United States
        Environmental Protection
           Office of Research and
           Washington, DC 2046O
June 2000
Proceedings of the
Del marva Coastal Bays
Conference III:

Tri-State Approaches to
Preserving Aquatic Resources
         November 12-13, 1999
         Ocean City, Maryland


                                                                June 2000

Tri-State Approaches to Preserving Aquatic Resources
                                Edited by
               Frederick W. Kutz *, Phyllis Koenings **, Laurie Adelhardt ***

                      * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                         Fort Meade, Maryland 21401 ,

                         ** Assateague Coastal Trust
                           Berlin, Maryland 21811

                           *** Owl Creek Consulting
                           Berlin, Maryland 21811
                           November 12-13, 1999
                            Ocean City, Maryland
                    United States Environmental Protection Agency
                     National Health and Environmental Effects
                            Research Laboratory
                           Atlantic Ecology Division
                             27 Tarzwell Drive
                            Narragansett Rl 02882
                                                            Printed on Recycled Paper

                    On November 12-13, 1999, approximately 300 people attended the Delmarva Coastal Bays
                Conference III: Tri-State Approaches to Preserving Aquatic Resources (CBCIII). The conference
                was organized by the Assateague Coastal Trustwith planning and financial assistance from twenty-
                one local, state and federal agencies and organizations - plus support from the local business

                    Much has been accomplished since the preceding Delmarva Coastal Bays Conference II held
                in 1996, including formation of the Maryland Coastal Bays  Program, accomplishments by the
                Delaware Center for the Inland Bays, and the generally increased awareness  along Delmarva's
                Seaside of {he importance of protecting the aquatic resources that underpin the local economy and
                quality of life.
                          j   I,:      ,     :i	•  .  ;.. ••   ,  ',,',  •  ; ,   ,;;     ' i. ,••.      i  ,•
                    To date, relatively more attention has been given to land use and development issues that affect
                water quality. C§CIII has narrowed the focus to the direct impacts on the bays' "critters" from such
                aquatic stresses  as habitat destruction,  increasing harvest pressures, invasive species and
                diseases, and the relevant resource management strategies.

                    More particular objectives of CBCIII included:
                              y                           :                :i  ••       i
                    •  increasing the awareness of  ecological differences  between the coastal bays and the
                       Chesapeake or Delaware Bays and consequent best management practices;

                    •  facilitating regional partnerships and cooperative tri-state approaches to resolving common

                       presenting successful resource-sustaining initiatives, both from within the region and from
                       other coastal areas around the country;

                    •  and, of great interest to local recreational and commercial fishermen and the recreationally
                       and commercially dependent business communities, sharing viewpoints to both protect the
                       commercially and recreationally significant fisheries and minimize user  conflicts.

                    Among the most contentious subjects covered, hydraulic clam dredging continued to invite
                sharp criticism from scientists, as well as the sports fishing community. The principle concern here
                has been the impact of dredging on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) - one of the bays' richest
                nurseries - notwithstanding efforts to delineate and prohibit dredging where the aquatic grasses
                currently exist. 6r, as Vice President of the American Fishing Association noted in his presentation,
                a clear priority in stewardship of the coastal bays should follow the caveat: "It's the habitat, stupid!"
       Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
                                                              November 11-12, 1999
|ill	kiJi>ii!i!ijii,iiiiiL i ,.„
              jillj	 S.iii	
  •i       .    i              • I                 | •,  „ ' .     |  :,              •    . .    I ..ill, "I!
	iiiiiii i.'ji i.' .i,.,:,:*	 ink, ,. i	,;	 :	j	,,i,i >i ,'	j-	n	:	•  ...»	ii:.:::, nil:	t :. a	ti .41.1 =.,: •i,,i.:,r-,, 	;,'	  • , •	i	it i » i	

            Another concern was the recent decline in crab and horseshoe crab populations - and the lack
        of data to support a clear direction of how to correct the problem. Is there too much commercial
        pressure on the blue crab populations?  Increasing mortality of crabs in mid-summer from
        Hematodinium sp.? Disturbance of sook migrations and their wintering beds?  No answers, but
        certainly a mandate to devote more time, money and effort toward a solution.

            The flounder received similar attention as the most sought-after finfish -and a matter of conflict
        between commercial netters and recreational fishermen. The issue here was simpler, if unresolved:
        how should the flounder "catch" be fairly divided between the resource-users, not just locally but
        also along the entire Atlantic coast?

            Looking at successful management strategies, presentations by Dr. Scott Nixon and Mr. Billy
        Causey suggested the beneficial efforts of establishing aquatic sanctuaries that protect the resource
        while sustaining - and even enhancing - species populations outside the sanctuary areas. No doubt
        the time has come for water-use planning, just as it did for land-use planning and zoning a half
        century ago.

            Strategies to mitigate the pressures from increasing tourist visits and year-around residential
        population growth were also highlighted in presentations, exhibits and poster sessions devoted to
        aquaculture and ecotourism, among other topics.  In fact, the numerous exhibits (35)  provided a
        substantial addition to the  presented data and covered secondary aquatic species and stressor
        issues that were beyond the limit of the conference.

            In the wrap-up panel discussion, resource managers, legislators and the business community
        noted the short-falls in Best Management Practices outlined during the conference, and pledged
        their support to the development of a cooperative Aquatic Resources Management Plan, which has
        been lacking in focus until  now.

                                          Tom Patton, President
                                        Assateague Coastal Trust
November 11-12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

         The views expressed in  these Proceedings are those of the individual authors and do not
         necessarily reflect the views and  policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
         Scientists in EPA's Office of Research and Development have prepared the EPA sections, and those
         sections have been reviewed in accordance with EPA's peer and administrative review policies and
         approved for presentation and publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
         not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.

         This material is based in part upon work supported by Economic Development: Administration, U.S.
         Department of Commerce Grant Agreement through a grant to the Rural Development Center,
         University of Maryland Eastern Shore, an EDA University, under agreement number EDA 01-19-
         Preparation of these Proceedings was coordinated by the Assateague Coastal Trust through an
         agreement with Owl Creek Consulting, and funded by a grant from the Coastal Zone Management
         Division of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

         The Proceedings were reviewed by the Peer Review Committee of Tom Pheiffer, US EPA, Dr. Kent
         Price,  University of Delaware, Eric Walbeck, US EPA, and F. Philip Wirth, III, Versar, Inc. Their
         efforts in improving this document are greatly appreciated.

         The appropriate citation for this report is:

         Kutz, F., P. Koenings, and L. Adelhardt, 1999. Proceedings - Delmarva Coastal Bays Conference
            III: Tri-State Approaches to Preserving Aquatic Resources. U.S. Environmental Protection
            Agency, National Health and  Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology
            Division, Narrangansett, Rl. EPA/620/R-00/001.
         This report is AED Contribution Number AED-00-005.
         Key Words:    Estuaries, Indicators, Estuarine Assessment, Delmarva Coastal Bays, Clamming,
                       Crabs, Fish, Resource Conservation, Marine Zoning, Aquaculture, Environmental
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
November 11-12, 1999

        The Assateague Coastal Trust sincerely appreciates the financial and inkind support
        and assistance of the conference sponsors.  In addition, the Trust would like to
        acknowledge the members of the Planning Committee who were essential in
        developing a meaningful program and assisting at all stages  in  the  planning
        Planning Committee

           Jim Alderman, Delaware Center for Inland Bays
           David Blazer, Maryland Coastal Bays Program           ;
           Nancy Butowski, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
           Mary Conley, Maryland Department of Natural Resources / Coastal Zone Management
           Sarah Cooksey, Delaware Coastal Management Program
           Tom Jones, Salisbury State University                  !
           Phyllis Koenings, Assateague Coastal Trust
           Frederick Kutz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Jim McGowan, Accomack-Northaimpton P.D.C.
           Laura McKay, Virginia Coastal Program, Department of Environmental Quality
           Francis O'Beirn, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
           Tom Patton, Assateague Coastal Trust
           Kent Price, University of Delaware
           Bruce Richards, Delaware Center for Inland Bays
           Gwynne Schultz, Maryland Department of Natural Resources / Coastal Zone Management
           Eric Walbeck, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Cathy Wazniak, Maryland Department of Natural Resources / Coastal Bays Program
           Dave Wilson, Maryland Coastal Elays Program
November 11-12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Conference Donors
             Assateague Coastal Trust
             Assateague Island National
             Seashore / National Park Service
        Bay Shore Development Corporation
             Chincoteague National Wildlife
             Refuge / U.S. Fish and
             Wildlife Service
	 	    Community Foundation
Community   of the Eastern Shore
             Delaware Center
             for the Inland Bays
             Delaware Coastal
             Delaware Department of
             Natural Resources and
             Environmental Control
             Maryland Coastal Bays Program
             Maryland Coastal Zone
             Management Program
                                                    University of Delaware
                                                                      Maryland Department of
                                                                      Natural Resources
                                                                      Salisbury State University
                                                                      The Nature Conservancy /
                                                                      Virginia Coast Reserve
                                                                      Town of Ocean City,
                                                                      U.S. Environmental
                                                                      Protection Agency
                                                                      University of Maryland
                                                                      E;astern Shore Cooperative
                                                                      EExtension Service
                                                                      University of Delaware
                                                                      Sea Grant Program
                                                                      University of Maryland
                                                                      Sea Grant Program
                                                                      Virginia Institute of
                                                                      Marine Science
                                                                      Worcester County,
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
November 11-12, 1999


        ABSTRACT		,	ii

        PREFACE	.	  iv

            Tom Patton, Assateague Coastal Trust	i	5

        SESSION I                                           .  |  .

            Nutrient Enrichment of Shallow Marine Ecosystems       ]•  •
            Scott Nixon, Graduate School of Oceanography, Rhode Island Sea Grant  	6


            Status of Important Finfish Stocks in Maryland's Coastal Bays
            James F. Casey, Maryland Department of Natural Resources	 11

            Finfish Resources of Delaware's Inland Bays
            Stewart F. Michels, Fish & Wildlife Division, Delaware Department of
            Natural Resources and Environmental Control  	'•	18

            Recent Trends in Blue Crab Fishery
            John R. McConaugha, Oceanography Department, Old Dominion University  	22

            The Status of Stocks:  Blue Crab Fishery in Maryland's Coastal Bays
            Alan Wesche, Fisheries Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources	26

            Molluscan Inventory of the Maryland Coastal Bays
            Mitchell Tarnowski, Maryland Department of Natural Resources	30

            The Horseshoe Crab Stock Assessment Process: Searching for Clues
            Michael J. Millard, Northeast Fishery Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	33

            Migrant Shorebirds - Role of the Delmarva Coastal Bays
            Bryan Watts, Center for Conservation Biology, College of William & Mary	36
November 11-12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

         SESSION  II

            Complex Issues, Simple Truths
            Bill Matuszeski, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office	39
                      ':•                                          i
            The Ecological Condition of the Delmarva Coastal Bays
            Frederick W. (Rick) Kutz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	43
            Water and Habitat Quality Effects on Living Resources
            Robert Magnien, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division, Maryland
            Department of Natural Resources  	'.	50

            Identifying & Resolving Fisheries Management Conflicts in a
            Recovering Seagrass System
            Robert J. Orth, School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science 	53

            An Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms in Delaware's Inland Bays
            and Coastal Estuaries
            Bruce A.  Richards, Delaware Center for the Inland Bays	54

            Increasing Risk Factors: Pfiesteria
            Dave Goshorn, Living Resource Assessment,  Maryland Department
            of Natural Resources	56

            Increasing Risk Factors: Hematodinium
            Gretchen Messick, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and
            Biomolecular Research, Oxford Lab	1	I	59

            PANEL DISCUSSION:  Harvest Pressures and Equipment Impacts -
            How to Maintain a Sustainable Catch	62
                      «i                          ,                :
                Bill Baker, Bill's Sport Shop, Rehoboth Beach, DE
                Harley Speir, MD DNR Biological Monitoring and Analysis Program
                Bob Orth, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                Richard Welton, Virginia Coastal Conservation Association
                Steve Dawson, Maryland Department of Environment, "Outdoor Report" WBOC-TV

            Climate Change & Implications for the Coastal Bays
            Ann Fisher, Mid-Atlantic Assessment on Climate Change,
            Pennsylvania State University  	69
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
November 11-12, 1999

        SESSION  III

           Sarah Taylor-Rogers, Maryland Department of Natural Resources 	74

           Fishable Waters Act                                 •
           Norville Prosser, American Sportfishing Association	76


           Use of Marine Zoning in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to
           Balance Resource Protection with Utilization            '
           Billy Causey, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary	80

           Rhode Island's Salt Pond Regional Management Plan: A Case Study
           Virginia Lee, Rhode Island Sea Grant Advisory Services in Coastal Management 	84


           Creation of a Water Use Conflict Memorandum of Agreement
           for the North Landing River                           '
           Eric Walberg, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission	86

           Water-Use Planning Delmarva's Coastal Bays: Addressing Carrying Capacity Issues
           Jim  Falk, Marine Advisory Service, Delaware Sea Grant College	88

           Development of a Maryland Coastal Bays Water-Use  Management Plan
           Eric Schwaab, Fisheries Services, Maryland Department of Natural Resources 	92

           Marine Resource Protection Initiatives at Assateague Island National Seashore
           Carl Zimmerman,  Assateague Island National Seashore	95


           Resource Supplementation through Aquaculture or
            "From Cottage Industry to an Economic Mainstay^
            Mark Luckenbach, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Eastern Shore Laboratory	97

            PANEL DISCUSSION:  Managing Conflicts in Light of Increasing User Pressures
            and Stressed Resources	;.	 100

                Ricks Savage, Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council
                Norville Prosser, American Sportfishing Association
                Jack Travelstead, Fisheries Management Div., Virginia Marine Resources Commission
                Jim Mathias, Ocean City, Maryland                 ,
                Marc Koenings, Assateague Island National Seashore
                Henry Koellein, American Sportfishing Association
                Billy Causey,  Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

            Status of Federal Legislation                         \
            Erika Feller, Congressman Gilchest's Office 	,	105
November-11-12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

         SESSION  IV

            Community Aquaculture Programs in Virginia - Oyster Gardening
            Francis X. O'Beirn, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,  Eastern Shore Laboratory	107
                                                 „                !  ,       I
            The Rpje of Water Keeper Programs in Estuary Protection
            John Torgan, Narragansett BayKeeper, Save The Bay	':.... 110

            Partnership Puts Ideals into Action - Delmarva Low Impact Tourism
            Experiences (DLITE)
            Steve Parker, Virginia Coast Reserve, The Nature Conservancy	112


            PANEL DISCUSSION: Developing Action Items for the Tri-State Region	114
                Jeanne Lynch, Board of Commissioners, Worcester County, Maryland
                Charles "Buddy"  R. Jenkins, Sr., Bay Shore Development Corporation
                Margo E. Jackson, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA
                Shirley Price, Delaware State Representative
                Eric Schwaab, MD DNR, Fisheries Division
                Suzanne Schwartz, Ocean and Coastal Protection Division, EPA


            Bruce Richards, Delaware Center for the Inland Bays	122

            David Blazer, Maryland Coastal Bays Program	123

         APPENDIX A - Web Site Resource List	   124

         APPENDIX B - Participants		127

         APPENDIX C - Exhibitors	140

         APPENDIX D - Conference Evaluation	147
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
November 11-12, 1999


Friday Morning, November 12

8:00 am - 9:00 am      Registration & Continental Breakfast - Premiere Lobby

9:00 am - 9:15 am      Welcome, Introductions and Overview of Conference
                       Mr. Wayne Cannon, WGMD-FM Radio
                       Mr. Jim Mathias, Mayor of Ocean City, Maryland

                     SESSION I - Moderator: Dr. Walter R. Boynton, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University
                     of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
9:15 am -9:45 am
Keynote Address: Nutrient Enrichment of Shallow Marine Ecosystems
   Dr. Scott Nixon, Professor, Graduate School of Oceanography, Rhode Island
   Sea Grant

                     Status of Important Finfish Stocks in Maryland's Coastal Bays
                       Mr. James F. Casey, Fishery Biologist, MD Department of Natural Resources
                     Finfish Resources of Delaware's Inland Bays
                       Mr. Stewart F. Michels, Fish & Wildlife Division, DE Department of Natural Resources and
                       Environmental Control                    '
                     Recent Trends in Blue Crab Fishery
                       Dr. John R. McConaugha, Associate Professor, Oceanography Department, Old Dominion

10:30 am -10:45 am   Break - Premiere Lobby


                     The Status of Stocks: Blue Crab Fishery in Maryland's Coastal Bays
                       Mr. Alan Wesche, Fisheries Service, MD Department of Natural Resources
                     Molluscan Inventory of the Maryland Coastal Bays
                       Mr. Mitchell Tarnowski, MD Department of Natural Resources
                     The Horseshoe Crab Stock Assessment Process: Searching for Clues
                       Dr. Michael J. Millard, NE Fishery Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                     Migrant Shorebirds - Role of the Delmarva Coastal Bays
                       Dr. Bryan Watts, Director, Center for Conservation Biology, College of William & Mary

11:45 am -12:00 pm   Questions & Answers

12:00 pm -1:30  pm    Lunch and Exhibit Viewing - Caribbean Hall    ;
November 11-12, 1999
                                             Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Friday Afternoon, November 12

2:00 pm - 3:00 pm
3:00 pm-3:15pm

3:15pm-3:45 pm
3:45 pm - 4:30 pm
4:30 pm - 4:45 pm

5:30pm-7:00 pm

7:00 pm
SESSION   II - Moderator: Mr. Stanley L. Laskowski, Director, Environmental Services
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

Keynote Address: Complex Issues, Simple Truths
   Mr. Bill Matuszeski, Director, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office


The Ecological Condition of the Delmarva Coastal Bays
   Dr. Frederick W. (Rick) Kutz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water and Habitat Quality Effects on Living Resources
   Dr. Robert Magnien, Director, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division, MD DNR
Identifying & Resolving Fisheries Management Conflicts in a Recovering Seagrass System
   Dr. Robert J. Orth, Professor, School of Marine Science, VA Institute of Marine Science
An Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms in Delaware's Inland Bays and Coastal Estuaries
   Dr. Bruce A. Richards, Executive Director, Delaware Center for the Inland Bays

Break - Premiere Lobby


Increasing Risk Factors: Pfiesteria
   Dr. Dave Goshorn, Living Resource Assessment, MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Increasing Risk Factors: Hematodinium
   Ms. Gretchen Messick, Centerfor Coastal Environmental Health & Biomolecular Research,
   Oxford Lab

PANEL DISCUSSION: Harvest Pressures and Equipment Impacts - How to
Maintain a Sustainable Catch
   Mr. Bill Baker, Owner, Bill's Sport Shop, Rehoboth Beach, DE
   Mr. Harley Speir, Chief of Biological Monitoring & Analysis Program, MD DNR
   Dr. Bob Orth, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
   Mr. Sam Martin, Owner, Martin Fish Company, Ocean City, MD
   Mr. Richard Welton, Executive Director, Coastal Conservation Assoc./ VA
   Mr. Steve Dawson, MD Department of Environment, "Outdoor Report" WBOC-TV

Questions and Answers

Cash Bar Reception & Exhibit Viewing - Caribbean Hall

Guest Speaker: Climate Change & Implications for the Coastal Bays
   Dr. Ann Fisher, Mid-Atlantic Assessment on Climate Change, Pennsylvania
   State University
                                          !  '        I                       j
Dinner Buffet - Caribe Ballroom
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
                                                           November 11-12, 1999

Saturday Morning, November 13

8:00 am - 8.45 am     Registration & Continental Breakfast - Premiere Lobby
8:45 am - 9:00 am
9:00 am - 9:20 am
Welcome and Friday Recap
   Mr. David Blazer, Executive Director, Maryland Coastal Bays Program
   Ms. Sarah Taylor-Rogers, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

SESSION III - Moderator: Dr. Jonathan Phinney, Water Quality Scientist, Center for Marine
Conservation, Washington DC

Keynote Address: Fishable Waters Act
   Mr. Norville Prosseir, Vice President, American Sportfishing Association

                     Use of Marine Zoning in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to Balance Resource
                     Protection with Utilization
                       Mr. Billy Causey, Superintendent, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
                     Rhode Island's Salt Pond Regional Management Plan: A Case Study
                       Dr. Virginia Lee, Leader, Rhode Island Sea Grant Advisory Services in Coastal Mgt.


                     Creation of a Water Use Conflict Memorandum of Agreement for the North Landing River
                       Mr. Eric Walberg, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
                     Water-Use Planning Delmarva's Coastal Bays: Addressing Carrying Capacity Issues
                       Mr. Jim Falk, Director, Marine Advisory Service, Delaware Sea Grant College
                     Development of a Maryland Coastal Bays Water-Use Management Plan
                       Mr. Eric Schwaab, Director, Fisheries Service, MD Dept. of Natural Resources
                     Marine Resource Protection Initiatives atAssateague Island National Seashore
                       Mr. Carl Zimmerman, Resource Mgt. Specialist, Assateague Island National Seashore
10:45 am-11:00 am

11:00 am-11:15 am
12:00 pm-12:15 pm

12:15 pm-1:45pm
Break - Premiere Lobby                      i


Resource Supplementation through Aquaculture 'or "From Cottage Industry to an Economic
   Dr. Mark Luckenbach, Director, VA Institute of Marine Science Eastern Shore Laboratory

PANEL DISCUSSION: Managing Conflicts in Light of Increasing User Pressures and Stressed
   Mr. Ricks Savage, Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council
   Mr. Norville Prosseir, Vice President, American Sportfishing Association
   Mr. Jack Travelstead, Chief, Fisheries Mgt. Division, VA Marine Resources Commission
   Mayor Jim Mathias, Mayor, Ocean City, Maryland
   Mr. Marc Koenings, Superintendent, Assateague Island National Seashore

Questions and Answers

Lunch - Atrium, 2nd Floor                     :
November 11-12, 1999
                                             Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Saturday Afternoon, November 13
1:45 pm - 2:30 pm
2:30 pm-3:15pm
3:15 pm-3:30 pm

3:30 pm - 3:45 pm
SESSION  IV: Moderator: Ms. Sarah Cooksey, Administrator, Delaware Coastal Programs


Community Aquaculture Programs in Virginia - Oyster Gardening
   Dr. Francis X. O'Beirn, VA Institute of Marine Science, Eastern Shore Laboratory
The Role of Water Keeper Programs in Estuary Protection
   Mr. John Torgan, Narragansett BayKeeper, Save The Bay
Partnership Puts Ideals into Action - Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences (DLITE)
   Mr. Steve Parker, Virginia Coast Reserve, The Nature Conservancy


PANEL DISCUSSION: Developing Action Items for the Tri-State Region
   Mrs. Jeanne Lynch, President, Board of Commissioners, Worcester County, Maryland
   Mr. Charles "Buddy" R. Jenkins, Sr., President, Bay Shore Development Corporation
   Ms. Margo E. Jackson,  Deputy  Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
   Management, NOAA
   Mr. Henry Koellein, Maryland Saltwater Sportsfishermen's Association
   Honorable Shirley Price, Delaware State Representative
   Mr. Eric Schwaab, Director, MD Fisheries, MD Department of Natural Resources
   Ms. Suzanne Schwartz, Director, Ocean and Coastal Protection Division, U.S. EPA

Questions and Answers

Wrap Up and Adjourn
   Dr. Bruce Richards, Executive Director, Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
   Mr. David Blazer, Executive Director, Maryland Coastal Bays Program
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
                                                           November 11-12, 1999


                                    TOM PATTON, PRESIDENT
                                 ASSATIEAGUE COASTAL TRUST
Wayne Cannon and Mayor Mathias are a tough act to
follow, but I have to add to their comments that this is a
great time to be on Delmarva. This is a fantastic weekend
and I think many of you out here, if you were not in this
room today, you would be with me, out fishing on the
coastal bays,  not very far from here. The rockfish are

I  want to  welcome  the speakers  participating  in our
program, especially those that came in late last night or
had to travel  from  afar this morning.   I'd like  to also
welcome   the  resource   management   agency
representatives at federal, state, and local levels.. And I'd
particularly like to thank all of those private citizens who've
come here this morning, who representthe many interests
that go  into sustaining and  protecting and using the
aquatic resources in these bays-be they sport fishermen,
recreators, or commercial fishing interests. We all have
a place to  use the resources and many of us have been
waiting for this event for a  long time to focus on the
coastal bays.

r think those of us who live along the seashore have been
hearing  for  many  years what's  taking place  in the
Chesapeake Bay, and that it's a wonderful estuary. But
sometimes down here we say, "Well,  why doesn't the
media give us some of the attention?" We also hear
about all that's taking place in trying to conserve the big
resources  on  the  continental  shelf-the  tuna,  the
swordfish, and so forth.  And sometimes we feel Ijke a
little sliver of meat between these two thick pieces of
bread that are overshadowing what we have to offer here.

This meeting is our time to give our input on what we want
to see over the next 20 years. Much of what you're going
to hear over the next couple of days is positive. Many
good things are taking place on Delmarva.  But there are
stresses, and now is the time to look at these stresses,
because we are in an area that is the fastest growing area
of both Delaware and Maryland. Even on the Eastern
Shore of Virginia, we are seeing the stirrings of economic
development and demographic changes. Now is the time
to be looking at what we can do to sustain the resource, to
enhance  the  resource,  to manage it, and to share it
equitably among all of the users.

Before ! turn !the program over to our moderator, I would
particularly  like to  recognize  Phyllis  Koenings, the
Executive Director of the Assateague Coastal Trust, who's
worked so hard over the last four months in helping make
this conference possible. Thank you very much.
Friday, November 11, 1999
               Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                         SCOTT NIXON, PH.D.
   Note; 7770 following document Is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
   Nixon. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for publication.

   Some of my first and finest experiences being out on the
   water were crabbing in Rehoboth Bay. I think that as a
   result of those experiences, I have had a life-long interest
   in these shallow water ecosystems that you call "inland
   bays". We call them "salt ponds" in New  England, and
   most of the rest of the world calls them "coastal lagoons".
   But, by whatever name we call them, they are very special
   kinds of ecological systems.  It is unfortunate that most of
   my colleagues in marine ecology and oceanography have
   pretty much ignored this special environment until the last
   10 years or so.  I don't know if it is because you can't
   come into these waters in sophisticated oceanographic
   research ships, but they were studied much less than the
   phytoplankton-dominated, open coastal waters of larger
   bays and estuaries.  So, I appreciate very much the
   invitation of Kent Price of the University of Delaware and
   the Assateague Coastal Trust to participate with all of you
   in  talking  about these very  shallow systems.   An
   oceanographer has to call them "very shallow systems"
   because when oceanographers talk about shallow they
   mean less  100 meters deep,  and these  systems are
   usually less  than 2 or 3 meters deep.   Some of my
   colleagues who study blue water oceanography say that
   your I.Q. is directly proportional  to the depth of the water
   you work in.  I don't subscribe to that point of view.

   One of the things that people in marine ecology struggle
   with all the time is envy for limnologists, those who study
   lakes, because the lake people have so many lakes to
   manipulate and study, and experiments can de done with
   them. We can't do that in the marine environment very
   easily, so one of the things we have done at Rhode Island
   has been to build little plankton-based bays inside tanks.
   This has been done at the Marine Ecosystems Research
   Laboratory (MERL).  These tanks are giant aquaria, or
   living models, of Narragansett Bay. Narragansett Bay is
a relatively deep embayment. It is almost ten meters deep
on average, and it doesn't have any plants living on the
bottom. The bottom is "heterotrophic", which means that it
doesn't produce any organic matter. All the production, the
total energy base of that  estuary,  comes  from the
phytoplankton in the water column. This is the kind of
system we know the most about and  has  been studied
most intensively and simulated  using  various computer
models during recent decades.

