake Bay.
GOVERNANCE
GOAL! SUPPORT AND ENHANCE THE PRESENT COMPREHENSIVE,
COOPERATIVE, AND COORDINATED APPROACH TOWARD MANAGEMENT
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SYSTEM.
GOAL; PROVIDE FOR CONTINUITY OF MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND
PERPETUATION OF COMMITMENTS NECESSARY TO ENSURE LONG-
TERM RESULTS.
The cooperation necessary to sustain an effective Chesapeake
Bay restoration and protection effort requires a formal working
arrangement involving the States and the Feder/al government.
That institutional arrangement must allow for and promote volun-
tary individual actions coordinated within a well-defined context
of the individual responsibilities and authorities of each State
and the Federal government. It must also ensure that actions
which require a concerted, Bay-wide approach be addressed in com-
mon and without duplication. One of the principal -functions of
the coordinating institution is to develop strategic plans and
oversee their implementation, based on advice from the pubTir,
from the scientific community, and from user groups.
In addition, the coordinating body must exert leadership r.o
marshal public support, and it must be accountable for progress
made under the terms of this agreement. The coordinating body
will continue to be called the Chesapeake Executive Council. The
Chesapeake Executive Council shall be comprised of the Governors,
the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Administrator of thp
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chairman of t. he
Chesapeake Bay Commission. The chairmanship of the Council shall
rotate annually as determined by the Council. The term of '-!)<•
Chairman shall be one year. The Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency shall represent the Federal government, and
10
-------
the Chairman of
members.
the Chesapeake Bay Commission shall represent its
GO-01
GO-02
GO-03
GO-04
GO-05
GO-06
GO-07
GO-08
GO-09
GC-01
OBJECTIVES;
o Continue to demonstrate strong, regional leadership by con-
vening an annual public meeting of the Chesapeake Executive
Council.
o Continue to support the Chesapeake Executive Council and
provide for technical and public policy advice by maintain-
ing strong advisory committees.
o Coordinate Bay management activities and develop and main-
tain effective mechanisms for accountability.
o The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office shall provide staff sup-
port to the Chesapeake Executive Council by providing
analyses and data management, and by generating reports re-
lated to the overall program. The Implementation Committee
shall provide guidance to the Chesapeake Ba-y Liaison Office
Director in all matters relating to support for the Council
and their supporting «_o.uini t tees, subcommittees, and work
groups including the development of all plans and other
documents associated with the Council.
o Examine the feasibility of joint funding support of the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office.
o Track and evaluate activities which may affect estuarine
water quality and resources and report at least annually.
o Develop and maintain a coordinated Chesapeake Bay data
management system.
o Continue to implement a coordinated Bay-wide monitoring sys-
tem and develop a Bay-wide living resource monitoring sys-
tem.
o Develop and implement a coordinated Bay-wide research
program.
COMMITMENT: To achieve these goals we agree:
o to develop an annual Chesapeake Bay work plan endorsed by
the Chesapeake Executive Council.
GC-02 o to continue to support Bay-wide environmental monitoring and
research to provide the technical and scientific-
information necessary to support management decisions.
GC-03 o to strengthen the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office by assigning
as appropriate, staff persons from each jurisdiction and
from participating federal agencies to assist with the torh-
1 1
-------
nical support functions of that office.
GC-04 o by July 1988t to develop and adopt a comprehensive research
plan to address the technical needs of the Chesapeake Bay
Program, to be evaluated and updated annually.
GC-05 o by July 1988. develop a Baywide monitoring plan for selected
commercially, recreationally, and ecologically valuable
species.
o by March 1988, to establish a local government advisory com-
GC-06 mittee to the Chesapeake Executive Council and charge that
committee to develop a strategy for local government par-
ticipation in the Bay program.
o to consider and review the feasibility of establishing an
GC~07 independent Chesapeake Bay Executive Board.
o by July 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting
Gc~08 for the Federal government, will develop a coordinated,
federal agency workplan which identifies specific federal
programs to be integrated into a coordinated federal effort
to support the restorai,j.uu of the Chesapeake Bay.
By this Agreement, we reaffirm our commitment to re-
store and protect the ecological integrity, productivity, and
beneficial uses of the Chesapeake Bay system. We agree to report
in January 1989 on progress made in fulfilling the commitments in
this agreement, and to consider at that time additional commit-
ments. The implementation strategies which will be developed
pursuant to this agreement will be appended as annexes, and an-
nual reports will include an accounting of progress made on each
strategy.
(Date)
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the State of Maryland
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission -
12
------- |