OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000AOM\tiff\2000WAW6.tif): Unspecified error
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Program
A Commitment Renewed
Restoration Progress and the Course
Ahead Under the 1987 Agreement
U.S. Environmental Protectiin Agency
Region Hi Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
A Report of the
Chesapeake Implementation Committee
February 1988
-------
Acknowledgements
Participants in preparation of the Report:
Writers:
Charles App
Richard Batiuk
Patricia Bonner
Nina Fisher
Joseph Macknis
Kent Mountford
Ed Stigall
Harry Wells
Editors:
Lowell Banner
Patricia Bonner
Nina Fisher
Bess Gillclan
Janet Norman
Marcia Olson
Paul Schuette
Charles Spooner
Contributors:
Implementation Committee Members
Citizens Advisory Committee Members
Living Resource Task Force Members
Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee Members
HydroQual, Inc.
Hazen and Sawyer
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Members of Subcommittees:
Modeling and Research
Nonpoint Source
Planning
Design: Computer Sciences Corporation
Graphics: Computer Sciences Corporation and
Fishergate Publishing
-------
Table of Contents
Preface vii
Chapter 1 - The Chesapeake Challenge l
Population Growth 1
The 1983 Bay Agreement 4
Evolution of Goals 8
Measuring Results 12
Future Directions 13
Chapter 2 - Managing for Living Resources Goals 15
Establishing Living Resources Habitat Objectives 15
Targeting Regions for Habitat Restoration 20
Habitat Objectives for Management: An Ecosystem Approach 25
EPA Water Quality Criteria 27
Chesapeake Bay State Standards 29
Adequacy of Existing State Standards forTidal Waters 33
Baywide Assessment and Managment of Living Resources 33
Summary 34
Chapter 3 - Approaching the Nutrients Goal 35
The Anatomy of Decline 35
Nutrient Sources and Controls 36
Point Sources 37
Nonpoint Sources 41
Projecting Future Bay Quality 44
Evaluating Reduction Alternatives 46
Attaining Reduction Goals 48
Choosing Control Options 51
Chapter 4 - Building a Strategy for Managing Toxic Pollutants 53
Research Findings 53
Existing Control of Toxic Pollutants 53
Controlling Toxicants 54
The Task Ahead 62
Chapter 5 - Research Needs 64
Modeling Capabilities 64
Living Resources Research 65
Toxic Substances 66
Economics 67
Looking Ahead 68
Appendices 69
Glossary 82
References 85
-------
Index of Figures and Tables
Chapter 1 - The Chesapeake Challenge
Figure 1-1 Projected Population Changes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (1985-2000) 2
Figure 1-2 Cheasapeake Bay Program Committee Structure 5
Figure 1-3 Maryland's Agricultural Cost Share (MACS) Program Priority Areas 6
Figure 1-4 Highly Erosive Soils of the District of Columbia 6
Figure 1-5 Areas Targeted for Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Funds in Virginia 7
Figure 1-6 Pennsylvania's Priority Watersheds for Agricultural BMP Implementation
Under the Chesapeake Bay Program 7
Figure 1-7 Evolution of the Chesapeake Bay Program 14
Chapter 2 - Managing for Living Resources Goals
Figure 2-1 Habitat Distribution of Striped Bass Spawning Reaches and Rivers 17
Figure 2-2 Habitat Distribution of Seed Areas and Suitable Substrate
for the American Oyster 18
Figure 2-3 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 19
Figure 2-4 Finfish Spawning and Nursery Habitats 20
Figure 2-5 Habitat Distribution of the American Oyster, Softshcll Clam, and Hard Clam 21
Figure 2-6 Shellfish Habitat and 1985 Summer Dissolved Oxygen
at 10 meters or Bottom Depth 22
Figure 2-7 Blue Crab Summer Habitat Distribution and Winter Spawning Areas 22
Figure 2-8 Waterfowl Habitat and 1985 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution 23
Figure 2-9 1985 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution and
Summer Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus Concentrations 24
Figure 2-10 1985 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution and
Summer Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen Concentrations 24
Figure 2-11 1985 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution and
Summer Chlorophyll a Concentrations 25
Figure 2-12 Tidal Tributary Chesapeake Bay Segments where
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements are Exceeded 25
Figure 2-13 Geographical Zonation of Potential Living Resource Habitat Objectives 27
Figure 2-14 Geographic Distribution of State Standard Classification
for the Tidal Chesapeake Bay Basin 30
Chapter 3 - Approaching the Nutrients Goal
Figure 3-1 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Basin in 1985 36
Figure 3-2 Movement of Nutrients to Ground Water and Base Streamflow 37
Figure 3-3 Relative Contributions of Point Sources of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in 1985 38
Figure 3-4 Point Source Loadings of Nutrients by Basin 39
Figure 3-5 Nonpoint Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 41
Figure 3-6 Agricultural Nonpoint Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 42
Figure 3-7 Base Flow Load Distribution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in 1985 44
Figure 3-8 Total Annual Flow (cfs) for Major River Basins in
Chesapeake Bay over a 44-year period 45
Figure 3-9 Bottom Layer Dissolved Oxygen and Upper Layer Algae Concentrations
Projected for the Chesapeake Bay in the Year 2000 48
Figure 3-10 Improvements Projected in Surface Chlorophyll a with the Implementation
of the Nutrient Reduction Goal --1984 Circulation 49
-------
Chapter 3 (continued)
Figure 3-11 Improvements Projected in Surface Chlorophyll a with the Implementation
of the Nutrient Reduction Goal -- 1985 Circulation 49
Figure 3-12 Improvements Projected in Dissolved Oxygen with the Implementation
of the Nutrient Reduction Goal -- 1984 Circulation 50
Figure 3-13 Improvements in Dissolved Oxygen with the Implementation
of the Nutrient Reduction Goal -- 1985 Circulation 50
Chapter 4 - Building a Strategy for Managing Toxic Pollutants
Figure 4-1 Chesapeake Bay Toxics Strategy Schematic 55
Figure 4-2 Discharges with Biomoniionng Requirements 58
Figure 4-3 Municipal Discharges with Preircatmcnt Requirements and Industrial
Dischargers with the Potential to Discharge Toxic Substances 59
Figure 4-4 Hazardous Waste Sites in Watersheds Draining to Critical Living Resource Areas 60
Figure 4-5 MD, PA, and VA Application Intensity of Selected Pesticides 61
Chapter 1 - The Chesapeake Challenge
Table 1-1 Projected Population Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 3
Chapter 2 - Managing for Living Resources Goals
Table 2-1 Summary of Habitat Requirements for Striped Bass 1*7
Table 2-2 Summary of Habiuil Requirements for the American Oyster 18
Table 2-3 Summary of Habitat Requirements of Selected Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Species in the Mcsohaline Zone 19
Table 2-4 Finfish Spawning and Nursery Areas 21
Table 2-5 Key Chesapeake Bay Habitats for Shellfish , 21
Table 2-6 Key Chesapeake Bay Habitats for Blue Crabs 22
Table 2-7 Key Chesapeake Bay Habitats for Waterfowl and
Submerged Aquatic Vegetau'on 23
Table 2-8 Potential Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Habitat Objectives 28
Table 2-9 State Water Quality Standards for Chesapeake Bay, its Tributaries,
and the Lower Susquehanna River 31
Chapter 3 - Approaching the Nutrients Goal
Table 3-1 Existing and Future POTW Flows (MGD) below the Fall Line 39
Table 3-2 Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 40
Table 3-3 Agricultural NPS Nutrient Reduction in Terms of
Soil Saved and Manure Stored 43
Table 3-4 The Effectiveness of Nutrient Reduction Scenarios Simulated
by the Steady-State Model Using 1984 Circulation 47
Table 3-5 Planning Level Unit Costs for Nutrient Removal 52
-------
Preface
Vll
Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and
living resources will require many years of sustained
effort by governments and citizens alike. The cumulative
effects of decades of environmental decline and surging
population growth combine to challenge the will, imagin-
ation and resources of both government agencies and
private organizations.
People of the Chesapeake Basin want to know how
much more must be done, where, at what cost, for how
long and with what anticipated results in the Bay. To
help answer these questions, the Chesapeake Executive
Council in 1986 adopted a new program evaluation and
development process - the Phase II process. Since the
Phase II process will evolve over the next five years or
more, the Council asked for this interim report to give
Bay managers, decision makers, legislators and interest-
ed members of the Bay community information they can
use now to further advance state and federal cleanup
activities. Those activities are described in the 1985
Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan 1. The
annual reports under the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment document the progress of these programs 2-3.
Members of the Executive Council recognized that
specific goals and milestones are necessary to retain
public support. In January 1987, Virginia Governor
Gerald Baliles, Chairman of the Council, proposed that
the adequacy of the 1983 Agreement4 be examined and
that a new Agreement be developed if necessary. In May
of last year a drafting committee of Council members was
formed and charged with the tasks of expanding the
original Agreement to address key issues and proposing
specific goals and milestones necessary to provide public
accountability and retain citizen support. In August, a
Draft Agreement5 was released and a public review
process launched. That process, along with information
developed for this report, helped the drafting committee
to revise and complete the new Bay Agreement 6, which
was signed December 15,1987.
This report summarizes current knowledge about the
problems of the Bay, identifies emerging issues, and
presents new information about the effectiveness of
cleanup programs. It documents the findings and works
performed since 1983, and explains how they led to a
new, expanded Agreement. Chapter 1 outlines restora-
tion and protection efforts, which focus on reducing the
flow of nutrients and toxic substances to the Bay, and
relates them to Chesapeake Bay Program goals. It also
summarizes key commitments and objectives of the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Habitat and living resources
goals for the Bay and its tributaries are detailed in
Chapter 2.
Alternative nutrient control strategics and their
potential to achieve water quality conditions necessary to
restore and protect living resources are presented and
discussed in Chapter 3. Evaluations of strategies are
based on projections made from computerized models
and the best judgment of Bay region scientists and
managers. Problems of toxic contamination and current
efforts to reduce the levels of toxicants in the Bay system
are outlined in Chapter 4. Possible long-term strategies
to control and manage toxic pollutants also are described.
The information provided in chapters 2, 3 and 4 forms
a foundation for meeting living resource commitments
and formulating the nutrient reduction and toxic
substance control strategics required under the 1987
Agreement.
In the course of preparing the interim report, writers
and reviewers have focused on new areas where more
knowledge is needed for major program decisions yet to
come. These research needs, identified in Chapter 5,
will be useful in developing the comprehensive research
plan called for in the 1987 Agreement.
State and federal agencies are committed to consider
the information presented in this report, to decide how
they can most effectively and efficiently apply this infor-
mation to their programs, and to use it to help meet the
commitments in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
Any resulting changes in programs will be reflected in
future Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan
supplements.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin
1 Susquehanna
2. Eastern Shore
3. West Chesapeake
4. Patuxent
5. Potomac
6. Rappahannock
7. York
8. James
-------
Chapter 1
The Chesapeake Challenge
Though signs of the Bay's decline were evident long
before the 1970s and some studies had been conducted,
thcrc had been no comprehensive attempts to gather and
evaluate data for the watershed as a whole, to determine
the cause and effect relationships underlying the Bay's
problems, and to recommend remedies. The major
environmental problems of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries were investigated in a comprehensive study
initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in 1975 at the direction of Congress.
Final research findings and recommended remedial
strategies were published in September 1983 7- The study
identified ten areas of environmental concern in the Bay
(see box). The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP)
then selected three specific problems for concentrated
examination: nutrient enrichment, toxic substances, and
declines in submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
Researchers concluded that excessive nitrogen and
phosphorus in the Bay were causing the overgrowth of
ecologically undesirable species of phytoplankton
(microscopic floating plants). Effects of this overgrowth
included increases in the extent and duration of low
dissolved oxygen in the deep waters of the Bay, chiefly
as a result of plankton decay processes. Adequate levels
of dissolved oxygen are essential to animals and plants of
the Bay.
Toxic substances are a prime concern because of their
potential chronic and lethal effects on the Bay's living
resources. They can accumulate in the tissues of fish and
shellfish or attach to sediment, eventually recycling
through the water, plants and animals in the ecosystem.
Contamination in the Bay is most severe near heavily
industrialized areas along the Elizabeth and Patapsco
rivers. In these waters and sediments both heavy metal
and toxic organic compound concentrations are found at
elevated levels. Toxic contaminants are found in lower
concentrations in other portions of the Bay.
The sharp decline of SAV throughout the Bay
(especially in its upper reaches) created concern over the
loss of habitat and indicated that the Bay was in trouble.
More than any other single group of organisms, SAV can
provide a biological index of the "health" of the Bay's
shallow waters. SAV functions as a critical link among
the different levels of the Bay food web and the physical
environment. It provides both food and habitat for
species occupying the higher levels of the Bay's food
web. SAV abundance is limited by turbidity and the
amount of phytoplankton in the water. The distribution of
various SAV species is dependent mostly on salinity and
bottom sediment types.
The Bay study concluded that nutrient enrichment was
Other Areas of Environmental Concern
1977
The seven other areas of environmental concern identified
during the Bay Study have been investigated as they relate
to the three priority issues, and specifically addressed by:
• Wetlands alteration
• Shoreline erosion
• Hydrologic modification
• Fisheries modification
• Shellfish bed closures
• Dredging and dredged material disposal
• Effects of boating/shipping on water
quality
the primary factor in the decline of SAV beds. Nutrients,
by fueling the growth of excess phytoplankton, cause a
decrease in water clarity and an increase in the number of
organisms that grow on the leaves of the SAV. Both of
these responses, in turn, cause a decrease in available
light for the SAV. Suspended sediments also block light,
contributing to the decline.
In addition to the three primary problems, a characteri-
zation of the Bay8 through time revealed discouraging
trends in other aspects of the Bay's ecosystem.
Long-term decreases in the harvests of several species of
finfish and shellfish were indicative of poor water
quality, loss of habitat, and over-harvesting of these
species.
The CBP recommended various actions to restore and
protect the Chesapeake Bay. Measures to limit the
amounts of nutrients and toxics reaching the Bay were
emphasized. CBP also proposed a coordinated Baywide
water quality monitoring system to develop baseline data
and record subsequent environmental changes. These
data provide the means to measure the success of
remedial actions and help to discriminate between natural
variability and man-induced change.
Population Growth
The EPA Bay Study recognized that land use and
population growth are major factors shaping environ-
mental conditions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Ultimately, the number of people living in the Bay basin
determines how much water, energy and land are used,
-------
Projected Population Change
Decrease
[]] 0 to 10,000
> 10,000 to 50,000
> 50,000 to 100,000
Over 100,000
Figure 1-1. Projected Population Change in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (1985-2000)
-------
Table 1-1
Projected Population Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
1985
BELOW FALL LINE
Population: 8,416,476
Acres: 8,960,000
Density*: 0.94
ABOVE FALL LINE
Population: 7,460,32
Acres: 27,600,000
Density*: 0.27
TOTAL
Population:
*Density =
persons/acre
15,876,798
2000
9,495,1011
8,960,000
1.1
8,101,382
27,600,000
0.29
17,596,483
% CHANGE
12.8
8.6
10.8
as well as how much and what types of wastes are gener-
ated. The wastes then adversely affect long-term biolog-
ical and economic productivity in the watershed. Popula-
tion size dictates the demands placed on the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem, and those demands are growing.
In the Bay watershed, population increased 50 percent
overall from 1950 to 19808. The environmental impact
was clearly defined in some areas. For example, in the
Patuxent River basin, the population increase was greater
than 200 percent. The increased municipal sewage
discharges and land use changes that accompanied the
population growth resulted in low dissolved oxygen
levels and high chlorophyll concentrations in the
Patuxent. These water quality problems, in turn, were
likely the major causes of reduced numbers of finfish and
shellfish, loss of species diversity, large reductions of
SAV acreage, and low oyster spat set.
The states of the Chesapeake watershed anticipate
continued growth in the years ahead. Based on their
estimates, population will increase about 11 percent
basinwide between 1985 and the year 2000. Figure 1-1
illustrates this projection. It shows high or medium
projected increases in counties nearest the Bay, and low
increases or actual declines in population in counties
above the fall line (zone where a river changes from
free-flowing to tidally-influenced). Historically, the area
below the fall line has been more attractive to settlement.
It now supports a population density three and one-half
times greater than that above the fall line (Table 1-1).
This concentration of human activities and land use
changes below the fall line raises the potential for adverse
effects on the Bay.
Population growth brings parallel increases in
industry, commercial development, transportation and
housing. These increases create conflicts over land use
as development competes for farm acreage and wildlife
habitat. Changes in land use lead to increased loadings of
nutrients and toxic substances, and can modify or even
destroy critical living resources habitats (e.g. wetlands).
Growth brings construction which disrupts the soil and
alters natural runoff and streamflow patterns, and can
change water temperature and the salinity regime. As a
result, greater volumes of sediment frequently reach Bay
tributaries, causing decreased penetration of sunlight vital
to vegetation. Sediment also clogs larval fish gills and
smothers nonmobile organisms such as clams and
oysters. Along with sediments come increasing loads of
nutrients, particularly phosphorus.
An increasing population generates additional waste
which must be collected, treated, discharged and
assimilated. For every 1,000 additional residents, for
example, a community must handle roughly 1.5 million
more pounds of solid waste a year — not counting any
industrial waste generation that might be related to
population growth 9. Each person also means another 75
to 100 gallons of municipal wastewater a day, or 27 to 36
million more gallons per year for every 1,000 additional
persons 10.
These additional wastes stress existing solid and
hazardous waste and municipal wastewater facilities, as
well as the assimilative capacity of air, land and water.
Treatment and disposal facilities will need to be up-
graded, expanded or constructed just to maintain present
water quality conditions. These changes, in themselves,
increase demand for land and resources. To restore
conditions more favorable to the living resources of the
Bay, the means must be found to reduce inputs of
nutrients and toxic substances, despite the demands of
population growth.
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement recognizes the
need to mitigate the potential adverse effects of continued
growth and development. It calls for "development
policies and guidelines" to be adopted by January 1989;
assistance to local governments in evaluating land use
and development decisions; incentives, technical assis-
tance and guidance to encourage wetlands protection; and
-------
steps to ensure that state and federal development projects
serve as models for the private sector. Finally, it calls for
commissioning a panel of experts to report by December
1988 on anticipated growth and land development pat-
terns to the year 2020 and to outline what will be needed
to manage the projected growth.
The 1983 Bay Agreement
Until the 1987 Agreement was signed, the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement of December 1983 was the cornerstone
of the restoration and protection program. The 1983
Agreement set in motion a coordinated campaign to
reverse the decline of living resources in the Bay. It also
established the major elements of a cooperative structure
to develop and coordinate the comprehensive Bay
cleanup: the Chesapeake Executive Council, its
Implementation Committee, and EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office.
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of
Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and EPA
were the original partners in the Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment. Six other federal agencies formally joined in the
Bay cleanup in 1984: Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NO A A), Geological Survey
(USGS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CoE) and the
Department of Defense (DoD) n.
Organization
Commitment to restoring the Bay has enabled states
whose institutions and political traditions differ and
federal agencies with diverse missions to work together
to solve common problems while retaining the
independence of their programs. The Chesapeake
Executive Council provides the leadership and focus that
shapes their work (Figure 1-2).
The Council membership includes representatives
from each of the four jurisdictions and from the EPA.
Chairmanship of the Council rotates among the three
State Governors, the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
and the representative of the EPA. Operating by
consensus, the Council's primary functions are planning
and coordination to ensure efficient implementation of
programs and projects to restore the Bay.
The Implementation Committee, the Council's
operating arm, has 26 members: delegates from the
jurisdictions, and representatives of the seven federal
agencies and three interstate commissions (Chesapeake
Bay Commission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin, and Susquehanna River Basin
Commission). Subcommittees for Planning, Nonpoint
Sources, Data Management, Modeling and Research,
Monitoring, and Living Resources coordinate work in
those categories across agency and state lines. A
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC),
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement
of 1983
We recognize that the findings of the Chesapeake
Bay Program have shown an historical decline in the
living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and that a
cooperative approach is needed among the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State
of Maryland, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania
and Virginia, and the District of Columbia (the
States) to fully address the extent, complexity, and
sources of pollutants entering the Bay. We further
recognize that EPA and the States share the
responsibility for management decisions and
resources regarding the high priority issues of the
Chesapeake Bay. Accordingly, the States and EPA
agree to the following actions:
1. A Chesapeake Executive Council will be
established which will meet at least twice yearly to
assess and oversee the implementation of coordinated
plans to improve and protect the water quality and
living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine
system. The Council will consist of the appropriate
Cabinet designees of the Governors and the Mayor
of the District of Columbia and the Regional
Administrator of EPA. The Council will be
initially chaired by EPA and will report annually to
the signatories of this Agreement.
2. The Chesapeake Executive Council will establish
an implementation committee of agency representa-
tives who will meet as needed to coordinate technical
matters and to coordinate the development and
evaluation of management plans. The Council may
appoint such ex-officio nonvoting members as
deemed appropriate.
3. A liaison office for Chesapeake Bay activities
will be established at EPA's Central Regional
Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland, to advise and
support the Council and committee.
whose membership includes directors of major Bay area
research institutions, also assists the Implementation
Committee. The Chesapeake Research Consortium*, an
organization of Bay research institutions, provides
support for STAC through an EPA grant.
The Council has a Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC) to provide a public perspective on policy issues.
CAC has 25 members: four appointed by the chief execu-
tive in each state, and nine at-large members nominated
by the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.,
* The Consortium's administration center rotates among
member institutions, and currently is located at the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Committee Structure
Executive Council
Implementation
Committee
Subcommittees
Scientific & Technical
Advisory Committee
Living Monitoring Modeling Planning
Resources and Research
Figure 1-2. Cheapeake Bay Program Committee Structure
Nonpoint Source Data Management
which also staffs the CAC under an EPA grant.
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office provides
administrative, technical and public information support
to the Council and its auxiliary groups. Staff members
administer grants and contracts, perform special projects
and provide technical advice and support.
State Programs
Participants in the Bay cleanup recognize that the
economic future of the region is dependent on a
revitalized Bay. They look forward to a time when Bay
waters can again produce rich annual harvests of fish and
shellfish. Therefore, even before the Bay Agreement was
signed, the four jurisdictions had programs in place and
plans underway for additional corrective action. To-
gether, they have spent over $250 million since 1984 to
support Bay initiatives.
State programs are comprehensive. They include
varied projects to restore living resources and research to
better understand the habitat requirements of desirable
plant and animal species, as well as point and nonpoint
source pollution control programs and legislative
initiatives 12-13-14-15.
Through their leadership and participation in
Agreement groups, the states have shared information on
technology improvements, experiments and demonstra-
tions, implementation of nonpoint source controls, and
innovative citizen involvement and information projects.
They have advocated the adoption of both agricultural
and urban best management practices (BMPs) which
reduce runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and improve
water quality. Each state targets its control efforts to the
areas which have the greatest potential for generating
water pollutants (see Figures 1-3 through 1-6)
Federal Programs
Each of the seven federal agencies in the Bay Program
participates in Executive Council committee work,
contributes staff experience and expertise to the Program
and the states as needed, and helps to build public
awareness of the Bay restoration effort. Some of the
agencies have initiated programs specifically for the
Chesapeake Bay; all have focused on the Bay in regional
implementation of their national programs 3.
The SCS placed a coordinator in the EPA Bay office
in November 1984 to ensure that its many field people in
the region were closely tied to the Bay Program. Through
them, SCS has reached, and helped the states to reach,
many farmers with information and technical assistance
to implement practices to prevent erosion and improve
water quality. USGS provides fall line monitoring on
Bay tributaries and works with Pennsylvania and
Maryland to perform intensive monitoring of pilot
watersheds and plots of land to demonstrate the impact of
nonpoint source controls.
The FWS has been particularly effective in developing
and disseminating public information about the Bay's
living resources, and continues to give key support to
citizen volunteers who annually survey SAV in the Bay
and its tributaries. The FWS also conducts limited point
-------
g§ Top 24 Watersheds (EPA Grant Funds Are Targeted Here)
§ Other MACS Priority Watersheds (Funded with State and Non-EPA Monies)
Figure 1-3. Maryland's Agricultural Cost-Share (MACS) Program Priority Areas.
Source: Maryland Department of Agriculture.
g§ Cnristiana-Sunnyside association: urban land and deep, nearly level to steep,
well-drained soils that are underlain by unstable clayey sediment; on uplands
Figure 1-4. Highly Erosive Soils of the District of Columbia.
Source: General Soil Map District of Columbia, USDA Soil Conservation Service, U.S. DOI,
National Park Service, National Capital Press, 1975.
-------
@ ID 19 Chesapeake Bay Program Area (Level I) (68 Counties)
S Animal Waste Priority Area (Level II-A) (7 Counties)
ID Cropland Priority Area (Level II-C) (23 Counties)
if Demonstration Watersheds (Level III)
D Portion of Virginia not draining to the Bay (includes Virginia
Program Area [29 Counties] and Chowan River Program Area
[6 Counties])
Figure 1-5. Areas Targeted for Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Funds in Virginia.
Source: 1987 Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program, Virginia Department of Con-
servation and Historic Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, July
1986, p.l.
Initial Watersheds Selected for Implementation
Additional Watersheds Selected for Implementation
Note: Areas on map without watershed details do not drain to the Bay.
Figure 1-6. Pennsylvania's Priority Watersheds for Agricultural BMP Implementation Under
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation.
-------
and nonpoint source monitoring, biomonitoring, living
resource trend analysis, and a striped bass hatchery
release program.
NOAA has contributed research support through its
Sea Grant Program and conducted stock assessment
work on key finfish species. With the CoE, NOAA is
also working with the states on fisheries habitat
enhancement projects in the Bay16.
The CoE provides expertise for developing models of
the Bay and its tributaries. The Corps performed a study
of the effect of low flow on living resources, and
contributes to habitat and water quality enhancement
through demonstration projects under its shoreline
erosion program.
The DoD has assessed 66 of its Bay area installations
to identify potential water quality impacts and to set
priorities for additional pollution control projects17.
Over the past ten years, DoD has spent over $200
million to improve point source controls, land manage-
ment practices and other related activities. DoD and EPA
have agreed to strengthen requirements in DoD's dis-
charge permits and ensure their timely review.
EPA also pursues Bay Program goals through
regional implementation of numerous laws which the
agency administers. More information about state and
federal programs as they relate to goals of the Bay
Program will be found in the next section.
Evolution of Goals
The restoration and protection of the Chesapeake
Bay has been a dynamic program from the start, with
goals evolving as scientists and managers gained a
broader understanding of the estuarine ecosystem. The
1983 Chesapeake Bay Study final report18, the Resource
Users Management Team final report19 and the 1983
Chesapeake Bay Agreement set forth a series of goals
(see box). These goals focused on improving the health
of the Bay by reducing the flow of nutrients, sediments
and toxic substances into the Bay and its tributaries. All
also recognized the need for coordination.
These common threads were woven into the statement
of purpose included in the 1985 Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection Plan *: "to improve the water
quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
estuarine system so as to restore and maintain the Bay's
ecological integrity, productivity and beneficial uses and
to protect human health." Five broad goals also were
outlined in the Plan. These goals and the programs
initiated to achieve them are described below.
Living Resources
The focus of nutrient, toxic substances control and
related programs, as well as institutional management
efforts, is the living resources of the Bay. As stated in
the 1985 Plan, the goal is to "provide for the restoration
1983 Goals for Chesapeake Bay
The September 1983 final report of the EPA Bay
Study, A Framework for Action, contained an over-
all goal: "to restore and maintain die Bay's ecological
integrity." That goal was to be pursued by gathering
monitoring data that would help the states to develop
water quality standards based on resource use attaina-
bility, establishing programs which would attain
nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations
necessary to support the living resources of the Bay,
and mitigate the potential or demonstrated impact of
toxicants on the living resources of the Bay.
Management coordination was seen as vital to these
efforts.
The Resource Users Management Team (RUMT),
the Study citizen advisory committee, chose a goal
they felt would be comprehendible, measurable and
achievable: to "provide for the restoration of finfish
and shellfish stocks on the Bay, specifically the
abundance and diversity of freshwater and estuarine
spawners." RUMT recommended a series of
pollution control, land management and resource
management actions to enhance water quality,
manage fisheries and restore habitat. Coordination
of efforts to reduce inputs of nutrients, sediments
and toxic contaminants to the Bay system had to
be provided to achieve best result;.
In December 1983, when they announced the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the signatories issued a
joint statement containing the following goals: "to
improve and protect the water quality and living
resources of the Bay system; to accommodate
growth in an environmentally sound manner; to
assure a continuing program of public input and
participation on regional issues of Bay management;
to support and enhance a regional cooperative
approach toward Bay management"
and protection of the living resources, their habitats and
ecological relationships."
To accomplish this goal, state and federal agencies
have expanded resource management activities as well as
point and nonpoint source control efforts. Each year
over $10 million is directed toward fisheries management
activities. These funds support development and
implementation of specific species fisheries management
plans, stock assessments, enforcement of regulations
regarding catches, and protection of critical habitats.
Maryland, the District and Virginia have programs to
regulate fishing for striped bass (rockfish). At the same
time, they are increasing striped bass breeding stocks by
releasing tagged hatchery-raised fish. The FWS is
assisting with the hatchery and tag-return programs.
Pennsylvania is continuing to implement a striped bass
stocking program in the Conowingo Pool and Reservoir.
NOAA's stock assessment efforts help monitor the
-------
results. NO AA, FWS and the four jurisdictions are
developing Baywide stock assessment plans to monitor
important species and to examine historical trends and
relationships between fisheries abundance and
environmental conditions.
Under the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish
Restoration Committee's program to restore the American
shad to the Susquehanna River, over 7200 fish were
stocked upstream of the Conowingo Pool in 1987 for
spawning in the river. Maryland and Virginia annually
plant oyster shell and seed oysters in an attempt to rebuild
the oyster fisheries of the Chesapeake.
SAV has been the focus of major cooperative efforts
by Virginia, Maryland, the CoE, USGS, FWS, EPA,
area universities and citizen organizations for several
years. Experiments in replanting Bay grasses in areas
where they were known to exist in the past have helped
develop an understanding of the water quality conditions
they require. Mapping their distribution from periodic
photographic surveys (see SAV in section following)
helps indicate improvements in water quality. Species
information is obtained mainly from state supported
ground surveys supplemented by a citizens' "ground-
truthing" program which has been operating since 1985.
Recent FWS mapping of wetlands, another category
of critical habitat, produced a mixed picture 2°. In some
areas, programs to protect, maintain, and even create
wetlands are working well. In the case of tidal wetlands,
the depletion rate has decreased greatly since 1970,
thanks to state legislation. However, nontidal wetlands
are still being lost to development at an alarming rate, and
protective legislation is needed. The 1987 Agreement
commits participating governments "by December 1988,
to develop, and begin to implement a Baywide policy for
the protection of tidal and nontidal wetlands" and to
encourage local governments to incorporate protection of
wetlands in land use and other growth-related decisions.
The states are working with local land owners and
developers to explain the value of retaining all wetlands.
They are also helping land owners to reduce shoreline
erosion and to find ways to maintain low density land
uses near the shore. In Maryland, the Critical Areas
statute 21 requires counties and major municipalities to
submit plans for development in a 1,000 foot zone
surrounding the Bay and along its tributaries using state
guidelines for density. In "Resource Conservation
Areas," only low density development is allowed.
In 1987, the Living Resources Task Force of the
Implementation Committee began to define the optimal
water quality conditions and ranges necessary to support
and maintain key living resources, their habitats, and
support organisms. Chapter 2 describes the processes
used and the progress made in developing living
resources objectives. The newly formed Living
Resources Subcommittee has a major role in meeting
several of the key commitments in the 1987 Bay
Agreement: the development and adoption of guidelines
to protect water quality and habitat conditions necessary
for the Bay's living resources by January 1988;
implementation of a Baywide plan to assess commer-
cially, recreationally and selected e<:x>logically valuable
species and adoption of a schedule for developing
management strategies by July 1988; and a start on
implementing Baywide management plans for oysters,
American shad, and blue crabs by July 1989.
Nutrients
State and federal participants in the Bay Agreement
have expanded and begun programs to meet the nutrients
goal of the 1985 Plan: "to reduce point and nonpoint
nutrient loadings to attain nutrient and dissolved oxygen
concentrations necessary to support the living resources
of the Bay."
Sewage treatment plant construction and upgrading
continue to be a priority throughout the region. More than
$200 million has been spent on treatment plants in the
Chesapeake drainage basin since 1984. The successful
operation of the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Facility in the District produced nearly immediate
improvements in living resources''.
Proper operation and maintenance of plants also is
reducing amounts of inadequately treated wastewater
being discharged. Projects to demonstrate the cost
effectiveness of dual nutrient biological treatment of
sewage are under way. These projects on the Patuxent
River in Maryland and on the York. River and at
Kilmarnock in Virginia also will influence development
of a Baywide nutrient policy as well as state standards for
phosphorus and nitrogen.
In Virginia, the legislature has ordered development
of nutrient standards for the waters of the state 22.
Implementation of these standards is to begin by July 1,
1988. Maryland's General Assembly in May 1986
required that by July 1,1988, the State's Executive
Council members modify the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Plan as it pertains to Maryland to include
specific goals and strategies to address nutrients,
including suggested target loads for each tributary, and
point and nonpoint control strategies capable of achieving
those loads 23.
Pennsylvania has had phosphorus control standards
for point source dischargers within the Lower Susque-
hanna River basin since 1970. These regulations were
revised and strengthened in 1985 and are being
implemented.
DoD has conducted a demonstration operator
maintenance training and assistance program at two of its
Bay area wastewater plants, and the Army has
implemented a similar program at most of its plants.
Performance improvement is measurable.
The states also have been working to reduce the flow
of nutrients from nonpoint sources such as faulty septic
systems, urban and farmland runoff, and leaching.
Voluntary cost share projects helping farmers to
prevent erosion and manage animal waste are supported
-------
10
by the states, EPA, SCS and local conservation districts.
The Cooperative Extension Service and the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) also have
programs which deliver financial, technical and
information services to farmers. With their Mobile
Nutrient Laboratory (PA) and Rainfall Simulators
(VA/MD), the states have demonstrated to the agricultural
community crop nutrient requirements and methods to
reduce losses of chemicals and nutrients through specific
farming practices. Results of nonpoint efforts are
monitored by the states, USGS and, in selected areas, the
FWS. Maryland's demonstration farm has monitoring
equipment which is assessing BMP effectiveness.
As a demonstration of nonstructural techniques to
reduce shoreline erosion, the states and the CoE are
planting vegetation to stabilize river and shoreline banks,
curbing another nonpoint source of sediments carrying
nutrients to waterways. In urban and suburban areas
storm water management has taken on increased
importance. States and counties are emphasizing
enforcement of erosion and sedimentation regulations.
In Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, for
example, regulations require developers to maintain
runoff at no more than pre-construction rates.