I want to discuss the results of some experiments done in
these tanks, to show you how well-behaved that kind of an
ecosystem  is,  and then  contrast  it  with the kind of
environment we are talking about here in the coming days.
We did experiments  in these tanks  where we added
inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus, and silica to  the water
every day, in different amounts, over a two-year period,
and we studied the response of several factors to that
experimental addition. This was a very simple experiment
and one that is very relevant to all of us because we know
that a major human impact on the coastal environment is
the fertilization of coastal waters by nutrient runoff and
discharge. That is a ubiquitous anthropogenic perturbation
that has been  going on for decades,  and  it is going to
continue and probably get a lot worse.

The annual average chlorophyll in the water column and
the productivity of that phytoplankton-based system over
the year as a function of the amount of nitrogen being put
into the system was compared. The more nitrogen we add,
production rises, and the standing crop of chlorophyll rises.
It is very well-behaved. The results in the different tanks
tightly fit the observations.  That is the kind of result we
would like. It makes you believe you have predictive power
and you can relate the response of the ecosystem to the
amount of nutrients coming into it.  It is a  wonderful
management tool that gives you a great deal of power.
   Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI
                          Friday, November 11, 1999
',:,' t

But, the kinds of systems we are talking about here today
share one really important characteristic.  All of these
coastal systems have a very shallow water column.  It is
important because it dominates everything about these
systems. It means that wind, for example, can be very
effective in mixing them vertically, so that we tend to have
fewer problems with dissolved oxygen in these: shallow
systems than we do in deeper bays and estuaries. But it
also means the wind can suspend the sediment on the
bottom easily and make the water very turbid, and that
creates some problems. It also means that light reaches
all the way to the bottom, and once that  happens, it
changes the whole ecology a great deal because instead
of just having phytoplankton, single-celled plants to run
the ecosystem on, suddenly we have multi-celled plants
that grow all over the bottom sediments. We get mats of
diatoms and filamentous algae that  grow right on the
sediment-water surface. Then we get macro-algae, or
what  people call seaweeds, that  grow in the shallow
systems -sometimes in great abundance. It means that
we can have  sea grasses, like eelgrass,  or Zostera,
growing in the sediments. These are angiosperms, seed-
bearing plants, that grow here and  not in  the deeper
water.  And  on  those plants  grow other  plaints,  the
epiphytes that grow on the leaves of the sea grasses.
And then, of course, we have the  phytoplankton in the
shallow water itself.  So the whole energy base of these
shallow systems is much, much more complicated and
diverse than  it is in the continental shelf or deeper
embayments, like Delaware Bay. That has very important
consequences for the way they  respond  to nutrient
enrichment,  and to the way they produce finfish and

Another characteristic  of these  shallow systems is that
many of them are connected to the ocean by very shallow
channels. Often these have been stabilized by engineers
and made permanent, but in the past they were more
ephemeral and they used to open and close. Because we
have these narrow inlets, we often say that these shallow
bays are frequently poorly flushed.  I use that word with a
great  deal of reservation because I think the concept of
"flushed" for an ecosystem is unfortunate, because most
of us, if you will excuse me being blunt, are experienced
with  the  word "flushed" as to do with a toilet.  The
hydrodynamics and the physics of flushing in an estuary
are very different from the flushing in a toilet, because in
a toilet when you flush, you get rid of everything. When
we talk about the flushing rate of a bay or estuany, bear in
mind that this is not that kind of a process. You don't get
rid of all the water in the bay or estuary and replace it with
new  water.  What  happens is that things get slowly
exchanged  between the estuary and the offshore water.

If, for example,  the flushing  rate is 20 days for  an
embayment, it generally means that if you had put a
conservative dye  in that bay, (that didn't react with the
water), after 20 days you  would have a third of it still
remaining in the lagoon, left and two-thirds would have
been lost offshore.  This is what we call an exponential
process.  In absolute terms,  concentration of the dye drops
quickly at first, but because  you lose the same percentage
every day, after 20 days of flushing time, you still have a
third of the dye left; and 20 days later, there will be a third
of that third left.   So  I think when  people  talk about
pollutants in coastal bays  and flushing rates, the  term
flushing is a bit of a misnomer. You have to remember you
are talking about a very different process.

The other thing that is important is that when people are
talking  about I chemicals  like  nitrogen,  they are  not
conservative. , They are taken up very dramatically by the
biology in that lagoon. So the flushing time for water, or for
a conservative dye, in a place like Rehoboth Bay, is very
different than the residence time for a highly bio-reactive
chemical like nitrogen.  It may stay in there much longer
than a passive tracer, like a  dye, would. So we have to not
confuse f.hose!two things.

But the shallowness of these systems, and their biological
complexity, raises interesting questions for  how  they
behave.  It is unfortunate that we have started studying,
with some intensity, these much more complex systems, so
recently.  As a result, our knowledge base for managing
them, and making predictions about them, is not as good
as it is for the deeper,  more offshore, oceanic systems.
We have to realize that we  don't have the same levels of
understanding and certainty.

I have gone through the literature and looked at the primary
production for shallow bays like the ones you have here -
the Delmarva, Coastal  Bays and a number of others all
around the world.  Places like the Lagoon of Venice even,
which is a similar system in many ways to yours  here.  I
looked  at their rate of primary production compared to the
rate at which nitrogen is added to those systems per unit
area, and I have corrected it for flushing rate. The point I
want to make is that they are very poorly behaved. There
is no nice regularity in the response of these very shallow,
biologically complex-systems to nitrogen loading like there
is in the phytoplankton-based systems.

The other point is that they  are high. You get much more
response for each  atom of nitrogen in  these shallow
environments, than you do in the deeper ones. The same
information can be expressed per unit volume of the
coastal lagoons, because  it is argued that if you  start
comparing these very shallow systems with much deeper
systems you can't compare them per unit of fertilizer you
put in per unit area, you have to compare per unit volume
because they are so much shallower. The same data per
unit volume are still poorly  behaved. Even  when we
Friday, November 11, 1999
                Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

correct  them for flushing rate,  they  are still poorly
behaved. So we don't have the kind of predictive capacity
in these systems that we do in the phytoplankton-based

Here is another important difference. In the MERL tanks
that I discussed earlier, we have asked whether there is a
relationship between how much  nitrogen we dump into
these systems every day and the concentration of nitrogen
we measure in the water, if we had a monitoring program
out there measuring dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the
water.  Does it relate very well to how much is going in?
It is a simple sounding question and you think the answer
should be "yes".  In fact, in the MERL tanks you do get a
pretty good  relationship.  It behaves nicely, although it
doesn't behave like a conservative tracer. Not all the
nitrogen shows up in the water, but enough of it does that
we see a good relationship between how much is in the
tank as we measure it in a monitoring program and how
much is going in.

In very shallow  systems, filled  with sea  grasses and
seaweeds and algal mats on the bottom, we don't find any
relationship  between the amount of  nitrogen we are
putting in and how much we see in the water column. The
water  is  essentially stripped  of dissolved  inorganic
nitrogen all summer long. Even though huge amounts are
being put in, it vanishes. That is because it is all tied up
in the biology.  In the shallow systems, you get biological
organisms that are larger than phytoplankton, they turn
over slowly, and their metabolism is lower. But these
organisms act as a big storage for the nitrogen, so a lot of
it is tied up in the biology and we don't see  it in the water
any more. That is another big difference between the two
kinds of environments.

One of the  questions  that is often asked about very
shallow systems is, when we begin to add more and more
nutrients to them, which plant group wins? As outlined
previously, we have the algae on the mud surface, sea
grasses, seaweeds (macro-algae) and phytoplankton.
Which one of those groups does best when you begin to
fertilize the  tanks?  In the  scientific  literature, some
authors contend that phytoplankton always win out, while
others find that the seaweeds dominate.  This is simply
the result of surveying a lot of literature and finding out
which group of  plants is found  in that shallow water
system and  how much nitrogen is estimated to be going
Into that system. Each of the numbers is 10 times the one
before.  So we  have a 1000-fold range in how  much
nitrogen is going into these different coastal bays around
the  world.   Some systems dots  are dominated by
phytoplankton as the major primary producers, others are
dominated by seaweeds (macro-algae), while others are
dominated buy sea grasses  as  conspicuous, dominant
primary producers.  This is done based on nitrogen per
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
unit area and nitrogen per unit volume of the shallow water

The important thing to notice is that one can have almost
any combination.  You can have systems dominated by
phytoplankton  that  are  very  oligotrophic,  not  heavily
fertilized, or some that are extremely heavily fertilized-
1000 times heavier. Seaweeds extend across a very wide
range.  There is no clear separation in the data as to
whether phytoplankton  or seaweeds are going to be
dominant in highly fertilized systems.   One thing that is
clear, is that we don't get sea grasses in systems that are
heavily enriched with nitrogen, they disappear.

If we can study phytoplankton-based systems using tanks
like the MERL tanks, can we do the same thing with these
shallow water systems? Can we  make living models of
those?  We  built shallow, coastal bay models that are a
little over one meter deep and 4 square meters each. We
used these because we thjnk they are much more reliable
than working with single species. One of the traditional
approaches in science is to take a single species out of
nature,  culture it, have  it there by  itself, and  then do
experiments with it.  But does that mean anything when
you go back into nature and all the different parts of the
system are together and interacting with each other? Often
we find that it doesn't. So we are trying to do experiments
not with the whole piece of nature, because we don't have
all of the complexity of the real world in these tanks, but
with a whole lot more than you get in a culture with a single
species because we are able to capture a lot of interaction
that is happening. We wanted  to see if there were some
interesting interactions between temperature and nutrient
enrichment, because the environment is getting warmer.
Every summer for the last 8 or 10 years has been warmer
than the one before, and we wondered if there were some
interesting interactions between higher temperatures and
fertilization,  since both of these things are  happening

We ran some experiments last summer where we took
long-term  temperature records in the salt ponds on the
Rhode Island coast.  We maintained some tanks at the 10-
year  mean temperature,  we  ran some at 3-4 degrees
warmer, and some 3-4 degrees cooler all summer long.
We made them all the same to begin and then we fertilized
some with nitrogen and phosphorus and didn't fertilize
others.  Then we looked for any interaction between the
temperature and the nutrient enrichment.

In addition to the phytoplankton and  zooplankton and
bacteria in the water,  we put eelgrass,  red seaweed
(Agardhiella), a green seaweed (Enteromorpha), and fish,
oysters, and scallops, etc. into the tanks. So we had a rich
biological community in there.
                           Friday, November 11, 1999

First of all, in the plot of the resulting phytoplankton in the
water column  and the  biomass, or standing  crop, of
seaweeds in the tanks, we see right away, without putting
any nutrients in, there is a temperature effect.  We get
more seaweed growing  in the warmer tanks and we get
phytoplankton blooms in the warmer tanks which are not
evident in the mean temperature tanks or the cooler tanks.
This has nothing to do with nutrient enrichment, just warm
summers, and these are not unrealistically warm. These
are summers that we have already  encountered during
the last 10 years in the temperature record.

When we add nutrients  we get very  large phytoplankton
blooms in the early spring. The phytoplankton blooms last
longer in the cold tanks than in  the warm tanks, which
means in the colder weather you could assume that this
would  be  worse  for the  eelgrass   because  the
phytoplankton is shading the eelgrass longer in the early
spring when the grass is trying to grow and come up from
the sediments, and the bloom lasts longer there.  You
might make that prediction, but you would be wrong as I
will demonstrate later.

We also grew a lot more seaweed in the warm  fertilized
tanks than in the cold  fertilized  tanks.  There is  a big
explosion in the seaweed biomass in the fertilized tanks,
almost 6000 grams of seaweed.  The interesting thing is
that these are  not the seaweeds we put in the tanks to
start with, these are invasive seaweeds that came into the
tanks from spores. We flushed the  tanks at 10% a day
with Narragansett Bay water, so these seaweeds entered
as invaders into our mesocosm tanks, and they bloomed
enormously. The species we put in the tank died off and
didn't compete with these invasive  species which took
over.  There is an interaction between the temperature
and the nutrients that yields more seaweeds.

We also looked at what  happened to eelgrass. Eelgrass
had very little height growth over time in the warm tanks,
either the unenriched or  enriched. The ones that grew the
best and got tallest were in the cold tanks with nutrient

The lowest level of epiphyte cover on the eelgrass came
in the  warm tanks and the warm tanks with nutrients.
These are not significantly different statistically, but on
average there was a little less biomass of the epi phytes on
the warm and nutrient treatment,  probably because they
were shaded by the seaweeds floating on the top.  The
invasive algae that grew there shaded out the epiphytes.
They also shaded out the sea grasses, and there is a very
dramatic difference in the survival of the eelgrass in the
tanks with warm temperature and nutrients.

The grass did  very well in the cold temperature, much
better than it did in the warm temperature. The warmest
summers we get are not good for eelgrass.  At least with
our northern strains of Zostera, really warm summers are
too warm for pur plants because they are very sensitive.
So a few hot isummers  may go a long way to explaining
why we are seeing a joss of our eelgrass in New England.

When you combine the  higher temperatures with nutrient
loading, the eelgrass does  not do well at all. We  lost
virtually all of the eelgrass  in that combined interactive
effect between the nutrients and the high temperature. In
treatments with  nutrients and low temperature, the grass
persisted.  It did not do as well  as in the controls, but it did
fine. So there is a real potential for a problem there.

Looking at the higher trophic levels, the growth rate of the
winter flounder juveniles, which were put into the tanks was
much better in the cold tanks, and even in the cold nutrient
enriched tanks, than in the warm tanks.  None of the other
fish showed any significant difference in their growth rates.

This is another difference between  these shallow water
ecosystems and the phytoplankton-based ones.   In ten
years of doing  experiments, we have never seen  any
significant  improvement in fish growth with fertilization of
any of  our shallow water  mesocosms.  Data  from lots of
experiments of different kinds on the growth of some of the
major small bait fish that live in eelgrass meadows in these
shallow coastal  bays as a function of the rate at which we
fertilize them over time, shows no fish growth response.
That contrasts with phytoplankton-based systems in bays
and shelf areas where, with higher primary production, we
see  an   increase  in  landings  data  for the  fish.
Phytoplankton-based systems may be production-limited,
and there really is a response of higher trophic levels to the
primary production. In shallow areas, the productivity is so
high anyway, it doesn't respond in a clear way to nutrient
loading, so it doesn't  seem  that we  get  a payoff in
increased  fish production  measured as growth, let alone
reproduction and egg survival.


You were  talking about seaweed and eelgrass, and here
we talk about submerged aquatic vegetation, could  you
define  how you  use these  terms?

Submerged vegetation, the  botanical term is  called
submersed, and that is just a fancy botanical name for
growing underwater, growing submerged.  I think here in
the Chesapeake Bay region, people usually refer to SAVor
submersed aquatic vegetation, meaning the grasses or the
rooted  vegetation, and not including the seaweeds. But if
you took the term submerged literally, it would include
algae, including seaweeds, but people don't use it that way.
They refer to the rooted plants. Seaweeds have no roots,
Friday, November 11, 1999
                Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference ///

they get all their nutrition directly from the water, whereas
there is a whole variety of seed-bearing and flowering
plants that grow under water.  Eelgrass has flowers and it
has seeds. They are inconspicuous flowers, but they are
flowering plants, unlike the seaweeds.

In your experiments on plant growth, how do you factor in
the effect of natural wind conditions on growing plants in
your lab?

That is probably a thing that we don't capture very well;
Mesocosms are not  a  perfect  tool  and  they  don't
reproduce everything we would  like.  We  do have a
current in them. We mix them with a clear acrylic paddle
Wheel. Each one has a  paddle wheel that goes across it,
that rotates in one direction for three or four  hours, then
reverses and rotates in  the other direction. So it sets up
an advective current in the tanks, but it doesn't mimic the
episodic nature of wind  very well.

Are you going to publish this data?

1 hope so. We are going to try anyway. We have to write
it up and it goes to the journals and the reviewers and it
takes time. But we certainly are heading in that direction,

How do you factor in the dissolved gases in the different
temperature gradients?

We measure continuously the dissolved oxygen in each
of the tanks with electrodes and record all that and we
also  have direct  measurements of the air-sea  gas
exchange of dissolved oxygen so we can  correct for
diffusion, and we can calculate the total production and
the total consumption of organic matter in  each tank.
There is an effect of temperature on the saturation level of
the oxygen. Because we keep these tanks  well mixed,
oxygen  never  gets low.  We have never done a low
dissolved oxygen experiment. It would be an interesting
thing to do.

The oxygen was constant during the experiment?

No, it varies, there is a  large diel  cycle in it.  Of course,
during the day photosynthesis raises the oxygen up  to
super-saturation, and at night it goes down, but it doesn't
vary as far from saturation as it would if we didn't mix it.
If we  shut the mixers off,  within four or five hours these
tanks go anaerobic, as your bays  would too.  There is so
much metabolism occurring that if they stratify, or you put
a lid on them, the oxygen  goes right down.
  What were your rooted vascular plants planted in?

  We collected natural mud-sandy substrate from a coastal
  lagoon with a corerand put it in big trays.  Then we brought
  it back in and put it down in the bottom of our tanks. So we
  plant the grasses in a natural sediment.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

                            IN MARYLAND'S COASTAL BAYS

                                        JAMES F. CASEY
The Mid-Atlantic region, including the coastal bays have
been the site of fishing opportunities for many centuries.
Prior to the coming  of  the  first  Europeans, Native
Americans harvested fish and shellfish by a variety of
means.  By  the early seventeenth century, European
colonists recognized that fish were in greater abundance
than in their home waters.  Early fishing efforts targeted
sturgeon, whales and shad but ultimately settled on shad,
herring,  sheepshead and  a variety of  other species
(Pearson, 1944).  Both Native  Americans and colonists
fished  for subsistence and for sport but by the mid -
eighteenth century, shore side  plantations began fishing
commercially to supplement their income.

In the coastal bays area, large plantations often used haul
seines and salted their catch for food and export.  Later,
small companies, using even longer haul seines set off
ocean beaches, supplied growing east coast markets with
a wide variety of fish products.  Saltwater sportfishing
accelerated during the nineteenth century as more and
better equipment was manufactured. After formation of a
stable inlet at Ocean City in 1933, both commercial and
sportfishing interests benefitted by the easy ocean access.

Since then,  landings  by  both   user  groups   have
accelerated here and coastwide,   resulting in intense
fishing pressure on many species.  In the mid-Atlantic
region  today,  nearly half of species  for which a
management plan has been prepared are considered
overfished (NRDC, 1997). In response to declining stocks
and public concern, a formal management process was
initiated and  regional councils  were formed to manage
stocks outside three miles. The Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is an interstate compact
among east coast states which cooperatively manages
shared stocks in state and marine waters. By 1998, 19
   species were  subject to  federally mandated Fishery
   Management Plans (FMP)  while  other  species are
   managed by state plans (ASMFC, 1998).

   In Maryland's coastal bays and Atlantic Ocean, over 40
   species of finfish are harvested commercially while over
   20 species are sought by sportfishers.  In 1995, the
   Atlantic coast accounted for 52% of total U.S. marine
   recreational finfish catch by number and for 62% of the
   fishing trips  (NMFS, 1996).  In  1996, estimates of the
   economic impact of sportfishing statewide to the state of
   Maryland totaled over $896 million (ASA, 1997). In 1995,
   the estimated number of sportfishing trips in Maryland's
   coastal area and Atlantic Ocean approached 1.0 million,
   generating   in  excess of  $111  million  in related
   expenditures. In 1995, commercial landings in Maryland
   were valued at over $60.5 million with an economic impact
   of $151 million (NMFS.1996). Both industries comprise a
   significant part  of  Maryland's economy and have an
   impact far beyond its borders.

   The Maryland DNR Fisheries Service has maintained a
   fish population monitoring project in its coastal bays since
   1972.  The  Coastal Bays Finfish Investigation Project
   characterizes stocks and estimates the annual relative
   abundance of juvenile  and adult marine species in the
   coastal bays and near-shore Atlantic Ocean. This process
   involves monthly sampling from April through October of
   20 sites with a fine mesh trawl and the bi-annual sampling
   of 19 additional sites by seine net. Both methods sample
   primarily juveniles.   Monthly  sampling trips aboard
   commercial ocean trawlers yield data on the age, size and
   sex composition of adult species. Areas of high value as
   spawning and nursery areas are delineated and data on
   juveniles and adults are evaluated to assess the local
   status  of six important species -  summer  flounder,
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference ill

weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, bluefish and black sea
bass.  Limited stock data is also  furnished for eight
additional species.  To date, over 130 species of finfish
have been identified from the coastal bays.

Summer flounder, weakfish, croaker, spot, bluefish and
black sea bass are important finfish of Maryland's coastal
region and are the subject of fishery management plans.
In 1995, these  species represented  64% of the total
number of fish caught by marine recreational anglers in
the mid-Atlantic region with the majority being caught in
bays and inland marine waters or within three miles of the
coast (NMFS,  1996).   In  1995,  mid-Atlantic region
commercial landings for these same species exceeded
600,000 pounds.

Summer Flounder

Summer flounder is found in the coastal bays in both
juvenile and adult stages. Spawning takes place offshore
in the fall and winter with the larvae moving inshore to the
shallow, forage-rich waters of coastal embayments. It is
one of the fastest growing of the North Atlantic flatfish,
reaching 6 to 12 inches (16-30 cm) during its first year of
life and is fully recruited into both sport and commercial
fisheries by age 2, when it averages  16 inches (40 cm) in
length.  This species is sought by both the commercial
and sport fisheries with commercial catches from  the
near-shore  Atlantic  Ocean  while  sport catches are
primarily landed in the coastal bays.

Summer flounder have been the subject of a very active
effort to manage its harvest through a joint Mid-Atlantic
Fisheries  Management  Council  (MAFMC)  -  ASMFC
Fishery Management Plan (FMP), first approved in 1982.
Following a severe decline in the late 1980's, strict harvest
controls were set. Subsequent amendments to the FMP
regulated coastwide and statewide harvest by use of size
limits, creel and landing limits, seasons, daily quotas and
net mesh size limitations. A fixed coastwide harvest quota
of  18,522,000  pounds (8.4 mt), of  which 40% is a
recreational quota, has been in place  since 1996.
Maryland's quota,  based on traditional commercial and
sport harvest levels, was set at 2.04% of the quota, or
226,600 pounds for commercial and 151,000 pounds for
recreational interests. According to Amendment 12 of the
Summer Flounder FMP, the stock is still considered to be
overfished even though it is currently undergoing a slow
recovery (ASMFC, 1998).

Annual catch of juvenile flounder by the Coastal Bays
Fisheries project mirrors the resource recovery (Figure 1).
The abundance of juvenile flounder less than  8 inches
(203 mm) peaks in June and July then begins to drop off
as the larger juveniles leave the bays. In  1998, the trawl
  index for juvenile flounder ranked as the 7th  highest over
  the past 27 years. About 93% of flounder collected were
  Age 0,  suggesting good reproductive success.
       Adjusted mean CPUE
     197219741976197819801985! 19841986198819901992199419961998
  Figure 1. Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) of Summer Flounder, Maryland
         Coastal Bays trawl, 1972-1998. (n-9767)
  Offshore, the mean size of commercially caught flounder
  increased for the third straight year following an increase
  in the minimum legal  size  in  1997 from 13  inches
  (330mm) to  14 inches (356mm). In 1998, the plan also
  required commercial trawl nets used to catch flounder to
  use  at  least a 5.5 inches (140mm)  mesh.    The
  recreational  size limit increased to 14.5 inches (368mm)
  in 1997, then to  15 inches (381mm) in 1998. The current
  recreational  size limit on Maryland's coastal area is 15.5
  inches (394mm) while the Chesapeake remains at 15
  inches.  A study  of Maryland  Saltwater Sportfishing
  Association  member logbooks  detailing their  catch  in
  Ocean City, indicated the ratio of legal to sublegal flounder
  has  changed from 1 :  1.9 in 1996 to 1 : 3.7 in 1998,
  suggesting an improvement in juvenile production.


  Weakfish, also  called sea trout, has seen considerable
  variations in its abundance.  Found along the Atlantic
  coast from Massachusetts to Florida, adults of this species
  migrate into bays  and estuaries during the  spring to
  spawn.   The majority  of adults then return  to ocean
  waters,  migrating south and offshore in the fall.   The
  inshore areas then become important nursery grounds for
  the juveniles.  Growth is rapid  during the first year with
  juveniles  reaching  an  average length of 6.7  inches
  (170mm).  These juveniles usually leave the bays by

  From 1980  to  1989, recreational  landings decreased
  coastwide by 95% while the commercial harvest dropped
  60%. Traditionally 80% of the weakfish harvest has been
  attributable to the commercial fisheries.  Implementation
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

of ASMFC sponsored FMP measures, principally size and
possession limits for sport fishers and size, season and
net mesh size limits for the commercial fishery,  have led
to a steady increase  in stocks.  Commercial  landings
increased slightly  between  1995  and  1997,   while
recreational landings  increased 46% during the  same
period.  Other  restrictions such as the North  Carolina
closure to flynets south of Cape Hatteras and  requiring
shrimp trawl nets to include a bycatch reduction  device to
reduce retention of juveniles, are assisting in the recovery
of this species.

The  Coastal   Bays   Fisheries  project  contributes
management information to  the FMP.   The  catch of
juveniles in  Maryland's coastal  bays indicate  a steady
increase in juveniles (Figure 2). The 1998 trawl index of
juvenile weakfish was ranked 8th highest out of the past
27 years. The population of juvenile coastal bay weakfish
peaks  during  the  months of  June and July and by
September,  begins a slow offshore migration.  Offshore
populations  are being sampled for age, size  and sex
analysis and also suggest a slow but steady recovery.
    Adjusted mean CPUE
  197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994 19961998
Figure 2. CPUE of Weakfish, Maryland Coastal Bays trawl, 1972-
       1998. (n=16200)
The mean size of weakfish caught offshore by commercial
trawlers from Ocean City was 15.4 inches (391 mm), the
largest since sampling of the commercial catch began in
1993. Imposition of a minimum size, season, and net
mesh size  requirements  have  been  instrumental  in
improving mean size and year class abundance. In 1994,
there were no fish sampled over four years old. Currently
however, the average age of fish sampled is 4.15 years
old with ages ranging from 1 to 8 years of age.

Atlantic Croaker

The croaker or hardhead has been a staple of commercial
and sport fishing in  Maryland waters for decades but
annual recruitment is highly variable and dependent on
   natural environmental conditions.  It is known that cold
   winters can have an impact on its abundance by reducing
   survival  of  young fish  (Norcross  and Austin,  1981),
   (Norcross, 1983).  Fishing  pressure can also have an

   This species can be found along the Atlantic coast from
   Massachusetts to  Mexico with its greatest abundance
   extending from Chesapeake Bay to Florida..  It spawns
   from August through December in offshore waters of the
   Atlantic Ocean with the post-larvae migrating into coastal
   estuaries by ilate summer.   Growth is rapid  with most
   males reaching maturity by Age 2 and a size of 7.1 inches
   (180mm) and most females by Age 3 and  a size of 8.2
   inches (209mm).

