903R88117     Chesapeake Executive Council
 TD
 225
 .C54
 L393
 copy 2
                Living Resources
                Monitoring Plan
            U.S. Environmental Protection
            Region III Information Resource
            Center (3PNI52)
            841 Chestnut Street
            Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Chesapeake
                       Bay
               Program
         Agreement Commitment Report
                         July 1988

-------
Living Resources Monitoring  Plan

       An Agreement Commitment Report from
           the Chesapeake Executive Council
                       U.S. Environmental Protection
                       Region III IrJo;,-nation Resource
                       Canter (3PM52)
                       841 Chsstnut Street
                       Philadelphia, PA 19107   . .\.'.\s
                   Annapolis, Maryland
                       July 1988

-------
                            ADOPTION STATEMENT
      We, the undersigned, adopt the Monitoring Plan for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, in
fulfillment of Governance Commitment Number 5 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement:

      "...by July 1988, develop a Bay-wide monitoring plan for selected commercially,
      recreationally and ecologically valuable species."

      We agree to accept the Plan as a guide to collection of the biological data necessary to meas-
ure progress towards meeting the living resources objectives set forth in the Agreement.

      We further agree to work together to implement, according to the time line set forth in the
Plan, the major recommendations of the Plan: (1) to establish a consistent and coordinated, Bay-
wide core program to monitor the productivity,  diversity,  and abundance of commercially,
recreationally, and ecologically important living resources; (2) to ensure the long term accessibility
and integrity of monitoring data, and the timely dissemination of information generated by the core
monitoring program; and (3) to permit analysis of the data for trends, correlations, and relation-
ships between water quality, habitat quality, abundance, distribution, and health of living resource
populations.

      We recognize the need to commit long-term stable financial support and human resources
to the task of monitoring Chesapeake Bay living resources for many years in the future. In addition,
we direct the Living Resources Subcommittee to work with the Monitoring Committee to prepare
an annual report addressing the progress attained in meeting the Plan's goals.
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

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 	                iv

LIST OF FIGURES	                iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	             v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 	           xi

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION	    1

Chapter II.  DATA NEEDS, EXISTING PROGRAMS, AND MONITORING
             RECOMMENDATIONS	    5
    FINFISH	    7
        SEINE SURVEYS	    8
        TRAWL SURVEYS	   10
        EARLY LIFE STAGE (EGG AND LARVAL) SURVEYS	   12
    SHELLFISH	   15
        OYSTERS	   15
        BLUE CRABS	   18
        HARD CLAMS	   19
        SOFT SHELL CLAMS	   20
        A NOTE ON SHELLFISH (EXCLUDING BLUE CRAB) LARVAE ...   22
    WILDLIFE	:	   22
        WATERFOWL	   22
        COLONIAL BIRDS	   25
        SHORE AND SEABIRDS	   27
        RAPTORS	   29
        REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS	   31
        MAMMALS	   32
    PLANT COMMUNITIES	   33
        SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION	   33
        BENTHIC ALGAE AND MACROALGAE	   36
        TIDAL WETLANDS	   37
        NON-TIDAL WETLANDS	   38
    BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES	   40
        BENTHIC INFAUNA	   40
        BENTHIC EPIFAUNA	   43
    PLANKTONIC COMMUNITIES	   45
        PICOPLANKTON	   45
        NANOPLANKTON AND  PHYTOPLANKTON	   47
        MICROZOOPLANKTON	   51
        MESOZOOPLANKTON	   52
        GELATINOUS ZOOPLANKTON	   55
    OTHER LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING	   57
        TOXICANT BODY BURDEN MONITORING	   57
        BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY MONITORING	   58
        TRIBUTARY ECOSYSTEM MONITORING	   59
    TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN .  .   59
                                   11

-------
Chapter III. DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING 	61
     DATA ENTRY, STORAGE AND SECURITY	61
     DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING  	61
     COMPUTER AND STAFF RESOURCES 	63
     RECOMMENDATIONS  	63

Chapter IV.  IMPLEMENTATION 	65
    IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY  	65
    A CORE LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PROGRAM	66
    INSTITUTIONAL AND FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS  	76

LITERATURE CITED 	79

APPENDIX A - DRAFT TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER LIVING
        RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN	81
                                   111

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.  Monitoring Recommendations, Coordinating Committees, Implementing Agencies,
         Implementation Schedule, and Estimated Costs         	 67

Table 2.  Allocation of Estimated Costs by Agency and Year        	 74

Table 3.  Target Species and Key Ecological Groups Monitored by Each Program
         Element                     	 75
                               LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.  Maryland Oyster Spat Index, Baseline and Trend          	ix

Figure 2.  Maryland Striped Bass Juvenile Index in Relation to Water
          Temperature and Rainfall during the Spawning and Larval Period    .  . . .  x

Figure 3. Map of Chesapeake Bay Showing Segmentation          	  6
                                        IV

-------
                                 EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

     The  1987  Chesapeake  Bay Agreement  set  forth  three  goals  addressed,  in  part,
through the adoption of this Plan:

0 "Provide  for  the restoration and  protection  of  the living  resources, their  habitats
and ecological relationships";

0 "Support and enhance the present comprehensive cooperative and coordinated approach
toward management of the Chesapeake Bay system";  and

0 "Provide  for  continuity  of management  efforts  and  perpetuation  of  commitments
necessary  to ensure long-term results."

     Based  upon  the  recognition  that  the  "productivity, diversity and abundance of
living  resources are  the  best ultimate  measures of the Chesapeake  Bay's condition,"
the  Agreement signatories committed to, "by July 1988, develop a Bay wide monitoring
plan  for   selected  commercially,  recreationally  and  ecologically  valuable  species".
The  Chesapeake Bay  Living  Resources Monitoring Plan establishes  the  framework  for a
Baywide long-term living resources  monitoring  program  addressing three  major objec-
tives:

I.    Document  the current status of living  resources  and their habitats in Chesapeake
     Bay.

II.   Track the abundance and distribution of living resources and the  quality  of their
     habitats over time.

III.   Examine correlations  and  relationships  between  water  quality,   habitat  quality,
     and the abundance, distribution  and integrity of living resources populations.

     The  Living Resources Monitoring Plan was  developed by a joint work  group of the
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources and Monitoring Subcommittees.  Because  of the inter-
acting  relationships between  monitoring and stock assessment of  finfish  and  shellfish
populations,  close communication and joint  membership was maintained  between the
Living Resources  Monitoring  Work  Group and  the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment
Committee, which  was responsible for the development of a Baywide  stock  assessment
plan (CBSAC  1988).

     The  Living Resources Monitoring Work Group has given the  language of the Bay
Agreement  ("selected  . .  .  species"  and  "living resources") a  broad  interpretation in
the  development of this  plan.  A  comprehensive plan,  with attention  to  all important
groups of organisms  in  the ecosystem  provided the  best  opportunity for reviewing
existing programs,  recommending further integration of Bay monitoring, and achieving
monitoring  objectives.    Tidal and   non-tidal  wetlands,  although not "species", are
included  because   of  their   great importance  as   habitats  and   regulators  of  water
quality.

     An  important criterion  applied  in  this  plan is the focus on  long-term,  baseline
monitoring  which will  provide  data   for  the  characterization  of   living  resource

-------
populations and for tracking  trends in their  abundance over time.  It  is evident also
that research  into  problems of living  resources and stock  assessment  will be  served
well by  accessible,  consistent,  long-term,  baseline  data  on the  abundance  and dis-
tribution of important species.  The Work Group  determined that short-term objectives
for biological data collection  should be addressed  in the  Chesapeake Bay Research and
Stock Assessment Plans.

     A  goal  beyond the  immediate commitment to  develop a living resources monitoring
plan is  the full integration of living  resources and  water quality monitoring within
Chesapeake Bay.  Ultimately, there will be  a comprehensive and integrated Chesapeake
Bay Monitoring Program that with both water quality and living resources  components.
The Living Resources Monitoring Plan is  a  significant  step  towards that goal.  Many
areas of  integration  between  living  resources  and water  quality   monitoring  are
identified.   Appendix A, a plan  developed for the  Tidal Potomac River, is a model of
this  kind of integration on a  regional  scale.

     The  major recommendation of this  plan is to  institute a  Bay wide,  core living
resources  monitoring program, built  upon existing  programs.   Many of the  detailed
recommendations  call for  continuation, sometimes  with modification  or   review,  of
existing programs.  New  data collection elements have been recommended in cases where
important long-term information  needs are not  being met; these  are  accompanied  by an
asterisk (*) in the list below.   A summary of the core program follows:
                                          VI

-------
FINFISH
A. Seine Surveys
B. Trawl surveys
     1.   Bay-wide  survey*   (pilot
          program at present)
     2.  Supplementary trawls (upper
          tributaries,    shallow
          waters)
C. Early Life  Stage (Egg and Larval)
     Surveys
     1.  Bay anchovy & other pelagic
          estuarine  species   (first
          tier)*
     2.   Anadromous   fish   (second
          tier)

SHELLFISH
A. Oysters
     1.  Dredged shell surveys (first
          tier)
     2.  Habitat monitoring  (second
          tier)
B. Blue crabs
     1.  Trawl  surveys
C. Hard Clams
     1.  Virginia recruitment  index*
D. Soft Clams
     1.  Benthic data review

WILDLIFE
A. Waterfowl
     1.  Annual aerial counts
B. Other birds
     1.  Annual counts

PLANT COMMUNITIES
A. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
     1.  Annual overflight program
     2.  Habitat monitoring  (second
          tier)
B. Tidal Wetlands
     1.  Biennial baseline monitoring
          (aerial or satellite)  *
     2.  Permit database
C. Non-tidal Wetlands
     1.  Biennial baseline monitoring
          (aerial or satellite)  *

BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES
A. Benthic infauna
     1.  Existing Bay-wide program
B. Benthic epifauna
         1. Oyster dredged shell surveys
            (see  SHELLFISH)
        2. Artificial substrates*

   PLANKTONIC COMMUNITIES
   A. Picoplankton
      1. Pilot monitoring study*
  B. Nanoplankton and phytoplankton
        1.  Existing  Bay-wide  program
            with improvements
   C. Microzooplankton
     1.  Existing  Bay-wide  program
           with improvements
   D. Mesozooplankton
      1.  Existing  Bay-wide   program
            with  improvements
     E. Gelatinous Zooplankton
        1.  Existing  Bay-wide  program
          with improvements

  TOXICITY AND TOXICANT BURDENS
 A.  Existing  body burden monitoring
       with improvements
   B. Develop ambient toxicity
biomonitoring program*

   ECOSYSTEM  MONITORING
  A.   Initiate  program  in  selected
       tributaries*
                                    VII

-------
     First  tier surveys are  designed  primarily  to  meet  living resources monitoring
objectives  I and  II, and second  tier surveys  to  meet objective  III.   Examples  of  the
kinds of information generated by each type  of effort are shown  in  Figures 1 and 2.

     A  second  major  recommendation  is  the  institution  of a data  management  and
reporting  system  for  living  resources monitoring  data,  building upon  the existing
facilities of  the  Chesapeake Bay Program  Computer  Center, and  the  Chesapeake  Bay
Program Data Management Plan  for Biological Data (USEPA 1987).   New resources required
to meet this recommendation are  (1) additional  staff to ensure  that monitoring  data
are entered, analyzed and reported promptly, and (2) improved methods of making  data
accessible to  the  Bay community.  The  new  staff will be assigned to appropriate  state
agencies, but will work closely  with the Chesapeake  Bay Program Computer Center staff
to ensure that all requirements for data management,  analysis and reporting  are met.

     Estimated costs of the proposed living resources  monitoring program are tabulated
in Chapter IV, which also outlines the costs of  existing programs, responsible agen-
cies  and oversight  committees, and offers suggestions for stable and  consistent means
of long-term funding.  Implementation of the plan is scheduled to occur over a two and
one-half year span beginning in  late 1988 and ending in early 1991.   The total cost of
Bay wide living  resources  monitoring  appears   large:    an  estimated  $4.01  million
annually for  complete implementation  of the  plan, a  77%  increase  over the  $2.26
million  annual cost of existing  living  resources  monitoring programs.   However,  the
cost  is a small fraction of the funds that will be required to restore the Chesapeake
Bay  to  a healthier  condition. Living resources monitoring  will be an important means
of maintaining accountability for  large-scale water quality and  habitat improvement
measures for many years  to  come.
                                          Vlll

-------
    Figure 1
      000
                         Oyster  Spat  per  Bushel
                                 in Maryland from 1939 to 1986
10
CO
\
         1939
1944
1949
1954
        1959
1964
                       1969
1974
1979
J984
                Spat Index
                      Oyster Season
                      	  Trend
                                        Baseline
                 This graph shows the value of first tier, or baseline monitoring,
                 when sustained for many years.  The annual oyster spat index for
                 Maryland has shown a significant declining trend over the entire
                 48-year period of record, in spite of several years with very
                 high indices.  Baselines, or long term averages, can be used as
                 target levels of abundance.  Deviations  from a baseline (for
                 example, three consecutive years of an  index below baseline)  can
                 be used as action levels to trigger management actions to protect
                 stocks from overharvest or  environmental threats.
                                               IX

-------
    Figure 2
                               CHOPTANK  RIVER
                                         7080-7085
kl

I

Uj
-J

Uj

3

CO
to
Q
Uj
0.
5
13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

 7

0
                ~\	1	1	T
                             <-<- RAIN  WATER TEMPERATURE ->->
                 This graph shows that the annual juvenile index for striped bass
                 in the Choptank River from 1980-1985 could be modeled as a
                 function of rainfall during the most critical larval period and
                 water  temperature during the peak of the spawning season.  Higher
                 values of the index were associated with low rainfall and high
                 temperature. Low water temperatures (< 12°C) are lethal to
                 striped bass eggs.  Intensive water quality monitoring during the
                 spawning season has shown that rainfall in the poorly-buffered
                 tidal fresh  waters of the Choptank River is associated with low
                 pH, dilution of beneficial dissolved salts, and with  toxic
                 contaminants such as dissolved aluminum and herbicides. This is
                 the kind of information that is generated by second tier
                 monitoring  programs.

-------
                                 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     The Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Monitoring Plan is the product of the Living
Resources Monitoring  Work  Group.  The participation  and  contributions of all  Work
Group members are gratefully acknowledged.  Those who took  large portions of time from
their regular duties to help with the development  of the plan include  Herbert Austin,
Richard Batiuk, Bert  Brun,  Roland Fulton, and  Steve  Jordan.  Eric  Earth and Bess
Gillelan helped to provide  detailed coordination between the development of the  Stock
Assessment and Living Resources Monitoring Plans. Harley Speir made valuable sugges-
tions  for improving the Finfish  and Shellfish sections  of the Plan.  Verna Harrison,
Chair of the Living Resources Subcommittee, and Ed Christoffers provided guidance and
support throughout  the long  process  of developing this  plan.    Finally,  the   many
constructive comments provided by public, academic, and governmental reviewers  of  the
first draft of the plan contributed greatly to its improvement.

The Living Resources Monitoring Work Group:

Dr. Stephen Jordan, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Chair1'2>^
Dr. Herbert Austin, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 1>2'^
Mr. Richard Batiuk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*'2
Dr. Denise  Breitburg,  Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia^
Mr. Bert Brun, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2
Mr. Frank Dawson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Steven Early, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Ms. Bess Gillelan, National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration^'-'
Mr. Fredrick Hoffman, Virginia State Water Control Board2
Dr. Edward Houde, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory^
Dr. Daniel Jacobs, University of Maryland, Sea Grant College  Program
Mr. Lawrence Leasner, Baltimore  Area  Regional Planning Council
Dr. Robert Magnien, Maryland Department of the Environment2
Dr. Ronald Preston, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency^
Mr. Robert Siegfried,  Virginia State Water Control Board2
Mr. Stephen Smith, D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs^
Mr. Lee Zeni, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin*'2
      Chesapeake Bay Program Living Resources Subcommittee

     2Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee

     -*NOAA Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee
                                         XI

-------
                                     CHAPTER  I
                                 INTRODUCTION

     Several thousand species  of  plants,  animals and microorganisms  live in the Ches-
apeake  Bay. These  thousands of species,  collectively, are the Bay's  living resources.
Along  with the  diversity of forms, there  is  great diversity  in size,  distribution,
function,  and  behavior.   A million-fold difference in  size  separates  the  smallest
(bacteria less than 1  micron in diameter) and  the largest  organisms (fish over a meter
in length).  Abundances may  be  in  the  millions in  a few drops of water  (bacteria) or
as low as a few hundred individuals in the entire Bay (porpoises, for example).

     Each  species has its own set of habitat  requirements or preferences.  Most have
seasonal cycles of abundance,  reproduction and metamorphosis.  Migration patterns may
range from day-night cycles of movement from deep to shallow water (plankton) to the
oceanic migration of striped bass  and other anadromous fish, which may last for years.
Some  species are  valuable  economic  resources,  while others are pests  to  desirable
species  or  to people.  Some  have enormous ecological significance and some are ap-
preciated mainly  for their rarity or beauty.

     In working toward the  goal of restoring the  abundance  and diversity  of living
resources  in the Bay,  monitoring   is  essential.   Many   of  the  actions necessary to
improve the quality  of  Bay habitats have  been identified and  are being implemented.
Regional fisheries management plans,  now under development,  have the potential for
preventing overharvest of commercial and  recreational species.   But plans  for  improv-
ing  water  quality, habitats,  and management of resources  will  always be  based  on
imperfect knowledge.   In order  to  measure progress,  it will be  essential  to maintain
the  best possible records of  resource  abundance,  distribution, diversity,  and repro-
duction.  This requirement can be met by a well-designed living  resources monitoring
program.    In addition  to  tracking  living resource  trends,  monitoring  will  gradually
improve our knowledge  of Chesapeake Bay  species, their  natural  cycles,  their habitat
needs,  and how  they respond to  human activities.   To meet  these  goals,  a living
resources  monitoring program must  be  integrated  with  biological  research,  water
quality  monitoring,  ecological modeling,  fisheries  management, and  stock assessment.
Cooperation  and coordination among agencies, programs,  jurisdictions, and disciplines
are essential.

     The Governance Section  of the  1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement commits the States
and  the Federal  government  to develop  a plan for  monitoring "selected commercially,
recreationally, and ecologically important  species of  living  resources",  by July  1988.
The  Chesapeake  Bay Program's Monitoring and Living Resources Subcommittees formed a
joint work group in November 1987 to develop the monitoring plan.  The membership of
the  Living  Resources  Monitoring  Work Group  also  includes  representatives  of the
Chesapeake Bay  Stock Assessment  Committee.

     The  work   group began  its task by defining  three  major  objectives of  living
resources monitoring:

I.    Document the current status of living resources and their  habitats in Chesapeake
Bay;

II.   Track the  abundance  and  distribution  of living resources  and  the quality  of
habitats over time; and,

                                           1

-------
III.  Examine correlations  and  relationships  between  water quality,  habitat quality,
and the abundance, distribution and integrity of living resource populations.

     The  work  group also  defined the  objectives of the Living Resources  Monitoring
Plan:

I.    Provide a framework for Baywide monitoring of living resources;

II.   Achieve  coordination and  data  compatibility among living resources, habitat, and
     water quality monitoring programs;

III. Establish biological data collection methods which will ensure data comparability
     among jurisdictions and programs;

IV.   Establish  an efficient, coordinated  system of data  management  and  reporting
     responsive to the objectives of living resources monitoring; and

V.   Review  existing  programs, identify components that should be added or  modified,
     and develop recommendations for implementation of the plan.

     To  develop a Baywide  living resources  monitoring plan  is clearly  a  formidable
task.   No  single set  of sampling  procedures  can be devised to  track the  abundance,
health,  and  reproductive  success of  all,  or  even  a  representative  subset, of  Bay
resources.   Despite  the complexity  of  this problem,  many  important  groups of Bay
species are being monitored by  some means.  Many biological sampling programs have
provided  useful  information  in estimating resource status  and trends.   These   range
from  consistent, long-term monitoring  over  large areas  of  the Bay  to  short-term,
single-site research projects.

     Traditional biological data  collection generally has not provided:
     1.    A  comprehensive  view of the health of  the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
     2.    Data  of sufficient  quality and  quantity  to discriminate long-term  trends or
          sudden changes in abundance  from the background variation in living resour-
          ces populations.
     3.    Confident estimates of true abundance;
     4.    Comparability of  data among  jurisdictions  for  species of  regional impor-
          tance;
     5.    Compatibility of  data  with results  from ongoing water quality  monitoring
          programs;
     6.    Composite  data on resources  and habitats necessary to evaluate relationships
          between living resources and their environment.
It  is  the  consensus  of the  Living Resources  and  Monitoring Subcommittees  that im-
plementation of this  comprehensive living resources monitoring  plan will go far toward
correcting these  deficiencies.

     A goal  beyond the immediate commitment to develop a living resources monitoring
plan  is the  full integration of living resources  and water quality monitoring within
Chesapeake Bay.  Ultimately, there will be  a Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program that
will include  both water quality and living resources components.  The Living Resources
Monitoring  Plan is   a  significant  step  towards  that goal.   Many areas that require

-------
 further integration  between  living resources  and water  quality monitoring  are iden-
 tified  in the plan.

     The Living  Resources  Monitoring Work Group  has given  the  language of  the  Bay
 Agreement  ("selected .  .  . species" and "living resources") a broad interpretation in
 the development of this  plan.   A comprehensive plan, giving attention to all  trophic
 levels  provides the best  opportunity  for  reviewing existing programs,  recommending
 further integration of Bay monitoring, and achieving the stated objectives.  Tidal and
 non-tidal  wetlands,  although  not "species",   are  included  because of  their  great
 importance as  habitats  and regulators of water quality.

     Another criterion applied to the development  of  this plan is the focus on long-
 term,  baseline monitoring which will  provide data  for the characterization  of living
 resource populations and for tracking trends in their abundance  over  time.   It  is
 evident that research  into problems  of living resources and  fisheries  stock  assess-
 ments  will  be served  well by accessible, consistent, long-term, baseline  data  on the
 abundance  and distribution  of important species. The  work  group  felt that short-term
 objectives  for biological  data collection should  be  addressed in the Chesapeake Bay
 Research and Stock Assessment Plans.

     The  collection of environmental  and living resources  data  for Bay  research  and
 stock assessment activities will require a degree of flexibility and responsiveness to
 new technology and   immediate  resource  management  needs  that will not always  be
 compatible  with  long-term  monitoring.    However,   these  activities  should  be  kept
 consistent .with  the objectives of  this  Plan, whenever possible, to support the  further
 development  of a  comprehensive living  resources data  base.    The Baywide  living
 resources monitoring program will, in  turn, benefit  from research  and stock  assessment
 efforts.

     Several of the  data  collection programs for finfish and  shellfish recommended in
 this plan are identical  with  stock assessment programs:  e.g., Baywide  trawl surveys,
 seining surveys  for juvenile  finfish, and  oyster  dredged-shell   surveys.     These
 programs will provide  long-term  records of abundance and diversity to meet monitoring
 objectives.   It should be  emphasized,  however, that  the objectives  of stock assessment
 and monitoring are  quite different,  and that  these  differences preclude  the  complete
 integration  of plans and  programs.  Stock assessments  are tools, developed by scien-
 tists  and used  by fishery managers,  to manage harvests and prevent overfishing.   The
consistent,   long-term   records  of abundance  required  for  monitoring  purposes  are
 useful,  but far from  complete,  elements  of  the data needs  for  stock assessments.
 Management of living  resources  populations (Chesapeake  Bay Stock Assessment, Fishery
 Management and Resource Management Plans) and governance  of the overall  Bay restora-
 tion  effort  (Living Resources Monitoring Plan) both require monitoring  of living
 resources.   The  work  group made every  attempt to  identify  and  integrate  correspon-
dences between the  two goals and to include them in the plan recommendations.  Efforts
to achieve  further  integration  will  continue  in the future, building  on the  close
communication  that has  been established between the Living  Resources and Monitoring
Subcommittees and the  Chesapeake Bay Stock  Assessment Committee.

     Two basic kinds,  or  tiers, of data collection are  recommended for living resour-
ces monitoring.   The first tier  is designed primarily to meet monitoring objectives  I
and II, and includes monitoring  that  is done  over  broad spatial (the whole  Bay) and
temporal (monthly to biennial) scales.  Over the very long-term (10  years or more), in

-------
combination  with the  Baywide  water quality  monitoring program,  these programs  will
also  serve  objective III.  The second tier addresses objective  III at  higher  resolu-
tion  in  time  (daily to monthly) and space (critical habitat areas of selected tributa-
ries).   Second  tier monitoring  has  been recommended for  selected anadromous  fish
spawning areas,  oyster habitats, and submerged aquatic vegetation  habitats.   Second
tier  programs  will  provide  information  on  associations  between water  quality  and
living resources over shorter times (3-10 years)  than  first tier programs.  The two-
tiered  approach  to living  resources monitoring  builds  on  recommendations from an
earlier  phase of the Chesapeake Bay Program (USEPA 1981)  and  subsequent experience
with the valuable information these programs provide.

     Additional recommendations for data collection programs  include: (1) the develop-
ment of standard monitoring techniques  for assessing the  toxicity of ambient waters
and  sediments to living  resources; and  (2) an "ecosystem"  monitoring  effort,  which
targets  a few  small tributaries  for  comprehensive monitoring  of water  quality and
living resources.   The latter program is intended to provide insight  into the ways in
which changes or differences  in land use, pollution control  programs, and other local
activities are associated with  changes in  abundance  and diversity of living resources
and  the structure  of the estuarine ecosystem.

     Recommendations  are  made in Chapter 3 for the development of a data management
and  reporting  system for  living resources data.   Chapter 4 contains  recommendations
for how the  program should be implemented, including timelines, costs, and suggestions
for stable,  long-term funding.

     The  Living  Resources   Monitoring Plan provides  a  framework  for  consistent,
sustained monitoring of Chesapeake Bay  living resources:   monitoring that is respon-
sive  to  the information needs of those who must manage the  Bay's habitats and  living
resources,  and to the  public, who  ultimately  will  judge the success of  efforts to
restore the Bay.

