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
------- |