Phosphate detergent bans are now in place in Mary-
land, the District of Columbia and Virginia. Pennsyl-
vania members of the Chesapeake Bay Commission are
having a study conducted to determine the potential ef-
fects on Bay water quality of a phosphate ban in that
state.
As the states and federal agencies continued to imple-
ment their point and nonpoint source control programs,
the Bay Program completed the Steady-State Model of
the Bay. This water quality model uses mathematical
equations to simulate the Bay's response to nutrient
loadings. The model helped solve an important piece of
the nutrients puzzle. Scientists knew that nutrients from
the land, air and decayed organic matter (algae) are stored
in and released from bottom sediments. The model
demonstrated that sediments in the Chesapeake Bay hold
a tremendous reserve of nutrients, and that "fluxes" of
nutrients can be released to the overlying water column in
much greater quantities than previously thought
Reductions in the supply of algae-fueling phosphorus
and nitrogen to the Bay are vital to stop their continued
build up in bottom sediments and subsequent recycling.
A slowdown in algae production and recycling is critical
because of the high oxygen demand during algae decay.
Low oxygen availability severely limits biological
processes, especially those of bottom-dwelling species
(see Chapter 3).
Toxic Substances
Elevated levels of toxic compounds, like excess
nutrients, adversely affect finfish, shellfish and Bay
grasses. Both individual organisms and the diversity of
the ecosystem are threatened by toxic pollutants. The
higher the concentrations of heavy metals and organic
chemicals in an area, the less likely that desirable species
will be found in numbers capable of maintaining
populations. The toxics goal stated in the 1985 Plan is to
"reduce or control point and nonpoint sources of toxic
materials to attain or maintain levels of toxicants not
harmful to humans or living resources of the Bay."
Since the major sources of toxic contaminants are
industries and sewage treatment plants, provisions and
enforcement of wastewater discharge permits under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) are of priority concern to the states and the
EPA. Because chlorine can be toxic to finfish and
shellfish, states have reduced use and discharge of the
chemical at wastewater treatment plants, especially during
critical life stages of marine life. Alternative chemicals
(ozone) and techniques (ultraviolet, dechlorination prior
to discharge) are used to remove clilorine from the
discharge and still assure that public health is protected.
Pretreatment requirements are beginning to reduce
amounts of metals and chemicals in wastewater these
industries send to sewage treatment plants. In Pennsyl-
vania, 35 plants in the Susquehanna River Basin required
to have pretreatment now have EPA-approved programs
in place. State regulations were approved in final form in
December 1987. Pennsylvania anticipates applying for
EPA delegation of the pretreatmem; program authority in
1988. Virginia also expects to get delegation authority in
1988: Marylland was given delegation previously. The
District's pretreatment program ha? been developed, and
permits for industrial dischargers Eire being prepared.
Stormwater management and other nonpoint source
controls in urban areas also reduce the flow of toxic
contaminants reaching surface waters of the Bay area.
Similarly, agricultural nonpoint source controls to reduce
runoff, nutrient loadings and sedimentation also decrease
the flow of soil-associated pesticides and other chemical
organics to waterways.
Sediments in harbors, embayments and the Bay are a
sink which can accumulate toxic substances, just as they
do nutrients. Continued sediment monitoring in such
areas can indicate whether control programs are
successful in reducing the flow of contaminants.
Two highly industrialized areas with recognized
accumulations of toxics in sediments, Baltimore Harbor
and the Elizabeth River at Hampton Roads, were selected
for concentrated study and toxic contaminants control
actions. Maryland and Virginia are working with EPA to
improve detection of toxic contaminants and trace their
sources, using both biological and chemical testing. FWS
is also involved in biological testing at selected locations.
EPA demonstrated new marine chronic toxicity testing
procedures in Virginia in 1986, and that Commonwealth
has since incorporated this biologically oriented examina-
tion of effluents into its other regular procedures 14.
Working with USGS and SCS, Virginia is developing a
geographic information system (GIS) for the Elizabeth
River. The GIS technology improves Virginia's
-------
11
capability to detect and identify both point and nonpoint
sources of toxic contaminants.
The Baltimore Haibor integrated environmental
management study is examining how EPA's regulatory
programs for air, water and land management relate to
each other and to decisions of state, county and local
government units in Maryland.
Related Matters
The Baltimore Harbor study recognizes that many
decisions, programs and projects that affect the Bay are
not directly tied to the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Cooperating federal agencies administer many laws
which affect the Bay though they are national in scope
(e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act; Clean Water Act;
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (Superfund); Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); River & Harbors Act; Fish &
Wildlife Coordination Act; Safe Drinking Water Act;
Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Food Security
Act of 1985). Many other state and federal programs
and laws relevant to the Bay are the responsibility of
agencies not involved in the Agreement. With this in
mind, the Executive Council's 1985 plan included this
goal: "develop and manage related environmental
programs with a concern for their impact on the Bay."
Cross-media pollution (e.g. land generated pollutants
to water and air) has long been recognized, but managing
programs to alleviate cross-media effects is relatively
new. At times, integrated approaches can be difficult to
implement, even within a single agency. Specific mis-
sions and methods can differ, though the goals of envi-
ronmental enhancement and protection are the same.
At EPA, cross-media integration became a national
priority in 1986. This step, combined with the Water
Quality Act of 1987 24, which not only recognized the
Chesapeake Bay Program, but also the potential
effectiveness of a geographic specific approach to
pollution control and resource enhancement, has
stimulated and simplified cross-program cooperation.
Within EPA, the Bay Program has ties with national
wetlands protection, pesticides management, ground
water protection and nonpoint source control programs,
as well as Superfund and RCRA.
Because of those ties, the Bay Program is the starting
place for many regional environmental management
efforts. In 1986, tributyltin sampling efforts undertaken
by EPA 25, Navy, Maryland, and Virginia were
coordinated through a multi-agency technical work
group. The states of Maryland and Virginia used
findings from these studies to restrict the use of
tributyltin-based paints on recreational boats and com-
mercial vesesels. EPA is continuing to use the same data
in its development of national water quality criteria and as
part of the technical basis for national regulatory action.
The states have worked to explain the implications for
the Bay of activities such as highway construction and
maintenance. Through SCS's efforts, the Bay area staff
of ASCS and the Forest Service (toth in the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture) recognize the impact their work
has on the Bay. The CoE considers the environmental
impacts of dredged and fill materials, construction
permits and changes to wetlands. As part of the
Baltimore Harbor and channel deejjening project in
Maryland and Virginia waters, the CoE is monitoring the
effects of dredging.
Leachate to ground water from hazardous and solid
waste disposal sites, sludge and dredge disposal, long
range transport of air pollutants and the potential effects
of nonpoint source controls on ground water are now
being factored into the development of control strategies.
It is also recognized that local land use decisions can
have a major impact upon the Bay, indicating a need for
closer integration with the Bay Program in the future.
(Maryland's Critical Areas Program, with its county
orientation, provides opportunities for such integration.)
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement also underscores
the importance of these factors in its sections on Water
Quality and Population Growth and Development.
Though regulation is the primary focus, the states also
are working to improve and maintetin public access to the
resources of the Bay. If people can use and enjoy the
bounty of the Bay, they are more likely to understand and
value it. Public access to beaches, parks and forested
lands, as well as recreational and commercial fishing
opportunities, are being improved and expanded in a
manner consistent with the Related Matters goal in the
Plan. Further, the 1987 Bay Agreement pledges to
"intensify our efforts to improve and expand public
access opportunities being made available by the Federal
government, the States, and local governments by
developing a strategy by July 1988."
Institutional/Management
Coordination and cooperation are the keystone for
successful accomplishment of the entire Bay Program.
For that reason the Chesapeake Executive Council and
many federal, state, regional, and local private and public
organizations have long been working together to imple-
ment a fourth goal: "support and enhance a cooperative
approach toward Bay management at all levels of
government."
Through the Nonpoint Source Subcommittee, the
states have shared their knowledge and techniques to
enhance their programs in stormwater management, sedi-
mentation/erosion control, and targeting for BMPs imple-
mentation. As another example of cooperation, the states
agreed in 1987 to reduce the amount of EPA money
available for state implementation ;*rants in order to sup-
port development of improved Bay modeling capability.
A prime example of cooperation is the comprehensive
Baywide monitoring program in which all four jurisdic-
tions and many of the federal agencies participate. Sam-
-------
12
pling and analysis techniques are compatible, and data
management, the acquisition of additional data bases, and
necessary computer equipment are cooperatively funded.
The monitoring program is supplemented by citizen
monitoring on the James (VA), Patuxent (MD) and
Conestoga (PA) rivers. The success of these pilot
programs funded by the Bay Program grant to the
Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., has
prompted many watershed associations and some local
government units to request help in starting similar pro-
jects. In addition, Maryland and Virginia are developing
plans to expand the participation of citizens in collecting
water quality data. Citizen near-shore monitoring data
will be used to supplement tributary and Bay mainstem
information collected by the states.
Now an integral part of the Bay Program, citizen
monitoring began as one of many educational opportuni-
ties to increase public awareness and understanding of the
Bay system. The states and federal agencies have been
expanding such opportunities since the 1983 Agreement
was signed. They have used radio, television and print
media, speakers bureaus, literature, exhibits, field trips,
slide shows and films, demonstrations, citizen advisory
groups, in-school education, public meetings and other
mechanisms to disseminate Bay Program information.
People of the region can expect further expansion of
these opportunities for information and participation. The
1987 Agreement calls for coordinated education and
information communication plans, and provision for
public review and comment on all implementation plans.
The Executive Council's CAC and the Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., have proven to
be excellent links to the concerned public of the region,
and state committees have been helpful to policy making
agencies in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Such
mechanisms provide a means for public input and
participation. They also help assure the accountability of
state and federal agencies and the Bay restoration and
protection effort as a whole.
Tracking and evaluating programs are other ways to
provide accountability. But the ultimate measure of
success will be the effects upon the water quality and
living resources of the Bay.
Measuring Results
Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay monitoring
program reflected the need for a coordinated and
integrated data-gathering network in order to characterize
the Bay system as a whole and to establish short- and
long-term water quality trends. Prior to 1984, the
existing data base was sufficient for characterizing the
Bay's conditions and determining its most severe prob-
lems. The data base provides historical information
through 1980. This can be used to expand trend analysis
capabilities now available. However, the EPA study data
base was of limited value due to differences in metho-
dology and discrepancies in sampling times and locations.
In 1984, expanding on their existing tributary
monitoring programs, Maryland arid Virginia began
monitoring water quality conditions in the mainstem of the
Bay with a 50-station network supported by EPA grants.
By 1986 the overall coordinated network had expanded to
167 stations. Today, it reaches all major tributaries up to
and beyond the fall line, and includes biological sampling
and collection of sediment cores as well as water quality
analysis. The 1987 Agreement calls for continued
support of the monitoring efforts and accompanying data
management work.
Results of the monitoring program from 1984 and
1985 have been summarized in the "State of the Bay Re-
port" 26 and its supporting "Technical Compendium." 27
The publications emphasize that trend analysis will require
several years of systematic data collectioa
Initial results, however, do begin to provide the new
requisite Baywide baselines to mejisure the effects of
remedial actions.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
The SAV photographic survey, funded jointly by the
FWS, EPA, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Virginia Council on the Environment, NOAA,
and the CoE, has been conducted annually since 1984.
There were occasional surveys prior to 1984, including a
major Baywide baseline survey in 1978 and annual field
surveys conducted by Maryland DNR since 1971. In
addition to the aerial photographs used to locate SAV beds
and "groundtruthing" by survey teams, supplementary
information is provided by citizens participating in the
"SAV Hunt" This composite information is used to
create SAV maps for the entire Bay, providing year-to-
year comparisons of SAV distribution and abundance.
SAV in the Chesapeake Bay was in decline from the
1960s to the early 1980s. Findings from the 1984 and
1985 SAV surveys, however, provide some measure of
hope that in some areas this trend lias been reversed.
Over that one-year period, SAV increased by 26 percent
(47,893 acres) Baywide, with the largest rise occurring in
the mid-Bay 2s. Recently released 1986 figures show a
slight increase (369 acres) over the; 1985 coverage 29.
It is not yet clear whether the increases were due to
natural variability, including rainfall changes, or occurred
in response to Bay management efforts. An 18-year trend
analysis of Baywide SAV data is being carried out by
FWS to establish more precisely the changes in SAV
abundance and to attempt to discriminate between natural
and man-induced changes. For two areas, one in
Maryland, another in Virginia, FWS is reviewing
information on SAV back to the 1930s. SAV will
continue to be an important measure of the revitalization of
the Bay. As annual and long-term fluctuations in
abundance and distribution are more fully understood,
SAV will become more important in assessing the health
of the Bay's shallow waters (see Chapter 2).
-------
Nutrient Enrichment
13
Toxic Substances
The States of Maryland and Virginia, under grants
from EPA, are responsible for monitoring in the Bay's
mainstem. Although nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
are of primary concern, other physical and chemical
parameters also are analyzed under the scope of their pro-
grams. Through the Monitoring Subcommittee, metho-
dologies are being standardized and sampling schedules
coordinated as closely as possible, allowing data from the
two state programs to be treated statistically as a whole30.
Along with Maryland and Virginia, the District of
Columbia, Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission and the USGS are involved in monitoring
Bay tributaries. FWS had a two-year sampling and
analysis effort on the Choptank River. Monitoring both
the tributaries and fall line is crucial to understanding
nutrient cycling within the Bay system. In addition, small
scale intensive monitoring projects such as those in
Nomini Bay and Double Pipe Creek are important to
demonstrate the effectiveness of best management
practices in defined geographic areas. The magnitude of
freshwater flow in a river is closely related to nutrient
loads ultimately discharged to the Bay. Findings of
1984-1985 tributary monitoring indicate that other factors
specific to individual watersheds (e.g. weather conditions
which change flows) also dictate the nutrient loads
delivered by each tributary. The 1984 and 1985 water
quality data from the mainstem monitoring program
provide two contrasting sets of information on the Bay:
1984 was a wet year and 1985 was dry.
The difference in basinwide precipitation had a major
effect on Bay dynamics. The greater than average
precipitation in 1984 flushed higher nutrient loads to the
Bay and intensified stratification, the layering of fresh and
saltwater that inhibits vertical mixing of surface and
bottom waters. The result was an increase in anoxic and
hypoxic bottom waters. The less than average precipita-
tion in 1985 allowed saline waters to reach further into the
Bay and up the tributaries. With those waters came some
of the parasites and diseases which affected Maryland's
oyster fishery.
The natural variability inherent in the first two years of
water quality data underscores the need to maintain a
consistent, quality-controlled data collection effort over
the long term. The baseline against which the success of
management actions must be measured cannot be truly
delineated until sufficient data are available to statistically
distinguish natural responses of the system from those
induced by man. Against a noisy background of natural
variability, it may take several years before the effects of
management actions become apparent. Satellite imagery
and other high technology methods may help distinguish
trends from natural variability. The sophisticated Time
Variable Model being developed by the EPA and CoE
should also help by more accurately predicting the impacts
of nutrients on the Bay and evaluating potential point and
nonpoint control strategies.
Because of concern over toxic contaminants raised by
findings of the original research study, monitoring
programs for numerous toxicants in the bottom sediment
also began in 1984.
Benthic surveillance data from Maryland and Virginia
provide a picture of the broad distribution of toxic
substances throughout the Bay. In addition, monitoring
is clarifying the dynamics of water column/sediment
exchange of toxic substances in relation to grain size and
organic content of the sediment. Information from
NOAA's Status and Trends Program supplements the
Maryland and Virginia monitoring efforts. The NOAA
Program focuses on biological accumulation of toxic
materials in certain Bay species. In 1985 and 1986, FWS
also obtained data on toxics accumulation in certain
organisms from selected sites.
The initial monitoring of toxic substance levels and
their relationship to sediment distribution is providing the
information necessary to develop a toxics baseline for the
Bay. Ongoing monitoring will allow assessment of the
effects that control measures are having on reducing input
of toxic contaminants to the Bay. Special studies, such as
EPA's survey of TBT 25, supplement monitoring data.
Making the Connections
Monitoring of nutrients, toxic substances, and SAV
abundance undertaken since 1984 is beginning to pro-
vide, for the first time, a Bay wide perspective on the
various responses and fluctuations of this complex eco-
system. As monitoring continues, these different data
sets will be integrated so critical links between the water
and sediment quality and living resources can be better
understood. Comprehension of these relationships will
be an important element in the next phase of the Chesa-
peake Bay restoration program.
Future Directions
The Chesapeake Bay Study initiated in 1975 forged
the first links in the state/federal/pviblic partnership~the
keystone of today's program. By the time the final
reports of the congressionally mandated study were
released by EPA in September 1983, the commitment to
undertake and fund the Bay restoration was cemented.
The states and EPA then signed the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement in December 1983, and began Phase I of the
coordinated cleanup effort, building upon progress made
in wastewater treatment plant construction and upgrading.
Programs are in place to address the most obvious prob-
lems identified in 1983 (excess phosphorus and nitrogen,
toxic substances and declines in living resources), moni-
toring data are being collected and analyzed, and models
are providing theoretical projections of the pounds of
nutrients and tons of sediment kept from Bay waters.
Monitoring data eventually will reflect the positive
-------
14
results of state and federal pollution control programs.
However, today it is still unclear whether the scope and
size of restoration and protection programs are sufficient
to produce reasonable progress. In 1986, the Executive
Council decided that it needed a more precise measure of
the impact of programs on water quality. How can the
Council determine if the rate of progress is reasonable?
Or be certain that results are occurring in areas that benefit
living resources most effectively?
To answer these and other questions, the Executive
Council adopted the Phase n program evaluation and
development process in 1986 si. Phase n is the next step
in the Chesapeake Bay Program, the logical extension of
a continuum that began in the mid-1970s (Figure 1-7).
The process has four basic steps:
1. Establish water quality, living resources, and habitat
objectives;
2. Determine reductions in pollution loadings needed to
meet the objectives;
3. Evaluate the technical alternatives and pollution con-
trol measures which could be used, according to their
costs and effectiveness;
4. Suggest what should be done, where, over what per-
iod of time, at what cost, and with what expected results.
Through the Phase II process, managers will gain a
greater understanding of the Bay ecosystem and its needs.
Based on that understanding they will be better able to
focus restoration and protection efforts and more clearly
define the type and extent of additional pollution controls
needed. Phase n also will enable managers to determine
costs and predict results, including the potential conse-
quences of future restoration and protection actions.
Phase II directly supports meeting the commitments in
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The following
objectives of Phase n tie to three major milestones in the
Agreement:
Living Resources. Identify key species and associated
support species, locations of their habitats, and
conditions required during critical life stages of each
species. The 1987 Agreement requires guidelines by
January 1988.
Nutrients. Define the roles of phosphorus and nitrogen
in polluting the Bay and its living resources, and deter-
mine how best to reduce loadings. The 1987 Agreement
requires a plan by July 1988 to reduce loadings of these
nutrients by 40 percent by the year 2000.
Toxic Substances. Develop a comprehensive strategy
for controlling sources of toxic contaminants entering the
Bay system and managing those now in the system. The
1987 Agreement pledges that a toxics reduction plan will
be adopted by December 1988.
The approaches used in Phase II and the progress
toward attainment of each of these objectives are
described in Chapters 2,3 and 4.
Implement IV87 Agreement
EPA Bay Studies
I I I
Nutrients Cut to 40% of 1985 Level A
A Mgmt. Plans on Oyster/Shad/Crab
A Growth & Development Guidelines
A Year 2020 Growth & Development
Panel Report, Guide to Access
Facilities, Toxics Reduction Strategy,
Wetlands Protection Strategy
A Fisheries Management Schedule,
Research & Monitoring Plans, Nutrient
Reduction Strategy, Conventional Pollutant
Plan, Public Access Inventory, Federal
Facilities Plan, Federal Action Work Plan
Baywide Communication Strategy
A Living Resources Guidelines
A 1987 Agreement Signed
Draft of 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
Restoration & Protection Program
A Six Federal Agencies Join Program
A EPA Bay Program Grants Begin
A Chesapeake Bay Agreement Signed
A Final Report
1970
1975
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1995
2000
Figure 1-7. Evolution of the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
15
Chapter 2
Managing for Living Resources Goals
Establishing Living Resources
Habitat Objectives
Declines in stocks of finfish, shellfish, waterfowl, and
submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay
have prompted an unprecedented effort by state and
federal agencies to determine the causes and to explore
means of restoring and protecting these living resource
populations. Studies completed in 1983 under the aegis
of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program concluded that the
decline of important resources was due, in part, to
deteriorating water quality, particularly nutrient
enrichment and contamination by toxic metals and
organic compounds32.
Since 1983, most of the research and planning efforts
for restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay have
focused on documenting the present water quality of the
Bay and refining strategies for reducing or preventing
further increases in nutrient and contaminant loads.
Strategies based primarily upon water quality, however,
cannot necessarily ensure the restoration and protection
of living resources. The most tangible warning signs of
widespread environmental problems in the Bay have been
shifts in the relative abundance of living resources.
Therefore, living resources serve as excellent indi-
cators of the Bay's recovery for Bay managers and the
public.
The abundance and distribution of species within the
Bay are related to many variables: climate, natural
population cycles, reproductive potential, disease,
predation, and the abundance and quality of food and
habitat. Human activities impose another set of
conditions which both directly and indirectly affect local
and Baywide species abundance. Commercial and
recreational fishing, land and water uses, contaminant
discharges, and physical habitat alterations can directly
affect important living resource populations. Indirect
impacts of these activities can disrupt food chains and
upset the ecological balance of the estuary.
The first measure of success in efforts to restore
habitat conditions required to support continued
propagation and increases in existing stocks should be
ecologically significant changes in the abundance and
composition of planktonic, benthic, and submerged
aquatic vegetation communities. Restoration of a more
balanced ecosystem at these lower trophic levels will then
provide for increased abundance of commercially,
recreationally, and ecologically important finfish and
shellfish species over the long term.
To provide for the restoration and protection of living
resources, their habitats, and ecological relationships, it
is necessary to set regional habitat objectives—those
essential water quality, biological, and physical require-
ments necessary for continued propagation of the most
sensitive stages of representative living resources within a
defined geographical area. These regional habitat objec-
tives can guide overall management of the Bay and
provide useful measures of restoration progress. The
ultimate measures of success will te the responses of
living resources throughout the Bay.
Developing Habitat Objectives
In recognition of these principles, the Chesapeake Bay
Program Implementation Committee established a Living
Resources Task Force (LRTF) in ] 986 to begin defining
habitat objectives for the Bay as an integral part of the
Restoration and Protection Phase II planning process.
The LRTF immediately began to develop habitat
requirements for representative Bay species. A series of
workshops and meetings bringing together a wide
spectrum of scientists and regulatory and resource
managers aided in the species selection process and in the
development of habitat requirements for individual
species.
Representative species were first identified from all
levels of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem food web
including plankton, benthos, submerged aquatic
vegetation, shellfish, finfish, waterfowl, and wildlife. A
smaller group of species, focused primarily on the upper
food chain, was targeted for immediate attention in the
development of habitat requirements. Criteria for
selection included the commercial, recreational, aesthetic
or ecological significance of the spscies and the potential
threat to sustained production posed by population
declines or serious habitat problems.
Matrices of habitat requirements for critical life stages
and critical life periods of target species were developed
and synthesized from existing literature and recent
research findings. Bay geographic areas were charted
where habitat requirements must be met to protect the
critical life stages, and thus the survival, of target species.
The LRTF completed the first phase of this effort to
identify target species and to define, their habitat require-
ments in May 1987 (see box - page; 16). A summary of
the Task Force's findings was accepted by the Chesa-
peake Bay Program Implementation Committee in July
and published in August 198733.
The report is a first effort, and is likely to change as the
habitat requirements are used, and as new information
becomes available to assist in refining or strengthening
-------
16
Habitat Requirements
Development Process
List of Representative Species
Identification of Target Species
Habitat Requirement Matrices for
Critical Life Stages
Habitat Requirements Workshop
Draft Reports and Review by
Managers and Scientfic Community
Final Report by Living Resources Task Force
them. The document includes numerical and narrative
habitat requirements for the critical life stage and life
period of 26 target species. These requirements were
determined from the best available scientific knowledge
and by consensus of participants at the LRTF workshop
held in February 198734. The distribution of each target
species during its critical life stage is also presented in the
report, drawn from available documents.
The Task Force's objective in producing the report
was to document a technically defensible approach for
setting regional habitat objectives for the Chesapeake
Bay by first assembling habitat requirements for
individual target species. The LRTF report summarizes
results of the Task Force's efforts and outlines a process
for refining these habitat requirements and compiling
requirements for other species, particularly those
organisms which target species need for food.
Habitat is defined in the report as the biotic and
abiotic conditions upon which living resources of the
Bay depend. Abiotic conditions include water quality,
substrate, circulation patterns, water depths, and
weather. Biotic conditions are governed by variables
such as vegetative cover, quality and quantity of prey
species, population size, species composition, and
primary productivity. Habitat requirements quantify or
describe the preferred abiotic and biotic conditions that
Bay species need for long-term survival. For some
conditions, such as toxic chemical concentrations, there
are no preferred conditions, so the habitat requirements
contain tolerance limits. Knowledge about habitat
requirements is limited mostly to water quality
parameters; additional conditions can be added as they are
identified by research.
Three examples of the target species descriptions and
habitat requirements presented in the LRTF report are
summarized below, including an anadromous fish
sensitive to tidal freshwater habitat conditions (striped
bass), an immobile shellfish species which cannot escape
from hypoxic waters (American oyster), and a major
group of plants which live rooted underwater, creating
habitat for themselves and many other living resources in
the Bay (submerged aquatic vegetation). The distribution
and abundance of all three of these target species have
undergone drastic reductions in recent years, due, in part,
to deteriorating habitat quality.
Striped Bass Habitat Requirements
Striped bass spawn during spring Gate April to early
June) in most of the tidal-freshwater areas of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Major spawning
regions include the tidal-fresh reaches of the James,
Pamunkey, Mattaponi, Chickahominy, Rappahannock,
Potomac, and Patuxent rivers on the western shore; the
Susquehanna Flats, Elk River, and the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal in the upper Bay; and the Chester,
Choptank and Nanticoke rivers on the Eastern Shore
(Figure 2-1). The critical life stages are the egg and
larval stages. Minute planktonic crustaceans, specifically
copepods and cladocerans, are the major food items of
larval striped bass.
Toxic-effects information is more complete for striped
bass than for any other target species examined by the
Task Force. Still, the link between contamination of
spawning and nursery areas and low survival rates of
larval and juvenile striped bass has not been clearly
established. The information on toxicity of chemicals to
young striped bass cannot be ignored, however. Known
tolerances of striped bass to specific chemicals should be
documented and used in refining habitat requirements
(Table 2-1).
-------
17
• Spawning reaches
D Spawning rivers
Figure 2-1. Habitat Distribution of Striped
Bass Spawning Reaches and Rivers (as defined
by State Laws)
American Oyster Habitat Requirements
The American oyster is not only the most important
bivalve in the Chesapeake from an economic standpoint,
but it also has a significant ecological role within the
Bay's benthic (bottom-dwelling) community. Oyster
distribution in the Bay is determined largely by salinity,
bottom substrate and adequate dissolved oxygen levels
(Figure 2-2). Although oysters are tolerant of a wide
range of salinities (5 to 35 ppt salinity), they cannot
survive in tidal-freshwater or oligohaline (low salinity)
regions of the Bay. The depths at which oysters can
survive are limited by dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Natural episodes of hypoxia-when dissolved oxygen
concentrations in bottom waters are less than 2 mg/1—are
thought to have limited oyster distribution in the past to
the shallower, more highly oxygenated waters of the
Bay. In recent years, the increasing duration and
distribution of hypoxia in the Bay have been responsible
for local areas of oyster mortality at depths less than the
historical 10-meter limit.
Oysters spawn in the summer when water tempera-
tures are over 15 degrees C. Spawning rates are highest
between 22 and 23 degrees C. Free-swimming oyster
larvae permanently attach their newly-formed shell to
firm substrate and become spat, or young oysters, a
process known as spat setting. Critical for their survival
is the availability of firm foundations, such as pilings,
hard rock bottoms, and particularly old shells, known as
cultch, left naturally on oyster bars or "planted" by
resource management agencies and watermen.
The oyster is a suspension feeder, ingesting a variety
of phytoplankton, bacteria and small particles of decaying
plants and animals (detritus), mostly from 3 to 35
microns in size. Capture efficiency decreases rapidly at
particle sizes below 3 microns. The availability of food
within a critical size range may be a key factor in the
long-term survival of oysters and other molluscan
shellfish. Scientific evidence suggests that nutrient
enrichment may cause shifts in the composition of
plankton communities towards smaller, less desirable
species. The oyster's ability to filter out food organisms
efficiently from the overlying water column could
Habitat
Zone
Water
Column,
Demersal
Table 2-1
Summary of Habitat Requirements for
Critical Life Stage(s): Egg, lai
Critical Life Period: April - J
Dissolved
Salinity How Temp. pH Oxygen Alkalinity
(ppt) (m/s) (C) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0-5 0.3- 16-19 7.5 - Tolerate: >20
5.0 8.5 4.5-20
Optimal:
6.0-12
Striped B
rval
une
Total
Chlorine
(mg/1)
(See
LRTF
Report)
ass
Metals
(mg/1)
(See
LRTF
Report)
Insecticides
(ug/1)
Malathion <14
Chlordane<2.4
2,4,5-TP <10
-------
18
Seed areas
Suitable substrate
Figure 2-2. Habitat Distribution of Seed Areas
and Suitable Substrate for the American Oyster
therefore be impaired indirectly by nutrient enrichment.
Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay also are sensitive to
turbidity and sedimentation (Table 2-2). Excessive
sedimentation smothers adults and prevents setting of
spat on clean cultch.
The distribution and abundance of oysters in the Bay
has been affected by the two oyster diseases MSX and
Dermo. Salinity is a key factor limiting the distribution
of these diseases. In dry years, polyhaline (highly
saline) waters extend up the Bay into normally
mesohaline (mid-salinity) waters where oysters
previously free of the weakening symptoms of these
diseases may become infected and die.
Overall restoration of oyster habitat is a prerequisite
for increasing the abundance and distribution of oysters.
Water quality models of the Bay suggest that drastic
reductions in nutrients are necessary to achieve Baywide
mean summer bottom water dissolved oxygen
concentrations of 1-2 mg/1. Higher levels of dissolved
oxygen in bottom waters of the Bay will increase the
amount of suitable habitat for oysters and decrease the
frequency, distribution, and duration of excursions of
hypoxic and anoxic bottom waters into shallow areas.
These lower nutrient levels could also increase the
abundance of those plankton species preferred by oysters
for food. Re-establishment of SAV beds in key regions
would benefit these bivalves by controlling the
resuspension of sediments and reducing turbidity. Better
control of the major sources of sediment-eroding
farmland and shorelines as well as construction
sites-would reduce problems of sedimentation. In
addition, Baywide oyster repletion and fisheries
management programs are essential for maintaining a
diversity of genetic stocks and a sustainable oyster
industry.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Habitat Requirements
Five species of submerged aquatic vegetation, with
salinity tolerances spanning the full range found in
Chesapeake Bay habitats, were selected for Task Force
review as a collective target species (Figure 2-3).
Table 2-2
Summary of Habitat Requirements for the American Oyster
Critical Life Stage(s): Larval, spat, adult
Critical Life Period: Entire life cycle
Habitat
Zone
Firm
substrate,
cultch
Salinity
(PPt)
5-35
pH
6.8-8.5
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
>2.4
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
<35
Prey
Species
Phytoplankton
(size range of
3-35 microns)
-------
19
Eelgrass is representative of the polyhaline zone;
widgeongrass is representative of both mesohaline and
polyhaline zones. Sago pondweed and redhead grass are
tolerant of oligohaline and mesohaline salinities. Wild
celery inhabits tidal-fresh and oligohaline waters.
Light penetration limits the depth at which SAV can
survive and propagate. In the Chesapeake Bay, this
depth is usually less than 2 meters, although some SAV
species can grow at depths of 3 meters or more in less
turbid waters. The amount of light reaching SAV leaves
can be reduced by several factors. High turbidity levels
act like clouds in reducing available light underwater and
can be caused by suspended sediments, high densities of
zooplankton, or algal blooms. Table 2-3 summarizes
recent scientific findings for the summer averaged habitat
conditions which support healthy SAV in mesohaline
regions35. The numbers presented are derived from
laboratory research confirmed by studies in the Choptank
River in Maryland. Scientists who have been investi-
gating the causes of declines in SAV are beginning to
develop habitat requirements for selected SAV
environments based on field validation of years of
laboratory study and in-situ monitoring efforts. Thus,
additional information may soon be available to aid in
refining SAV criteria for use throughout the Bay
system.
Organisms growing directly on SAV leaves (epiphytic
growth) are natural sun blocks and, like algae and
zooplankton, are stimulated by high nutrient levels.
Research suggests that in polyhaline waters, nitrogen is
generally responsible for an over-abundance of
planktonic and epiphytic growth. In the mesohaline
zone, excessive levels of either nitrogen or phosphorus
may stimulate noxious growth. In the tidal-freshwater
reaches of the Bay, SAV grows well in the presence of
high nitrogen levels when localized phosphorus
concentrations are low enough to limit phytoplankton
growth. However, excessive growth of plankton caused
by high phosphorus concentrations and high turbidity
levels has largely prevented the reestablishment of SAV
in the upper reaches of the Bay and its tributaries.
Average concentrations of dissolved inorganic
phosphorus and nitrogen below 0.01 and 0.14 mg/1,
Submerged aquatic vegetation
Figure 2-3. Distribution of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation
Table 2-3
Summary of Habitat Requirements of Selected
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Species in the Mesohaline Zone
Critical Life Stage(s): All life stages
Critical Life Period: April - September
Dissolved
Inorganic
Habitat Salinity Temp. pH Nitrogen
Zone (ppt) (C) (mg/1)
Littoral 5-18 15-35 6-9 <0.14
< 3 m.
Dissolved
Inorganic
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
<0.01
Light
Chloro- Secchi Attenuation
phylla Turbidity Depth Coeff. (Kd)
(ug/1) (NTU) (m) (m-1)
< 15 < 20 > 1.0 < 2
Herbicides
(ug/1)
< 10
-------
20
respectively, are optimum levels in mesohaline regions of
the Bay, the LRTF reported.
Impacts of agricultural herbicides on SAV are centered
in the upper reaches of small tidal tributaries adjacent to
farmlands. Springtime concentrations of herbicides are
high enough in these waters after a rain to cause sublethal
effects on SAV plants that have just begun to emerge
from bottom sediments. Agricultural practices which
reduce the amount of farm chemicals and sediment
flowing into tidal waters would curb the exposure of
SAV-and all other inhabitants of these nursery areas--to
toxic chemical loads and would control local nutrient
loads.