-------
                                     CHAPTER 2
 DATA NEEDS, EXISTING PROGRAMS, AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

     In this chapter,  several broadly defined groups of  organisms are considered  as
"ecosystem components":   finfish,  shellfish, wildlife, plant communities, benthic com-
munities,  and plankton.  Each  group represents a multitude of species; generally, only
the most abundant and prominent  species are  mentioned individually.   Some groups are
further divided into  subgroups.  Each  ecosystem  component is  described  briefly with
sections  on  all  the  subgroups  of  functionally  related   species.    Each subgroup's
importance and the uses of information to be gained from monitoring are  described  in
summary  form.  Existing  monitoring programs are  summarized also,  generally without
reference  to the many biological field  research efforts (all of which involve  monitor-
ing) that are under way or have been conducted in  the past.  Program deficiencies and
recommendations for correcting them are identified, primarily from the perspective  of
the monitoring  objectives  set forth in the Introduction.   Requirements for integration
of data collection  efforts  and information  exchange  between programs and monitoring
components are  identified.   Finally, a list  of important  habitat  quality  variables  is
presented  for each  component.

     Descriptions  of  existing monitoring  programs  focus  on  long-term environmental
data  collection  programs.   They are  structured to  provide general  information  on
spatial  coverage,   sampling  frequency,  and  measurement  and  collection procedures
currently  employed.  Locations  of stations are given in accordance with the Chesapeake
Bay Program's  geographical segmentation  scheme to  assist  with comparisons  between
programs  (Figure  1).   More  detailed  descriptions  of existing,  long-term monitoring
programs  are  found in the  living resources  section of the Monitoring Subcommittee's
Chesapeake Bay Basin  Monitoring Program Atlas (USEPA 1988).

     Program   deficiencies have  been  identified  through  a comparative review   of
existing living  resource  monitoring programs, the  data  they  are providing, and  an
understanding of the information  needs for managing Chesapeake Bay  living  resources
and  their  habitats.  Areas  where existing programs are  incompatible  with  those  of
other jurisdictions  and where  data necessary for management decision-making  is not
being collected are  identified as deficiencies.

     The  recommendations which follow  address each previously identified  program
deficiency.  Emphasis  has  been  placed on providing specific recommendations which can
be implemented in the form of a new or continued  data collection effort, enhancement
or expansion of existing monitoring programs, increased integration with ongoing water
quality  monitoring programs,  reviews  or  studies  of specific  technical  issues,    or
increased information exchange  between  programs.

     Areas where data collection efforts and information exchange  between existing or
proposed  monitoring  programs   can  be further integrated to meet the objectives  of
living resource monitoring are  identified in a separate section.  Specific recommenda-
tions  for  integration  between existing monitoring programs  are  provided  where pos-
sible.   When  new data  collection efforts are proposed,  planning  considerations for
integration with existing programs are outlined.

     In the final  section under each  subgroup,  a  list  of important  habitat quality
variables is presented.   The purpose  of  this section is  to  indicate  the  key habitat
parameters which should be monitored as part of a planned or existing living resources

-------
     Figure 3  Chesapeake Bay Program Segment Map
                                CB-l
                                        ET-l
                       FT-1
RET-2
     TF-5
                                        CB-8

-------
monitoring programs,  or through ongoing water quality monitoring programs at represen-
tative  temporal and spatial scales.
                                    FINFISH

     This  group  can  be subdivided  for descriptive  purposes into  anadromous fish
(marine  and estuarine  fish  that  return  to fresh  water to spawn), resident freshwater
fish,  resident   estuarine  fish,  and  marine-spawning  fish.    Important  anadromous
Chesapeake  Bay  species  include  striped bass,  white perch,  American  shad,  river
herrings,  and  yellow  perch.   Resident  freshwater species include  largemouth  bass,
bluegill,  sunfish,  and catfish.  The most abundant  resident estuarine species are bay
anchovies,  killifish,  hogchokers,  toadfish, and  silversides.     Marine-spawning fish
that use Chesapeake Bay habitats  include bluefish,  weakfish,  spot, croaker, flounder,
menhaden, eels, cobia, rays and sharks.

     Several species of  anadromous fish  traditionally have supported  large commercial
and recreational  fisheries  in Chesapeake Bay.   In recent years,  these  stocks  have
declined to the point where fisheries  have been  threatened or closed.  These declines
have  been  attributed  to a  combination  of environmental factors  and  overharvesting.
Anadromous fish  spawning  habitats are  sensitive to degradation,  and  to  that extent,
the reproductive  potential,  recruitment,  growth  and abundance of  these  species  are
indicators  of  ecosystem  health.    Climatic   variations (e.g.,   water  temperature and
streamflow) may interact with the effects of environmental  degradation.

     Freshwater resident fish also  support important fisheries.  Much of the catch is
recreational, although commercial  harvests of catfish have increased in recent years.

     Fish  that  are  year-round  residents of the  estuary,  including  the  freshwater
reaches,  experience all of their environmental exposure within Chesapeake  Bay.   They
do  not migrate to  areas where they could be exposed to exogenous contaminants or  could
depurate those  accumulated  in the Bay.  The  anchovy and silverside are important prey
for commercially  and  recreationally  important  species,  including  the striped  bass,
bluefish, and weakfish.  Killifish are  a key prey item for wading birds. The anchovy
and silverside  are important consumers  of zooplankton;  the  killifish is a detritivore
and predator of marsh organisms; the hogchoker feeds on benthic epifauna and could be
an indicator of sediment contamination.

     Marine species have  significant economic importance as   commercial  and recrea-
tional  fisheries.   Bluefish,  flounder,  and weakfish  are  climax predators  (at the top
of the food chain).  Spot and croaker are major feeders on  benthic organisms. Menhaden
filter  huge  quantities of plankton.   With the  exception of menhaden, members of this
group  tend to  accumulate the highest body  burdens of contaminants because of their
position  at  the  top of the food  chain.   Because  of their  migratory  habits, these fish
import and export contaminant loads to and from Chesapeake Bay.

     For  the purposes of this plan, finfish  are  treated  as a  unified group, because
both existing and  recommended  long-term data collection  programs generally are  gear-
oriented  (e.g.,  seine or  trawl) and capture a mix of species  from  various  subgroups,
depending  upon season and  area  sampled.   Attempts  to  segregate  finfish monitoring
programs  or recommendations by  species, habitats,  or other ecological groupings tend
to be confounded by overlaps and the lack of specificity of  the major gear types.

-------
     Much  of  the  extant  data  collection for finfish  is done to  meet specific  objec-
tives  related  to  stock assessment or  harvest  management.    These objectives often
require the flexibility to  revise methods and add or terminate studies  according to
immediate needs.   Therefore,  some existing fishery  data collection programs do  not
meet  the criteria  of  long-term consistency  or  Baywide comparability necessary  for a
living  resources monitoring program.  This section documents  only  those programs  that
reasonably can meet the Monitoring Plan's objectives.

     Harvest statistics are vital information  for  monitoring  populations of commer-
cially  and recreationally  important  species,  and  for  determining  fishing  mortality.
This fishery-dependent data  will supplement long-term fishery-independent monitoring
in meeting the objectives  of  the Monitoring Plan. The Chesapeake  Bay  Stock  Assessment
Plan (CBSAC  1988) includes  a  careful  analysis  of the means for improvement of fishery
statistics.

SEINE SURVEYS

     Beach  seine   surveys  capture  primarily  juvenile fish  that  use   shallow-water
habitats during the summer.  Although originally designed to track  the  annual  recruit-
ment  of  striped  bass to Maryland populations,  the  different jurisdictional programs
appear  to  produce  consistent,  if  not  representative, information  on  the  relative
juvenile  abundance of several species, including shad, white perch, and  herrings  and
some estuarine resident species.

Existing  Monitoring Programs

Maryland Estuarine Juvenile Finfish Survey

     This program  produces Maryland's annual juvenile index for striped bass.   Many
other species are collected and enumerated in the seine hauls.

Spatial Coverage:
     Twenty-two permanent stations have been established:   three in the upper Chesa-
peake  Bay (1  in  CB1, 1  in  CB2), three  in  the Elk  River (ET2), two in the  Sassafras
River (ET3); four in the Choptank River (ET5); four  in the Nanticoke River (ET6);  and
seven  in  the Potomac River  (TF2,  RET2, LE2).  Twenty-three  auxiliary stations (not
included in the standard juvenile index) in the Potomac, Patuxent, Choptank, Nanticoke
and Wicomico  Rivers  and  in the upper Chesapeake Bay.

Sampling  Frequency:
     Monthly from July through September.

Measurements  and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling  is performed  with  a 100  x  4  ft. haul seine  with  1/4  in. bar  mesh.
Duplicate hauls are made at 30-minute  intervals during each sampling event. Counts of
each species captured as  well as  individual  measurements  of length, sex, and  age  are
recorded for striped bass and white perch.

Virginia Juvenile Striped Bass Survey

     This survey is comparable to the Maryland Estuarine Juvenile Finfish Survey.

                                          8

-------
Spatial Coverage:
     Eighteen  fixed  stations  are  sampled:  six  in  the  James River  (TF5, RETS,  LE5);
seven in  the  York River (TF4, RET4, LE4);  and five in the Rappahannock River (TF3,
RET3, LE3).

Sampling  Frequency:
     Four sampling events from mid-July through September.

Measurements and Collection  Procedures:
     Two replicate hauls are  taken  at 30-minute intervals  with a  100 x 4 ft., 1/4 in.
bar mesh haul seine.  Counts of  species captured, as  well as  individual measurements
of length  are  recorded.

District of Columbia  Resident and Anadromous Fish Surveys

Spatial Coverage:
     Four transects on the Potomac River (TF2) and one transect on the Anacostia River
(TF2).

Sampling  Frequency:
     Monthly from May through November.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Counts of species captured as  well as individual  measurements  of  length, weight,
and sex are recorded.

Program Deficiencies

1.  Striped  bass is the  only  targeted species  in existing seining  programs;  inadequate
attention is given to other species captured.

2.  Data analysis and reporting  of results from existing seining surveys  are inade-
quate.

3.  Pennsylvania  lacks  an anadromous  fish  recruitment (i.e.,  seining)  program  com-
parable  to  the other states'  programs.    However,  until fish  passage facilities  are
constructed  at  Conowingo Dam, no recommendation will be  made for anadromous fish
except as  a part of the Shad Restoration Program.

R ecommendations

1.  Continue comparable  beach seine surveys  in Maryland, Virginia  and the  District of
Columbia.

2. Target juvenile seining surveys at a broader range of  species:   white perch,  shad,
herrings,  bay  anchovy, menhaden, and other commercially, recreationally and ecologi-
cally valuable species.  For a few species, implementation will involve only increased
effort in  data  management, analysis and reporting of the current surveys (e.g., white
perch).    By   adding stations in  specific  habitats,  consistent  data  on  additional
species can be obtained.

-------
3.  Perform  a detailed review of data from seining surveys in Maryland, Virginia  and
D.C. The review should address:  (1) within- and among-year variability and trends in
relative  abundance  for all  individual species;  (2)  variability  and  trends  in  the
number  of species captured; (3) covariation among species; and  (4) the  value of the
data in  representing  true  variations  in abundance  for  each species  and for tracking
the diversity  of  finfish in  the shallow-water  habitats  surveyed.   Prepare  a report
detailing the analytical results, recommendations for improving  the surveys  to better
represent the species  complex captured, and directions for more complete  data analysis
and reporting.

Program Integration

     Integration  of data  analysis  and  reporting  with  trawl  surveys  will  provide a
comprehensive view  of juvenile anadromous and  resident  finfish species.  Annual or
biennial  reports  should be  published as  a part  of,  or in conjunction with,  other
Baywide living resources  and water quality  monitoring reports,  such as  the  State of
the Chesapeake  Bay.   Valid application  of  long-term water  quality and plankton
monitoring  data   sets  to  investigate associations  with  juvenile finfish  recruitment
statistics will require  a review  of  water  quality  monitoring stations  to ensure that
spawning and nursery habitats are characterized.

Important Habitat Quality  Variables

     Water quality measurements  taken  in  conjunction with  seining  surveys  should
include water column profiles of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and salinity.  On a
long-term basis,  existing and recommended monitoring of water  quality,  plankton  and
aquatic plant communities will provide appropriate habitat quality information.

TRAWL SURVEYS

Existing Monitoring Programs

Chesapeake Bay Mainstem and Tributary  Pilot Trawl Program

     A Baywide  (Maryland and Virginia) trawl survey  was initiated  in  1987 as a pilot
program, with the assistance of the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee. The
primary  objective  of  this  program is  to  investigate  the usefulness  of  large-scale
trawl surveys  in  measuring  the occurrence, abundance, and  biological characteristics
of various (primarily juvenile) finfish and blue  crabs.   Although the  pilot study  has
yet to be evaluated, a Baywide trawl  program is expected to become a key  component of
a long-term monitoring and assessment program. Maryland and Virginia  have committed
to continue the trawl  program beyond the pilot phase.

Spatial Coverage:
     Mainstem Chesapeake  Bay and selected  tributaries in Maryland and  Virginia.
Stations  are  selected   randomly  within  established  strata  (depth,   substrate, Bay
segment, etc.). Some fixed stations are to be sampled in Maryland (segments CB3, CB4,
CBS,  EE3, EE2  and  others) for  comparison with  trawl data collected on  Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory cruises between 1965 and 1975.

Sampling Frequency:
     Twice a month from March through  October; monthly November through February.

                                           10

-------
Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     During  the pilot  phase (Year  1), trawl durations,  distances,  replication, and
possibly  trawl  type  will vary  as  the  sources of variation in  sampling are explored.
All finfish, shellfish, and invertebrates will  be  identified,  counted,  and measured.
Additional biological data such  as  sex and  age will be  collected for subsamples  of
selected species.

Virginia  Juvenile Finfish Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Four transects on  each  of three rivers:   the James  (TF5,  RETS, LE5), York  (TF4,
RET4, LE4), and Rappahannock (TF3, RET3,  LE3), starting at river mile 5 and continuing
up each river at 5-mile  intervals.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly from May through November.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling is performed  with  30  ft. semi-balloon trawls with 1/4 in. mesh cod  end
liners.   Counts  of  species captured  as  well  as individual measurements  of length  are
recorded.

District of Columbia Resident Fish Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Four transects on the Potomac River (TF2) and one transect on the Anacostia  River
(TF2).

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly from May through November.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     At each transect,  16 ft.  semi-balloon  trawls  are  used in the main  channel,  the
nearshore zones are electrofished, and beach seines are used  in  shore zones.  Counts
of species captured  as  well  as individual measurements of length, weight,  and age  are
recorded.

Program  Deficiencies

1.  The  Baywide trawl program, as  presently  conceived, will  not represent shallow
waters  or upper tributaries because of the large boats and gear used.

2.  Because  it  is a  pilot  program,  the  current Baywide trawl  survey  lacks standard
sampling protocols.

Recommendations

1. Continue existing Virginia and  District of Columbia tributary trawl surveys.

2.  Maryland and  Virginia  should  initiate supplementary,  generalized trawl programs
                                          11

-------
employing small boats  and gear (16  ft. trawls are suggested) for sampling shallow
waters and upper tributaries.

3.  Develop and implement  a standard set of  protocols  for the  Bay wide trawl survey, as
planned.

Program integration

     Integration  of data analysis  and  reporting  with  seining  surveys will  provide  a
rather comprehensive view  of juvenile anadromous and resident finfish species.  Annual
or  biennial reports will be published  as  a  part of, or  in conjunction  with,  other
Bay wide  living resources and  water  quality  monitoring  reports, such  as the State  of
the Chesapeake  Bay.

Important habitat quality variables

     Water quality  measurements taken in conjunction with trawl surveys should include
water column profiles of temperature, pH,  dissolved oxygen and salinity.   On  a  long-
term,  broad-scale  basis, existing  and  recommended  monitoring  of  water  quality,
plankton  and  aquatic  plant  communities  will  provide  appropriate  habitat  quality
information.

EARLY LIFE STAGE  (EGG AND LARVAL) SURVEYS

       Special  attention  has been paid in monitoring programs to the early life  stages
of  anadromous  fish, particularly striped bass.   The young  (or  pre-recruits) of  these
species  are  very susceptible to adverse  water quality conditions and  habitat degrada-
tion.  The water quality  requirements for anadromous fish  larvae are known reasonably
well through research and  hatchery  experience.   Therefore, monitoring  of  early  life
stage and water quality  in  anadromous  fish spawning  and nursery  habitats can  reveal
direct associations^ between water quality and recruitment to populations  of  important
species at the top of the  food chain.
     "* Associations  between  habitat or  water quality and  biological  observations  such
as abundance, condition,  or relative  survival  are  not proof of  cause  and effect.   In
natural  systems,  observed effects usually are associated with a variety of confounding
and  often interacting  variables.   The  concept  of  "cause",  in  fact,  has no rigorous
meaning in an environmental context.  The second tier monitoring programs recommended
in this   Plan  will  provide  information on: (1)  whether  water  quality  meets  known
tolerances during critical  seasons and over appropriate time scales; (2) the  abundance
and  apparent  survival  rates  of the critical  life  stages  of  target  species; and (3)
water quality  and climatic conditions  that are associated (correlated)  with high  or
low  rates of apparent survival.  The  ideal  of  determining "causes" of poor survival in
nature can  be approached only by comparing field  monitoring  data  with theory and
experimental  results.   Only  when both of these  types of  information  are available can
specific  factors be judged to have "caused" the success or failure of  reproduction  or
survival.

                                           12

-------
Existing Monitoring Programs

Maryland Striped Bass Early Life Stage Monitoring

Spatial Coverage:
     Stations  are selected  randomly  from  grids  covering  the  spawning  areas  of the
Choptank River system (ET4) and the upper Chesapeake Bay (CB2, CB3), Sassafras River
(ET2), and Bohemia River (ET1).  One fixed station is sampled in  the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal, near Chesapeake City.  Sampling is stratified  by depth,  and grids are
adjusted according   to isohalines (salinity gradients).

Sampling Frequency:
     Sampling is done four days each week from early April through mid-June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Mid- and bottom-water trawls with 1-meter  openings and  500  /zm liners are used in
channels and deeper water.  In shallow zones,  only the  bottom trawl is  used.  In the
upper  Bay,  plankton nets (500 m) are towed  at the  surface,  midwater  and bottom  to
supplement the collection of eggs  and newly  hatched  larvae,  which are not captured
efficiently by the   trawls.   Samples  are  preserved in  5% buffered  formalin.   Water
column profiles of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH are recorded at each
station.   In  the laboratory, samples  are  sorted, fish  eggs  and  larvae  identified  to
species  if  possible,  and  striped bass larvae are measured.  Pumped  midwater composite
samples  are  taken  at  selected  early  life stage  stations  for   water quality  analysis
(nutrients,  turbidity,  alkalinity,  Ca,  Mg,  864,  trace  metals,  herbicides,  insec-
ticides, and other organic contaminants).

Virginia Striped Bass Early Life Stage Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     York River

Sampling Frequency:
     Three sampling events per  week from April through June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling is performed with a  500  /mi  mesh,  60 cm  diameter bongo net.

Program deficiencies

1.   Striped  bass  is the  targeted  species; inadequate  attention  is  given  to  other
species captured.

2. The Maryland program does not monitor phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance and
species composition concurrently with egg and larval monitoring.

3. The District of Columbia lacks an early life stage program.

4.  Early  life stages  of bay anchovy,  an important target  species, are not routinely
monitored.

5. Data analysis and reporting of these studies are inadequate.

                                           13

-------
Recommendations

1. Continue existing early life stage monitoring programs.

2.  Extend  the sampling periods and sampling areas for high-frequency early life stage
sampling to obtain better  information on relative  abundance and survival of early  life
stages  of shad,  herrings,  white  perch  and  yellow perch  and  the  quality  of their
habitats. The increased sampling period should extend from February through mid-June.
Additional sampling areas  should  include the uppermost tidal and lower fluvial reaches
of  selected  tributaries  (currently,  the  upper  Bay,  Choptank and York  Rivers  are
monitored).    The addition  of  other  important   spawning tributaries  (Susquehanna,
Potomac, Patuxent, James,  and Rappahanock Rivers) to the program should be considered
as a part of the program review workshop recommended  below.

3.  Include  high-frequency water  quality, phytoplankton and zooplankton sampling as a
part of anadromous finfish early life  stage  programs.   Recommendations 1,  2 and 3
constitute the second  tier  monitoring program  for the  early life  stages of anadromous
fish.

4.   Include  early life stage  sampling  either  as  a part  of the Baywide  plankton
monitoring program, or in conjunction with the Baywide trawl survey, with bay anchovy
as the primary target species.

5.  Conduct a program review workshop to  evaluate existing early life stage monitoring
programs  for finfish.   Workshop participants should include members of CBSAC, the
Chesapeake  Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee, investigators from existing programs,
and representatives of  similar programs outside the  Chesapeake Bay region.

Program integration

     It will  be important to make  comparisons between high-frequency water quality and
plankton data, collected as  a part of  the anadromous  fish  early life stage programs,
with lower  frequency data collected by existing  and recommended water quality  and
plankton monitoring programs.  Because  of  the habitat  orientation of the recommended
early  life  stage  program,  information  will be  closely  linked  to  implementation  of
land-based  controls on water  and habitat quality,  especially those  affecting non-point
sources  of pollution.

     Early  life  stage  monitoring  is  related  closely to  the  Recruitment  Processes
component of the Chesapeake Bay Stock  Assessment Plan (CBSAC 1988).  Monitoring of egg
and  larval  abundances at  appropriate  frequency  (daily)  during  spawning  seasons,  in
combination with  high frequency environmental monitoring,  will  provide multiple-year
time series data of great value to recruitment processes research.

Habitat  quality variables

     Temperature,  pH, dissolved  oxygen,  salinity, alkalinity,  hardness  (Ca,  Mg),
turbidity  (total  suspended  solids),  nutrients  (especially  NC>3,  NC>2,   NH3,   PC>4),
pesticides (especially   herbicides),  trace  metals,  river  flow,  rainfall,  microzooplank-
ton and mesozooplankton species composition and abundance.
                                          14

-------
                                     SHELLFISH
OYSTERS

     Oysters traditionally have  been the Bay's most valuable living  resource in terms
of dockside value,  economic multiplier values, and as  a  key component of the  ecosys-
tem.   Oysters  are  also  sensitive  environmental  indicators  in that they  filter  large
volumes  of water,  concentrate  contaminants, and  show rapid responses to  fluctuations
in temperature  and salinity.  Oyster populations have  declined severely in response to
a combination  of  disease,  poor recruitment, and  harvest  pressure.  Changes in food
quality and  increased hypoxia  also  are  thought to have  had negative influences  on
oyster health and survival.

     Spat  are  juvenile  oysters  that have  attached to  another  oyster  shell or  some
other hard substrate.  Annual spat  counts  have  served as  indices of recruitment from
which future  harvests  have  been  predicted.   Spatfall  (counts  of  spat  that  have
settled,  or  attached,  during a summer's  spawning  season) has  been monitored  in
Virginia  since 1946 and in Maryland since 1939.

Existing  Monitoring Programs

Virginia  Oyster Spat Survey Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Forty-three stations located in  the James (LE5), York (LE4), Rappahanock (LE3),
Great Wicomico (CBS), and Potomac (LE2) rivers, Mobjack Bay (WE4), and Pocomoke Sound
(EE3).

Sampling Frequency:
     Weekly, from June to October.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling  is  performed  by  collection  and replacement of  twelve oyster shells
previously  suspended 20  inches  above the bottom.  Ten shells are examined under lOx-
15x  magnification;  only  the smooth  side  (upper,  or  left valve)  of the  oyster is
examined.  Counts of spat on each shell  are recorded.

Virginia  Spring  and Fall Oyster  Bar Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Twenty-six stations  at oyster  bars  located  in  the  James  (LE5),  York  (LE4),
Rappahanock (LE3), and Great Wicomico (CB5) Rivers, Mobjack Bay (WE4), and Pocomoke
Sound (EE3).

Sampling Frequency:
     Twice yearly, in May and October.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling is performed by  5-minute  dredge  hauls  at each station.  Counts of spat,
small and market-sized oysters  are  made, condition of the bars  is estimated, and the
presence   of   predators  (e.g.,   oyster  drills,  starfish,  flatworms,  mud  crabs,  blue
crabs) are recorded.
                                          15

-------
Virginia Oyster  Disease Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Various  public  oyster  bars  located  throughout the  Virginia  tributaries  of  the
Chesapeake  Bay are sampled, primarily in the James (LE5) and Rappanhannock (LE3)
rivers.
Also, trays  of oysters are maintained in the York River  at the Virginia Institute of
Marine  Studies for periodic disease analysis.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly  from May through November.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Samples of 25 oysters  are collected by  dredging, returned to the laboratory, sec-
tioned,  stained and examined for  evidence of disease. Percent occurrence of Dermo  and
MSX in oyster tissue is recorded.

Maryland Fall Oyster  Survey

     Fifty-three key  bars equally  distributed throughout  the  major oyster-producing
river  systems and mainstem  of the Maryland  portion of the Chesapeake Bay (CBS, CB4,
CBS), Chester River (ET4), Eastern Bay (EE1), Choptank River (EE2, ET5), Tangier  and
Pocomoke Sounds (EE3), Wicomico River (ET7), Manokin River (ET8) and the lower Potomac
River (LE2).  Observations are made on 200 to 600 additional oyster bars.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually in October.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     A  random  sample of oysters is taken from each location with either patent tongs
or a dredge.  A one-half bushel sample is sorted  to determine the  number  of  market
oysters,  smaller oysters,  oyster  spat,  shell,  recent mortality,  new and  old  "boxes"
(empty  shells  of dead oysters),  and oyster condition.  Observations also are made on
the  fouling community   (barnacles, mussels, anemones,  tunicates,   etc.)  that  inhabits
oyster shells.

Maryland Choptank River Intensive Oyster  Habitat Monitoring

Spatial Coverage:
     Four oyster bars in the lower Choptank River (EE2, ET5).