   Coastwide,  recreational catches have varied from  3.6
   million fish to 23 million fish while commercial catches
   have varied from 1 million to 64 million pounds (ASMFC,
   1998).   In 1987, a FMP was adopted for croaker in the
   states of Maryland to Florida, the area of greatest croaker
   abundance.    There  are  no  regulatory  compliance
   requirements in the 1987 ASMFC Atlantic Croaker FMP.
   Only  Maryland,  Delaware  and the  Potomac  River
   Fisheries Commission have size limits. There are few
   meaningful  season limits.  Gear restrictions  and North
   Carolina's requirementforfish excluder devices in all trawl
   nets to reduce juvenile bycatch in  the South Atlantic
   shrimp trawl i fishery,  may  be, in part,  responsible for
   croaker stocks  now showing consistent improvement.

   Increases in juvenile abundance in the coastal bays also
   suggest  a steady  improvement (Figure 3).   Juvenile
   croakers peak in abundance during the late summer. In
   1998, the Atlantic croaker trawl index was the  3rd highest
   of the past 27 years. During August, larger juveniles 8 to
   9 inches  (203-229mm) undergo migration, contributing to
   peak offshore  commercial  landings in September and
   October. The mean size in the offshore commercial trawl
   fishery in 1998  was 10.8 inches (274 mm),  similar to the
   mean size in both 1996 and 1997.
       Adjusted me&n CPUE
   Figure 3. CPUE of Atlantic Croaker, Maryland Coastal Bays trawl
          survey, 1972-1998. (n=17099)
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III


The spot is one of the most widely utilized species in the
mid-Atlantic  area.   Found from Maine to Mexico,  its
greatest abundance occurs between the Chesapeake Bay
and South Carolina   Bottom  feeders, the large spot
population is considered one of the major regulators of
benthic invertebrate communities in shallow embayments.
During the fall, adult spot move offshore to spawn in a
spawning  season that extends from late fall to  early
spring.  Larvae move into estuarine areas as early as
December. Young-of-year then reside in tidal shallows
during  the summer,  moving  into deeper  waters  as
temperatures decrease. Spot become mature late in Age
2 or early Age 3, when they are 7.3 inches (186mm) to 8.4
inches (214mm) long.

Commercially, small spot are caught for animal food and
bait while those greater than 8 inches are sent to market.
From 1987 to 1997, Atlantic coast  recreational harvests
varied  from 2.0 to 4.4 million pounds while commercial
harvests fluctuated between 5.6 and  8.0 million pounds.
The  spot  is also an  important food source for  other
valuable species. Their  predators include striped  bass,
bluefish, weakfish, flounder and shark (Mercer, 1987b).

Juvenile abundance in the coastal bays in  the 1970's
fluctuatedwidelywithouttrend. Since 1980, their numbers
have declined substantially (Figure 4). The decline  in the
coastal bay spot trawl index is the greatest in magnitude
of all species monitored over the past 27 years.  The
reason for the decline is unknown though a variety of
factors are known to contribute to population variations
including benthic forage  availability, cold winters, fishing
effort and habitat degradation (Mercer, 1987b). Although
the ASMFC  spot FMP was begun  in  1987, there are no
compliance  requirements  and  the FMP review board
judged that its recommendations were too vague.
     Adjusted moan CPUE
Figure 4. CPUE of Spot, Maryland Coastal Bays trawl, 1972-1998.
  Currently, Maryland has no restrictions on the harvest of
  spot.  Although recruitment data is  being collected in
  several states for creation of a juvenile index, no formal
  stock assessment of spot has been conducted. Currently,
  the only management measure recommended is the use
  of bycatch reduction devices in trawl nets and delaying the
  harvest of spot until Age 1 or older.


  The bluefish has a world-wide distribution with catch
  reports coming from the Black Sea, Indian Ocean and the
  Mediterranean.  Along the east coast, it is found from
  Nova Scotia to Texas. They migrate extensively, traveling
  in like-size groups, following warmer waters and making
  local movements into coastal  estuaries.  In the mid-
  Atlantic area, spawning takes place from June through
  August in the offshore waters. Larval distribution is initially
  controlled by wind and currents until they begin to swim,
  at which time they move to deeper inshore waters. In the
  fall, these fast growing juveniles leave estuaries for the
  ocean.  At this time, they are  2 to 4 inches  long  (50-

  As  late as 1989, bluefish was considered one of the top
  three recreational fish on the Atlantic coast.  However
  bluefish  have  undergone a  substantial decline in
  abundance. Stock biomass has declined from a high of
  216 million pounds in 1979 to just 36 million pounds in
  1994, a decrease of 83% (ASMFC, 1998). In the mid-
  Atlantic region,  it is more actively sought by sport than
  commercial interests.

  Historically, the estimated recreational catch of bluefish
  coastwide  has  been  much larger than the  recorded
  commercial landings (CESP.1990).  In 1980, recreational
  landings  of  bluefish  in  Maryland tidal waters were
  estimated at 9.6 million pounds while commercial landings
  for the same year totaled only 437,000 pounds (Williams,
  et al, 1982, 1983).  Even as late as 1985, bluefish were
  the preferred species on the Chesapeake (Fedler &
  Jacobsen,  1988).

  The ASMFC bluefish FMP requires a commercial quota
  and recreational  possession  limit  to  reduce fishing
  mortality.   These quotas  and possession limits are
  adjusted annually.  Currently the coastwide commercial
  quota is 9.583 million pounds while the recreational
  fishery requires a 10 fish creel limit.

  In  1995,  anglers  in the  northeastern U.S.  spent an
  estimated $300 million to fish for them (NRDC, 1997).
  Found along the entire east coast, this species is judged
  to  consist  of only  a single  stock  for spawning  and
  management purposes. Environmentally induced physical
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11,

differences are discernable and in the past, two stocks
were thought to exist.

This perceived decline in stocks may not be as bad as
initial assessments indicated.   Large bluefish may have
moved farther offshore in the Atlantic than in prior years,
perhaps in  response to forage availability and other
environmental factors.   Until  1994, the  majority of
Maryland citation bluefish were caught in the Chesapeake
but since then, the majority of these citations are from the
Atlantic (Figure 5).   Stock biomass is currently on the
Figure 5. Number of bluefish citations awarded in Maryland, 1992-
The coastal bays juvenile index has traditionally been low
(Figure 6) and is most likely due to the pressure wave
caused by the small mesh sampling gear and the; ability of
the fast swimming juveniles to sense and avoid it and the
gear. It does however, indicate the continued presence of
juvenile bluefish in the coastal bays.
    Adjusted mean CPUE
  1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

 Figure 6. CPUE of Bluefish, Maryland Coastal Bays trawl, 1972-1998.
  Black Sea Bass

  Black sea bass are found from Maine to the Gulf of
  Mexico.  This species north of Hatteras are seasonally
  migratory while those to the south are not. However, those
  of the mid-Atlantic region are year-round inhabitants of the
  offshore waters. Most black sea bass are hermaphroditic,
  functioning first as females then later in life as males. In
  the mid-Atlantic region, spawning takes place in the
  Atlantic Ocean between June and October.

   Larval development takes place in the ocean. When
  about one-half  inch in length (13mm), these juveniles
  move inshore to estuaries where they find habitat and
  forage in eelgrass beds and around structures like bridge
  pilings and wharves. Sea bass grow slower than many
  other coastal species but reach maturity at Age 2, when
  7.5 inches(190mm) in length. At this stage, they leave the
  estuaries for the ocean.

  In 1995, fish pots contributed 79% of the commercial
  landings while headboats and structure fishermen make
  up the bulk of the Maryland sport fishery. Virtually all the
  commercial and sportfish landings of sea bass are taken
  from the Atlantic Ocean. Though juveniles use the coastal
  bays, few adults are caught except by sportfishermen in
  the fall when the new adults are leaving for the ocean.
  The most recent assessment on black sea bass stocks,
  completed in June, 1999, indicates that this fish is over-
  exploited and at a low biomass level.

  The joint MAFMC - ASMFC black sea bass FMP strategy
  calls for a reduction in fishing mortality over an eight year
  period  beginning   in  1996.   Beginning in   1998,  a
  commercial coastwide quota of 3.025 million pounds and
  recreational coastwide quota of 3.148 million pounds was
  instituted. States were given the additional option of a
  recreational seasonal closure of August 1 -15 or a 20 fish
  creel limit.

  Federal survey results indicate poor year classes in 1993,
  1994,1996 and 1997 with a moderate year class in 1995
  and 1998 and a 1999 year class that was three times the
  average of the past 30 years. Increases in fishable stocks
  are expected in 2000.

  The catch of juvenile black sea bass in the coastal bays
  is low and is probably due to the inability to sample its
  preferred structure habitat with trawls and seines (Figure
  7).  A fish pot, tailored to the coastal bays is currently
  being tested as a more appropriate gear.
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

    Adjusted moan CPUE
   1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Figure 7. CPUE of Black Sea Bass, Maryland Coastal Bays trawl,
Index of Forage Species

A coastal bays trawl index of forage species has been
developed by  Maryland  Fisheries  Service to give a
general idea of the status of the availability of forage
species to gamefish.  Juvenile Atlantic menhaden, spot,
bay anchovy and Atlantic silverside are a large component
of the diet of many gamefish (CBP, 1990; CBP, 1991;
Wilk, 1978,).  Spot are caught by commercial and sport
Interests but menhaden are strictly a commercial species.
Other than their use as a recreational bait, there is no
fishery for bay anchovy and silversides.

Population levels of forage as determined by this index
suggest that these species  have  undergone a very
gradual decline over the past 26 years (Figure 8).
    Log CPUE
                    |»1-7 "-8-13 -14-201

Figure 8. Forage Index for the Maryland Coastal Bays by sites.
        (Spot, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic silverside, Bay anchovy)
   Individually, each exhibit these downward trends (Figures
   9 and 10). A variety of factors could be contributing to this
   decline, including increased predation, habitat alterations,
   water quality,  natural environmental changes and others.
                                                            Adjusted mean CPUE
                [^Atlantic menhaden •Atlantic silverside |

   Figure 9. Atlantic menhaden and Atlantic silverside abundance,
   Maryland Coastal Bays, 1972-1998.
       Adjusted mean CPUE
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
                                                                            [••Spot "«Bay Anchovy|

                                                        Figure 10. Spot and Bay anchovy abundance, Maryland Coastal
                                                                 Bays, 1972-1998.

   American  Sportfishing  Association.   1997.The  1006
     Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in Maryland. Funded

   Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).
     1998.   1998  Annual Review  of Interstate Fishery
     Management Plans, Special Report No. 66
16                            Friday, November 11, 1999

Chesapeake Bay Program (GBP).  1990.  Chesapeake
  Bay Bluefish Fishery Management Plan. Chesapeake
  Executive Council

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP).  1991.  Chesapeake
  Bay Atlantic Croaker and Spot Fishery  Management
  Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council

Fedler, A.J. and M.P. Jacobsen. 1988.  1985 Maryland
  Marine Recreational Fishing Study.  Department of
  Recreation, University of MD, College Park.

Mercer, L.P. 1987b. Fishery Management Plan for Spot,
  Leiostomus xanthurus.   Fish  Report No.  11 of the
  Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

National   Marine  Fisheries  Service(NMFS).   1996.
  Fisheries of the United States, 1995.Current Fisheries
  Statistics No. 9500.

Natural Resource Defense Council.  1997. One Fish, Two
  Fish, Where are the Bluefish? A White Paper on the
  Status of Marine Fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Norcross,  B.L. and H.M.  Austin. 1981.  Climate scale
  environmental factors affecting yearclass fluctuations of
  Chesapeake Bay Croaker,  Micropoqonias undulatus.
  VIMS, Special Scientific Report No. 110.

Norcross, B.L. 1983. Climate scale environmental factors
  affecting year-class fluctuations of Atlantic croaker
  Micropoqonias undulatus in the Chesapeake Bay. Ph.D.
  diss. College Of William and Mary, Williamsfciurg, VA,

Olla,  B.L. and A.L Studholme. 1971.   The effect of
  temperature on the activity of bluefish,  Pornatomus
  saltatrix L. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole O.I.) Vol. 141:337-

Pearson, John C. 1942-1944.  The Fish and Fisheries of
  Colonial  Virginia.    Quarterly Historical  Mlagazine,
  William and Mary College, July, 1942 -April, 1944.

Wilk,  S.J.  1978.   Biological and Fisheries Data on
  Weakfish, Cvnoscion reqalis (Bloch & Schneider). Draft
  technical briefing series report.

Williams,  J.B., H.J. Speir, S. Early, T.P. Smith. 1982.
  1979 Maryland Saltwater SportFishing Survey. MDNR
  Tidewater Admin. Report TA-CRD-82-1

Williams,  J.B., T.P. Smith, H.J. Speir, S. Early. 1983.
  1980 Maryland Saltwater SportFishing Survey. MDNR
  Tidewater Admin. Report TA-CRD-83-1
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                                                i ..        i

                                       STEWART MICHELS

Finfish populations in Delaware's Inland Bays (Indian
Riverand Rehoboth Bays) support substantial recreational
and commercial  fisheries.  Between 1988 and 1998,
recreational fishermen averaged 145,451 fishing trips and
landed over 145,866 pounds of finfish annually from the
Inland  Bays.  Annual commercial landings averaged
approximately 35,269 pounds between 1985 - 98.   In
addition to providing recreational and commercial fishing
opportunities, these small coastal bays support a diverse
assemblage of juvenile  finfish that utilize the area as
important nursery and feeding habitat. The Delaware
Division of Fish and Wildlife has monitored finfish relative
abundance in the Inland Bays as part of its 16-foot bottom
trawl survey (1986-98).  Annual catches were typically
comprised of over 41 finfish species, dominated by bay

The survey has demonstrated the extensive use of the
bays  by  young-of-the-year  (YOY) weakfish,  Atlantic
croaker and spot.  These species undergo large annual
fluctuations in year-class strength. Although Inland Bays
YOY summer flounder and winter flounder catch rates
were relatively low, they typically  exceeded catch rates
encountered in the Delaware Estuary. Young-of-the-year
relative abundance estimates for weakfish, spot and
Atlantic croaker are correlated (P< 0.05) with YOY indices
generated for the Delaware Estuary. This suggests that
for  these  species, non-estuary  specific factors are
responsible for annual fluctuations in year-class strength.
Continued monitoring  of  the  Inland  Bays  finfish
populations is essential to ensure  their ecological,
recreational and commercial value is maintained.
  Table 1. Finfish species collected with a 16-foot bottom trawl from
         Delaware's Inland Bays (1986-98).
Bay anchovy
Atlantic croaker
Silver perch
Atlantic herring
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic menhaden
Striped anchovy
Hog choker
Summer flounder
Northern pipefish
Winter flounder
Northern kingfish
Black seabass
Naked goby
Oyster toadfish
Northern puffer
Inshore lizardfish
Smoth dogfish
Spotted hake
American eel
Striped cusk-eel
Foursplne stickleback
Striped bass
Crevalle jack
Bluaback herring
Blackcheek tonguefish
White mullet
Lined seahorse
Spanish mackerel
Striped searobin
Atlantic moonfish
Gizzard shad
Northern searobin
Yellow perch
Black drum
Green goby
Etropuii spp.
Cleamose skate
Threespine stickleback
Rainwater kiilifish
Planehoad filefish
Rough wilverslde
American shad
Feather blenny
Striped blenny
Orange filefish
Smallmouth flounder
White perch
Conger eel
Northern stargazer
Fringed flounder
Little skate
Silver hake
American sand lance
Spotfin butterflyfish
Cownose ray
Spiny butterfly ray
Yellow stingray
Atlantic spadefish
Banded rudderfish
Red hake
Striped kiilifish
Sandbar shark
Smooth puffer
King mackerel
Grey snapper
Striped bass hybrid
Bluntnose stingray
Brown bullhead
White catfish
Striped burrfish
Striped mullet

   • Delaware's  Inland  Bays,  though  small,  support
    substantial commercial and recreational finfisheries.
   • Recreational fishing effort in the Inland Bays exceeds
    that of the Delaware Estuary by area.
   • Trawl sampling shows that the Inland Bays are used
    extensively as nursery habitat for a variety of species.
   • Long-term monitoring is necessary to  identify changes
    in these important estuaries.  This is especially true
    when one considers the large fluctuations in year-class
    species strength exhibited by many.

   Suggested Reading
                        I                       |
   Assessment of the Ecological Condition of the Delaware
   and Maryland Coastal Bays, U.S. EPA, 1996.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

      Delaware's Inland Bays
    Recreational Harvest and Effort

•Pounds Harvested (Thous.)
E3 Angler Trips (Thout

! |
*> ^i \ i
> i ! |
'•' \
; i
^ •
3 i: i
? S
i i s
* >
1 | S 5
    Recreational Catch Composition
           \  1988-98
                                                     Striped Bass
              Inland Bays
          Commercial Landings
       Commercial Catch Composition
              1985 - 98

lOOOl . -
n - .

' 1

', f*




       U) h* O>  T-  CO  U)  ^
       OO 00 00  0)  O>  w  O)
Fnday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference

      >.00-• -{si -•-•••"v*E->"''"'Tri
      CJ~ -4^ss—«	1-^   J4KWhtt(
         Indian River"'
'White Neck^3j.Bay;,.-?"^1-

            •^ White
Juvenile trawl sampling sites in the Indian River
and Rehoboth Bays.
 Delaware's Inland Bays 16-foot bottom
 composition (1986-1998).
                                                  Annual number of species collected with a 16-foot
                                                  bottom in Delaware's Inland Bays (1986-98).
jg oe
_g oa -
1 30
•= 9*
<0 ZO-
•S on
O «ie
Z *•/)











                         86  87  88 89 90 91 92 93 94  95  96 97 98

De/marva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11,

   Young-of-the-year weakfish indices of relative abundance (1986i - 98) for
   the Delaware Estuary and Delaware's Inland Bays.
     -  20  -I


     =  IS  -
                      8  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98

                                   Y o a r

                      •In la n d B a y a  —»— Delaware Bay |
                                                                   Young-of-the-year spot indices of relative abundance (1986 - 98) for the
                                                                   Delaware Estuary and Delaware's Inland Bays.
                                                                                                                  r = 0.93

                                                                                                                  P = 0.0001
      Young-of-the-year Atlantic croaker indices of relative abundance (1986 -
      98) for the Delaware Estuary and Delaware's Inland Bays.
                 86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98
                                                                             86 87  88  89  90  91  92 93  94  95  96  97  98
                                                                                  -m-lnland Bays  —•— Delaware Bay
                      -Inland  Bays (x10)  —•—Delaware Bay
Friday, November 11,  1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III


                                   JOHN McCoNAUGHA, PH.D.
The  blue  crab, Callinectes sapidus,  is an  important
ecological and commercial species in the estuaries, inland
bays and lagoons along the Atlantic coast of the United
States. With the decline in other fisheries throughout this
region the blue crab has become a dominant fishery. This
has resulted in rapid escalation of fishing pressure on this
species (Virginia Marine Resources  Commission and
Maryland  Department  of  Natural  Resources  data).
Concern  has   been   raised   among  managers,
environmentalists, and watermen about the health and
future of this important resource. It is the goal of this short
review to examine the role that key life history stages of
this species may have on population density and future
fishery stability. It is not meant to be an in-depth review of
the vast literature on this topic.

Examination of the annual harvest  of  blue crabs in
Chesapeake Bay over the past 50 years indicates that this
species has undergone wide fluctuations in abundance
from year to year. Periodic drops in abundance over the
last 100 years has often led to newspaper  headlines
suggesting the demise of the fishery. The blue crab, like
many marine benthic invertebrates has a complex life
history which includes a planktonic larval stage, a post-
larval  / juvenile  recruitment stage, and   the  adult
reproductive stage. Each of these life history stages can
contribute to annual and inter-annual fluctuations in crab
abundance.  These natural  fluctuations coupled with
intense fishing pressure could have a long-term adverse
effect on the fishery.

Early  research  on   blue  crabs  concentrated  on
understanding the life history of this interesting estuarine
species. In general, juvenile crabs, both male and female,
migrate up the estuary to lower salinity waters during the
fall and spring of their first year, mature  during the
summer and mate in the following fall (van Engel, 1958).
Following mating, mature impregnated females begin their
migration to the lower mouth of the estuary or lagoonal
   system where they spawn  and release larvae in the
   second summer (van Engel,  1958).

   Over the last 20 years ecological studies of the blue crab
   have focused on understanding the physical, biological
   and chemical factors that  influence the  life  history.
   Ovigerious females with late  stage  embryos ("black
   sponge") migrate to the  mouth and inner shelf regions
   adjacent to coastal bays and lagoons to release larvae.
   Hatching occurs on nighttime ebbtides (Provenzano era/.,
   1983,  McConaugha, 1988,  1992; Morgan, 1995). This
   hatching behavior insures that the positively photo-tactic
   and negatively geo-tactic larvae (Sulkin, 1984) are carried
   out of the estuary onto the continental shelf.

   Because these larvae are concentrated in the  upper one
   meter  of the water column (McConaugha,  1988; 1992)
   larval transport and distribution are greatly influenced by
   wind forcing (Johnson, Hester and McConaugha, 1984;
   McConaugha, 1992; Garvine,  et a/, 1997).  Prevailing
   winds  in the mid-Atlantic  Bight during  the summer
   spawning season are from the south-southwest. This
   general wind pattern, depending on strength and duration,
   can establish an offshore  northward flowing  counter
   current at the surface and  up-welling along the coast
   (Johnson, Hester, McConaugha, 1984; Garvine, et a/.,
   1997). This counter current forms a nursery ground for the
   development of the larval stages of the blue crab along
   the inner continental shelf region of the mid-Atlantic Bight
   (McConaugha, 1988). Cross-shelf transport of the post-
   larval megalopal stage has been correlated with northeast
   wind  events (downwelling favorable winds)  that force
   water across the shelf towards the landmass (Goodrich,

   Megalopae  that are transported  toward  the  estuary
   receive chemical cues emanating from the estuary and
   change  behavior  patterns  (Forward, 1997).  These
   behavior changes initiate selective tidal transport, which
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI
Friday, November 11, 1999

results in larvae being in the water column only during
nighttime flood  tides. This allows  megalopae to be
transported into  the estuaries  while  reducing visual
predation. Variability in the strength and duration of both
wind patterns from year-year can account for large shifts
in post-larval  recruitment into the  estuaries.  Using a
simple model,  Johnson and Hester (1989) estimated that
36 to 40% of  the annual variation in observed harvest
could be attributed to variations in  the summer wind
patterns  and subsequent recruitment. Using  the more
sophisticated  model  of Garvine, et at.  (1997) which
incorporates  both   winding   forcing processes  and
transformation of the raw harvest data from a  calendar
year to  a  biological  year could  demonstrate that the
.contribution of  larval transport and  recruitment to
observed fluctuations in harvests greatly exceeds 50%.

While variability in environmental parameters contributes
to the often wide inter-annual fluctuations in harvest
(Figure 1), the offshore nursery ground can provide post-
larval  recruits to a  region  following  an  ecological
catastrophe. During the period of 1990-1993 there was an
out-break of the blood parasite Hematodinium sp. which
attacked the adult crabs in the high salinity lagoons and
inland bays of the Delmarva  Peninsula.  This  disease
reduced  the commercial  harvest from approximately 3
million pounds per year in 1989 to 0 for 1991-1992. By
1995 the fishery  had recovered in large  part due to a
strong post-larval recruitment in 1994 (Brumbaugh,;! 996).
          1975   1980   1985   1990   1995   2000

Figure 1. Hard Crab Harvest on Eastern Shore, Virginia

Following  recruitment  to  the  estuary,   post-larval
megalopae metamorphose into the first crab stage. These
small crabs  (2-3  mm)  prefer  architecturally complex
habitats that  can provide refuge from predation. In the
Chesapeake  Bay there is an extensive literature on the
use  of Submerged Aquatic  Vegetation  (SAV)  (sea
grasses) as a preferred habitat for juvenile blue crabs
from the first crab stage to approximately 20mm in size
(Orth et al.,1990).  While SAV can  enhance survival of
juvenile blue crabs they are not essential for strong
yearclasses since  large harvests have occurred during
   periods of low  SAV coverage  (Figure 2).  Along the
   Delmarva system of inland bays and lagoons most areas
   of sea grasses were lost to disease in the 1930's and
   have never recovered. In  the absence of SAV, macro-
   algae  and oyster reefs may provide  the  necessary
   structural  refuges (Brumbaugh, 1996). The role  of salt
   marshes as habitat for these early stage juvenile crabs is
   less clear. Because the marshes  along the Delmarva
   Peninsula are inundated for longer periods they may
   function as habitat refuges in this system. However, the
   salt marshes are important habitats forthe larger juveniles
   Figure 2. Hard Crab Harvest on Eastern Shore, Virginia

   Forthe reproductive population there are two outstanding
   issues: what is the age structure of the population, and
   what is the cause  of the observed decline in size of both
   mature male and female crabs. Knowing the age structure
   of an  exploited population is an essential component of
   modern fisheries  management.  In many species age
   determinations are made by examination of hard  parts
   that show incremental growth over  time, i.e. otoliths,
   scales, rnolluscan shells, or teeth.

   Animals generally grow at seasonally varying rates, which
   produce   annual  growth  rings  in  these  calcareous
   structures. Counting  these rings ("annuli") provides an
   estimate of age in years. These techniques have proven
   successful in  fish and  molluscans.   In crustaceans,
   however, the lack of a growth record in a permanent hard
   structure has curtailed the determination of chronological
   age. To overcome this problem, less precise methods like
   modal analysis of length frequency data have been  used
   (Rothschild et a/., 1992). Unfortunately, these methods are
   inherently imprecise particularly when  the spawning
   season is protracted  as  in the blue crab, resulting in a
   wide distribution of sizes in a single year class (Prager et
   a/., 1990). Age determination of crustaceans is particularly
   difficult  since  crustaceans   molt  their  calcareous
   exoskeleton  to accommodate future  growth and in the
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference 111

process  abandon  any  external evidence  of  age  or
previous size. At each molt an internal space is created
which is filled over time by the growth of soft tissue. Thus
crustacean soft tissue growth may be continuous while
carapace size,  the most frequently  used measure of
growth and age, is a discontinuous function of time.

Every organism that uses oxygen generates free radicals
and  aldehydes  during normal cellular metabolism. To
reduce  possible damage from these highly  reactive
molecules, cells use a series of reactions that cross link
these compounds with unsaturated lipids,  nucleic acids,
proteins  and other molecules to form conjugated schiff
bases of the general structure,  -N=C-C=C-N- (Tappal,
1975; Sohal and Donate, 1978; Hack and Helmsly, 1983).
Termed  lipofuscins,  these lipoprotein complexes  are
highly stable, and accumulate in lysosomes over the life
of the organism.  These  granules  can be  observed,
counted and measured in histological sections of a crab
brain using epifluorescent microscopy and image analysis
techniques, Lipofuscin granules fluoresce a bright yellow-
green. Since these granules accumulate  as function of
metabolic  activity  and age  they  can be used as  an
Indicator of age.

Using laboratory reared (known age) animals, we have
established that the area of lipofuscin granules in blue
crab brains increases as a function of age. Applying this
technique to small group of field collected animals the
data suggest that blue crabs live to  be 2.5 - 3  years of
age. To confirm this preliminary conclusion will require the
examination of a much larger group of animals.