Sediment carried into the Bay in watershed runoff and
from eroding shorelines can interfere with SAV growth
in many ways. Suspended sediments reduce the amount
of light reaching SAV leaves, and sedimentation can bury
young shoots and alter the composition of bottom
sediments. Shoreline erosion stabilization, stronger
sediment and erosion control on construction sites,
protection of wetlands, and more effective control of
erosion from agricultural lands, would reduce the flow of
sediment into the Bay, enabling transplanted and natural
SAV populations to become re-established.
Summary
These three examples demonstrate how existing
knowledge of habitat requirements and species
distribution can be combined to shape regional habitat
objectives. These objectives, in turn, can guide Bay
planners, managers, researchers, and modelers as they
explore the feasibility, benefits and potential costs of
various options to restore estuarine habitats suitable for
successful reproduction and survival of living resources.
Targeting Regions for Habitat
Restoration
The achievement of proposed habitat objectives does
not guarantee the establishment of specific population or
harvest levels for any species. Total compliance with the
habitat requirements for striped bass larvae, for example,
will not necessarily produce an improvement in the
annual juvenile index, a measure of young striped bass
populations. But the recovery of living resources now in
decline and the re-establishment of a more balanced eco-
system~the ultimate measures of success in restoring the
quality of the Chesapeake Bay-will be unattainable un-
less certain minimum habitat requirements are achieved.
The large number of species in the Chesapeake Bay
(more than 2,300) and the diversity of requisite habitats
necessitate regional pollution control and resource
management strategies. Baywide restoration goals can
only be achieved by implementing strategies tailored to
defined regions or, on a larger scale, to individual river
basins. When data now available on the distribution of
representative species are combined with their individual
habitat requirements, Bay managers will have more
complete information for allocating present and future
resources to restore and protect critical habitats within the
Chesapeake Bay basin.
A series of maps illustrates the habitat areas critical to
the targeted finfish, shellfish, waterfowl and submerged
aquatic vegetation species.
Figure 2-4 displays spawning and nursery habitats
of targeted anadromous finfish (striped bass, white
perch, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, and
hickory shad) and nursery habitats of marine spawning
I Spawning and nursery habitat for multiple
targeted finfish species
IS Spawning and nursery habitat for several
targeted finfish species
H3 Spawning and nursery habitat for single
targeted finfish species
Figure 2-4.
Habitats
Finfish Spawning and Nursery
-------
21
Table 2-4
Finfish Spawning and Nursery Areas
James River
York River
Pamunkey River
Mattaponi River
Rappahannock River
Upper Patuxent River
Gunpowder River
Bush River
Upper Mainstem Bay
Susquehanna Flats
Elk River
Upper Chester River
Choptank River
Nanticoke River
Wicomico River
Pocomoke River
Virginia Eastern
Shore Embayments
finfish (menhaden and spot) (Table 2-4). The map draws
attention to the significance of the tidal freshwater and
riverine/estuarine transition (oligohaline) zones as
spawning and nursery areas for anadromous finfish
species. Mesohaline and polyhaline creeks and marshes
are critical nursery areas for marine spawners.
Anadromous and estuarine finfish are generally most
vulnerable during their egg and larval stages in spring.
During this season, they occupy tidal-freshwater and
oligohaline habitats of the Bay and its tributaries. Marine
spawners inhabit mesohaline and polyhaline tidal creeks
and marshes in the spring. Large amounts of nitrogen
and phosphorus pour into these areas just prior to and
during the spawning and nursery season, adding
excessive nutrients at a time when they could alter the
species composition of existing plankton population,
potentially affecting the availability of food throughout
the year. In the spring, agricultural chemicals and
sediments are carried into tidal waters from recently
cultivated farmland, potentially affecting the survival of
the young fish. In addition, these high loading rates
stimulate the growth of plankton in oligohaline and
mesohaline portions of the Bay and contribute indirectly
to periods of hypoxia later in the year. These springtime
loads thus can limit the extent of habitat for both maturing
juvenile finfish and adult estuarine and marine finfish that
use Bay waters in the summer.
Figure 2-5 shows suitable bottom substrate for the
American oyster, softshell clam, and hard clam (Table
2-5). Shaded areas denote overlapping species
distribution. Shellfish habitats generally have been
limited to water depths of less than 10 meters due to
episodes of hypoxia and excursions of hypoxic bottom
waters into shallow areas of the Bay.
Figure 2-6 combines the shellfish map with 1985
average summer (July-August) monitored dissolved
oxygen levels at the 10-meter depth contour in the main
channel and at the bottom for shoal areas less than 10
meters. The 10 meter contour closely matches the
combined shellfish habitat distributions. For most of the
deeper waters of the Bay, summer average dissolved
oxygen levels are below 5 mgA, the critical level for most
estuarine organisms as well as shellfish. In the summer,
H Suitable habitat for all three species
D Suitable habitat for two species
D Suitable habitat for only one species
• Oyster seed beds
Figure 2-5. Habitat Distribution of the
American Oyster, Softshell Clam, and Hard
Clam
Table 2-5
Key Chesapeake Bay Habitats
for Shellfish
Lower James River
Lower York
Lower Rappahannock
River
Lower Potomac River
Lower Patuxent River
Lower Chester River
Eastern Bay
Choptank River
Tangier Sound
Virginia Eastern
Shore Embayments
-------
22
O
Shellfish habitat distribution (from
Figure 2-5)
Dissolved oxygen concentrations < 2 mg/1
Dissolved oxygen concentrations 2-5 mg/1
Dissolved oxygen concentrations > 5 mg/1
Figure 2-6. Shellfish Habitat and 1985
Summer Dissolved Oxygen at 10 meters or
Bottom Depth
Higher population densities
Lower population densities
Spawning area
Figure 2-7. Blue Crab Summer Habitat
Distribution and Winter Spawning Areas
Table 2-6
Key Chesapeake Bay Habitats
for Blue Crabs
• Chesapeake Bay Mouth
• Mainstem Bay
• Shoal and Shoreline Areas
• Tangier Sound
these deeper, low oxygen waters may be forced up into
shellfish habitats if winds prevail for several days from a
constant directioa Even within the shellfish shoal
habitats, 1985 summer dissolved oxygen levels averaged
below 5 mg/1.
Figure 2-7 displays the summer distribution of male
and female blue crabs (Table 2-6). The spawning area
for females extends from the mouth of the Bay to coastal
waters over the continental shelf. This map illustrates that
the potential habitat for blue crabs is distributed through-
-------
23
Table 2-7
Key Chesapeake Bay Habitats for
Waterfowl and
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Mobjack Bay
Lower York River
Upper Virginia
Western Shore
Upper Potomac River
Maryland Western
Shore Tributaries
Chester River
Choptank River
Eastern Bay
Tangier Sound
Virginia Eastern
Shore Embayments
out the Bay at all depths, emphasizing the significance of
the entire Bay as habitat for living resources.
The map underscores the danger of increasing hypoxia
in the Bay: juvenile crabs travel through bottom waters
up the Bay in the spring and summer assisted by the salt
wedge. In the fall the crabs, primarily adult females,
move back into higher salinity waters to burrow into mud
for the winter months. Many of these regions are often
uninhabitable now because of dissolved oxygen concen-
trations less than 2 mg/1 (the minimum requirement for
crabs) throughout much of the summer. In contrast to
the stationary habits of oysters, the ubiquitous nature and
mobility of crabs may protect their population in the short
term since they can usually escape from invading fronts
of hypoxic water. Unless the duration and distribution of
hypoxia are reduced, more frequent encounters with
hypoxic conditions eventually could affect the long-term
survival of this resilient crustacean.
In addition to SAV's role as a biological indicator of
the relative health of the Bay, SAV is an important source
of food for migratory and resident waterfowl. Figure 2-8
shows present areas of submerged aquatic vegetation and
the habitats of black ducks, redhead ducks, and
canvasbacks (Table 2-7). The re-establishment of SAV
beds would restore a critical food source and habitat on
which waterfowl and many other declining Bay species
depend.
Figure 2-9 combines 1985 average summer surface
dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentrations by
Chesapeake Bay Program segment and the 1985
distribution of SAV. The map indicates areas where
phosphorus concentrations are greater than the SAV
habitat requirement for phosphorus, less than 0.01 mg/l,
shown in Table 2-3. Although the phosphorus data were
collected at stations representative of each Bay segment,
the stations are not located in nearshore regions, so
phosphorus concentrations in SAV habitats may be
slightly different. The coordination of living resources
habitat monitoring with water quality monitoring would
help to determine more accurately whether habitat
requirements are being met.
Figure 2-10 combines 1985 average summer surface
dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations by
Chesapeake Bay Program segment and the 1985
distribution of SAV 29. Higher nitrogen conditions in the
upper Bay may have less impact on SAV populations
since, in fresher parts of the Bay, phosphorus is the
limiting factor for growth of plankton and epiphytes that
cover SAV leaves.
The 1985 summer average chlorophyll a concen-
trations and the distribution of SAV are displayed in
Figure 2-11. The SAV habitat requirements for
Submerged aquatic vegetation
distribution
Waterfowl habitat
Figure 2-8. Waterfowl Habitat and 1985
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution
-------
24
CD
Submerged aquatic vegetation distribution
Dissolved inorganic phosphorus < 0.01 mg/1
Dissolved inorganic phosphorus > 0.01 mg/1
Figure 2-9. 1985 Submerged Aquatic Vege-
tation Distribution and Summer Dissolved
Inorganic Phosphorus Concentrations
of existing nutrient conditions in the nearshore Bay grass
habitats.
The combined influence of existing water quality
conditions on SAV distribution and abundance is
displayed in Figure 2-12. Chesapeake Bay segments
are outlined where one or more of the chlorophyll a,
phosphorus and nitrogen habitat requirements for SAV
are "exceeded."
chlorophyll a are exceeded in most of the upper Bay
western and eastern shore tributaries and Susquehanna
Flats region as well as the upper Choptank and James
rivers. Elevated chlorophyll levels indicate enrichment
by nitrogen and phosphorus which directly leads to
overabundances of phytoplankton and indirectly causes
decreased light intensity levels. As a key SAV habitat
requirement, chlorophyll can be considered an indicator
• Submerged aquatic vegetation distribution
D Dissolved inorganic nitrogen < 0.14 mg/1
S Dissolved inorganic nitrogen > 0.14 0.7 mg/1
H Dissolved inorganic nitrogen > 0.7 1.4 mg/1
^ Dissolved inorganic nitrogen > 1.4 mg/1
Figure 2-10. 1985 Submerged Aquatic Vege-
tation Distribution and Summer Dissolved
Inorganic Nitrogen Concentrations
-------
25
Submerged aquatic vegetation distribution
Chlorophyll a < 15 ug/f
Chlorophyll a > 15 ug/f
Figure 2-11. 1985 Submerged Aquatic Vege-
tation Distribution and Summer Chlorophyll a
Concentrations
target species during the life stages most critical for
survival. The Task Force report fulfilled this objective.
The next step is for regulators and resource managers
to integrate habitat requirements into the overall manage-
ment of the Bay's resources and clarify their own agen-
cies' roles in achieving these habitat objectives. How, for
example, could agencies factor habitat restoration and
protection goals into decisions relating to wetlands, shore-
line erosion, dredging and barriers to fish migration.
Habitat Objectives for Management:
An Ecosystem Approach
The initial objective of the Living Resources Task
Force was twofold: 1) to quantify the habitat require-
ments necessary to sustain and enhance reproduction and
survival of target species and 2) to document where these
conditions must be met, in terms of the distribution of
Submerged aquatic vegetation distribution
Segments exceeding SAV habitat
requirements
Figure 2-12. Tidal Tributary Chesapeake Bay
Segments where Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Habitat Requirements are Exceeded
-------
26
Habitat Objectives Development Process
REQUIREMENTS COMPONENT
Habitat Requirements for
individual living resource
GEOGRAPHICAL COMPONENT
Distribution of habitat
for each representative
living resource
TEMPORAL COMPONENT
Timing of the critical
life stage for each
living resource
Summary of the most
critical habitat require-
ments from all the
representative species
with overlapping
geographical distribution
REGIONAL
-HABITAT
OBJECTIVES
Based on the habitat requirements described in the
Living Resources Task Force report, potential regional
habitat objectives were compiled. These objectives,
shown in Figure 2-13 (page 27) and Table 2-8 (page 28),
are presented to illustrate how habitat requirements for a
range of species can be synthesized into regional habitat
objectives for the Chesapeake Bay (see box).
Since estuarine habitats are greatly influenced by
salinity and circulation patterns, the existing Chesapeake
Bay spatial segmentation scheme (based primarily on
these two factors) can be used as an initial model for di-
viding the Bay into habitat regions. The scheme was
based on historical salinity and circulation data collected
prior to the implementation of the Bay wide monitoring
program 36. Steps should be taken to ensure the scheme
reflects recently collected spatial and temporal intensive
data.
Because water depth and other physical and biological
parameters influence habitat quality, this two-dimensional
segmentation system is only a first step in classifying
habitat objectives by region. The next step is to divide
updated segments into layers, or depth categories, which
reflect the habitats of target species more precisely, and to
define more specific habitat objectives for these areas.
Habitat objectives tailored to specific areas of the Bay
could be used to refocus existing environmental policies,
pollution control programs, and natural resource
management efforts to take into account the different
needs of living resources. The restoration of stressed
habitats should not be the only goal of Bay managers.
They also must strive to protect existing high-quality
habitats from pollutants and physical disruptions. Habitat
objectives provide the technical basis for both these goals.
Monitoring the Bay's living resources must continue
to be coordinated if Bay management programs are to
incorporate habitat objectives. There are three principle
reasons for monitoring water quality and living resources
while working to achieve habitat objectives:
1. To characterize the current status of living resources
and the quality of their habitats in the Chesapeake Bay;
2. To track the abundance and distribution of living
resources and the quality of their habitats over time;
3. To examine correlations and other relationships
between habitat quality and the abundance, distribution
and integrity of living resource population..
Monitoring data are indispensable for managers, the
public, and the scientific community. Most of all, they
are essential for evaluating how effective Bay
management efforts have been and how much more
progress is needed. Further, information on the
abundance of adult and juvenile fish and shellfish,
including age, sex, weight, and length data, has long
been needed for conducting Baywide stock assessments
to improve fisheries management in Chesapeake Bay.
Data can be made available for scientific research to
answer questions about the relative effects of climate,
pollution, and habitat loss on living resource abundance
and distribution. Defining the condition of the Bay in
terms of the health of its plants and animals also is more
understandable to citizens.
Achieving habitat objectives requires coordinated pro-
grams which do not stop at state boundaries or within
one agency. Targeting Bay watersheds for nonpoint
-------
27
• Tidal-fresh/oligohaline finfish spawning
and nursery habitat zone
H Mesohaline shellfish and finfish habitat
zone
EE Polyhaline shellfish and finfish habitat
zone
D Euryhaline pelagic finfish habitat zone
Figure 2-13. Geographical Zonation of
Potential Living Resource Habitat Objectives
source control is one example of how habitat objectives
could be blended into programs not directly related to
managing living resources. Watersheds which contribute
high nutrient loads to critical habitat areas (the tidal-
freshwater spawning and nursery areas) could be selected.
Intensive education, research, and technical assistance
encouraging the use of best management practices to re-
duce nutrient loads would then be targeted to those areas.
In short, to achieve habitat objectives, they must be
integrated into existing Bay management policies and
programs (see box). Research and monitoring of living
resources are essential components for defining the
problems at hand, measuring progress, refining objec-
tives, and reporting to the public. Efforts to achieve
habitat objectives should be regional in scope, taking into
account the needs of estuarine organisms living in a wide
range of conditions. At present, there is only a small
number of water quality standards to guide the restoration
and protection of the Chesapeake. They are divided into
two basic sets-those for the tidal-freshwater regions and
those for the remaining tidal waters. In relation to the
range of habitat requirements identified in the LRTF
report, the limited scope of water quality standards offers
little guarantee that continued water quality management
will protect estuarine living resource habitats.
EPA Water Quality Criteria
Multiple approaches are necessary to maintain the
complex food web that sustains living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay. Establishing and enforcing estuarine
water quality standards which directly reflect living
resource habitat objectives can be an important part of
this effort. Existing EPA water quality criteria and state
Building on the Findings of the
Living Resources Task Force
Chesapeake Bay Program managers can build on the
work of the Living Resources Task Force, extending
and refining its findings by:
1. Establishing additional habitat requirements for a)
the initial target species and b) the prey species upon
which the target species depend. Special attention
should be paid to plankton and benthic communities,
important as indicators of ecosystem stress and as key
sources of food for species at higher trophic levels;
2. Identifying those characteristics of living resource
populations (e.g. distribution and abundance) or of Bay
communities (e.g. species diversity) that will serve as
measures of the Bay's recovery in response to
management actions;
3. Refining programs for monitoring water quality,
sediment quality, living resources, and habitat
conditions to determine where and how much
improvement is needed to measure restoration and
protection progress, and to establish linkages between
water quality and living resources; and,
4. Using computer models of the Chesapeake to
predict the amount of nutrient reductions necessary to
achieve habitat objectives in each region of the Bay.
-------
28
CA
||
ws
"§ 5
*£ J5
c c3 ^
'set
*2 *^ *"""*'
UX
M
.§ ^»
S3 s—p*
S
If
2 *5 ~
tS *« C /— N
Table 2-8.
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Habitat Objeci
\. Potential Habitat Objectives to Support Anadromous
Finfish Spawning and Nursery Areas and Oligohaline
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitats
Dissolved Dissolved Total
:nded Secchi Chloro- Inorganic Inorganic Residu
lids Depth phyll a Nitrogen Phosphorus Alkal. Chlori:
gA) (m) (mgA) (mgA) (mgA) (mgA
_ a. ° S
13 ffv-5
•s
a $
o •5S'
e- sp
% e-
H
Soc
E,
(i
C ^*.
Sri
H —
^ OS
E £
^
1
^
£*
— 'a
00 -3>
1 §o
ill
18 ~~ fj.
•o S
* 22
a -g
c J3 ri
'J 0 ^
^3 "O x""'
^J ^>
O g
v .•« -«
•S *&>
"£ s
w ^^ '
X
u c1
2 v^
-70 1.0 <15 <0.7- <0.01 >20 <0.15
0.14
B. Potential Habitat Objectives to Support Shellfish,
Anadromous and Marine Finfish, and Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation in the Mesohaline Zone
Dissolved Dissolved Total
d Secchi Chloro- Inorganic Inorganic Residual
Depth phyll a Nitrogen Phosphorus Alkal. Chlorine
(m) (mgA) (mgA) (mgA) (mgA) (mgA)
^ -I-S5
I'-sf
jr s,
m "5
O a^
*v i§ ^
H 5
A H
in m Q M
l-^oo Q.E,
» s"
T1 a,
SO
in E1"
<*5 H
o
S
> >
W &
is ^
i/-) oj S
6 w ^
c 2 g 8,1 _
§"3 s 1? =N n'«'
c^-s60 wa QS
*-j *T^ C r" ^s ^^ *^
O XC'l O S (S
9 * cA .£J > a;
>~^ 'o C ^"
'•S1*
&* C* /*^'
i w g ^
'£ o
j™ -S ^
^•S I?
"^ "S *« S
^5 V UH ^^
•^ o.S
v O, tt.
Q
*
1.0 <15 <0.7- <0.01 >20 0.15
0.14
jjectives to Support Shellfish,
irine Finfish, and Submerged
in the Polyhaline Zone
>ecchi Chlorinated Prey
Depth Metals Herbicides Hydrocarbons Species
(m) (mgA) (ugA) (ugA)
m u 2 §
'O « "2 '5 o „ _
.ti ^ 2 *o ^ P
•§ * g) |.i f
K |> g B3>-
[ago to
V « S 3 .•=/— v
S u H
A p
i _ Q *
«1^ D E
^D OO ^~*
& n.
co
^ fi
E c_i
> H ~^
^ ^
;||
oo '3s-'
in
^ °.
-------
29
water quality standards may protect freshwater or
saltwater organisms from acute and chronic effects of
pollutants; however, direct application of these criteria
and standards to the Chesapeake Bay requires technical
consideration of their limitations in estuarine systems.
EPA freshwater criteria were developed to protect
organisms in tidal and non-tidal freshwater systems
using strictly freshwater species. The saltwater criteria
have been based on bioassay results synthesized from a
range of salinity test conditions using both estuarine and
marine species.
The 1987 Federal Water Quality Act requires each
state to adopt water quality standards to protect
designated uses of its surface waters. The Act also
requires EPA to publish water quality criteria and other
information to assist the states in setting standards, and
to review state standards for consistency with the Act's
requirements24.
Water quality standards both define the use of a
particular body of water and describe the conditions
necessary to protect or achieve its designated use, such
as contact recreation or shellfish harvesting. Standards
define, in numerical or narrative terms, levels of
individual pollutants which cannot be exceeded if the
designated uses of the water body are to be protected.
Criteria, in contrast, are guidelines for specific pollutants
to help state agencies develop freshwater or saltwater
standards. They are similar to standards because they
include recommended numerical limits and information
on the environmental effects of pollutants.
Chesapeake Bay State Standards
Current standards for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries are based mainly on conventional physical,
chemical and biological parameters-dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH, turbidity, and fecal coliform bacteria.
A limited number of standards have been adopted for
heavy metals and specific toxic compounds.
The District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania all define water quality standards as
combinations of water uses to be protected and the water
quality criteria necessary to protect those uses. Some
standards have been adopted for specific chemicals other
than conventional pollutants.
Throughout Chesapeake Bay, the classification of
uses for tidal waters generally has been based on whether
waterways are strictly fresh or saline. One set of
standards applies to the tidal-freshwater areas of the Bay
and another set to oligohaline, mesohaline, and
polyhaline areas combined. Since the standards are so
general for this two-class system-designed to protect
human health first and the ecosystem second-they do not
reflect the diversity of natural conditions within an
estuarine environment. As a result, they are insufficient
tools for restoring and protecting individual Bay habitats.
The current classification of uses for state water
quality standards in Chesapeake Bay tidal waters is
shown in Figure 2-14. The state standards are described
in Table 2-9, including the non-tidal waters of the lower
Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.
In Maryland, tidal surface waters designated for
primary water contact recreation, water supply, and
protection of aquatic life are located in the tidal-
freshwater segments of the Bay. Remaining estuarine
portions of the tributaries and the mainstem Bay are also
designated as shellfish harvesting waters. The Upper
Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Limitation Policy adopted
by Maryland contains effluent limitations for phosphorus
discharged from large sewage treatment plants, but no
nutrient standards.
Water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, pH,
temperature, fecal coliform, and turbidity have been
adopted by Maryland. There are six additional chemical
specific standards that apply to Maryland's tidal waters.
All Virginia waters are designated to support
recreational uses and for the propagation and growth of a
balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish and
wildlife. As in Maryland, the estuarine portions of
western shore rivers, the eastern shore tributaries and the
mainstem also are specifically designated to support the
propagation of shellfish. Virginia and District of
Columbia tidal embayments on the Potomac River are
subject to phosphorus effluent limitations for large
sewage treatment plants under the Potomac Estuary
Policy.
Virginia has adopted standards for dissolved oxygen,
pH, and fecal coliform. The state has 24 water quality
standards which apply to waters designated for public
water supply. By July 1988, Virginia will be adopting
nutrient water quality standards for certain waters of the
state, including estuarine waters.
The District of Columbia has a tiered set of designated
uses for its surface waters, including primary and
secondary contact recreation, protection of aquatic life,
public and industrial water supply, and navigation. The
District's tidal waters are classified for all the above listed
uses, with the exception of public water supply. District
waters are all either tidal-freshwater (Potomac and
Anacostia rivers) or free-flowing streams such as Rock
Creek.
The tidal waters of the District have standards for
dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, fecal coliform,
turbidity, and 70 specific organic chemicals and metals.
In Pennsylvania, the lower Susquehanna River has
been designated to support warm water fisheries. Other
uses designated in the Susquehanna River basin include
potable, industrial, livestock and wildlife water supply,
irrigation and recreational uses. Toxic substances are
regulated through a comprehensive Toxics Management
Strategy. Sewage and industrial waste treatment plants
are subject to the phosphorus effluent limitations in the
lower Susquehanna River in accordance with Pennsyl-
vania phosphorus control regulations. The regulation
enables Pennsylvania to control phosphorus whenever
-------
30
Maryland Class I waters
Maryland Class II waters
Virginia Class la waters
Virginia Class Ha waters
Virginia Class II waters
Virginia Class II b, d, f waters
District of Columbia Class ABCEF waters
Figure 2-14. Geographic Distribution of State Standard Classification for the Tidal Chesapeake Bay
Basin
-------
31
>-
uehanna Rive
S*
3
C«
V.
4(
£
0
V
£
•o
e
C5
Sfl
.-
'u
—
3
.O
*c
.H
* 2
g e <
— ^i-
c« 10 ' S
S ^ ;§
0 *
u^
o
c
O go
'E a
•c -5
o ^
V3 ^
S
1^
r i tj
w* TO
2 w>
S'g
t>n ^
f*1 i-^ ^ i-H V) CO 1™H ^£ 1"H V*l
^^ ^5 ^i ^^ ^D C> ^^ ^^ CD ^^
OOOOOO O ^ O O O O
oooooo oooooo
1 . 1
Q G ^ Q S ^
^ CQ Q U3 Cu fc— ' ^1, CQ Q 03 2C E""1
o o
£ 12 i i i t i
o o 52 55
CS t-H CS CN i— ' '— < CS
^j ^j
g S
*o "^2
^ o c3 c^ o S3 I I I i t
\n \n \n *f] OOOOOOOOOO
^j ^5 OO ^D *^ OO ^0 *-^ ^^ ^D *^ O^ ^D i^ ^^ ^D *«i ON ^D *i ON
o o o o
1 I 1 wi w-i >ri >ri
o o o o q q q
l^j VO ^1 ^^ ^f ^^" ^^
>-• _ a
<"*"- ^* 5 c
"SOo u'oS'c 8 w^^o 0" o
Ja e 'S c c '5 'I 8 S 2 ^ -e * ^ -s
1 -s i i i s e s i^'il 1 1 i
.2 O ?S ^0 O ?S ^ &< C/0 «^ "33 W3 O 5 W3
P p,£ W £ii i O wS» -ai c e S
1 y-JJl » Is .I-S .l-g I
11-3 -S -S -S'l 3£ «S ^^
S'^-SS sle SJ* ^1 «1 .a -a
sc§2 "« £ ^ 5o §* « o w 3 o,
•§ ^ g S1 1 g I 1 .2 IS £ 'S (£"3 «Sc^
n 'c
">i "BT
« •- « *
S >-. o >_Htat=iB
-------
32
s
^3,
*Q
~ !
ll
V3 00
JO*
•3 P*
'•S tj
H
3 3 "t3 ^
± X ;3 X o
•= S o « 5
•*•* U E "— <
o ^
O\ Qj
i P fT^
^e
w
A
(3 T
HMH
0.
^
^^t toQ
*S ff >
> ^ >.
O G ^5
co ci _?g
« IS s
D| a
^^
^
pj
.9 E2
•c .5
o
W
8
>3
3TB
u «
S '^
V5 X
2 3 o
-i 0 o
G>
CQ T3 22
llo
1 1 -a S S S' ^ 1 1 C>
° ° ^ ° 1 1 1
8Q S & S
O Q Q O
»^ I f^ ^H |
1 1 e£ S 1 1 1 oo ©
voSoo voSoo \oSod \o 2 oc \o3oo i sdSo\
0 0
1 1 1 >n 1 1 1 >n
o o
I i I "f i I i •*'
S
Cv /•• s
o* o
CO >
P -g
CO 05
s
1 j? | -a e a
! ill fl! il if If ll if
••• ^
fc« C
Q<^ CO O Q W UHO*
MM tA
•S § § §
1 a a a
|i 1 i
£ u o u
o S c ^ "c
T3 a a s a
JS u u S u
3| 1 «|
Eg g c1 S
"88 8 . ^ 8
^3 *c> *w o ^c r~
-------
33
the state determines that instream phosphorus, alone, or
in combination with other pollutants, or instream
conditions contribute to impairment of designated uses
identified in the water quality standards.
Pennsylvania has adopted standards for dissolved
oxygen, pH, temperature, fecal coliform, and 16 selected
metals and compounds for the lower Susquehanna
River.
Adequacy of Existing State Standards
for Tidal Waters
Conventional water pollutants (e.g. dissolved oxygen,
pH) have in the past been considered to exert the greatest
adverse impact on aquatic systems. Traditional water
quality management since the early 1970s has been based
upon the assumption that reducing pollutant loadings in
line with water quality standards would result in attaining
water quality goals in terms of use classifications.
Implicit is the notion that meeting such water quality
standards also would protect plants and animals
dependent on the aquatic environment.
In the Chesapeake Bay, however, the achievement or
the violation of standards does not always correlate with
the survival or decline of living resource populations.
Even strong enforcement of existing standards would not
be adequate to protect estuarine habitats in an ecosystem
as diverse as the Chesapeake Bay.
In some cases, existing standards may be unrealistic.
A dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/l exists for all
tidal waters of the Bay. Yet, deep areas of the mainstem
Bay are thought to have undergone periods of hypoxia
for centuries due to natural physical and chemical
processes.
When criteria exist for non-conventional pollutants,
primarily nutrients and toxic chemicals, they usually do
not account for the relative effects of salinity on the
processes of nutrient enrichment or on the toxicity of
individual chemicals. For example, the toxicity of copper
increases, but the toxicity of chromium decreases with
increasing salinity. Levels of toxicants causing lethal or
chronic effects are most often determined in tests using
freshwater species. Saltwater criteria, in turn, are often
based on results of toxicity tests using both estuarine and
marine organisms. Neither set of criteria takes into
account the gradations of salinity found in the Chesa-
peake Bay.
Like toxicity levels, the enrichment of estuarine waters
with nutrients is tied closely to salinity patterns. In tidal-
freshwater reaches of the Bay, an abundance of available
nitrogen makes the scarcer forms of phosphorus the
limiting factor in plankton growth. In polyhaline waters,
nitrogen is the nutrient more often in short supply.
Depending upon the salinity and local sources of nutri-
ents, criteria for protecting waterways from hypoxia
would differ. Water quality models developed for the
Chesapeake Bay that incorporate the spatial and temporal
complexities of nutrient dynamics in tidal waters are
necessary tools for establishing nutrient limitations or
standards for individual regions of the Bay system.
As an interim measure, existing saltwater criteria for
water quality parameters and toxicants could be utilized
by the states for all the saline regions of the Bay. Where
existing saltwater criteria do not provide adequate
long-term protection, standards tied more tightly to
variations in salinity, which can result in different
toxicities for some compounds, could be developed.
Applied research should be directed to define the
conditions necessary to support and protect estuarine life
where existing scientific findings are insufficient The
adoption of standards and criteria designed to support
regional habitat objectives should receive immediate
attention by federal and state agencies responsible for
criteria and standards development. The requirements
assembled in the Living Resources Task Force report can
be the basis for developing criteria, as outlined in the
regional habitat objectives illustrated above, which are
sensitive to the relative effects of toxics and nutrients in
each region of the Bay.
Baywide Assessment and Management
of Living Resources
The overall goal of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment is to provide for the restoration and protection of
living resources, their habitats, and ecological relation-
ships. The box on the following page lists specific
commitments related to living resources that are contained
in the Agreement Overall, the Agreement calls for new
Baywide approaches toward managing the conditions
upon which the Bay's living resources depend and
managing the resources themselves.
The regional habitat objectives described above
address the first living resources commitment~to develop
and adopt, by January 1988, guidelines for protecting
water quality and habitat conditions. The habitat
requirements assembled by the Living Resources Task
Force have been grouped by habitat regions of the Bay
into habitat objectives which, if met, would improve and
protect the living environment of Bay species.
The adoption of habitat requirements alone, however,
will not guarantee the long-term survival of fish and
wildlife in and around tidal waters of the Bay. Many of
these species are subject to commercial and recreational
fishing pressure and habitat modification and loss. To
address these factors, the Agreement also includes
commitments to coordinate the monitoring, assessment,
and management of Bay species along with water quality
programs and fisheries management efforts so that the
Bay is treated as one system, rather than distinct
jurisdictions.
The Agreement recognizes that Baywide management
of li ving resources should include monitoring and
analysis of ecologically valuable secies as well as those
-------
34
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement Living Resource Goal and Commitments
AGREEMENT GOAL: Provide for the restoration and protection of the living resources, their habitats and
ecological relationships.
AGREEMENT COMMITMENTS:
• By January 1988, to develop and adopt guidelines for the protection of water quality and habitat conditions
necessary to support the living resources found in the Chesapeake Bay system, and to use these guidelines in the
implementation of water quality and habitat protection programs. (Commitment achieved.)
• By July 1988, to develop, adopt, and begin to implement a Baywide plan for the assessment of commercially,
recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable species.
• By July 1988, to adopt a schedule for the development of Baywide resource management strategies for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable species.
• By July 1989, to develop, adopt and begin to implement Baywide management plans for oysters, blue crabs,
and Americal shad. Plans for other major commercially, recreationally and ecologically valuable species should
be initiated by 1990.
• By December 1990, to develop and begin to implement a Baywide policy for the protection of tidal and
non-tidal wetlands.
• To provide for fish passage at dams, and remove stream blockages wherever necessary to restore passage for
migratory fish.
harvested by recreational and commercial fishermen. The
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, funded
by NOAA, has begun to satisfy this commitment It has
drafted a framework for a Baywide fisheries stock
assessment and has funded a project to design a Baywide
adult-finfish trawl survey 37. While the framework and
survey specifically address only commercial and
recreational fishery species, they will be used to develop
by July 1988 a Baywide living resources stock
assessment plan that includes ecologically valuable
species as well as harvestable species.
Regulatory management of living resources has
traditionally focused on commercial fisheries, but the
Agreement contains a commitment to incorporate
ecologically valuable species in fishery management
plans. The LRTF habitat requirements demonstrate that
there are many organisms that commercial species depend
upon which are non-commercial in terms of their
economic importance. The Maryland Department of
Natural Resources and the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission have adopted a number of fisheries
management plans for individual commercial species.
Like the assessment of living resources, fisheries
management plans could be expanded to include
ecologically valuable species.
The Baywide fisheries management plans called for
by the Agreement could be framed around the regional
habitat objectives described above and could act as focal
points for coordinating a range of environmental plans
and regulations affecting the Chesapeake Bay, such as
water quality management (monitoring, analysis, and
enforcement of standards), tidal and non-tidal wetlands
regulations, dredging activities, land management
(nonpoint source and shoreline erosion control),
threatened and endangered species plans, living
resources monitoring, and fisheries regulations.
Summary
The Living Resources Task Force efforts and the 1987
Agreement provide a foundation for managing the Bay's
living resources from a regional habitat perspective. A
review of current state water quality standards suggests
that their existing design may not protect and restore
living resources, especially with respect to the control of
nutrients and related levels of dissolved oxygen. The
1987 Agreement recognizes a number of mechanisms to
formalize Baywide planning and management of living
resources. The creation of the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Living Resources Subcommittee will support
the development and implementation of plans for
Baywide assessment and management of living
resources. This new subcommittee can also act as a
bridge between monitoring, modeling, research, and
regulatory efforts to improve water quality of the Bay so
that these efforts are managed mors directly for restoring
and protecting the Bay's living resources.