Sampling Frequency:
     Weekly from  June through September, monthly from  October through May.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     A  sample of 60 oysters  is  obtained with a small dredge at each bar.  Counts are
made of live  oysters, recent mortalities, new and old boxes in market and  sub-market
categories.    Numbers of live and dead  spat  (those  visible  to the  naked eye)  are
recorded.  Relative abundance and viability  of fouling  organisms  (barnacles,  mussels,
tunicates and  anemones)  are recorded from  a subsample of ten live oysters.  Samples
for  analysis  of  disease  prevalence  are  taken  a  few  times  each year. Profiles of
                                          16

-------
temperature, salinity,  pH, and dissolved oxygen are measured  at  each bar,  along  with
Secchi disk readings.

Program Deficiencies

1.  Maryland and Virginia's annual dredged  shell surveys appear to collect comparable
data on  spatfall,  oyster size,  and mortality,  except  that  Maryland  does  not repeat  the
fall survey in the  spring.

2.  Absolute or  relative  abundance and biomass  estimates are not obtained  from  the
Maryland and Virginia annual  surveys.

3.  Maryland has no established  program  comparable  to  the Virginia spat-on-string
program.

4.  Data on  relative  abundance of oyster size  classes,  condition  indices,  and  fouling
communities collected  in Maryland are rarely, if ever, reported.

5.  Disease and condition assessment programs  have not been  accorded  adequate prior-
ity, given  the importance  of oyster  diseases  (MSX, Dermo) as  sources of mortality and
poor condition.

6.  Survival  of  spat on  bottom cultch,  a   major determinant  of recruitment to  the
fishery, is not monitored in Maryland except on a few seed bars.

7.  The  Choptank intensive  monitoring  program  does not include  (1) rigorous  spat
counts;  (2)  measurements  of  important  water  quality variables  (nutrients,  chloro-
phyll); (3) oyster  condition   measurements.   This program  is  limited to one  tributary.
There is no comparable program in Virginia.

Recommendations

1.  Maintain  annual  dredged  shell surveys as the  core  of an oyster abundance, condi-
tion, recruitment,  fouling organism, and disease monitoring program.

2.   Maryland  should improve  its estimates of  all  the variables listed   above,  and
comparability with Virginia  data,  by  repeating  its  fall survey   in the  spring (late
April or  early  May).   This  approach  would provide Maryland  with estimates  of spat
survival,  a  better recruitment index,  and an independent annual  estimate of  harvest
mortality.

3.   Estimates  of  relative  abundance should  be  reported  as  catch-per-effort for
standard  dredge  or  patent tong  samples.    An  effort should  be made  to  calibrate
sampling procedures so that estimates of absolute abundance can  be obtained.

4.  The Choptank intensive  monitoring  program should serve as a model  for second tier
monitoring  of oyster  survival, condition and health  in relation  to habitat conditions.
Another  tributary  in  Maryland,  and one  or two selected  oyster  habitats  in Virginia
should be monitored similarly.   The Patuxent River would provide a contrasting habitat
to the  Choptank.  In  Virginia, selected oyster bars should be chosen in  the  lower  York
(LE4) and James  (LE5)  Rivers for intensive   monitoring.  Rigorous  spat  counts,  condi-
tion indices, and monitoring of nutrients and  chlorophyll a should be performed

                                           17

-------
in addition to  the  current methods.   This program  should  also include counts of spat
on suspended shell comparable to Virginia's.

Program Integration

     There is  a  strong interdependence  between oyster populations, water  quality,  and
phytoplankton  populations.  Current  water quality and plankton monitoring programs, in
conjunction  with recommended  first tier  oyster monitoring, are adequate  for analysis
of long-term  trends  and correlations.    Integration  is  needed  primarily  in  reporting.
Oyster monitoring data must be reported annually, and integrated into Baywide monitor-
ing  reports  (State  of the Chesapeake Bay).    The  recommendations for a  second tier
monitoring  program address shorter term needs  for  examining  associations  between
oyster success and water quality.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Temperature,  salinity, dissolved oxygen, phytoplankton  (blooms,  species, and  size
composition), chlorophyll a, ammonia, nitrate, phosphate, paniculate carbon,  nitrogen
and  phosphorus,  toxicants (e.g.,  chlorine, TBT),  sediment oxygen  demand and nutrient
flux.

BLUE CRABS

     Blue -crabs have  supplanted failing  oyster populations  as the  Bay's  most important
economic resource.   They  are  ubiquitous throughout all but the freshest  tidal waters
of the  Chesapeake and  its  tributaries.    Although  stocks appear to be healthy,  in-
creased   harvest  pressure may  be  threatening  their  status.    Blue  crabs  are   also
ecologically important. Juvenile blue  crabs  provide  a forage  base  for many species of
fish.   Blue  crabs  are important  predators  of  oysters  and  clams and also  may  be
ecologically important as scavengers.

Existing  Monitoring Programs

Maryland Blue Crab Stock Assessment

Spatial Coverage:
     Fifty-four  stations  located  in  the Chester  (6  stations  in  ET4), Choptank (6
stations  in EE2 and ET5), Patuxent (6 stations in TF1,  RET1, and  LEI)  Rivers, Tangier
and Pocomoke Sounds  (22 stations in EE3), and Eastern Bay (6  stations in EE1).

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly from May through October.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling  is  performed with a 16-ft. headrope  bottom trawl  towed at four knots for
six  minutes.     Catch  per  trawl  by  size, sex and age  of blue crabs  and all finfish
captured is recorded.
                                           18

-------
Virginia Juvenile Blue  Crab Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Four trawl sites each on the James (TF5, RETS, LE5), York (TF4, RET4, LE4), and
Rappahannock (TF3, RETS, LE3) Rivers, starting at Mile 5 on each river and continuing
upriver at 5 mile intervals.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly from May through October.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling  is performed with a 30-ft.  semi-balloon bottom trawl.  Counts of blue
crabs captured are recorded by size and sex.

Program Deficiencies

1. A reliable recruitment index, comparable between states, is needed.

2.  No  fishery independent data are collected from the Chesapeake's mainstem, where a
large proportion of the  catch is taken.

Recommendations

1.   Gear,  sampling frequencies,  and spatial  coverage will  be  made comparable in
Virginia and Maryland  as a part of the development of the Baywide trawl program.

2.  The existing trawl  programs for blue crabs in Maryland and Virginia, with  appro-
priate modifications, appear to  be candidates  for integration into the Baywide trawl
programs.  This should  be evaluated as a part of the pilot trawl program review.

Program Integration

     Trawl  sampling will  be integrated  directly  with  finfish trawl programs.   Con-
tinued monitoring of submerged aquatic vegetation  will provide some, but  not  defini-
tive,  information on the quantity and quality of juvenile habitats.  Benthic  monitor-
ing  can provide information on food  availability.   Limitation of  benthic  infaunal
habitats  by  low dissolved oxygen is an indicator of limitation of  blue  crab distribu-
tion  by dissolved oxygen.   Baywide abundance and  recruitment estimates for  blue crabs
should  be  reported annually,  and  integrated  with  other Baywide monitoring  reports
(State of the Chesapeake Bay).

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Temperature,  dissolved oxygen,  salinity,  pesticides,  factors  affecting  submerged
aquatic  vegetation (see PLANT COMMUNITIES), benthic infauna and epifauna.

HARD CLAMS

     Hard clam stocks  in Chesapeake Bay  are largely limited to Virginia waters.  The
ecological importance   of  this  species as  a filter-feeder  is  similar  to  that of  the
oyster where population densities are high.  Burrowing activity also affects  sediment
properties such as grain size, oxygenation, and nutrient  cycling.  Commercial  demand in

                                           19

-------
Virginia exceeds harvest capabilities  so there is  a potential for greater harvests in
the future.

Existing Monitoring Programs

     There is no systematic monitoring, except for landings data.

Program Deficiencies

     There is no fishery independent  data collection at present.

Recommendations

1.  Virginia  should develop a monitoring program which can produce  an annual recruit-
ment index  for  hard clams.  Stations should be chosen at random within important  clam
habitat  and  harvesting areas  and sampled  during the spring and  fall with appropriate
gear (dredge or tongs).

Program Integration

     Recruitment indices should be  coordinated  with recruitment information for other
species  of  finfish  and shellfish.    An  information link  should be established  with
water  quality  monitoring  programs.   Because the  hard  clam  is  a  target  species,
recruitment  should be reported annually in  conjunction  with other Bay living resources
and water quality data.

Important Habitat Quality  Variables

     Temperature,  salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity  and sedimentation, phytoplank-
ton in 3-35  /«n size range, factors  affecting submerged aquatic  vegetation (see  PLANT
COMMUNITIES), toxicants.

SOFT SHELL CLAMS

     The  soft shell clam  is a  northern species; commercially valuable populations are
limited to Maryland waters in Chesapeake  Bay.   Soft shell clam populations in Maryland
have  suffered  at  times  from  overfishing  and  low  salinity.   The   larvae are  free-
swimming.   After  settlement,  the  clams burrow into  the sediment,  leaving  only their
siphons  above the sediment surface where they pump particles from the overlying water
for food.  As the clams grow, they burrow deeper (up to 40 cm).

     This is  an  important commercial species in Maryland.   Where abundant,  they are
ecologically  important both as suspension-feeders (see OYSTER)  and  as burrowers (see
BENTHIC FAUNA).  Early recruits (before  deep burrowing) are quite  important as  food
for fish and crabs; the exposed siphons of larger clams are eaten by fish.
                                           20

-------
Existing Monitoring Programs

Maryland Soft Clam Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     One station on Swan Point (CBS), additional stations in the Chester River (ET4)
and Eastern Bay (EE1).

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly samples  from Swan Point.  Quarterly samples from the Chester River and
Eastern Bay.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     A  hydraulic clam dredge is used  to collect samples of soft clams.   Size composi-
tion, mortality, and disease prevalence are recorded for each sample.

Maryland Chesapeake  Bay Benthic Monitoring Program

     Soft shell clams are collected by  the benthic monitoring programs  (see BENTHIC
INFAUNA for details).

Program Deficiencies

1.  The  soft clam monitoring program is extremely limited in spatial coverage.  Many
soft clam habitat and harvest areas are not sampled.

2. Data  from the Maryland Soft Clam Survey are not reported regularly.

Recommendations

1. Continue the Maryland Soft Clam  Survey.

2.  A review of the  Maryland Chesapeake Bay Benthic Monitoring Program's data is
necessary to  determine  whether  it  is adequate, either separately  or in combination
with  the Maryland  Soft  Clam Survey, to  track soft clam  annual recruitment, annual
variability, and  estimate abundance and biomass.  Because of broad  spatial coverage by
the benthic program,  it is possible that  minor modifications  could enhance  soft clam
collection to the point where a new  or expanded fishery independent program for this
species  will  be  unnecessary.   Benthic  monitoring data for soft clams  also should be
compared with harvest statistics as part of a data  review, and as a  continuing element
of monitoring.

3.  Improve reporting and accessibility of soft clam data.   The soft clam is a target
species.

Program Integration

     There  is interdependence  between  water quality, phytoplankton,  and soft  clam
populations.   Current water quality  and  plankton  monitoring  programs,  in conjunction
with  adequate soft  clam  monitoring,  should be  adequate  for  analysis  of long-term
trends and  correlations.   Integration  is  needed primarily in  reporting.   Soft  clam
monitoring data must  be  reported annually, and  integrated into Baywide monitoring

                                          21

-------
reports  (State  of the Chesapeake Bay).   Monitoring  information should be  used  in
conjunction  with information  from  blue  crab  and benthic-feeding  fish  monitoring
because of the important food link.

     Benthic monitoring data should be analyzed in conjunction with  harvest data for
this species.

Important Habitat Quality  Variables

     Temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,  phytoplankton (blooms, species, and  size
composition), chlorophyll a, ammonia, nitrate,  phosphate,  particulate carbon, nitrogen
and phosphorus,  toxicants  (e.g., chlorine, TBT), sediment  oxygen demand and nutrient
flux.

A NOTE ON OYSTER AND CLAM LARVAE

     The  larvae  of clams  and oysters probably  are  the most  critical  life stages in
that  they  suffer  extremely high  mortalities  during their  planktonic  and  settlement
phases.   However, it is very difficult and  time-consuming  to  identify the  species of
bivalve  larvae  collected  in plankton samples.   Therefore, despite  obvious information
needs,  no recommendations are made for monitoring larvae  of  these species. Perhaps
improved   identification  techniques  will facilitate systematic  monitoring  of   larval
shellfish in the  future.

                                    WILDLIFE

     Wildlife is  a broad  term  which  covers all  terrestrial,  air-breathing  organisms
that occupy a wide range  of  Bay habitats,  from  open  waters with large rafts of ducks
to shrubby freshwater wetlands  sheltering beavers and wood  ducks. Birds are especially
important components of  the Bay's ecosystem.    Nearly  all of  the  animals  listed are
highest-order consumers, thereby reducing numbers of the more abundant organisms lower
in the  food  chain.   They  are  subject to accumulating  high body burdens of various
toxicants which can  concentrate as they travel up food chains.   Wildlife species  can
often  be  used  as indicators of "health"  in  the  estuarine  ecosystem, especially  at the
fringes such as  the Bay's large wetland systems.

WATERFOWL

     Waterfowl are the  most  important wildlife component  in the Bay's ecosystem by
virtue  of their large  populations  and high  visibility.   The term  waterfowl includes
migratory (geese, swans and ducks), and year-round residents such as  mallard  ducks and
mute swans.

     Some of  the waterfowl   are  partly or  largely  herbivorous.   When  traditional
submerged aquatic vegetation food sources declined sharply from the mid-1960s to the
mid-1980s,  redhead ducks were  forced  to  move out of  the Bay  area.   In contrast,
canvasback ducks were  able to adapt their  diets to include  invertebrates  and thus are
still present in significant numbers today.   Canada geese, joined increasingly by snow
geese  and whistling swans, moved inland in  large numbers in the 1970s.   They found
winter   sustenance  in corn  and  wheat  fields to  supplant  their  traditional food of
submerged grasses, now in  short supply.
                                          22

-------
     The  species discussed here are important not only because  of their food  chain
impacts on  vegetation and on animals below them,  but also because of their visibility
to  the  public.   Appreciated for their  aesthetic  value  by  growing  numbers  of bird
watchers,  and  for sport and food  by hunters,  Bay waterfowl are a major  symbolic, as
well as practical, component of the  Bay's ecosystem.

Existing Monitoring  Programs

Chesapeake Bay Midwinter Waterfowl Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Thirty-three survey areas in Maryland and twenty in Virginia.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annual survey in mid-January.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Visual  estimates of numbers of waterfowl by species are made from aircraft by ex-
perienced  observers.

Atlantic Flyway Productivity Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     In Maryland, areas (and species) targeted  include Queen Anne's County  and  Snow
Hill (greater snow  geese);  Blackwater  National Wildlife Refuge  (lesser  snow geese);
and Kent, Queen Anne's and Dorchester Counties (tundra swans).  In Virginia, the  lower
Eastern Shore, Back Bay, and the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers are target areas.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually from early November  through mid-December.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     The proportions of young  birds to  adult birds,  and the number of young birds per
mating are recorded.

Atlantic Flyway November Coordinated Canvasback Aerial Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     All Maryland and Virginia tidewater regions are surveyed, with emphasis on  areas
with historical populations of canvasback ducks.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually in early November.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Visual  estimates of numbers of canvasbacks are made from aircraft by experienced
observers.

Atlantic Flyway December Swan Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Maryland and Virginia

                                         23

-------
Sampling frequency:
     Annually in mid-December.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Visual estimates  of  numbers  of swans  are made  from  aircraft  by  experienced
observers.

Maryland November Canada Goose Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Chesapeake Bay, tidal tributaries, and adjacent upland areas.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually in mid-November.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Visual estimates  of  numbers  of geese are  made  from  aircraft  by  experienced
observers.

Maryland Waterfowl Breeding  Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Tidewater  and  adjacent upland areas on Maryland's  eastern and western shores  of
the Chesapeake Bay.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually in the last half of April.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Aerial methods on  the eastern shore and boats on  the  western  shore.  Counts  of
breeding mallards, black ducks, blue-winged teal, and gadwall are made  along transects
in lower eastern  shore Maryland counties, at  approximately the same times.

Maryland Mute Swan Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Maryland eastern shore.

Sampling Frequency:
    Twice each spring, in April and late June.

Measurements and collection procedures:
    Aerial  survey of  mute  swans.    Numbers  of single  birds, pairs,  groups,  active
nests, and cygnets are recorded.
                                          24

-------
Program Deficiencies

1. There is a lack of coordination and integration among jurisdictions.

2. Integration and information exchange with other Chesapeake Bay monitoring programs
is almost non-existent.

3.   Personnel  resources are insufficient to ensure  regular data analysis  and reporting
of results from ongoing waterfowl monitoring programs.

4.   There  is  no  existing monitoring  program which  addresses  associations  between
habitat impacts and changes in populations.

R ecommendations

1. Continue existing annual overflight surveys.

2.   Improve  information exchange with  water  quality  and  other  living  resources
monitoring programs.

3.  Examine the  historical database more closely for waterfowl abundance and distribu-
tion trends in an effort  to  link variations in distribution and abundance to known
perturbations in specific habitats or general environmental conditions.

4. Improve program integration between the Maryland and Virginia waterfowl monitoring
programs, through annual meetings of the program managers and principal investigators.

5.   Design a   waterfowl habitat   monitoring  (second  tier)  program  to  investigate
associations between habitat impacts and changes in waterfowl populations.

Program Integration

     There  have  been limited  efforts to correlate  waterfowl data with  other monitoring
data.  Additional opportunities for  data analysis  and integration should be  developed.
Monitoring  the  distribution  and  abundance of  tidal and  non-tidal wetlands and sub-
merged aquatic vegetation can  provide important  habitat information for  target species
of waterfowl.

Important Habitat Quality  Variables

     Weather  observations (air temperature, rainfall,  snow cover,  icing  conditions  in
ponds  and  shallow Bay areas); salinity  and other  water quality  variables in relation
to vegetative food  sources (see  PLANT COMMUNITIES).   Distribution and quantity  of
suitable habitat,  submerged aquatic  vegetation, tidal and non-tidal  wetlands;  distur-
bance by humans, vehicles, and boats (especially  during breeding seasons).

COLONIAL BIRDS

     Colonial birds  include herons and  egrets which use Bay tidal  and non-tidal wet-
lands for  breeding and  early  rearing  areas  in  spring  and summer, and  (typically)
migrate southward  from the  Bay in autumn. The major colonial species in the Bay area
are the great blue heron, little blue heron, green  heron,  black-  and yellow-crowned

                                           25

-------
night herons,  Louisiana heron, glassy ibis, great egret, snowy egret,  and the cattle
egret.

     Colonial  birds are aesthetically important to many members of the general public.
Like waterfowl, carnivorous colonial birds play a role in "skimming off lower trophic
organisms such as insects, mollusks, and small fishes.  They  can therefore concentrate
high toxic body burdens, as do raptors (ospreys, hawks and  eagles).

Existing Monitoring Programs

USFWS Breeding Bird Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Selected locations throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin states.

Sampling  Frequency:
     Annually in June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Qualified volunteers make observations and counts of species  within 400 meters at
stations along specific  routes are made by qualified volunteers.

Maryland Colonial Bird Inventory

Spatial Coverage:
     Colonial bird habitats in Maryland.

Sampling  Frequency:
     Intensive

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Colonies  are  inventoried  and  breeding populations  of  all  colonial  species  are
estimated under  a baseline inventory program.

Virginia Colonial Bird Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     The  coastal plain  of Virginia.

Sampling  Frequency:
     Annual in late May with a follow-up survey in June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Visual estimates of numbers of each species are made from  aircraft by  experienced
observers in May. The June follow-up is a ground survey.

Program Deficiencies

1. There is a  lack of coordination among jurisdictions.

2. Integration and information exchange with other Chesapeake Bay monitoring programs
is almost non-existent.

                                          26

-------
3.  Personnel resources are insufficient to ensure regular data analysis and  reporting
of results from existing colonial bird monitoring programs.

Recommendations

1.   Continue  the  existing survey  program  in Virginia,  and  maintain  a  less  intensive
long-term monitoring program in Maryland.

2.   Improve  information  exchange  with  water  quality  and  other  living  resources
monitoring programs.

4.   Improve  integration  between  Maryland  and  Virginia  colonial  bird  monitoring
programs through annual  meetings of the program managers and principal investigators.

Program Integration

     Information from tidal  and non-tidal  wetlands  and submerged  aquatic vegetation
monitoring should be analyzed and reported in concert with colonial bird  survey data.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Weather observations  (air  temperature,  rainfall, snow cover, icing on  ponds  and
shallow  Bay  areas);  salinity  and  other water  quality  variables in relation  to vegeta-
tive  food sources (see  PLANT COMMUNITIES).  Distribution  and quantity  of suitable
habitat,  submerged aquatic vegetation,  tidal and  non-tidal  wetlands; vegetation  types,
disturbance by humans, vehicles, and boats (especially during breeding seasons).

SHORE  AND SEABIRDS

     Shore  and seabirds  are  also largely migrants to the Bay area; some  species  spend
the warmer  months here, while others only  pass through in the spring and  fall.  Some
gull species are year-round residents of the Bay area.

     Shore  birds  feed along  the  margins of shallow  ponds and perimeters of  marsh
grasses   (greater  and  lesser  yellowlegs,  dowitchers,   pectoral,  least  and  stilt  sand-
pipers.),  or  on mud or  sandflats near  marshes and  ponds  (semipalmated and western
sandpipers,   willets,  dunlins,  knots  and  semipalmated  and  black-bellied  plovers).
Principal gulls  in  the Bay area  include the great  black-backed, herring,  ring-billed
and  laughing gulls. Common  and Forster's  terns  are also  present, but least terns are
rarely seen.

     Shore  and  seabirds are  aesthetically appealing  and  play important  roles in  the
Bay  food chain.   Their food  items,  taken  from  open water,  are believed  to be  less
likely to take up  and pass on toxicants  than food  sources  found in  shallower,  more
sheltered waters.
                                           27

-------
Existing Monitoring Programs

Christinas Bird Count Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Selected locations throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin states.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually for a three-week period in late December and early January.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Volunteers develop composite  lists of species  and counts based on observations at
selected locations.

USFWS Breeding Bird Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Selected locations throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin states.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annual in June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Qualified  volunteers make observations and counts of species within 400 meters at
stations along specific routes.

Virginia Shore Bird Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     The coastal plain of Virginia.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annual in late May, with  a follow-up survey in June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Visual estimates of numbers  of each species are made from aircraft by experienced
observers in May.  The June follow-up is a ground survey.

Program Deficiencies

1. There is a lack of coordination among jurisdictions.

2.  There is no systematic  monitoring of shore  and seabirds in Maryland, however this
is not considered to be neccesary in Chesapeake Bay habitats at present.

3. Integration and  information exchange with  other Chesapeake Bay monitoring programs
is almost non-existent.

4.  Personnel  resources are insufficient to ensure  regular data  analysis and reporting
of results from existing shore and seabird monitoring programs.
                                           28

-------
Recommendations

1. Continue the existing survey programs.

2.   Improve  information  exchange  with  water  quality  and  other  living  resources
monitoring programs.

3.  Improve integration between Maryland  and Virginia shore and  seabird monitoring
programs through annual meetings of the program managers and principal investigators.

Program Integration

     Information from shore and seabird monitoring should be reported in concert with
reports from other living resources and water quality monitoring programs.

Important Habitat Quality  Variables

     Weather observations (air  temperature,  rainfall, snow  cover,  icing on ponds and
shallow  Bay areas); salinity and other water quality  variables in relation to food
sources. Distribution and quantity of suitable habitat,  tidal and  non-tidal  wetlands;
vegetation  types,   disturbance  by  humans,  vehicles,  and  boats  (especially  during
breeding seasons).

RAPTORS

     Raptors  are  a highly visible and important  wildlife  group.    The southern bald
eagle  is of special  interest  as  the  national  symbol.     This  raptor, which is  still
classified as endangered,  is making  a comeback after years of decline  due to  toxic
problems.   The osprey, also on the upswing in the Bay, is seemingly ubiquitous, with
breeding pairs present on many  bay rivers and coves.

     The bald eagle and the osprey  experienced  grave toxicant problems in the past.
Body burdens of DDT and possibly other organic  pesticides  accumulated from the food
chain  were held responsible for reproductive failures  in both species  from  the 1960s
to the 1970s.  Following bans on DDT use and consequent toxicant reductions  (as found
in various  ecosystem sampling), their situation improved.   These "top  of  the line"
predators can easily become  unwilling  indicators  of toxicants permeating into various
life forms in the ecosystem; monitoring them is therefore essential.

Existing Monitoring Programs

Wintering Bald Eagle Aerial Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Known wintering areas within the Chesapeake Bay region.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annual in early January.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Counts from aerial and ground surveys.
                                          29

-------
Maryland Bald Eagle and Osprey  Surveys

Spatial Coverage:
     Maryland tidewater  with emphasis  on previously active  areas  of eagle habitat.
Selected osprey habitats are observed annually.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annual in February and March.  A follow-up survey is made in June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Aerial counts of  adult birds  are made during February and March.  A follow-up
aerial survey of young  birds is conducted in June.

Virginia Bald  Eagle Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Virginia  tidewater with emphasis on previously active areas  of eagle habitat.

Sampling Frequency: Annual in February and March.  A follow-up survey is made in June.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Aerial counts of  adult birds  are made during February and March.  A follow-up
aerial survey of young  birds is conducted in June.

Virginia Bald  Eagle Roost Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Major roost areas in Virginia (Rappahannock River, James  River, Caledon,  and
Mason Neck).

Sampling Frequency:
     Weekly from May through October.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Roost areas are surveyed by boat.

Virginia Osprey  Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Tidewater Virginia.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually from April through August.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Nest sites are surveyed by boat.

Program  Deficiency

1.   Integration with other water  quality and  living resources  monitoring  programs  is
virtually non-existent.
                                          30

-------
Recommendations

1. Continue existing raptor surveys

2.   Improve  information  exchange  with  water  quality  and  other living resources
monitoring programs.

Program Integration

     Information  from  raptor  monitoring should  be reported in  concert  with reports
from other living resources and water quality monitoring programs.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Suitable nesting habitats, pesticides.


REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

     Reptiles  and  amphibians  are  fairly  well  represented  in  tidal  and  non-tidal
wetland  areas,  but  because they  are  often  secretive  or nocturnal, they  are rarely
observed.   Most  of these  animals  are associated  with fresh to  brackish  waters,  the
exceptions  being  the diamondback terrapin, and the eastern king, water, black racer,
eastern  garter, rough green  and black  ratsnakes,  all of which can be occasionally  seen
in saline  marshes, and  sea  turtles.   The most  common turtles  are  the  snapper,  red-
bellied,  eastern mud, and eastern  painted species.   Sea  turtles  occur infrequently in
polyhaline  and  mesohaline regions  of the Bay and  its tributaries.   Redbellied, ribbon
and  hognosed  snakes occur, in addition  to  those already mentioned.   The principal
amphibians  found  in fresh  to slightly  brackish wetland areas  are the leopard, green,
pickerel,  bull  and  spring peeper  frogs.   Several  salamander  species and  the  blue-
tailed skink are also present.

     Reptiles and amphibians  probably  play a relatively small role in "cropping" lower
organisms.      These animals  can  sometimes  be  used  as indicators  of contaminated
surroundings or prey items   because  they tend  to be  long-lived, do  not  migrate,  anc
usually stay in  limited physical territories.

Existing Monitoring Programs

Virginia Sea Turtle Survey

Spatial Coverage:
     Lower Chespeake Bay nursery grounds.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually  from June through August.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Aerial counts of sea turtles.
                                           31

-------
Program Deficiencies

     Because  of  the  largely  terrestrial  or  freshwater   habitats  of  reptiles  and
amphibians,  and  their  uncertain roles   in  the Bay ecosystem,  any  deficiencies in
monitoring are of minor importance in meeting living resources monitoring objectives.

Recommendations

1.   Continue Virginia Sea Turtle Survey.

MAMMALS

     Mammals of the  Bay's  wetlands include  mink  and otters  in  rivers and nearby
marshes;  the  nutria  (an  introduced  species), particularly  in mid-eastern shore  areas
where winter temperatures  usually  do not cause mortality; and  the  most  abundant
species, the  muskrat.   Muskrats  are  found throughout  the less saline  marshes of the
Bay area.   Beavers  have been increasing  in  numbers in recent  years  in fresh scrub-
shrub, swampy areas.  In addition, many other mammals often come down from upland
areas to drink and find  food in the wetlands.   These visitors include  small  mammals
such  as  shrews,  voles, mice, rice rats and  moles; cottontail rabbits,  striped skunks,
the  important predator and  scavenger,  the  raccoon; longtail weasels   and  opossums.
Larger species include whitetail and sika deer,  and red and gray fox.

     Mammals have  aesthetic value  and  are of  practical  importance  to hunters and
trappers.  Their  survival  and  abundance are  not  thought to be  greatly threatened or
reduced by any particular  cause, but  like  some birds, reptiles,  and amphibians,  some
mammals  could  serve to  produce  toxicant-related  information  from   tissue analysis
(e.g., shrews  in a marsh treated with insecticides).   Some of the predators  however,
feed in wetlands only  part of the time, and  grazers such as muskrats  or beavers may
not ingest many toxicants from their vegetative  food sources.  Thus, mammals probably
are inefficient indicators of toxicants  in Chesapeake Bay habitats.

Existing Monitoring Programs

     Mammals are  monitored  through  harvest records, using reports from hunters and
trappers.

Program Deficiencies

     Because of the  largely terrestrial habitats  of  most  mammals,  and  their  uncertain
roles in the Bay ecosystem, any deficiencies in  monitoring  are of minor importance in
meeting living resources monitoring objectives.

Recommendations

     No recommendations.
                                           32

-------
                               PLANT COMMUNITIES

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION

     Submerged  aquatic  vegetation (SAV) are vascular  plants which grow  beneath the
surface of  the  water,  usually  rooted.   The distribution of species in the  Bay  largely
follows  gradients  of  salinity.   Pondweeds,  naiads,  coontail, wild  celery,  and  the
exotics, eurasian milfoil  and Hydrilla tolerate fresh or mildly brackish waters.   They
are  found  in the  upper reaches of the  Bay and  tidal  freshwater areas  of tributaries.
Widgeon  grass,  eurasian  milfoil, sago  pondweed, redhead grass, horned pondweed,  and
wild celery tolerate higher salinity and inhabit  the middle  reaches  of the  Bay  and
tributaries.   Eelgrass and  widgeon  grass are  tolerant of high  salinity and are  found
in the lower sections of the Bay and tributaries.

     "Communities of  ... SAV are an  integral part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
They  provide  an  important  habitat for  many  species,  either  as  a food source or as
protection  from predators, i.e., as  a nursery.    By  reducing currents and baffling
waves, they allow  for  deposition of suspended material  [thereby reducing turbidity  and
increasing water clarity.  This  process may help to increase hard  clam recruitment  and
to  maintain clean  cultch  for  oyster  settlement].    In  addition,  they bind  sediments
with their roots  and rhizomes to prevent erosion of  the underlying  material.   They are
important in nutrient cycling  through both the absorption and  release of nitrogen  and
phosphorus . . ."  (Simons  and Orth, 1987).

Existing Monitoring Programs

Chesapeake Bay Aerial Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Survey

Spatial coverage:
     Flight  lines for  the  acquisition  of aerial  photography  are  designated  to cover
all shoreline and shoal areas within the tidal Chesapeake mainstem and tributaries.

Sampling  frequency:
     All shallow tidal waters of the  Bay have been photographed annually at  a scale of
1:24,000 or  1:12,000 since 1984.

Measurements and  collection procedures:
     Flight  paths follow the direction of tide propagation  to  ensure  that  photographs
are  taken  at the  lowest" possible tidal stage.    Photography  guidelines  specify  the
necessary conditions for  maximum delineation of  submerged aquatic  vegetation  (SAV)
beds.  SAV beds  are  outlined on mylar map overlays through  interpretation  of  the
photographs.  Density classifications are  assigned to  all  mapped SAV beds.   The mylar
quadrant  sheets are digitized for computer storage and analysis of SAV bed  locations
and  areal  extent.

Maryland Submerged Aquatic Vegetation  Ground Survey

Spatial coverage:
     Six hundred forty-two stations are located throughout Maryland portions of Chesa-
peake Bay and its tidal  tributaries.
                                           33

-------
Sampling frequency:
     Samples and data are collected once per year at all 642 stations between mid-July
and late August.

Measurements and collection procedures:
     At  each station,  depth,  surface  temperature,  salinity,  and  Secchi  depth are
recorded.   Three  replicate samples are taken and biomass is calculated  for  each of
three  1-meter  quadrats per  station.   Percentage  crown cover  for  each of  the  SAV
species is  also calculated and recorded.

Maryland Charter Boat Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Survey

Spatial coverage:
     Areas in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay identified  by the previous years'
aerial reconnaissance.

Sampling frequency:
     Annual survey during June through September.

Measurement and collection procedures:
     Charter boat  captains  ground-truth presence  or  absence  of submerged  aquatic
vegetation  beds based  on previous years'  maps and provide for  delineation of new
unmapped beds and species identification information.

Maryland Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Program for the Choptank  River

Spatial coverage:
     Sixteen stations located on the Choptank river (ET5).

Sampling frequency:
     Monthly from April through September.

Measurement and collection procedures:
     Water and sediment  quality measurements are taken in waters  less than 2.0 meters
in depth.   Abundance  and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation  by species  is
recorded.

Maryland  Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Program for the Susquehanna Flats,  Elk and
Sassafras Rivers

Spatial coverage:
     Twenty-eight  stations located  on   the  Susquehanna Flats (CB1), Elk (ET2)  and
Sassafras (ET3) rivers.

Sampling frequency:
     Monthly from April through October.

Measurement and collection procedures:
     Water and sediment  quality measurements are taken in waters  less than 2.0 meters
in depth.   Abundance  and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation  by species  is
recorded.
                                          34

-------
USGS Potomac River Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Survey Program

Spatial coverage:
     One hundred eighty-seven stations located in the Potomac River (TF2, RET2, LE2).

Sampling frequency:
       Twice annually: June-July and September-October.

Measurement and collection procedures:
     All  stations are sampled three  times  with  modified oyster tongs,  with each grab
covering  an  area of  930  cm  .   All species are  identified, dried and the standing crop
expressed  in g/sample  and  g/m^  for each  species.   In  the fall, due to  increased
biomass,  sampling  methods  may be altered.  At stations where SAV  forms a dense,
tangled mass,  visual estimates of the percent  of  each species  are  recorded, but the
vegetation is not collected and weighed.

Virginia Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Monitoring Program

Spatial coverage:
     Six stations in the York river (LE4).

Sampling  frequency:
     Monthly throughout  the year at all 6 stations.

Measurement and collection procedures:
     Water  quality and light  attenuation  measurements are recorded  at each station.
Abundance and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation  species are recorded.

Program Deficiencies

1.   Annual  aerial survey  including  complete  digitization  and  interpretation  of the
entire Chesapeake Bay may be too expensive for long-term monitoring.

2.  The original random  distribution of the Maryland ground  survey program stations
resulted  in  the  placement  of  some  stations  in  areas where  total water depth  or
physical wave action would prevent SAV growth even under pristine conditions.

3.   Definitive recommendations  are  lacking  on  the use  of  satellite scanners  or
statistical  sampling of aerial photography as  the basis  of long-term monitoring.

4.   Findings from the second tier (habitat) monitoring  programs  in  the  York and
Choptank Rivers and in upper Chesapeake  Bay require validation in  additional habitats
and salinity ranges.

Recommendations

1.  For  the  immediate future (1-2 years), top  priority will be  placed  on  continuing
annual overflights  so  that year-to-year variations in SAV  distribution  and  abundance
can be separated from long-term trends.  A multi-year SAV monitoring plan should  be
developed.

2. Continue  existing ground survey programs.

                                          35

-------
3.   The  Maryland Submerged Aquatic  Vegetation  Ground Survey  station locations should
be reevaluated to determine if the  program  can provide more  effective ground truthing
for the aerial survey.

4.    The  utility of  satellite scanners  as  a  cost-effective  alternative to  annual
overflights for estimating the distribution  and abundance of SAV  in  the Bay needs  to
be  fully evaluated  following  recent  research efforts.   Annual partial  (statistical
sampling)  and  less frequent  full  photointerpretation  and  digitization  of  Bay  SAV
distribution and  abundance from aerial photography are second alternatives for a more
cost-effective  long-term  baseline  monitoring  program.    Final  recommendations  on
alternative means of long-term monitoring should  be  made and implemented  as soon as
possible.

5.   Evaluate  additional tributaries  in Maryland and Virginia  for  incorporation  into
the  second  tier monitoring  program  to  validate  relationships  established  between
nutrients, light penetration and SAV  regrowth and  to examine these correlations  under
different  habitat conditions (salinity,  substrate,  etc.).   Possible tributaries  for
inclusion  are the  Chester,  Patuxent,  Potomac, James,  and  Rappahannock Rivers  and
Eastern Shore embayments.

Program Integration

     Trends  and distribution of SAV are important in interpreting long-term trends  in
finfish and   shellfish  recruitment,  distribution  and  abundance.    As   sensitive in-
dicators  of  nutrient enrichment, SAV trends should  be  followed closely by  water
quality programs.

     Remote  sensing of  SAV distribution and  abundance  should  be closely correlated
with the ground survey program to maximize ground-truthing  information.  Additional
water  quality monitoring of selected parameters (listed below)  should be covered  in
the near-shore SAV habitats at existing or future SAV ground survey stations.

     The  water  quality information  obtained in  the second tier  surveys  is extremely
valuable  in  characterizing  the shallow, near-shore habitats  of the Bay.   Consistency
with Bay wide water quality  monitoring in methods and  reporting  needs to be  estab-
lished.

Important habitat quality  variables

     Water column measurements of temperature, salinity and pH in shoal and shoreline
habitats;   selected  nutrient  species  (ammonia,  nitrate,   nitrite,  dissolved inorganic
phosphorus);  chlorophyll a, light penetration, total  suspended solids, Secchi depth,
water column and sediment herbicide levels.

BENTHIC ALGAE AND MACROALGAE

     This  group  includes  loose aggregations  of  single-celled  plants  (benthic  algal
mats),  as  well as more organized colonial plant forms (macroalgae  such as sea lettuce
and kelp).
                                           36

-------
     Although little attention  has been  paid  to  this group  in a monitoring context,
they are important primary  producers  in portions of the Bay.  Some are very abundant,
and  may have  great significance  both as food  resources for  higher  organisms and  as
physical habitat.  Decomposition  of accumulated biomass  may affect  dissolved oxygen
and  nutrient concentrations significantly  in some areas, especially during the summer.

Existing Monitoring Programs

     There  are  no existing monitoring programs  targeting benthic algae  and macroalgae,
although some research has been applied to the considerations raised above.

Program Deficiencies

     There  is no monitoring  data collection program at present.

Recommendations

     No recommendations for new data collection programs should  be  made  unless
research  results  suggest  that  monitoring  this  group  would  contribute   important
information useful in understanding and managing the Bay and its  habitats.

TIDAL WETLANDS

     Tidal wetlands are semi-aquatic  habitats,  covered periodically by tidal waters  or
washed by waves.  These  zones include  marshes, sandy beaches,  mudflats, and shoreline
structures such as revetments and bulkheads.

     Tidal  wetlands  provide  habitat  for  marsh  grasses,  shore  birds,  waterfowl,
muskrats, otters,  many benthic species,  and larval or  juvenile stages of finfish and
crabs.    Marshes  have  high rates of primary  production,  some  of  which  indirectly
supports aquatic  detrital  food  chains.    Marshes  can  buffer  wave  energy, thereby
stabilizing  shorelines,  and preventing  erosion.    Marshes also can buffer  sediment and
nutrient runoff.

Existing Monitoring  Programs

Federal Programs

     Long-term mid-Atlantic wetlands trends were  analyzed  from aerial photographs  of
randomly-selected four-square-mile plots taken  in  the mid-1950's  and late  1970's by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service and  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency (Tiner,
1987).   Changes over the intervening  period in the areal coverage of  several wetland
classifications were estimated.

State Programs

     Both Maryland and Virginia  maintain databases of all permits and  permit applica-
tions for wetland activities (filling, dredging, development).
                                           37

-------
Program Deficiencies

1. There are no ongoing, consistent monitoring programs for the regular mapping  of the
areal extent and distribution of tidal wetlands in Maryland and Virginia.

R ecommendations

     The recommendations below are  provisional until final monitoring recommendations
are developed by the Chesapeake Bay  Wetlands Policy Task Force.

1. Design and implement a Baywide monitoring program for the periodic acquisition and
storage of  baseline data  on  the  areal extent  and distribution of  tidal wetlands.   A
biennial  aerial  or   satellite  imagery   acquisition  and  interpretation   program   is
recommended.

2. Maintain jurisdictional databases  of  permit activities which can be  linked with
remotely sensed baseline data. Comparable approaches should be developed Baywide.

Program Integration

     Wetlands  information should be analyzed  and  reported on a Baywide  basis  in
concert  with other  living  resources  monitoring  programs.    Baseline  data collection
(aerial photography or satellite scanning) for tidal wetlands might  be compatible with
data collection for non-tidal wetlands  and SAV.

     Bay segment  and tributary water quality  data (especially nutrients and turbidity)
should  be related  to  wetlands information on  a regular  basis.  Monitoring of water-
fowl, juvenile finfish and  crabs, and other  wildlife should  also  be related  to tidal
wetlands  status  and  trends to  the  extent   possible;   first,  at   the  level   of data
collection and second, at the level of information exchange.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Air  and water  temperature, salinity, light  flux, fresh  water runoff, sea level
trends,  herbicides,  and  insecticides   (because  of their  heavy use  in  marshes  and
potential impact on living resources), precipitation,  land use.

NON-TIDAL WETLANDS

     "Non-tidal  wetlands are semi-aquatic  lands,  not  influenced by tidal  waters, that
are flooded for  varying periods of time during  the growing season.  When  not  flooded,
wetland  soils are often saturated  near the land surface.  Non-tidal  wetlands include
areas commonly  called .  .  .  swamps,  and bogs  as well as the  shallow  water zones of
rivers, lakes, and ponds.   The presence of water  in  these areas creates environmental
conditions  that  affect the  types  of plants  and  animals  living there.   In  general,
wetlands are defined  by  the  predominance  of 'hydrophytes' (plants  adapted for life in
wet  soils)  and  the  presence of 'hydric  soils'  (saturated  or  periodically  flooded
soils)" (Tiner, 1987).

     Non-tidal wetlands are  important habitats  for many  plants and animals, including
threatened and  endangered species.  Freshwater fish depend upon wetlands for food and
nursery  areas.    Waterfowl,  other birds, and several species of mammals  use  these

                                           38

-------
wetlands  extensively  for  food and  shelter.   Plants,  soils,  and  ponds in  non-tidal
wetlands  absorb  and retain  nutrients, water, and  sediments, thereby reducing  nutrient
enrichment, runoff, turbidity, and sedimentation in Chesapeake Bay.

Existing Monitoring Programs

National Wetlands Inventory

     Non-tidal wetlands  in  areas surrounding  the Bay  have been mapped on 1:24,000
quads as a part of the National Wetlands Inventory.

Other Federal Programs

     Long-term mid-Atlantic wetlands trends were analyzed from aerial photographs of
randomly-selected four square mile plots  taken  in the mid-1950s and late  1970s  by the
U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service and  the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Tiner,
1987).   Changes over the intervening period in the areal coverage  of several wetland
classifications were estimated.

Program Deficiencies

1.  There are no ongoing, consistent monitoring  programs for the  regular mapping of
the areal  extent  and distribution of non-tidal wetlands  in Pennsylvania, Maryland, the
District of Columbia and Virginia.   Low-frequency  baseline  assessments (the  study
cited above) can be  only retrospective in nature.  Pressures to develop and alter non-
tidal wetlands appear  to be such that much more frequent data are necessary to monitor
trends in  such a way that serious losses of these valuable  lands can be prevented.

Recommendations

     The  recommendation below is provisional  until final monitoring  recommendations
are developed by the Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy Task Force.

1. Design and implement a Bay wide monitoring program for the periodic acquisition  and
storage  of baseline data  on  the areal extent and distribution  of non-tidal wetlands in
Pennsylvania, Maryland,  the District  of  Columbia,  and  Virginia.  A biennial  aerial or
satellite   imagery  acquisition  and  interpretation  program  along   with  appropriate
ground-truthing is recommended.  The random quadrant scheme  used previously appears to
be  a sound  approach.   Because  several  states,  a wide geographic  area,  and  broad
regional interests are involved, a federally-sponsored program is warranted.

2.  Each  jurisdiction  should  maintain  a database  of  development,  restoration  and
mitigation activities  which  affect the  quantity and  quality of non-tidal  wetlands.
The databases should be  linked easily with remotely-sensed baseline data and should be
comparable Bay wide.

Program integration

     For  non-tidal wetlands above the fall line, ambient in-stream and fall line  water
quality  monitoring  data  (especially  nutrients  and  suspended  solids)  are the  most
important  correlates.   Below  the  fall line,  Bay  segment and tributary water quality
data are  most relevant.   Regular comparisons of data  and monitoring  results  between

                                          39

-------
these programs should be performed.  Monitoring of waterfowl and other wildlife  should
also  be related to non-tidal wetlands status and trends.

Important habitat quality variables

     Rainfall, vegetative cover, land use patterns.

                        BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES

     Benthic fauna  are organisms  that live in the sediments  (benthic  infauna),  and
those that live  on the sediments,  or  are  attached  to  other  solid  surfaces below the
water's surface  (benthic epifauna).   Benthic fauna  are  further  categorized as macro-
fauna  or  meiofauna,  depending  upon their size.   Macrofauna generally  are  organisms
that  are retained on a 500  m mesh; meiofauna are retained on a 50  m mesh.

     Benthic organisms, because  they are immobile for the most part, are important in-
dicators  of  water quality,  especially  for dissolved  oxygen.    Benthic  communities
respond  in  rather predictable ways to nutrient  enrichment and other types of  con-
tamination.

BENTHIC INFAUNA

     The most numerous components of the larger (macro-) benthic infauna in Chesapeake
Bay  are clams, worms, and amphipods, with species distributions depending largely on
salinity and  bottom type.  Meiofaunal communities are generally dominated by nematodes
(roundworms), but include  many  other forms (e.g., copepods, ciliates).

     In reference  primarily to benthic  infauna, Holland (1987) indicated that "Much of
the  particulate carbon and detritus  added  to  the  Bay [by  algal production  and] the
surrounding  watershed . . . settles  to the  bottom  and is used  by the benthos.    The
burrowing activities  of benthic  organisms  contribute significantly to the recycling of
nutrients back  into the overlying water.  [Also,] many  commercially and recreationally
important fish . . . feed on the benthos".

Existing Monitoring Programs

Maryland Chesapeake  Bay Benthic Monitoring Program

Spatial coverage:
     Thirty-two mainstem  stations characterizing CBP segments CB2 (2 stations), CB3 (3
stations),  CB4  (21   stations)  and   CBS   (6  stations);  twenty-six  tributary  stations
characterizing  tidal  fresh, riverine estuarine  transition,  and   lower  estuarine  zones
of the Potomac (TF2  - 1 station; RET2 - 7  stations; and LE2 - 8 stations) and Patuxent
(TF1 - 8 stations; RET1  -  1 station;  and LEI  -  1  station)  rivers,  respectively;  one
station  each  in  the  Elk  (ET2),  and  Nanticoke  (ET6)  rivers; two  stations in  the
Patapsco (WT5) and Chester (ET4)  rivers;  four stations characterizing the upper (ET5)
and  lower (EE2)  reaches of the Choptank River; and two stations characterizing Tangier
Sound (EE3).

Sampling frequency:
     Ten times per year at all 70  stations.
                                          40

-------
Measurements and collection procedures:
     Five replicate samples  are  collected with a  Ponar grab, a hand box-corer  or  a
hydraulically closing  van Veen grab depending on sediment type.   Benthic samples are
field-sieved through  a 0.5 mm screen; retained organisms and detritus preserved with
formalin.   Benthic invertebrates in three of the  samples are identified and counted,
biomass of  the 20 numerically  dominant species are determined  and  length  frequency
measurements are made for  dominant  clam species.  The  two unprocessed replicates are
archived.

     Sediment median diameter,  sorting coefficient, and  carbonate content are measured
annually at  all stations.   The silt-clay, carbon and moisture  content as a percentage
of sediment dry  weight,  and interstitial salinity are recorded at each  station  during
each sampling event.

     Surface to bottom  profiles  of temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen at  3 m
depth intervals are recorded  at each station.  Surface pH is also recorded.

Hart and Miller  Islands Benthic Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Eighteen stations characterizing CBP segment CBS.

Sampling Frequency:
     All 18  stations are sampled twice a year.

Measurements and collection  procedures:
     At  each station, three  replicate samples are obtained  with a van Veen  sampler.
Benthic organisms are separated out onto a 1 mm  screen and preserved prior  to iden-
tification  and enumeration.  Sediment  grab samples are  analyzed for  percent  silt, sand
and clay.

Virginia Chesapeake Bay Benthic Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Five mainstem stations characterize  CBP  segments CBS  (1 station), CB6 (2  sta-
tions),  CB7  (1   station)  and  CBS (1  station); eleven  tributary  stations  characterize
the  tidal  fresh, riverine-estuarine  transition   and  lower  estuarine  zones  of  the
Rappahannock  (TF3 - 1 station; RETS  -  1 station; and LE3 - 1 station), York (TF4 - 1
station;  RET4 -  1 station; and LE4 - 2 stations), and James (TF5 - 1 station;  RETS - 1
station; and  LE5  - 2 stations) rivers.

Sampling Frequency:
     All 16  stations are sampled quarterly.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Four replicate box-core samples are  collected to a minimum depth of 25 cm below
the sediment-water interface at each station.  One  sample  is archived and the  remain-
ing three  are frozen until analyzed.  Benthic organisms in the remaining three samples
are retained  on a 0.5 mm sieve  screen and preserved  with formalin.  They are  then
identified and  counted,  and  ash-free weight  or  biomass is determined  for the  20
numerically  dominant  species.   One of the samples is  analyzed  for  depth distribution
(0-2 cm, 2-5 cm, and 5 cm classes at greater  depths).   Species, numbers and biomass

                                          41

-------
(ash-free  dry weight) are recorded.  Sediment particle size  distributions and total
volatile solids (equivalent to  ash-free  dry weight) are measured quarterly.   During
the summer  quarter, replicate sediment samples are partitioned  into three depths for
each analysis.  At each station, bottom temperature, dissolved oxygen and salinity are
recorded.

District of Columbia Aquatic Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Thirty stations on the Potomac (TF1) and Anacostia (TF1) rivers,  Rock Creek and
their respective tributaries.

Sampling Frequency:
     Annual.

Measurement and Collection Procedures:
     Samples are collected with a  box sampler or an Ekman  dredge sampler.  At each
station, two  samples  are collected,  sieved and  sorted in the  field.   Species  diver-
sity, species richness, and individuals per unit area are recorded.

Program Deficiencies

1.   Existing benthic infauna programs are not fully compatible among jurisdictions:

     a.    Biomass measurements are  based on dry weight in the  Maryland program and
          ash-free dry weight in Virginia's program.
     b.    The District of Columbia's program does not include biomass determinations.
     c.    Sediment  organic  matter is  measured  as carbon in Maryland  and  ash-free
          weight in Virginia.
     d.    The Maryland  program's sampling gear varies, depending on sediment type;
          only a box core is used in the Virginia program.
     e.    Virginia's  protocol   includes   identification  and   enumeration   by  depth
          distribution down  to 25  cm; Maryland's protocol  does  not include  identifica-
          tion and enumeration by depth.

2.   Existing sample collection techniques employed by both programs do not charac-
terize benthic meiofauna, however the state of knowledge of the  taxonomy of the major
groups of  meiofauna  is poor.  The  identifications that result produce data with little
or no  utility in  terms of  the  plan objectives.   No  recommendations for  monitoring
benthic meiofauna are warranted.

3.  The existing  Virginia  benthic monitoring program has  insufficient  spatial  (there
is no  replication  of stations  within regions) and temporal   (no  replication  within
seasons) resolution to achieve its stated objectives.