In conjunction with a decline in abundance, the mean size
of male and female blue crabs in Chesapeake  Bay has
declined in recent years. These observations are cited as
evidence of both recruit and growth overfishing. Evidence
supports the growth overfishing hypothesis in males but
there may be an underlying biological explanation for the
decline in mature female size. Two parameters that affect
size at  maturity are  the  age at maturity and overall
  fecundity of an animal at a given age/size. For decapod
  crustaceans, the number of eggs produced/brood is size
  dependent. In a stable environment, reduced population
  size should result in increased resources per individual.
  The number of reproductive events/female/year is partially
  dependent on energy resources. Reduced size at maturity
  may reflect trade-offs  that allow females to produce
  smaller more numerous broods earlier in the life history of
  an animal and to extend spawning over two years. Fitness
  should increase  since the number of offspring > large
  females  but are produced  over two  seasons. With
  development of the aging technique, this hypothesis can
  be directly tested.

  Based on the life history phase of the blue crab, we can
  examine the potential management actions that can be
  used to improve the viability of the blue crab fishery in the
  region's bays and lagoorial systems. The larval phase is
  very important in determining the interannual variability of
  blue crab populations (Table 1).

  Because the causes of variability are large-scale physical
  forces, which effect the retention or dispersal of blue crab
  larvae on the continental shelf, no direct management
  efforts can be applied. Only indirect management efforts
  are possible, such as the development of better predictive
  models of  larval transport under varying environmental
  conditions. Variability associated with the early (<20 mm)
  juvenile life history phase is influenced by the availability
  of structured habitats such as SAV, macro-algae and
  oyster reefs. The availability of fine structured habitats can
  influence survival rates of megalopae and small juvenile
  crabs. Management efforts to increase SAV and oyster
  reefs will have  an indirect effect on crab population
  dynamics.  Management can act directly to regulate the
  exploitation rates on mature blue crabs by establishing
  size and season limits. But even here, if the cause of
  reduced female size is not over fishing, but a function of
  crab  abundance  then  changing  size  limits  or  not
  harvesting mature females may have little impact on the
  long-term  population  dynamics of  the  blue  crab.
Table 1. Management Implications of Life History Phases of the Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus.
Life History Phase
Larval development
Adult Reproduction
Bays and Lagoons
Lower Bay
Effects on Yearclass
Very Important
Management Possibilities
Predictive Model
Indirect via Habitat
Management of Fisheries
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999


Brumbaugh, R. D., 1996. Recruitment of blue crab,
  Callinectes  sapidus,  postlarvae to the  back-barrier
  lagoons of Virginia's Eastern Shore. Ph.D. Dissertation
  Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 171pp.

Forward, R. B., Jr., J. Swanson, et al. (1997).  Title
  Endogenous  swimming  rhythms  of  blue  crab,
  Callinectes sapidus.megalopae: Effects of offshore and
  estuarine cues. Mar. Biol. 127(4): 621-628.

Garvine,  R. W., C. E. Epifanio,  et al. (1997).  Title
  Transport and recruitment of blue crab larvae: A model
  with advection and mortality. Estuarine,  Coastal and
  Shelf Science [Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 45(1): 99-111.

Goodrich, D. M., J.  van  Montfrans and R. J. Orth. 1989.
  Blue  crab  megalopal  flux into Chesapeake  Bay:
  Evidence for a wind  driven mechanism.  Est Coast.
  Shelf. Sci. 29:247-260.

Hack, M.H. and Helmy: The melanins and lipofuscin.
  Comp.  Biochem. Physiol. 76b: 399-407.

Harding,  J.  PO. 1949.  The use of probability paper  for
  graphical  analysis of polymodal frequency distributions.
  J. Marine Biol. Assn. U.K. 28:141-153.

Johnson, D. R., B. S. Hester and J. R. McConaugha,
  1984.  Studies of a wind mechanism influencing the
  recruitment of blue crabs in the Middle Atlantic Bight.
  Continental Shelf Research.3:425-437.

Johnson, D. R. and B. S.  Hester, 1989. Larval transport
  and its association with recruitment of blue crabs to
  Chesapeake Bay. Est Coast. Shelf. Sci. 28:459-472.

McConaugha, J.R. 1988.  Estuarine-shelf interactions as
  regulators of estuarine decapod population dynamics.
  Proc.  Army  Corp Symposium on Larval  F:ish and
  Shellfish Transport Through Coastal Inlets. Trans. Am.
  Fish Soc. Sym. 3:909-103.

McConaugha,  J. R.,  1992.  Decapod Larval  Dispersal
  Mortality and Ecology. A working hypothesis. Am. Zool.

Morgan,  S. G. 1995. The timing of larval  release.  In:
  Ecology  of Marine  Invertebrate  Larvae.  Ed:  L.
  McEdward. CRC  Press, Boca Raton, FL. Pp157-192.
   Prager, M. H., J. R. McConaugha, C. M. Jones and P. J.
    Greer.  1990.  Fecundity of blue crab,  Callinectes
    sapidus, in Chesapeake Bay. Biological, statistical, and
    management considerations. Bull. Mar. Sci. 46:170-179.

   Provenzano, A. J., J. R. McConaugha, K. Phillips, D. J.
    Johnson and J. Clark, 1983. Diurnal vertical distribution
    of Callinectes sapidus larvae in  the  mouth  of the
    Chesapeake  Bay.   Estuarine, Coastal  Shelf Sci.

   Orth, R. J. and J. van Montfrans. 1990. Utilization  of
    marsh  and  seagrass  habitats  by  early  stages  of
    Callinectes sapidus: A latitudinal perspective. Bull. Mar.
    Sci. 46:126-144.

   Rothschild, B.J., J.S. Ault, E.V. Patrick, S.G. Smith,  L.
    Huaixian,  T.  Maurer, B.  Daugherty, G.  Davis, C.I.
    Zhang, and R.N. McGarvey. 1992.  Assessment of the
    Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab. Final Report submitted to
    Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee. Ref.
    No UMCEES [CBL] 92-082, Solomons, MD.

   Sohol,  R.S.  and  H.  Donato    (1978)   Effects  of
    experimentally altered lifespans on the accumulation of
    fluorescent' age pigments  in  the housefly,   Musca
    domestica. Exp.Gerontology 13:335-341.

   Sulkin, S. D. (1984). Behavioral basis of depth regulation
    in the larvae of brachyuran crabs. Mar. Ecol. 15: 1-2

   Tappel,  A.L.  1975 Lipid peroxidation  of  fluorescent
    molecular damage to membranes. In, Pathobiology of
    Cell  Membranes, (B.F. Trump and A.U. Arstila, eds.)
    Vol 1: pp 145-170. Academic Press.

   Van Engel, W. A. 1958. The blue crab and its fishery in
    the  Chesapeake  Bay. Part  I.  Reproduction, early
    development, growth, and migration. Comml. Fish. Rev.
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI

                                                                     '•    i.,
                                         ALAN WESCHE
The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is one of the most
economically important animals in Maryland's coastal
bays.  The warm, shallow waters of the coastal bays
provide ideal habitat for all stages of the blue crab's life
cycle, while waters near the Ocean City inlet provide the
necessary conditions for development of the crab's early
life stages. Shallow submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
beds on the bay's eastern side provide an ideal nursery
and overwintering area for the developing juveniles. The
shallow waters of the bays are seasonally abundant with
juvenile finfish, clams and other invertebrate forage which
are vital  to the crabs' development to marketable size.

Early colonists noted that the native people of the region
included  blue crab  in their  diet  and colonists soon
developed a taste for crabs.  A commercial fishery was
slow  to  develop because  rapid  spoilage  restricted
shipments to  coastal communities until the advent of
refrigeration in the 1870's.  The management history of
this important recreational  and commercial fishery is
interesting with many changes and  additions to laws and
regulations overthe years (Table 1, Genoveseetal.1999).
Differences exist in the  rules  for crabbing  in  the
Chesapeake Bay and the Coastal Bays which recognize
the differences in size and abundance of crabs available
and the physical characteristics of the bays. The resultant
rules for all of Maryland are necessarily extensive and
complex to cover the varieties of gear used, the potential
for gear  conflicts, and the wide geographic distribution of
the crabs.

Characterization of the Coastal Bays

An ongoing trawl and seine  study, begun in 1972, has
allowed  the Maryland Fisheries Service to monitor the
blue crab population in the coastal bays.  We use a 16
   foot wide bottom trawl with a 1 inch square mesh body
   and 1/4 inch square mesh cod end which retains most
   juvenile finfish and crabs.  The trawl is pulled by boat for
   six minutes at fixed sites throughout the coastal bays. In
   addition a 100 foot long x 6 foot deep x 1/4 inch square
   mesh seine with a 6 foot x 6 foot x 6 foot pocket or bag in
   the center is used for sampling shallow water at 19 sites.
   Trawl sites are  sampled monthly during the months of
   April through  October arid the seine sites are sampled
   only during June and September. All crabs are counted
   and size and sex are recorded for a random sample of the
   first fifty crabs  for each  site.  A blue crab  sampling
   program on the  Chesapeake uses a similar trawl  and
   comparison of  catch from these two projects shows
   Chesapeake  Bay crabs are larger than  their  coastal
   counterparts (Table 2). Blue crabs tend to reach a larger
   average size in waters of lower salinities and are more
   desirable to both commercial markets and recreational
   crabbers.  However, crabs tend to mature at smaller sizes
   as temperature  and  salinity increase (Fisher,  1999).
   Temperatures in coastal bay waters have been recorded
   as high as 30 degrees C. (86 F.) with salinities as high as
   37 ppt.   Salinities  in the Maryland portion  of  the
   Chesapeake range from 0 to 20 ppt.

   Because of their smaller size, coastal bay hard crabs
   aren't as desirable in the commercial market.  However,
   the shallow waters warm up faster and bring on an early
   spring peeler run, attracting many local and Chesapeake
   crabbers to take advantage of this valuable growth stage.
   In 1994 over eighty commercial crabbers used the coastal
   bays throughout the course of the year (Casey, 1994). A
   total of 18-20 local crabbers participate in the fishery
   annually and an additional 20-60 out of county crabbers
   may be expected in the first few months depending on the
   strength of the peeler run.  Landings of soft and peeler
   crabs appear to parallel the landings of hard crabs except
   for a few years (Figure 1).  All of these landings presently
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

 Table 1. Summary of History of Blue Crab Management in Maryland \
 1873   Soft crab first introduced as a "food article", probably from Crisfield, MD          ;
 1878   Hard crabs were picked and packaged in Hampton, VA
 1880   Demand for MD blue crabs is widespread and statistics collection begins
 1906   MD establishes a closed season for crabs (Nov 1 - April 30)
 1917   MD size limit of 5" (all waters of the state) and also bans taking and possession of sponge and green crabs
 1928   First record of peeler crab scrape being used; MD begins collecting records from packers and shippers
 1936   Crab pot invented, majority of harvest until this time was by trot line; pots not used until about 1939 in MD
 1941   WWII displaces many watermen and harvest declines significantly.
 1947   MD permits the taking of sponge crabs and the use of crab pots in ocean bays and tribs; also permits hand drawn dredge in Ocean
        bays during Nov 15 - March 15
 1948   Crab pots legalized in Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds, limit increased to from 35 to 50/licensee in MD
 1956   A new harvest reporting system is instituted
 1959   MD pot limit increased to 100/licensee
 1966   Size limit for mature females in Worcester County rescinded                   ;
 1971   A landmark court decision removes county residency requirements for commercial fisheries
 1972   MD allows waterfront homeowners a few unlicenceid crab pots from their piers
 1974   MD repeals winter season for Worcester County, season  is now April 1 - Dec. 31 statewide
 1979   Non-commercial crabber license established allowing the use of trotlines over 100 yards and a 3 bushel daily limit
 1980   MD requires special license for Worcester Co. (limited to  150 pots, tags issued)   ;
 1981   Harvest of 60 million pounds,  highest on record
 1983   MD repeals prohibition on the taking of sponge crabs; license system restructured; allows nonresidents to purchase licenses and
        establishes the TFL license which allows unlimited # of crab pots; permits crabs caught in Worcester Co. waters to be landed out of
 1984   MD allows two bushels per boat for unlicensed crabbers
 1985   300 pot limit for Coastal Bays
 1989   MD re-adopts ban on taking of sponge crabs but allows possession of out of state sponge crabs; Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery
        Management Plan adopted
 1994   Limited Entry Bill gives MDNR authority to establish  a prescribed number of people to participate in any given fishery; different
        reporting system adopted; Cull rings required to be; installed in crab pots; sport crab license eliminated
 1995   MD's Coastal Bays Program Established                                  ;
 1999   MD's Coastal Bays recognized as a separate entity from the Chesapeake Bay and the need for separate management plans
        determined; sport crab license required for Chesapeake waters only.
come from crab pots. On an average year, over 950,000
pounds of hard crabs and over 69,000 pounds of peelers
and soft crabs will be landed  from  the coastal  bays,
providing  over $820,000 to the  local  economy.   The
percent of the total harvest comprised by soft/peeler crabs
is much  higher for the coastal bays than the Chesapeake
Bay (Figure 2).
Harvest of hard crabs in the coastal bays has fluctuated
with no apparent trend. Between 1979 and 1998 catch has
varied from  375,000 pounds (170,099 kg) to 1.6 million
pounds. The harvest of soft and peeler crabs is similar,
varying from 17,000 pounds to 184,000 pounds (83,462
kg)  (Figure  3).   From  1980 to  1990, a comparison of
   coastal bay and Chesapeake Bay landings suggests only
   a  weak  relationship  between  the two.    Since  1991
   however, fluctuations in landings generally parallel each
   other (Figure 4).
    Table 2.  Mean Size of Blue Crabs from the Maryland
    Coastal Bays Trawl Survey and the Maryland
    Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Survey, 1993-1998
Size Category
All sizes and sexes
Females mature
Males > 5 inches
Coastal Bays
57.3 mm (2.3")
134.6 mm (5.3")
137.8 mm (5.4")
Chesapeake Bay
87.4 mm (3.4")
151 .00 mm (5.9")
146.7 mm (5.8")
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

         19SO    1985   19S9   1993    1998

    |-v Hard crabs x 1000 Ibs. •&Soft crabs & Peelers x 100 lbs.|
Figure 1. Coastal Bays Blue Crab Landings Comparison;
         Hard vs. Peelers/Soft, 1980-1998. _.
   Figure 3.  Coastal Bays Blue Crab Harvest, 1980-1998.
        1990  1991  1992 1993  1994 1995  1996 1997
                 '•••Chesapeake •'-Coastal
Figure 2. Peelers and Soft Crabs, Percent of Total Catch;
         Chesapeake Bay vs. Coastal Bays, 1990-1997.
                                                                    Pounds   19«J5-98
                                                        Figure 4. Maryland Coastal Bays and Chesapeake
                                                                  Blue Crab Landings, 1985-1998.
Delman/a's Coastal Bays Conference HI
Friday, November 11, 1999

Observations on the Coastal Bays Blue Crab
Population from Trawl and Seine Survey

Over the past six years, the mean sizes of crabs from the
20 trawl sites varied from 1.7 in (42.5 mm) to 3.7 in (93.3
mm), averaging 2.3 in (57.3 mm). At the shallower seine
sites, mean sizes varied from 1.6 in (41.2 mm) to 2.5 in
(63.4 mm) and averaged 1.9 in (48.4 mm). Smaller crabs
prefer the shallow water  sampled by seine. There is
some variation in average size between the five bay
areas (Assawoman, Isle of Wight, Sinepuxent, Newport
&  Chincoteague), averages being from 2.0" to 2.4".
Sample sites near the  inlet frequently produce larger
mature females.  Their preference for this area may be
related to spawning.

Legal crabs were more frequent in trawl sites deeper than
four feet.  Small crabs less than 2 inches were more than
twice as likely to be found in trawl sites of depth four feet
or less. Averages were 91.9 crabs/trawl in sites four feet
or less and 41.8 for sites deeper than four feet. This
preference for shallowwater by the juveniles underscores
the importance of these areas as nursery habitat.

Competition and  Disease

The popularity of the spring and fall recreation tautog
fishery has hastened  the introduction of the green crab
Cancermaenas (an European crab introduced to the U.S.
in the mid-1800's) to the coastal bays. Release of this
popular bait crab and its gradual colonization to the south
from Delaware has  resulted  in an established  and
spreading population of this competitor of the blue crab.
Since 1996, this crab has been found near the Ocean City
inlet probably  because  of the presence of a  good
population of blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) which provide
ample food. This crab has damaged the Dungeneiss crab
and clam fisheries on the west coast and could develop
into a nuisance here. Some of its preferred food items
include mussels, clams, oysters, and other crabs.

In   the  last two years  the  Japanese  shore crab
(Hemigrapsus sanguineus) has been found around rocky
areas, bulkheads and piers near the inlet.  This crab is
relatively small and prefers the intertida! zone.  Its effect
on the blue crab population is unknown.

Since 1998, the lesser blue crab (Callinectes similis) has
been taken at several sites. This southern crab, which
rarely exceeds 4 inches (101.6  mm), is not known  to
crossbreed with the blue crab but does compete with it for
habitat and forage. At least six other species of crab are
either occasionally or seasonally found in the coastal bays
and compete with the blue crab to varying degrees.
   The primary disease organism affecting blue crabs in the
   coastal bays is the dinoflagellate Hematodinium perezi.
   This organism affects crabs in most areas of the coastal
   bays  particularly at the end of summer  when water
   temperatures begin to  cool.  Its effects (dead, dying,
   listless or slightly discolored crabs) were first noticed by
   commercial harvesters in 1994 and it has occurred yearly
   to varying degrees.  It has occasionally been severe
   enough to curtail crabbing in some areas. Grey crab
   disease and a chitinoclastic bacteria which causes black
   spot also are present in the coastal bays but have not
   presented significant problems.


   Casey, James F., 1995.  Analysis of Crab Harvest  in
     Maryland's,Coastal Bays.   Maryland DNR Fisheries
     Technical Memorandum Series Number Four, March
     1995.     ;

   Fisher, MarkR., 1999. Effect of Temperature and Salinity
     on Size at Maturity of Female Blue Crabs. Transactions
     of the American Fisheries Society 128: 499-506.

   Genovese,  Paul, Mitchell Tarnowski,  Mark Homer, and
     Connie Lewis.  1999.  Maryland Fisheries Information
     System.   Final  Report  Chesapeake  Bay  Stock
     Assessment Comm. Md. DNR Fisheries Service. May
     1999.     ;
Friday, November 11, 1999
,  Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III


                                    MITCHELL L. TARNOWSKI

Ever since the Yates oyster bar survey in 1907, MDNR
and its predecessor organizations have been involved
with shellfish in the coastal bays. For example, the state
contributed funds to stabilize the Ocean City inlet when it
was torn open by a hurricane, not only to provide access
to the ocean for commercial fishing vessels but to improve
growing conditions for shellfish in the bays. Various state
sponsored shellfish projects have continued to today.

In 1993, the DNR Shellfish Program initiated a three year
comprehensive effort to inventory the molluscan fauna of
the Maryland coastal bays. Intended to establish baseline
values for future management needs, both commercially
important molluscs and ecologically valuable species have
been targeted.

Oysters, Inlets, and Salinity Changes

The dynamic nature of coastal inlets has had a profound
Impact on the shellfish populations of this region. When
Lt.Yates conducted his survey,  conditions in the coastal
bays were very different. Only one  inlet existed for the
entire system, down at the southern end in Chincoteague,
Virginia. Consequently, salinities were much lower in the
upper bays, unsuitable for growing oysters. Even in the
northern  portion of Chincoteague  Bay,  oysters were
subjected to occasional killing freshets, and poor growth
and sporadic spatfalls were the norm.

This is in sharp contrast to the  period following  the Civil
War, when an inlet at Green Run, in the middle portion of
Chincoteague Bay, was open.  Oystermen, practicing a
rudimentary form of oyster cultivation by planting seed on
their own lots, found their endeavors so lucrative that they
named  the  location  Greenback  after  the  recently
introduced  paper  currency.   Unlike  other  areas  in
Maryland, oyster farming became the standard practice in
the coastal bays throughout the history of the industry.
   The late 1800*s were boom years around Chincoteague
   Bay. The newly constructed railroad vied with sailing ships
   to carry the prized Chincoteague oyster to the high end
   markets of New York and Philadelphia, with some even
   reaching Europe. Eventually, Green Run inlet filled in and
   production slowly declined to the point where most activity
   was restricted to the southern half of Chincoteague Bay.

   When the Ocean City Inlet opened  in 1933 salinities
   throughout the bays quickly  rose and there  was  a
   scramble to obtain leases for oyster growing bottom. This
   optimism was shortlived, however,  as a host of problems
   associated with  increased salinities  ultimately  proved
   ruinous to the oyster industry.

   The elevated  salinities allowed predators, particularly
   drills, to flourish. Fouling organisms that compete for food
   and cultch space also found conditions more suitable.
   Although the natural oyster populations rapidly declined,
   the  culture based  industry still managed to exist for
   several decades longer.  The death knell  of the oyster
   industry sounded with the first reports  of oyster diseases
   in the coastal bays during the late  1950's and early
   1960's. The last recorded landings were in 1983.

   Oysters Today

   In 1994 the MDNR Shellfish Program went back to survey
   the old Yates oyster bars  in Chincoteague Bay. A total of
   150 tows were made with a handscrape on the 28 bars.
   For all this effort, no live oysters were found. Furthermore,
   the bars were in very bad shape. The northern bars were
   buried in  sediment, with very little surface shell. The
   southern bars had more exposed shell, but it was severely

   To get an idea of the current level  of oyster disease
   activity in Chincoteague  Bay, hatchery-reared disease-
   free seed were suspended in cages at several locations in
   September 1994. Think of them like canaries in a coal
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

mine. Two summers later 27% were infected with SSO
(Haplosporidian costales, orSeaSide Organism, a relative
of MSX); almost entirely in advanced or terminal stages.
That  following  December  the prevalence of Dermo
(Perkinsus marinus) was 73%, with lethal  infections in
30% of all oysters. In other words, about 50% of the
oysters succumbed to the two diseases in a little over two
years. This study reaffirmed the fact that both Dermo and
SSO  remain problems in the coastal bays despite the
long-term absence of any significant oyster populations.

Oysters still exist in the coastal bays,  but only in the
intertidal zone. Occassionally there will be a heavy set of
oysters  on some structure such  as rip-rap  or bridge
pilings.  Predators  take  an  immediate toll,  and  then
disease sets in, so that after three years most are gone.

Hard Clams

If opening the Ocean City Inlet helped to create conditions
leading to the oyster's demise, it had the opposite effect
on hard clams, which flourished in the higher salinities. To
determine the condition of hard clam stocks,  the Shellfish
Program  initiated  a survey  in 1993  as  part  of the
Molluscan Inventory. A commercial clam boat equipped
with a hydraulic escalator dredge was hired for the survey
effort. Stations were selected at random from geographic
strata. Tow lengths were standardized at 250' feet by
means of a measured line attached  to a weight. Clams
and any other molluscs were picked off the fast moving
escalator belt, identified, counted, and measured.

Since 1993, almost 1,000  samples have  been taken.
Aside from the St. Martin River, clams were found at 99%
of the stations. The average clam density was highest in
Sinepuxent Bay and lowest in St Martin River.

Although a wide range of sizes was found during the first
two years of the survey, the population was top-heavy with
older individuals,  with  few small clams. Apparently,
recruitment had been very sporadic, despite the low level
of fishing pressure during the previous 15 years. It is well
documented that predators can limit clam populations.
High predation pressure, particularly by blue crabs, could
have been  responsible for the continued recruitment
failure. Predation may have been further exacerbated by
the burial of the oyster bars, resulting in the* loss of
protective shell cover.

Something changed in 1995 that allowed a much higher
set and young-of the-year survivorship in Sinepuxent and
Isle of Wight Bays, a trend that continued in 1996 and
1997. As a result of this successful recruitment, the  1995
year  class came to predominate the clam population in
Sinepuxent Bay  and clam  abundance climbed.  This
profusion of prime sized clams (higher priced littlenecks)
  is what brought such a high concentration of commercial
  clammers to the upper bays in 1998.

  Bay Scallops

  Another species attempting a comeback in the coastal
  bays is the bay scallop. There is ample  evidence of
  historically extensive populations of bay scallops in this
  region.Clam surveys have found scallop shells throughout
  the coastal bays, and the beaches of Assateague Island
  are  littered  with   ancient  scallop  shells.  In   fact,
  Chincoteague, Va. was the center of a small but lucrative
  bay scallop fishery during the 1920's. However, when a
  blight  wiped out the eelgrass beds in the 1930's, the
  scallops lost their preferred habitat, and also disappeared.
  It was estimated that 90% of the eelgrass was lost to the
  so-called "wasting disease" on both the North American
  and European coasts of the Atlantic.

  Initially the recovery of the grasses was slow, on the order
  of decades, but now, some 65 years later, the seagrasses
  have come back and are thriving. Also, the Ocean City
  inlet increased the salinity throughout the coastal bays to
  a regime suitable for scallops. Despite these near optimal
  conditions, scallops had not returned by the mid-1990's.

  It seemed that the primary hindrance to a scallop recovery
  was the absence  of  a nearby source of reproducing
  adults, coupled with the comparatively isolated location of
  the  coastal bays.  By introducing  broodstock  (that is,
  spawners) to Chincotegue Bay, it was thought that nature
  could  be  given a jump start. To this end the Shellfish
  Program  was  awarded a  competitive  grant from the
  National Marine Fisheries  Service for two successive
  years  of scallop plantings.

  We decided that the most practical approach was to
  purchase and overwinter hatchery reared seed scallops,
  sheltering them until they spawned the following summer.
  This was accomplished by erecting predator exclosure
  pens constructed of plastic mesh to protect  the young
  scallops. A total of 1.2 million scallops were planted in
  1997  and 1998.  Of these,  better than 85% survived
  through the winter  to their first spawning period in the
  following spring. From this standpoint the project was a
  success in meeting its primary objective of maximizing the
  number of reproducing adults.

  Although this species generally spawns once, the scallops
  planted in  1997 spawned an unprecedented three times,
  including  twice in one season.  Scallops have yet  to be
  found that can  be positively identified as progeny of the
  1997 plantediscallops, but this was a limited effort on only
  one  year class.  The  second year  of recruitment,
  representing progeny  from both the 1997  and  1998
  plantings,  will be evaluated during the spring of 2000.
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Coincidentally, a good number of bay scallops that appear
to be the southern subspecies were caught with a clam
dredge in the southern portion of Chincoteague Bay.
Interestingly, although most were found in eelgrass beds,
some did occur on remnant oyster bars that were devoid
of vegetation. It is uncertain how well established the
population is. At least two year classes have been found,
suggesting that the original colonizers have successfully
reproduced in the bay. However, if these are indeed the
southern subspecies,  Chincoteague  Bay is near the
northern extreme of their range and they have not yet
been subjected to a harsh winter.

Intertidal Zone Molluscs

The Molluscan  Inventory  also  included  surveys  of
shorelines and structures in the intertidal zone.. Here the
numerically dominant mollusc was the ribbed  mussel,
Geukensia demissa, which were found at densities of up
to 5200 per square meter. Information collected includes
the distribution, abundance, and population structure of
this species, which is possibly one of the most ecologically
important molluscs in Chincoteague Bay. This is because
of their beneficial association with salt marshes.