-------
Chapter 3
Approaching the Nutrients Goal
35
Nutrient enrichment has been identified as a major
factor in the decline of the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrients--
primarily nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater and
runoff from farmland-drive the process of excess
productivity, decomposition, and recycling that contrib-
utes to oxygen depletion of bottom waters. Only a
reduction in phosphorus and nitrogen loadings can slow
this process and bring about improved water quality in
the Chesapeake. To achieve this end, the 1987 Bay
Agreement calls for a 40 percent reduction by the year
2000 in nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem
of the B ay. Reductions will be calculated from point
source loads for 1985 and nonpoint loads in a year of
average rainfall.
Habitat requirements for representative living
resources in Bay waters were described in Chapter 2.
These requirements, as well as other habitat objectives
identified through the Bay Program, were used as a
guide in establishing the 40 percent nutrient reduction
goal.
Relationships between nutrient loadings and key
water quality parameters have been evaluated through
modeling. These mathematical simulations helped
determine the nutrient reductions needed to achieve living
resource habitat and water quality goals in the Bay. A
number of abatement and control strategies were
analyzed to determine their effectiveness in reducing
nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations, and in
increasing DO levels. These control alternatives will be
described later in the chapter.
The Anatomy of Decline
Nutrient enrichment has been correlated with a number
of unhealthy trends in Bay resources. Significant loss of
SAV is a prime example. Excess nutrients enhance algal
growth on the stalks and leaves of SAV and promote
water column phytoplankton production. These effects,
together with turbidity from suspended particles, reduce
the amount of light reaching SAV below levels needed
for healthy growth.
An overabundance of phytoplankton creates other
problems as well. When production exceeds the food
needs of the next trophic level, the plant organisms that
are not consumed settle to the bottom and decay, using
up oxygen in the process. Low dissolved oxygen levels
in the Bay's bottom waters during the summer can be
linked to the excess algal production fueled by nutrient
enrichment. Decomposition of organic matter accumu-
lated in bottom sediment releases nutrients to the water
column. When dissolved oxygen levels are low, the rate
of ammonia and phosphorus release from sediment
increases. These nutrients accumulate in bottom waters
until mixed by storms or tides with surface water, where
they help fuel further algal production.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The 40 percent reduction goal applies to both nitrogen
and phosphorus. These two elements are linked as the
principal nutrients affecting the Bay, but they differ
significantly in their chemical behavior.
Nitrogen is extremely difficult to control. Highly
soluble, it is not easily removed from wastewater during
treatment. For the same reason, it leaches readily from
soils and animal manure to be transported to the Bay via
runoff and subsurface discharges. Some nitrogen
escapes to the air as a gas, comph'eating the task of
tracking this nutrient
Phosphorus also is water soluble, but binds readily
with soil particles on land and with suspended material
and sediments in water. Large amounts of phosphorus
are introduced to the Bay and its tributaries from
wastewater and runoff.
The persistence of nutrients witMn the Bay reflects the
limited exchange that occurs between the Chesapeake and
the Atlantic. Nutrients tend to remain in the Bay to be
recycled several times before permanent burial or
removal. This nutrient "trapping" has been a major factor
in the Bay's high productivity over the years; unfortu-
nately, it also amplifies the adverse; effects of excessive
nutrient loads.
Other Factors Influencing Transport
Geology, land use, land management practices, and
weather are among the many factors that influence the
transport of nutrients within the Bay watershed.
Some nutrients discharged in the watershed never
reach the Bay, while others are merely delayed in their
movement. Phosphorus may be trapped in the sediments
of natural or man-made reservoirs; nitrogen may be
converted to nitrogen gas in the absence of dissolved
oxygen; either nutrient may be taken up in plant tissue.
Sediments containing nutrients may be stored in
reservoirs, river beds, and the soil in years of little
rainfall only to be released during floods and washed to
the Bay.
Above-average rainfall increases nonpoint nutrient
loads to the Bay; in dry years, point sources and base
flow (ground water feeding into rivers) are of relatively
-------
36
greater importance as contributors of nitrogen and
phosphorus to the Bay.
Seasonal and regional variations in nutrient loadings
also are significant in the Bay basin. Nitrogen input rises
at winter's end when melting snow and runoff from
seasonal rains swell river flows. The spring freshet
brings an average total nitrogen load of 70 million
pounds to the Bay, about twice that of other seasons 38.
The phosphorus loads also vary seasonally, depending in
part on freshwater flow and on the impact of storms. If
the bottom water becomes anoxic-as it does during the
summer in parts of the Bay-phosphorus and nitrogen are
released in increased amounts from sediment and
reintroduced to the water columa This benthic nutrient
release in summer can be many times that which occurs
in other seasons.
The impact of nitrogen and phosphorus on water
quality differs from one end of the Bay to the other. The
Susquehanna River carries a large burden of nitrogen
from agricultural lands to the upper Bay. In the lower
Bay, on the other hand, the mix with nitrogen-poor
oceanic waters tends to increase the significance of
phosphorus.
Wastewater treatment managers commonly use the
"limiting nutrient concept"39 to determine the most
efficient nutrient control strategy. The concept is based
on the principle that controlling the nutrient in least
supply will effectively limit algae growth. In the Bay,
however, the "limiting nutrient" changes from place to
place, from season to season.
Nutrient Sources and Controls
Nutrients that reach the Bay and its tributaries
originate both from point sources (municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities) and nonpoint
sources (cropland, animal wastes, urban runoff, base
flow). The 40 percent nutrient reduction goal applies to
all controllable sources, both point and nonpoint.
Relative magnitudes of nutrient source categories are
shown in Figure 3-1, which reflects 1985 point source
loads and estimates of nonpoint source contributions
based on average year precipitation and 1985 land use
information36-40.
Base flow (subsurface waters that recharge streams as
illustrated in Figure 3-2) is the largest contributor of
nitrogen-about 45 percent. It is roughly estimated on the
basis of model runs, however, that as much as 95 percent
of base flow nitrogen may be from natural sources. The
contribution from natural sources would be present even
under pristine conditions. Only the smaller percentage
resulting from human activity is considered susceptible to
control. The total phosphorus contribution from base
Total Nitrogen in Average Year
Total Phosphorus in Average Year
Natural Base Load
Man-induced Base Load
Agricultural Nonpoint Sources
Other Nonpoint Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Industrial Point Sources
Air Sources
D
Natural Base Load
Man-induced Base Load
Agricultural Nonpoint Sources
Urban Nonpoint Sources
Other Nonpoint Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Industrial Point Sources
Air Sources
Figure 3-1. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Basin in 1985
-------
37
Base
Streamflow
In dry periods, ground
water is the principle
source of stream flow.
Nitrogen in ground water moves
into streams as water table drops
during dry periods.
Figure 3-2. Movement of Nutrients to Ground Water and Base Streamflow
flow is much smaller (9 percent) because soil effectively
adsorbs this nutrient from infiltrating surface water.
About half of the phosphorus in base flow is believed to
be from natural sources.
Of the total nutrient load from municipal sewage
treatment plants, 42 percent of the phosphorus and 67
percent of the nitrogen is discharged by facilities located
below the fall line (BFL) in the coastal plain and nearest
the Bay. Since loads from these plants are not subjected
to the chemical and physical degradation that occurs in
transport, they have the greatest potential to impact upon
Bay water quality. The plants below the fall line account
for 66 percent of the total municipal wastewater flow in
the watershed, another manifestation of the population
distribution shown in Table 1-1.
The phosphorus load from BFL plants is low relative
to total flow as the result of improvements in wastewater
treatment required under regional control programs.
These regional programs are described later in this
chapter.
Industrial sources contribute only a small part of total
point source nutrient discharges in the watershed. They
account for 8 percent of the nitrogen and 2 percent of the
phosphorus.
Surface runoff from agricultural activities (cropland
and animal wastes) is responsible for about 29 percent
of the phosphorus and 19 percent of the nitrogen
discharged in the watershed. Runoff from forested lands
and urban areas contributes small amounts of the two
nutrients.
Strategies to reduce nutrient enrichment of the Bay
must take into account the relative importance of the
various nitrogen/phosphorus sources as well as the
existing control programs described below.
Point Sources
Industries generate some nutrients in wastewater
discharges, but the percentage is small compared to the
contribution of municipal wastewater treatment plants.
(Figure 3-3). Roughly 25 percent of the 6,000 point
source dischargers in the Bay basin are municipal
treatment plants. Of these, the 200 largest facilities, all
municipally owned, are responsible for 95 percent of the
municipal wastewater effluent volume. Fifty-eight of
these large facilities discharge into tidal portions of the
Bay and its tributaries.
Wastewater discharges from point sources are
regulated under permits issued by the States or EPA.
All permits require certain minimum levels of treatment;
additional treatment may be required if necessary to
protect water quality in the tributaries or the Bay.
Municipal facilities along the lower Susquehanna, the
West Chesapeake (the minor tributaries of the middle and
upper Bay western shore), and the Potomac and James
rivers below the fall line (see map, page viii, for tributary
-------
38
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
@ Municipal Point Sources
I Industrial Point Sources
D Other Sources
Figure 3-3. Relative Contributions of Point Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Chesa-
peake Bay Watershed in 1985
locations) are responsible for most point source nitrogen
discharged in the Bay basin (Figure 3-4). For this reason,
the following section on wastewater treatment will focus
on this area.
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
The federal Clean Water Act requires that all sewage
treatment works provide secondary or, in some cases,
higher levels of treatment.
Construction grants provided under a federal/state
cost-sharing program assist communities in building new
municipal treatment plants or upgrading older facilities to
meet statutory treatment requirements. Improvements
funded under this program have enabled municipal
sewage plants to reduce total phosphorus loads by about
60 percent from 1965 to 1985 despite increases in
wastewater flow3.
Additional phosphorus reductions will result from
phosphate detergent bans enacted by the District of
Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. Preliminary data from
the Blue Plains STP in the District of Columbia and six
plants operated by the Washington Suburban Sanitation
Commission indicate that the ban has reduced effluent
phosphorus concentrations by 25 percent or more.
Operating and maintenance costs in these plants were
reduced 10 to 15 percent. The savings are achieved
through decreases in chemical dosage and reduced sludge
generation.
In 1985,25 municipal dischargers below the fall line
were in the process of upgrading levels of treatment to
comply with secondary treatment requirements and
State water quality standards. These improvements,
referred to subsequently as "planned upgrades," together
with phosphate detergent bans, are expected to form the
core of nutrient reductions from this category of
dischargers.
Reductions projected as the result of upgrades planned
at 20 of the largest treatment plants are detailed in
Appendix A. Appendix A also shows that 117 plants,
discharging 236 millions of gallons a day (MGD) and not
subject to any effluent phosphorus limitation, will reduce
their combined phosphorus load 0.64 million pounds (18
percent) compared to 1985 through implementation of
phosphate detergent bans.
Planned upgrades are expected to achieve significant
results by the year 2000:
• 12 plants, discharging 275 MGD, will reduce their
combined biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load by
74 percent compared to 1985.
• 14 plants, discharging 293 MGD, will reduce their
phosphorus load by 41 percent from the 1985 level.
• 5 plants, discharging 202 MGD, will reduce their total
nitrogen load by 35 percent from 1985.
Overall, planned upgrades and current phosphate
detergent bans are expected to reduce phosphorus
discharges by 1.44 million pounds a year (25 percent)
and nitrogen by 4.74 million pounds annually (9 percent)
compared to 1985 levels. Population growth will offset
these reductions, however, resulting in a net decrease in
phosphorus loads of 0.8 million pounds a year (13
percent) while nitrogen loads will increase by 3.3 million
pounds a year (6 percent).
In addition to improving treatment, some plants are
expanding their total capacity. Table 3-1 shows 1985
municipal wastewater discharges by state, existing
capacity, and discharges projected for the year 2000. In
the aggregate, current or planned capacity appears
adequate to treat expected flow increases, or even larger
volumes. Growth greater than expected may occur in
some sewer service areas, however, requiring an
-------
39
Point Source Nitrogen
Point Source Phosphorus
Susquehanna
Eastern Shore
W. Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
10 20
Millions of Ibs/year
30
234
Millions of Ibs/year
BFL
AFL Deli vered
Figure 3-4. Point Source Loadings of Nutrients by Basin
expansion of capacity at individual facilities beyond that
which is currently planned.
Regional Control Programs. Effluent limitations more
stringent than national standards are required under three
programs currently in effect in various areas of the
watershed. The three are: the Upper Chesapeake Bay
Phosphorus Limitation Policy, 41 the Patuxent Nutrient
Control Policy, 42 and the Potomac Strategy 43. Overall,
these programs cover 71 municipal facilities that
accounted for half the municipal wastewater flow in the
Bay basin in 1985.
The Upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Limitation
Policy,41 initiated in 1979 to reduce nutrient enrichment
of the upper Bay, was applicable in 1985 to 40 municipal
Table 3-1
Existing and Future Municipal Plant Flows (MGD) below the Fail Line
State
1985
Flow
Year 2000 (CBP)a
Flow % change
Year 2000 (states) b
Flow % change
Design capacity c
Flow % change
DC
VA
301
291
356
Total 948
306
360
389
1055
+ 1.7
+ 24
+ 9
+ 11
352
406
564
1322
+ 17
+ 40
+ 58
+ 39
370 + 23
423 + 45
537 + 52
1330
+ 40
a - CBP estimates based on state projected county population increases, and state year 2000 projections for Back
River, Patapsco and Western Branch STPs.
b - Virginia estimates are based on design flow (currently planned and approved) for year 2000; other estimates
on facility plans and other available information.
c - CBP estimates derived from Needs Survey and state data.
d - Includes 100 MGD of treated wastewater used as cooling water.
-------
40
treatment plants in Pennsylvania and to 11 facilities in
Maryland.
In Pennsylvania, the phosphorus limit applies to
treatment facilities discharging into the Susquehanna
River or its tributaries below the mouth of the Juniata
River. New or modified plants that do not have
phosphorus controls in place are required to meet a 2
mgA effluent limitation if the discharge contributes 0.25
percent or more of the total point source phosphorus load
in the Lower Susquehanna pools. Existing dischargers
with phosphorus controls in place must continue to pro-
vide 80 percent removal, which is equivalent to 2 mg/l.
In Maryland, the phosphorus effluent limit of 2 mg/l is
applicable to all municipal plants in the area from the
Pennsylvania border to the Gunpowder River, and to
facilities with flows of 10 MOD or more from the Gun-
powder south to the Choptank River.
The Patuxent Nutrient Control Policy,42 implemented
as part of Maryland's 208 Water Quality Management
Plan, requires facilities discharging 500,000 gallons or
more a day to meet 1 mgA phosphorus effluent limits and
to plan for a possible 0.3 mg/l limit later. In addition,
specific facilities will be required to reduce nitrogen
concentrations to 3 mg/l through conventional removal
technology or to utilize land treatment to curb nitrogen
discharges. All other facilities must plan for possible 3
mgA nitrogen limits. The Patuxent policy applies to 10
municipal facilities discharging 36 MGD as of 1985.
Like the Patuxent Policy, the Potomac Strategy 43 also
is being implemented as part of a 208 Water Quality
Management Plan. The Potomac Strategy Management
Committee reduced the phosphorus limit from 0.22 mgA
to 0.18 mgA for treatment plants discharging to the upper
Potomac estuary in order to accommodate population
growth with no increase in the total phosphorus load.
The policy applies to 11 municipal wastewater facilities
discharging 440 MGD as of 1985. All but one of these
facilities are close to meeting the limit without making
additional capital expenditures. About $1 billion already
has been spent on upgrading municipal plants in the
upper Potomac estuary.
In addition to the facilities covered by the three re-
gional policies, 28 other municipalities are being required
to impose phosphorus and BOD controls more stringent
than secondary treatment These plants are to be listed in
the Chesapeake Bay Point Source Adas now in
preparation 44.
Other Point Source Controls
Industrial dischargers contribute only about 8 percent
of the nitrogen and 2 percent of the phosphorus in the
Bay basin. Industrial point source loads vary from one
area to another (Figure 3-4).
Technology-based standards required under the Clean
Water Act reduce toxic and conventional pollutants in
industrial wastewater discharges, but generally have not
included nutrient limits.
Twenty industrial dischargers in Maryland and
Virginia currently are required to meet state nitrogen
and/or phosphorus effluent limits.
The feasibility of developing BAT-level nutrient
limitations paralleling those applicable to other pollutants
may need to be investigated.
Table 3-2
Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Sub-basin
Susquehanna
Eastern Shore
West Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
WATERSHED TOTAL
Sub-basin
acreage
17,443,932
2,664,759
1,089,245
494,478
8,948,709
1,969,984
1,724,448
6,618,064
40,991,379
Land Uses (percent of acreage)
Cropland Pasture Forest Urban
20
39
22
16
17
17
12
8
18
8
2
8
6
14
11
5
9
9
64
49
41
46
58
65
71
74
63
8
10
29
32
11
7
13
10
10
Note: The above land area does not include water.
-------
41
Nonpoint Source Nitrogen
Nonpoint Source Phosphorus
Susquehanna
Eastern Shore
West Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
20 40 60 80
Millions of Ibs/year
100
1
2 3 4
Millions of Ibs/year
0
Base Flow
Ag Delivered
Ag Undelivered
Forest
Urban
Figure 3-5. Nonpoint Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Combined sewer overflows and other periodic
overflows, bypasses, and spills of raw sewage are other
point sources of nutrients. Their cumulative effect on Bay
waters has not been quantified, but these discharges may
contribute significant concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus to local waters.
Chesapeake Bay Program data systems focus on
pollution sources located below the fall line (see Figure
1-1). This is because these sources make the largest
contribution of nutrients to the Bay and they cannot be
quantified unless they are individually enumerated. They
are also the closest to the Bay and nutrients they
discharge are the most certain to be transported to the
Bay and to have negative influences on Bay water
quality.
Sources that discharge above the fall line can be
quantified at the fall line, which forms a convenient gate
at which to measure both flows and loads. Quantified
estimates of pollution loads referenced in this report will
specifically note the zone they cover. Discussions of
pollution control programs, however, apply equally to
pollution emissions originating both above and below the
fall line.
Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint source nutrient contributions are largely a
function of land use. For purposes of relating land use
and nutrient loads, the nearly 38 million acres of land in
the Bay basin may be characterized generally as forest,
cropland, pasture, and urban areas (Table 3-2). Al-
though cropland and pasture comprise only 27 percent of
the acreage in the watershed, these agricultural operations
are the primary sources of nonpoint nutrient pollution.
Nonpoint source contributions are shown, by tributary,
in Figure 3-5.
Since the signing of the 1983 Bay Agreement, state
and federal programs to reduce nonpoint source
pollutants have focused primarily on agricultural lands
through the application of a variety of the site-specific
controls called best management practices 45. Only
pilot-scale projects have been initiated thus far to deal
with urban nonpoint nutrient sources.
Agricultural Sources and Programs
Agricultural nonpoint source nitrogen discharges
range from 19 percent in years of average rainfall to
about 32 percent in wet years. The phosphorus
contribution ranges from 29 percent in average years to
about 57 percent in wet years. Cropland erosion loss and
animal waste are the principle sources of the agricultural
nutrient load. In the base year of 1985, credible soils
and animal waste were about even as sources of nutrients
in Pennsylvania, Maryland and for the Bay basin as a
whole. Manure was relatively more significant as a
nutrient source in Virginia. Figure 3-6 shows the
breakdown between these two agricultural sources for
each major tributary.
Since 1985, Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants
have been available to help states establish or expand
agricultural cost-share programs. Among other projects,
these EPA grants fund installation of BMPs. There are
now more people interested in participating in these pro-
grams than current program funding can handle. USDA
provides funds to implement cropland and animal waste
-------
42
best management practices under the cost-sharing Agri-
cultural Conservation Program (ACP) administered by the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. This
ASCS program accomplishes many of the same goals as
programs funded by the States and EPA.
If load reductions continue at the same rate as those
estimated for the first two years of the Implementation
Grants program, the decrease in agricultural sources of
nitrogen would amount to 35 percent by the year 2000 45.
Table 3-3 presents a breakdown of 1985 and 1986
conservation efforts by tributary. Data in the table repre-
sent only BMPs implemented through ASCS or state/
CBP cost-share programs. There are reports, however,
that some landowners are installing structural or
management BMPs on their own without such subsidies.
In one state, it has been indicated that cost-share pro-
grams account for only 40 to 60 percent of BMPs cur-
rently being implemented. These independent efforts are
an unquantified benefit from technical assistance routinely
provided by the agricultural assistance programs.
Protection of highly credible cropland also is
encouraged through the USDA's Conservation Reserve
Program. Landowners who qualify are compensated
annually for keeping land out of production for at least 10
years. In contrast to some other areas of the nation, the
program has not attracted many participants in the Chesa-
peake Bay area. The level of compensation is relatively
low in comparison with land values in the watershed.
Some landowners whose property is in the probable path
of urban development also are reluctant to commit land to
conservation for an entire decade. Approximately 44,000
acres are currently in conservation reserve in the
watershed. Significant expansion is not considered likely
at the present rate of compensation, but making this
program more attractive could represent an important
contribution to nutrient reduction in the Bay.
Another conservation initiative was included in the
Food Security Act of 1985. The legislation established
the Conservation Compliance Program which requires
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to evaluate the
erosion potential of all land in the United States by 1990.
Landowners or operators who fail to implement
appropriate conservation plans by 1995 will be ineligible
for USDA benefits. This deadline has helped encourage
participation in cost-share programs sponsored by state
and federal agencies.
USDA conservation programs are essentially
voluntary now, and influence over the location and rate
of implementation is exercised only through educational
outreach, cost-share incentives, and restriction of benefits
for noncompliance. State/EPA cost-share programs, on
the other hand, tend to channel funding to counties and/or
basins that can provide the most impact for the dollar.
These programs also are voluntary, but most use a
ranking system that discourages funding of low-priority
proposals.
The level of participation in the cost-share programs
has been encouraging, but their voluntary nature does not
allow a disciplined "worst first" attack on nonpoint
problems. Economic considerations apparently prompt
some landowners to forego subsidies and other benefits
rather than install BMPs. In addition, about 30 percent
of the farmers who enroll as participants in a given year
fail to complete BMP commitments.
Some BMPs that reduce nutrient and soil loss in
runoff may have the undesirable side effect of increasing
concentrations of nitrogen and pesticides in ground
water. Controlling nutrient movement to ground water
has not been emphasized in Bay Program implementation
efforts but nutrient management46, which is coming into
Total Agricultural Nitrogen Total Agricultrual Phosphorus
in Average Year in Average Year
^^^KOT^fflfTTfinTV;^:^^^
Eastern Shore
West Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
C
Figure 3-6. Agi
U pD
ftm i bgggga i
D D
I D
a \ tm \
) 10 20 30 0 1 2 3
Millions of Ibs/year ™, Millions of Ibs/year
E3 CropTN
D Animal TN
•icultural Nonpoint Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-------
43
Agricultural NFS
Table 3-3
Nutrient Reduction in Terms of Soil
NITROGEN
Tributary
Susquehanna
Eastern Shore
West Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
BASIN TOTAL
Ibs needing
treatment in
1985
170,936
20,657
13,773
7,359
98,807
21,789
12,024
39,628
384,973
Percent
reduced
1985-86
2.61
9.49
3.10
2.10
3.25
5.75
3.81
4.97
2.96
Saved and Manure
Stored
PHOSPHORUS
Ibs needing
treatment in
1985
33,249
3,961
2,705
1,473
19,011
4,237
2,347
7,607
74,590
Percent
reduced
1985-86
2.56
9.56
3.11
2.02
3.29
6.01
3.93
5.27
3.03
increasing use as a BMP, does have the effect of
lowering ground water nitrogen. Nutrient management
encourages greater reliance on animal wastes in place of
chemical fertilizers, reducing overall use of nitrogen.
Utilizing the natural filtering and nitrogen-fixing
capabilities of riparian filter strips and wetlands also can
reduce nitrogen levels in ground water 47.
Nonpoint Sources
The relative contribution of other nonpoint sources of
nutrients is shown in Figure 3-7. These include urban
and industrial runoff and base flow carrying nutrients
stemming from human activities such as fertilizer
application and natural releases to ground water. The
sources are grouped here because they are not well
quantified except in the aggregate, and in most cases no
programs exist to control them.
Urban and industrial runoff is a relatively small contri-
butor to nutrient loads, although local effects may be
damaging where discharges empty into nursery grounds
and critical habitats for aquatic biota.Basin-wide, such
discharges account for about 4 percent of the total
nitrogen load and about 6 percent of the phosphorus.
Comprehensive efforts to apply urban runoff controls
are under way along the Anacostia River. Anne Arundel
County also has begun to implement a series of controls
in an effort to improve water quality in its tributaries and
the Bay. Local and regional agencies within the Rappa-
hannock River drainage basin have begun development
of strategies to manage urban runoff in areas which are
beginning to experience intensive development,
Stormwater runoff has not been regulated as a point
source discharge previously, but Clean Water Act
amendments enacted in 1987 provide for the control of
these discharges from industrial sites and large urban
areas under NPDES permits.
Permit requirements for industrial Stormwater dis-
charges are to be established by February 1989. Permit
holders will have five years to comply, well within the
timetable in the 1987 Bay Agreement.
Stormwater control requirements are to be prepared by
February 1989 for urban areas with populations of
250,000 or more, and by February 1991 for areas with
populations of 100,000 to 250,000. In both cases,
jurisdictions will have five years to comply.
Base flow is another example of nonpoint sources
which are not now well controlled. Carrying nutrients
contributed by ground water moving through the soil,
base flow tends to come to the surface at low points in
the terrain, forming wet weather springs and eventually
reaching surface streams. Since the concentration of
nutrients in base flow is highly dependent on the
concentration of nutrients in the soil, excess use of
fertilizer results in increased levels of nutrients in base
flow and larger loads to nearby streams.
Studies conducted during the research phase of the
Chesapeake Bay Program in the lower Susquehanna
River showed 65 percent of the nitrogen and 19 percent
of the phosphorus load delivered to the fall line originated
as base flow 4°. If the Susquehanna is assumed to be
typical of tributaries in the watershed, it seems clear that a
strategy to curtail excessive use of fertilizer is essential in
order to achieve significant reductions in nutrient loads,
especially nitrogen.
Acre for acre, forests are the lowest nutrient exporters
-------
44
Total Nitrogen
in Average Year
Total Phosphorus
in Average Year
Natural Base Load
Man-induced Base Load
Other Nonpoint Sources
Agricultural Nonpoint Sources
and all Point Sources
Figure 3-7. Base Flow Load Distribution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in 1985
in the Bay basin. Forested lands make up about 63 per-
cent of the watershed but contribute only 2 percent of the
nitrogen and about 3 percent of the phosphorus. In fact,
the trees and grasses of forests and meadows actively
remove nutrients, indicating the potential value of such
land uses as elements in control programs. The Bay
watershed's forested acreage has increased about 12 per-
cent since 1950, according to U.S. Forest Service
estimates48, but urbanization may be reversing that trend
in Maryland.
Projecting Future Bay Quality
Mathematical models are used to estimate effects on
the Bay of various alternative control strategies. A model
is a simplified representation of reality. Simplification is
necessary to isolate and focus on key features relevant to
water quality. Mathematical equations are altered to
simulate the effects on Bay water quality of varying
reductions in nutrient loads.
Two models were used in the preparation of this
report. One was the Steady-State Model of water quality
in the Bay. The other-the watershed model-simulated
the production and delivery of nutrients to the Bay.
(Future plans call for refining the watershed model to
more accurately represent activities in the watershed. The
Water Quality Model is being upgraded to simulate the
Bay in greater detail and to show time-variable changes.)
Development of the Steady-State Water Quality Model
of the tidal estuary and major tributaries was completed
by the Chesapeake Bay Program in March 1987 49.so.
The model assesses the effect of nutrient inputs on
phytoplankton growth and dissolved oxygen levels.
Major model inputs included fresh water flows and
nutrient loads measured at the fall line, nutrient contribu-
tions from both point and nonpoint sources below the fall
line, atmospheric nutrient loads, Bay bottom sediment
nutrient loads, and dissolved oxygen.
The time period over which modeling results are aver-
aged is July and August These two months were selected
because biological productivity is relatively high, fresh
water flows are low, stratification of the Bay is relatively
constant, and DO concentrations are most depressed.
The model was calibrated to average July/August
conditions for the years 1965,1984 and 1985. Those
three years were characterized by contrasting degrees of
fresh water flow, vertical stratification, and point and
nonpoint nutrient inputs, and by wide differences in fresh
water flow from the tributaries (Figure 3-8). In 1965,
fresh water flows were extremely low; 1985 was closer
to an average year, with fresh water flows slightly more
than twice the level of 1965. In contrast, fresh water
flows in 1984 were nearly six times higher than those of
1965. Differences in fresh water volumes have two
significant effects. One is that nonpoint nutrient loads in a
dry year are about half what they are in a wet year. More
important, fresh water inflows overlay denser estuarine
water, resulting in strong vertical stratification in wet
years. Stratification retards the transfer of oxygen to
bottom layers of the Bay.
A number of major conclusions were drawn from the
calibration of the water quality model and subsequent
sensitivity evaluations:
-------
45
• The decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations in
bottom waters of the Bay from 1965 to 1985 was due to
the combined effect of increased oxygen demand and
nutrient fluxes from bottom sediments, together with
phytoplankton respiration and bacterial oxidation.
• Phosphorus tends to be the "limiting nutrient" in the
upper Bay; nitrogen is potentially more limiting in the
lower Bay.
• Model calculations indicate that bottom sediments were
the largest source of dissolved inorganic phosphoru (DIP)
and ammonia (a form of nitrogen) in the summers of 1984
and 1985. Low dissolved oxygen in summer increases
the nutrient flux of phosphorus and ammonia. If bottom
dissolved oxygen levels were higher, phosphorus would
remain chemically bound to metal compounds in the
sediment and ammonia would be largely converted to
nitrogen gas51. With current low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations, estimated contributions to the Bay were 65
percent of the total dissolved inorganic phosphorus load,
and 45 to 57 percent of the ammonia. A methodology
was developed which related projected changes in
sediment oxygen demand and sediment nutrient release
rates to reductions in point and nonpoint source loads.
This "sediment methodology" is used in conjunction with
the calibrated model to make projections of the effects of
point and nonpoint sources control strategies.
• Bay water quality is controlled largely by bottom
sediment oxygen demand, the rate of nutrient flux from
sediments, and the degree of vertical stratification (a
function of fresh water flow). Higher flows increase
stratification, which magnifies the effects of bottom
sediment oxygen demand and nutrient release. The
result is lower dissolved oxygen concentrations in
bottom waters and more chlorophyll in surface waters.
• Neither fall line nor point source nutrient reductions
have significant direct impact on main Bay water quality,
but they can decrease sediment oxygen demand and nu-
trient release rates by reducing the amount of nutrients
and organic matter deposited to bottom sediments. Nu-
trient reductions also can improve tributary water quality.
The Steady-State Bay model, as is the case with any
model, has limitations that should be kept in mind in
considering model results. Because of these limitations:
• Issues involving a time factor could not be addressed
by the summer average Steady-State Model. This limita-
tion precluded, for example, determining the effects of
high flow spring runoff, looking at the impact of past
events on existing water quality, or evaluating the effects
of winter/spring algal blooms on summer water quality.
• Projected changes in sediment oxygen demand and
sediment nutrient release rates in response to varying
point and nonpoint source loads are based on a simplified
"sediment methodology." This framework limits assess-
ments to effects of regional point source strategies and
tradeoffs between point and nonpoint source strategies.
• The model tends to underestimate the water quality
benefits of nitrogen control strategies under 1985
50
.1 40-
o
fa
O
30-
20-
10
1985
1965
1940
1950
1960 1970
YEAR
1980
1990
Figure 3-8. Total Annual Flow (cfs) for Major River Basins in Chesapeake Bay over a 44-year
Period
-------
46
circulation conditions. Model projections under 1984
circulation conditions appear to be more accurate for
nitrogen, although some uncertainty remains due to the
detection limits of 1984 nutrient data.
• Biological nutrient control technology (nitrification/
denitrification) is most effective during summer condi-
tions simulated by the Steady-State Model. Colder
weather decreases the metabolic rates at which bacteria
nitrify wastewater, making nitrogen removal more
difficult. Such seasonal variations should be considered
in evaluating BNR technologies. Municipal loadings
shown in Appendix C assume year-round removal of
nitrogen under summer conditions.
The Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee and the
Model Evaluation Group (MEG), an expert advisory
panel, provided guidance and carried out detailed reviews
throughout the development process to ensure the quality
and technical validity of the model. MEG concluded that
"the water quality model calibrations are consistent with
the observed data given the present model structure, the
steady-state limitation, and the available data. We believe
that the model can be useful in certain aspects of waste-
load allocation processes, particularly in looking at the
impact of regional loads and in setting Bay water quality
standards."
Evaluating Reduction Alternatives
The Chesapeake Bay Steady-State Water Quality
Model was used to demonstrate the effects of different
nutrient levels as well as results that might be expected
from various control options 52. In addition to point
source control alternatives, nonpoint source controls
were evaluated both separately and in combination with
point source strategies.
Fourteen of the many pollution control and planning
year scenarios modeled are listed in Table 3-4 and
described in greater detail in Appendix B.
Figure 3-9 highlights five scenarios that provide a
context for the 40 percent nutrient reduction selected as a
goal in the 1987 Bay Agreement They project to the
year 2000 the effects of alternative environmental and
pollution control conditions. Figure 3-9 reflects results
obtained when each of the five was tested using circula-
tion patterns prevailing in the Bay in 1985. The scenarios
used are summarized below:
1. Existing Conditions. Based on 1985 land uses, popu-
lation and existing treatment facilities.
2. Planned Upgrades. Based on 1985 land uses and year
2000 population, with major planned sewage treatment
plant upgrades below the fall line in operation (see
Appendix A).
3. Biological Nutrient Removal. BNR systems 53-54
removing both nitrogen and phosphorus at municipal
wastewater treatment plants located below the fall line
(see Appendix C).
4.40 Percent Reduction. Application of the 40 percent
reduction goal to total phosphorus and total nitrogen from
municipal and industrial point sources, and urban and
agricultural nonpoint sources (including nutrients in
stormwater and those in base flow stemming from
farming activities).
5. Pristine Conditions. This scenario assumes a
completely forested watershed with no urban or industrial
point or nonpoint nutrient discharges.
The primary criteria used in evaluating alternatives
were dissolved oxygen levels and chlorophyll
concentrations. DO is the primary measure of habitat
conditions for most aquatic life; chlorophyll is a better
indicator of SAV habitat Chlorophyll concentrations also
provide an index to "excess" organic material, which
eventually contributes to the anoxiij/hypoxia problem in
the Bay. Levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and
dissolved inorganic phosphorus were used as secondary
criteria for SAV habitat.
