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

-------