The mussels live along the fringe of the marsh, where
they filter algae from  the water column when  the tide
inundates them. They promote growth along the marsh's
edge by  fertilizing the  grasses  and  increasing the
sedimentation rate with their waste products. In addition,
their network of byssal threads, which the mussels use to
secure themselves to the substrate, helps to stabilize the
sediment and reduce erosion, such as from wave action.

Ecologically Important Species

The inventory of ecologically valuable molluscs included
species that may not have an intrinsic commercial value
but play important roles in the ecosystem of the coastal
bays. In order to capture the smaller species, a ponar grab
was the primary gear type for the survey. However, the
tallies from the other sampling  methods are included in
the species distribution list. At least 73 molluscan species
have been accounted for to date. Sixteen of these had not
been reported in previously published accounts of the
coastal bays, including three northward range extensions
of southern species. This rich assemblage of molluscs is
partly due to the biogeographic position of the coastal
bays, which are located near the southern limits of many
northern species overlapping with some southern species
filtering up past Cape Hatteras.

In addition, there is a diversity of habitats in the coastal
bays, including mud bottoms dotted with projecting worm
tubes,  bare sand, seagrasses, shell bars, salt marshes,
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III               32
fast currents, quiet coves, inlets, islands, and man-made
structures, all of which contribute to this species richness.

Surprisingly, of all these species, only seven species were
common to all of the coastal bays,  suggesting that the
community structures vary considerably among the bays.
In fact, this is what we found, with differences in species
composition, ranking, and abundance.  There were also
strong seasonal and interannual variability in the structure
of the molluscan community.

For the first two  years of the study the most abundant
mollusc was Bitti'um varium, a tiny snail that gets no larger
than a  caraway  seed.  Densities at individual stations
reached as high  as 39,000 per square meter. Then, in
1995, the population crashed and individuals are rarely
seen to this day, despite frequent visits to their preferred
habitat, seagrasses, over the past few years.

Who  cares about a seemingly insignificant little snail?
These diminutive gastropods are grazers, cleaning the
eelgrass blades of algae which competes with eelgrass for
light and obstructs carbon intake. Researchers in Virginia
concluded  that  seagrasses   are  dependent   on
micrograzing  to  increase growth,  distribution,  and
abundance. They pointed out that the decline in eelgrass
beds  in the western  Chesapeake coincided with the
disappearance of Bittium after Tropical  Storm Agnes.


The significance  of molluscs to the estuarine ecosystem
has long been recognized.  Over one hundred years ago
the concept of an ecological community was developed by
Karl Mobius  through  his  observations on the  faunal
assemblages of oyster reefs. Functionally, molluscs serve
as a  key trophic link between primary producers and
higher consumers.  Bivalves in particular are important as
biogeochemical  agents in  benthic-pelagic  coupling,
cycling organic  matter from the water column  to the
bottom. In addition, molluscs can have a pronounced
impact on the physical structure of an ecosystem, whether
by reworking the sediment, grazing, binding or securing
existing substrate,  or building new substrate such as
oyster reefs. Many molluscs are commercially valuable,
both directly as a harvestable resource and indirectly as a
food source for commercially and recreationally important
species including crabs, fish, and waterfowl. A knowledge
of the coastal bays  molluscs provide valuable insight into
the workings of this ecosystem.
                          Friday, November 11, 1999

                                  SEARCHING FOR CLUES

                                  MICHAEL J. MILLARD, PH.D.
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Millard. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for publication.

I would like to set the stage for the  horseshoe crab
controversy that is currently going on.  There are fairly
clear  indications  that horseshoe crab  harvest has
increased significantly  over  the  last 5-10 years, due
primarily to the increase in conch and eel fisheries in
which horseshoe crabs are used for bait. Fuelling this
controversy is the horseshoe crab-migratory shorebird
connection, primarily in the Delaware Bay. The current
premise, endorsed by many, is that horseshoe crab eggs
are the primary fuel source for these migrating shorebirds.
Delaware Bay is one of the largest stopovers on the East
Coast. The concern is that should horseshoe crab eggs
become less available, this will, in fact, be detrimental to
migratory shorebird populations. The horseshoe crab is
also used in a very small, but very important, segment of
the biomedical industry where a component of the blood
is used as a marker, or indicator, for endotoxins, drugs, or
implanted devices. It is the best component that we know
of today to do that. Compounding the problem is that they
are an interesting creature, but we haven't reailly done
much science on them lately.  There are a few individuals
who have been working on them, but, in general, there's
no real understanding of the population dynamics or life
history. This made the task of the Horseshoe Crab Stock
Assessment Committee much more difficult.

The Stock  Assessment Committee for Atlantic  States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) was put together
quickly. In 1998 we first convened and were told to gather
all the available data and evaluate it for its effectiveness
in assessing the  horseshoe crab stocks on the Atlantic
Coast. During June through August, we whipped through
this data analysis pretty  quickly, but we were being
pressured by ASMFC and the community to hurry up with
some answers. In November 1998, we issued our report.
  It was reviewed by a review panel and the results are now
  published through the ASMFC process.

  In January 1999, the group got together again and
  redesigned the spawner workshop. Again, most of this
  primarily refers to Delaware Bay.  We redesigned a very
  important spawning survey that has been going on for
  approximately  10  years.     There  were   a  few
  inconsistencies that hopefully we have fixed by now and
  we look forward to, every year, continuing this survey and
  improving  it. : This summer, the  spawning survey was
  conducted using this new and improved format. Now, we
  are in the process  of hopefully  making progress on
  alternate baits. That may be the key to relieving some of
  the pressure on  the  horseshoe crabs.  The Stock
  Assessment Committee is also in the process of designing
  a statistically valid near-shore benthic trawl survey which
  will help us collect the data necessary for a formal  stock
  assessment.  To date, a formal stock assessment has
  only been approximated, because of the lack of data.

  We were  tasked, by the ASMFC  to:  1) review and
  evaluate the available data, 2) assess the relative status
  and trends of the horseshoe crab population given the
  available reliable data, 3) investigate the multi-species
  interactions and potential management strategies, and 4)
  develop recommendations  for  research surveys  to
  continue needed data collection.

  The first indication that there was a problem was in the
  NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) landings data.
   It is well known that a lot of the horseshoe crab landings
  in the NMFS data are under-reported,  so most of the
  states added, on what they  thought was appropriate to
  account for the under-reporting. There is a clear increase
  in the number of reported landings since the beginning of
  this decade. ,lt is fairly high  relative to the past baseline
  harvest.    i
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

The data  that  we  (Stock  Assessment Committee)
assembled had to meet some acceptance criteria to be
usable for the trend analysis. First, whatever variable was
measured (catch, catch per unit effort (CPUE), numbers,
weight, etc.) had to be what we felt was a true index of the
abundance of the stock.  Second, the sampling scheme
had to be such that it would indeed provide this index—not
just a hit-or-miss sampling scheme. Third, the time series
had to be informative.  We couldn't have one sample back
in 1988 and one sample in 1998 and maybe one in
between.  We needed to have a fairly good,  consistent
time series to do a trend analysis.   Finally,  and  most
important, the sampling scenario over  that time series
needed to be consistent and comparable.  If  different
techniques were used at different times, the numbers are
not necessarily comparable. After running the data sets
through this screening process, we ended up with five
data sets that we felt were adequate for assessing trends.

We examined data on percent zero catches and that
number was quite high.  Most of the time the NMFS, in
the survey, are  not catching any crabs.  This is not
surprising since  their gear is  not designed to catch
horseshoe crabs. They use 20-24 inch  rollers on the
bottom  of the trawl and that is not very effective in
catching an animal  that lives  on, or  buried in, the
substrate. But you do see a shift in plateaus centered
around  1985.   This  is  an indication  that  something
happened in or around 1985. Whether you take out the
zero catches, or leave them in, the trend doesn't really
change that much.

We had data that was quite scattered, and only conclude
that either there was so  much variation  that we were
unable to detect a trend in the data, or that there was no
trend in the data.  We did a power analysis that allowed us
to say, given the variation in the data, how much of a drop
over the 15-year period examined would need to  have
existed for us to detect it 80% of the time. It turns out that
it would have had to have been an 80% decline in CPUE
for us to detect it 80% of the time, and that's a  function of
the variation in the data. Had the data been less variable,
we'd have been able to detect a much smaller drop with
more certainty. That leads us to believe that there is just
too much variation to detect even a 50% or 40% decline.
We examined the mean weights to determine if there was
any difference  in weights  over time that  might be
indicative of overfishing, and they were fairly stable.

The other thing we looked at was the Delaware 30-foot
trawl, which did  show a decline in the CPUE trends.
Catch frequency data in that 9-year time series  shows that
catches of horseshoe crabs are relatively rare.  The
highest frequency catch is zero, and there was only one
catch of any significant numbers. The time series for the
Delaware 30-foot trawl has fairly large variation, but  does
   show a significant decline. We did see a downward trend
   in CPUE. Again, if you exclude the zeros, as some people
   feel you should since this gear isn't designed to catch
   horseshoe crabs, it made no difference to the results. In
   this case, we did have an 80% decline, and we were able
   to detect it.  Using the power analysis, if it had been only
   a 60% decline, we would only have been able to detect it
   40% of the time, given the variability of the data.  This
   again  comes from using gear that is not designed for
   catching this particular type of animal which lives buried in
   the substrate and is patchily distributed.

   Our finding, after having gone through this process, was
   that there was no increasing or decreasing trend in the
   coastal horseshoe crab abundance. That was modified by
   the peer review panel to say that there's been  no
   demonstrable impact.  In other words, there may be an
   impact out there, but given the data that we have we are
   unable to detect it.  We concluded  that the data from
   these non-directed surveys, which were aimed at trawling
   mainly for finfish, are probably not a good indication of
   what's going on with the horseshoe crab population. It's
   a poor index of horseshoe crab abundance. Zero catches
   predominate. There may be a spatial-temporal mismatch
   in what the crabs are doing in relation to what the trawlers
   are doing for finfish. So the sampling design may not be
   optimally designed for horseshoe crabs.  There's some
   indication  that  these  crabs  are  clustered,  patchily
   distributed, and there may be other sampling designs that
   would be  better to capitalize on  that distribution  as
   opposed to random trawls at fixed stations.

   We need to develop appropriate abundance indices for
   horseshoe crabs. Optimal sampling designs specifically
   directed  at this animal need to be developed.  It is an
   expensive proposition. Where we can keep track of eight
   or more  different finfish with one trawl, we may need a
   single vessel and separate gear for horseshoe crabs
   alone. Whether the resources will be available for this
   remains  unknown. Results of the beach spawner survey
   conducted this summer from a USGS report on surveys of
   the Delaware and  New  Jersey beaches show some
   apparent declines, but most beaches were stable.

   What Needs to Happen Now?

   The Stock  Assessment Committee will continue and
   optimize the beach spawner survey, hopefully every year.
   We wonder if we will have the resources to keep doing it,
   but right now it's the best tool that we have to monitor
   horseshoe crabs. Some of the committee members might
   begin simulating production models to look at some logical
   bounds  on the  population parameters  and  harvest
   guidelines.  Right now we have no knowledge of the
   mortality rates  that occur-fishing or natural mortality.
   Without  any knowledge  of  those, the formal stock
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

assessment becomes untenable.  We are also in the
process of developing this near-shore benthic survey to
help us conduct,  in future  years, a more accurate

Future work that needs to be done by biologists includes
gathering a lot of life history information for the horseshoe
crab.   Not much is  known about critical  habitat and
movement patterns, particularly for the young. Our work
has all been  focused  on Delaware Bay  because of
shorebird issues, but we need to assess the coastal bays
as well. We need  to better characterize the horseshoe
crab-shorebird relationship. There is a lot of science and
there are a lot of statements that don't always match up,
so we  need to further continue to investigate these
relationships. Most importantly, and this might diffuse the
whole  situation, we need  to develop alternate bait
strategies.  Significant progress is already being made in
this area.
                        Reported HSC Landings (Ibs x 1000)
                                        (NMFS 1998)
                                 W/ stale "augmentation"
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference II!


                                      BRYAN WATTS, PH.D.
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Watts, It has been reviewed and approved by the author for publication.

Shorebirds are a diverse group throughout North America,
and we contain or support about 50 species.  Most of
these species are associated with  aquatic habitats, at
least during some part of their life cycle, and they contain
some of the widely known groups such as the plovers and
the sandpipers. Many of these species, over the past 20-
30 years, have been shown to be experiencing some
populations declines, and they have become of concern
to the conservation community.

Shorebirds  are some of the most mobile animals known
to science.  About 3/4 of the species that we support in
North America actually migrate from the tropics. Many of
these species migrate a round-trip distance of 30,000 km
or  more.    Early on  in  the  conservation-concerned
community,  when we  began to see the  population
declines, a  lot of our  attention was  focused on the
breeding grounds and then later on the wintering grounds.
What we've realized over time is that these species  may
spend as much as 5-6 months of the year in transit.

We used to think, in the early decades of this century, that
migration was just going from point A to point B. We are
realizing more  and more that migration is  a  highly
structured process and that many of these species' life
history  strategies  have  evolved  around  particular
migration areas.  What we see in the case of Shorebirds
is that they are migrating over very large distances  and,
unlike many of the landbird migrants, they are targeting
specific locations where they are refueling.  So they're not
just moving  and  dropping  out wherever they  occur.
They're specifically flying to targeted areas.

Each one  of these areas, in  itself,  is  an energetic
bottleneck. These species are arriving energy-depleted,
many of them below lean mass, and they are spending a
variable period of time foraging frantically to rebuild those
  fat reserves before moving on to the next stopover area.
  These areas are, in fact, like stepping stones that they are
  using between winter and breeding areas.    Not  all
  stopover areas are of equal concern. The reason that's
  true is that many of these species breed in the Arctic and
  the breeding season in the Arctic is of very short duration.
  So many of these species need to arrive on the breeding
  grounds prepared to  breed.  Many of the females are
  actually forming eggs during the migration, so that when
  they get there, they are prepared to immediately breed, in
  order to produce a brood in a short period of time.

  Those locations  very close to the  breeding grounds,
  particularly during spring migration,  are  of very high
  conservation significance. This is the position where we
  find ourselves in the mid-Atlantic. We are some of the
  northern-most staging areas, and therefore we have very
  high conservation significance. Our concern is that these
  staging areas may be degraded such that we will have a
  greater and greater impact on these species' ability to
  make it between breeding and wintering areas.

  One of the reasons we're so  concerned about some of
  these major staging areas is that significant portions of
  entire species may depend on specific sites. That's true
  of Delaware Bay, and many other sites in the Western
  Hemisphere-the Bay of Panama, the Bay of Fundy,
  Copper River Delta,  Alaska.   Many of these sites are
  where very large numbers of birds stage and significant
  proportions of entire species depend on those sites.
  These sites have true conservation significance.

  What are these species doing in these staging areas?
  They're really only engaged in two activities. The first is
  that they are foraging frantically at these sites to  gain the
  energy they need to move on.  Second is that they are
  sleeping.  So they are eating and sleeping, eating and
  sleeping, and they're trying to build  up the fat reserves
  needed both for breeding and for migrating.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

When we look at the distribution of the various  energy
sources worldwide (imagine how much energy it would
take to fuel several hundred thousand of these birds in
one small location), it turns out that areas worldwide that
have the amount of free energy for these birds to utilize
are very rare, and almost all of them are associated with
coastal zones. So most of these birds are migrating along
coastal zones and they're depending on those particular
areas that have a lot of free energy, like Delaware Bay.

What do we know about the mid-Atlantic region? Many of
you may know that the Delaware Bay is a hemispherically
important migration staging area for shorebirds.  It has
actually  been designated as a western hemisphere
shorebird reserve with hemispheric importance, meaning
that it is known to support at least 500,000 birds during
some portion of the year.  I have already mentioned that
there are at least three species that Delaware Bay really
seems  important for - ruddy turnstones,  semipelmated
sandpipers, and the red knot.  Along the Atlantic Coast,
Delaware Bay is probably the most significant  staging
area we have, at least within the  U.S. The Bay of Fundy
is also significant to the north, particularly at fall migration.

What we know about the Delmarva Peninsula is much
less than the Delaware Bay. There has been a long-term
monitoring program along Delaware Bay that is capable of
looking at trends  over time,  but we do  not have that
information for the Delmarva Peninsula. The outer portion
of the Delmarva Peninsula has  been designated as a
western hemisphere shorebird reserve with international
status,  meaning it is known to support at least 100,000
birds in the course of a year. That designation was given
based  on some  surveys done in the seventies  and
eighties here at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge,
and also some preliminary flights  that have been done on
the outer barrier islands. We have known almost nothing
about the use of the coastal bays here on the outer part of
the Delmarva by shorebirds. In 1994, we initiated a study
to see just a few basic things: What species are using
these coastal bays? What kind of numbers are coming
through? And what kind of habitats are they using?

We established a series of transects, beginning above the
Virginia-Maryland  line.  We flew down from  the outer
barrier  islands surveying birds -  about  100 km of outer
beach, then we also had ten transects that bisected the
lagoon system that were flown.  So a total of 200 km of
transects. The lagoonal transects were spaced about 4
km apart. The idea here was to use low altitude aerial
surveys to get an estimate of shorebird numbers. To do
this, we fly low over the surface to scrub the birds off the
surface.  If you fly about 30 m off the ground, these birds
will spontaneously fly up in front of you. That gives you an
opportunity to estimate flock sizes and to get some idea of
species composition.  These flights were flown every 10
   days or so from late April through early June and we were
   hoping to cover the peak of the spring migration period.
   We still know virtually nothing about the fall migration.

   There were six species or species groups that dominated
   that system - the dunlin, black-bellied plover, short-billed
   dowitcher, semipalmated sandpiper, whimbrel, and willet.
   The semipalmated sandpiper is the predominant small
   sandpiper here. It is not possible to identify this species
   from the air.  There are several of these species in the
   same  genus, Calidris, not identifiable from the air, so we
   group them iaa category called peeps. We know that this
   is the  dominant one from ground work. Of all these six
   groups, the willet is the only species that actually breeds
   on the Delmarva. This is a large shorebird that migrates
   through this region, but also breeds here  on  the outer
   barrier islands and the marshes.

   What  are we, seeing  in terms of the numbers that are
   coming through the lagoon systems?  Our time window
   was fairly good for some species  and not so good for
   others. It happens that dunlin winter in large numbers
   here on the Delmarva, and we didn't encapsulate their full
   period, and in fact they turn out to be the most abundant
   species that we have in the coastal bays.  At any rate,
   many of the species come through in early to mid May and
   reach  fairly significant numbers. If we look at ail of these
   species collectively, what we  see is that these birds reach
   a density of about 1400-1500 birds per square kilometer
   of habitat within the coastal bays. Just to give you some
   comparison, that is a very significant density comparable
   to many of the large staging areas we have on the Pacific
   Coast. It is comparable to Delaware Bay. The difference
   is that we have less habitat, or less surface area available.
   So densities are similar, but our system is not as large as
   many  of these other staging areas.

   One of the things we need  to consider when we think
   about habitat use of these shorebirds is that they are leg
   length limited.  These species are  not able to forage in
   deep water, the willet and the two yellowlegs are some
   of the longer legged species that we have and they are
   not capable of foraging in deep water. They are restricted
   to shallow water areas in emergent habitats. There are
   only two types of substrates in the coastal bays that these
   birds can  forage on.  One is  the extensive salt marshes,
   cordgrass marshes, that we  have in the lagoon system.
   The other substrate is the intertidal mud flats that we often
   see associated with the Spartina marshes. Of course, salt
   marshes are available throughout the day, mudflats are
   only available during low tide periods.

   If we compare the density of these birds on these two
   available  habitat types, what we see is that there is no
   comparison.   Shorebirds on mudflats reach very high
   densities, something like 70-80 times higher than on the
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

available salt marsh habitats.  So most of the birds that
are coming through the lagoon systems are depending on
these intertidal mudflats that are exposed at low tide.

By using  some metabolic equations we can actually
predict the energy requirements, just to break even, of
these species.   This is collectively, all of these birds
together that are using these mudflats.  This has been
converted into prey biomass, so this would give you some
indication of what prey biomass this density of birds would
be extracting per km2, just to break even.  Because of
their condition  when  they're coming through  during
migration, they  may be extracting 2-3 times more than
this. This is the period we have data for, but if we  looked
at these collectively, what I see is that on that km2 basis,
these birds are extracting something on the order of 600-
700 kg of prey. If we project this to the lagoon system that
is south of Chincoteague, what we  see is that over the
course of just this short time, these shorebirds would be
extracting on the order of 100 metric tons of prey. What
that suggests is that not only  are  the Delmarva bays
important  to these shorebirds, these shorebirds are a
significant component of that ecosystem, even though
they're only there for a short period of time.

This is still in the early stages of investigation and there
are many things that we don't know. We are finding that
these areas are very  significant to shorebirds moving
through.  What we don't know is what these birds are
feeding on.  We presume that these birds are primarily
feeding on marine worms that are found in this system.  I
do not believe that these birds on the lower Delmarva are
feeding to any great extent on horseshoe crab eggs. We
see no evidence of that. The only place in  the lower
Delmarva  bays  that we have any significant numbers of
horseshoe crabs is on the delta islands in the major inlets.
They do not occur, to  any great extent, near these
mudflats. I don't believe that they are providing the major
source of energy to most of these birds.  However, the
shorebirds are opportunistic, and whenever you do see
horseshoe crabs spawning, you see plenty of shorebirds
feeding on their eggs.  So they will feed  on them, but I
don't believe, in the broader scheme, that it represents
much of their energy source.

There are a number of things that we need to know. We
suspect that the salt marsh is providing some  of the
conversion of energy  to these shorebirds.  We know
virtually nothing about what the energy changers in this
system are.  We heard earlier today about some of the
algae that we have coming into this system, but we don't
know how that plays into the general flow of energy.

One of the other things that we would like to know is just
how many birds do our peak numbers represent.  All we
know is how many birds are in that system at a given point
   in time.  We don't know how many birds that represents
   over the course of the season, because we don't know
   what  the  turnover  rate  is.   We desperately need
   information on stopover times so that we can generate
   turnover estimates and be able to estimate how many total
   birds are using the system. If we use the available habitat
   in our survey data, we come up with a projected estimate
   of peak  at about 250,000 birds within that system below
   Chincoteague. How many real birds are coming through?
   Is it 2, 3, or 4 times that? There is no way of knowing
   unless we generate some turnover rates.

   We have some concerns. On the Delmarva peninsula,
   one of the main industries is farming. Many of the crops
   that are grown are very intensive in terms of chemical use,
   nutrient  use, etc. What potential impact does it have on
   the  invertebrate prey  base that these  species  are
   depending on?  Even when we use best management
   practices, such as the use of buffer areas, it's certain that
   during heavy rains a lot of these chemicals are coming
   into our estuaries. The other industry that we see on the
   lower Delmarva is  the harvesting  of  water-based
   resources.  What are the potential impacts or conflicts
   between some  of  the; water-based industries  and
   shorebird requirements? This is totally unstudied at this
   point. One obvious  thing is that whenever you dredge
   clams from the surface, you're probably impacting the
   fauna there that these species depend on. So there may
   be the potential for conflict  between the resources the
   birds need and some of the industry that we have there.

   One of the other concerns that we have is  illustrated by
   this. These birds are under tremendous time constraints.
   Their only access to these mudflat areas are during  low
   tide periods and there are many other biological factors
   that influence, or restrict, the amount of time that they
   have to extract energy.  Bird watching and nature-based
   tourism  is the  fastest  growing sector of the tourism
   industry, accounting for billions of dollars of our national
   economy now. It is certainly true that in the future, it will
   become a growing part of the Delmarva economy. We
   need to  be careful as we develop that industry that we
   don't impact the resources that people are coming to see.
   These shorebirds, originally when they're foraging,  are
   very susceptible to disturbance. We want to make sure
   that when we design the; tourism and public access that
   we're careful to keep the resource in mind.

   In closing, I will say that the Delmarva is  a significant
   staging area to many species. There is, in fact, increasing
   evidence, that it is a terminal staging area before some of
   these species go off the coast, inland to their breeding
   areas, and as such, we have to understand that these
   shorebirds are an international resource. They're not just
   private to North America, and we have an  international
   responsibility to  plan for the welfare of these species.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

                           COMPLEX ISSUES, SIMPLE TRUTHS

                                         Bill Matuszeski
                           EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Mr.
Matuszeski. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for
publication.                                       <•

I was asked to come today to talk to you about a topic
which really appeared in a monthly article that I write for
The Bay Journal. Some of you may see The Bay Journal
from time to time, it is a magnificent publication, that's put
out by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and it really is
a terrific way of keeping up on issues. In fact, I always tell
Carl Blakenship that if there's an issue that I don't really
understand, like submerged grasses, or oyster reefs, that
I ask him to do an article about it. Then when the article
comes out, I can read it and I can understand the issue.
It's a great technique, I recommend it to you. He's a great
writer, and he really does understand a lot of these issues.

I think back when I took the Chesapeake Bay Program
reins, and had the opportunity to begin working in the
Chesapeake, I had to get used to the Chesapeake.  One
of the things I had to get used to on the Chesapeake was
how hot people get over certain issues.  One of the first
articles I wrote in The Bay Journal was about oysters, and
 I said that I thought that there were some pretty  simple
things about oysters when it got down to it. I  said that one
of the things that's pretty clear is that we are managing the
•oysters for the  annual harvest, and  that we are not
 managing the oysters for the long-term viability of the
economy surrounding the communities that are based
 upon oysters, and that we are not managing the oysters
with respect to the ecological role they play in the Bay.
 That got me into a lot of hot water. In fact, I was called on
the carpet before a state official and told in no uncertain
 terms I didn't know what I was talking about.

 It is interesting,  maybe I did know what I was  talking
 about, and those were some simple truths. Today we find
 ourselves, half a dozen years later, about to commit,
 through a new Chesapeake Bay Agreement, to an oyster
 goal to increase the number of oysters in the Bay ten
  times by 2010.  A remarkable change in attitude and a
  remarkable recognition of the role that the filterers play in
  the system-a willingness to set goals, not on this year's
  harvest, but upon getting a system in place that will really
  provide the necessary ecological function. So there really
  are simple truths out there and you may not think so the
  first time that you lay them out in front of somebody who
  wants  to  convince  you that these issues  are very
  complicated-that you couldn't possibly come up with any
  kind of a straight-forward way of dealing with them. I urge
  you not to be dissuaded by those who allege to know
  more about these issues, and to seek out the simple truths
  for those complex issues.

  What Are Some of Those Complex Issues?

  Growth Management

  In a lot of these watersheds, and certainly here, we are
  dealing with  a  lot  of problems-population  increase,
  growth, and development. We know that there's a real
  complex set of issues surrounding that. We talk about low
  impact development, smart growth, and infrastructure
  management with respect to highways and sewer lines.
  We also talk about protecting areas, preserving lands, and
  using the various devices we have available, such as
  easements  and  development rights  transfers, and
  focusing development. And we talk about dealing with all
  these issues in the context of a very strong set of interests
  which is insistent upon continuing to have a healthy,
  growing economy underneath it all. A pretty complex set
  of issues, and really hard to see our way through.