No effort was made in setting up the scenarios
described in Appendix B to identify or fix responsibilities
for achieving the reductions in nutrient discharges to the
Bay. The 40 percent reduction strategy was applied uni-
formly in model runs without consideration of possible
tradeoffs between different areas of the basin-between
States, for example, or between locations above and
below the fall line. Possible tradeoffs in controlling point
or nonpoint sources, or in the control of different kinds
of sources within those categories., also were ignored.
These issues are important but they are integral to deci-
sions that must be made by State agencies in developing
the implementation strategies due in July 1988.
As Table 3-4 shows, significant reductions are
required in both phosphorus and nitrogen to minimize the
volume of Bay water containing summer average DO
concentrations of less than 2.0 mg/1, and to eliminate
anoxic conditions in deep water by raising minimum DO
levels to the range of 1.0 mg/1. DO levels below 2.0 mg/1
are projected in some parts of the Bay under all alterna-
tives investigated, but the extent of these low DO areas
can be reduced through the stringent control of nutrients.
The Bay Agreement goal of reducing point and
nonpoint source loads of both nitrogen and phosphorus
by 40 percent is a reasonable targei that can be achieved if
a strong nonpoint source control effort is coupled with
improved point source controls.
Improvements in Habitat
The 40 percent reduction in nutrient loads set forth in
the 1987 Bay Agreement can achieve many of the goals
for protecting habitat and living resources outlined in the
preceding chapter. Model projecticois illustrate how
nutrient reductions can enhance habitat conditions for
-------
47
«s o 60 ff)
E -*z of E co
— '2 «3
"^ rP1 £
g""1 E S m
.So E °3 ^
^ -i s s j
Z 3 r* a o
g s~-g
^ F— I
- X
•8 o
1 Q
"5 r-^ O c c "§
~oe oo E o S
i ^ »2 £ o s 5
•o"5 Q co gj(j |P
55 "So 2 >s^*
i oe > y «
a> i-J •-.
•° 1
0- ~ 60
«£ < c!
3 v. .2 C
E t3 E 2 ^ """"
c/5 S P e ^ "20
B M U ^l "^
•* S 2 £ £«
^J 'C H ^ r9 C
C3 __ fl\ ^^ "^^
s s- ' *
A U 3 ^
« &r> o C
e > W
O A OH
»r o
w e p<
•o Z O
«j ! d
Ctf C >-H W5
o U .p
T "3 *2 -0 •— N
i w « -c w>
z G o "c ^
**"" l/l
tn 2 W
t« I"!
B nr
The Effective
usin;
Scenario
^^ V) ^C *™^ ^^
in rt Tt •* ^
so • m in in m
r~ in Os in en
m o <— i o o
CO CO
— . q
CO O t~ OO CO
•* <-; oo cs rn
v£> Tl- CS OO OO
m o 1-1 o\ os
t-H t-N l-H
t — Os co »-* in
«— i »— i so oo r*~
^. ^ ^ «O, ^
Existing Calibration
Planned Upgrades**
Planned Upgrades**, 2000X
Planned Upgrades** + TP=1
Planned Upgrades** + TP=1
TN=6 (BNR Randall Est.)
^ s -Q- e ^
t--
P^
Tt
m
m
.
O
CO
cs_
o
o
*""*
Os
cs
^
?»
t 2
l«
l«
T3 00
ez
§P
S
o
Os
CO
in
CO
.
O
VO
in
Os
m
in
Limits of Technology**
a
r^- r**- in o r^* p* in
-H m os m in co in
Tf CO CS CS_ CO CO — <
in in — i --i in oo o
O O O O O O O
o co in \o ~*t in
^ ""! ""•: °^ ^ *°. *":
cs
Or-;—; q r-; os vo
O os Os Os Os Os 00
*™^
.
"u
o
™
g
.§
1 1
Or~rf CO Os OO OSB-
vpinm in in in in^fi
PCd(/5
"^
E 'i
s i
tn vi S
S u g 1 -3
i -§ II §• •
Is. I* S^ 11
+ Z* * >2co«y-g |'l
1 1 1 ii i|ii i jii
I i !i 1 * i« 11 1 i|i
^nH^^
-------
48
1 Existing Conditions
2 Planned Upgrades
3 Biological Nutrient Removal
4 40 Percent Reduction
5 Pristine Conditions
Figure 3-9. Bottom Layer Dissolved Oxygen
and .Upper Layer Algae Concentrations Pro-
jected for the Chesapeake Bay in the Year 2000
SAV and oysters, as well as raise oxygen levels in the
Bay's deep central trench.
As noted in Chapter 2, SAV growth is impaired when
concentrations of chlorophyll a, dissolved inorganic ni-
trogen (DIN) and dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP)
exceed certain levels. Figure 2-12 depicted such high
concentrations in relation to areas where SAV was
present in 1985.
Figures 3-10 and 3-11 show improved conditions
projected for the year 2000 following a 40 percent
reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus loads. These
reduced loads were simulated under the different
circulation conditions of the years 1984 and 1985.
Figure 2-6 showed areas where oyster and clam
habitats were impaired in 1985, a relatively good year for
those species in the Bay. Figures 3-12 and 3-13 project
the improved dissolved oxygen conditions a 40 percent
nutrient reduction could achieve by the year 2000 in areas
and at depths important to oysters and clams.
The 40 percent reduction also would improve DO
levels in the deep central trench of the Bay (Figure 3-9).
The trench itself is habitat for some species. In addition,
winds, storms and currents at times send waters from the
trench into critical habitats along the Bay's edge. DO lev-
els in the trench, where oxygen depletion is most severe,
also provide a gauge to the quality of other Bay waters.
Attaining Reduction Goals
The 1987 Bay Agreement reduction goal applies to all
anthropogenic (man-induced) nutrient loads, but not
"natural background" nutrient releases to the Bay. The
background loads were estimated for both runoff and
base flow from the "pristine" (100 percent forest cover)
model run described earlier.
Model simulations and other projections suggest ways
in which programs can be structured to achieve the
nutrient reduction goal by the year 2000. Possible
combinations differ in their impact upon tributaries, in
cost, in the time required for implementation, in certainty
of results, and in the equity of responsibilities placed
upon the various jurisdictions. All these factors should
be weighed by decision-makers in planning control
programs. These future decisions also must relate to
nutrient control programs planned or already in place in
the Bay basin. Selection of control options is a state
responsibility, with subsequent coordination to produce a
Baywide nutrient management plan.
Additional Municipal Treatment
On the basis of wastewater flow projections shown in
Appendix A, planned upgrades in municipal treatment
plants and phosphate detergent bans will reduce phos-
phorus discharges 1.44 million pounds a year by the year
2000. The upgrades will reduce nitrogen discharges by
nearly 4.74 million pounds per year. As noted earlier,
population growth means net decreases will be smaller
than those totals.
Because projected reductions will fall short of the 40
percent target, additional treatment will be needed to re-
move 1.2 million pounds of phosphorus and 25.5 million
pounds of nitrogen annually. Technologies capable of
achieving these additional (or greater) reductions are
available. Two treatment systems more stringent than
those now in general use-biological nutrient removal and
treatments to the limits of technology—are examples of
methods that can be utilized to reach the year 2000
reduction goal.
Biological nutrient removal technology could reduce
effluent concentrations to 2.0 mg/1 phosphorus and 8.0
-------
49
SUSOUEHANNA
BALTIMORE
NANTICOKE
POTOMAC
POCOMOKE
JAMES
ATLANTIC
Chlorophyll Concentration
H <15ng/l
I I Initially at < 15 \lj\
H Remains > 15 |ig/l
Figure 3-10. Improvements Projected in Sur-
face Chlorophyll a with the Implementation of
the Nutrient Reduction Goal-1984 Circulation
mg/l nitrogen in municipal treatment plants not treating to
those levels now. Resulting discharge reductions of 54
percent for phosphorus and 45 percent for nitrogen
would meet nutreint goals and accomodate projected
growth as well.
Treatment to the limits of technology can produce
effluent concentrations of 0.1 mg/l phosphorus and
3.0 mg/l nitrogen.
Reductions that can be achieved by employing these
technologies--94 percent for phosphorus and 83 percent
for nitrogen-would enable municipal plants to meet
nutrient reduction goals and provide additional levels of
treatment to ameliorate the impact of population growth
beyond that projected for areas served by the facilities53.
Appendices C and D list municipal treatment plants that
can be upgraded to provide these reductions and show
the degree of reduction attainable using the two
alternative advanced treatment technologies.
A 40 percent reduction in industrial nutrient discharges
can be achieved through implementation of controls at the
facilities listed in Appendix E. Together, these controls
on municipal and industrial point sources reach the 40
percent nutrient reduction goal. Consideration also must
be given, however, to nutrient load reductions achieved
by point source dischargers prior to 1985.
Nonpoint Sources
Agricultural control programs currently under way are
projected to reduce phosphorus contributions from crop-
land needing treatment and improperly stored animal
waste by 35 percent by the year 2000 45. Nitrogen
reductions are projected to be somewhat smaller.
The projected reductions will be achieved largely
through the cost-share programs now employed across
the region. Nutrient management and farmer participa-
tion in the USDA Conservation Reserve and other Food
Security Act programs can also play a role, but reduc-
tions that might be attained in this way have not been
quantified.
Nutrient runoff from urban areas can be reduced by
urban marshes, detention ponds, and other controls iden-
tified and now under study as a part of the Bay Program.
Created or engineered wetlands are man-made basins
designed to improve water quality. Removal processes
include settling of sediment, paniculate organic matter
and phytoplankton, and biological uptake of soluble
nutrients. The size of the pond relative to the area it
drains is the most important design parameter.
Wet ponds have a moderate to high capability of
removing most urban pollutants, depending on how large
the volume of the permanent pool is in relation to the
SUSQUEHANNA
BALTIMORE
POTOMAC
POCOMOKE
JAMES
/ ATLANTIC
Chlorophyll Concentration
frtttfl < 15 ug/1
I I Initially at < 15 |i/l
Hi Remains > 15 u.g/1
Figure 3-11. Improvements Projected in Sur-
face Chlorophyll a with the Implementation of
the Nutrient Reduction Goal-1985 Circulation
-------
50
SUSQUEHANNA
BALTIMORE
POTOMAC
JAMES
NANT1COKE
POCOMOKE
7 ATLANTIC
Dissolved Oxygen
•H 3 - 5 mg/1
Bfflti 5 -15 mg/1
Figure 3-12. Improvements Projected in Dis-
solved Oxygen with the Implementation of the
Nutrient Reduction Goal-1984 Circulation
runoff from the surrounding watershed. Wet ponds
utilize both settling and biological uptake, and are capable
of removing both paniculate and soluble pollutants. In
addition to increasing the volume of the permanent pool,
wet pond removal rates can be enhanced by establishing
marshes around the perimeter, and by adjusting the
geometry of the pool *6.
Additional benefits of created wetlands include:
• Streambank erosion control
• Aquatic habitat creation
• Wildlife habitat creation
• Landscape enhancement
• Recreational benefits
• Improved land values
It is not certain now that urban runoff controls, as a
whole, can meet the 40 percent reduction goal. Recent
literature has described management practices available to
achieve reductions 55, but no programs for implement-ing
these controls have advanced beyond the planning stage.
Reductions in other source categories may have to be
increased to compensate for the 1.25 percent reduction in
nitrogen and 2.5 percent reduction in phosphorus (Bay-
wide) that would otherwise be allocated to urban sources.
It is estimated that only a small percentage of the ni-
trogen in base flow to the Bay stems from farming ac-
SUSQUEHANNA
BALTIMORE
\ NANTOOKE
POTOMAC
JAMES
POCOMOKE
7 ATLANTIC
Dissolved Oxygen •
•I 3 - 5 mg/1
Illllll 5-15 mg/1
Figure 3-13: Improvements Projected in Dis-
solved Oxygen with the Implementation of the
Nutrient Reduction GoaI—1985 Circulation
tivity, and it is difficult to project whether current control
programs can reduce these loads. For this reason, only
limited reductions from base flow are included in projec-
tions of future water quality. This does not rule out the
possibility that significant reductions in nutrient concen-
trations (particularly nitrogen) may be shown when
results are more completely quantified.
Choosing Control Options
The foregoing section describes the potential capa-
bility of various programs to control major nutrient
discharges and contribute to the 40 percent reduction
goal. Realization of these reductions rests on several
assumptions. One is that current high levels of waste-
water treatment will be maintained by municipal plants
and that planned upgrades will be completed to achieve
additional load reductions.
Another assumption is that agricultural control pro-
grams of USDA and EPA will continue to be a major
element of the Bay program, and that refinement of these
programs can close the gap between the 35 percent
reduction projected now and the 40 percent Bay
Agreement goal.
A third planning assumption is that projected in-
-------
51
creases in population and wastewater flows are accurate
overall (though variations from one area to another may
put unanticipated burdens on some individual treatment
plants).
Finally, to gain the flexibility needed to employ an
efficient mix of control programs, planners must assume
that nutrients reduced from any source have equivalent
effect in achieving the overall nutrient reduction goal.
A variety of factors will influence decision-makers as
they select additional controls needed to achieve the 40
percent goal. These include geographic location, the
status of existing control programs, initiatives already
under way, and available funding. A number of other
guidelines, however, are applicable throughout the Bay
basin. Some of these are outlined below.
Concerns of Equity
Jurisdictions which already treat wastewater at levels
above those required to meet the nutrient reduction goal
may wish to suggest ways their past efforts can be
recognized in future treatment plans. Some of these
jurisdictions have pointed out that any plan for a uniform
rollback of nutrient discharges would be inequitable and,
in some limited cases, nearly impossible to achieve.
Cost Considerations
Cost-effectiveness obviously is a critical consideration
in structuring a comprehensive nutrient reduction
program. The comparative cost of alternative nutrient
removal programs can be derived from planning level
unit costs shown in Table 3-5. The assumption that
nutrient reductions from any source have equivalent
effect is essential to allow consideration of control
alternatives on the basis of costs.
Unit costs presented in the table demonstrate the
economies of scale realized by larger facilities when
additional point source treatment technologies are
employed. The difference is especially significant in the
case of biological nutrient removal.
The comparative cost figures show that nutrient
reduction is achieved at least cost from controls on
agricultural land. There are recognized limits on the
effectiveness of these controls, however, and, judging
from program experience, limits as well on the rate at
which they can be implemented successfully.
Effectiveness of Controls
The cost of control systems must be balanced against
the certainty of results in selecting a mix of programs
that will most efficiently achieve the 40 percent nutrient
reduction goal. There are wide differences, certainly, in
the control options available to Bay basin planners.
Point source controls, for example, offer a strong
degree of predictability in the results that can be expected.
Mechanisms for implementing these controls are well
known. They are backed by the regulatory muscle of
permit provisions, monitoring and reporting require-
ments, and enforcement programs. Grant and loan
programs are in place to assist municipalities that install
needed point source controls.
Control of nutrients from nonpoint sources, on the
Table 3-5
Planning Level Unit Costs for Nutrient Removal
Control Method
Design life
(years)
Cost of total N
and P removed *
(dollars/lb]
Agricultural BMP
Animal Waste
Cropland
Urban Stormwater BMP
Commercial
Residential
Point Source Treatment
Chemical P Removal
1MGD
10 MOD
BNR (A20)
1MGD
10MGD
Limits of Technology
25
5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0.44
0.13
1.19
3.15
2.58
2.19
2.57
0.98
4.67
(53) (56) (57) (58) (59)
-------
52
other hand, is beset by uncertainties. Results are
weather dependent and difficult to monitor. Controls
must be engineered individually for each site. Agricul-
tural programs depend largely on the voluntary involve-
ment of fanners. In the case of urban nonpoint sources,
control technologies are available but effective implemen-
tation programs have not yet been demonstrated.
Nutrient management~the reduced use of chemical
fertilizers in conjunction with the application of animal
wastes-is promising but its effectiveness has not been
quantified to any degree of precision. There also are
uncertainties about the performance of wetlands as
nutrient treatment systems, as well as the efficacy of filter
strips in reducing nitrogen discharges.
Even demonstrated reductions are uncertain in their
impact if they occur some distance from the Bay. As
noted earlier, not all untreated nutrients discharged in the
watershed reach the Bay. A more complete understanding
of delivery ratios is an objective of current work to
recalibrate the watershed model with new land use data.
Time-varying water quality models of the future also will
help refine pollution reduction strategies. In the interim,
it is safe to assume that reductions nearest the Bay and in
the tidal tributaries will have greater impact on Bay water
quality than controls applied elsewhere in the watershed.
However, water quality in fish spawning areas of
tributaries also is an important consideration that may
well influence pollution control choices.
Decisions to Come
Government agencies and citizens of the Bay water-
shed face a series of difficult decisions in the months and
years ahead as they consider options for controlling
nutrient enrichment of the Bay and implement programs
to attain reduction goals.
The specific water quality requirements necessary to
protect living resources in each basin, as well as the
efficacy and cost of available control programs, must be
weighed as state and local jurisdictions decide upon
nutrient management strategies.
Time is short for charting the best course to meet the
year 2000 nutrient reduction goal. The 1987 Agreement
requires that Bay jurisdictions develop, adopt, and begin
implementation of a Basin-wide nutrient reduction plan
by July 1988. The 40 percent target will be reevaluated
by December 1991 on the basis of data from modeling,
monitoring, and results achieved up to that time, but Bay
Program participants clearly want action now to begin
moving toward the year 2000 goal.
-------
Chapter 4
Building a Strategy for
Managing Toxic Pollutants
53
The widespread presence of toxic substances poses a
potential threat to the living resources of the Chesapeake
Bay and to the integrity of the ecosystem as a whole. To
meet this threat the 1987 Bay Agreement commits
participants to "develop, adopt, and begin implementation
[by December 1988] of a basinwide strategy to achieve a
reduction of toxics consistent with the Water Quality Act
of 1987 which will ensure protection of human health
and living resources. The strategy will cover both point
and nonpoint sources, monitoring protocols, enforcement
of pre-treatment regulations and methods for dealing with
in-place toxic sediments where necessary."
Toxic pollutants are heavy metal or organic com-
pounds that arise from a variety of point and nonpoint
sources—industrial plants, farmland, urban areas, sewage
treatment facilities, hazardous waste sites, and many
others. They may be present in air, land and water.
Once these pollutants enter and settle in the Bay or
adjacent streams, bottom sediments become contaminated
and are an in-place source of future contamination.
Along with excess nutrients, low dissolved oxygen
levels, loss of habitat and other stresses, toxic substances
contribute to the deterioration of the Bay. Their adverse
effects, however, are not always immediately apparent.
Unlike the massive "kills" that leave thousands of fish
belly up in the water or decaying on shore, toxic
pollutants also may overwhelm organisms in sensitive
early lifestages. Many do not survive to become adult
breeders, accelerating declines in stocks and continuing a
downward spiral in the living resources of the Bay.
Resulting smaller harvests have both ecological and
economic consequences.
Research Findings
During the seven-year study that initiated the Chesa-
peake Bay Program, researchers found toxic metal and
organic concentrations significantly higher than natural
background levels in many parts of the Bay18. In highly
industrial areas, such as the Elizabeth and Patapsco
rivers, sediment metal concentrations were 100 times and
more above natural levels. High levels of metal contami-
nation were found in the Upper Potomac, Upper James,
small sections of the Rappahannock and York rivers, and
the upper mid-Bay. Organic compounds were found in
sediments in mean concentrations of hundreds of parts
per million, particularly in urban and industrial areas.
During the research phase, water quality data for the
periods 1971-1975 and 1975-1980 were analyzed and
exceedences of EPA water quality criteria were deter-
mined. Data for the period 1980-1985 are now being
evaluated. The comparison of these latest findings with
earlier data will help to define trends in the concentrations
of heavy metals overtime and to assess their toxic threat
to living resources. Today, researchers cannot accurately
describe the relationship between metal concentrations in
the sediment and water column and their impact on living
resources.
New sampling efforts undertaken in 1984-1985 as part
of the Chesapeake Bay monitoring program will continue
to expand understanding of the distribution and concen-
trations of toxic substances in the Bay system. A
comparison of 1979 research-phase data and 1984-85
sampling results is not fully reliable because the number
of sampling stations was small and their locations were
not identical.
The research findings and current sampling indicate
that toxic substances are accumulating primarily in
urbanized areas such as the Baltimore Harbor and the
Elizabeth River. With the exception of these "hot spots,"
Baywide concentrations of toxic substances are low, and
it is difficult to determine their significance in declines in
living resources. However, in higlily contaminated areas,
species diversity has decreased and the species mix has
tilted toward pollution-tolerant organisms such as worms,
indicating that living resources are stressed by the elevated
levels of toxic substances 26. Because some toxicants
bioaccumulate in the tissues of fish and shellfish,
contamination also can endanger human and animal
health.
The report concluding the research study recommended
that EPA and Bay jurisdictions develop a basin-wide plan
to control toxicity from point and nonpoint sources ig.
The 1987 Bay Agreement expands upon that objective as
well as establishing December 1988 as the target date for
beginning implementation of the control strategy. The
information presented in this chapter is intended to
provide a basis for developing a strategy and to assist in
identifying issues and problems that require attention.
Existing Control of Toxic Pollutants
Federal environmental legislation has spawned a
number of regulatory programs that are being utilized to
control toxic pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
For the most part, the authority to administer these
-------
54
programs has been delegated to the states with EPA
maintaining oversight responsibility. Figure 4-1
summarizes these programs. The schematic shows the
different sources of toxicants, legislative authority for
regulation and ongoing activities in the Bay watershed.
It also shows that the statutory framework to control
toxic substances is in place and lists ongoing activities.
In large part, the number of ongoing activities reflects
the current understanding of the sources, not the toxic
potential, of pollutants. Consequently, existing activities
may not address the most threatening toxic sources. The
comprehensive approach proposed in the Bay Agreement
is needed to assess relative risks and assign priorities for
the control of toxic substances from point, nonpoint and
in-place sediment sources.
Regulation of point source toxicants in wastewater
focused originally on technology-based controls of
individual pollutants. Using toxicity and production
quantity as criteria, EPA developed a list of 65 "priority
pollutants" in 1976. Congress made this approach part
of the Clean Water Act in amendments enacted in 1977.
The new legislation directed that point sources other than
municipal wastewater treatment plants utilize the "best
practicable control technology" to meet effluent
limitations for toxic pollutants. EPA was to establish
these limits by July 1977. Industries were to move to
more stringent "best available technology" (BAT)
controls by July 1,1983 (a deadline that was subse-
quently extended). Currently, 126 substances are listed
as priority pollutants.
EPA has defined BAT controls and issued effluent
guidelines for 33 major categories of industry. Controls
and guidelines covering the manufacture of pesticides are
being developed. The guidelines define BAT controls
that can lower toxic concentrations by as much as 99
percent.
These requirements are enforceable through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and local pretreatment requirements. NPDES
permits, written by EPA or the states, are required for
any industry or treatment plant that discharges wastewater
directly into waterways. In addition to requiring
technology-based controls, the NPDES permit can stipu-
late other conditions that must be met to protect water-
ways receiving the discharge.
Pretreatment regulations, required by federal legisla-
tion and implemented at the local level, are applicable to
industries, businesses and other sources that send
wastewater to municipal treatment plants. The purpose of
pretreatment is to eliminate toxic concentrations that
would disrupt the operation of treatment systems or pass
directly through those systems to adversely affect waters
receiving discharges.
EPA also has established Water Quality Criteria for
136 pollutants, some of which are priority pollutants.
Each criterion lists concentrations which should not be
exceeded in the water (to protect aquatic organisms) and
in fish/shellfish tissue (to protect humans who ingest the
seafood). These criteria may then be used by states in
developing water quality standards and NPDES permit
limits.
Even full compliance with chemical-specific require-
ments, however, does not always assure adequate protec-
tion. It is not always possible to identify all the chemical
substances that may be present in complex wastewaters.
Also, potentially toxic synergistic effects of compounds
and their bioavailability to living organisms may not be
known. For these reasons, every state has a general
provision in its water quality standards stipulating that
effluents must be free from pollutants in toxic amounts.
In 1983, EPA set forth a policy calling for increased
use of biomonitoring to detect toxicity that might be
present in effluents despite BAT or other controls -60. If
toxicity is found, the NPDES permit may require the
discharger to conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
CTRE) as the first step toward correcting the problem.
Nonpoint sources of toxicity-such as drainage from
industrial sites, pesticide runoff, leachate from hazardous
waste sites, heavy metals in urban runoff, and atmo-
spheric deposition-are less susceptible to direct control
than point sources. NPDES permits can include "good
housekeeping" requirements to stem runoff from
industrial plant sites. Provisions of a number of
environmental statutes also bear on various aspects of
nonpoint pollution. The RCRA and the Superfund
programs provide protection from hazardous waste.
Provisions of other laws—including the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the Toxic Substances
Control Act—also offer some control of nonpoint toxic
compounds through regulation of their marketing,
distribution or use.
Controlling Toxicants
The control of toxic contamination of the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries must focus on prevention, i.e.
eliminating or controlling toxic pollutants at the source.
Once toxicants reach Bay waterways, they contaminate
sediments which can be spread over large areas by tidal
transport, natural scour, storms, or channel maintenance
and other human activities. Dredging generally is the only
means of removing toxic sediments. Once a toxicant is
widely dispersed, however, dredging creates a new
problem: how and where to dispose of what may be
cubic miles of contaminated dredged material. The cost
would likely be prohibitive, even i f a disposal site were
available. Pollutants trapped before release, even as a
slurry or a sludge, can be handled as hazardous wastes at
considerably smaller cost.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's approach has been to
identify toxic compounds that threaten the Bay, pinpoint
their sources, and develop coordinated regulatory
responses to keep these pollutants out of the Bay.
Implementation of this approach ttikes time, however,
-------
C3
E
u
C/3
BO
re
v.
u
'x
C
re
u
Q.
re
3
ec
-------
56
since the sources of toxic pollution impacting upon living
resources are in many cases not known and practical
means of control may not be available as yei. While
pursuing this approach, program managers and scientists
have to be alert to pollutants that may demand immediate
action. The pesticide tributyltin (TBT), used in bottom
paints for boat hulls, is a case in point After special
studies confirmed that the highly toxic TBT was a threat
to living resources in the Bay, states moved quickly in
1987 to restrict its use.
Point Source Pollution
Some 6,000 industries and municipal sewage treat-
ment plants discharge wastewater in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. The 500 different kinds of industrial activity
carried out in the Basin include coal mining, seafood and
poultry processing, wood preserving, ship building and
ship repair. There are steel mills, organic and inorganic
chemical plants, paper mills, power plants and oil
refineries.
These plants discharge a variety of metal and synthetic
organic compounds, many of them among the toxicants
designated as "priority pollutants" by EPA. It is esti-
mated that discharges of priority pollutants in the Chesa-
peake watershed total more than 14,300 pounds a day
(11,600 organic; 2,700 inorganic). Of this total, 9,000
pounds (7,500 organic; 1,500 inorganic) are discharged
below the fall line, where the likelihood of adversely
affecting the Bay is greater. (Estimates are drawn from
effluent characteristics for selected industrial point source
categories. Revisions to those estimates are now being
being processed and will result in reduced loadings from
the organic chemical industry, a major source for these
pollutants). More accurate estimates of loadings, based
on measured data, are needed to establish a baseline from
which the effectiveness of management programs can be
evaluated. Also, these data could be used to construct
sub-basin toxicant budgets which would help in
assessing or compelling future improvements.
Both NPDES and pretreatrnent permits are chemical-
specific and require controls based on the BAT. Effec-
tive control of toxic pollutants, however, requires
objective, consistent and effective enforcement of permit
limits. It also requires integration of biological assess-
ments with chemical specific controls of toxicity. Bio-
monitoring may be an effective tool to document the
effectiveness of programs to reduce toxic contaminant
loadings.
Biomonitoring evaluates the total effluent, assessing
the aggregate toxicity and the interaction of the com-
pounds involved. Biological monitoring is especially
well suited as a tool to help achieve the Bay Agreement
goal of controlling sources of pollution to attain water
quality conditions necessary to support the living
resources of the Bay.
The use of biological means to assess toxicity is rela-
tively new, but Bay jurisdictions have made a start in
applying the technique, interpreting the results, and
initiating control actions. Virginia introduced a biomoni-
toring program in 1980. It is a phased program begin-
ning with acute toxicity tests and proceeding to chronic
and bioaccumulative testing where appropriate. It also
may include chemical monitoring for specific substances
known to be present in the dischargers' wastewater. A
toxics management regulation is currently being
developed to establish monitoring and toxicity reduction
requirements for Virginia dischargers. This regulation is
scheduled for implementation beginning in July 1988.
Currently, biomonitoring requirements are included in
the NPDES permits of more than 70 industrial plants and
20 municipal treatment facilities in Virginia. These dis-
chargers were selected on the basis of size, a high proba-
bility of toxic discharges, or the occurrence of fish kills
near their locations. Since the program began, effluent
toxicity has been assessed at more than 200 dischargers.
Twenty-five demonstrated toxicity and are required to
conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. Ten of these
TRE's have been initiated and three arc completed61.
Maryland recently initiated a biomonitoring program
that uses chronic as well as acute effects as measures of
toxicity. Twelve industrial and six municipal dis-
chargers in Maryland now have, or soon will have.
biomonitoring provisions in their NPDES permits, but
very little information on effluent toxicity has been
generated. However, as pan of its' compliance
monitoring program, Maryland has contracted with the
Johns Hopkins University to biomonitor dischargers
where effluent toxicity is suspected. To date, 25 samples
have been evaluated using Ceriodaphnia and fathead
minnow. Six dischargers showed some acute toxicity
and have been notified by the state to conduct tests to
confirm/ disprove toxicity. One discharger has
confirmed toxicity and will be conducting a TRE to
reduce toxicity 62.
Pennsylvania relies primarily on a chemical-specific
approach to managing toxics in state waters. It is
considering a biomonitoring program to supplement the
chemical-specific approach. The District of Columbia has
a biomonitoring program for the Blue Plains sewage
treatment plant. Chronic testing using Ceriodaphnia and
fathead minnow began in September 1987.
EPA Region III also conducts biological assessments
of effluent toxicity, generally in response to specific
requests from the Permits Branch, at facilities where
effluent toxicity is suspected. In 1986 and 1987, effluent
toxicity was evaluated at 72 dischargers using Cerio-
daphnia and fathead minnow. Twenty-four effluents
were not toxic to Ceriodaphnia and 37 were not toxic to
fathead minnow. Seven of the effluents sampled showed
moderate toxicity to Ceriodaphnia and 15 high toxicity.
Seven showed moderate toxicity to fathead minnow and
14 high toxicity 63. The states are notified of EPA results.
Maryland and Virginia generally require the discharger to
confirm/disprove toxicity. Pennsylvania uses the informa-
tion in developing chemical-specific limits for inclusion in
-------
57
the dischargers' NPDES permits.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is tracking the
implementation of biomonitoring at facilities considered
to have a high potential to release toxic substances.
Facilities where biomonitoring is required are to be
identified in the Point Source Atlas 44. Specific results at
individual dischargers are not currently available but will
be included. Figure 4-2 shows sites in the Bay basin
where biological assessments of effluent toxicity are
required in NPDES permits.
A limitation on whole-effluent toxicity can be written
into an NPDES or pretreatment permit without identify-
ing the specific compounds that must be controlled.
When overall toxicity has been demonstrated, a TRE
may be necessary to identify the specific toxicant(s) in the
discharge, determine the source, and evaluate control
alternatives. Twelve dischargers in the Bay watershed (all
but one in Virginia) had TRE projects planned or under
way in mid-1987. Two of the projects are being
sponsored by EPA as part of the agency's program to
develop TRE guidelines for the use of municipal and
industrial dischargers. EPA anticipates completing these
guidance protocols in 1988.
Regulator)' programs for the control of toxic
discharges from point sources should soon reach their
full potential. All 94 Bay-region municipal wastewater
treatment facilities where pretreatment programs are
required have developed plans which have been approved
by the state or EPA (see Figure 4-3). All of these
programs are to be fully implemented and functioning by
the summer of 1988. EPA-delegated states will retain
overview responsibility for ensuring proper program
implementation and enforcement. BAT controls to meet
effluent guidelines are to be fully operational by March
31,1989. Enforcement of improved state water quality
standards through these programs, reinforced by
biological assessments, should make it possible to
control point source discharges of toxic pollutants to
Bay waters by the early 1990s.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Toxic pollutants from nonpoint sources pose a more
difficult challenge than point source discharges because
of their diffuse nature and the difficult}' of identifying
responsible parties. Atmospheric deposition, runoff
from city streets, leachate from hazardous waste sites,
and pesticides from farms and gardens are among the
diverse sources sending toxic compounds to Bay waters.
Pollutant type and amount from each source need to be
determined to establish control priorities.
Pollution from Hazardous Wastes
Facilities for the treatment, storage and disposal (TSD)
of hazardous wastes, as well as abandoned hazardous
waste sites and rubble landfills, are closely akin to point
sources as pollution threats because their locations (for
the most part) are known and their boundaries are limited.
However, pollutant migration is heavily influenced by
rainfall and therefore hazardous wastes are included in the
discussion of nonpoint sources of toxic substances.
Active hazardous waste facilities are regulated under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
the cleanup of abandoned sites comes under the Super-
fund program.
Under RCRA, TSD facilities are required to have
permits specifying the technical operating standards and
administrative procedures that must be observed to pre-
vent toxic releases. There are about 300 TSD sites overall
in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Sites close to
the Bay were ranked high, medium or low, based on
solid waste management activities and toxic potential.
Bay managers hope to target high priority sites near the
Chesapeake (below the fall line) for accelerated control
action because of their potential to adversely affect living
resources in Bay waters. The goal is to have the 78
facilities in this sector under permits by May 1990, 30
months before the deadline (November 1992) mandated
by Congress in the Water Quality Act of 1987. Facilities
without permits operate under interim status. Under
interim status there are rules and regulations that must be
complied with regardless of permit status. Seventy-four
Bay-basin sites are included on the Superfund National
Priority List (NPL); 28 of these hazardous waste
locations are slated for early remedial cleanup action.
Figure 4-4 shows the location of both RCRA and
Superfund sites considered to have the greatest potential
for polluting Bay waters. In addition, other potential
NPL sites are to have preliminary assessments and
follow-up site investigations completed by January 1989.
Accelerated action is expected at sites that pose the
greatest threat to living resources in the Bay and its
tributaries.
Pesticides
Pesticides control plants, insects, animals and fungi
classified as pests. They are widely used in the Bay
watershed for crop production, to control weeds, as
wood preservatives, and in paints. In urban areas,
pesticides routinely are applied by homeowners or
commercial pest control firms to control pests in lawns,
trees, homes or gardens.