Recommendations

1. Continue  the existing benthic infauna monitoring programs.

2.  Review the  sample collection,  identification and enumeration protocols used  in the
existing benthic monitoring programs  and develop a set of Baywide consensus protocols
and a plan for implementing them.

                                           42

-------
 3.  Review the Virginia benthic monitoring program and recommend specific enhancements
 required to meet the program's objectives.

 Program Integration

     Ongoing macro-infauna monitoring is well-integrated with existing  water quality
 and plankton monitoring  programs.   Integration needs  to be established  with finfish
 monitoring.    Initiation  of  a Bay wide  trawl  survey  will  provide  finfish  data at
 appropriate times and locations for correlation of  data  with  benthic  infauna  monitor-
 ing. It will be necessary for these programs to maintain communication and to  compare
 results.

 Important Habitat Quality  Variables

     Water  column  profiles  of temperature,  salinity, and dissolved oxygen;  sediment
 grain size, organic  carbon content, silt-clay  content, moisture content; phytoplankton
 biomass, size distribution and species composition (for suspension-feeders).

 BENTHIC EPIFAUNA

     Benthic epifaunal  communities in  Chesapeake  Bay are largely dependent  on hard
 surfaces for attachment.   Because of  the general lack  of  natural rock outcrops in
 Chesapeake Bay, oyster  shells and man-made  structures (bulkheads, pilings, revetments)
 provide  the  .bulk  of this habitat.   Oyster  reefs, in  particular,  are habitats  for  a
 diverse assemblage of epifauna, including mussels,  barnacles, anemones,  worms, small
 crabs,  sponges and tunicates.

     Epifaunal communities, especially those on  oyster  reefs can contain high den-
 sities of suspension-feeders,  which filter great  quantities of water and produce large
 amounts of sediment. This process can play  an important role in the distribution  and
 recycling of organic matter, nutrients, and contaminants.

 Existing Monitoring Programs

     Epifauna  are  collected and  recorded during  ongoing  spat surveys of oyster bars
 (see below).

 Maryland Fall Oyster Survey

 Spatial Coverage:
     .Fifty-five  key  oyster  bars  equally  distributed  throughout  the major  oyster-
 producing river systems:  Chester River (ET4), Eastern Bay (EE1), Choptank River (EE2),
 Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds (EE3), Wicomico (ET7), Manokin River  (ET8) and lower
 Potomac River (LE2); and the mainstem of the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay (CB3,
CB4, CB5).

Sampling Frequency:
     Annually in October.
                                          43

-------
Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     A  random  sample of oysters is taken from each  location  with either patent tongs
or a  dredge.   Observations are made on the fouling community  (barnacles,  mussels,
anemones, tunicates, etc.) that inhabit the  collected oyster shells.

Maryland Choptank River Intensive  Oyster Habitat Monitoring  Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Four oyster bars in the lower Choptank River (EE2, ET5).

Sampling Frequency:
     Weekly from June through September, monthly from October through May.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     A  sample of 60  oysters is  obtained  with a small dredge  at each bar.   Relative
abundance and viability  of fouling  organisms  (barnacles, mussels,  tunicates, anemones)
are recorded from a subsample of ten live oysters.

Hart and Miller Islands Benthic Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Four stations (on pilings) at the Hart and Miller Islands facility (CBS).

Sampling Frequency:
     Three times per year at all 4 stations.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Epifaunal abundance and species composition are recorded from scrapings of 10 cm^
areas  at selected depths on pilings  at the Hart and Miller  Islands  facility.   Scraping
is  done  by a diver.

Virginia Spring and Fall Oyster Bar  Survey

Spatial coverage:
     Twenty-six  stations at  oyster  bars  located  in  the  James  (LE5),  York (LE4),
Rappahannock (LE3), Great Wicomico (CB5), and Potomac (LE2) rivers, Mobjack Bay (WE4),
and Pocomoke Sound (EE3).

Sampling Frequency:
     Weekly in May and October of  each year at all 26 stations.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Sampling is performed by one-hour dredge hauls at each station.  The presence of
predators  (oyster   drills,  starfish,  flatworms,  mud  crabs,  blue  crabs,  others)   is
recorded.

Program Deficiencies

1.    Epifaunal communities are  generally  not targeted in  ongoing  benthic and  oyster
monitoring programs.
                                          44

-------
2.    Epifaunal  monitoring is inadequate  and lacks integration  with water quality,
plankton and infauna monitoring.

3.    Epifaunal data collected  during  oyster  spat surveys  often are  not  computerized
and reported.

Recommendations

1. Continue  to monitor benthic epifauna as part of  the planned and ongoing oyster bar
surveys.

2. Record, computerize, analyze and report observations  of benthic epifauna along with
other related living resources monitoring data.

3.  Review   the  existing  sample  collection,  identification  and   enumeration  protocols
used  in the  existing oyster bar surveys to monitor  benthic  epifauna and develop  a  set
of Bay wide consensus protocols and a plan for implementing the compatible protocols.

4. Design and implement  a benthic  epifauna  monitoring  program  (complementary  to the
existing oyster  bar  survey epifauna   component)  to cover all  representative salinity
zones.   Artificial  substrates   should  be  placed and retrieved  periodically  to  target
larval recruitment  of epifaunal organisms.   Link the program design  to  existing water
quality, plankton, and benthic  monitoring programs.

Program Integration

     The  oyster  bar component  of epifaunal  monitoring  is directly integrated with
oyster  monitoring.   Artificial  substrate monitoring should  be   integrated  with  water
quality, plankton,  and benthic infauna monitoring.  Recruitment  of some  epifaunal
organisms  may  be  found  to  be  closely  related  (either positively or  negatively) to
recruitment of oysters  and clams, because both groups have planktonic larvae  and must
settle on  hard  substrates.   Environmental  factors  should  act   similarly to  influence
early survival and recruitment  of both epifauna and bivalve shellfish.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Water column  profiles of temperature, salinity,  and dissolved oxygen; phytoplank-
ton  biomass,  size  distribution,  and  species  composition  (for   suspension-feeders).
Availability of hard substrate,  especially oyster shell, currents.

                           PLANKTONIC COMMUNITIES

PICOPLANKTON

     Picoplankton (or  ultraplankton) are swimming  or  floating organisms less  than  2 /
in diameter.   Picoplankton that depend  on  outside sources of organic matter for energy
(heterotrophic) are  largely bacteria,  whereas  picoplankton  that  use solar energy  to
produce organic   matter  (autotrophic)  are  largely  spherical  blue-green   algae  (coccoid
cyanobacteria).   This  group  also  includes  some  very  small  nonbacterial  (eukaryotic)
algae and  bacteria  that  use chemical  energy  to  produce organic  matter (chemoauto-
trophs).
                                           45

-------
     Bacteria  provide  food for  single-celled  animals (protozoa),  especially flag-
ellates and  possibly  ciliates (microzooplankton).   Cycling  of important  biological
elements including carbon, nitrogen,  phosphorus  and sulfur  is  largely controlled  by
bacteria.  Sulfate  reduction, catalyzed by bacteria in anoxic water and sediments, is
an  important  process  which  yields  dissolved  oxygen-depleting and extremely toxic
sulfides.

     Studies  in central Chesapeake Bay have  shown that bacteria comprise  a large
percentage of the standing stock of carbon in  summer.  Investigators have  associated
these high bacterial densities with high water column oxygen  consumption rates.  When
coupled  with  sediment oxygen  demand,  observed  water  column   respiration  rates are
sufficient to maintain  hypoxic and anoxic conditions in  the deep trough areas  of the
mid-Chesapeake Bay during the summer months.

     Through monitoring  picoplankton  populations,  correlations  between  water column
respiration  and  bacterial   populations  can be   established and further  linked to
phytoplankton  and  zooplankton  abundances.    Picoplankton  complete  the  link between
nutrient loadings, phytoplankton blooms, zooplankton grazing,  die-off  of  unconsumed
plankton and the consumption of oxygen through decomposition  of detrital material.

     There is growing  evidence that overenrichment by nutrients  may  be causing changes
in  the  plankton  which negatively  affect the supply of food to fish and  shellfish.
Tracking picoplankton  over time will assist managers and scientists in characterizing
the impacts of nutrient reductions on  living resources.

Existing Monitoring Programs

     There  are no  ongoing programs  for  routine  identification and enumeration  of
picoplankton.   Past and present short-term research studies  are the only  sources  of
data on Chesapeake Bay picoplankton populations.  Some of  the autotrophic picoplankton
are enumerated in the  nanoplankton  and  microphytoplankton cell  counts,  but  special
preservation  methods  and the  use  of  epifluorescent microscopy   are  required for
quantitative enumeration  of  this  group.   Measurements  of chlorophyll a  and  primary
production conducted as part of  the ongoing phytoplankton  monitoring  programs  include
contributions by the autotrophic picoplankton.

Program deficiencies

1.  No  systematic monitoring of picoplankton  populations is conducted as a part of the
ongoing plankton monitoring programs.

R ecommendations

1.   Initiate  a pilot monitoring study  to  determine  the  relative   densities  and  dis-
tributions of picoplankton at  selected stations  among those currently included  in the
ongoing  plankton  monitoring  programs in the  mainstem Bay and tidal tributaries.  The
objectives  of  the pilot  study  will  be to:  (1)  determine the  temporal and   spatial
requirements for  incorporating  a picoplankton  component into  the  existing plankton
monitoring program; and  (2) evaluate the application of epifluorescence identification
and enumeration techniques within Chesapeake Bay.
                                           46

-------
2.   Based on  the  findings  of  the  pilot study and related research studies  to  date,
implement picoplankton  monitoring as an integral  component  of the existing  Maryland
and Virginia plankton monitoring  programs.   Placement  of a sampling  station in the
upper reaches  of the tidal fresh Potomac  River should ensure characterization of the
District  of  Columbia's  tidal  waters.   This  station  should  be  incorporated  into
Maryland's  plankton  monitoring  program to  ensure program  comparability  and cost
efficiency even if  the station is located in  District waters.

3.   Routine measurement of water  column  respiration  rates  at  selected stations  is
recommended in concert  with ongoing plankton monitoring programs.  A  standard biochem-
ical oxygen demand (BOD)  test or  a  adaptation thereof should  suffice.  These measure-
ments should be made  at  the same  stations and times  as picoplankton sampling.

4.   Monitor dissolved sulfides in the  below pycnocline  grab samples  as  a routine
component of ongoing  tidal  tributary  and mainstem water  quality monitoring programs in
Maryland and  Virginia at stations  which experience periodic hypoxic or anoxic condi-
tions.

Program  Integration

      All four recommendations  should be implemented as a part of the ongoing  Baywide
water quality and  plankton monitoring programs.   Picoplankton sample collection should
be  directly  coordinated with phytoplankton monitoring (in time  and  space) because  of
the  importance of carbon flow between these groups at  the  base of the  food  chain.
Samples  for  hydrogen  sulfide analysis  should be  subsampled from water column  grab
samples  collected below  the pycnocline  as part of the  existing water quality monitor-
ing programs.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

      Water  column  profiles of  dissolved  oxygen,  temperature,  salinity,  conductivity
and  pH; selected  nutrient  species  (particulate   nitrogen, dissolved  organic  nitrogen,
ammonia,  nitrate,  nitrate,  particulate  phosphorus,  dissolved  inorganic  phosphorus,
dissolved organic  phosphorus,  particulate  carbon,  dissolved  organic carbon); chloro-
phyll a,  pheophytin,  TSS, hydrogen sulfide; phytoplankton and  microzooplankton species
composition and distribution.

NANOPLANKTON AND PHYTOPLANKTON

      Nanoplankton are  swimming or floating organisms between 2 and 20 fim in diameter.
Phytoplankton  are  defined  here as  planktonic autotrophs greater than  20 ^m  in size.
Both functional groups  are considered together here as they are  sampled and  enumerated
by  similar methods.  The nanoplankton include a wide range of  phytoplankton taxa,  as
well  as  heterotrophic  flagellates and several  small ciliated  protozoans.   Phytoplank-
ton  are dominated by  diatoms  and dinoflagellates in  meso- and  polyhaline  portions of
the  Bay.   In  oligohaline areas,  cyanobacteria also make  up  a  major  portion  of the
nanophytoplankton  assemblage.

     Phytoplankton are at the base  of the Chesapeake  Bay food web in their role as the
major primary   producers.  They are  food for zooplankton, suspension feeders  such as
clams  and oysters,  and herbivorous finfish.   Phytoplankton numbers, species composi-
tion and  production are critical to higher organisms in the Bay.

                                           47

-------
     Characterization  of  phytoplankton  taxonomic  abundance  and  distribution,  and
primary  productivity  provide  excellent  biological  indications   of water  quality
conditions.  Monitoring  changes in phytoplankton  population composition and densities
are critical  for  the  interpretation and  evaluation of long-term trends in water  and
habitat  quality.   Further understanding of the causes of excessive  water  column  and
sediment oxygen demand  requires  tracking photosynthetic  activity and metabolic rates
over time.

Existing Monitoring  Programs

Maryland Chesapeake Bay Phytoplankton Monitoring Program

Spatial coverage:
     Five mainstem  stations characterizing CBP segments CB1, CB2,  CB3, CB4 and CBS;
nine  tributary  stations  characterizing  tidal  fresh,  riverine-estuarine  transition,  and
lower estuarine zones of the Potomac (TF2, RET2 and LE2) and Patuxent (TF1, RET1, and
LEI) Rivers, respectively;  and  the upper  and lower reaches of the Choptank River (ET5
and EE2), and the lower Patapsco River (WT5).

Sampling frequency:
     Once monthly in November,  December and March and either January or February;
twice monthly from April to September at all 14 stations.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Water column samples are collected  from five depths  above  and five  depths below
the pycnocline.  Above  and  below pycnocline samples are  subsampled to determine cell
densities and species identification.   Grab  water  column  samples  collected  at  the
surface,  1.0 meter above  and  1.0  meter below the pycnocline  (1/3 and 2/3  the total
water column depth  in the absence of a pycnocline),  and 1.0 meter above the bottom are
analyzed for chlorophyll a.   Vertical  whole-water  in  vivo fluorescence profiles are
measured  while on  station.  Horizontal whole-water in vivo  fluorescence  profiles are
measured  while the  sample  collection vessel is underway  between  stations in the  Bay
mainstem and the  Patuxent and Potomac rivers.  Phytoplankton productivity is estimated
in euphotic  zones  by    C analysis of the surface  mixed-layer composite samples at all
14 stations.

Maryland Phytoplankton Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Three mainstem stations characterizing CBP segments CB2, CB3 and CBS; seventeen
tributary  stations  characterizing   tidal   fresh,   riverine-estuarine   transition,   and
lower estuarine zones of the  Potomac (TF2  -  6 stations, RET2 -  1 station, and LE2 - 3
stations)  and  Patuxent (TF1  - 1  station,  RET1  -  1  station, and LEI  -  2 stations)
respectively, and the Choptank (ET5), Chester (ET4) and Patapsco (WT5) rivers.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly from October through March and twice monthly from April through Septem-
ber.
                                          48

-------
Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Species identifications  and  cell densities  are  determined  from  surface  water
column grab samples.

Virginia Chesapeake Bay Phytoplankton Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Four mainstem stations  characterizing  CBP segments CB6 (2 stations)  and CB7 (2
stations);   nine  tributary  stations  characterizing  the  tidal  fresh,  riverine-estuarine
transition and lower estuarine zones of the Rappahannock (TF3,  RET3,  and LE3), York
(TF4, RET4, and LE4), and James (TF5, RETS, and LE5) rivers, respectively.

Sampling  Frequency:
     Monthly from November to February; twice monthly from March to October.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
Composite water column samples are  collected from five depths above  and five  depths
below the pycnocline.  Above and below-pycnocline samples are subsampled to determine
cell  densities  and  species identification.   Grab water  column  samples collected at  1.0
meter below the surface, 1.0 m  above and  1.0 meter below  the  pycnocline (or 1/3 and
2/3 the total water  column depth in the absence of a pycnocline), at selected mainstem
stations, and 1.0 meter above the bottom are analyzed  for chlorophyll a.

District of Columbia Phytoplankton Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     A  total  of nine  stations characterizing CBP  segment  TF2 are  sampled  in  the
Potomac (5 stations) and Anacostia (4 stations) rivers.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly samples  are collected at all eight stations.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Samples  are  collected  as whole-water  surface grab samples.  Species identification
and  density  are determined  from subsamples.  Surface  grab samples are analyzed  for
chlorophyll a and  pheophytin.

Program Deficiencies

1.  The Virginia  and District of Columbia  programs do not include  measurements  of
primary productivity rates.

2.  The Virginia and District of  Columbia programs do not measure vertical or  horizon-
tal in vivo  chlorophyll a fluorescence profiles.

3. None of the existing phytoplankton monitoring programs  size-fractionate measure-
ments of  chlorophyll a or primary  productivity (phytoplankton size classes respond  in
different ways to  environmental  factors such  as nutrient enrichment and toxicants, and
differ in their nutritional value to higher trophic levels.)
                                           49

-------
4. The  preservation and enumeration methods currently used by all three jurisdictions
underestimate abundances of picoplankton populations.

5. Existing programs do not discriminate heterotrophic  from autotrophic  flagellates or
obtain  good  data for  ciliates smaller than  80  /im  (District of  Columbia)  or 44  /zm
(Maryland).

6.  Existing temporal and spatial  coverage of phytoplankton monitoring programs  do  not
characterize  adequately  conditions   relevant  to  the   critical  life   stages  of  living
resources at higher trophic levels.

R ecommendations

1. Continue the existing phytoplankton monitoring programs.

2. Review the sample  collection,  identification and enumeration  protocols used  in  the
existing phytoplankton  monitoring programs (placing emphasis on the smaller  organisms)
and develop a set of Baywide consensus protocols and a  plan for implementing them.

3.  Initiate measurements of  primary production as part of Virginia's  ongoing  phyto-
plankton monitoring program.

4.    Evaluate  the  utility  and   feasibility   of  size fractionation  of  chlorophyll  a  and
primary production  measurements to allow attribution  of  primary production to various
size  groups of phytoplankton.  Resultant recommendations should include temporal and
spatial sampling requirements  to achieve the objective of size fractionation.

5.  Implement more  intensive (in  time and space) monitoring of  phytoplankton (chloro-
phyll a, species composition, density and size distribution)  in specific habitats, as
a component of second tier  monitoring for anadromous fish and  oysters. (More specific
implementation recommendations are  found in the FINFISH and SHELLFISH sections.)

6. Initiate  measurements  of vertical  and horizontal in vivo  chlorophyll a  fluorescence
profiles as  part of Virginia's ongoing  phytoplankton monitoring program.

Program Integration

     Existing  phytoplankton  programs  are   directly  integrated  with  ongoing  water
quality  and micro-  and mesozooplankton monitoring.  Comparability  of sample collec-
tion,   identification  and   enumeration   techniques  across  jurisdictions   should  be
documented.   Better integration  is  needed  with programs that  monitor  filter-feeding
biota,  including oysters, clams,  and  planktivorous fish.   Specific  recommendations  for
integration are contained in the FINFISH  and  SHELLFISH Sections.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Water  column  profiles  of  dissolved  oxygen,  temperature,  salinity,   and  pH;
selected  nutrient  species  (particulate nitrogen,  dissolved organic nitrogen,   ammonia,
nitrate,  nitrite,  particulate   phosphorus, dissolved  inorganic  phosphorus,   particulate
carbon,  dissolved  organic  carbon); chlorophyll  a,  pheophytin,  TSS, Secchi  depth;
picoplankton,  microzooplankton,   mesozooplankton,  and   gelatinous  zooplankton  and
composition and distribution.

                                           50

-------
MICROZOOPLANKTON

     Microzooplankton are  swimming or floating animals in the size range of 20-200 /mi.
This  group includes single-celled animals or  protozoa, rotifers, and  early  life stages
of larger zooplankton such as copepods, molluscan and  polychaete larvae, and barnacle
nauplii.

     Microzooplankton are  food for  larger mesozooplankton, fish and crustacean larvae,
and  gelatinous  zooplankton,  or jellyfish.   Early life  stages of important  commercial
species  such as oyster  larvae are members of this functional group.   Microzooplankton
are important consumers of nanoplankton and picoplankton.  Zooplankton abundance and
distribution are affected both  by changes  in  phytoplankton and changes in  predator
populations.   Therefore, this functional group  can  manifest symptoms  of water quality
problems, fishing pressure, and other  habitat problems for predator species.

Existing Monitoring Programs

Maryland Chesapeake Bay Microzooplankton Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Five mainstem stations characterizing CBP segments CB1, CB2, CBS, CB4 and CBS;
nine  tributary  stations characterizing  tidal  fresh,  riverine-estuarine  transition,  and
lower estuarine zones of the Potomac (TF2, RET2 and LE2) and Patuxent (TF1, RET1, and
LEI) Rivers,  respectively;  the upper  and lower  reaches of the Choptank River (ET5 and
EE2) and the  lower Patapsco River (WT5).

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly March through December; once in January or February.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Composite samples are collected from five depths above and five  depths below  the
pycnocline.    A 44  fan mesh net  is used  to  retain zooplankton.  Microzooplankton are
counted and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic group.

Program Deficiencies

1. The  size range  of 20-44 /«n is not well-represented in Maryland's microzooplankton
monitoring program.   Organisms in  this  size range are an important food  source  for
first-feeding fish larvae and the primary consumers of phytoplankton.

2. The  District  of  Columbia's  zooplankton monitoring  program does  not  allow  for
enumeration  and  identification  of  zooplankton  species less than  80  /mi  in size  (see
MESOZOOPLANKTON).

3. There is no microzooplankton monitoring program in Virginia.

4. Current  microzooplankton  sampling frequencies  are   not  adequate  to   relate   to
nutritional requirements of larval fish in a given year  or habitat.

Recommendations
                                            51

-------
1.  Continue the existing microzooplankton monitoring program.

2. Review the  sample collection, identification and enumeration  protocols used in the
existing  microzooplankton monitoring program and develop a set of  Baywide consensus
protocols  and a plan  for  implementing them.  Reconsider the importance of the 20-44 fim
size  range  of   zooplankton  being  missed by the  current  collection  protocol  in  the
Maryland microzooplankton program and  consider targeting  the  collection of  the 20-44
|im size  range  at selected stations.   Reconsider the importance  of  the 20-80 nm size
range of  zooplankton being missed by the  current  collection  protocol  in  the District
of Columbia zooplankton program  and consider  targeting the collection of  the  20-80
size  range at selected stations  through  the enumeration  of  microzooplankton  in whole
samples taken for phytoplankton analysis.

3. Implement a  microzooplankton monitoring  component as part  of the ongoing Virginia
plankton  monitoring  program.   Whole  water samples  should be collected  with a  44
net.

4.  Implement more  intensive  (in  time and space) monitoring  of microzooplankton in
selected  spawning  areas  during appropriate  times of  the year in  concert  with early
life stage  monitoring of anadromous  fish (see FINFISH).

Program Integration

     Maryland's  microzooplankton program  is fully integrated with  the  State's ongoing
mainstem  and  tidal  tributary  water  quality,  mesozooplankton,   and phytoplankton
monitoring  programs.    Initiation   of  microzooplankton  programs  in  the  District  of
Columbia and  Virginia should  be  integrated  with ongoing  plankton and water  quality
monitoring programs.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

     Water column profiles of  dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity and pH; selected
nutrient   species  (particulate  nitrogen,  dissolved  organic nitrogen,  ammonia, nitrate,
nitrite,  particulate phosphorus, dissolved inorganic  phosphorus,  particulate   carbon,
dissolved   organic  carbon);    Secchi  depth,  total  suspended solids,  chlorophyll  a,
pheophytin;  picoplankton, phytoplankton, mesozooplankton,  gelatinous zooplankton  and
ichthyoplankton composition and distribution.

MESOZOOPLANKTON

     Mesozooplankton are swimming or  floating  animals larger than 200  /xm,  excluding
gelatinous predators,  fish, and  other large swimming forms.  This  group  is  dominated
by  copepods and  cladocerans  (small crustaceans).   Mysids,  shrimp  and crab  larvae,
barnacle,  polychaete,  molluscan and tunicate  larvae, chaetognaths,  and  fish  eggs  are
also caught in abundance  in mesozooplankton samples.

     Mesozooplankton are  important food sources  for  larval  fish,  as well as  later
developmental  stages of  fish such  as anchovies  and menhaden.   Other consumers of
mesozooplankton include  gelatinous  zooplankton,  shrimp and  crab  larvae,  mysids,  and
chaetognaths.   They  are  major consumers of phytoplankton and microzooplankton,  and
thus  are  a  pathway from  primary producers  to higher  trophic  levels.    Shifts  in
                                           52

-------
phytoplankton  species composition,  (e.g.,  towards  very small  forms and  cyanophytes)
may have deleterious effects on the growth and production of mesozooplankton.

Existing Monitoring Programs

Maryland Chesapeake Bay Mesozooplankton Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Five mamstem stations characterizing CBP segments CB1, CB2, CBS, CB4 and CBS;
nine  tributary  stations   characterizing  tidal fresh,   riverine-estuarine  transition,  and
lower estuarine zones of the Potomac (TF2, RET2 and LE2)  and Patuxent (TF1, RET1, and
LEI) rivers,  respectively, the upper and lower reaches of  the Choptank River (ET5 and
EE2) and the lower Patapsco River (WT5).

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly March through December; once in January or February.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Replicate  oblique 5-10  minute tows  are made in five  discrete steps with metered
20  cm  diameter 202 /«n  mesh bongo nets.  By  these means,  sample collection is  in-
tegrated  through the water column from a few meters above the bottom to just below the
surface.  Of two  replicate samples,  one is preserved  in formalin for counts of  density
by  species;   the  other  is  frozen  for  biomass (dry  weight and ash-free  dry  weight)
determinations.  Ctenophores are removed  from both  replicate  samples before processing
(see GELATINOUS ZOOPLANKTON).

Virginia  Chesapeake Bay  Zooplankton  Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     Four mainstem stations  characterizing CBP segments  CB6 (2  stations) and  CB7  (2
stations);  nine  tributary  stations   characterizing  the  tidal  fresh,  riverine-estuarine
transition and lower estuarine zones  of the  Rappahannock  (TF3,  RETS,  and  LE3), York
(TF4, RET4,  and LE4), and James (TF5, RETS, and LE5) rivers, respectively.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly throughout the year at  all stations.

Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Single oblique 5-10  minute tows  with twin 50-cm diameter 202 /zm mesh  bQngo nets
are  used to integrate sample collection through the  water column from one meter above
the  bottom to  the surface.  Densities  and species composition  are  recorded  according
to  a  method  which  stabilizes  the  coefficient of   variation  of  multiple  subsample
counts.

District of Columbia Zooplankton Monitoring Program

Spatial Coverage:
     A total  of three stations characterizing CBP and TF2 are  located in   the Potomac
(2 stations) and Anacostia  (1 station) rivers.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly throughout the year at  all three stations.

                                          53

-------
Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Single horizontal five-minute surface tows with a metered 80  p,m  mesh net are used
to collect zooplankton.

Program Deficiencies

1. Programs are not fully comparable among jurisdictions:
     a.   Virginia and Maryland use different net diameters;
     b.   The District of Columbia uses a smaller mesh  size;  Virginia and the District
          do not measure biomass;
     c.   Subsampling procedures appear  to differ between jurisdictions.

2.   The  District of  Columbia's zooplankton sample collection protocol appears  to be
missing the important  near-bottom zooplankton communities in its surface tow proced-
ure.

3.   Existing  sample  collection  protocols  in  Maryland  and  Virginia  appear not  to be
fully characterizing the important near-bottom mesozooplankton populations.

4.   Sampling  frequencies  are  inadequate  to  address  short-term  linkages  between
zooplankton and larval fish during critical spawning periods.

Recommendations

1. Continue existing mesozooplankton monitoring programs.

2.  Review the sample collection, identification and  enumeration protocols used in the
existing  mesozooplankton monitoring programs.   Develop a set of  Baywide  consensus
protocols  and  a plan  for their implementation.     Analyze  existing  plankton data to
assess  the  ability of existing  sample   collection  methods  to  fully  characterize  the
near-bottom mesozooplankton populations  and achieve  the program's objectives.

3.   Implement  more  intensive  (in time  and space)  monitoring  of mesozooplankton in
selected  spawning  areas  during appropriate  times of  the year  in  concert  with early
life stage  surveys.

Program Integration

     All  of the  jurisdictional  mesozooplankton  monitoring  is  integrated  with  water
quality monitoring and monitoring of other  plankton groups.   Better integration  with
early life stage and  other fisheries  monitoring is  required.  Monthly  zooplankton data
can  be  compared to  early  life stage  data on  a  multi-year basis.    More  frequent
zooplankton data collected within spawning areas  can be compared with  early life stage
data annually.

Important Habitat Quality Variables

Water  column  profiles  of  dissolved  oxygen,  temperature,  salinity and  pH;  selected
nutrient  species (particulate  nitrogen,  dissolved  organic nitrogen,  ammonia,  nitrate,
nitrite, particulate  phosphorus,  dissolved  inorganic  phosphorus,  particulate    carbon,
dissolved   organic  carbon);   Secchi  depth,  total   suspended  solids,   chlorophyll   a,

                                           54

-------
pheophytin,  hydrogen  sulfide;  phytoplankton  and  microzooplankton composition  and
distribution; composition and distribution of gelatinous zooplankton.

GELATINOUS ZOOPLANKTON

     This  group  includes  the  ctenophores or  comb jellies; scyphozoans  or  jellyfish
(including  the infamous  sea nettle,  the  lion's mane  jellyfish,  and  the moon  jelly);
and the inconspicuous hydromedusae.

     The abundant ctenophores and sea nettles are major  consumers of zooplankton and
early  life  stages  of finfish.   Sea  nettles  and one species  of ctenophore prey heavily
on Mnemiopsis, the most  abundant ctenophore.  The jellies are not major prey items for
fish  or  other  living  resources,  although  some  are  eaten by water birds,  sea turtles,
and a few species of fish.  Because most are  not consumed directly and they are so
abundant,  jellies  are important in shunting  planktonic production to benthic detrital
food chains.

     It has been suggested  that nutrient enrichment has caused shifts in phytoplankton
towards  smaller pico-  and  nanoplankton. These  shifts have altered the structure of the
pelagic food chain, and may  have stimulated  production  of ctenophores and  sea nettles
at the  expense of finfish.

Existing Monitoring Programs

Maryland Chesapeake Bay Mesozooplankton Monitoring Program, Gelatinous
     Zooplankton Component

Spatial Coverage:
     Five mainstem stations characterizing  CBP segments CB1, CB2,  CBS, CB4 and CBS;
nine  tributary  stations  characterizing  tidal  fresh,  riverine-estuarine  transition,  and
lower estuarine zones of the  Potomac (TF2,  RET2 and LE2) and Patuxent (TF1, RET1, and
LEI)  rivers, respectively, the  upper and lower reaches of  the  Choptank River  (ET5 and
EE2)  and the lower Patapsco River  (WT5).

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly  throughout the year.

Measurements and collection procedures:
     Replicate  oblique 5-10 minute tows  are  taken in five discrete steps with metered
20 cm diameter 202 ^m mesh bongo nets.   By these means,  samples are integrated through
the water column from a few meters above  the bottom to just below the surface. Cteno-
phores are removed from both  replicate samples before processing; density and biomass
are recorded in the field.

Maryland Long-term Sea Nettle  Population Survey Program

Spatial Coverage:
    One station characterizing CBP segment LEI in the lower Patuxent  River.

Sampling Frequency:
    Daily from May to September at the one station.
                                          55

-------
Measurements and Collection Procedures:
     Long-term monitoring of sea nettle abundance has been maintained at one site,  the
pier at Chesapeake  Biological Laboratory in Solomons,  Maryland.   Visual counts are
made by  experienced  observers along one side of the Laboratory's pier over a deter-
mined surface area.

Virginia Chesapeake Bay Zooplankton Monitoring  Program, Gelatinous
     Zooplankton Component

Spatial Coverage:
     Four mainstem stations characterizing CBP segments CB6 (2 stations) and CB7 (2
stations);  nine  tributary  stations  characterizing  the  tidal  fresh,   riverine-estuarine
transition  and lower estuarine zones of the Rappahannock (TF3, RETS, and LE3),  York
(TF4, RET4, and LE4), and James (TF5, RET5,  and LE5) rivers, respectively.

Sampling Frequency:
     Monthly throughout the year at all 13 stations.

Measurements and  Collection Procedures:
     Oblique 5-10 minute  tows with twin 50-cm diameter 202 /mi mesh bongo nets are  used
to integrate  sample collection through the  water column  from  one meter  above  the
bottom to  the  surface.  Ctenophores are  removed  from the samples prior  to processing;
settled volume is measured in the field.

Program Deficiencies

1.  The Virginia mesozooplankton monitoring program does not record the biomass of  the
collected Ctenophores.

2. Existing  monitoring programs do not target sea nettles.

Recommendations

1. Continue  existing gelatinous zooplankton monitoring programs.

2. Review the sample collection, identification and enumeration protocols used in  the
existing  gelatinous zooplankton  monitoring  programs and  develop  a set of  Baywide
consensus protocols and a plan for implementing compatible protocols.

3.  Initiate  measurements  of ctenophore biomass as part the ongoing Virginia mesozoo-
plankton monitoring program through development  and application of  regression formulas
of biomass to settled volume.

4.  Enhance the capabilities of the Maryland and Virginia's  mesozooplankton monitoring
programs  to characterize  sea  nettle  populations.   Twice  monthly  from  May through
September at all plankton monitoring stations  within  the salinity  range from 4  to  32
ppt, surface  tows of larger plankton  nets (50 cm  minimum  diameter) should be used to
collect sea nettles.   Total  counts, settled  volume,  and biomass measurements should be
made on the collected gelatinous zooplankters.

5.  Develop volume:dry weight  and volume:carbon  regression models to  calculate dry
weight and  carbon biomass for gelatinous predators (this is important  information  for

                                          56

-------
ecological  models).   These  models  will require that volume, dry  weight,  and total
carbon  measurements are made on  representative samples  of gelatinous predators.  Once
accurate regression  equations are developed,  it will be  necessary  only to measure
volume.

Program Integration

     As a  component of mesozooplankton monitoring, monitoring of gelatinous predators
will be integrated  with water quality and plankton  monitoring programs.   Integration
of  data with finfish early  life stage monitoring information  should be required.  This
can be accomplished  through correlation  of early life stage  and  gelatinous  predator
abundances when stations and sampling times  are adequately coordinated.

Important  Habitat Quality Variables

     Water column  profiles  of temperature  and salinity.  Composition and  distribution
of picoplankton, phytoplankton, microzooplankton, and mesozooplankton.
                   OTHER LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING

     The recommended core program, implemented so as to be fully integrated with water
quality monitoring, will go far towards meeting the need for comprehensive, long-term
information on  the  relationships  between  living resources and habitats  in  Chesapeake
Bay.  It will track  the progress  of Bay  restoration  efforts toward  achieving  the  goal
of a more  productive  and balanced estuarine ecosystem.  However, there are important
kinds of long-term  biological monitoring that are  planned or  extant that  are not
specifically represented in the core program:

°    monitoring of  body  burdens of  toxic substances in  edible  finfish and  shellfish
     for  the protection of human health;

0    monitoring  of  ambient  water and  sediment  toxicity to  aquatic life  for the
     protection of living resources (bioassays or biomonitoring).

0    monitoring that will document, on narrowly defined spatial scales, how mesohaline
     and polyhaline (medium and high  salinity) Bay ecosystems respond  to  specific
     changes  in  land  use,  pollutant   loadings  and controls,   habitat  degradation or
     habitat restoration.

Each of these forms  of monitoring clearly is closely related  to the living resources
monitoring objectives.

TOXICANT BODY BURDEN MONITORING

     Because of the expense and technical complexity of body burden monitoring, it was
considered  impractical to include a specific   toxicity  component for each  functional
group in the  core monitoring program.   There are  well-established state and federal
programs for  monitoring tissue concentrations  of  toxic substances in edible fish and
shellfish, and wildlife species,  both  for protection of  human health and as indicators
for tracking  environmental  toxicant burdens.    In  the  case  of  a few  wildlife  species,
                                          57

-------
body burdens  can  be related  directly  to  health  impacts for individual animals  or
populations.

      Descriptions  of these programs  have not  been included in  the  plan  (see  USEPA
1988).  Because programs  of this type  generally undergo extensive technical review, it
is assumed  at  present  that  they  are  meeting  their  objectives.   However,  better
communication with the overall living resources  monitoring effort is required.  Also,
the  spatial  coverage, species  selection and  frequency of these  programs  should be
reviewed from the  perspective  of better  coordination  and  integration with water
quality  and living resources monitoring.

Recommendation

1.   Review  existing state  and federal toxicant body burden  monitoring programs for
their  consistency   with   living  resources   monitoring  objectives,  interjurisdictional
comparability, and integration with water quality monitoring.

BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY MONITORING OF AMBIENT WATER AND SEDIMENT

     This topic refers to  the use of  responses  in organisms  to  assess toxicity, or  its
absence, in the medium to which the organisms are exposed, or biomonitoring. Common
test  organisms  range from bacteria to  fish, birds and mammals.  Responses  to  toxicity
that  are measured  include  biochemical  reactions,  physiological   changes,  behavior,
reproductive success, and death.

     Maryland and  Virginia have established programs  for assessing the toxicity of ef-
fluents,  and requirements  for  biomonitoring  are included in some discharge permits.
These effluent programs can track potential degradation of local  water  bodies by point
sources   of  toxic  substances.   But  studies  of  the  effects  of  diffuse,  usually  trace
amounts, of toxicants on  the health,  reproduction and survival of aquatic organisms
native to Chesapeake Bay remain largely a topic for laboratory research.

     Biomonitoring   techniques  as  applied  to  the  natural  waters,   sediments,  and
important  native  species  of estuaries are still  largely   in  an  exploratory  phase  of
development.  The  use of  organism responses to  monitor  habitat toxicity is considerab-
ly  less   expensive   on a   site-by-site  basis  than  extensive  chemical  sampling  and
analysis.   Also,  biological  responses  are  more  relevant  to  the  problems  of living
resources in nature  than  chemical sampling or  body burden  analysis,  because  they
directly reflect impacts to organisms.

Recommendations

1.    Based  on  current   pilot  programs,  identify  indicator  species,  biomonitoring
techniques,  and specific assays  suitable for long-term monitoring  of  ambient  habitat
toxicity  to  Chesapeake  Bay  living  resources;  recommend  specific geographic areas,
media (water, sediment), and monitoring frequency.

2. Implement ambient habitat biomonitoring based on pilot program  recommendations.

3.  Improve  integration and information exchange  between ambient, effluent and body
burden  monitoring programs.
                                           58

-------
TRIBUTARY ECOSYSTEM MONITORING

     This concept  reflects  a  second tier monitoring program that is generic to the es-
tuarine ecosystem, rather than  targeted at an  individual species or group  of species.
There  is  a  solid  understanding of  how  many  freshwater  ecosystems (lakes,  ponds,
flowing streams) respond to eutrophication, acidification,  sediment loading and other
impacts  related  to human  activities  in watersheds.    But  for  estuaries,  particularly
the extensive mesohaline and polyhaline segments unique to Chesapeake Bay,  there is no
clear understanding  of these relationships.   Particularly  problematic  are the  relatio-
nships of  higher  trophic levels (e.g.,  finfish)  to changes  in  planktonic  and  benthic
communities. Long-term measurements of key  biological and water  quality variables in
carefully  selected  embayments or  small tributaries of the  Bay  could illuminate  food
chain  associations  and their  responses  to  changes in local  watersheds.   Appropriate
tributaries  would  serve  as natural, mesoscale  counterparts  of the  Bay proper.   The
selected tributaries should  be small enough to  permit comprehensive  monitoring,  and
large enough to contain species assemblages  representative  of the  larger  Bay  ecosys-
tem.

     Monitoring  will include regular (weekly to monthly)  sampling of planktonic  and
benthic communities,  trawling  and seining for  finfish  and crabs,  dredge hauls  for
oysters  and  benthic  epifauna,  sea nettle  counts,  water  quality  measurements (temp-
erature,  salinity,   dissolved  oxygen,  pH,  chlorophyll  a,  paniculate and  dissolved
nitrogen and phosphorus, and total suspended solids), and estimates of SAV abundance.
Some of these measurements  would be quite adaptable to  volunteer (citizen) monitoring.
Estuarine  Research  Reserves  might  be  ideal   "reference"   sites,  with developed  or
developing areas as sites where long-term changes could be documented.

Recommendation

1. Design and implement a  small-tributary ecosystem monitoring  program,  including
selection of  reference  and impacted mesohaline  or polyhaline sites in Maryland and
Virginia.

       TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN

     An  integrated biological and water quality monitoring  plan  for the tidal  Potomac
River  has  been  drafted by  the Interstate Commission on   the  Potomac  River  Basin
(Appendix A).  The  first of the Potomac River Plan documents existing programs,  iden-
tifies additional  data  needs, indicates  possible  overlaps  and   redundancies  in  data
collection, and presents recommendations and funding estimates.

     The  Potomac River Plan  is  an initial  step towards  establishing an  integrated
Chesapeake  Bay water  quality and  living resources monitoring plan, as opposed to two
separate  monitoring  plans.    The  Potomac River Plan represents a large  step in  this
direction,  by identifying key  water quality  variables for  each  biological  group, by
documenting existing  biological monitoring programs, and by making recommendations for
an integrated living resources  monitoring program responsive to clear objectives.

     It  should be  recognized  that  the  Potomac River  Plan describes a  number  of
programs established  with a variety of objectives.  The structure  of  the Potomac River
Plan is based  on  relating  existing water  quality programs with  living  resources  to
ascertain status and trends.

                                           59

-------
     Prior to  completing a final draft of the Potomac  River Living Resources Monitor-
ing Plan,  a task force will be established  to review the structure and recommendations
contained in the draft Plan.
Recommendation

     Establish a  task force to review  the structure and recommendations  contained  in
the Draft Tidal Potomac River Living Resources Monitoring Plan.  The task force should
include representatives  from all agencies,  committees,  and current monitoring programs
concerned with  the tidal Potomac River.   The task force  should develop a final  plan
with the  primary objectives  of  improving  and integrating living resources  and water
quality monitoring in the tidal Potomac River.
                                           60

-------
                                     CHAPTER 3
                     DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING

     "Continuous long-term records (i.e., 10-40 years) of biological data are rare for
estuarine  and coastal systems,  and especially so for those time  series where uniform
sampling  strategies and measurement  methods have been used together." (Wolfe et  al.
1987; page 181).

    The Living  Resources Monitoring  Plan lays out  a framework designed for long-term
tracking  of the  abundance and distribution of Chesapeake  Bay living resources and
habitat quality.   The most  important  product of living resources monitoring will be a
large  quantity of consistent data of known quality.   This  data must  be  managed  so that
it  can be used  to  meet all monitoring objectives.   In addition,  long  time series will
serve  as  foundations for research, generating hypotheses testable  by  analysis  of the
monitoring  record  and  by  experimental  studies.    It will be  critical to  ensure that
data will  be readily  available,  and provide  the  information  necessary to  achieve the
monitoring objectives.

     It must be stressed that data management will  be an integral element of the long-
term  living  resources  monitoring program.   If data are  inaccessible, poorly managed,
inadequately documented, or not analyzed or  reported in a timely manner,  monitoring
cannot achieve its goals of providing information to  the Bay community and  serving the
restoration and management of the Bay.

DATA ENTRY,  STORAGE  AND SECURITY

     The  large quantities of data that are generated by  monitoring must be consistent
and of known  quality.   It  also  is critical that the data be thoroughly  documented and
easily accessible  for  analytical  and reporting purposes.   The key  to  achieving these
goals  is  to  build  a  data  base  with  common data attributes,  in  identical or  easily
translatable formats.  The Chesapeake  Bay Program's  Data  Management Plan for Biologi-
cal Monitoring (USEPA  1987) describes procedures  for data documentation, submission,
storage, and retrieval of data from the Chesapeake  Bay Program Computer Center data
base.   The  Living Resources  Monitoring  Program  will  rely initially  on the existing
Data  Management Plan for the  technical details of data  entry, data storage, and data
security.   There must be a commitment  to update this plan as additional experience is
gained with  the  management of large quantities of biological data.

     It  may not be  appropriate or  necessary to  store   all  detailed data  records  "on
line"  (i.e., on interactive disk  storage).  At  a minimum, however, all documentation,
file access information,  and summary data must be on  line.  Data base management
software   systems  should  be evaluated for  their  ability  to  provide  accessibility and
efficient management of the kinds of data generated by living resources monitoring.

DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

     The  kinds  of  data analysis done and the ways in which information is presented
will be determined by  the  monitoring objectives (Section I)  and by specific informa-
tion  needs  (Section II).   A brief  discussion of suggested  analytical  procedures and
recommended reports  follows.
                                          61

-------
     The current status of living resources  will be expressed by  means (averages)  and
ranges (minimums  and  maximums) of true or relative abundance or  biomass.   These es-
timates can be  compared  to  target or warning levels, or to long-term means.   Trends
can  be displayed  graphically  on simple time  series  plots; where a long enough  time
series  is available,  trend lines can be generated by appropriate statistical procedu-
res (see  Figure 1).   Trends  also may be  compared  to target or warning levels  where
multiple-year criteria  have been established.  Caution must be applied in calculating
these  statistics.   Valid comparisons  of means and  analysis  of  trends  may require
transformations  of  data (e.g.,  the use of logarithms or square roots rather  than raw
numbers).

     There  are  many  techniques  available  for  investigating   associations  between
variables; a detailed discussion of these methods  is not appropriate here.  However,
much  can be learned  from the judicious  employment  of correlational analysis in its
many  forms  (see Figure 2).  Water quality  trends can be  compared  to  trends in popula-
tions of living resources,  and trends in the abundance of one species  or  group  can be
compared to changes in another species or  group.  An uncomplicated,  but  important  way
of integrating habitat  quality and living resources information will entail comparing
ranges of habitat  (especially  water  quality) data with critical habitat  requirements
for target species  (Chesapeake  Executive  Council 1987).   Conditions that do not  meet
habitat requirements  at specific  seasons  and  locations  will  indicate  unfavorable
environments  for  the  survival  and  well-being of target  species  of  living resources.
Living resources monitoring data will allow tests of this principle and  help  to refine
knowledge of habitat requirements.

     To  meet  short-term  (status)  objectives,  monitoring data will need to be  sum-
marized  on an  annual basis.   These  summaries should be  contained  in  a brief report
showing graphically how  the  Bay and  its  living resources are  doing.    More frequent
status  reports  on selected resources might be generated (Bay Barometer).  Also for  the
short term, each  program element of  the Baywide monitoring  program should  have
complete access  to the  data base to produce  individual program reports.

     A user  interface  to the  Chesapeake Bay Computer Center and  the associated data
base should be developed  that will allow any user with a compatible computer terminal
to obtain printed data  summaries or view  standard  graphic outputs  with a few  simple
commands or queries.   Summary data should include a level of detail  that will  at  least
allow  characterization  of  important  living resources within  each  Bay  and tributary
segment  by  season (for example,  means  and  ranges of  finfish juvenile indices by
tributary, chlorophyll   a by  month  and segment, etc.).    Certain standard  statistics
should  be published promptly  after  the  data  are  collected (e.g., seasonal or  annual
indices of abundance).

     Long-term monitoring data will be used to meet the objectives of tracking trends
and  determining associations  between living resources and  changes  in habitat  quality.
These  analyses will  give a good picture of progress in the  Bay  restoration, along  with
pointing out  present or potential problems.  As with the short term analyses, informa-
tion  will  be  generated about how well habitat objectives (e.g.,  water  quality require-
ments)  are met.  These longer views  will also provide  a good vehicle for in-depth
review and analysis of living resources monitoring.

    There will be many other uses of  long-term monitoring data.  For example, ecologi-
cal and  economic  analyses  will benefit greatly  from long-term records  of resource

                                           62

-------
 abundance, improving our understanding of the complex Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its
 human benefits.   Redundancies  and  deficiencies  in the monitoring  program  will  be
 uncovered,  allowing fine-tuning of the program.   Cost efficiencies can  be  achieved by
 providing accessible, low- cost, data  to  researchers.  This will reduce redundancies
 in  data collection  and  eliminate  start-up  costs  for  short  term  data collection
 efforts.  However, priority always must  be  given to meeting the primary objectives of
 the monitoring program.

     Baywide integration of reporting and analysis will  be achieved through a system
 whereby each  data generator  performs  elements of  analysis  according  to  an overall,
 coordinated work plan.   This  work plan will be  developed and updated annually  by  the
 Data Analysis Work Group of  the Monitoring Subcommittee.

 COMPUTER AND STAFF RESOURCES

     It is  reiterated  that data  management will  be the most  important element of a
 long-term  living resources  monitoring  program.    Data collection, in  a  sense,  is
 secondary, in that methods can be modified, components added or dropped, and a certain
 amount of missing data can be tolerated without fatally compromising the program.  But
 if data are  inaccessible, poorly managed, or  not analyzed or reported in a  timely way,
 monitoring cannot achieve its goals of providing information to the Bay community and
 serving the restoration and management of the Bay.  The success  of this program will
 depend upon a commitment to dedicate adequate computer and staff resources  to the
 continuing tasks of data management, analysis and reporting.

     The Chesapeake  Bay Program is fortunate  to have adequate computer resources
 available to meet the  near-term needs of a living resources monitoring  program, given
 that other priorities do not usurp these resources.   The VAX 8600 computer that serves
 the  Bay  Program  apparently has  sufficient processing  capacity  to  fulfill  living
 resources monitoring data management  needs for at  least  the  first  two to  three  years
 of the  program.    Processing  and storage upgrades may be needed  during  this period,
 but as the computer is shared  among  several programs, specific  hardware recommenda-
 tions will not be  made here.

     Current  State  agency  staff  cannot meet  the  data  management,  analysis,  and
 reporting requirements  of  the recommended living resources monitoring  program.
 Existing programs are  understaffed in this critical  area.  It  is recommended that  at a
 minimum,  one  staff person should be dedicated full time to each major  element  of the
 living resources monitoring program (FINFISH, SHELLFISH, SAV, etc.).  These staff will
 be assigned to appropriate state agencies,  but will work closely with  the  Chesapeake
 Bay  Computer  Center staff  to ensure  that  all  requirements  for  data management,
 analysis and reporting are met.

 RECOMMENDATIONS

 1.  Each element of the living resources monitoring program must routinely submit all
 data collected as  a part of the  program to the Chesapeake Bay Computer Center, within
 deadlines to be established by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Data Management Subcommit-
 tee.

2.  Living  resources  and supporting habitat and  water quality data previously col-
lected  as part  of the  existing  monitoring  programs  or  key  historical  monitoring

                                          63

-------
programs will submit these data to the Chesapeake Bay Computer Center within deadlines
to be established by the Data Management Subcommittee.

3.  The  Data Management Plan for  Biological  Data (USEPA  1987)  is adopted by  reference
as the initial technical plan for data entry, storage and security of living resources
monitoring  data.  All program elements should conform to  the  Data Management Plan in
the submission  of data.   The Data  Management  Plan  will  be  updated and expanded to
address all  forms of living resources data to  be  collected  through the recommended
core monitoring program.

4.  The Chesapeake Bay  Computer Center should strive  to  improve data  accessibility,
both  to  agency users and to a broader  community of scientists and citizens.   A data
base  management  system, with  a  user-friendly  interface   that  can  produce summary
statistics (in more detail than  presently available) and graphics,  should  be  develop-
ed.

5.  A  three-tiered reporting system is recommended:

     a.  annual reports of individual program  elements, including  key statistics such
     as annual  SAV abundance,  juvenile  finfish indices, etc.  These  key statistics
     should  be  available  through  the Chesapeake  Bay  Program computer  as  well  as  in
     print.

     b.  annual or biennial  integrated reports, built  on the  example of the State of
     the Chesapeake Bay.

     c.   occasional synthesis   reports (biennial  or  less frequent),  describing  trends,
     correlations, and other results  of long-term monitoring.