  Or is it really? To me there are some simple truths about
  this set of issues. One is that it is unlikely to stop. We  are
  not about to stop the growth of the counties that surround
  the coastal bays. One of them is called Delaware 1, which
  is coming in from the north, into the heart of this region.
  Another one Is under construction out there on your way
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

west—a four lane highway. These decisions have been
made-the growth is going to occur. So, I think one of the
simple truths is we're not going to stop it.

Another one is that we're not going to get very far with
carrying capacity arguments because, frankly, nobody
buys carrying capacity arguments, except those of us who
are already convinced that the carrying capacity has been
met. So, we really can't expect to gain much in the way of
progress  by convincing  public  officials  that we've
overloaded the system with numbers of people. We could
probably  accommodate  300  million people in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed if they were willing to live in
the right places and live with the right lifestyles.  The
question is not numbers of people, and carrying capacity
arguments will not carry us very far.

The issue is how you grow and how you accommodate
development A couple of things are pretty clear about
that. There are places in this country that have managed
to handle as much tourism-based development, as much
outside influx of economic activity, as much in the way of
percentage increases in population, and they've done
well.   Oregon and Vermont are two  good examples.
They've done it through a couple of really simple things.
One, you have no right to put  a sub-division  on  your
property unless you are within a growth zone, within the
boundaries of a growth area. I don't mean the Maryland
approach to growth boundaries which is about 5 miles
outside of town in the woods there's a sign up that says,
"Prince Frederick Town Center".  I mean real boundaries,
that  really  say, this is where we are going to allow

Along those lines,  there has to be a very clear set of
limitations on how much commercial development will be
allowed outside those areas.  If you do that, if you're
capable of establishing growth boundaries,  and you're
capable of establishing eco-tourism, or tourism zones, or
economic development zones, where you will allow that
development to occur, then the answers are going to be
relatively simple.  But, the job is to get people to agree
that those things have to  be done.  It has  been done
elsewhere.  Vermonters,  particularly the natives, don't
come any more set in their ways, and yet, it works there.
The towns stop when you reach the country, while ski
resorts are being built year after year in other places. So
that can be done. There are relatively simple answers to
relatively complex questions.

Toxic Blooms

What is going on with toxic blooms, with the red tides, the
brown tides, the pfiesteria? A couple of things are really
important here. One is, that for the first time ever, there is
   now a public health concern about the algae situation in
   our bays. Algae has been a nasty problem for years, and
   we said, we really have to do something about those
   blooms, someday, and we really have to do something
   about the drops in oxygen, someday. But, if you look at
   the laws, what we really focused on the first 30 years of
   the Clean Water Act were the so-called "conventional"
   pollutants-the bacteria-causing, problem pollutants that
   make people sick.  We were concerned about toxics
   because of their long term effects on human health. But
   we didn't really care that much about the nutrient loadings
   that were going into our ssystems, primarily because they
   were not a direct threat to our human health. That's no
   longer the case.

   We have a lot of potential factors to deal with. I think we
   have to deal with salinities,  flow regimes, acidity, pH
   levels, rainfall, the interactions offish with the algae, and
   nutrients. And so we look at those factors and we could
   argue a long time about what's causing our problems
   here, but the answer is really relatively simple. If you look
   at that list of possible causes,  temperature, salinity, flow,
   acidity, rainfall, fish, and nutrients,  there's only one of
   them that, in my opinion, we can  readily affect. We
   cannot affect the temperature of the water, the salinity, the
   flow,  the acidity, the rainfall, or even the presence of the
   type of fish species which seem to kick off these events.
   The only one we can really manage is nutrients. So I say
   to you, it's not that tough an  issue to figure out.  It's  a
   matter of dealing  with those things that we can control.

   Now, if you want to argue that  300 years ago this was not
   a problem and therefore, nutrients must not be a cause,
   you can make that argument.  But I don't think too many
   people are going to agree: with you.  I think a lot of people
   are going to believe that we're dealing with man-caused
   events here. Certainly the frequency and intensity of them
   is going to relate to our ability to control the effects of man,
   and that means our ability to deal with nutrients.


   There is a  lot of complexity about how to deal with
   agricultural  activities.  We have spent a tremendous
   amount of effort  trying to look at the ways in which its
   appropriate to regulate the farm community, to regulate
   the integrators, and to what extent are we dealing with an
   agricultural  industry problem or a  single part of that
   industry. It seems to me that we can get into a lot of finger
   pointing in this area and we've ended up with a series of
   laws  which vary somewhat, but primarily they deal with
   poultry industry, which is important to the Delmarva area.
   However, these laws differ from state to state, so the
   problem looks really complex.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

But I believe there are some really simple truths out there
that point to the fact that something needs to be done.
There are 11 counties in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
many of which you share, where we are producing more
than 250% of the manure which is needed to fertilize
every single acre of crops grown in those counties. That's
a clear, serious problem. When you look at what is going
on with application rate, it is even more remarkable. If you
look at the Delmarva peninsula, there are watersheds
which are  not close to the manure producing areas,  for
example the Chester River and north. Let's assume that
the proper application rate for the crops that we would be
talking about, corn and soybeans, would be around 100
Ibs. per acre. That is a little high, but let's just assume for
simplicity.   If you look at the watersheds that are not
manure dominated, you'll find that they're putting on about
10 Ibs. of manure per acre average, and about 90 Ibs. of
commercial fertilizer.  When you come south into this
area, the  manure dominated watersheds around the
Pocomoke and Nanticoke rivers, I think you will find that
the application rate is about 130 Ibs/ acre, on land which
can only absorb 100.  But more than that, I believe they
are still  putting the 90 Ibs. of commercial fertilizer on it,
which is incredible. So we could be loading up at the rate
of 220 Ibs. per acre average in a system that can only
absorb  100, and we are doing it by buying as much
commercial fertilizer.  We should not be buying a pound
of commercial fertilizer south of the Chester River, unless
it  is  being  used  to correct the  balance   between
phosphorus and nitrogen.

Here is another very clear issue. We cannot continue to
manage our nitrogen application because when we apply
the right kind of levels to achieve what we need  for
nitrogen in our poultry growing areas, we are overapplying
phosphorus by a factor of four. So if we're going to get
our phosphorus under control, we have to haul away 3/4
of the manure. That's a pretty simple, straight-forward, set
of mathematics.  We've got to deal with realities.  We've
got to deal with the simple truths that we are nowhere
near dealing with, in spite of all our laws, and in spite of all
our arguments.  We are nowhere near what needs to be
done about this agriculture problem.  But we haive some
pretty simple truths to work from.


There are a few simple truths about fisheries, I believe,
and I think  we're  beginning to learn them  in the
Chesapeake, and I think you're probably beginning to
leam them here. One is, you cannot manage year after
year after year at the edge of a crash.  And yet, species
after species after species,  that's exactly what we're
doing. We're managing right at the edge, and we know
that once we go over that edge, it could take a long, long
   time to get it back.  We need to back away from the edge
   and set some limits.

   Another thing that's true about fisheries is that we cannot
   accommodate everybody who thinks they want to make a
   living in commercial fishing in  this country.  We can
   accommodate  a lot of people to do that.   We can
   accommodate  the traditional levels  of fishery activity
   within our watersheds, but we cannot double, triple, or
   quadruple  the number  of people,  or the  number of
   crabpots, etc., that are putting the strain on our fisheries.
   To a large degree, we've gotten that way because we've
   allowed the industry to overcapitalize. We've encouraged
   people  to invest and now they've got their life savings
   sunk into this equipment, and now we're beginning to
   realize  we're overcapitalized.   It isn't as though you
   couldn't have predicted that.

   Finally, the reason we got into this mess is because we're
   under-regulated.   We're  under-regulated in  fisheries
   because  the fisheries  regulation agencies  are  still
   controlled by the commercial fishing interests, and until
   that changes, we're not going to be able to get the simple
   truth brought forward to deal with the living resource of our

   In closing, letime say, don't let anybody tell you that any of
   these issues are too complex to deal with, because they
   aren't.  Every one of them comes back to some  very
   simple  basic truths,  and those  are, for the most  part,
   common sense. With a little bit of reading, you're going to
   be articulate about how  to present them to people.  So,
   with a little bit of learning and with a lot of common sense,
   I think  you will find  that these issues can be worked
   through, and it is amazing how much light appears, and
   how clear the past becomes.


   Could you talk about the issue of locating sanitary landfills
   in close proximity to the waterways?

   I do not have a lot of expertise about sanitary landfills. My
   understanding is  that the real  issue is groundwater
   contamination, and that the ability to design and construct
   facilities that are  able to contain the waste  properly,
   without contaminating the groundwater, is something that
   we have the technology to do today.  I do not know if the
   correct techhologies allow us to move these kinds of
   facilities close to open waters, or how close.  It seems to
   me that there are experts who can determine that, and
   there ought to be some consensus around materials used,
   and placement, in such away, that the answer ought to be
   relatively clear. I am not dodging your answer, I just don't
   know what it is.
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Is the over-application of manure pretty much the same
over all of Delmarva, or just Delaware, or Maryland?

My impression is that the overapplications are occurring
wherever we have high concentrations of poultry.  I think
most of you know that Sussex County, Delaware, has the
highest concentration of  poultry in the USA, if not the
world.  Two hundred fifty million chickens a year.  More
chickens than  any other county  in  America.   The
underlying problem is that the transport of manure has not
been established as an effective and profit making activity,
as yet. One of the reasons is that we are not requiring
that any of it be moved  out.  As some of these simple
truths indicate to you, sooner or later we've got to face the
reality that we cannot continue to absorb those levels of
manure on the limited lands that we have in these very
sensitive watersheds.

What about the situation  in Virginia?

The question is whether  or not the situation is nearly as
bad down in Virginia.  Since Representative Bob Boxum,
from the Eastern Shore  is in the room, and he's a good
friend of mine,  and I rely on  him for a lot of the best
legislation in Virginia, I am just going to say I am sure it's
not as bad down there.

Is there anything you can do, or any advice you can give,
to citizens who agree  with you wholeheartedly that
development zones should not be around the inland bays
when the state is advocating that? Sussex County is
advocating the entire circumference of the inland bays to
be surrounded by development zone in spite of citizen
protest?  What do you do?

The question is why is Delaware being condemned to a
system whereby it has big counties with very little local
government below the counties, so that the citizens have
relatively little influence within the local government? We
are dealing here with a tragedy of American history, that
Delaware ended up having inherited the county power
system of the South and the big counties of the  North
when what it should have inherited was the opposite. It
should have inherited the town meetings of the North and
the small counties of the  South. Either way it would have
been better off, this way it's damned, because you've got
a big county geographically, with a lot of varied interests
in Hand you cannot easily influence the decisions that are
being made about land use at that level.

One answer is to incorporate as much land  as you can
into towns around the bays, which is virtually impossible
under Delaware law.  But Delaware law can be changed
to allow incorporation of communities much more quickly
and easily.  That way, the local land use power would
devolve to the locality where it would be more controlable.
  Another answer is, however, to begin to educate and work
  with the economic interests that are located along the
  coast, because, ultimately, they are going to have a say.
  I do not believe the people who own these hotels realize
  what would happen to tourism in this county if the current
  development patterns continue and we end up with the
  kind of algae bloom fallouts, pfiesteria, and everything
  else that scares everybody away.   I don't think they've
  thought that out, and it seems to me one of the odd things
  about Delaware politics right now is that  the  tourism
  industry has not risen up and  demanded  the  kind  of
  changes in  land use that are  going  to be essential if
  they're going to protect their investments.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

                          OF THE DELMARVA COASTAL BAYS

The results of the 1993 assessment of the ecological
condition of the Delaware and Maryland coastal bays were
discussed at the Delmarva Coastal Bays Conference in
1996.  The objective of this paper is  to update our
knowledge on the condition of the coastal bays with
information  from studies conducted  since  the  last
conference. Several studies have been conducted on the
ecological condition, including the estuarine food chain
and its stresses, in the intervening years. This paper
focused on studies conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) with partners from other Federal
and State agencies. Other reports in this conference
described information from several other efforts.

EPA published a report on the state of the Mid-Atlantic
estuaries (U.S. EPA 1998) which  included extensive
information on the Delmarva coastal bays. This report
compared the significant stresses facing each of the major
estuarine systems in the Mid-Atlantic region. Encroaching
urbanization was identified as the major source of stress
in the watersheds of the Delmarva coastal bays.

In 1997 and 1998, EPA and the U.S. Park Service jointly
studied the condition of Chincoteague, Sinepuxent and
the  Virginia   coastal  bays  (geographically  from
Chincoteague Bay to Cape Charles).  The 1993 study
found that the most degraded conditions were in the
Delaware coastal bays with conditions gradually improving
further south into Maryland coastal bays.

Preliminary results from the 97-98 survey showed that the
gradient of degraded condition found in the 1993 study did
not continue into the Virginia coastal bays. The bottom-
dwelling communities in the Virginia coastal bays appear
to be about as degraded as those in Assawoman Bay and
more  degraded than  those  in  Chincoteague  Bay.
   Chincoteague Bay continued to be the least degraded of
   ail of the Delmarva coastal bays. Information about the
   condition of the Virginia coastal bays and Sinepuxent Bay
   has been limited before this effort. With the  addition of
   these data, this database available publicly via the Internet
   is the largest one covering the Delmarva coastal bays.


   The coastal bays of the Delmarva peninsula are important
   ecological and economic resources. The coastal bays are
   spawning and nursery areas for more than 100 species of
   fish, almost half of which have commercial or recreational
   value. The bays are surrounded by an extensive network
   of tidal wetlands which contributes to and sustains this
   nursery and many other crucial ecological functions.
   These areas represent unique and particularly important
   ecological resources, providing habitat for many species
   of animals and plants. Over 90 percent of commercial
   marine finfish and shellfish depend on estuaries for some
   part of their existence.  The coastal bays also provide
   important habitat for migratory birds; the bays are part of
   the Atlantic flyway, one of four major migratory routes in
   the United States. For these reasons, the coastal bays of
   Delaware and Maryland are included in  the  National
   Estuary Program, an element of the Federal Clean Water
   Act.  The coastal bays are also an important economic
   resource.  More than 10 million people visit the Delmarva
   Peninsula annually. The primary recreational attractions
   of the region are boating, swimming, and fishing, with
   more than a half-million user-days of recreational fishing
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 701 Mapes
    Road, Fort Meade, MD 20755-5350
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic
    Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rl
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference W

each year (Seagraves 1986).  The coastal  bays also
support commercial fisheries for hard clams, blue crabs,
sea trout, and several other species of fish.  The total
economic  return  from  recreational  and commercial
activities associated with the coastal bays is estimated to
exceed 3 billion dollars, and the bays support almost
50,000 jobs (Bohlen and Boynton 1997).

The physical characteristics and location  of the coastal
bays make them particularly vulnerable to the effects of
pollutants. The northern bays of Delaware and Maryland
are mostly land-locked and have few outlets to the ocean.
This, combined with a limited volume of freshwater inflow,
results In a low flushing rate (Pritchard 1960), making
them susceptible to concentration of pollutants (Quinn et
al. 1989).  Water quality data suggest that several tidal
creeks supplying the coastal  bay's limited  freshwater
inflow are eutrophied (ANS  1988), largely  as a result of
nutrient enrichment from surrounding agricultural lands
(Ritter  1986),  enhancing this concern.  The projected
population increase in the watershed of almost 20%  per
year adds to the concerns for this resource (DIBEP1995).


The objectives of this report are three-fold: first, to review
the findings of the 1993 assessment of  Delaware and
Maryland coastal bays; secondly to present some of the
conclusions of "Condition of Mid-Atlantic Estuaries" Report
published by EPA in 1998; and finally to describe some of
the preliminary results of 1997-98 surveys of the Virginia
coastal bays, Chincoteague and Sinepuxent Bays.   For
the purposes of this report, the Virginia coastal bays are
identified as those bays which are found along the Atlantic
Ocean coastline geographically from Chincoteague Bay to
Cape Charles. The coastal bays in Virginia south of Cape
Henry  are not included.

1993  Assessment of Delaware and Maryland
Coastal Bays

In 1993, the U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency in
conjunction with the  States of Delaware and Maryland
jointly  assessed the  ecological condition of  the coastal
bays in these two States (Chaillou et al. 1996).  The
conclusions of the study were as follows:

Major  portions  of the coastal  bays had degraded
environmental quality. Twenty-eight percent of the area in
the coastal bays had  degraded benthic (bottom-dwelling)
communities. Sixty-eight percent of the area had at least
one sediment contaminant exceeding the Long et al.
(1995) ER-L concentration, which is  a threshold of
minimal biological concern.  More than 75% of the area in
the coastal bays failed the  Chesapeake Bay Program's
  Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) restoration goals,
  which are a  combination of  measures that integrate
  nutrient,  chlorophyll,  and  water  clarity  parameters
  (Dennison et al. 1993).

  The sediment contaminants which occur at concentrations
  of biological concern were primarily persistent chlorinated
  pesticides that were probably a remnant of historic inputs.
  The contaminants occurring at levels of biological concern
  are  primarily  persistent pesticides,  such as DDT,
  chlordane, and dieldrin, that are either  no  longer
  commercially available or strongly regulated, and whose
  input into the system has undoubtedly declined.  The
  prevalence of these chemicals in the sediments result, to
  a large extent, from the unique physical characteristics of
  the coastal bays: 1) land use in the coastal bays is largely
  agricultural and a  source of nonpoint pollution; 2) the
  system has a large  perimeter to area ratio, enhancing the
  potential impact of nonpoint source inputs; and 3) the low
  flushing rate of the system, enhances the  likelihood that
  chemicals entering the bays  will be retained for long
  periods of time. These characteristics present formidable
  management challenges for the coastal bays system.

  Eutrophication threatened recolonization  of SAV in the
  coastal bays, but  was  not severe enough to cause
  widespread hypoxia. Eutrophication, as measured by the
  SAV restoration goals,  was widespread  in the  coastal
  bays.   With  the exception of some limited areas of
  management concern, eutrophication has not yet resulted
  in a severe hypoxia problem that threatens biota.  Oxygen
  concentrations less than 5 ppm were measured in  only 8%
  of the study area, though it was as high as 25% in Indian
  River and St. Martin River.  Oxygen concentrations less
  than 2 ppm were measured only in dead-end canals. This
  is   consistent   with  previous   studies,  in   which
  concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) less than 5 ppm
  were measured rarely and were spatially limited to known
  areas of management concern. While we measured only
  8%  of the area as hypoxic, this amount  may be larger
  during nighttime hours in a significant amount  of area,
  given the shallow, well-mixed nature of the system.

  Chincoteague Bay was in the best condition of the major
  subsystems within the Delaware and Maryland coastal
  bays. Indian River was in the worst condition. Of the four
  major subsystems that  comprise the  coastal  bays,
  Chincoteague Bay  was in the best condition. Only 11 % of
  the  area  in  Chincoteague Bay had degraded benthos.
  Almost 45%  of the area in Chincoteague  Bay  met the
  Chesapeake Bay  Program's  SAV  restoration goals, a
  figure which increased  to  almost 85% when only  the
  nutrient and chlorophyll components of the goals were
  considered.  In comparison, 77% of the area in Indian
  River had degraded benthos and less than 10% of its area
  met the SAV restoration goals.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

The  tributaries to the coastal  bays  were in poorer
condition than the mainstems of the major subsystems.
Previous studies have suggested that the majortributaries
to the system: upper Indian River, St. Martin River, and
Trappe Creek are in poorer condition than the mainstem
water bodies. This study confirmed that finding.  The
percentage of area containing degraded benthos  was
generally two to three times greater in the tributaries
compared to rest of the coastal bays. The percent of area
with DO less than the state standard of 5 ppm was three
to seven times greater in the tributaries.  None of the
samples collected  in  the  tributaries  met the SAV
restoration goals.  Among these systems, Trappe Creek
contained the sites in the worst condition. Algal blooms
were evident at two sites in the upper portion of Trappe
Creek. It appears, however, that degraded conditions in
the Trappe Creek system are spatially limited to Trappe
Creek and have not spread to Newport Bay. Undoubtedly,
this results  from the low freshwater flow of this tributary
compared to the other tributaries.

Dead-end canals were the most severely degraded areas
in the coastal bays. Ninety-one percent of the area in
dead-end   canals   had   sediment  contaminant
concentrations exceeding levels of biological  concern.
Fifty-six percent of their area had DO concentrations less
than state standards of 5 ppm. Dead-end canals were the
only places in the coastal bays where concentrations of
DO less than 2 ppm were measured.  These stresses
appear to have biological consequences: more than 85%
of the area  in the dead-end canals had degraded benthic

The coastal bays were in as poor or worse condition than
either Chesapeake Bay or Delaware Estuary with respect
to sediment contaminant levels, water quality, and benthic
(bottom-dwelling) community condition.  Based on data
collected in  the  estuaries  of the mid-Atlantic:  region
between 1990 and 1993, the coastal bays were found to
have  at least  as high  a  prevalence  of  chemical
contamination in the sediments as either Chesapeake Bay
or Delaware  Estuary.  Sixty-eight percent of the area in
the coastal bays had at least one sediment contaminant
exceeding  the Long et al.  (1995) ER-L concentration,
which is significantly greater and  50% higher than the
spatial  extent estimated for Chesapeake Bay  using
identical methods. It is 40% higher, though not statistically
distinguishable, from that estimated for Delaware Estuary.

Twenty-eight percent of the area in the coastal  bays had
degraded benthic communities. This was  (statistically)
significantly greater than the 16% estimated for Delaware
Estuary, and statistically indistinguishable from the 26%
estimated for Chesapeake Bay.
  The fish community structure in Maryland's coastal bays
  has remained relatively unchanged during the past twenty
  years while that of similar systems in Delaware have
  changed substantially. Fish communities of the Maryland
  coastal bays were dominated by Atlantic silversides, bay
  anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, and spot. This community
  structure is similar to that of the Delaware coastal bays 35
  years ago. The fish fauna in Delaware's coastal bays has
  shifted toward species of the Family Cyprinodontidae
  (e.g., mummichog,  killifish and  sheepshead  minnow)
  which are more tolerant to low oxygen stress, and salinity
  and temperature extremes.

  State of the Estuaries Report

  In 1998, the EPA in conjunction with other interested
  Federal and State agencies prepared a report on the
  condition  of the  mid-Atlantic estuaries  (EPA  1998).
  Copies of this report were distributed to participants at this
  conference and are available at http://www.epa.gov/maia.
  The report indicated that the Delmarva coastal bays were
  the least degraded systems in the mid-Atlantic Region, but
  threatened by encroaching urbanization.   These bays
  were moderately  enriched, particularly in Delaware,
  largely from agricultural sources.  Eutrophication was
  increasingly noticeable in the dead-end  canals along
  developed shorelines in the Delaware and  Maryland
  coastal  systems.   Submerged vascular  plants (SAV)
  historically have been absent from the Delaware portion
  of the system  because of high natural turbidity in these
  systems.  Species composition of shore zone fish in the
  Delaware coastal bays indicated impacted environmental
  conditions. In contrast, the fish communities in Maryland
  coastal bays  suggested a healthy  habitat;  however,
  researchers have observed evidence of early stages of
  degradation in northern areas. Encroaching urbanization
  is  a rather  generic term, so  a few  of the major
  environmental stresses resulting from conversion to urban
  land use are discussed below:

  Major Land Use Changes

  The coastal bays watershed was mainly forested with
  wetlands interfacing with the coastal bay waters when the
  first settlers arrived.  Studies have shown that as man
  used the land,  it was converted into agricultural fields, and
  finally as development continued, agricultural land was
  used to build houses and associated urban and suburban
  components.:   Studies  by  Bockstael   (1996)  and
  Geoghegan (1996) indicated that, all other factors being
  equal, an agricultural lot will be converted to development
  before a forested lot because of the higher conversion
  costs  of  the  forested  lot.    However,  distinct  lot
  characteristics can cause a forested lot conversion to  be
  more profitable and thus more likely. These changes
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

result in significant alterations in the kinds of ecological
services provided by natural resources. For example, a
recent simulation  model  has  demonstrated  that  a
reduction of as little as 20 to 25 percent in the forest cover
of a forested watershed can result in the  increase in
nutrient export from the watershed almost equal to the
amounts  exported from predominately agricultural or
urbanized watershed (Wickham and Wade 2000).

Loss of Riparian Buffer Zones & Wetlands

Riparian  buffer zones and wetlands provide numerous
ecological services. Of importance to shallow water bays
is reduction in nutrients and in the amount of sediment in
the water which passes through them.  Wetlands are
particularly effective in holding and trapping water, so the
extent of flooding onto  adjacent lands is  diminished.
While some development in the watershed  might be
Inevitable, policies to  protect and preserve these critical
areas need to be maintained and strengthened.

More Sewage & Solid Waste

As populations increase, amounts of sewage and solid
waste also proliferate.  Waste  water  treatment in the
coastal bays watershed vary  greatly.  In the  more
populated areas of the watershed, waste water treatment
plants discharge treated effluents into both the bays and
the ocean.  Several  of the treatment  plants within the
watershed employ modern techniques to limit nutrients
from their effluent. In more rural areas individual septic
systems are used. Overall, proper waste water treatment
is a critical issue in the reduction of nutrient input into the
groundwater and bays.  It  is imperative in developing
areas to insure that waste water treatment plants and the
individual,   residential  counterparts  are  effectively
removing pollutants  which  would otherwise flow into
coastal bays. Solid waste usually ends up in some type of
land fill.   Landfills in the coastal bays watershed are
operated by municipalities  as well as counties.  Sites
containing hazardous materials are also of concern.  An
industrial site  near   Millsboro, Delaware,  has  been
determined to contain hazardous waste and is on the
National Priority List for clean-up under the Superfund Act.
The ground water around the site is contaminated with a
toxic chemical from electronics manufacture. As this site
is proximal to the headwaters  of the Indian River, this
contaminated groundwater potentially could  reach  the
coastal bays system.  It is critical that these facilities are
operated in a manner preventing or treating groundwater
contamination and subsequent  movement of pollutants
into coastal bay waters.
  Increased Commerce and Agriculture

  Commerce, particularly agribusiness, has been the topic
  of much discussion as a potential source of pollution for
  the coastal bays.   Fertilizers, pesticides and  animal
  wastes from agribusiness operations are a source of
  pollution; however, it has been difficult to ascertain their
  discrete contribution to the overall condition of the coastal
  bays.  Data from Mallin (2000) suggested that animal
  operations allowed under  current  state  and federal
  regulations in the eastern and midwestern United States
  pose serious risks for water quality, safety and marine
  ecology.  From a broad perspective, agribusiness in the
  Delmarva coastal bays watershed is variable even though
  the watershed is relatively small in size.  In the northern
  parts of the watershed, poultry farming has been identified
  as  the most likely pollution  source; whereas in the
  southern  areas, "plastic"  farming of  potatoes  and
  tomatoes appears to be the dominant type of agriculture.

  More Parking Lots (Impervious Surfaces)

  Research  (Schueler  1994)  has  revealed  that
  imperviousness  is a powerful and important indicator of
  future water quality and that significant degradation occurs
  at relatively low levels of (development. The conclusion of
  most of the studies to date converge toward a common
  conclusion - that it is extremely difficult to maintain pre-
  development water quality when  the  percentage of
  development in a watershed exceeds 10 to  15 percent
  impervious cover.  The strong  relationship between
  imperviousness  and water quality presents  a serious
  challenge  for   urban  watershed   management.    It
  underscores the difficulty in  maintaining urban water
  quality in the face of development.  At  the same time,
  imperviousness  represents a common currency that can
  be measured and managed by those charged with land
  use planning (Arnold and Gibbons 1996).  It links activities
  of individual development with its cumulative impact at a
  watershed scale. With further research, impervious cover
  can serve as an important foundation for more effective
  land use planning decisions.