Some 1,400 active pesticide ingredients are registered
with EPA for use in the United States. These compounds
are used in more than 35,000 commercially available
pesticide formulations.
Pesticide products are not intended to spread beyond
areas of application, but these toxic chemicals find their
way into the Bay environment through the air, in ground
water, and in stormwater runoff. Pesticides were
detected in sediments and biota at four of the seven
stations sampled in Maryland waters in 1985. Further
studies are needed to determine the extent of contamina-
tion from pesticides in the Bay basin.
-------
58
Figure 4-2. Dischargers with Biomonitoring Requirements
-------
59
Figure 4-3. Municipal Dischargers with Pretreatment Requirements
-------
60
Legend
RCRA High
RCRA Medium
RCRA Low
Superfund NPL
Figure 4-4: Hazardous Waste Sites in Water-
sheds Draining to Critical Living Resource
Areas
Agricultural Use. In the Bay basin, most pesticide usage
is associated with agricultural production of corn, wheat,
soybeans, and alfalfa, although large amounts of chlor-
dane are used for termite control. Figure 4-5 shows the
relative intensity of pesticide usage in Maryland, Virginia
and Pennsylvania; the Delmarva peninsula leads in the
intensity of pesticide use. Herbicides most frequently
applied to land or farms in the Bay watershed are atra-
zine, alachlor, metolachlor, simazine, linuron, butylate
and cyanazine. Major insecticides in use include
parathion, dimethoate, methoxycnlor, carbofuran, and
methomyl.
Best management practices (BMPs) employed on
farms to control runoff and erosion generally result in
greater infiltration. Pesticides and other chemicals may
then percolate through the soil, eventually polluting
ground water. The extent and degree of ground water
pollution resulting from the use of BMPs are still unclear.
Pesticide registration and labeling requirements are
intended to prevent improper use of these products.
Currently, EPA is gathering up-to-date information on
health and environmental effects through the "Data
Call-In" program which is aimed at the proper
re-registration of older pesticides. In addition, each of
the states has active programs for pesticide control and
management. Both EPA and the states need to focus on
effective control of pesticides that pose the greatest
environmental risk.
Integrated pest management (IPM), a systematic ap-
proach which combines biological, cultural, physical or
mechanical techniques with chemical controls, is another
means to minimize pesticide use. In certain situations,
IPM can reduce the farmer's expenditures for pesticides
by 40 to 70 percent, but this method does require in-
creased technical assistance, scouting for the presence of
pests, and careful attention to crop conditions, the
weather, and application techniques. Use of chemicals
other than pesticides also may be recommended.
Several IPM pilot programs are currently underway in
the Bay basin. Two projects in progress on farms in
Pennsylvania's lower Susquehanna basin combine IPM
methods with progressive fertilizer management
techniques. Thirty-three farms in the Maryland Double
Pipe Creek watershed are under Rural Clean Water
Program contracts stipulating the use of IPM and nutrient
management to enhance the water quality improvement
from cost-shared BMPs. IPM also is being used
experimentally on peanut farms in southeast Virginia.
The increased use of IPM techniques could become an
important factor in reducing toxic pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay region.
The Maryland Department of Agriculture has com-
pleted an inventory of pesticide usage by agricultural
producers, certified private applicators of restricted-use
pesticides, commercially licensed businesses and public
agencies for 1985. Such an accurate inventory, rather
than estimates of pesticides applied in the Bay watershed,
will help to better characterize pesticide usage patterns,
guide environmental fate monitoring, help target applica-
tor training sessions and IPM programs, assist in
regulatory decision making, construct toxicant budgets
and achieve a better understanding of how agricultural
chemicals affect ground water quality.
Marine Use. Pesticides are used in marine paints as an
antifoulant to keep hulls free of organisms that slow boat
-------
61
D Outside Basin
EH Less than 0.2
@ 0.2-0.4
IE 0.41-0.6
Intensity based on estimated pesticide
application per acre country wide.
Selected pesticides = Alachlor,
Atrazine, Carbaryl, Carboftiran,
Chlordane, Diazinon.
Figure 4-5. MD, PA, and VA Application Intensity of Selected Pesticides
speed and increase fuel consumption. Copper and
copper compounds have been used as antifoulants since
the 17th century. In recent years, there has been
increased use of organotin compounds, such as TBT,
which are two to three times more toxic to biota than the
copper-based paints.
TBT came into use as an antifouling additive in the
1960s. Bottom paints containing TBT quickly grew in
popularity because of the compound's effectiveness.
Little information was available, however, on its broader
toxic effects and ambient levels in the environment.
The potential adverse impact of TBT became a matter
of major concern to the Chesapeake Bay Program in
1985 and federal and state agencies moved swiftly to
assess the impact of its use. Maryland and Virginia joined
with EPA and the U.S. Navy in sponsoring scientific
investigations of TBT concentrations in the Bay and the
potential impact upon living resources.
Environmental levels of TBT at harbor sites in the
upper Bay were measured monthly from July 1985 to
June 1986 by Maryland and Johns Hopkins University.
Johns Hopkins and the Navy continued intensive
monitoring at one of these sites throughout the summer of
1986. Testing to determine TBT toxicity to resident Bay
species was part of the Navy-Hopkins project.
Virginia and the Navy supported work at the Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences to monitor TBT levels in the
lower Bay and to perform acute and chronic toxicity tests
with oysters. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program staff
carried out a sampling survey to measure TBT concentra-
tions on a weekly basis at four harbors in the upper Bay 25.
These investigations confirmed the potential threat of
TBT in the Bay. Concentrations as high as 1171
nanograms per liter (ng/1) were found in the surface
microlayer where air and water meet. Levels in the water
column ranged up to 998 ng/L Chronic toxic effects have
been documented in laboratory studies with species of
marine snails and other molluscs and shellfish at concentra-
tions as low as 10 to 20 ng/1.
Urged by the Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC),
-------
62
Virginia and Maryland responded with legislation
barring the use of TBT on recreational craft (except for
aluminum boats) and on commercial vessels under 25
meters in length. The Bay study results also were
funnelled to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs for
consideration in a special review of TBT initiated in
January 1986. The U.S. Senate conducted a hearing in
April 1987 on federal legislation to restrict use of the
toxic compound. The concerted action of Bay
jurisdictions, the CBC and the Chesapeake Bay Program
on the use of TBT was a clear demonstration of the value
of coordinated efforts to deal with a toxic threat and
protect estuarine living resources.
Nonpoint Urban Sources
Stormwater runoff from roofs, lawns, streets,
construction sites, parking lots, industrial sites and other
paved and unpaved areas washes a variety of toxic
pollutants into waterways of the Bay basin. Hydro-
carbons and heavy metals such as lead, iron, copper,
chromium and cadmium are common constituents of
urban runoff. Washington, Baltimore, and Hampton
Roads are major sources of these metals in the
Chesapeake watershed.
In 1980, the Chesapeake Bay Program estimated that
urban runoff is the source of 19 percent of the lead and
six percent of the cadmium reaching the Bay ig. High
concentrations of these and other metals were found in
sediments associated with the Baltimore industrialized
areas in 1984-1985 sampling data. The relationships
between sediment/metal and biota/metal concentrations
were not consistent. For example, metals such as zinc
and copper tended to be higher in clam tissue than in
sediments. On the other hand, lead and chromium were
higher in sediments than in tissue.
Toxicants in urban runoff probably have a greater
effect on local receiving waters than on the Bay itself, but
these areas may include critical habitat for species in the
Bay food chain. These pollutants may be one of several
factors contributing to the decline both in juvenile
populations and in landings of finfish that spawn in the
Bay's tributaries.
Although Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the
District of Columbia have laws and regulations to control
sediment and erosion at construction sites, the control of
urban runoff is not as well advanced in the Bay basin or
elsewhere. Maryland's stormwater law is a national
model that goes beyond flood prevention and requires
water quality and flow to match as nearly as possible pre-
development levels. Maryland also is providing funding
for stormwater management programs initiated by local
governments. Recently developed stormwater manage-
ment regulations for the District of Columbia contain a
provision to control not only runoff from landfill sites,
but to periodically test leachates from such sites for toxic
substances and provide for corrective measures if higher
than average levels are found 64. EPA provided funding
for the newly established "Stormwater Management
Program" in the District of Columbia and is continuing to
do so to ensure that the program maintains a solid
foundation and meets its mandated goals.
In-Place Toxic Pollutants
In-place sediments are sources of toxicity to the water
column and to benthic life in the Bay. High levels of toxic
chemicals have been detected in Bay sediments, but more
information is needed to define the ir potential impact on
the Bay and its living resources.
Sediments serve as a "sink" drawing materials from the
aquatic environment. Many toxic metals are incorporated
into the structure of sediments and some organic
pollutants are subject to biological degradation over time.
Other toxic substances leach back into the water from
sediments, however, prolonging their impact on the Bay.
Toxicants in sediments also are ing;ested directly by
bottom feeding organisms, initiating accumulation in the
food chain.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is planning a coordinated
environmental monitoring program to provide data on
concentrations of toxic compounds in living resources and
in sediments. This information will help target specific
substances to be controlled. Special emphasis will be
given to developing techniques to access and measure
toxic concentrations in the surface microlayer.
Maryland and Virginia have embarked upon a joint
program utilizing biomonitoring techniques to assess the
toxicity of ambient waters and sediments of Chesapeake
Bay. Although past research efforts have included many
measurements of specific chemicals in water, sediment
and tissue, little is known about the relationship between
pollutant concentrations in sediment or water and body
burdens of organisms. Toxicants may react synergistically
and their effect on living resources may be sub-lethal,
rather than causing immediate mortality. The interstate
cooperative effort will focus in part on the development of
stress indices for commercially and ecologically important
Bay organisms. NOAA is supporting this pilot project
under section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
In Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna River Basin Commis-
sion is sampling bottom sediments in the Susquehanna
and its tributaries in another project funded by NOAA.
EPA is currently developing sediment criteria for toxic
pollutants. These criteria could be used to set sediment
standards, providing another regulatory tool to be utilized
in the Bay basin, but a rulemaking proposal is probably a
year or more away.
The Task Ahead
Clean Water Act amendments enacted in January
1987 reinforce the 1987 Agreement's commitment to
develop a Basinwide plan to control toxic pollution 24.
The new legislation gives states two years to propose
-------
63
additional control strategies for reducing the discharge of
toxicants into waterways if effluent limitations and other
measures already in force do not adequately protect water
quality. The amendments also require identification of
specific point sources impairing water quality and a
determination of the amount of each toxic pollutant
discharged.
Implementation of these provisions will help in pin-
pointing and controlling specific substances that threaten
living resources of the Bay because of their high toxicity,
widespread usage, or bioaccumulation in food chain
organisms.
"Fingerprinting," a technique developed during the
Bay Program research phase, also may prove to be a
valuable tool in tracking back to their sources known and
unknown organic compounds found in sediments and the
tissue of organisms in the Bay. This analytical technique
is currently in use in a Virginia pilot project.
The 1987 legislation endorses the use of effluent limi-
tations based on biological monitoring or assessments. It
directs EPA to develop and disseminate further informa-
tion on these techniques over the next two years.
Standardized biological tests for assessing effluent and
ambient water toxicity have been developed for several
freshwater species and high salinity marine species.
Tests using species representative of estuarine water
(salinity ranges of 2 to 25 parts per thousand) are not yet
available. Species for this range are now being evaluated
and EPA research laboratories are developing methodol-
ogy. These tests, applicable to the Chesapeake Bay,
should be available in 1988. More sensitive biomonitor-
ing techniques, such as enzymatic inhibition and in vitro
genetic tests, also are needed to supplement current
testing methods.
An expanded monitoring program to provide data on
concentrations of toxic pollutants in sediments and living
resources, coupled with ambient water biomonitoring,
would aid in identifying specific substances that should
be targeted for control. The Chesapeake Bay Program
monitoring network, existing state toxics monitoring
programs and the National Shellfish Monitoring Program
offer a ready-made infrastructure for obtaining these
additional data.
The Chesapeake Bay Program also will be seeking
additional data on pesticide usage in the Bay basin and
the possible impact on ground water. Some state ground
water monitoring programs now in progress might be
enhanced at relatively small cost to include concentrations
of pesticides found in the sampling.
Assessing the magnitude and impact of atmospheric
deposition of toxic substances in the Bay watershed also
is necessary to provide a complete picture of the threat
posed by these pollutants.
Although additional data will help to focus and refine
protection measures in the future, promptly implementing
and vigorously enforcing control programs already begun
will bring significant progress in reducing toxic contami-
nation of the Bay and its tributaries.
These efforts, in concert with the basinwide toxic
control strategy, will provide the management framework
to reduce and control toxic materials entering the
Chesapeake Bay and enable managers to provide for the
restoration and protection of living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay.
-------
64
Chapter 5
Research Needs
The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United
States, is a complex and productive system. The research
needs of the Chesapeake Bay are as complex as the
estuary itself, and often reflect its problems: excessive
nutrient enrichment, high concentrations of toxic chemi-
cals, and reduced distribution and abundance of many
living resources.
Much is known about Chesapeake Bay, enough to
make a confident start on a restoration and protection
program. Much more, however, remains to be learned.
As management options become more costly and
complex, additional information will be needed to assure
that the best possible decisions are made. The research
community has a key role in the Bay restoration by
providing this new information which will contribute to
better answers for Bay management questions.
The Chesapeake Bay Program recognizes that an
effective management plan must contain an integrated
research component. Research priorities should be set,
based on information needed to attain the goals, objec-
tives and commitments established by the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
The signatories of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment have committed "by July 1988, to develop and
adopt a comprehensive research plan to address the
technical needs of the Chesapeake Bay Program..."
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee will
coordinate this effort.
For research to be effectively incorporated into the
Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection program, it is
important that Bay scientists understand the goals and
objectives established for the program and the informa-
tion needs of managers attempting to meet these goals
and objectives. It is equally important that managers
understand the limits of present scientific and technical
knowledge of the Bay. Finally, scientists and managers
must work together to develop programs needed to
supplement present knowledge.
Research needs to support improved management of
Chesapeake Bay have been detailed in a number of
reports. Some have focused on specific issues such as
fisheries while others have attempted to cover a broad
range of topics 65-7°. A number of national estuarine
research needs surveys, which reflect problems
identified in the Chesapeake Bay, have also been
developed 71-73.
The research needs identified in this chapter were
prepared by Bay Program participants and CBLO staff.
The research needs presented have not been endorsed by
the States, the Implementation Committee or its
Subcommittees. The chapter has been reviewed by
Implementation Committee Members and the Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee. The inventory is
presented as a reminder of the magnitude of unanswered
questions that must be addressed. It also underscores the
need for managers and researchers to coordinate closely
to make most efficient use of limited research funds.
The chapter organizes research needs into the following
categories:
• Enhancement of Modeling Capabilities;
• Living Resources Research;
• Toxic Substances; and,
• Economics.
Modeling Capabilities
The Bay Program has undertaken an ambitious
estuarine modeling effort. Recent and historical data
gathered for many purposes have been used to produce
working models of the system, including a steady-state
hydrodynamic/water quality model of the mainstem. The
next step in the modeling effort is the development of a
time-variable, hydrodynamic/ water quality model of the
mainstem. Preliminary guidance from operation of the
Steady-State Model has indicated the presence of gaps in
data coverage and inadequate knowledge of some
processes, particularly the effect of sediment processes
on water quality.
Initial runs of the Steady-State Model have indicated
the significant role that sediments may play in determin-
ing the levels of nutrients found in Bay waters. Sediment
studies have been done previously, but they were too
variable in place, time and purpose to form an adequate
base of information required by the Time-Variable model.
Sediment Submodel. A sediment submodel is an es-
sential component of the Time-Variable Model. The
Chesapeake Bay Program's Steady-State Model has
demonstrated the importance of sediment/water column
interactions in determining Bay water quality. A
state-of-the-art Sediment Submodel must be developed to
enable the Chesapeake Bay Time-Variable Model to reach
its full potential for evaluating management options.
There are three component parts to the sediment
submodel: net deposition, diagenesis, and flux.
• Net deposition simulates the input of inorganic and
organic matter to the sediments.
• Diagenesis, the process in which deposited nutrient-
bearing organic matter (like plankton) is transformed to
-------
65
inorganic nutrients through biological and chemical
processes, provides the link between organic inputs and
inorganic nutrient flux.
• The flux component of the model completes the
sediment cycle by returning the inorganic nutrients to the
water column.
The various subtasks necessary to develop a sediment
submodel constitute an expansion of the existing monitor-
ing program into the area of sediments. Additional data
are necessary for each component. This expanded
program will be needed for one year.
Assessment of Agricultural BMPs. In response to
watershed model projections of the amounts of nutrients
entering the Bay from rural and agricultural lands,
extensive programs for nutrient control have been
established in some sections of the watershed. The
effectiveness of BMPs is principally estimated in terms of
their value for erosion control and reductions in sediment
production. While this allows some estimate of the
reduction in phosphorus, the methodology for assess-
ment of BMPs for nitrogen control has severe
weaknesses. Studies are needed to quantify the
effectiveness of nutrient and pesticide BMPs on water
quality so better estimates can be made of the reductions
that are being achieved. Studies also should be con-
ducted to improve techniques for identifying areas with
the highest potential for the release of nitrogen and
phosphorus (targetting).
MainstemlTributary Exchange Rates. Tributaries
have been characterized as traps for nutrients, toxicants,
and sediments that would otherwise enter the mainstem
of the Bay. The effectiveness of tributaries in trapping
materials has been estimated at 95 percent. If the
tributaries are more effective, or less effective, in
trapping materials, or regional/seasonal variations exist,
the impacts to the Bay could be significant, and
management scenarios may need to be revised. Addi-
tional studies should be conducted to address and
quantify the exchange of materials between the major
Eastern and Western shore tributaries and the Chesapeake
Bay mainstem.
Living Resources Research
Research is needed to broaden understanding of the
linkages between water quality, habitat, and living
resources. Water quality or habitat can impact living
resources either directly or indirectly. Direct impacts
include toxicity, physical habitat loss, stimulation of
growth/ survival by nutrients (algae), light (SAV),
habitat enhancements, and harvest. Indirect impacts
include food chain effects over trophic levels, and
effects on predators. The effects of nutrient enrichment
and elevated levels of toxic contaminants throughout the
food web need clarification. To aid in future decision
making, managers also require a clearer understanding
of the relationships between habitat conditions and shifts
in species composition, distribution and abundance.
Research is also needed to develop methods and
techniques to improve assessments of the health,
distribution and abundance of critical species' habitats.
It must be noted, however, that living resource and
habitat information will always be influenced by natural
variability. This variability can be understood and
quantified through research so the effects of harvest,
climate and pollution pressures on rates of recruitment
and mortality can be partitioned.
Research and monitoring of living resource processes
and habitat is vital to management of stocks. Otherwise,
problems may be fully recognized only when specific
species or populations are drastically reduced. It is not
known whether individuals or populations are declining
or improving, or even whether existing habitat conditions
can support the desired population. Further, scientists
are generally not able to differentiate between species'
shifts caused by natural variations and those which are
anthropogenic in origin.
Although the Bay is a unified system and must be
viewed as such, individual components of the system
may respond on different time scales and in various
ways. These variations can impact stocks differently in
the tributaries. Since the abundance and health of a
species may vary by tributary, managers should consider
regional or tributary specific strategies for restoring or
protecting the stock. However, Bay wide success or
failure in stock recruitment can be linked to failures in
key tributaries. Resource managers need a clearer picture
of the dynamics of the stocks of a given species in the
different parts of its range. Are breeding populations in
each tributary self-contained, constituting separate
subpopulations? What is the extent of intertributary
mixing of breeding populations? Do populations possess
genetic characteristics that select for better survival in one
tributary as opposed to another? What are the differences
in bioaccumulation among species and what does it
mean? What are the biological mechanisms for detoxi-
fication?
These are important questions that must be answered
when undertaking restoration activities in areas where
stocks may not return on their own, or in establishing
regulatory approaches which may enable stocks to restore
themselves. Modem genetic techniques must be refined
for specific species, then applied to aid in restoring or
protecting living resources.
The following research tasks are considered essential
to more closely relate management decision-making to
living resources goals:
Effects of Nutrients. Relationships between nutrients
and economically valuable marine resources have long
been implied, but not quantified. Research is needed to
develop the hypothetical basis for using the results of
-------
66
monitoring and stock assessment programs to further
understand the effects of nutrient enrichment on fish
production. An initial step is to determine the effect of
excess nutrients on phytoplankton population
composition and to determine how phytoplankton
production is partitioned among alternative plankton food
chains and between benthic and pelagic communities.
Second, a similar study is needed on the impact of
predators on lower trophic levels. Studies on diet,
feeding behavior, prey selectivity, and impact of
environmental factors on feeding strategies should be
supported concurrently. The goal is to understand the
functional relationships involved in the cycling of
nutrients and indirect impacts through the food chain on
top trophic production.
Periodic Components in Natural Processes. To best
manage populations, information is needed on all critical
life stages: feeding and elimination rates at each stage;
critical habitat requirements (including food and
physical/chemical tolerances); mortality from aging,
disease and predation; harvest; individual and social
behavior, and, intra- and inter-trophic level interactions.
Many natural processes also have periodic components,
and observations and conclusions will be distorted unless
studies are conducted on appropriate time scales.
Analysis of Trophic Relationships. A coordinated
research program should focus on analyzing trophic
relationships among key species, and between trophic
levels.
Influence of Contaminants and Disease. New
assessment technologies must be developed to further
our understanding of the impact of contaminants and
disease on living resource populations and community
structure. Scientists cannot determine in many instances
whether a population decline is caused by pollution
stress, disease (or a synergistic interaction of the two), or
natural climatic/environmental factors. This inability to
relate cause to effect could, in some circumstances,
generate pressures for unnecessary expenditures of funds
to correct a situation that does not need correction.
Planktonic-Microbial Food Webs. Studies are needed
to determine the factors controlling the ultimate fate of
phytoplankton within the Bay food web. Under various
environmental conditions, the microbial food web
(including bacteria, cyanobacteria, microalgae and
protozoa) may act as either a sink for this primary
production or as an important source of detrital material
to higher trophic levels. Further understanding of these
controlling factors must be gained. Additionally, the
amount of these primary producers utilized by water
column heterotrophic processes versus that transported to
the sediments must be determined.
All forms of the microbial food web, particularly
cyanobacteria which is the dominant component of the
Bay phytoplankton community, need to be better
understood. Is their presence in the Bay related to
nutrient enrichment? What is their contribution to primary
production? How does their presence influence the
nature and rates of secondary production of living
resources?
Toxic Substances
The initial phase of the Chesapeake Bay Program
developed baseline information on toxic substances
within the Bay. Recent activities monitor specific
toxicants in the system (e.g. TBT) and examine the
accumulation of toxic compounds in biota. During 1988,
the Chesapeake Bay Program will be focusing on
developing and beginning to implement a strategy to
reduce toxic pollution. To carry out this strategy,
managers will require more information on toxic
pollutants, including their fate, transport, and effects on
the living resource populations.
Toxic materials in the Chesapeake Bay rarely have
directly observable impacts. They do not cause major
fish kills unless there is a large release of a toxic material
from a spill or improper application of agricultural
pesticides. When the impact of toxicants in the Bay is
coupled with increased sediment/turbidity, increased
nutrients and lowered dissolved oxygen, the presence of
toxicants adds one more dimension of stress affecting the
reproduction and viability of all species.
It is technologically possible (albeit expensive) to
control the majority of toxicants entering the Bay through
point sources, and through alternative technologies and
recycling to reduce usage of the most toxic compounds.
It is also possible to mitigate the adverse impacts of
toxicants already in Bay sediments by removal (dredging)
or capping. With additional research, managers will be
provided with the tools needed to establish and
implement policies to reduce these additional stresses to
the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay. The
following studies will enable Bay scientists to better
understand the role of concentrations of toxic chemicals
on the Bay's living resources:
Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges. Materials
become toxic primarily from man's refining and
manufacturing processes for industry and agriculture.
After industrial and agricultural use, many materials
remain toxic with a potential to damage the environment.
Programs exist to reduce the impact of industrial
effluents, including pretreatment and NPDES and RCRA
requirements. Even with these programs, toxic
compounds still enter the environment from both point
and nonpoint sources. Although there are options to
manage toxic materials from point sources after they
reach tributary waters or the Bay, the preferred solution
is to control toxic pollutants prior to their discharge.
-------
67
Scientific and economic studies should be conducted
to evaluate the costs to society of implementing policies
to minimize toxic discharges from point and nonpoint
sources.
Ground Water Contamination . A variety of BMPs have
been developed to reduce levels of nutrients and other
agricultural chemicals reaching surface waters which
flow into Chesapeake Bay. A valid question has been
raised as to whether such reductions result in increased
amounts of these same materials entering ground water.
A study of the impact of selected BMPs on ground water
would give managers the answers they need regarding
possible adverse effects.
Surface Microlayer of Bay Waters. Toxicants can
concentrate in the top microlayer of Bay waters in
amounts up to 1000 times normal background levels.
These concentrations can be a source of toxic contamina-
tion during mixing events, and directly impact neuston
(surface layer plankton), thereby altering the food web.
Studies are needed to identify the sources, including
aerial deposition, of these microlayer concentrations, and
to quantify the impact on living resources. These
concentrations can also affect larval stages of fish which
inhabit the microlayer environment. Approaches needed
include: development of sampling techniques and
protocols; studies to increase understanding of the
importance of the microlayer as habitat for Bay living
resources; surveys of microlayer toxicant levels at
selected sites; and bioassays of microlayer waters.
Desorption of Toxic Pollutants. High concentrations
of heavy metals have been found in the sediments of Bal-
timore Harbor, the Elizabeth River and in some isolated
portions of the Central Bay. High sediment polyaromatic
hydrocarbon levels have also been identified in certain
Bay locations. Heavy metals and other pollutants have a
tendency to sorb to fine grained sediments.
When these sediments are disturbed—either by
anthropogenic activities, such as dredging, or natural
events, such as storms—fine grained sediments can be
resuspended. The resuspension of these contaminated
sediments may result in the desorption of significant
quantities of toxic contaminants. Research is needed to
determine the extent and rate of desorption for both heavy
metals and toxic organic chemicals. The bioavailability
of sorbed pollutants to both filter and deposit feeders is
an important consideration. With such information,
managers can better understand the impacts of
anthropogenically disturbed sediments and can reduce the
impact of the re-released toxicants. Research is also
needed to quantify the release of toxicants under hypoxic
and anoxic conditions.
Cellular Level Effects of Toxicants. Very little is
understood about the effects toxic chemicals can have at
the cellular level of complex organisms such as finfish
and oysters. There is increasing evidence that exposure
to toxicants alters the response of the cellular immune
system in fish, thus presumably affecting the relative
resistance of fish to disease-causing agents.
Immunological assays of the cellular immune (macro-
phage) function can be used to assess the degree of
exposure to environmental stress and to monitor the
health of fish.
Determination of enzymatic inhibition of specific
constituents may also provide valuable insight into
sublethal effects at the cellular level. Research and
monitoring must be conducted to provide information on
the first reactions of cells to chronic exposure to
toxicants. Only when these reactions are understood can
the overall impact of chronic exposure of living resources
to toxicants be fully assessed.
Chronic Bioassay Tests. Organisms presently being
used to conduct chronic bioassay tests are either
freshwater or marine species. Chronic bioassay tests
should be developed for estuarine species to determine
realistic responses of Chesapeake Bay organisms to
long-term exposure to toxicants.
Airborne Toxic Contaminants. Airborne toxicants are
attached primarily to particulates from emissions. The
contribution of these materials to the Bay is unknown,
but could be estimated from aerial transport models.
The toxicity of these materials in Bay water also is not
known. Research is needed to determine both the
toxicity of these airborne materials and the risk they pose
to living resources of the Bay and its tributaries.
Economics
Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars worth of
goods and services depend upon the Chesapeake Bay.
A primary example is the seafood industry. Commercial
fishing is a major component of the economic base of the
Bay. The goods and services bought by the industry
from other industries, as well as the household goods
purchased with wages earned in the seafood industry,
multiply the dockside value several times. Yet, the
impact of the decline of living resources on local and
state economies has not been adequately evaluated.
Research on the Bay will help managers identify
alternative strategies to restore the Bay's living
resources. The selection of a strategy or strategies will
be based upon a variety of considerations, including the
expected benefits to living resources. One measure of
the benefit of the restored resources will be their
monetary value, and the multiplier effect on the region's
economy.
The direct financial benefits to be gained from
pollution control decisions aimed at restoring living
resources are poorly understood or, at best, ambiguous.
As a consequence, ability to address cost/benefit
-------
68
questions is limited. In summary, there is insufficient
knowledge of the economic value of the Bay. A fuller
understanding of its worth will enable managers to
estimate the real value of resource restoratioa Recogni-
tion of the benefits will place the costs of restoring the
Bay in better perspective.
Looking Ahead
The research needs outlined in this chapter were
selected to help guide Chesapeake Bay management
actions on nutrient processes, living resources and toxic
chemicals. Answers to the nutrient process questions
will be used to help refine the Time-Variable Model of the
Bay. In turn, the model will provide guidance in the
selection of cost-efficient management strategies.
Answers to the living resource questions will, in time,
help managers and scientists assess the effectiveness of
those strategies. Toxics research will be used to develop
and implement a Bay wide toxics strategy.
Many different approaches (specific projects) can be
pursued to fill the knowledge gaps identified. This
chapter is not a research plan; it is a listing of concepts
and process questions that scientists and Bay managers
must explore together as they evaluate the complex and
expensive Bay restoration and protection strategies.
To determine funding priorities among research needs
will require a major cooperative effort among the
research/technical, management, and political communi-
ties and the public as a whole in the Bay basin. With the
cooperation of these entities, a successful research plan
can be developed, funded and implemented.
-------
69
Appendices
Appendix A - Below-the-Fall Line Municipal Nutrient and BODS Loads for Year 1985 with Existing Treatment
and for Year 2000 with Planned Upgrades and the Imposition of Phosphate Detergent Bans
Appendix B - Modeled Scenario Results
Appendix C • Below-the-Fall Line Municipal Nutrient Loads for Year 1985 with Existing Treatment and for
Year 2000 with High Level BNR Treatment
Appendix D - Below-the-Fall Line Municipal Nutrient Loads for Year 1985 with Existing Treatment and for
Year 2000 with Limits of Technology Treatment
Appendix E - Below-the-Fall Line 1985 Industrial Nutrient Loads
-------
71
rtj
X
M
Q
Z
U
Bi
Cw
Q
U
Z
Z
rfj
ij
X
H
H
X
O
o
o
r>j
PS
f^
u
o
b.
Q
Z
H
Z
U
£
H
rt|
U
PS
EH
13
Z
M
H
V)
X
U
X
H
£
in
CO
01
rH
PS
f4J
U
(H
PS
0
z
W rlj
a tn
rtj
O fH
J Z
u
in o
a PS
o u
u
Q Q
z
< u
£.1
H <
Z X
U Bi
M U)
PS o
H X
a BI
z
b.
J 0
d Z
M O
U H
H H
Z H
S W
£ O
CM
U £
Z H
H
J U
1 X
iJ H
<< Q
b. Z
1 <
U
x to
H U
1 0
S <
O OS
r4 O
U Bi
01 s
o
o
o
(N
in
CO
O!
rH
tn
Q
0
CO
u
w
0
H
M
Z
X
Bl
V)
0
B!
5
0
b.
in
Q
0
to
u
o
o
PS
H
Z
X
B<
W
O
X
Bi
O
b
to
U
Q
Z
U
H
EH
to
U
£
Z
>4
£4
H
»J
H
U
t£
b.
Z
H
(0
*]}
m
d *N IN • • m • o *r <-H • • in •• m • • • • co »H • rj •• •• mo -in in • in
co r- co 'S' in in to vo rg \o oo r- rH *r ~ in m m
^•r^in co moo ^* *H o in r~ m in 4J oo 01 01
VO rH IO ^* VO CO P* rH m OCOrH m Ol Bl fN O O <1H
m eo *r vo oi^in o ^ inrHrH r- o oo vo vo o
rH rN 01 f>* rH ^ m m r*" p» in in rM vo vo
rnmin CM 4J m 01 01 w
u u
0 o
-Q rH
oo oo ^o fi n fi fl m PO f*i ki
IN eo »H «o vo r* .J p* m m <0
p* eo \c m m in i m p* r- D^-M
Ch UD \O rH rH VCQVC«TV « C
Ol in tD PM (N *H (/) *H Ot O^ U Q)
(N ^ r*» rH 01 *H CO OO B
X « 4J
jj a
O -HO)
4J B Ul
* T-t • oo (N *-i ^mrooinoorn o^ w rs eo v£> r*- • • o> CM oo oo w CT> 01 * eo r* tn ^ ^ -ri 4J
in vocoo fS^orticor^vofN r-r* •oi^-r»vo oro 10^0 ^ ^ 00 O IT) 00 00 OOtNVO^1 l/l P* VDVO O> O^ (N Q)(N^> O 00 00 *M
ir> mmvo (Nmmooeou^ i-tiH ^m rsi ^DP* ^M> r*-r» o 4Jr-r* (N»nm 4J O
fM 0* (N in fM 0 -H -H -( ^ * rH m ^ 0> 0 «> ^ *J
-H pH > 0
TJ IM 0) M
* # * * <4J rH O^
o^&iiHoop" OOOINOO o inooomoiH(No o o COO\UT o>
*reom*Hr-i r* \D o r-- in inoo^(NinoOf-tH ^o oo in rs) o vo DI c
T-ioomtN mmo«Hinin m p-r*ini-»*roo o> oo u. co y -H -H
tH «>oeo.HfMfnrg m 01^ — Ch u'Cjj
rH rH O (C fi
J3 t-l rH
Ou tr 3
oi a a
o^mr**'*-! • CM rH m • • vo •• MD • * • • • o> eo • eo o .3 o
O«HO m mmm a> m ysr^r* VCTimvoy.)VD X O*
«H ^o oo in m oo o ^H ^ m »H ^ rHinvcrnoo 01*0
mvoo o r*«oco *w in r>Jin tN in o TH oo eo .y
invorHOO Acoeooo • O
t*^ rH 0> f** P* rHfN^rHrH U)O *W
fft^ if> rn m eo O oo oo oo a
•in'OioT oivo^riNMm^o P'r^ ^coTtn crio *o \Q r~r~ O'comrn mcorH 0)ft4J ja
rH r^voin rsjcooieorHrHrH inin •oifjc\m«-coo> oo oo m co 6 fl
^» ocom (Np-ooi«j(r*r«4 inin rorMvoiH crim mtn 0101 r- ^ini^ rHinu vtno 9
to COINC^ oorMtnrHcoinrg coco tnrN fN inxo «r^* r»(N o rHtoco rMeoo IQINIH o
C^r**r^ tOrHinrOintOOl OO ^fin r-trH 00 VOSO 0 CO^rN (NlOOl O tj* rH
O4fO mm^fN^rHrH rHINrHrHrHrHrMrHVOOO^in^ UB U
rH . rMmrHri-itn4JO>l
•H 4-1 O
e *> •* o
O 18 O O
f r- in vo 01 M o in in o ^r co vo in ^ eo co 01 -r •» ^ 01 01 •» ro «r IM 4J ft
rHOOTO mmOrHrom o invovororMrHin in i~ oicooioi TJoio a
rH VOO^rHrHmfN m rHCO 0>UO)
rH rH 4J B J5 >1
id o 4J in
rH 0 -H 0) U
tO c
t/1 (/) Ul t/J t/1 l/l -*1j -*!? '•^ (B U) "0 O
£H fn &H E1^ EH EnOnCOQCl^OOO) >H
QQQQZ oaaaoz a <>£>>>>< < < > > > < O. W < £ ulftidBU
J J J J J iJOS—BflOi
Bl Bl BlPlBl Bl PSIO ia4->T)rHT-|
£ « H aouNABoao
O in m XOcoU r^ d to Bit^ uxQn o>4Ju
< T — fN HS rH rHZBl<>O4J3in>,o>a
l-l H< HtOBiH IH H H (OPSIH <<< O T3 O\ U UH C
I/I X < < U X HHPSHU EHHX HHHrHlnrH-iHiuo
ZHZ O tn U Z U H QOHUtOZ Z Z « S EH 2 OOO rHiDO) UHK1
U S M < OS — •< < Z U U J < < < < < U S U < EH EH H « 01 4J H -H C T3
H o u tn J tn PS en ^j «? ij z i £ tn CQ j m j en j o en j en >. m £ u 3 *
tnoiH < >J o UH-UH UH M EH < « H U EH ZZZ UHUft ftua
Sw>OSHO HUUWOHO O (SO Bi OUEnO HO HO JSPHO HUH oeuitPinTJjO
t<: D < EH S > EH D U < EH ZH QEHOUXQ<- rH O
H EH J H w H U X X « < Ul M HH XHtoUPSU-IOH W H tOH Q U EH tn w O T3 3B rH
« Si en J O w UH>HOIO toto UJ<>JH^IOOIO Ota OlO COHPSOCO J J J -H c «H TI n in UH
rtjjj^rfjjgrtj KlJrfJUnlJiiJlXrtJ U, J-i U 0
BiBiBiCliBiBiBiHH Btl J3 B *H rM
uuuuuu < < «s < -H«
XXXXXX XXXXXXtS 3D OOOOOOOOO OiPt KKS UUUUU 3 T) -HO 0>
uitntowiow uuuuuuo HH HHHHHHHHH BIO. PSPS £££££ onoiin«i-><
< < OOOOOOOOO < < OO rf:«<«!«l!< -HO* n-
UUUUUU S S IS S S S S OiOi BiOiBiaiBiO
-------
72
Appendix B
Modeled Scenario Results
Table 3-5 in Chapter 3 and Table B-l in this appendix
present the results of different scenarios run on the
Steady-State Chesapeake Bay Model under 1985 (slightly
dryer than average) and 1984 (wet year) conditions.