6.  Develop and implement a plan  for  Baywide integration  of  reporting and  analysis,
resulting  in a system  where  each  data generator performs elements  of   the  overall,
coordinated plan.

7.  A professional  staff  of at least six programmer-statisticians  should be dedicated
to managing living resources data.   Recommended allocations are  as follows:  three to
Virginia (Virginia Marine  Resources  Commission,  Virginia  Institute of Marine Scien-
ces, or State Water Control Board, as determined by Virginia participants;  two to  the
Maryland Department of  Natural  Resources (finfish,  shellfish,  SAV and  second tier
monitoring); and one to the Department of the Environment (plankton and benthos).
This staff should  be assigned  to  the Chesapeake  Bay Liaison Office, in keeping with
the Bay Agreement Commitment to strengthen  the Liaison Office with staff from state
agencies.
                                           64

-------
                                      CHAPTER 4
                                 IMPLEMENTATION

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

     If comprehensive living  resources  monitoring  for Chesapeake Bay  is to succeed,
the  monitoring plan  must be both  more  and less  than a  list  of recommended data
collection  projects.   The  plan must  reflect a strategic approach to meeting  objectives
which are very  large  in  ecological,  temporal and spatial scope.   It  also must reflect
reasonable assumptions  about human,  physical, and  financial resources.   These  con-
siderations imply that a  carefully defined  set of priorities  should  govern  the  plan's
final recommendations.

     In discussions  during the development of this  plan, it was argued that priorities
should  be set by  identifying a  small  group of  indicator species.   Monitoring  would
focus  on  collecting  abundance  and habitat  quality  data  for these  target  species.
Carefully chosen, this small set of species would provide reasonably  good information
on the  status of Bay  habitats  and trends in the Bay's ability to  support  important and
valuable living resources.   This  approach offers  the attractions  of simplicity and low
cost.

      If the  monitoring plan were being developed as the design for  a completely new
program,  the indicator species approach might  have  been adopted.  However, the plan
has  been  developed in an environment  where a multitude of biological data collection
efforts, touching virtually all components of  the Chesapeake  Bay  ecosystem,  are in
existence.  To a large extent, these  efforts, while worthy in themselves,  and designed
to  meet  specific information  needs, are  fragmented  and  not  integrated with  water
quality  monitoring  (plankton  and  benthic monitoring excepted).   Therefore,  it  was
considered imperative to  establish  consistent  monitoring methods,  coordination,  and
program integration for a  broad  spectrum of species  and groups of species.  Thus, the
monitoring plan will  serve, in part, as a  program guide and methods manual  for  all
those  who  participate  in  or design  projects for  Chesapeake   Bay  biological data
collection.

     Monitoring of  target  species in the past has produced valuable data for many non-
target  species that  are collected incidentally  (e.g.,   juvenile finfish seine  and   trawl
surveys).   Also,  several existing  monitoring programs  are designed to collect informa-
tion on  functional  groups rather than individual species (e.g., plankton, benthic and
SAV monitoring).   These considerations have  suggested a structural approach  to the
monitoring plan that combines  the  concept  of ecological relationships  (or  functional
groups)  with  the  practicality  of  multi-species  collection  methods.    We are  led
naturally,  then,  to  recommend a core monitoring program  which will  depend,   for  the
most part, upon  multi-species collection methods  to  obtain long-term  status and trends
information for most of the major components of the Bay ecosystem. There will be many
information needs that will not be met by the core program (for example, specific data
on life histories  and  population dynamics  required  for stock assessments, research
projects,  or   crisis  responses),  but  that  are  not  directly  applicable  to  the   major
monitoring objectives.  However,  the core program will provide both a background  and a
framework for these  additional  (generally short-term)  data  collection  efforts.    In  a
practical sense, additional  data collection  can be adapted to the core program on an
as-needed  basis  (e.g., sharing of  boat time  and  biological  specimens).   Also, to the
                                           65

-------
extent  that auxiliary  data  collection  projects  adhere  to  core  program  methods,
compatibility and comparability of data with the core program will be assured.

A CORE LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PROGRAM

     A brief summary of the key elements of the  core monitoring program follows.  A
detailed  list  of  recommendations  (extracted   from  Chapter  2),  budget  estimates,
timelines, personnel needs, administrative  and coordinating  entities  can be  found  in
Table 1.   A two-tiered approach  to living resources monitoring is recommended, with
tier  1  designed primarily  to  meet monitoring  objectives I  and II,  over broad  spatial
(the  whole Bay)  and temporal (monthly to biennial) scales.   The  second tier addresses
objective  III  at  higher  resolution  in  time  (daily to  monthly)  and  space (critical
habitat areas of selected tributaries) resolution.
                                  waters)
                                   pelagic
                                     (first
FINFISH
     A. Trawl Surveys
          1.  Baywide survey (pilot program
               at present)
          2. Supplementary trawls
(tributaries, shallow
     B. Seine Surveys
     C. Early Life Stage (Egg  and Larval)
          Surveys
          1.  Bay anchovy & other
               estuarine    species
               tier)
          2. Anadromous fish (second tier)
SHELLFISH
     A. Oysters
          1. Dredged shell surveys
          2.   Habitat   monitoring   (second
               tier)
        Blue  crabs
          1. Trawl surveys (see FINFISH)
     C. Hard Clams
          1. Virginia recruitment index
     D. Soft Clams
          1.   Benthic  data   review   (see
     B.
       1.   Biennial   baseline   monitoring
            (aerial or satellite)
       2. Permit database
  C. Non-tidal Wetlands
       1.   Biennial   baseline   monitoring
            (aerial or satellite)
BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES
  A. Benthic infauna
       1. Existing Baywide program
  B. Benthic epifauna
       1. Oyster  dredged-shell surveys (see
            SHELLFISH)
       2. Artificial substrates
PLANKTONIC COMMUNITIES
  A. Picoplankton
       1. Pilot monitoring study
  B. Nanoplankton and phytoplankton
       1.  Existing  Baywide program  with
            improvements
  C. Microzooplankton
       1.  Existing  Baywide program  with
            improvements
  D. Mesozooplankton
       1.  Existing  Baywide program  with
                              review
               BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES)        improvements
                                                E. Gelatinous Zooplankton
WILDLIFE
     A. Waterfowl
          1. Annual aerial counts
     B. Other birds
          1. Annual counts
PLANT COMMUNITIES
     A. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
          1. Annual overflight program
          2. Annual ground survey program
          3.   Habitat   monitoring   (second
               tier)
     B. Tidal Wetlands
                                                     1.  Existing  Baywide  program with
                                                          improvements
                                              TOXICITY AND TOXICANT BODY BURDENS
                                                A. Existing body burden monitoring
                                                     with improvements
                                                B. Develop ambient toxicity
                                              biomonitoring program
                                              ECOSYSTEM MONITORING
                                                A. Initiate program in selected
                                              tributaries
                                          66

-------
 Table  1.  Monitoring  Recommendations, Coordinating Committees, Implementing Agencies,
 Personnel Needs, and Estimated Costs.
                                       Key

               Responsible Coordinating Committees

                    LRS     Chesapeake Bay Program Living Resources Subcommittee
                    CBSAC   Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee
                    MSC     Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee
                    STAC    Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory
                                   Committee
                    DMS     Chesapeake Bay Program Data Management Subcommittee

               Implementing Agencies and Institutions

                    DNR     Maryland Department of Natural Resources
                    VIMS    Virginia Institute of Marine Resources
                    DCRA    District of Columbia  Department of Consumer and
                                   Regulatory Affairs
                    MDE     Maryland Department of the Environment
                    VWCB    Virginia Water Control Board
                    FWS     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                    VDGIF   Virginia Department  of Game and Inland Fisheries
                    NOAA    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                    VA  COE  Virginia Council on the Environment
                    EPA     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    VMRC    Virginia Marine Resources Commission

               Abbreviation

                    TBD     To be determined

Assumptions used in  Table 1:

1.    Costs  for full-time  employees  (FTEs) were estimated at $30,000 per year,  plus 30%
for fringe benefits and accessories,  a total of $39,000.

2.    Costs  include  estimated amounts   for  contractual  services,  vessel  costs,  minor
equipment, supplies,  travel, etc.

3.     The  Living  Resources  Subcommittee (LRS) has  the responsibility  to  oversee all
living  resources monitoring elements.   Therefore,   LRS  is shown  in  Table  1 as  the
"Responsible Coordinating Committee" only when it  has the major or sole responsibility
for a monitoring recommendation.
                                         67

-------
 RECOMMENDATION
RESPONSIBLE      IMPLEMENTING        TARGET DATE FOR     ADDITIONAL
COORDINATING     AGENCIES AND        IMPLEMENTATION OR   PERSONNEL
COMMITTEE        INSTITUTIONS        REVIEW COMPLETION   REQUIREMENTS
FINFISH
A.  Seine surveys
  1. continue existing seine surveys         CBSAC
  2. target additional species               CBSAC
  3. analytical review of seine data         CBSAC
B.  Trawl surveys
  1. continue tributary trawl surveys
     in VA & DC                              CBSAC
  2. initiate small gear trawls
     in MD & VA                              CBSAC
  3. implement standard
     Bay-wide trawl survey                   CBSAC
C.  Early life stage monitoring
  1.  continue existing programs             MSC/CBSAC
  2.  enhance existing programs              MSC/CBSAC
  3.  high frequency plankton
      monitoring                             MSC
  4.  bay anchovy sampling
                                             MSC/CBSAC
  5.  program review workshop                MSC/CBSAC

SHELLFISH
A. Oysters
  1. continue dredged shell surveys          CBSAC
  2. Maryland spring survey                  CBSAC
  3. calibrate dredge sampling               CBSAC
  4. enhance 2nd tier monitoring             CBSAC
B. Blue Crabs
  (see FINFISH, B.1. and B.2.)
C.  Hard Clams
  1. Virginia recruitment index              CBSAC
D. Soft Shell Clams
  1. continue Maryland Soft Clam survey      CBSAC
  2. review benthic data                     MSC/CBSAC/LRS
  3. improve soft clam reporting             CBSAC

WILDLIFE
A. Waterfowl
  1. continue annual aerial counts           MSC
  2. improve information exchange            MSC
  3. historical correlations                 MSC
  4. improve program integration             MSC
  5. design second tier
     monitoring program                      MSC
B. Colonial Birds
  1. continue existing surveys               MSC
  3. improve information exchange            MSC
  4. improve MD-VA program integration       MSC
C. Shore and Seabirds
  1. continue existing surveys               MSC
  2. improve information exchange            MSC
D. Raptors
  1. continue existing eagle and
     osprey surveys                          MSC
  2. improve information exchange            MSC
E. Reptiles and Amphibians
  1. continue VA sea turtle survey           MSC
F. Mammals
   no recommendations

PLANT COMMUNITIES
A. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
  1. continue overflight program             MSC

  2. continue ground surveys                 MSC
  3. evaluate MD ground survey program       MSC
  4. evaluate satellite scanners             STAC/MSC
  5. enhance 2nd tier monitoring             MSC
                 DNR/VIMS/DCRA
                 DNR/VIMS/VMRC/DCRA
                 DNR/VIMS/VMRC/DCRA
                 VIMS/DCRA

                 DNR

                 DNR/VIMS/VMRC/DCRA

                 DNR/VIMS
                 DNR/VIMS

                 DNR/VIMS
                 DNR/VIMS
                 or MDE/VWCB
                 DNR/VIMS
                 DNR
                 DNR/VIMS
                 DNR/VIMS
                 VMRC/VIMS

                 DNR
                 DNR/MDE
                 DNR
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF

                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF

                 FWS/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF

                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR/VDGIF

                 NOAA/FWS/VDGIF
                 FWS/DNR/VIMS/EPA/
                 USGS/NOAA/VA COE
                 DNR/VIMS/USGS
                 DNR
                 FWS/DNR/VIMS/EPA
                 DNR/VIMS
current
7/90
7/89
current

7/90
workshops-2/89;
implement-7/89

current
2/90

2/90

7/90
7/89
current
4/90
12/89
1/90
7/90

current
7/89
7/89
current
7/89
12/89
12/89

7/89

current
current
                                     current
current
current

current
12/88
7/89
7/90
                                                     68

-------
ESTIMATED COST EXISTING
INCLUDING      PROGRAM
PERSONNEL      COST
            ADDITIONAL
            COST  FOR
            IMPLEMENTATION
                                              COMMENTS
    $80,000.00
    $80,000.00
  staff review
 $80,000.00
                $80,000.00  Pending  Review
              staff  review
   $128,000.00   $128,000.00

    $88,000.00                   $88,000.00

   $658,000.00   $658,000.00

   $400,000.00   $400,000.00
   $200,000.00                  $200,000.00

    $50,000.00                   $50,000.00

    $30,000.00                   $30,000.00
         staff                        staff
    $40,000.00    $40,000.00
    $20,000.00                   $20,000.00
    $20,000.00                   $20,000.00
   $123,000.00    $40,000.00     $83,000.00
    $45,000.00

    $10,000.00
  staff review
$10,000.00
               $45,000.00
             staff review
    $10,000.00    $10,000.00


    $78,000.00

         staff

    $28,730.00    $73,730.00



    $10,000.00    $10,000.00



    $36,000.00    $36,000.00


           TBD      TBD
               $78,000.00

                    staff

              ($45,000.00)current MD program is
                          intensive; long-terra
                          annual cost lower
  $160,000.00

   $50,000.00
 staff  review
 staff  review
   $50,000.00
$50,000.00
 $160,000.00 no permanent funding;
             stable funding badly needed

staff review
staff review
  $50,000.00
                                                  69

-------
RECOMMENDATION
B. Benthic Algae and Macros I gae
No recommendations
C. Tidal Wetlands
1. baseline monitoring program
2. maintain permit data base
D. Non- Tidal Wetlands
1. baseline monitoring program
2. maintain activities data base
BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES
A. Benthic Infauna
1. continue existing programs

2. review existing programs
for Baywide consistency
3. review VA benthic monitoring
B. Benthic Epi fauna
1. continue monitoring as component
of oyster dredge surveys
2. improve data management/reporting
3. review existing surveys for
Baywide consistency
4. design artificial substrate
program
PLANKTON 1C COMMUNITIES
A. Picoplankton
1. implement pilot study
2. implement monitoring program
3. monitor water column respiration
4. measure sul fides
B. Nanoplankton & Phytoplankton
1. continue existing programs
2. review existing programs for
Baywide consistency
3. Virginia primary production
4. evaluate size f ractionation
5. intensive monitoring in
specific habitats
C. Microzooplankton
1. continue existing program
2. review existing programs for
Baywide consistency
3. initiate monitoring in VA
4. high frequency sampling

D. Mesozooplankton
1. continue existing programs
2. review existing programs for
Baywide consistency
3. high frequency sampling
E. Gelatinous Zooplankton
1. continue existing programs
2. review existing programs for
Baywide consistency
3. initiate measurements of
ctenophore biomass in VA
4. sea nettle monitoring
5. develop dry wgt. & carbon
biomass regressions
RESPONSIBLE
COORDINATING
COMMITTEE



LRS
LRS

LRS
LRS


MSC

MSC

MSC

CBSAC/MSC

MSC/DMS
MSC

MSC



MSC
MSC
MSC
MSC

MSC

MSC
MSC
MSC
see FINFISH,
OYSTERS, SAV

MSC

MSC
MSC
see FINFISH,
OYSTERS, SAV

MSC

MSC
see FINFISH

MSC

MSC

MSC
MSC

MSC
IMPLEMENTING
AGENCIES AND
INSTITUTIONS



DNR/VIMS
DNR/VIMS

DNR/VIMS
DNR/VIMS


DNR/MDE/DCRA/
VWCB/VIMS
DNR/MDE/DCRA/
VWCB/VIMS
VWCB



DNR/VIMS
DNR/VIMS

MDE/VWCB or
DNR/VIMS


MDE/VWCB
MDE/VWCB
MDE/VWCB
MDE/VWCB

MDE/VWCB/DCRA

MDE/VWCB/DCRA
VWCB
MDE/VWCB/DCRA



MDE

MDE/VWCB/DCRA
VWCB



MDE/VWCB/DCRA

MDE/VWCB/DCRA


MDE/VWCB

MDE/VWCB

VWCB
MDE/VWCB

MDE/VWCB
TARGET DATE FOR ADDITIONAL
IMPLEMENTATION OR PERSONNEL
REVIEW COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS



7/90
current

7/90
current


current

7/89

7/89

current


7/89

12/89



7/90
1/91
7/89
7/89

current

7/89
7/89
7/89



current

12/89
7/90



current

12/89


current

12/89

1/89
1/89

1/89
ADDITIONAL MONITORING
A. Toxics body burden monitoring
  1. review existing programs for
         Baywide consistency
B. Biological toxicity monitoring
  1. identify toxicity assays

  2. implement habitat toxicity
     monitoring
  3. integrate toxicity monitoring
C. Ecosystem Monitoring
  1.  initiate program
MSC

MSC/STAC
MSC
MSC/STAC

MSC
EPA/FWS/DCRA/NOAA/
DNR/VIMS/VWCB/MDE   7/89

EPA/FWS/DCRA/
DNR/VIMS/VWCB/MDE   7/89
EPA/FWS/DCRA/
DNR/VIMS/VWCB/MDE   7/89
DNR/VIMS/VWCB/MDE   7/89

DNR/VWCB/MDE/VIMS   7/90
                                                     70

-------
ESTIMATED COST EXISTING
INCLUDING      PROGRAM
PERSONNEL      COST
ADDITIONAL
COST FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
                                              COMMENTS
    $50,000.00                   $50,000.00 annualized cost for biennial program
    $50,000.00    $50,000.00

    $50,000.00                   $50,000.00 annualized cost for biennial program
    $50,000.00    $50,000.00
   $500,000.00   $500,000.00

  staff review                 staff review

  staff review                 staff review

see OYSTERS    see OYSTERS
see DATA MANAGEMENT
  staff review

  staff review
  staff review

  staff review
    $30,000.00
    $30,000.00
    $20,000.00
     $5,000.00
    $30,000.00
    $30,000.00
    $20,000.00
     $5,000.00
  staff review
    $22,000.00
  staff review
  staff review
    $22,000.00
  staff review
  staff review
    $51,500.00
  staff review
    $51,500.00
  staff review
  staff review
see MESOZCOPLANKTON

  staff review

  no add.  cost
     $4,000.00

  no add.  cost
see MESOZCOPLANKTON

  staff review

  no add.  cost
     $4,000.00

  no add.  cost
  staff review
                               staff  review
   $180,000.00   $120,000.00     $60,000.00
   $100,000.00
    $40,000.00

   $200,000.00
   $100,000.00
    $40,000.00

   $200,000.00
                                              71

-------
 RECOMMENDATION
                                             RESPONSIBLE      IMPLEMENTING        TARGET DATE FOR     ADDITIONAL
                                             COORDINATING     AGENCIES AND        IMPLEMENTATION OR   PERSONNEL
                                             COMMITTEE        INSTITUTIONS        REVIEW COMPLETION   REQUIREMENTS
DRAFT TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER LIVING
  RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN
  1. establish review task force

  DATA MANAGEMENT
  1. submission of living resources
     data
  2. historical data submission
  3. Data Management Plan revision

  4. improve data accessibility

  5. integrate reporting system

  6. develop data analysis and
        reporting work plan
  7. data management staff


TOTALS
LRS/MSC



DMS


DMS

DMS

MSC/DMS

MSC
DMS
TBD                 10/88
MDE/DNR/VMRC/VWCB
VIMS/DCRA/FWS/EPA   12/88
MDE/DNR/VMRC/VWCB
MDE/DNR/VMRC/VWCB
VIMS/DCRA/FWS/EPA   12/88
MDE/DNR/VMRC/VWCB
VIMS/DCRA/FWS/EPA   12/89
MDE/DNR/VMRC/VWCB
VIMS/DCRA/FWS/EPA   7/89
MDE/DNR/VMRC/VWCB
VIMS/DCRA/FWS/EPA   7/89
DNR/MDE/VWCB/VMRC   12/88
                                                                6


                                                               25
                                                     72

-------
ESTIMATED COST EXISTING      ADDITIONAL       COMMENTS
INCLUDING      PROGRAM       COST FOR
PERSONNEL      COST          IMPLEMENTATION
         staff                        staff


         staff                        staff

         staff                        staff

         staff                        staff

         staff                        staff
   $234,000.00                  $234,000.00


$4,011,230.00 $2,255,730.00  $1,755,500.00
                                                 73

-------
     Full implementation of  the  plan  recommendations  will  require  approximately  two
years.   During this  period, there will  be variations in funding as new elements are
implemented  and cost  reductions  occur  in  other  elements.    Year-by-year  funding
estimates are summarized in Table 2.
Table  2.    Estimated  Costs of  Living Resources  Monitoring  by  Federal  Fiscal  Year
(October-September).  The increment is the amount required above current costs.

               Year                    Increment            Total Cost
               1989                  $  645,000            $2,900,730


               1990                  $1,080,500            $3,981,230


               1991                  $   30,000            $4,011,230
     Target  species,  critical  habitats,  and  sensitive life  stages  of  Chesapeake  Bay
living  resources were identified by  a task force for initial  attention in the compila-
tion of information on their habitat  requirements (Chesapeake Executive Council 1987).
Table 3  shows how the  recommended monitoring elements apply to these target species
and to key ecological  groups.
                                           74

-------
                          uoi>|UB|dos8|Aj
    E
    co
    o>
    o
    D)
    C
    c
    o
    2

    co
    o
    o
    O
    V)
    O
   CC

    D)
    C
    2
    o
   O

    0>
   s.
CO
UJ
o
UJ
0.
 HI
 DC
 a
            U01>|UE|dOUUEN

              UOl>|UE|dOO!d
                   UOJ1E1969A IU96J9W3
           pee/wpuod

                  j9|8

                   SSEJ6|93

                   uo8

                 8|6E8
                         19J69 UBOU9UJV
co
    O)
    3
    O
£  -
K jc
   C
   o
   en
   cu
   o

   3
   O
   CO
   Q)
   OC

   D)
   C
   >.
   I_
   Q.
   C
   CO
   o
   O)
   co
CO
UJ
o
UJ
a.
en
            UJ
            O
            DC
           uoj9L|

          UOJ9M 8H|q }B8JQ

                >pnp POOM

               >|OBqSBAUBO

                >|onp >|OB|g

            >pnp

             UJB|0

                 UJBP

                 qBJO 9n|g

                 UBOU9UJV
                                   jods
                     MO||9A

                    AJO>)O!H

             pBL|S UBOU9UJV



              jen ^

               ssBq



                         C/)
                                          CO
                                     2   3
                                     <   CO
                                     CC     O>  O> CO  CO
^ .§.£.§  ^ 2?
c  O  O  O
-  * --g  --g
       O  o


       re  E
   3 O  §
   I "2
   O ^
   w -1-
                                                           §

S  2:  ^  fc   ^
3  3  D  3   3
CO CO  CO  CO  CO
          J2
    M  2
    O  CQ

    «  &
    re  c
=  §  o
01  ^  o
       O
                    CO
                    5T


                    CO
                    co
                              ^  o < E
                              QQ  -^ 7>  5
          2 <
          Q.
          re
          CC

                                                              co
Wetla
|

CO
co
E
_ro
Q)
                                                                                           o,  o.
                                                                                                         0>  D)
                                                                                           o  o
                                                                               c
                                                                               o
                                                                                           re
                                                                                  |

                                                                                  re
2
c
o
                                    ^^".t.Q_.Sj-ro.ro.ro
                                                 w  HI
                                                 CD

                                                 &
                                                                        re
                                                                        P
                                           re
                                           S
                                           c
                                           o
                                                                                           o
                                                                              CQ
                                                                                               0
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  CQ
O
i
re
8-
o
i£
o  o
.±S .t!
c  c
o  o
2 2
§  §
i i
.re  re
9-  Q-
o  o
s  s
2  o
                                                                                                                    oo
                                                                                                                    oo
                                                                                                                    O)
                                                                                                       LJJ

                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                       co
                                                                                                       
-------
INSTITUTIONAL AND  FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS

Governance

     The  implementation, continuation and  further development of  living resources
monitoring  will  be overseen  at  the technical  level  by  three  interstate, interagency
groups:   (1) The Chesapeake  Bay Living Resources Subcommittee (all monitoring com-
ponents);  (2) The Chesapeake  Bay Stock Assessment Committee  (finfish  and shellfish);
and (3) The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Subcommittee (plankton, benthos, wildlife, SAV).
Overall  program  coordination  will  be  the  responsibility  of  the  Living  Resources
Subcommittee.   At least until the recommendations of this plan  are fully implemented,
the Living Resources Monitoring Work Group, with direction from the technical groups,
should continue its role  in assisting with planning and development.   The Work Group
should include  representatives from each of the three technical committees and subcom-
mittees and members with technical knowledge of each of the major ecosystem components
(plankton,  benthos,  etc.).   Management  oversight, to  ensure  that this  plan is  imple-
mented  and that monitoring  programs  are  consistently conducted  and properly in-
tegrated, will be maintained by the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Committee.

Funding

     Current biological  monitoring programs are  financed by a  complex of state and
federal  agencies  and initiatives.   This  is one  of the  reasons for the present lack of
coordination and  integration.   It can be  anticipated that no  agency  will eagerly give
up programs or funding  so that long-term monitoring can enjoy a single funding source.
However,  a  dedicated, stable,  consistently managed funding base will  be required to
support living  resources  monitoring.   There are  several possible  ways to resolve this
issue.