  Increased Storm Water Drainage

  Untreated storm water draining directly into streams and
  bays provoke a  variety of undesirable effects on water
  quality and the plants and animals which depend upon the
  aquatic environment for survival. Many incidents of storm
  water draining directly into the bays or man-made canals
  connected to the bays are apparent in  our watershed.
  Studies by Maxted and Shaver (1996) suggest that using
  some  type of mitigation (constructed wetlands, storm
  water management ponds, forested riparian zones, etc.)
  might assist in ameliorating these effects.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

Invasive Species - Phragmites

Plants and  animals  play  a critical role in coastal
ecosystems like the Delmarva coastal bays watershed.
They  provide  many ecological  functions  including
provision of food, oxygen and habitat for other organisms
that has evolved with them over millions of years.  A
critical balance  among  the  organisms and  their
environment has developed naturally, so that disruptions
caused by excess nutrients, man-made toxic chemicals or
competition from exotic species may disturb or eliminate
native species. When native species are stressed in
these ways, exotic or invasive plants and animals may
take their place.

Why  should  we  be  concerned,  for example, when
Phragmites  reeds  take  the  place of  mores  native,
vegetation?   After  all, any plant   produces oxygen,
consumes carbon dioxide, uses nutrients and provides
cover. The answer has to do with what we expect from
our environment. Many exotic and/or invasive plants like
Phragmites reeds grow profusely and literally outcompete
native species. The result is a loss of the ecological
services,  such as  provision of little food or  cover,
imbalance of plant matter, overabundance of decaying
vegetation, etc., provided by native plants (Maryland Sea
Grant Program, 1999).

Preliminary Results of 1997-1998
Field Activities

In the summers of 1997 and 1998, the EPA in partnership
with  other  Federal and  state  programs conducted
research on an integrated  monitoring approach for Mid-
Atlantic estuaries.

The objectives of this research  program were to:  (1)
characterize the ecological condition of the Mid-Atlantic
estuaries using a common set of measurements applied
over the entire area, (2) focus research on small estuarine
systems to determine better monitoring  approaches for
these critical systems,  and  (3) to demonstrate that
effective partnerships can be established among Federal
and state agencies with estuarine responsibilities in the
pursuit  of scientific  data for resource management

 Common Set of Measurements

A unique aspect of this collaborative research program
was the sampling for a set of consistent measurements
across  the  Mid-Atlantic  estuaries.  The list  of  the
 parameters collected was  developed in conjunction with
 Federal, state, and county authorities to address critical
 scientific  issues  affecting  these  estuaries.   These
  parameters focus on many aspects of the estuarine biotic
  community, both plants and animals, as well as provide
  important information about the exposure to stresses in
  the estuarine environment. In general, the measurements
  include  data  on fish and shellfish,  benthic (bottom-
  dwelling)  community structure,  water  quality,  toxic
  contaminants in bottom sediment, and sediment toxicity.
  The general categories of measurements are found in
  Table 1.

  Table  1.  General  Categories  of  Environmental
  Indicators Used in  the 1997-1998  Estuarine Field

  General Measurements
    Locational Data
    Date and Time of Sampling

  Water Column Measurements
    Physical Measurements  (Temperature,  Dissolved Oxygen,
      Salinity, etc.)
    Water Clarity
    Water Column Chemistry (Nutrients)

  Sediment Measurements
    Benthic (Bottom-dwelling) Organisms
    Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
    Sediment Chemistry (Pesticides and Other Toxic Chemicals)
    Sediment Bioassay  (to  Determine  Toxic  Response to a
      Benthic Organism)

  Fish and Crabs
    Fish Community Composition and Other Observations
    Callinectin (Crabs)
   In the summer of these two years, about 1,000 samples
   were taken from the watersheds of the Delaware Estuary,
   Delman/a  coastal  bays,  Chesapeake  Bay  and the
   Albemarle-Pamlico Sound. Within the coastal bays, areas
   of the Chincoteague and Sinepuxent Bays, and the
   Virginia coastal bays were sampled in partnership with the
   Assateague  National Seashore.  Although  previous
   surveys  have sampled  Chincoteague and Sinepuxent
   Bays, this effort represented the first extensive  survey
   covering the Virginia coastal bays.

   Some preliminary data analysis has been completed, and
   the  tentative conclusions showed  some interesting
   findings.  The trend of better ecological condition from
   north to  south did not continue into the Virginia coastal
   bays.  The 1993 survey (Chaillou 1996) found that the
   most degraded ecological conditions were in the northern
   part of the Delmarva coastal bays in Delaware, while
   ecological condition improved in the southern part into
   Maryland.  Chincoteague Bay was found to be in the best
   condition of all of the coastal bays.
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference W

                   Condition of Bottom-Dwelling Organisms;
                              in Delmarva Coastal Bays
Figure 1.   ^ ^a*a fr001 ^993 survey include DE and MD sites
             Data from 1997 survey include M D and VA sites

The ecological condition of the Virginia coastal bays
appeared to be equivalent to the condition found in the
most northern of  the  coastal  bays  in  Maryland -
Assawoman Bay. The exact reasons for the moderately
degraded conditions in the Virginia coastal bays must
await further analysis.

Chincoteague Bay continued to be the least degraded of
all of the  Delmarva  coastal bays.  The  condition of
Sinepuxent  Bay  was  between  the  condition   of
Assawoman and Chincoteague Bays which is  exactly
where it is  located geographically.  None  of the areas
sampled  failed all  five of  the  submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) criteria proposed for the  Chesapeake
Bay (Dehnison et al. 1993).  However, most of the areas
failed at least one of the  proposed measures.  The
proposed SAV goals  for the Chesapeake Bay include
measures of nutrients, chlorophyll, suspended solids and
light  penetration  through  the  water   and  is  an
comprehensive indicator of the ability of the aquatic
system to support the growth of SAV.

Figure  1  depicts  the  condition of  bottom-dwelling
organisms in  the major systems of the coastal bays.
Bottom-dwelling organisms include worms,  bugs and
clams which are  great fish food. They are excellent
measures of the condition of an estuary because they are
locationally  stable and can not escape polluted areas.
Both the 1993 and 1997 data were included in Figure 1.
   An index has been used to summarize the information on
   the myriad of organisms found in the bottom sediment of
   the bays (Paul et al. 1999).  The pollution gradient from
   north to south was readily apparent; however, the gradient
   did not continue into the Virginia coastal bays. Data were
   available from the two sampling periods for Chincoteague
   Bay and showed a closes concurrence. The area with
   degraded bottom-dwelling  organisms in 1993 was 11
   percent of the entire bay, while in 1997, the areal extent of
   degradation was 14 percent.


   Results of studies conducted since the 1993 assessment
   of the ecological condition of the Delaware and Maryland
   coastal bays confirmed the conclusions of that report.
   New  data  from  the Virginia  coastal  bays  (from
   Chincoteague Bay to Cape Charles) appeared to indicate
   that about 25 percent of the area of these bays showed
   degraded condition in the bottom-dwelling organisms.
   Major portions of the Delaware and Maryland coastal bays
   continued to show poor environmental quality.  Some of
   the  water  quality  measurements  made  in the  1993
   assessment  might be  slightly  more severe  when
   compared to other data; however, this could be caused by
   the climatic conditions which  existed during the  1993
   sampling period. The composition of the fish communities
   in Delaware and Maryland were found to be the same as
   reported in the 1993.  Thes fish communities in Delaware
   continued to be dominated by pollution-tolerant species.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999


Academy   of   Natural  Sciences   (ANS).     1988.
  Phytoplankton, nutrients, macroalgae and submerged
  aquatic vegetation in Delaware's inland bays;, 1985-
  1986. Prepared for Delaware DNREC.

Arnold,  Chester L, and C.  James  Gibbons.   1996.
  Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key
  environmental  indicator.  J. Amer. Planning Assoc.
  62(2): 243-258.

Bockstael,  N.E.   1996.   Economics  and ecological
  monitoring: The importance of a spatial perspective.
  Amer. J. Ag. Econ. December: 1168-1180.

Bohlen, C, and W. Boynton. 1997. Today's treasures for
  tomorrow: Status  and trends report on Maryland's
  coastal bays. Maryland's Coastal Bays Program, 9606
  Decatur Highway, Berlin, MD 21811.

Chaillou, J.C., S.B. Weisberg, F.W. Kutz, T.B. DeMoss, L
  Mangiaracina,  R. Magnien,  R.  Eskin, J. Maxted,  K.
  Price, and J.K. Summers.  1996. Assessment of the
  ecological condition  of the  Delaware and Maryland
  coastal bays.  EPA/620/R-96/004 U.S. EPA, National
  Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
  Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561.

Delaware Inland Bays Estuary Program (DIBEP). 1995.
  A comprehensive conservation and  management plan
  for  Delaware's inland bays.  Prepared for the U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency.

Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth,  K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson,
  V. Carter, S.  Kollar, P. Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk.
  1993. Assessing water quality with submerged aquatic
  vegetation. Bioscience. 43:86-94.

Geoghegan, J, N. Bockstael and D. Lipton.  1996.  The
  economics  of land  use change  in the Patuxent
  watershed.     University  of  Maryland  College  of
  Agriculture and Natural Resources.  Prepared for Land
  Use Seminar and Management in Maryland Seminar,
  College Park, MD  March, 21-22,1996.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith,  and F.  D.
  Calder.  1995.  Incidence of adverse biological effects
  within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and
  estuarine sediments.   Environmental  Management
  19(1): 81-97.

Maryland Sea Grant College Program.  1999. Exotics in
  the Chesapeake:  Understanding species  invasions.
  Publication UM-SGEP-99-03.
  Maxted, J. R., and E. Shaver. 1996. The use of retention
    basins to mitigate stormwater impacts to aquatic life.  In
    Effects of Watershed Development and Management on
    Aquatic  Ecosystems.  Proceedings of an Engineering
    Foundation Conference. Published by Amer. Soc. Civil
    Engineers, 345 E. 47th St., New York, New York 10017-

  Mallin,  M.A.    2000.    Impacts  of industrial animal
    production  on rivers and estuaries.  Amer.  Scientist
    88(1): 26-37.

  Paul, J.F., J.H.  Gentile, K.J. Scott, S.C. Schimmel, D.E.
    Campbell and R.W.  Latimer.  1999.  EMAP-Virginian
    Province Four-Year Assessment Report (1990-93).
    EPA 600/Rr99/004.   U.S.  Environmental Protection
    Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett,  Rl

  Pritchard, D. W. 1960. Salt balance and exchange rate for
    Chincoteagiie Bay. Chesapeake Science. 1:48-57.

  Quinn, H., J. P. Tolson, C. J. Klein, S. P. Orlando, and  C.
    Alexander.  1989. Strategic assessment of near coastal
    waters-susceptibility of east coast estuaries to nutrient
    discharges: Passamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Bay,
    summary report. Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean
    Assessments Division, Office of  Oceanography and
    Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration.  Rockville,

  Ritter, W. F. 1986. Nutrient budgets for the inland bays.
    Prepared   for  Delaware  Department  of  Natural
    Resources  and Environmental Control. Dover, DE.

  Schueler,  Thomas  R.   1994.   The importance  of
    imperviousness.   Watershed Protection Techniques
    1(3): 100-111.

  Seagraves, R.  J.  1986.  Survey of the sport fishery of
    Delaware   Bay.  Delaware  Department  of  Natural
    Resources  and Environmental Control. Document No.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1998. Condition
    of the mid-Atlantic estuaries. EPA600-R-98-147  Office
    of  Research  and  Development, Atlantic  Ecology
    Division, Narragansett, Rl 02882.

  Wickharn, J.D., and T.G. Wade. 2000.  Spatial patterns
    of water pollution risk in Maryland, USA.  Presented at
    the Second International Conference on Geospatial
    Data in Agriculture and Forestry, Lake Buena Vista, FL,
    January 10-12, 2000.
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                  ON LIVING RESOURCES

                                   ROBERT MAGNIEN, PH.D.
                            TIDEWATER ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
Mote: ThB following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Magnien.  It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

I am going to give a brief review of the major tidal habitat
components, review some of the principal threats to the
water column and the bottom sediments,  show some
recent information that illustrates some of the points, and
then summarize.  I thought  I'd put together a little
schematic to help us visualize some of these tidal
habitats.  If we start from the bottom up, we have the
physical habitat level,  the structure.  Then  sediment
quality,  including  grain size, carbon, nutrients, and
contaminants. This is the foundation of a lot of the habitat
in  the coastal bays.   We have  a  number  of living
resources, the fish, crabs, and SAV.

You also heard a bit about the eutrophification issues-
phytoplankton and benthic macro-algae overabundance,
driven by a nutrient over-enrichment. Some of the issues
of sediment from runoff, shore erosion, and resuspension,
all of those conspiring to increase the turbidity of the
systems and impact our SAV populations. These are the
areas I've identified that other speakers have not covered:
water column nutrient over-enrichment,  water column
suspended sediments, and bottom sediments.

Nutrient Over-Enrichment

I think most of you know this nutrient enrichment leads to
excess production of phytoplankton, and in the coastal
bays, macro-algae. I work mostly in the Chesapeake Bay
where we don't have such a problem with macro-algae
Ifs a shallower system here.  Light can penetrate to the
bottom, and there's a lot of subsurface nutrient inputs
involved as well. I'll probably point out a number of other
contrasts with the Chesapeake Bay because there are a
   number of them that distinguish this system from that one
   we've been managing over there to the west.
               i   ,:      [                       |
   We do have low dissolved oxygen problems from algal
   decomposition. For respiration, they are different from the
   problems that we see in the Chesapeake Bay where
   we've got a deep stratified system with dissolved oxygen
   that stays at 1-2 milligrams/liter almost all summer. Here
   the dissolved oxygen problems were transient.

   Nutrient over-enrichment also leads to a  reduction in
   water transparency due to excess phytoplankton growth
   when we have blooms. We saw that to a large extent this
   year with some of the brown tides.  And of course, the
   macro-algae again, causes the "smothering" of SAV in the
   bottom habitats. I think we still have a lot to learn about
   what's stimulating this community, and what some of
   these impacts are.

   I am going to touch briefly on the joint assessment Rick
   Kutz mentioned.  This was a comprehensive sampling
   effort in 1993.  We hit this system pretty hard during the
   summer of 1993. When we look at the chlorophyll levels
   reflected in the phytoplankton in the water column, we can
   see some patterns. We use as a cutoff, the percent of
   area above 15 milligrams per liter. That's a level of algae
   we've been using in the Chesapeake as the danger zone
   above which SAV have problems growing.  If we use that
   measure,  the Chincoteague  Bay  has   a  very low
   percentage of its area at or above the 15 mg/L level. But
   as you go to the northern bays, especially up into the river
   systems, that's where we see our highest levels of algae.
   And this is a pattern you'll see repeated again and again
   in the information we have about coastal bays habitats.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

The  dissolved oxygen picture is not as bad as  many
places. There's a patchwork of monitoring programs out
there for dissolved oxygen. We have the National Park
Service information, our new DNR Pfiesteria stations, and
some very interesting  information from DNREC,  doing
some continuous measurements throughout the daily
cycle up in Indian River. I  looked at the summer period,
the same  period we looked at in the joint assessment,
using the same 5 mg/L cutoff, and did a rough estimate of
stations that showed  about  30% or more of their
observations  below that level.  Low dissolved oxygen
events are fairly prevalent throughout the bays and when
we make these measurements, it's often daytime, when
dissolved  oxygen levels are higher than they might be
early in the morning.

If we look at actual records from Newport Creek and in
Delaware  (courtesy of the National Park Service in the
Newport Bay area), as we go through the year from
January to December,  we go through this cycle that we
see  in a  lot of waters, whether freshwater or coastal
waters, with high oxygen levels in the colder months and
lower in the summer months. And we can see in June,
July, and September, almost half the observations  are
below this 5 mg/L.  So it's not insignificant, even when
we're measuring the oxygen in the  middle of the day. If
we took at only a five  day record, instead of the whole
year, one of the major things we see is an oscillation here.
That is the algae producing oxygen when the sun is out.
In early morning, those oxygen levels rise as the algae are
pumping  out oxygen  and photosynthesizing.   Come
evening, that starts to drop, as those algae respire, and
bacteria and other organisms are using up oxygen. Sun
comes up it  goes  up, sun  goes down it goes down.
Interestingly, the period from the 16-17th was cloudy, so
obviously, the phytoplankton could not produce as much
oxygen because they didn't have as much sun and they
only weakly improved the oxygen situation.  But there was
just as much  respiration, oxygen consumption, and you
can see that driving the oxygen down.  Now we're not
talking 5  mg/L  anymore,  we're talking  less than 2, or
between 0 and 1 mg/L,  and on the 20th in this area, a crab
kill was recorded.

So you can see quite a neat pattern there, and it's hard for
us to figure out whether we're capturing all the problems
with the kind of monitoring program we have now. So one
of the things we'd like to do is  improve this type of
monitoring and try to get at some of these areas. If you hit
an area with 0 or 1 mg/L, it  might only last for a few hours,
but most the organisms are going  to be wiped out and
even though'-most of the time it's okay, that short-term
event could be very important.
   Suspended Sediments

   Suspended sediments are the particles  in the water
   column. They can be either inorganic or organic.  The
   sources include runoff, shoreline erosion, and natural or
   anthropogenic resuspension. The impacts include water
   transparency, and  "smothering"  of SAV and  bottom
   habitat.   One  of the things we  found in the joint
   assessment was that the suspended sediment levels were
   really relatively high.  We were getting 30s, 40s, and 50s
   in Chincoteague Bay.  Bob Orth and colleagues were
   saying we need 15 mg/L in the Chesapeake Bay and we
   were scratching our heads. Here we have 40 or 50 and
   we have some nice SAV beds. This is something I think
   requires more study. It's more than likely that these are
   resuspended sand particles that are very heavy but are
   not really impacting light  as much as some of the fine
   particles that we often get in the Chesapeake Bay.

   Bottom Sediments

   Not only are bottom sediments important in  and of
   themselves,  but they  can be very  important to the
   overlying water column.  Especially in a shallow system,
   that sediment can have a profound effect on the overlying
   water column.    Either   pumping  nutrients  out,  or
   demanding oxygen and driving those oxygen levels down.
   Many of our shellfish, SAV,  and  a variety of  benthic
   organisms use this bottom as their home. And there are
   many other organisms-fish, crabs, and waterfowl— that
   feed  in this  environment.  Much  of the  excess algal
   production associated with the nutrification that we talked
   about ends up on the bottom, enriching it with further
   organic matter, and leading to increased oxygen demand,
   nutrient releases, and degrading habitat  quality.  And
   finally, toxic contaminants.  Fortunately, we don't have
   major problems here, just in some of the lagoons  and
   more poorly flushed areas we have some elevated levels.
   But most toxic contaminants get associated with particles
   and end up in the bottom sediments.

   The  Maryland Geological Survey  has done quite an
   extensive survey, at least in the Maryland portion of the
   coastal bays. Looking at high, medium, and low levels of
   mud, the gradient is higher muds on the western shore
   and in the tributaries and gets sandier as we go east.  The
   pattern for carbon is similar. Again higher carbon levels
   up in the tributaries and toward the western shores. What
   are the implications of that? A lot of folks think that is a
   critical factor controlling the distribution of SAV. One sees
   most of our SAV on the eastern side of the coastal bays.
   Most of the contaminants, when we find them, are higher
   in the tributaries as well.
Friday, November 11, .1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III


A number of anthropogenic impacts are seen, both in the
water column and the sediment habitats. The impacts are
generally more severe in the tributaries and western
shores.  We just don't have a consistent and appropriate
monitoring system for determining the extent and severity
of these trends for most of these impacts. We are trying
to develop this as part of a CCMP. A monitoring plan was
developed and included in the CCMP, and we're hoping
that the governor will be forthcoming  in sending  a
proposal for funding to the legislature this year.

Finally, I pointed at a number of areas where we just don't
have basic understanding. These are just a few and we
are trying to relate these habitat conditions to the living
resources.  Questions include:  How  does water  and
sediment quality affect SAV? What are these macro-algal
impacts? What is the relationship between nutrients and
harmful algal  blooms? How important is  the physical
surface of bottom sediments? And trying to get at some
of the mysteries of suspended sediments, where are they
coming from and what's their composition?
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11,

                        IN A RECOVERING SEAGRASS SYSTEM

                                   ROEJERT J. ORTH, PH.D.
This paper forms the base of a larger manuscript that will be submitted
in spring 2000 to a scientific journal on the submerged aquatic vegetation
trends and management considerations and recovery. The abstract is
presented here. If you would like further information, contact Dr. Orth.

The Delmarva coastal bays historically supported large
seagrass populations, which in turn supported a valuable
bay scallop fishery.  These seagrass populations were
devastated in the 1930s but have since shown significant
recovery in several bays. The scallop fishery collapsed
and  has  never rebounded,  although scallops have
recently been reported in low abundance in seagrass beds
in Chincoteage Bay.  Annual aerial photographic: surveys
of seagrass identified the appearance of  many dredge
scars indicating  that there had been a sudden significant
increase in clam dredging in 1995-1997 in the seagrass
beds. Analysis of photography (1995-1997) revealed 251
individual  circular scars  (mean diameter  of 80  m.)
impacting 126 hectares of seagrass in Virginia, while in
Maryland  hydraulic clam dredging, which causes linear
scars, impacted 508 hectares of seagrass. The rapid
assessment from this annual survey of the extesnt of the
damages facilitated passage of legislation and regulations
in Virginia and Maryland that prohibited dredging within
seagrass beds.  Regulations in Virginia were effective as
only  13 new circular scars were  identified  in  1998.
Recovery of seagrass into the circular scars, assessed
from field inspection of scars created in 1996,1997, and
1998, indicates a slow recovery rate of most scairs. Rapid
protection of seagrass beds in the coastal bays was
possible because of the strong linkage between science
and management in this region.
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                              MARYLAND'S COASTAL BAYS

                                    BRUCE RICHARDS, PH.D.
                            DELAWARE CENTER FOR INLAND BAYS

Increased attention on "Harmful Algal Blooms" (HABs)
cannot be underestimated in Delaware and Maryland's
coastal bays. Much of the recent focus has centered on
the presence of Pfiesteria, a one-celled dinoflagellate, that
has been linked  to fish  kills and even human health
problems including  memory  loss,  skin lesions  and
respiratory problems. First of all, let's make the distinction
between HABs and the beneficial phytoplankton species
that reside in the water column.  Most of these beneficial
organisms harness sunlight and produce  oxygen and
carbohydrates   through   photosynthesis   processes.
Phytoplankton comes in a variety of shapes and sizes and
under a microscope, they are quite beautiful. Roughly
two-thirds of all the photosynthesis occurring on the planet
comes from our oceans with the remaining third coming
from the growth of terrestrial plants. Phytoplankton is also
called "autotrophic" which means they produce their own
food energy from light and the chemical elements within
seawater.   Autotrophs  are  critical to  heterotrophs
(organisms thatfeed on the autotrophs). Heterotrophs are
various stages of animals from larval stages of crabs,
snails and fish to adult animals like clams that directly
feed on the autotrophs  for food.  Certain  HABs are
counterproductive to  marine systems especially when
these creatures bloom rapidly and out-compete with the
other organisms throughout the water column.


Nearly everyone has heard of Pfiesteria, the so-called "cell
from hell",  that has been  linked  to mass fish kills in
Maryland and North Carolina. In 1987, Delaware's Inland
Bays experienced a large fish kill. One Delaware scientist
took a water sampled and preserved it for eight years.
When this scientist heard of Pfiesteria and the link to fish
  kills, he sent a sample to North Carolina for testing and
  discovered that Delaware), too, had Pfiesteria in its water.
  Major studies and millions of dollars are now being spent
  on understanding the biology of Pfiesteria. Perhaps more
  is known about this dinoflagellate than  any  other,  but
  public concern is putting perhaps too much attention on
  this organism, when other HABs need our attention as

  Red Tides

  Like Pfiesteria, red tides encompass several  species of
  dinoflagellates that share one common feature; when they
  bloom, one sees a red color.  Red tide blooms are linked
  to fish kills and the toxins-, emitted from red tides produce
  saxotoxins that  cause serious human health problems.
  Ballast water release is the likely mechanism that brought
  red tides from Asian seas to American coastal systems.
  Invasive species, like red tides, are difficult  to control,
  especially since shipping cargo around the  world  has
  increased in recent years.  Despite the fact that red tides
  have been linked to ballast water exchange, other sources
  of HABs (like Brown Tide) are harder to pinpoint.

  Brown Tides

  It seems to me that Pfiesteria and Red Tides have
  overshadowed the threat of Brown Tides in coastal bays
  on the East Coast. What is Brown Tide?  Brown Tide is a
  "picoplankton" species measuring two to three microns,
  slightly bigger than bacteria.  This autotroph was only
  identified in the late  1980's. To date, we know of only two
  species,  one on the  Gulf Coast and the other in the
  Northeast Coast of North America.  A recent study has
  found the presence of Brown Tide in South Africa. The
  range  of this organism  is still a major question to be
  answered with further research. Why should we become
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

concerned about Brown Tide? When Brown Tides bloom,
the water column is filled with a brown murky color; light
fails to reach the bottom and submerged vascular plants,
like eelgrass, die-off in mass.  Since Brown Tide is
extremely small, and therefore, filter feeding clams and
scallops are unable to feed on Brown Tide. Bloom levels
occur when one  milliliter  of  water  (about 20 drops)
reaches 10,000 cells.  Where is  Brown Tide found?
Brown Tide is linked to shallow estuaries with nutrient-rich
water.   The organism  was originally discovered from
southern Maine to Barnegat Bay, New Jersey.

About two  years ago I listened to a lecture  by David
Hutchins of the College of Marine Studies of the University
of Delaware on HABs  and became  intrigued with the
Brown Tide organism. Dr. Hutchins and I decided itwould
be prudent to test Delaware's Inland Bays for  Brown Tide.
With the help  of Delaware's Department of Natural
Resources  and Environmental Control, water samples
were collected throughout Delaware's  Inland Bays as part
of the Pfiesteria monitoring program, during the summer
of 1998. We soon learned that Brown  Tide was absent in
Rehoboth and Indian River, but cell counts  from 400 to
1,000 cells per milliliter were discovered int the Little
Assawoman Bay. In December of 1998, Dr. Hutchins and
I took additional water samples in Little Assawoman Bay
and two samples were collected in Ocean City, M;aryland.
Even in December we found cell counts from 200 to 700
per milliliter in all samples collected. Maryland scientists
took additional samples in the spring  of 1999 and found
cell counts as high as 300,000 per milliliter. In fact, 1992
overflight photographs of Maryland's Coastal Bays were
re-examined and brown streaks,  previously unidentified,
are now thought to be former Brown Tide blooms. What
causes Brown  Tide?  Current research indicates that
Brown Tide is probably  not due to inorganic nutrients or
trace nutrients or minerals.  Most believe that dissolved
organic nutrients are likely suspects at this point, although
few conclusions can be  made.