The first two columns of data present total mass and
peak chlorophyll a concentrations determined for the
middle of the Bay. The living resource criterion for peak
chlorophyll a is 15 ug/1. Although no criterion exists for
mass chlorophyll, it is an indicator of the organic carbon
being generated by nutrients in the Bay. The chlorophyll
a peak criterion is not exceeded in 1985, but it is exceed-
ed in 1984, the wetter year, and mass concentrations are
significantly higher.
The other four columns in the tables deal with
dissolved oxygen. The first of these presents the lowest
DO concentrations calculated, which occur on the bottom
in the middle of the Bay. A summer average concentra-
tion less than 1 mg/1 represents anoxic conditions, which
cause undesirable anaerobic biochemical reactions
resulting in the emission of pollutants from the bottom
sediment into the overlaying water column. Levels
projected to summer average minimums less than 3.3
mg/1 equate to instantaneous minimums of 2.0 mg/L or
less. This is important because the acute toxic concentra-
tion is 2 mg/1 for finfish and 2.4 mg/1 for crabs. Though
neither live on the bottom in the deep water of the Bay
mainstem, tide and wind conditions can force waters with
the low concentrations of dissolved oxygen from the
deep main channel into shallow shoreline areas, with
resulting destruction to fish and shellfish that cannot
tolerate these levels. Volumes of Bay waters in the next
three columns, projected to reflect different levels of
dissolved oxygen, are indicative of the relative effective-
ness of each scenario.
Scenario "a" represents existing conditions determined
in using the model after it was calibrated against data
collected in July-August 1985, reflecting water quality
conditions which existed at the time.
Scenarios "b" through "g" are variations of different
strategies for reducing nutrient loads from municipal
point sources with no change in nonpoint source nutrient
loads. Planned upgrades are those abatement and control
actions planned or in progress at 25 municipal treatment
plants. These improvements will result in reduced nutri-
ent and carbonaceous BOD loads to the Bay. Load
reductions were based on estimates of year 2000 plant
flows, reflecting expected population growth. Scenario
"c" is the same as "b" but with all plant flows at 100
percent of plant capacity, including planned expansions.
This is projected to occur at some point in the future-the
year "2000 and X"-due to population growth. Scenarios
"d," "e" and "f' used the same populations, flows, and
nonpoint source assumptions as "b," with the application
of increased levels of municipal treatment for total phos-
phorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN).
The last municipal point source treatment scenario is
"g," which assumes use of the best treatment system
available for removal of nutrients, achieving an effluent
of 0.1 mg/1 for phosphorus and 3 mg/1 for nitrogen at all
municipal plants.
The 2000 NFS term in scenarios "i" and "j" represents
the expected NFS program accomplishments at the
present level of funding through the year 2000. These
reductions in phosphorus and nitrogen under the current
program are only effective in agricultural areas and do not
reflect any possible reductions in urban NFS nutrients.
Point source nutrient reductions in "i" and "j" are the
same as those in scenarios "b," "f' and "g." Scenario
"k" assumes an 40 percent reduction in agricultural
nutrient loads by the year 2000 in addition to the limit of
technolgy reductions assumed in scenario "g."
Scenarios "1" and "m" assign a 40 percent reduction in
phosphorus only ("1") and in both phosphorus and nitro-
gen ("m") to all sources without allowance for expected
population growth in the municipal point source loads.
The pristine scenario was run by assigning all land areas
in the calculations performed by the model the nutrient
source terms associated with forest. The hydrology as-
sumed in the pristine scenario, however, was the same as
that used in the others.
Scenario "m" in Table 3-5, representing a year slightly
dryer than average, exceeds the living resource chloro-
phyll a criterion and the objective of eliminating anoxic
conditions in the mainstem deep water, and comes close
to eliminating the need for dilution of bottom waters from
the main Bay depths when it is forced by tide and wind
into shallow portions of the Bay. Controlling only phos-
phorus, as in scenario "1," accomplishes almost the same
level of water quality. However, in Table B-l, repre-
senting relatively wet 1984, there is a significant differ-
ence between the control of phosphorus only and the
control of both phosphorus and nitrogen, as observed in
comparing scenarios "1" and "m."
Even when both nutrients are controlled, the chloro-
phyll a criterion is barely met, and anoxic conditions,
much less acute toxic conditions, are not eliminated in the
mainstem deep water. However, the volume of water un-
der 1 mg/1 has been reduced by 80 percent, and the peak
dissolved oxygen concentration on the bottom in main
Bay deep water has increased six-fold compared to exist-
ing conditions under scenario "a." Considering the preci-
sion and accuracy of the model, however, these improve-
ments are too close to the stated water quality objectives
to conclude that the objectives will not be achieved.
-------
u
ON
00
I
O
u
3
1§
& 2
"S I
S E
.§ 2
VI -J
O 0
c-S
•2 g
u oo
.-
Z
$
w
o
CQ
3
g
I
w
o
i
Q
U
oo
oo
< §1
fc '2 S
3
00
m
a
d
§
u
CB
CQ
r-
^
f^«fc
"^
SO
CS
cs
•—;
CO
oo
\o
^5
°°.
Existing Calibration
1?
r- ON
cs o cs ^H
vq r-; vo in
- cs m ON
^H c^i ON ^"l
CO CO CS CS
in r- m m
"~1 *~1 """! """*.
cs r-» Tf —
CS <— i CS CO
vo in co oo
vo f- vo in
^ r*: «-; f~:
^> — CS
Planned Upgrades**
Planned Upgrades**, 2000)
Planned Upgrades** + TP=
Planned Upgrades** + TP=
S* "^ ^" /a>v
1
CS
VO
II
O
m
m
[•^
cs
m
eo
ON
_
VO
in
o
C-;
CS
Planned Upgrades** + TP=
c?
C/3
M
1
CQ
I
m
o
«n
VO
^^J
JH
C
u
E
u
'3
Q*
K
•5
0
cs
*0
E
9
E
'E
'E
CA
3
O
0>
1
1
§
o
i
M
1
S)
ffl
kM
U
s „
k- U
E =
e o
§ CO
CO MM
•5.8-
l-g
21
*
* *
W3
g
w
•o
o
'5
c
0
s
: Appendix B contains deta
0
z
-------
74
u
N
H
O
Z
0.
Bl
*£
PS
Z
en
r]
b]
U
J
X
C5
HI
X
X
P4
H
O
0
0
IN
PS
f3j
U
X
0
b.
O
Z
<
EH
Z
U
EH
U
PS
EH
O
Z
H
EH
H
X
U
X
EH
H
00
Ol
rH
PS
rtj
u
X
PS
o
b.
V)
Q
^
0
EH
Z
U
H
PS
EH
Z
J
rtj
B<
H
U
H
Z
D
E
u
Z
H
J
1
J
J
rfj
b.
1
fcl EH
B Z
EH U
1 E
S EH
0 «<
iJ U
hi Oi
CO EH
0
o
o
IN
in
00
01
Z
u
o
o
EH
H
Z
10
D
O
X
Bi
CO
0
X
Bl
Z
u
o
0
H
H
Z
V)
D
Pi
0
X
10
o
X
Bi
S
O
»J
h.
CO
Q
p.
U
EH
EH
VI
hi
E
Z
X
H
H
J
H
U
fc.
Z
H
M
rij
CO
in vo ^
VO CO Ol
in rH rH
^ ID VO
m 01 r»
IN in r-
rg o o
Ol CO Ol
rH ID P*
*u in rn
o w co
rH
p* oo in
o in rg
Ol P- Ol
o o o
O P* O
rg m r-
rg o o
1C O rH
\o o o
IN rs rg
O Q O
SEE
EH H »;
CO rJ
PS V) Bi
EH H
S E EH
S E Z
1 O U
co u S
PS EH
hi CO <
Z hi U
O H PS
H EH EH
CO H
CO J U
H H O
E EH <
ESS
O U
U Z CO
|5
hi O O
O EH r5
Q PS hi
HUH
RS EH h.
CO CO CO
E U H
< X PS
u u u
U U hi
PS PS PS
o o o
XXX
CO CO 10
U hi U
01 0 CO
ro rg rH
^ in o
•0. CO CO
rH O O
p* in o
in u> 1-4
p. p. CO
10 rg m
o in co
in rH P*
CO T p-
o o o
000*9*
•9- P- P-
rH 0 O
fO rH P-
rg 10 rg
fN r-i fs
Q D Q
E E E
O
< EH EH
-3 Z Z
< hi
2 J E
O Bi EH
H <
EH EH hi
< Z PS
N U H
H E
iJ EH U
H rtl o
CO U <
< PS S
EH H U
CO V)
u
hi O U
EH < PS
co S S
•< hi CO
S CO CO
2 2 <
O O PJ
EH EH hi
CO US Q
•< rJ U
U hi h<
hi U hi
Oi Oi Oi
O O O
XXX
CO CO Ul
hi hi hi
S£~rH
-H rg rg fN
rH
in m rg 10
o ci vo r~
in 0 0 rH
O rH rH in
m «3< co fn
rH «JI fN O
•^ M 01 rg
P- Ol 0 fN
rg
rH Ol Ol Ol
vc co ro P-
l£) rH CO O
O O O O
o o o o
in 01 co 10
o o o *s<
O H in rH
p- in •» in
IN rg rg IN
Q O O O
E E E E
EH 0 E
Z EH
hi X Pi
E Pi H
EH <
««J H PS
U H hi
Pi Z EH
EH < «C
co 3
U hi
15 X EH
< EH CO
S 2 rf
b, hi S S
O CO O
U X
Z X EH
S EH V) H
O H - O
HUM
Z X
- hi Z PS
U O CO
0 E Z V)
J O U H
OS U U iJ
s o a <
x B, a w
hi hi U hi
PS pi PS PS
o o o o
X X X X
co n co co
hi u hi U
in ro
n 01
rH T
N S
m fN
iH
m m
VO (N
in o
fN
oo -^
^ ro
a\ r*
in FN
fN O
,_(
m ^r
in in
01 m
° J^
m n
>x) in
O fN
m eo
i-H
-—
to
H
S
<
J
04
TJ*
m
— •
Q
O
S
m
o
2
^j
S
E-*
J
to <
to H
U O
J H
CO S
IS H
O W
J CiC
b CO
U U
Pi Pi
O O
S £
W W
U CO
S£££S£££E£2££3££SS
(^fNrst^r-inaimrH^riHMi-iooko^Hvoo
•H rvi in »T o iH 1-1
^t fN fN r-
* *
rg^iop-^^ojoimo^oirooo^inin
n vo in r^
<-i
* * *
* * *
-xi\ovoo«3inoor^o>oorHino«x>com^o
KOrH^fNfNvovDoinr-r-votnmvcvovom
mi-HiHiHr-oinoo^HOtHotnvcofNt-i
iH VO O CO 0\
~4 voi-(eoiniHr*aifnfMVDeo
fN fNinOM «J^*-)0
^ P* fN VO
t-t
CTi--t'j5Oir>oo\£'^r»~i(Ncr*corHfNrnairHin
rg'So'mSS^SSSiSrtSSPrg'NS
rH fl rO *3" in
rH
OOOOOOOOOOP*OOOOOOlVO
OOOOOOOOOOCOOrHOOOCOCO
rH IN
Tp-oifOTrHinrHooinrgyrrHoim
S^N^»SSSm|Cin?ISS°«
rgrgrgrgrgrgrg rgrgrgrgfNlNiNfM
aaoaQaoaQOQQQaOQ
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
CO
EH
Z
Z O J U J J
CJ S Ui O, EH U • HBi
UU U — J H EH >
Q O U a, EH Q. > < Xu>
PSQ PiEHZPSCO PSrH
UU U COhltHU PS Oi —
mi E < vi EH u
< Q X Oi H U • O. Q
1 Z O < PS > PS O
< 3 a, in u x: u H 2 u h,E
hlOHOI UCS U EH O
idpiPScO 3 < H Oi • < in
U < O XP< (Q EH Q S CO-
U fc EH Q USE « 0
ZOUOH E O S 1 u hi
OZZ UO 0 < • EH ZZ
< M M Z - U PS^UBi CO O <
Ot>r*?Bl CbhlUH rf! HX
PiOOOHiJ — w tt rl|COPSEHO3^OCO
ie£CQCQCOZZ'l£h1PS*£Oh1C)|3?OO»J'3!
id|i4|^^^r!^
— .
a
o
E
^,
Id
TJ
1^
01
a
in
B
o
rH
rH
Id
fjl
1U
o
U)
B
0
•H
rH
rH
•rl
e
B
• H
3
o
rH
hi
rH
\
tp
e
o
oo
II
c
0>
en
0
u Id
4J -H
•rl J3
E e
•3
a o
o
4J *W
0
>.
rH 4J
\ u
D>-H
e IH
4J
o in
rg O
II
01 TJ
s c
U Id
o
S. id
Ql-rl
in B
o n
n >
a I
rH
rH 0)
id B
4-> E
O 01
4J Pi
• k >.
TJ id
B -H
3 E
O 'rt
LJ rji
Ul
14 *H
IB ^>
01
>| -
TJ E
0) id
> rH
01 ><
•H IH
£ a
u E
id
B
01 -H
A
01
O 01
4-> 'H
V
TJ -rl
10
B a
O -H
E U
4J -H
id c
01 3
4-1
TJ
CPJS
O 01
rl rH Ul
id O 01
01 B 4J
>i.E id
U S
U 01
0) 4-1 >i
Oi id
BS 0
in Z
TJ CO >i
B rH
3 E
O rH 0
Oi 0>
> 01
6 » 01
•rl rH TJ
3
TJ J3 rH
Id &! O
0 -H E
J X H
ji
S
o
CP
B
0
•H
JJ
Id
rH
3
a
O
a
TJ
01
4J
0]
Id
U
2
B «H
O
•rl E
4J O
id
kl TJ
& in
0> id
U A
G
O in
U S
o
4-> rH
B 0*4
01
9 0
p-4 O
IU 0
01
u
Z a
BS 0)
CO >,
rH kl
« V
> a
a w
rH 0
J3 -
CP 01
•rl E
A 0
•H
9 4->
0 U
rH 01
Ql T~l
J3 O
CP a
E
•H 01
rji 4J
IH Id
a 4J
J3 m
u
Ul E
•H O
TJ
•o
ul 0)
01 Ul
•H id
4J XI
•H
rH 3
•H 0
U rH
Id 1M
O
0} O
01 0
4J IN
IB
U U
•rl Id
TJ 01
6 X
•H
*
« *
-------
OS
2
CO
u
J
X
EH
U
X
O
b.
Q
2
EH
2
U
S
EH
JJ
O
U
X
H
O
2
Ch
04
X
U
X
EH
U
X
O
fc.
M
Q
EH
2
U
EH
D
04
M
U
tH
2
D
E
u
2
H
J
I
ij
J
b.
I
U H
EH U
^g
O <
J U
W pj
m EH
u I p"*!"*1 coeop*op*^r'"jfN^«H^ir"' p* ^cNvcr™* in in co \o ^ ^ ^o joa.o^o.Hco'x.^w>aiCT» I-H *?• in \o co CM oo »-i
H
E
o pj ^o y? ootHoco»-i"3KOo\|»ooco^1 .-H eo p* ^ «-i n^r*
o o
ft^r^fNrHVOro pg ,-« .-I ,-| a.a^cr)mcou"ico«3<«Hin meoo^or*- o^cor-
vo^o invoaioerimtN^eoeo^i^rfNfHp^vocrt eN o eo \o eo rH r- o>
b.
nrn r^^^ovoinr^r-i^iooo«iHM^j|rsiP'itHr-i r-non^o^o ctioffi
fM OJ m P" ^O «H CO fN rH
o o m in m o P" r-
O ro PI inofNfiOp'icoo^ficooicooincor^fo fi in ^H <3* ^ ^H in p*
EH
H
2
CO
S
in a
04 coco xr> CN in c\ fM rH IN ro -«3« m *r r- -a* co r- o >U -H r3J [i, J rt U < K 10 2
< 04 —
U <
K O. CO Q
« < S
u E
ox m
< H I •
S rH O
U U •
in O2
2 « x
a m M j
2 u > u o
« u j j H
o o! x
B3 Id 10 CO 2
H D EH S H
< U O O CO
EH
2
<
J
Q.
Q
(S
E
2
<
o< x
CO J
U! (O EH
PS U O
O J EH
X
CO 2
CO O CO
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
Oi 04 Oi O« 04
<<<<<;
w u; ^
o o o
XXX
\
Dl
E
o
U Id
Id O
JJ U
o
JJ UH
o
rH JJ
\ u
e k>
JJ
O U)
IN Q
II
w TJ
3 C
K id
O
X a
in C
O (d
e
o
• rt
JJ
id
s
a
o
•o
o>
t* e u ?
•H O
Ll -rl JJ rH
Id > B tH
•H u 2 id
fS a « 41
u E eo >,
id
C -H ui
ja > js
in u jj
O V rH O
JJ -rl
JJ X -
•O -H en in
HI rH -rl C
E -n j= o
**H O U
-H 41
C >1
O d
rH O
id Id 0
O* 41 C
>.£
UJ U
QUO)
1C JJ
tn 04
•H rg (n
rH C
rH 3
•H O rH
E O. 0)
>
3 TJ X
In J X
id Xt o
O4 U
H CP O4
U C
H -H 4)
J= in
73 U
41 in c
in T3
01 10 HI
jj 01 in
id -H id
3 JJ J3
>.rH S
Id -rt O
>lUJ
rH O
C in o
O <1> o
JJ IN
in id
•O -H id
~H e x
c *
H * *
-------
76
4J
E
O
u
Q
Z
u
ft
0.
z
o
u
>
u
X
EH
O
o
u
JH
O
b.
a
EH
Z
U
E
u
Bi
EH
EH
to
M
X
U
X
EH
H
U
X
O
In
to
a
o
j
EH
Z
u
EH
Z
U
H
Z
3
U
Z
I
.J
b4
I
U H
S Z
EH U
S-g
O <
J U
Ul B!
03 EH
Z
U
o
o
ft r- IN rH
EH rHro cOfOm iNr^rsifMrN in KO
tO rH in
Z H
u
to IN m
S
O O i-HVO'-ia^r-a> ^ooommino
10 1-1 T* H c
CO ro
O CO
o in
«• IN
in
10 IN
a* in
o o
01 in
rH IN
in rH
*J< -a*
t-
IN O
ro Ot
u
o
a *
z z
Q
< Z
ft <
O U
E O
m in
j j
EH JH
O O
H H
Z Z
H M
10 in
m m
E
o
•H J3
B E
3 X
rH rH 4J
A O S
4J U O
\ O
tn-H
E H
IN a
n
w TJ
3 B
kj id
O
x «
B
o
•H
j->
a
rH
3
a.
o
id id
tr> a>
o id o>
Ou rH U) O
>< 6 B 4J O
O 01 id
JJ ft u -O
4-> 01
•--Em
•O id 01 id
E -H u J3
3 B E
O -H o in
u en u 3
u o
IH -H 4J rH
IB > 6 V*
01 o
>. - 3 O
•O rH O
T3 E UH O
01 id rH 0>
01 >, IH
•H 14 Z Id
X id Bi 0)
U E CD >,
01
X
4-1 -H
4J J3 ..
•O -H tp in
01 rH -H B
e -H x o
3 U -n
in re S JJ
01 UH o u
Id rH 01
rH 0) -n
4-1 Id J3 O
E a >4
01 -H Cn Q<
E U E
4J -H -H 01
01 3 ki «
M E Id 4J
4-> X in
•O O
>> 01 W E >.
cn X -H o id
o o -o ja
rH 14 T3
o oi in 0) B
E 4J 0) 10 -H
u
in a
B
o in
•rl T3
rH E
rH 3
•H O
E Qj
4J >1-H 3 O
Id -r( O 4J
PH (0 U rH
Z Id <4J Ul
co >*iu o>
rH O Dl
E in o n
rH O 0) O Id
01 4J fM X
> in id
E B 01 Oi U
in
S T3
o id
rH O
b, J
rH Tl -rt Id -H
3 T) 0) D
X rH fi ft
CP U H *
•r< B * *
a M * 4< *
-------
77
Q
2
PI-
PI
X
o
OF TECHNOLO
H LIMITS
tH
M
0
O
O
fN
Pi
X
o
bi
Q
2
EH
2
U
EH
U
EH
0
2
M
H
U
»
EH
BELOW-THE-FALL-LINE MUNICIPAL NUTRIENT LOADS FOR YEAR 1985
TREATMENT
o
o
0
fN
in
CO
01
rH
U
O
ORUS NITRO
W PHOSPH
u.
U
O
PHORUS NITI
in
o
X
PI
|
in
u
Q
2
U
EH
EH
in
u
2
X
EH
H
J
H
U
b>
2
H
in
m
vo 01 m
01 01 0
•» rH rH
fN
m m r*
Ol 00 Ol
ID in m
O "S1 00
rH
r~ co in
o in fN
01 r* 01
o o o
o r- o
N in r-
\o o o
E SHORE CAMBRIDGE COMMISSIONERS-WWTR T MD 2]
E SHORE CHESTERTOWN UTILITIES COMMISSI MD 2C
E SHORE CRISFIELD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLA MD 2C
VC rH T
in m o
r- in o
r* r- oo
vo fN m
o in co
in rH I-
01 to in
o o o
o eo O^
^O iH CO
o o* m
O 0 0
o o o
m en eo
r- in "31
E SHORE HURLOCK, TOWN OF MD 22
E SHORE POCOMOKE CITY SEWAGE TREATMENT MD 22
E SHORE QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY SANITARY D MD 21
0 01 01
m in 01
v in co
.-H
r- o co
rH rH VO
(N
fl CO ^*
(N Oi P-
CM in O CO Ol
rH (N
vor-r»ioixTOo>oincovomrN*f>o»\D^ico
s ; s s s o £ 2 s s s ^ £ s * • s s
(N fNinOfO ^OVrHO
^- r* fN V£>
rH
oirH^ooincovovrHrNOieorHrNmoirHin
rH f! fO ^T in
rH
oooooooooor~oooooot~
OOOOOOOOOOCOOrHOOOOlOO
fNOOrHmfNoinininvominoeovorHm
rH rN
^PrOfN^OrHVOinominrlrHOlOOrH
W CHESAP AA COUNTY BROADNECK MD 2]
W CHESAP ABERDEEN PROVING AREA-ABERDEEN MD 21
W CHESAP ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND-EDGEWO MD 2]
W CHESAP ABERDEEN, TOWN OF STP MD 2]
W CHESAP ANNAPOLIS STP, CITY OF MD 2]
W CHESAP ANNE ARUNDEL CO DPW-COX CREEK MD 21
W CHESAP BACKRIVER MD 2]
W CHESAP BETH STEEL (FROM BACK R STP) MD ]
W CHESAP BROADWATER SEWAGE TREATMENT PL MD 2^
W CHESAP HAVRE DE GRACE WWTR TREAT PLT MD 21
W CHESAP JOPPATOWNE STP . -MD . ENV . SERVICE MD 2".
W CHESAP MES-FREEDOM MD 2]
W CHESAP NORTH EAST WASTE WATER TREAT. MD 22
W CHESAP PATAPSCO MD 2]
W CHESAP SOD RUN MD 2]
W CHESAP TOWN COMMISSIONERS OF PERRYVIL MD 21
W CHESAP LESS THAN 0.5 MGD (16 PLANTS)
W CHESAP BASIN TOTAL
O
a
a
•o
m
a
in
B
0
rH
rH
a
0
in
B
O
-H
rH
rH
-H
e
B
•H
3
O
rH
b,
U
10
V
01
Ql
in
•O
B
3
O
Qi
B
• H
T>
a
O
J
a
•H
JQ
O 3
HH
O - o
JJ -O 0
Limits of technology treatment: total phosphorus=0 . 1 mg/1.
Includes only Bay watershed municipal facilities in Marylar
** Year 2000 flow based on state projections, other year 2(
-------
78
X
o
o
o
a
X
u
u
EH
O
V)
EH
H
£
M
>J
X
EH
M
O
O
o
rg
os
rf|
U
X
o
b.
Q
a
i4J
EH
a
u
£
EH
U
Bi
EH
0
IH
EH
VI
M
X
u
Q
X
X EH
H H
Q IS
a
ED in
CM co
Ol Ol
< rH
K
dj
U
X
03
0
b,
in
Q
rij
o
IH-
EH
U
H
OS
EH
S
a
j
^
a,
H
u
H
S3
s
£
U
a
H
J
1
tj
•{
h.
I
U EH
x a
EH U
IS EH
o <
J u
W OH
m EH
o
o
o
rg
in
00
Ol
rH
a
U
o
o
EH
H
2
V)
D
O
9C
B<
CO
o
X
Bl
s
o
«J
bt
a
u
o
0
EH
IH
a
in
s
OS
o
X
Pi
in
0
X
Bi
>j
O
iJ
bt
10
U
Q
Bi
53
U
EH
i<
EH
in
u
§
a
X
EH
H
J
H
U
bt
H
in
*£
CQ
tH rH
in in
in in
rg rg
CO CO
CO 00
p- p-
*
o o
o o
10 vo
rg rg
rg rg
o o
P- P-
m m
v v
p- p-
in in
in in
00 CO
o o
rH rH
O O
o o
00 CO
o o
tH tH
tH
^
p-
tH
rg
Q
£
X
L)
a
< J
OS *4i
O EH
O
a EH
OS
u a
H H
VI in
bl rfj
Is m
EH EH
a a
u u
D D
EH EH
Bi Bi
£ £ S £ " S S S £ S S S £ 5 £ S S
3 3 SS Z £ rH 5 ^ £ 0 S SS S H 3
T
o co fo 01 in ^corg^^tHoioifico
VDVO*3tOiVorgr-P'rgvooP"frtVDOO
*HCTttHtHoop*voroinrorHvoinfr)Oi
inointHtH^j<^*inoininrHtHoo^'
rgvorgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrsirg
<£i$<$UQ'$t$<$Qi$*%QQ>$i%
^^^Q£^>^£>^££^^
">
V)
EH
^;
O £ Q 0 J
X O H U Bl
EH U rH CO « W Ox
s < u aim
t< EH * * Ht X tH
H O O < H —
X < H EH 2 U £9
OXEH £ 2 2 H • 1 < Q
< u <«;EH xo- u u
EHH E-l J J 2 < U CM V>U£
M « W CM CM 3 b • < O
2 H H X Bi-EH m < in
< V) Q • • M £ • » •
V)H CM CM U U, J
< M 2 2 H H O O CM X 2 O Ul <
HaaHU^^O -EH tj^MoviEH
Ox'^tO'^t O4Bt ^OliJ^OXUUO
Qv>EHiJinuuxEHCK H < <; o J H
a OBiwminrfjrfi XXH£
< < 2 J hi^BiU < « W 2
XHHUBiMUOiBiUauU • W S M
u3JS ^
EH
a
u
£
EH
U
EH H
V)
td
O X
< EH
IX rH
U U
in
O
a os
s> s
os oa
VI
u x
a u
OS H
0 BS
a u
H Q
< u
u t,
Bi Bi
CM Bi
*£ <4i
OS OS
o
rH
VO
0
in
CO
Ol
p-
m
tH
rg
O
VO
Ol
rg
o
in
in
CO
in
vo
in
rg
•4J
^
X
a
o
Oi
u>
in
t£
£
1
t
O
U
n£
H
a
^
t>
tj
X
in
EH
O
in
CM
B.
t^J
OS
vo rg
m o
vo
tH O
rg
vo P-
01 Oi
VO CO
' '
p- p-
VO tH
in m
,r ^
m
0 VO
o in
01 P-
rH CO
tH O
rH
0 O
rH *H
VO VD
O in
«-»
in
a
j
0<
vo
~^
O
O
£
in
0 J
*4j
a EH
< o
X EH
a
in IH
in in
j CQ
B. Bi
Bi Oi
*3t *4
OS OS
O tH iH
VO rH p-
m P* o
00 CM
eo rg rn
rg ro
Ol CO P-
** P- «N
rH P» Ol
* ' '
p- co in
co rg tH
01 P- P-
tH in p-
^ in
rg p- oi
*r o v
W P- iH
rg rH ^»
m tH vo
rH rH
0 T T
vo m o>
m vo 01
CO
m
rg
^*
vo
i4J
>
»~
in
H
a
Bi
in
v
Q
U
£
BI m
H •
W 0 J
«c
Ui 2 H
« < O
0 X H
X EH
a
O in H
in in in
X iJ ED
b£ i£ US
Oi OS BS
O O O
XXX
K
Q
v?
£
^
a
•o
^
01
a
in
B
O
tH
rH
a
tn
44
O
in
B
O
•H
rH
r-4
• H
e
B
•rl
3
O
rH
b.
U
Q
O
>i
U
O It
11 M
VH C"
O
e
4J O
U -H
•H 4J
IH m
•P rH
« 3
Q 0
Oi
•o
B T!
a o>
4J
a in
•rl <0
rH B U
X « «
B rH 0
>|VW
o in
• B B
"l C O
B Bi TJ
0) 0
lr •• tn
O (0 (0
IH -H .Q
•U B
•H -H in
B «r S
u 0
rH -H rH
a > «H
4J
O - 0
4J 11 0
B 0
*• (0 rg
rH tH
X >l IH
en u a
S a o
£ >,
tH
• B IH
O -H 01
II Si
tn in 4-)
3 0> O
O tJ -
A -r* U)
QJ-H E
in -H o
0 U -H
J= ffl 4J
Q,«u U
V
•H tH 'f~i
10 a o
4J Ol U
o -H a
H-> U
-H 0
•• E 4J
41 s a
B E 4J
a> in
e -o
•U « B
10 X 0
0) tn
U U T^
4J 0) (D
4J in
>t 10 «
cr S ^
0
rH >, S
o i
» rH O
4J B 0
O O
in rg
0 M
tn *O nj
4J 3 0)
•H rH M
E U
•rl E «
iJ H «
-------
o
o
,J
o
z
u
u
EH
b.
O
W
EH
H
£
H
J
B
EH
H
S
B:
u
tt
o
u.
H
U
£
•<
u
C EH
o in
u H
X EH
H M
Q S
u in
Bl CO
Bi o\
u
X
o
b,
in
Q
O
EH
Z
U
S
z
f]
Bl
H
u
M
z
£
U
z
H
iJ
J
a
u.
I
u EH
B Z
?£
S EH
O <
J U
u a;
0 EH
u ci^Toeo^r^rHinoornHoivovo MCA fN
O fMrHVoor-maimovor-mHHTfN IN rH ^-
H rHmrHrHrHfM BlinrHVO VO
H CM in r^t-io or-
Bi
M rH H
O
B a
Bi U
EH
U rH IN V VO VO IN
nr^ovovo^o
b. O
3: vo m m in
O (NO o
J fH rH
b.
*»• O O rH
K r-vocftor^p^wmrrtrHmrHraininm HfM ^r
M VOrHrH INVOinin
Z rH in in
in
O oiovovoinoovomuiovcorHCiP- o *r -re
in VOOmr*r^VOCOfNOmrHTTeO«3'rHVO IT -fl1 CO
B n m in
a.
oooooooooooooooo roo
Q
in
I b.
vo rsj *a* in
rn en et\
u
u
U Ui
u
Bi U
O Bi
EH U
U
O O
Bi Z
Bi M
\ J
S
H
O
Bi
in
Z
Bi b.
H O
>• (H
H EH
J Z
U H C)
BJ \ BI O B!
O U U Bi 3
Z
U EH
£ Z
EH M
< O
U Bi
EH W
K
PS W
u z
EH Z
s B!
U I
in
EH
Z
Q
£
in
COXB, Bi£<JOBUin<
HHin B!OB<;<<:HBiEH WEH
« « H J OOZiJEH
uuinui I I I I I lin£o
H H 3 S « Ul S « 2
U U
I U)
u
o
O X
z z
Q
z
Q U
£ Q
in in
iJ iJ
EH EH
O O
EH EH
Z Z
H H
in in
UbBBBBBBBXQ
e
•s x
fH 4*
O 9
U O
VM cr
o
B
4J O
O -H
•H JJ
>H ni
4J rH
Ul 3
•H a
Q O
a
•o
C V
a a
n in
•H a
-H c u
\ a t>
tr > u
e fH o
rlXH
O Ul
II 01
B Bi
tr
o i
o - o
*J TJ O
C O
e a oi
£ >.