     Alternatives for Funding

     a.    Establish  a new,  joint  Federal-State  initiative package to  fund  the  core
     living resources monitoring program.  The advantages are "new" money  and central
     administration  (e.g.  by  the  Implementation  Committee).   This  alternative offers
     the   best  chance   of  success.    Several  existing   programs with   direct living
     resources  monitoring commitments  could  be incorporated  with little  additional
     cost  or programmatic impact. This option might  be funded  by new fees, licenses,
     taxes,  or  endowed  by  capital bond  issues.   An  equitable  approach, with insig-
     nificant financial  impact  on individual citizens,  would be a  surtax placed  on
     state  income taxes,  with proceeds  put  into  special  funds  dedicated  to the
     monitoring program.  The cost  per taxpayer (Maryland,  Virginia, and District of
     Columbia) could be as  little  as  $0.25 per  year.  A surtax  does not increase tax
     rates, and is directly  accountable  because of  its  visibility  both  to taxpayers
     and legislators.

     b.  Pool existing  budgets through interagency  agreements,  with  enhancements as
     necessary  to implement  the  core program.   This would permit central  adminis-
     tration, although less certainly than  (a),  and would require less  new money  than
     (a),   but  might  require  diversion of funds  to monitoring   from other activities.
     From a pragmatic point of view, this  option probably would  encounter insurmount-
     able  bureaucratic resistance.
                                          76

-------
     c.  Continue current funding  arrangements,  with enhancements as necessary.   The
     advantage  is minimum  impact upon existing  programs.   The  major  disadvantages
     would  be  (1)   the  difficulty  of  achieving  the  integration  and  coordination
     critical to  the  success of the  core monitoring  program, and  (2)  the likelihood
     that non-dedicated  funds eventually will be  diverted from long-term monitoring to
     meet other immediate  priorities. For this reason,  this alternative probably has
     the least  chance of success.

     Initial  implementation of the  plan will depend upon  funding alternative c.  for
funding.  This  will  permit immediate action on  a  number  of the  plan recommendations.
However, the  responsible committees and agencies  (Tables  1  and 2) should continue to
seek a  stable, dedicated source of  funds.  Success  in this  endeavor will ensure  the
availability  of comprehensive, long-term  living  resources information  for Chesapeake
Bay.

Priorities for Implementation

     It  is recommended strongly that this plan be implemented as a whole, according to
the target  dates shown  in  Tables  1 and- 2.   However, it  is possible  to rank generic
elements of the plan according to  their importance in meeting the monitoring objec-
tives.

     1.  Existing living resources monitoring programs
         Only those elements of current programs that well serve long-term  monitoring
         objectives  have been documented in the plan.  Recommended new or enhanced
         monitoring elements  should   not  be  implemented  with  funds released  by
         termination or reduction of existing programs.

     2.  Data management staff
         People to  manage,  analyze and  report living resources  monitoring data are a
         critical element of  the plan.  The presently  poor flow of information from
         existing programs  will  be improved   greatly by dedicating staff to  these
         tasks.   No additional program elements should be implemented before suffi-
         cient data  management staff are available.

     3.  Program review elements
         Several detailed reviews  of existing  programs  are  recommended.   Most  of
         these  reviews  can be performed by existing  staff,  at little or no  additional
         cost.   The purposes of the reviews  are  to  improve the quality of information
         gathered by existing monitoring programs, to  explore more efficient methods
         and  sampling  designs, and to  consolidate and  integrate separate programs
         where possible.

     4. New and enhanced programs
         Most  of the projected cost increments for implementation  of the plan  are
         associated  with new or  enhanced  data collection efforts.   These elements
         were recommended because they will generate important, long-term information
         on target species  that are  poorly represented  by  current sampling  (e.g., bay
         anchovy),  or   on  critical   living resources problems (e.g.,  toxicity  in  Bay
         habitats).    It  is  a better  stategy  to  implement  these  new  monitoring
         elements under the  guidance  of a comprehensive  Baywide plan, rather than
                                          77

-------
allow them  to be  developed  in  piecemeal  fashion as the information becomes
immediately necessary.
                                78

-------
                                 LITERATURE CITED
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee. 1988. Draft Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment
     Plan.

Chesapeake Executive Council.  1987.  Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living
     Resources: Agreement Commitment Report.  Annapolis, Maryland.

Holland, F.   1987.  Benthic populations in the upper Chesapeake Bay.  Pages 129-134
     in: The State of the Chesapeake Bay Second Annual Monitoring Report Compendium.
     CRC Publ. No. 125, Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Gloucester Point, VA.

Simons, J. D. and R. J. Orth.  1987.  Distribution and abundance of submerged  aquatic
     vegetation in 1984 and  1985.  Pages 145-151 in:  The State of  the Chesapeake Bay,
     Second Annual Monitoring Report, Compendium.  CRC Publ. No. 125, Chesapeake Bay
     Research Consortium, Gloucester Point, VA.

Tiner,  R. W., Jr.   1987.   Mid-Atlantic Wetlands:    a Disappearing National Treasure.
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency Coopera-
     tive Publication, June 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1983.  A  monitoring  and research strategy to
     meet management objectives.   Appendix F  in Chesapeake  Bay:  A  Framework for
     Action.  Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency. 1987. Data Management Plan for Biological Data.
     Report of the  Data Management Subcommittee.  Chesapeake  Bay Liaison  Office,
     Annapolis, Maryland.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1988.  Draft Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring
     Program Atlas.  Report of the Monitoring Subcommittee.  Chesapeake Bay Liaison
     Office, Annapolis, Maryland.

Wolfe,  D. A., M. A. Champ, D. A. Flemer, and A. J. Mearns. 1987.  Long-term biological
     data sets:  their role  in  research,  monitoring, and management of  estuarine  and
     coastal marine  systems.  Estuaries  10(3):181-193.
                                         79

-------
               APPENDIX A
DRAFT LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN
     FOR THE TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER
                    81

-------
         INTERSTATE  COMMISSION ON THE  POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
8/11/88
Revised
                              DRAFT

       TIDAL  POTOMAC RIVER  LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PLAN
The Potomac River is a major spawning and nursery area for
anadromous and estuarine fish, including striped bass, river
herring, American shad, white perch and Bay anchovy.   The living
resources of the Potomac River have experienced in recent years
the same patterns of degradation shown in the entire Chesapeake
Bay: declines in stocks of anadromous fish, oysters, and sub-
merged aquatic vegetation (SAV), algal blooms, and depletion of
dissolved oxygen.  The Potomac River also shares with the Bay
some early signs of recovery of living resources, particularly
the reestablishment of SAV in some areas.  The Potomac River is
clearly an integral part of monitoring and research on its living
resources.  The river can thus function as an important model of
the Bay as a whole to explore strategies for monitoring and
restoration of the Bay's living resources.

The recommendations made here for the Potomac River are intended
to be compatible with the Baywide monitoring plan.  The recommen-
dations are made in the context of existing monitoring programs
in the Potomac River, which are more comprehensive than those
currently operating in some other areas of the Bay.  This plan
has been developed to monitor large-scale and long-term trends in
living resources in the Potomac River; it does not address
aspects of present monitoring programs designed to detect local
impacts of point sources of pollutants or other disturbances,
such as benthic monitoring conducted for the Maryland Power Plant
Research Program.
                                82

-------
I.  Plankton and Benthos Monitoring;

Coordinated monitoring of water quality, plankton, and benthos
is recommended at a fixed set of stations in the tidal Potomac
River.  All of these stations are at or near existing water
quality stations in the Coordinated Potomac Regional Monitoring
Program (CPRMP), and some biological monitoring is presently
conducted at all of these stations by either the State of
Maryland, the District of Columbia, or George Mason University.
The recommended stations, ordered by program and from upstream
to downstream are:

              District of Columbia:
                   Key Bridge (Water quality station PMS-10)
                   Anacostia River at Pennsylvania Ave. (ANA-14)
                   Naval Research Laboratory (PMS-37)

              George Mason University:
                   Four stations in Gunston Cove, Dogue Creek,
                   and the adjacent Potomac River mainstem
                   (POH-232 and XFB-1433)

              Maryland:
                   Indian Head (XEA-6596)
                   Maryland Point (XDA-1177)
                   Ragged Point (XBE-9541)

These stations provide good coverage of the tidal Potomac River.
D.C.'s programs follow input into the tidal river from the
free-flowing Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.  George Mason
University and Maryland's Indian Head station monitor the
freshwater tidal river, while Maryland's downstream stations
cover the transition and mesohaline zones.

Phytoplankton monitoring:

    Sample frequency:  Monthly Oct.-Mar., twice monthly
    Apr.-Sept.
    Sample variables:  Phytoplankton cell counts, chlorophyll a.,
    primary productivity, water column respiration (BOD or
    other).

Zooplankton and Ichthyoplankton monitoring:

    Sample frequency:  Monthly
    Sample variables:  >44 urn microzooplankton, >202 urn
    mesozooplankton, >333 um ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and
    larvae).  All samples should be integrated vertical samples
    of water column.
                               83

-------
Benthos monitoring:

    Sample frequency:  Quarterly
    Sample variables:  Benthos enumeration and biomass,
    associated sediment variables:  silt-clay, carbon and
    moisture content as a percentage of sediment dry weight,
    interstitial salinity.  Also annual measurements of sediment
    median diameter, sorting coefficient, and carbonate content.
    At each station in the mainstem river, samples should be
    taken in mid-channel and shallow water near-shore habitats.
    This sample design is sufficient to measure effects of
    seasonal development of anoxia in mid-channel.

II.  Intensive monitoring of egg and larval stages of anadromous
     fish

A new program is recommended for high-frequency monitoring of
spawning and nursery habitats to examine relationships of
critical larval stages of commercially important anadromous fish
with water and habitat quality.  The absence of declines in
stocks of marine spawning fish in the Chesapeake Bay suggest
that unfavorable conditions during portions of the life cycle
spent in freshwater tributaries are responsible for decreases in
stocks of anadromous fishes.  The coordination of spring gill
net surveys of spawning stocks, summer juvenile index surveys,
and this ichthyoplankton monitoring program will permit
estimates of relative rates of reproduction, growth, and
survivorship during all freshwater phases of the life cycles of
these fish.

Station Locations  (water quality station number^;

Smith Point (XDA 4238).
Possum Point (XEA  1840).
Piscataway Creek (XFB 1986).
Broad Creek (—).

Smith and Possum Points represent prime spawning and nursery
areas for striped  bass and white perch, while Piscataway and
Broad Creeks are major spawning sites for anadromous Clupeids
and white perch.   An "alternative site on the Virginia site of
the river would be Gunston Cove (POH 232), which is also a major
spawning site for  Clupeids and white perch.  See Figure 1 for
map locations of stations.

Sample Frequency;

Weekly, 1 April through 30 June.  Extra sampling following major
storm events.
                               84

-------
Minimal Biological Monitoring Parameters!

Fish eggs and larvae
Mesozooplankton
Microzooplankton
Phytoplankton

Minimal Water Quality Parameters;

Temperature
Dissolved oxygen
Conductivity
PH
Secchi depth
Total suspended solids
Chlorophyll-a
Heavy metals

III.  Finfish Monitoring

Continuation of several existing fishery monitoring programs is
recommended:

    Maryland Spawning Striped Bass Assessment:

    Sample frequency:  Daily, early April-late May.
    Stations:  Drift gill nets placed between Maryland Point
    (XDA-1177) and Indian Head (XEA-6596).

    Maryland Juvenile Index Survey:

    Sample frequency:  Monthly, July-Sept.
    Stations:  Beach haul seine samples at 18 stations in tidal
    Potomac River.

    D.C. Fisheries Monitoring:

    a.  Gill net sampling of anadromous fish, Feb.-late summer.
    b.  Shore haul seine, monthly March-December.

    George Mason University Fisheries Monitoring:

        Gunston Cove area, Monthly March-November
    a.  Bottom trawl - 5 stations
    b.  Beach haul seine - 4 stations

    Potomac River Fisheries Commission:

    Annual compilation of commercial finfish and shellfish
    landings.
                               85

-------
New Anadromous Clupeids Survey:

Maryland's spring gill net and summer juvenile index haul seine
surveys, which are directed primarily at striped bass, do not
provide good estimates of relative abundance of anadromous
Clupeids because they differ in habitat use and gear
vulnerability.  A separate program is necessary, directed at the
anadromous Clupeids.

Pound nets or gill nets targeted at Clupeids could be used to
obtain estimates of relative abundance of adult spawners.
Sampling should be conducted in the upper freshwater tidal
Potomac, which is the major spawning area for anadromous
Clupeids.  Four stations are recommended, to be sampled at least
three times weekly during April-May:  Mattawoman Creek, Gunston
Cove, Piscataway Creek, and Broad Creek.

Juvenile Clupeids largely occur in mid-channel and recent growth
of SAV in the upper freshwater tidal Potomac has restricted
opportunities for seining (Jones et al. 1987; Dale Weinrich and
Steve Early, personal communication), so relative abundances of
juvenile Clupeids should be estimated by biweekly sampling
between July and September using a midwater trawl.  The same
four stations as used for adult spawners should be sampled for
juveniles.  Clupeids become able to effectively avoid midwater
trawls by the time they reach a size of 100-120 mm (Dale
Weinrich, personal communication).  Some young-of-the-year
Clupeids may reach this size range by fall (Lippson et al.
undated), but midwater trawls should produce accurate estimates
of relative abundance through late summer.

IV.  Oyster Monitoring

Present annual surveys of oyster populations are insufficient to
adequately assess population status and trends and relationships
with water quality.  Three key oyster bars are selected for
intensive monitoring while Maryland and PRFC continue less
intensive monitoring of other key bars for management purposes.
The three key bars recommended for intensive monitoring are
Cedar Point, Ragged Point, and Cornfield Harbour Bars (See
Figure 1).  These three bars are approximately equally spaced
along the zone of the estuary that supports producing oyster
bars, and all are adjacent to existing water quality stations
(XDC 1706, XBE 9541, and MLE 2.3, respectively).  The Ragged
Point bar is also adjacent to a recommended plankton and benthos
monitoring station.

Currently, spring bar surveys and shellstring surveys of
spatfall are conducted only in Virginia tributaries of the
                               86

-------
Chesapeake Bay.  Since planktonic larvae drift for long
distances before settling, to accurately assess oyster
reproduction and recruitment it is necessary to conduct
comparable monitoring programs in both Virginia and Maryland
waters.

At each station, spring and fall dredge surveys should be
conducted, measuring oyster abundance, size structure,
condition, disease prevalence, mortality, contaminant burden,
predators, fouling, and spat count.  The objectives of the
additional spring survey are to determine bushel counts, size
distribution, and condition of market and seed oysters on
selected bars prior to fall harvest.  These measurements will
provide estimates of relative population sizes, health, growth
rates, and reproduction that may be related to water quality
variables monitored at the same site.  Spring condition will
provide an index of health and spawning condition which  may be
related to later spatfall.  The dredge surveys should be
conducted with sufficient replication to ensure accurate and
precise measurements of oyster populations.

From June through early October, weekly surveys of spatfall on
shellstrings should be conducted on at least the Cornfield
Harbour, Great Neck, and Ragged Point Bars.  Generally, spatfall
on Potomac River oyster bars is poor, except for near the mouth
of the River.  Cornfield Harbour and Great Neck regularly
receive a moderate to heavy set (Whitcomb 1987).  Ragged Point
rarely receives spatfall, but its proximity to water quality and
plankton monitoring stations will be useful in analyzing the
causes of poor set in much of the oyster producing area of the
river.

Spatfall on shellstrings is correlated with that on bottom
cultch, although recruitment on bottom cultch may be reduced due
to prevention of settlement by fouling or due to post-settlement
mortality (Whitcomb 1987).  Thus, spatfall on shellstrings
indicates the availability of oyster larvae for recruitment.  If
recruitment is not noted in the subsequent fall bar survey, then
settlement and post-settlement processes must be studied further
to understand the causes for recruitment failure.  Monitoring
data on fouling, predators, and water quality will help in
determining these causes.

Although the selected oyster bars are near water quality
monitoring stations, water quality at the shallow bars may
differ from that at the mid-channel monitoring stations.
Therefore, CPRMP water quality variables should be measured on
the oyster bars in coordination with both the dredge and
shellstring surveys.
                               87

-------
V.  Aquatic Vegetation Monitoring

The current aerial  submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) survey
should be continued to provide data on distribution and percent
cover.  Priority  should be placed on maintaining annual aerial
surveys of SAV  in order to maintain an archive of data for
analysis of long-term trends, even if digitization and
interpretation  of data is conducted only periodically.  Ambient
water quality standards for SAV are currently under development
(SAV Workgroup).  These standards are being formulated in part
based on monitoring of water quality and SAV distribution in the
Potomac River.  Continued monitoring of trends in water quality
and SAV distribution will contribute towards verification of
these standards.

A biennial aerial survey of tidal wetlands should be instituted
in conjunction  with the current aerial SAV survey.

VI.  Data Management

Currently, there  are limited centralized data management
facilities for  living resources monitoring data collected on the
Potomac River.  Most monitoring programs produce summary data
reports, although sometimes at irregular intervals.  However,
availability of the data reports is extremely limited, and they
can usually be  obtained only by contacting the individuals or
programs conducting the work.  The Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (COG) has been collecting biological data
from various programs monitoring the Potomac River since 1984.
However, this biological data has not been entered into a usable
computerized database by COG, as has been done for water quality
data.  There is need for a centralized data bank'in which living
resources data  is entered in a standardized format and made
available to researchers, managers, and the public.  The data
bank should be  part of a proposed central data management
facility for Bay-wide living resources monitoring data, to be
located at the  CBLO Computer Center in Annapolis, Maryland.  The
feasibility of  maintaining a separate database for Potomac River
living resources  data should be explored.  COG would be a
logical location  for a Potomac living resources database, since
they already maintain the Potomac water quality database, and
have been collecting biological data.  If a separate
computerized living resources database is developed for the
Potomac River,  it should be compatible with the CBLO Bay-wide
database.

VII.  Data Analysis

Statistical techniques need to be established for interpreting
the long-term,  multivariate data sets to be produced by the
                               88

-------
monitoring program.  Two types of analysis must be applied to
the data for judging the effectiveness of  management actions in
improving biotic resources in the Potomac River.  First, the
data needs to be analyzed for temporal trends.  Most commonly,
linear regression analyses are applied to analyses of temporal
trends in water quality variables.  However, a number of
assumptions of such parametric analyses may be violated in water
quality and living resources data sets. An alternative test for
trend, the Seasonal Kendall Tau test, has been developed for
detection of trends in water quality time series (Hirsch et al.
1982), and has been used in analysis of trends in water quality
in the Potomac River (ICPRB 1987).  These techniques (linear
regression and Kendall Tau) are useful for detecting linear, or
at least consistent, temporal trends.  For other types of
nonlinear trends, such as cyclic behavior, spectral analysis or
some type of curvilinear regression analysis would have to be
employed.

The second type of analysis to be applied to monitoring data is
analysis of relationships among variables.  Analyses of varying
complexity can be applied.  The simplest would be parametric or
nonparametric correlations between two variables, such as
relating a single living resources to a single water quality
variable.  Multiple and partial correlations, or multivariate
analyses such as principal components analysis, can be used to
relate one living resources variable to a set of other
variables.  Finally, two sets of independent variables, such as
water quality and living resources variables, may be related
through multivariate techniques, such as canonical correlation
analysis.

The results of data analysis will assist in development of
research programs addressing causal relationships among
variables.  When the causal relationships among living
resources, habitat quality, and water quality are firmly
established through a combination of monitoring and research,
this knowledge can be used in improved modeling efforts to
predict the consequences of management actions for living
resources in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.  Thus,
monitoring, research, and modeling efforts will jointly
contribute to management of the Chesapeake Bay restoration.
                               89

-------
                           REFERENCES
Hirsch, R.M., J.R. Slack, and R. A. Smith 1982.  Techniques of
         trend analysis for monthly water quality data.  Water
         Resources Res. 18:  107-121.

ICPRB 1987.  Potomac River basin water quality status and trend
         assessment, 1973-1984.  ICPRB Report 87-12.

Jones, R.C., D. P. Kelso, P. L. DeFur and G. F. Warner 1987.  An
         ecological study of Gunston Cove - 1986-1987.  Final
         Report submitted by Department of Biology, George
         Mason University, to Department of Public Works,
         Fairfax County, Virginia.

Lippson, A.J., M.S. Haire, A.F. Holland, F. Jacobs, J. Jensen,
         R.L. Moran-Johnson, T.T. Polgar, and W.A. Richkus.
         Undated.  Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary.
         Martin Marietta Corporation.

Whitcomb, J. 1987  Oyster spatfall in Virginia rivers.
         1987 Annual Survey.  Virginia Sea Grant College
         Program.  Marine Resource Special Report.
                               90

-------
 u
 ai
        m
        c
        o
        to
        JJ
        03
        oo
        c
        c
        o


        •o
        0)
        •o

        0)
        U
        01
        OS
                  oo
                  c
              C
              o
              E
              c
              01
             .0
                  C
                  a
              e n
              o c
C JJ
a a

cu a


I
                              c
                              o
                              O
a.
o
                          *j a
                          X c
                          u o
>. cs
U JJ
c a
ai
3 oo
«r e
a> -H
b b
iw O
I  u
.C -H
00 C
•* o
                                      n
                                      c
                                      o
                                          a
                                          u
                                          a
            01
            4J
            o
            >s
            o
                                      u
                                      0)
                                      0)
                                      CO
                        u>
                        c
                       •H
                        IH
                        o
                       JJ
                       •^

                        i
JJ
10
o<
n
o  •
0) -»

z §
4J -H
e 4J
0) 10
M JJ
                  •»'-f*f^
q
o

i"
.5

ll

                                                              V-^tSS=^Z-2r«?5s!pP
                                                              - - ••.•:^-5r**5*«r?-.'T^—.5 5Sg=-v
                                                                -•"-**"•-• zlsfx
                                                                         i?.%^-
                                                                       ^•i;«-
                                                                          •-r?~.«:
                                                                        "•-/idlrr
                                                                       ^•riri,
                                                                       »».»-•••
                                                                          *:
                                   O
                                   Z
                                   <

                                   >
                                   ec
                                   <
       5 *|I5g
       ^  125521-
                                        o • *» M-.
     :-'»
                                                                        o
                                                                                          s

                                                                                          I

-------
i i
i
a
t— «
>—
to
LU
2 85
V* *%
S
JC
c
n>
a.
•g

Q
                                        §

                      4^

                      i
                           I
                           10

                           &
      if £ "5

      > ft"
      ts e 5 «,

    7 I i s =

  ilMsI
  S & fr ° S g
  - I 1 b fr S
  •— — — *->*» e
  S € fc. S £
  I  I  I  I I
                § § §
                         ro. fr 5>
                         5 p *J w>

                        . II 5 s
                        £ 8
                             •8
                       _o g o


                       "* E "e "* s

                       i | | g" S
                    I

                    I
            III!
            !*•
                I



                * JO S
                CO « *J
M -^


" T
« S
»l
  u
•5 §

IS
J± M


il
                                                          * V)

                                                          w *—

                                                          0) «
                                                            i
           m  c

           I S 5
               S
j< c 5 *•'
c 10 <-> — o>
w •— M •— e
•— Q. C 10 —
O. 9 re p -a

8 I e- &^
                                                  ^ o fc

                                                  J2 ffi £
                                                  u- e E
O

ft
•o
c
IO


r
o
u


"6


d
             o

          •o  "*" ^-«

          §  i »
          ^g CM


          fe  fe S
          £  >-» o.
                       »4
  •-i W   C """ JH

  —. 5£?   P y _
       •o   c
       1 i" S1
       « £ £
           •£  *
                  *
               C   CM
       3 | |  s


       «r D •—'  x
                        S5
                        a -M

                        - S
                                                        3

                                                      £

                                                      5 fe
                                                  CM

                                                  CO

                                                  CM
                               E •» ~ V

                            S3 STL S

                            e 8 £ g °
                            M £ Q. £
       OWL.
       •MOO
       ^ £ £
       c *j —
                                                  s 2 s 3
                                                  5 — 5 on
                                                  « c S C
                                                  c S c «
                                                  — a: < _j
                        92

-------
CO
CO
1
i
S

i
UJ
in
V»



J?
>-
g
UJ
_J
DC S
£ *
^b
O)
i
i
,
^* ^^
££ ^
, *  «
•^ in jc
c in in
g S |.S £
Eo S "1
u? ^
«E y D >-


S i 1 S
2 s a*
O C£



i
1 h
.8^

J*
1=8
5 < £
I/I UJ
^ ^ *s
a c
111
Si
i; I
£$
§ ^2
tin
w
o
s
<*•
*«>





1
i,
*
^*

4«J
§


^.
"f
i|

1 |
Z -g
> .!>
J?




10
i
0
§
£
i
c
lo
4-1 U
in jj
—i "ec.
I
3 W*
•s =
n *"
x •§
3. £
o o
S 8
a §
**»• **•




^.l .
i ii!
u o, tl £
£ « 1 x
x T S ii ^

•c o> •»- o 10

S • • S
Z -H tSJ <

VI
I
in +J
C 10 »-
5 *-> o -c
•- VI VI
+•> in aj "-
4J 1 »- "5 -5 J^
VI Ol O. *^ Q> ^~
10 ^ S *" «- JC
14) in M •"• O m

1*3 g|^ •§*'"
sf III ||?
Jju U«t/> &UI2
SO) • • O
tt rl CJ O

os vi _§




O ^E
i !l
C c ce vi
<0 Jj> _«
5 10 *-> «o»- -^ajin

uau. o <_> z (_> iZ _j
8 §
in -J
10 m
««^ *A-
•-H tO


i !
i t
Jtf 4->
fl> A)
4^ ^j

m CM
, .
^* CM
VI »*-
^ O
tt/t
Q)
*-
Q.
*, £ f
S 5 "
- ^ *
= g, E S

tfc |
J- i *
"o z *o
— 01


•o

 ^^
C O X O)
g « i £
4-> in o g
v X
i £
•1 ^
g x>
II
                                                             93

-------
                B
                      i1

       §
   g
   S
   §   £
s   S
1   S
B   g
PONSIB
AGENCY
                      8 -
                    •»- a) •—  e
                    •o o ic  5
                      8P *-  V
                      S 4J  £-
                    U F- «  3
                  f-j i "  f I

                  *" B 15  11
                  ?I?I  I 5
                                  s.
                                  in
                      ID
                         &

                         £
                                  i
                               !*1
                                  fc. 4J >
                                           *" **
Chesapeake Bay
Aer
apeake
al SAV
ey

^   S
s: « 8
Sfi^a
« S " s
Q) I/I  - .
u £ -g J»
« i"° a
1111
(0
ter
CBL
Cen

eo
fe
1
b


§ f
U ^J L
— re 6
4-> 4-> 4->
ffl) •*-
IE
i
.?
i
S
S
                                        94

-------