• B >•<
O -H 01
II X
ui in 4J
3 01 o
OlfH
in -H
o u
ui Qi
B
O in
•H TJ
-H e
-< 3
•H O
e a
B B
* T3
O ID
rH O
pt (jj y
0>
rH fH Tt
HI a o
o -i a
4J U
•H 01
•• B V
•U 3 ill
C E 4J
01 Ul
E TJ
4J 01 fi >,
ID X O HI
Q> in to
U W -O
JJ 01 01 B
jj in -H
1 ^ ffl a a
CP 3 a E
o
-H >, s o
o a o jj
c m -i
X vu ul
U >l 111
01 -H o en
JJ B O Ui
o o a
MJ rvi X
o in o
o> u in
ui *o a -J
jj 3 ai o
•H rH X
E U «
•fl C * *
J M « *
-------
80
u
X
H
Q
Z
u
p*
a.
01
O
rij
0
H
Z
U
H
(U
EH
3
Z
J
,rf
H
PS
EH
U)
3
a
55
H
in
00
a>
rH
u
z
H
a
rt|
(b
U
x
S
o
tJ
u
m
z
u
0
o
fH
H
z
in
3
O
B
04
V)
o
X
Oi
t/1
u
Cu
Z
u
H
U
£
Z
f>4
EH
H
J
M
U
t,
z
H
VI
ffi
O O O
o o o
o in in
fN CO IN
in
O 0
o in
in rM
r- in
*H *J«
fN fN
Q Q Q
£ £ £
0
u
a
z
M
«
«4| U
Z Q
Z Z
O u u
U H K
>
A W
D .j a
o •* o
0) Cl< X
(0
J <
J > 2
U pj BJ
05 £ >
u
^4
J
H
>
U
u
z
•4J
05
W
B<
£
U
EH
1
Q
Z
M
X U
« <
EH £
>J U O
3 Z U
O H U
CU rtj
• 3 3
iJ Q Q
J OS OS
o u u
X 0* 0*
u u u
K « D5
O 0 O
XXX
in oi en
u u u
o
J I 0, | Z H 01
J « J « • O UQU
U UUObEHU U U
n EH u EH « J £ a
• U 10 H < O < O iJU3
o. H uvitjumb. EH
M MUWOEHtO£Bi XV)
Z'4«UXX3<4!UCtfUBIUCUP£EH'4!
a
E
tn
u
u
Bi
3
O
01
H
M «4j
O IH
CU tf
EH
U4 en ij
•J 3 <
< a EH
X Z 0
U H EH
O « Z
U U H
P* X V)
U EH *4!
a, o m
H EH
z z
u u
X X
3 3
EH EH
< <
0 0
m m
S m
0 O
IA in
r- CM
IN 00
IN
IN in
a o
££
u
»j
,j
M
t>
EH
•J
m
o< z
OS 0
0 M
U H
<
01 EH
Z "
U U
£ U
U Z
IH
M *4
£ Z
U U
< <
£ £
O 0
O 0
OOO
OOO
IH £ N
0 O
0 O
o o
in tc
r-t •Q1
P-
a
E
O!
U
U
Bi
0
01
Z J
O H
EH PJ
Z EH
< 01 J
0 3 <
Bi Q EH
O Z O
£ M EH
O « 2
U U H
OH X 01
U EH ^
PH O CD
U U
< <
£ £
O O
O O
a. 0<
m m
r^ r-
o o
» at
r- r-
m m
r~ r-
0 O
m in
p. i^
in in
l-H
<
>
EH
Z
H
0
EH
OI
U
|5
..
a.
BJ
O
U
iJ
u <
^ EH
< 0
Id EH
a.
< Z
01 H
U V)
X <^I
u m
^
«
o
^
.^
Q
•o
B
IQ
1
C
Q
>
—I
^i
Ul
C
C
i ><
o £
a
B
VI -H
^
n) in
TJ w
•H
Dl 4J
B -H 0>
•H -H C
4J -H -H
M U -H
u m
O IH rH
Q4 i-H
O -H M
a Q JS O^
n B
IJ h< -H
10 a> D^
01 4J U
> a ra
3 £
n u
0) >, Ul
a « -H
m T)
V)
T) >< 10
E -H -H
3 G £>
O O S
a 3
in -<
B 01 O
-H T) U
3
TJ *-l M-l
« (J O
0 B
0 H
-------
81
f—.
EH
Z
o
U
^
U
X
H
a
z
u
a.
0,
Ul
Q
rij
O
J
H
Z
U
M
PS
H
55
J
<<
H
Pi
Ul
a
z
M
in
CO
•H
U
z
M
J
lj
J
rfj
fc.
U
X
H
|5
O
J
u
o
z
u
0
o
«
EH
H
Z
s
o
x
p«
o
X
B<
VI
W
Q
a,
Z
M
EH
J
U
U,
fe
M
W
<
m
o
(N
o
rH
fN
m
rH
^
a*
CM
in
rfj
^
J
J
to
s
u
P«
0
X
1.
Oi
P5
o
u
s
ffi
u
Q
U
M
•J
J
rfj
V)
U
171
CO
in
«t>
eO
a>
Ot
vo
VO
4*
«4j
^
U
U
s
rtj
3
e,
0]
B
53
0
S
Q
to
U
§
^
•T
f>»
o
TH
0
T
^
rH
iH
PI
O
^"
•4
^
2
u
j
j
«<
z
u
ij
o
01
E
«;
u.
(H
J
»J
Q
X
M
U
"">
rs
(N
f^
^
ro
^3*
*V
00
f>)
^J
*>
Q
U
M
U.
X
EH
H
g
CO
fc
^
u
E_,
J
<
O
EH
£4
H
0)
u
E
10
O\ CO 0* O
O *-t *H 00
^O «-t O> 00
«r oo oo
»— 1 rn o\
^
rt
o
v
^"
•H
r» fM in
in tn o
in oo o
vo tN »
r» tn
•dj >4j «4j
^ ^ ^
O
U
Q
2
»
X
<
a o
3 Ul U
E EH
PS Q O
U P4 Z
m a. M
M
- E U
M < <
H X B.
« iJ
O iJ iJ S
E U U O
H H EH
O< b Eu
M X X Z
iJ EH EH M
»C E «G *3j
CU W W CQ
V) W W
u u u
SSS
•q* o V
tO CO rH
1** O CO
f*l rH ^«
in in
CO CO
in in
rH «* rH
in in rH
<
Z Z
•4* ''^
a in
< z u
0. < EH
^J
rtl t* EH
> S vi
Q U J
E Q ^1
• — v *^
• —
VI Ul
J J J
EH H EH
O O O
EH H EH
Z Z Z
MM H
V) VI 1/1
rtj 1^ (3J
mm m
u
a
01
>^
u
,
u
0)
a
Ul
•o
B
3
O
a
B
•H
•o
n
o
J
4J
U
^1
JJ
Ul
•H
Q
•o
B
a
m
• H
B
a
£
in
B
B
41
a.
-
•H
c
•H
o*
u
-H
>
•o
B
a
iH
^
U
a
E
B
•H
Ul
HI
•H
4-1
•H O
•-H B
•H -rt
U -H
A
IU rH
f(
^ ID
a £
Ul 4J
3
•o »
B O
•H rH
01
•0 ,0
01
rB ^
Ul B
U -H
*J -J
a T)
» JC
o
r^l "1
* -H
CO T5
>i n
rH -H
B A
0 E
Ul rH
01 O
•o u
3
rH <«
U 0
B
M
-------
82
Glossary
Alga: Any of a group of aquatic plants, including
phytoplankton and seaweeds, ranging from microscopic to
several meters in size.
Anadromous fish: Fish species (e.g. striped bass, shad,
perch) that live in estuarine or marine waters but migrate to
fresh water to spawn.
Anoxia: Total absence of dissolved oxygen in water.
Anthropogenic: Pertaining to or resulting from the
impact of human activities.
Base flow: Subsurface flow of water to a stream or river
from ground water. Stream flows during dry periods consist
essentially of base flow.
Benthos: Marine plants and animals inhabiting stream,
estuary or ocean bottoms, together with the sediment or rocks
forming the bottom substrate.
Bioaccumulation: Uptake of contaminants into the tissue
of organisms.
Bioassay: Measurement of an organism's response to
controlled concentrations of a contaminant.
Bioavailability: Presence of a compound in a form
biologically available for uptake by organisms.
Biological nutrient removal: Wastewater treatment
processes that (1) create specific biological environments
which enhance phosphorus removal, and (2) utilize chemical
energy drawn from the wastewater itself to remove nitrogen.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): A measure of the
quantity of dissolved oxygen removed from water by the
metabolism of microorganisms. Excessive BOD results in
oxygen-poor water.
Biomonitoring: Any systematic collection of biological
data such as benthic community sampling, toxicity testing, or
finfish surveys.
Biota: Plant and animal life of an area.
Bioturbation: Disturbance or reworking of unconsolidated
bottom sediments by organisms living or feeding in the
sediments.
Blooms: Excessive growth of plankton in concentrations
sufficiently dense to cause discoloration of water and reduced
light penetration.
Chlorophyll: Green pigment in plants that is essential
for photosynthesis. One type of the pigment (chlorophyll a)
is commonly used as a measure of phytoplankton
abundance.
Cladocerans: Minute freshwater and marine crustaceans.
Coliform: Bacteria from the feces of warm-blooded
animals. The quantity of fecal coliform in water is a
traditional measure of water pollution.
Conventional pollutants: Pollutants typically
discharged by municipal sewage treatment plants and a
number of industries. The category includes wastes with a
high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, pH, and grease and oil.
Copepods: Subclass of minute marine and freshwater
crustaceans constituting an important food source for finfish.
Cultch: Old oyster shells, accumulating naturally or
"planted" in Bay waters, which form a hard substrate on which
oyster spat may set or attach.
Cyanobacteria: Extremely small blue-green algae,
including many plants considered nuisances.
Denitrification: Conversion by bacteria of available
forms of nitrogen (NOa) into largely unavailable atmospheric
nitrogen (N2).
Dermo: Fungal disease that attacks and kills oysters. Most
prevalent in the higher salinity waters of the lower Bay, it
can move up the Bay in years of low freshwater flows.
Detention pond: Artificial pond, generally dry, but
designed to detain stormwater runoff long enough for
paniculate pollutants to settle out.
Detritus: Organic or inorganic particulate matter in the
water column or settled on the bottom.
Dissolved oxygen (DO): Concentration of oxygen in
water, commonly employed as a measure of water quality.
Low levels adversely affect aquatic life. Most finfish cannot
survive when DO falls below 3 milligramsAiter for a
sustained period of time.
Ecosystem: An ecological community including living
organisms and their physical and chemical environment.
Effluent: Discharge or emission of a liquid or gas into the
environment
Epiphytes: Plants, usually microscopic or
near-microscopic in size, that grow on leaves or stems of host
plants but derive nutrients from the surrounding water.
Estuary: A semi-enclosed body of water, connected to the
open sea, in which sea water is measurably diluted with fresh
water from inland sources.
Eutrophication: Process of nutrient enrichment which
increases primary productivity in a water body, resulting
eventually in depletion of dissolved oxygen essential to
aquatic life.
-------
83
Fall line: Area in a tributary where tidal waters meet
free-flowing fresh water; often called the "head of tide." In the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, the fall line marks the boundary
between older, resistant rocks of the Piedmont and younger
sediments of the Coastal Plain.
Filter strip: A band of naturally occurring or planted vege-
tation maintained to capture nutrients and sediment in surface
water runoff, reducing loads to nearby streams or rivers.
Fingerprinting: Matching characteristics of environmental
samples to trace a particular compound to a specific point of
origin.
Food web: The complex network of feeding interactions
that links microbes, plants and animals in an ecosystem. In
the process, energy produced by plants from sunlight is
passed along to successively higher trophic levels.
Freshet: A rapid rise in the water level of a stream due to
melting snow or heavy rain; commonly refers to the sizeable
seasonal increase in river flows to the Bay each winter and
spring.
Ground water: Subsurface water saturating soil or porous
rock.
Groundtruth: Data gathered from observations on or near
the surface of the earth which may be used to verify remotely
sensed data such as aerial photographs or satellite imagery.
Hypoxia: Low levels of dissolved oxygen in water, defined
as less than 2 mg/1.
Infiltration: The passage of water through the pores or
cracks of soil or rock.
Inorganic compounds: Chemical substances without
carbon.
Land treatment: Use of vegetated soils to treat waste-
water. Water percolating through the soil is cleansed by
filtration, precipitation, and the uptake of nutrients by plants.
Leaching: Process in which soluble compounds are
selectively removed from rock or soil by percolating water.
Loading: Quantity of contaminants, nutrients, or other
substances introduced to a water body.
Macrophage: Virus that affects bacterium by taking over
the genetic code of the infested cell.
Mainstem: Primary channel of a stream or river. In the
Chesapeake, the mainstem is the deep mid-channel forming
the longitudinal axis of the Bay from the Susquehanna Flats
to the Virginia Capes.
Marine: Pertaining to the ocean or sea.
Mesohaline: Water of medium salinity, 5 to 18 pans per
thousand.
Model: A simplified mathematical representation of reality.
Water quality modeling is used to study Chesapeake Bay
processes and project effects of varying environmental
conditions or management actions.
Monitoring: Observing, tracking, or measuring some
aspect of the environment in order to establish base line
conditions and short-term or long-term trend data.
MSX (Multinucleate sphere unknown): A parasitic,
frequently fatal disease that infects oysters. MSX occurs
primarily in the higher salinity reaches of the Bay.
Nitrogen: A nutrient essential for life. May be in organic
form or inorganic (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite). Elemental
nitrogen constitutes 78 percent of the atmosphere by volume.
Nonpoint source pollution: Toxicants, other
contaminants, nutrients, or soil entering a water body from
sources other than discrete discharges such as pipes. Includes
pollution from the air as well as farm and urban runoff.
Nutrient flux: The rate of transfer of nutrients across a
surface, usually the sediment/water column interface.
Nutrients: Chemicals required for growth and reproduction
of plants. Excessive levels of the nutrients nitrogen and
phosphorus can lead to excessive algae growth.
Oligohaline: Water of low salinity, 0.5 to 5.0 parts per
thousand.
Organic compound: Combination of elements whose
composition includes organic carbon. These compounds are
the primary constituents of living matter.
pH: Value expressing the acidity (0 to 7) or alkalinity (7 to
14) of a solution. A value of 7 indicates neutrality.
Phosphorus: A nutrient essential for life found in both
organic and inorganic forms.
Phytoplankton: Microscopic plants (algae) suspended in
water.
Plankton: Microscopic plants and animals that live in
water, drifting passively or swimming weakly.
Point source pollution: Contamination from waste
effluent discharged into a water body through discrete pipes or
conduits.
Polyhaline: Water with a salinity of 18 to 30 parts per
thousand; generally the highest concentrations found in the
Bay.
Pretreatment: Treatment of wastewater by industry prior
to discharge to a municipal treatment plant to remove toxic
materials and heavy metals likely to pass through or disrupt
ordinary municipal treatment operations.
Primary productivity: Rate of production of living
matter (through photosynthesis) by green plants and bacteria.
The organic matter produced may be used as food by higher
level organisms.
Priority pollutants: Substances EPA has identified as
being of special environmental concern due to their toxicity
and usage.
-------
84
Riparian: Relating to the bank or shoreline area of a river,
lake, pond, or other water body.
Runoff: Drainage of precipitation over the soil or a
non-porous surface (e.g. asphalt) to a stream, river or other
receiving body of water.
Salinity: Amount, by weight, of dissolved salts in 1,000
units of water (reported as parts per thousand).
Secondary treatment: Second stage of wastewater
treatment in which organic matter is broken down by bacteria.
The process reduces biochemical oxygen demand on the
receiving stream and essentially speeds up the natural process
by which water purifies itself.
Sediment oxygen demand: Rate at which biological and
chemical reactions taking place in bottom sediments consume
oxygen from the overlying water column.
Sorb: To take up and hold either by adsorption (adherence
to the surface of a solid) or absorption (incorporation or
assimilation, as liquids into solids or gases into liquids).
Spat: Juvenile oysters newly attached (set) to substrate.
Stock assessment: Determination and appraisal of changes
in fish population numbers due to water quality conditions,
fishing pressure, or natural environmental variability.
Stratification: In Chesapeake Bay, the layering of fresh
water over salt water due to differences in relative density and
temperature.
Shoreline stabilization: Securing stream banks or Bay
shoreline with vegetation or engineering structures to prevent
shoreline erosion.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV): Vegetation that
grows underwater along the fringes and in the shallows of the
Bay.
Tidal-freshwater: Zone of stream or river affected by the
tides but whose waters have little or no salinity.
Toxic substance: A compound that produces or has the
potential to produce adverse effects on living organisms.
Tributary: A stream or river which joins and feeds into a
larger stream, river or other body of water.
Tributyltin (TBT): A toxic chemical compound used as
the active ingredient in some boat bottom antifouling paints.
Trophic level: Stratum of food web characterized by
organisms the same number of steps removed from primary
producers (phytoplankton).
Turbidity: Reduction of water clarity caused by suspended
sediments and organics in the water.
Urban marshes: Artificial wetlands created to improve
water quality and/or control flooding.
Wastewater treatment: Processes to remove pollutants,
commonly categorized as primary, secondary, and advanced
levels of treatment.
Water Column: A vertical extent of water reaching from
the surface to the bottom substrate of a water body.
Water quality: Status or condition of a water body in
terms of defined variables characterizing the "health" of the
water.
Watershed: Area drained by a river system or other water
body.
Wet pond: Artificial pond that captures stormwater runoff
and removes paniculate and soluble pollutants through
settling and biological assimilation.
Wetlands: Semi-aquatic areas, periodically flooded or
water-saturated close to the surface, including freshwater and
saltwater marshes, swamps and bogs.
Zooplankton: Animal plankton of widely varying size that
drift or swim weakly in the water. They consume the pri-
mary producers and are a second link in the food chain or food
web.
Acronyms/Abbreviations:
A S C S: Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
B AT: Best Available Technology
BMP: Best Management Practice
B N R: Biological Nutrient Removal
BOD: Biological oxygen demand
C A C: Citizens Advisory Committee
C B P: Chesapeake Bay Program
CoE: Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army
D O: Dissolved oxygen
D o D: Department of Defense
F W S: Fish and Wildlife Service
IP M: Integrated Pest Management
LOT: Limits of Technology
L R T F: Living Resources Task Force
m g /1: milligrams per liter
M G D: millions of gallons per day
n g /1: nanograms per liter
N O A A: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
N P D E S: National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System
R C R A: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
S C S: Soil Conservation Service
STAC: Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee
SAV: Submerged aquatic vegetation
TBT: Tributyltin
T R E: Toxicity reduction evaluation
T S D: Treatment, storage and disposal
(hazardous waste facilities)
U S G S: U.S. Geological Survey
-------
References
85
1. Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan.
Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis,
Maryland. July 1985. 115 pages.
2. First Annual Report under the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. Chesapeake Executive Council.
Annapolis, Maryland. December 1985. 24 pages.
3. Second Annual Progress Report Under the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement. Chesapeake Executive Council.
Annapolis, Maryland. February 1987. 36 pages.
4. 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Signatories to the
Agreement. (Available in Reference 2.)
5. Draft 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Drafting
Committee of the Executive Council. Available from
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
August 1987.
6. Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Signatories to the
Agreement. December 15,1987.
7. Chesapeake Bay Program: Findings and
Recommendations. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. September 1983.
54 pages.
8. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
Chesapeake Bay Program. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. September 1983. 222 pages.
9. Blue Plains and Washington Area Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants Take Leadership Role in Cleaning up the
Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. District of
Columbia Department of Public Works. Washington,
D.C. October 1987. 4 pages.
10. Personal communication. Telephone comments on the
Interim Report draft from the District of Columbia
Department of Public Works staff to Patricia Bonner,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office. September 1987.
11. Special Agreements between the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Six Federal Agencies.
Memoranda of Understanding between USEPA and
SCS, NOAA, CoE, USGS, FWS, November
1984, and Joint Resolution with DoD, September
1984. Available from Chesapeake Bay Program.
Annapolis, Maryland. 20 pages.
12. Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Program Annual Report
1986. Office of the Governor. Annapolis, Maryland.
1987. 37 pages.
13. From the Waters of the District of Columbia to the
Chesapeake Bay. Government of the District of
Columbia. Washington, D. C. July 1986. 16 pages.
14. Progress Report of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program.
Office of the Governor. February 1987. 70 pages.
15. Chesapeake Bay: You've Got a Friend in Pennsylvania,
A Progress Report on Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay
Program. Office of the Governor. Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania. October 1986. 12 pages.
16. NOAA Involvement in the Chesapeake Bay. NOAA
Estuarine Programs Office. Washington, D. C.
November 1986. 23 pages.
17. Water Quality Assessment of DoD Installations/
Facilties in the Chesapeake Bay Region, Phase II
Report, Development and Testing of Installation
Assessment Methodolgy. TetraTech, Inc. for the Office
of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Environment.
Contract DACA 31-85-C-0168. Arlington, Virginia.
June 1987. 330 pages.
18. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
Chesapeake Bay Program. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
September 1983. 210 pages.
19. Final Report and Recomendations. Resource Users
Management Team. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Fall 1983. 13 pages.
20. Status and Recent Trends of Wetlands in Five
Mid-Atlantic States: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia. Ralph W. Tiner and John
T. Finn. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Habitat
Research, Region V. Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
October 1987. 40 pages.
21. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law and Criteria.
Maryland General Assembly. Natural Resource Article
8-1801-1816. Annapolis, Maryland. June 1986.
-------
86
22. VR680-21-07.03 Special Standards and Designations,
Nutrient Enriched Waters; and VR680-14-02 Policy for
Nutrient Enriched Waters. Virginia Water Control
Board. Richmond, Virginia. September 1987.
23. Chesapeake Bay - Nutrient Enrichment. House Joint
Resolution No. 53; Senate Joint Resolution No 18.
Maryland General Assembly. Annapolis, Maryland.
May 13,1986.
24. Federal Water Quality Act of 1987, Amendments to the
Clean Water Act. Public Law 100-4. February 4,
1987. (Soon to be available from the Superintendent
of Documents, Washington, D.C.)
25. Survey of Tributyltin and Dibutyltin Concentrations at
Selected Harbors in Chesapeake Bay - Final Report.
Richard Batiuk. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Report
Series CBP/TRS14/87. Annapolis, Maryland. August
1987. 176 pages.
26. The State of the Chesapeake Bay, Second Annual
Monitoring Report, 1984-85. Chesapeake Bay
Program Monitoring Subcommittee. Annapolis,
Maryland. March 1987. 26 pages.
27. The State of the Chesapeake Bay - Second Annual
Monitoring Report, 1984-85, Compendium.
Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee.
Annapolis, Maryland. April 1987. 196 pages.
28. Distribution and Abundance of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries -
1985. R. Orth, J. Simons, J.Capelli, V. Carter, L.
Hindman, S. Hodges, K. Moore and N. Rybicki.
Funded through Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1985. 314 pages.
29. - Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the
Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay
- 1986. Robert Orth, Jim Simons, Judith Capelli,
Virginia Carter, Adam Frisch, Larry Hindman, Stephen
Hodges, Kenneth Moore, and Nancy Rybicki. Funded
through Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Committee to
Preserve Assateague Island, Allied Chemical
Corporation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Annapolis, Maryland. October 1987.
191 pages.
30. Data Management Plan for Water Quality Data. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland. June 1987. 96 pages.
31. Description of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Phase II
Implementation Program. Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office. Annapolis, Maryland. January 1987. 22 pages.
32. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change.
Appendices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. September 1983. 338 pages.
3 3. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources: A Report from the Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources Task Force. Annapolis, Maryland. August
1987. 250 pages.
34. Report of the Workshop on Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Technical
Report Series CBP/TRS 8/87. Annapolis, Maryland.
July 1987. 106 pages.
3 5. Re-establishment of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in
Chesapeake Bay - Water Quality Requirements. J.
Court Stevenson, Lorie W. Staver, and Jeffrey C.
Cornwell. Horn Point Environmental Laboratories,
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies.
Cambridge, Maryland. 1986.
36. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. Appendices.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
Chesapeake Bay Program. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
September 1983. 554 pages.
37. Proceeding Number 2, Appendix D. Chesapeake Bay
Stock Assessment Committee. NOAA Estuarine Pro-
grams Office. Washington, D.C. June 1987. 6 pages.
38. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthe-
sis. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, Chesapeake Bay Program. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. September 1983. 275 pages, (page 231)
39. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and
Abundance. Charles J. Krebs. Harper and Row. New
York, New York. 1972. 694 pages, (pages 446-468)
40. Personal communication from John Friedman, Northern
Virginia Planning District Commission, to Virginia
Tippie, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program. July 12, 1982; and
-------
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. Appendix
B. (Reference 36)
41. Memorandum from Douglas M. Costle, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, to
Jack J. Schram, Regional Administrator, Region III.
Review of the Upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus
Limitation Policy. November 29, 1979.
42. 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the Patuxent
River Basin. Maryland Office of Environmental
Programs. June 1987. 750 pages.
43. Technical Support Document for Interim Control
Decisions for the Potomac River. State/EPA Potomac
Management Technical Subcommittee, December 1985.
61 pages.
44. Point Sources Atlas. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Mary-
land. In preparation.
45. Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs. Chesa-
peake Bay Implementation Committee. Annapolis,
Maryland. In preparation.
46. Nutrients.. .the Missing Link. Paul 0. Swartz. Pre-
sented at "Estuarine & Coastal Management Tools of
the Trade", Tenth National Conference of The Coastal
Society. New Orleans, Louisiana. October 1986.
47. Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint
pollution. Richard Lowrance, Ralph Leonard and
Joseph Sheridan. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. January-February 1985. Volume 40,
Number 1, pages 87-91.
48. Chessee Data File DRD3:[CULTURE] LAND.SSD
(prior to 1950) and U.S. Forest Service Resource
Bulletins NE-69 (1982), NE-66 (1980), NE-78 (1983),
NE-80 (1984), NE-38 (1975), NE 71 (1982), NE-32
(1874), NE-58 (1978) and NE-56 (1978).
49. A Steady-State Coupled Hydrodynamic/Water Quality
Model of the Eutrophication and Anoxia Process in
Chesapeake Bay. HydroQual, Incorporated, under
contract to Battelle Ocean Sciences for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland. Contract Number
68-03-3319. August 1987. 410 pages.
50. A Steady-State Coupled Hydrodynamic/Water Quality
Model of the Eutrophication and Anoxia Process in
Chesapeake Bay. Appendix. HydroQual, Incorporated,
under contract to Battelle Ocean Sciences for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland. Contract Number
68-03-3319. August 1987. 534 pages.
51. Estimates of Sediment Denitrification and its Influence
on the Fate of nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay. R. R.
Twilley and W. M. Kemp. Contract Number
X-003310-01-0. U.S. Environmental protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Report
Series CBP/TRS 1/87. Annapolis, Maryland. August
1987. 64 pages.
52. Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model: Results of
Management Scenarios (draft). Charles App. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland. August 1987. 30
pages.
53. Assessment of Cost and Effectiveness of Biological
Dual Nutrient Removal Technologies in the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. Hazen & Sawyer,
Inc. and J. M. Smith & Associates for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Performance
Assurance Branch, Municipal Facilities Division.
Washington, D. C. Contract Number 68-03-4049.
September 1987. 231 pages.
54. Available Technologies for the Control of Nutrient
Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Andrew
A. Randall & Clifford W. Randall. Chesapeake Bay
Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee.
Annapolis, Maryland. October 1987. 118 pages.
55. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Guide for
Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Thomas R.
Schueler. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. July 1987. 276 pages.
56. The Cost Digest - Cost Summaries of Selected Envi-
ronmental Control Technologies. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
EPA-60018-84-010, October, 1984.
57. Handbook - Retrofitting POTWs for Phosphorus Re-
moval in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EPA-625/6-87-017, September, 1987.
137 pages.
58. Personal communications from Dr. Joh Kang,
Manager, Research and Development Division,
McNamee, Porter and Seeley, Engineers/Architects, to
Joe Macknis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program. August and October 1987.
-------
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. Appendix
B. (Reference 36)
41. Memorandum from Douglas M. Costle, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, to
Jack J. Schram, Regional Administrator, Region III.
Review of the Upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus
Limitation Policy. November 29, 1979.
42. 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the Patuxent
River Basin. Maryland Office of Environmental
Programs. June 1987. 750 pages.
43. Technical Support Document for Interim Control
Decisions for the Potomac River. State/EPA Potomac
Management Technical Subcommittee, December 1985.
61 pages.
44. Point Sources Atlas. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Mary-
land. In preparation.
45. Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs. Chesa-
peake Bay Implementation Committee. Annapolis,
Maryland. In preparation.
46. Nutrients.. .the Missing Link. Paul O. Swartz. Pre-
sented at "Estuarine & Coastal Management Tools of
the Trade", Tenth National Conference of The Coastal
Society. New Orleans, Louisiana. October 1986.
47. Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint
pollution. Richard Lowrance, Ralph Leonard and
Joseph Sheridan. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. January-February 1985. Volume 40,
Number 1, pages 87-91.
48. Chessee Data File DRD3:[CULTURE] LAND.SSD
(prior to 1950) and U.S. Forest Service Resource
Bulletins NE-69 (1982), NE-66 (1980), NE-78 (1983),
NE-80 (1984), NE-38 (1975), NE 71 (1982), NE-32
(1874), NE-58 (1978) and NE-56 (1978).
49. A Steady-State Coupled Hydrodynamic/Water Quality
Model of the Eutrophication and Anoxia Process in
Chesapeake Bay. HydroQual, Incorporated, under
contract to Battelle Ocean Sciences for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland. Contract Number
68-03-3319. August 1987. 410 pages.
50. A Steady-State Coupled Hydrodynamic/Water Quality
Model of the Eutrophication and Anoxia Process in
Chesapeake Bay. Appendix. HydroQual, Incorporated,
under contract to Battelle Ocean Sciences for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland. Contract Number
68-03-3319. August 1987. 534 pages.
51. Estimates of Sediment Denitrification and its Influence
on the Fate of nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay. R. R.
Twilley and W. M. Kemp. Contract Number
X-003310-01-0. U. S. Environmental protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Report
Series CBP/TRS 1/87. Annapolis, Maryland. August
1987. 64 pages.
52. Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model: Results of
Management Scenarios (draft). Charles App. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland. August 1987. 30
pages.
53. Assessment of Cost and Effectiveness of Biological
Dual Nutrient Removal Technologies in the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. Hazen & Sawyer,
Inc. and J. M. Smith & Associates for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Performance
Assurance Branch, Municipal Facilities Division.
Washington, D. C. Contract Number 68-03-4049.
September 1987. 231 pages.
54. Available Technologies for the Control of Nutrient
Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Andrew
A. Randall & Clifford W. Randall. Chesapeake Bay
Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee.
Annapolis, Maryland. October 1987. 118 pages.
55. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Guide for
Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Thomas R.
Schueler. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. July 1987. 276 pages.
56. The Cost Digest - Cost Summaries of Selected Envi-
ronmental Control Technologies. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
EPA-60018-84-010, October, 1984.
57. Handbook - Retrofitting POTWs for Phosphorus Re-
moval in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EPA-625/6-87-017, September, 1987.
137 pages.
58. Personal communications from Dr. Joh Kang,
Manager, Research and Development Division,
McNamee, Porter and Seeley, Engineers/Architects, to
Joe Macknis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program. August and October 1987.
-------
59. Personal communication from Tom Henry and John
Minett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Quality Control Section, Region 3, to Joe Macknis,
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. October 19.
60. Development of Water Quality-Based Permit
Limitations for Toxic Pollutants. National Policy.
Federal Register 49. Number 48. Friday, March 9,
1984, Pages 9016-9019.
61. Personal communication. Letter from Richard W.
Ayers, Virginia State Water Control Board to Charles
S. Spooner, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. Annapolis, Maryland.
April 7, 1987. 4 pages.
62. Personal communication. Letter from John Vail,
Industrial Technology Division, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, to Joseph
Macknis, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
August 31, 1987. 1 page.
63. Personal communication. Letter from Ronald Preston,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wheeling
West Virginia Laboratory to Joseph Macknis, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office. Annapolis, Maryland. August 3,
1987. 2 pages.
64. Personal communication. Telephone comments on the
Interim Report draft, Chapter 4. District of Columbia,
Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, Soil Resources
Branch staff to Joseph Macknis. August 11,1987.
65. The Chesapeake Bay - Report of a Research Planning
Study: A Report to the National Science Foundation
by the Johns Hopkins University, the University of
Maryland and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
R. F. Beers et al. 1971. 211 pages.
66. Background Papers on Chesapeake Bay Needs in
Research and Related matters. Chesapeake Research
Consortium. Gloucester Point, Virginia. Publication
111. 1983. 138 pages.
67. Ten Critical Questions for Chesapeake Bay in Research
and Related Matters. L. E. Cronin. Chesapeake
Research Consortium. Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Publication 113. 1983. 161 pages.
68. Memorandum to Modeling and Research Subcommittee
Members from C. App, Modeling Coordinator,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office re: Proposed Research
Needs. 1986. Annapolis, Maryland. August 28,1986.
3 pages.
69. Personal comunication. Letter to Charles S. Spooner,
Director, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, from
William M. Eichbaum, Director, Maryland Office of
Environmental Programs, transmitting Research Needs
for Chesapeake Bay. Maryland Department of Health
& Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs.
Baltimore, Maryland. February 2,1987. 19 pages.
70. Technical Activities Matrix: A summary of Current
Research Activities in the Chesapeake Bay Region
Addressing Research and Management Questions Relat-
ed to Nutrients, Toxicants, Land Use and Living Re-
sources, (data file) Environmental Protection Agency,
Region in, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. Annapo-
lis, Maryland. 1985. 15 pages.
71. Technical Information and Research Needs to Support a
National Estuarine Research Strategy. Final Report to
EPA, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection. V.
Bierman. Prepared by Charles A. Menzie and Asso-
ciates for Batelle, Washington Environmental Program
Office. Washington, D.C. 1986. 76 pages.
72. National Research Priorities. National Oceanic & At-
mospheric Administration, Marine and Estuarine Man-
agement Division, U. S. Department of Commerce.
Washington, D.C. 1987. 5 pages.
73. Strategy for Marine Toxicolog ical and Ecological Re-
search Including Near Coastal Waters. Prepared by En-
vironmental Research Laboratories (Narragansett,
Rhode Island and Newport, Oregon), Office of Environ-
mental Processes and Effects Research, Office of Re-
search and Development, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. 1987. 43 pages.
------- |