In summary, HABs are worth continued exploration and
concern for Delaware and Maryland's Coastal Bays.  It is
important that we consider a comprehensive  approach to
monitoring  and  identifying HABs and not get sidetracked
on only those organisms that make news headlines.
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference ///


                                     Dave Goshorn, Ph.D.
   Living Resource Assessment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Goshom, It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

What is Pfiesteria?

Pfiesteria is a very small, single-celled organism without
aflagella. Its got an extremely complex life cycle. Most of
the time populations are benign, feeding on algae and
bacteria, but some populations, not all, are capable of
producing a toxin which can cause fish health problems
and, apparently, human  health problems.   In  1997,
Maryland experienced four separate toxic outbreaks on
three different Eastern Shore rivers. North Carolina has
had its problems for quite some time.

What was Maryland's response?

First, an intensive monitoring and response program. The
response  part  of  that  means  that  when we have
something that might be a Pfiesteria outbreak, we have
teams  that  respond to the situation and make an
assessment of what's occurring. As for monitoring, we've
been monitoring habitat quality and fish health intensively
on  eight lower  Eastern  Shore rivers,  including two
tributaries of the coastal bays, St. Martin's and Trappe
Creek in Newport Bay area.  We have water quality
monitoring  stations  as  part of this  monitoring and
response network that are monitored  once  or twice  a
month April-October. We are also intensively monitoring
fish health along these rivers.

There is also the development of river closure guidelines
that would be used to close a river if the problem was
believed to be a threat to public health. Legislation has
also been passed,  in the form of the  Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1998, which  set up all  sorts of
requirements for ultimately reducing  nutrient inputs to
Maryland tributaries.
   Results of Monitoriing

   I am going to talk about some of our results from the two
   coastal bay rivers that we have been monitoring last year
   and this year, the St. Martin's River which flows into Isle of
   Wight, and Trappe Creek-Ayres Creek. We have water
   quality and algal monitoring  stations  that  we are
   monitoring once or twice a month, April-October. Also, at
   a subset of these stations, two in  each system, we've
   been collecting water  samples and analyzing  them for
   presence of Pfiesteria in 1999. There are also locations
   in each  of  these two tributaries.where  we collected
   sediment in 1998, and we are having those  samples
   analyzed for the presence of Pfiesteria.

   We have some results from those  samplings.   At four
   stations that were only sampled for water monthly this
   year we tested for the presence of Pfiesteria using one of
   the  new  technologies  available and all those  samples
   were negative. From  several of our sediment sites we
   haven't gotten the results back yet.  It is a very lengthy
   process to analyze sediment samples for the presence of
   Pfiesteria. At most of the stations where we have results,
   we tested the samples aind did not find any Pfiesteria of
   Pf/esfer/a-like organisms in the samples. At one station in
   Trappe Creek, we did  find a Pfiesteria species, but it is
   non-toxic.   That means that in the lab, under ideal
   conditions to induce toxicity, it did not go toxic. This is
   what we've found in other areas, too. Not all populations
   of Pfiesteria are capable of producing a toxin.

   There are two things to take from this. First, samples from
   these sites were not toxic when they were collected. They
   were our only populations that had the potential  to go
   toxic. To my knowledge, they have not ever gone toxic in
   nature. Second, the location of these sample sites is not
   necessarily most important. It doesn't mean that one site
   is any more at risk than the others. The important thing is
   we found potentially toxic populations.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

What habitat conditions induce toxic

There are five general habitat conditions that we believe
induce toxic outbreaks. I am going to get back to the word
"general" in a few minutes because that is  extremely

1) Where we have seen toxic outbreaks, both in Maryland,
and  elsewhere,  they generally  occur  near areas of
moderate salinity, although, there are documented cases
of outbreaks in almost freshwater to almost full strength
sea water.  But, generally, about the middle of the road is
where you typically see outbreaks.

2) Warm water temperatures, above about 2i5°C  is a
common factor, but outbreaks can occur below that.

3) Outbreaks don't seem to occur in areas where you
have a lot of tidal action or a lot of current, but  in more
quiet backwaters where there was slow water movement.

4) Elevated nutrients, it's believed, can induce Pfiesteria
outbreaks through two pathways, one  direct and one
indirect. There's a fair amount of laboratory efforts that
show dissolved organic nitrogen may directly encourage
the growth of Pfiesteria. We also know that Pfiesteria
feeds  on  algae,  and we know that algal  growth is
promoted by the inorganic forms of nutrients. This may be
an indirect pathway.

5) The final condition  is  concentrations  of  fish.  The
understanding at the moment is that  these first  four
conditions set the stage.  They allow the development of
fairly large  populations of this organism, and then when
the large concentrations of fish  come to the area, the
Pfiesteria sometimes detects the presence of fish and
releases the toxin.

What is important to know is that these  are just the
general habitat conditions.  Hopefully you gathered from
the talks that have gone before me that there's a lot of
tremendously complex interactions going on between all
these  factors.    These  are  simply  the  common
denominators that we see in most of the outbreaks, but
just  because these conditions  are met,  does not
guarantee, by any stretch of the imagination, that we will
have a toxic outbreak. It just means that these are what
we typically see in an outbreak. There are a lot of details
on what is occurring which are poorly understood. It is the
interactions of all these denominators that are determining
the outbreaks. In the coastal bays, these conditions are
met, but fortunately we haven't had a toxic outbreak.
   Conditions in the Coastal Bays

   I would like to examine some of our 1999 results, going
   through each of these parameters that I just outlined. For
   salinity, the results aren't surprising. There is freshwater
   in the upper reaches of the tributaries and then much
   more saline water as you get out into the tributaries. As far
   as what this  means for Pfiesteria, we wouldn't really
   expect outbreaks in these freshwater areas, but anything
   beyond that, up toward 18 parts per thousand, is saline
   enough for a potential Pfiesteria outbreak.

   August-September  water temperature,  the  warmest
   months of the year, show a pattern of cooler temperatures
   in the upper portions of these tributaries and warmer
   temperatures as you move out into the main river. The
   high end is 24-28°C, which is certainly within the range,
   and I would think that even slightly lower temperatures are
   within the range where we've seen outbreaks before. So,
   certainly in August and September, the temperatures in
   this portion ofthe river, are in the ballpark for where we've
   seen outbreaks elsewhere.

   The third parameter was slow water movement. If you go
   out on these rivers there are some areas that are certainly
   wide open  and free flowing, and there are other areas that
   are not. Certainly all are of the nature similar to what we
   saw in the 3-4 sites of the Maryland outbreaks in 1997,
   and similar in hydrodynamics to what we've seen in North
   Carolina as well.

   I want to spend  most of my time on the nutrient aspect.
   There are  two possible pathways, the direct pathway for
   organic forms, and an indirect pathway through inorganic
   forms. We have data on dissolved organic nitrogen and
   all the areas out in the main part of the river  would be
   high, the point being that dissolved organic nitrogen levels
   on these rivers are quite high and could serve as a source
   of nutrition for Pfiesteria to consume directly, as has been
   demonstrated in the laboratory.   Dissolved  inorganic
   nitrogen is where it gets interesting.  It follows the reverse
   pattern of what was found in some of the other conditions.
   High loadings in some of these upper tributaries.  High
   concentrations of dissolved  inorganic nitrogen is being
   supplied  to  the tributaries.   And  then it  declines,
   considerably, out here at the main stems ofthe tributaries.

   There are two possible  explanations  and  both are
   probably operating. One is simple dilution, the volume of
   the water up at the source is lower than out in the river,
   and just by simple dilution the concentration  declines.
   Also, I believe, its consumption by algae.  Why isn't the
   algae up in these areas, where the concentration is very
   high? The water up here is very turbid, and the algae, of
   course, need sunlight. I think despite the high nitrogen
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI

levels up here, the water is too turbid for a lot of algal
growth.  Once you get down in the lower reaches, the
turbidity decreases,  there is enough sunlight for algal
growth,  and the algae are  consuming  the dissolved
inorganic nitrogen.  That's why these levels drop.

Chlorophyll values are a measure of the amount of algae,
and the pattern for chlorophyll is the reverse of inorganic
nitrogen. Low values up in the tributaries where there are
high inputs of nitrogen and low algal growth, but once we
get out in the main stem, it is clear that we're getting a fair
amount of algal growth. These are medians from April-
July and are 20-40 microgram/liter,  that's high for a
median for that whole period of time. In some areas it's
even  higher, 40-60 micrograms/liter median for the
months of April-July.

Now I want to focus in on one area to expand on this
thought a little bit more-the tributary, Bishopville Prong.
The dynamics that we see in this tributary are repeated for
Shingle Landing Prong and in Trappe and Ayres Creeks.
For dissolved inorganic nitrogen, concentration vs. river
mile shows quite  high levels  of dissolved inorganic
nitrogen coming out at the most upstream stations, then
it drops precipitously as we go downstream, until low
levels are reached when we are out here in the main part
of the river. The chlorophyll is very low, almost near zero
up where the nutrient levels are high, again because of
the turbidity.  Once you get out in the main stem of the
river,  there  is  a   peak  in  June,  almost to  150
micrograms/liter which is quite high. It drops back down,
both in July and August, to the 30-60 micrograms/liter
range. Those are pretty significant algal blooms that were
seen consistently in the main portions of these rivers,
resulting, I would suggest, from these dissolved inorganic
nitrogen inputs from upstream.

I want to  point out that these  upstream areas are
essentially tidal-fresh.  When we get to the area where
we've seen the chlorophyll peaks, this is where we going
from freshwater to 18 or so parts per thousand. This is a
very condensed and very quick change, and then salinity
gets gradually greater from there. That's something that's
somewhat unique  about these  coastal  bay tributaries.
They go from tidal fresh to 18-20 or more parts per
thousand in very short spatial areas. In Chesapeake Bay
tributaries, that's spread out over a much larger area.
What that means  for  Pfiesteria,  I don't know.   It is
interesting that any organism living in this area is going to
see quite a range of salinities.
  The most important part of the whole equation is probably
  fish health.  We've been sampling fish  in these two
  tributaries over the past two years. 1998 results were very
  similar to 1999. The good news is that the fish in these
  areas, despite all this are in quite good health. In fact, in
  some  respects,  better health  than  some  of the
  Chesapeake tributaries,  in the same part of the river, of
  7301 fish that were sampled this year, only 0.3% had any
  kind of  anomaly, and  that's  all sorts  of  anomalies.
  Menhaden, which are the species most often associated
  with Pfiesteria problems, only 1.1%. In a lot of areas of
  the Chesapeake Bay, 1-2% is easily the background level
  that we see.

  In Newport Bay-Trappe Creek, a similar story. Only 0.4%
  of all fish had any kind of anomalies, and for 1998 it was
  only 0.8%. So, certainly, we're not seeing any fish health
  problems despite a lot of the habitat conditions that were
  just described.  Now this is spread out over a whole
  summer. There are somes times and places where we did
  see higher percentages of anomalies. Interestingly, one
  of those areas in Newport Bay was where we've also seen
  some low dissolved oxygen levels that Rob Magnien was
  talking about earlier. So, there's a lot to look at there.  In
  general,  the fish are quite healthy.

  What does  aii this mean?

  We know we have potentially  toxic populations  of
  Pfiesteria species present,  at least in these two rivers.
  The general habitat conditions that we see with these toxic
  Pfiesteria outbreaks are met, but there are many areas
  where these general conditions are met that we do not
  have toxic outbreaks. Fish populations are healthy and,
  to the best of our knowledge, there are no known toxic

  In conclusion, we need to be concerned. We know we are
  in the ballpark as far as habitat conditions are concerned.
  We know the organism is there. Fortunately, the specifics
  of  how these  habitat conditions are interacting with the
  organism haven't worked themselves out to result in toxic
  outbreaks. Because it is put there, what we have to do is
  make sure that we are diligent in our monitoring efforts,
  which we are, and I think this emphasizes the importance
  of  what  many other people have mentioned today, for
  many other reasons.  The  one factor that  we can do
  something about is to lower nutrients in these rivers.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

                   INCREASING RISK FACTORS: Hematodinium sp.

                                    GREETCHEN A. MESSICK
                              NOAA, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

In 1992 watermen from Maryland coastal bays reported
crabs dying in pots. Upon investigation, adult and juvenile
blue crabs from coastal bays of Maryland, Delaware, and
Virginia were found infected with Hematodinium sp., a
parasitic dinoflagellate.  Dinoflagellates were found  in
hemolymph and tissues of sick crabs where the parasite
proliferates and causes mortalities. In coastal bays of the
Delmarva region, prevalence of infected crabs follows a
seasonal pattern with up to 90% of crabs infected during
early winter. Heavy mortalities are reported by watermen
during  summer months. Prevalence  of infected crabs
varies depending upon location and infections are found
more often in shallow coastal bays than in deeper, larger
estuaries. Crustaceans other than blue crabs are  also
affected by Hematodinium spp. dinoflagellates; these
include amphipods, green crabs, Tanner crabs, 3ind other
commercially important species. A series of experiments
held crabs at various water temperatures and salinities to
investigate how infection intensity changes. The intensity
of infection dropped when crabs were held at 9°C. Crabs
held in water with 10 ppt salinity had a greater decrease
in intensity than crabs held  29 ppt at 9°C for 73 clays.  In
another experiment,  infection intensity increased when
crabs were held in 22 ppt seawater at either 12 or 16°C for
32-56 days.    An additional  experiment found crabs
presumed to be uninfected presented infections after 14
days when held at 22°C in 28 ppt seawater.


The parasitic dinoflagellate Hematodinium sp. infects and
causes mortalities in blue crabs Callinectes sapidus from
high salinity coastal embayments. The seasonal infection
cycle and apparent salinity and temperature requirements
for infections indicate that environmental factors influence
the parasite's ability to proliferate within crab hemolymph.
Additionally, host  factors such as size influence the
prevalence of infections.

Hematodinium perezi was originally reported as a rare
parasite  of  portunid  crabs  Carcinus maenas and
Liocarcinus depurator from Europe (Chatton & Poisson
1931).  Numerous other crustacean species have been
reported including occasional infections in the cancer
crabs Cancer irroratus  and  Cancer borealis and in the
portunid crab Ovalipes ocellatus from the New York Bight
area of the  northeastern United  States (MacLean  &
Ruddell 1978).  A 21% prevalence was found in the
cancer crab .Cancer pagurus from the west coast of
France (Latrouite et al.  1988). A 100% prevalence has
been reported in Tanner crabs Chionoecetes bairdi from
southeast Alaskan waters, and Chionoecetes opilio from
the Bering Sea (Meyers et al. 1987,1990, Eaton etal. 1991).

Hematodinium-\\ke parasites have been observed in 87%
of the  crab Necora (Liocarcinus) puber from France
(Wilhelm & Boulo 1988), and in up to 70% of the Norway
lobster Nephrops novegicus  from  the west coast of
Scotland (Field etal. 1992). On the east coast of Australia
a parasitic dinoflagellate infects the sand crab Portunus
pelagicus, the mud crab Scylla serrafa, and the coral crab
Trapezia aerolata (Shields 1993). A dinoflagellate similar
to Hematodinium has been reported in 13 species of
benthic amphipods, with  prevalences as high as 67%
(Johnson 1986).  Up to 18% of spot prawns Pandalus
platyceros from British Columbia have been reported with
a Hematodinium-\\ke protozoan (Bower et al.  1993).  In
1975 the parasite was reported in up to 30% of adult blue
crabs Callinectes sapidus sampled from coastal areas of
Norjti Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida (Newman & Johnson
1975), and GUlf of Mexico (Couch & Martin 1982). A blue
crab disease survey was initiated in late summer of 1992,
following  reports of reduced  catches and mortality of
Friday, November 11, 1999
              Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

trapped crabs from coastal bays of the Delmarva region.
This paper discusses the variation in disease prevalence
and how physical and host characteristics can influence
prevalence of infections.

Materials and Methods

Monthly samples of blue crabs were collected using both
commercial traps  and an otter trawl  in coastal bays of
Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia.  Carapace width was
measured from point to point, and sex was recorded; pre-
moltand post-molt crabs were noted when molt stage was
apparent.  Crabs were bled from the hemal sinus at the
joint between the carapace and the swimmer fin using a
1-cc insulin syringe equipped with a 0.5-inch, 28-gauge
needle. Expressed ceils were allowed to adhere to an
acid-cleaned, 0.1% w/v poly-L-lysine-coated microscope
slide.   Cells were  observed live using an inverted
microscope with Hoffman modulation or phase contrast
optics. Hemolymph preparations were then placed in
fixative and stained with Mayer's hematoxylin and eosin
(H&E) (Luna 1968).  Selected crabs were either fixed
whole or  dissected  and  processed  for  histologic
examination  by  standard  methods  (Johnson  1980,
Howard & Smith 1983). To obtain a preliminary estimate
of possible fishery reduction due to disease, the number
of crabs caught in  trawls in Maryland coastal bays by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources coastal bay
fisheries project was averaged April through October from
1993  to 1997.  This number was plotted against the
average  prevalence of Hematodinium  sp. in  crabs
assayed from the same trawls.


The prevalence of Hematodinium sp. infections in blue
crabs followed the seasonal trend reported by Newman &
Johnson  (1975), with the highest prevalence observed
from August through November.  Prevalence was higher
In small crabs (5-89 mm), than in larger crabs (90-180
mm)  collected at  salinities from  19-32   ppt,  and
temperatures from 4-26°C. There was no difference in
prevalence of Hematodinium sp. infections between male
and  female  crabs.    Occasional   gross   signs  of
Hematodinium infection included  sluggishness, opaque
muscles   seen  ventrally,  or  a  pinkish  carapace.
Hemolymph removed from some severely infected crabs
appeared .opaque, while gills and other  tissues were
occasionally  pink.    However,   most infected  crabs
appeared normal externally.    Several  morphological
forms of the parasite were observed. Trophonts with one
nucleus were most common; but parasites that were
obviously dividing, and multinucleated  plasmodia were
also observed. Some plasmodia, with multiple nuclei,
were elongate and demonstrated amoeboid motility when
  observed live, the average diameter of fixed and stained
  parasites in hemolymph smears was 10.5um.  Severely
  infected crabs  had reduced hemocyte numbers with
  apparent  replacement by  Hematodinium  sp.    Host
  response to the parasitic dinoflagellate included formation
  of nodules in hemal spaces.

  A series of experiments  held  crabs at various  water
  temperatures and salinities. Infection intensity decreased
  in infected crabs held in 10 ppt or 29 ppt seawater at 9°C;
  the decrease was significantly greater at 10 ppt than at 29
  ppt.  Mean intensity increased in infected crabs held in 22
  ppt seawater at either 12 or 16°C. Presumably uninfected
  crabs held at 22°C presented infections after 14 days.
  Increased prevalence of Hematodinium sp. infections in
  September and October coincide with reduced numbers
  of crabs trawled from Maryland coastal bays during the
  Maryland  Department of  Natural Resources survey of
  coastal bays.


  The prevalence and intensity of Hematodinium sp. in blue
  crabs are seasonal and peak in late autumn and early
  winter. The apparent  0% prevalence from late  winter
  through spring  in coastal bays of the Delmarva  region
  (Messick 1994)  is likely caused by low water temperature
  reducing Hematodinium  sp. numbers to unobservable
  levels within the hemolymph. Wintertemperatures appear
  to provide a refuge from infection for crabs overwintering
  in coastal bays of Delmarva since crabs held at 9°C have
  reduced infection intensity (Messick et al. 1999), and
  water temperatures from December-March 1997 averaged
  3.5-9.8°C (Phillip Wirth, University of Maryland Eastern
  Shore, personal communication).
               •  .       i                        i	

  Some  coastal areas such as Chesapeake Bay,  North
  Carolina, and Louisiana, sustain large blue crab fisheries,
  although some  states  have reported reduced catch per
  unit effort in recent years (Jordan & Rosenfield  1998).
  Natural sources of mortality reduce blue crab stocks,,but
  the level  of mortality  caused by Hematodinium  sp. is
  unknown.  More information on how Hematodinium sp.
  induces mortality in blue crabs, and what level of infection
  is required to cause deaths, will allow fishery managers to
  make better estimates of stocks in the Delmarva region.
  Seasonal variation in Hematodinium spp. infections are
  coupled with environmental and host  characteristics.
  Stations  in Maryland coastal  bays  with the   lowest
  prevalence were located north of the Ocean City inlet and
  in tributaries. In these bays the greatest drainage is in the
  upper portions (Sieling 1960). The increased drainage in
  the northern areas in comparison to the southern areas
  may explain, to some extent, the lower prevalence of
  infections in those areas.  It is uncertain what parasite
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
60                          Friday, November 11, 1999

characteristics or numbers are required to compromise
the crab defense response, orwhat cellular and molecular
changes occur in host tissues to cause mortality.

In summary, Hematodinium sp.  infections in blue crabs
are seasonal, widely distributed,  and  influenced by
salinity, temperature, and host size. Numerous questions
remain on how environmental and host characteristics
affect parasite prevalence and proliferation, and  how
these may synergistically influence infections.


Bower SM, Meyer GR, Boutillier JA (1993) Diseases of
  spot  prawns  Pandalus  platyceros caused  by an
  intracellular  bacterium and   a  Hematodirtium-\\ke
  protozoa. J Shellfish Res 12:135

Chatton E, Poisson  R  (1931) Sur Pexistance, dans le
  sang des crabs, de deridiniens parasites: Hematodinium
  perezi n.g., n.sp. (Syndinidae). CR Seances Soc Biol
  Paris 105: 553-557

Couch  JA, Martin S (1982)  Protozoan symbionts and
  related diseases of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus
  Rathbun from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United
  States, pp. 71-81.  In: Perry HM, Van Engel WA (eds),
  Proceedings of the Blue Crab Colloquim,  Biloxi, MS.
  Gulf  States Marine Fisheries Commission,  Ocean
  Springs, MS

Eaton WD, Love DC, Botelho C,  Meyers TR, Imamura K,
  Koeneman  T   (1991) Preliminary results on the
  seasonally and life cycle of the parasitic dinoflageilate
  causing bitter crab disease in Alaskan Tanner crabs
  (Chionoecetes bairdi). J Invertebr Pathol 57:426-434

Field RH, Chapman CJ, Taylor AC, Neil DM, Vickerman
  K (1992)  Infection of the Norway lobster Nephrops
  norvegicus  by  a  Hematodinium-\\ke  species of
  dinoflageilate on the west coast of Scotland. Dis Aquat
  Org 13:1-15

Howard DW, Smith CS (1983) Histologic techniques for
  marine bivalve mollusks. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA
  Tech Memo NMFS-F/NEC-25, 97 pp.

Johnson  PT  (1980)   Histology  of  the  Blue  Crab,
  Callinectes  sapidus:  A Model  for the  Decapoda.
  Praeger, New York. 440 p

Johnson  PT (1986)   Blue crabs, (Callinectes sapidus
  Rathbun) viruses and the diseases they cause, pp. 13-
  19. In: Perry HM, Malone RF (eds), Proceedings of the
  National Symposium on the Soft Shelled Blue Crab
     Fishery.  Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Biloxi, MS

   Jordan S J, Rosenfield A (1998) The blue crab fisheries of
     North  America:   conservation,   research   and
     management.  J Shellfish Res 17(367-587)

   Latrouite D, Morizur Y, Noel  P, Chagot  D, Wilhelm G
     (1988) Mortalite du tourteau Cancerpagurus provoquee
     par  le dinoflagelle  parasite: Hematodinium sp.   Int
     Counc Explpr Sea CM-ICES/K:32

   Luna LG (1968) Manual of Histologic Staining Methods of
     the  Armed  Forces Institute of Pathology.   3d  ed.
     McGraw-Hill, New York.  258 p

   MacLean SA, Ruddell CL (1978) Three new crustacean
     hosts  for the  parasitic  dinoflageilate  Hematodinium
     perezi. J Parasitol 64:158-160

   Messick GA  (1994)  Hematodinium perezi infections in
     adult and juvenile blue crabs Callinectes sapidus from
     coastal bays of Maryland and Virginia, USA.  Dis Aquat
     Org  19: 77-82

   Messick GA,  Jordan SJ, Van  Heukelem WF (1999)
     Salinity and temperature effects on Hematodinium sp. in
     the  blue crab Callinectes sapidus.  J  Shellfish  Res
     18:000-000 (In press)

   Meyers TR, Koeneman TK, Botelho C, Short S (1987)
     Bitter crab disease: a fatal dinoflageilate infection and
     marketing  problem  for   Alaskan  Tanner  crabs
     Chionoecetes bairdi.  Dis Aquat Org 3:195-216

   Meyers TR, Botelho C, Koeneman TM, Short S, Imamura
     K (1990)  Distribution  of  bitter crab  dinoflageilate
     syndrome  ;in   southeast   Alaskan  Tanner   crabs,
     Chionoecetes bairdi.  Dis Aquat Org 9:37-43

   Newman MW, Johnson CA (1975)  A disease  of blue
     crabs  (Callinectes sapidus) caused by a parasitic
     dinoflageilate Hematodinium sp.  Parasitol 61: 554-557

   Shields JD (1993) Dinoflageilate  infections in portunid
     crabs. Abstract. XXVI Annu Meet Soc Invertebr Pathol,
     Asheville, NC,  USA

   Sieling FW (1960) The resources of Worcester County
     coastal waters. Ref. no. 60-10, Maryland Department of
     Research and Education, Annapolis, MD

   Wilhelm G,  Boulo V  (1988)   Infection de I'etrille
     Liocarcinus pub&r (L.) par un dinoflagelle parasite de
     type H$matpdinium sp.  Int Counc Explor  Sea CM-
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III


                                      PANEL DISCUSSION
Note: Ths following document is a transcription of the panel discussion.

Advances in commercial methods of harvesting fish and
shellfish have added significantly to  the pressures of
maintaining sustainable catch levels.   It  has been
suggested that the practices of taking fish and shellfish in
the coastal bays  return to more traditional harvest
methods, at least in certain portions  of the bays.  For
example, trot lining for crabs, mechanical bull rakes, and
Chinlcock clam rakes, and reduced fish net allowances. I
 would ask each of the panelists to comment.

Dawson: I am less inclined to point a finger at certain
methods or techniques.  Obviously there are some things
that come under fire,  such as monofilament gill nets,
certainly the clam rigs are being scrutinized at this point,
as well as things like stainless steel hooks.  I  am very
concerned that we get away from politicizing the issue of
resource use and at  least try to  get back to  the
dependence on science and management.  We are all
going to have to get together. Recreational fisherman
have a tendency to look at the commercial guys and say
this is a greedy handful of people that are  lining their
pockets with the results of their activities and these fish
are much more valuable as a recreational item than as a
piece of meat. The commercial interest tends to look at
the recreational guy as out there having a good time while
they are trying to earn a living as  they have done for
generations.  Both groups are  growing and the pie isn't
getting any bigger. Look at what is happened with the
striped bass and the management of the striped bass.
Even though itwas highly politicized, we made some good
decisions and the striped bass fishery has come back.
The same thing is happening with our flounder. A little bit
of restraint goes a long way and I would like to see us
make sure, and I might be naive, that this becomes a little
less politicized and depends a little bit more on science,
  Speir:  I went  back  through some commercial  catch
  records, and commercial methods of harvesting finfish in
  the back bays have actually changed very little over the
  past 50 years. I looked at the records from 1990-98.  Eel
  pots, gill nets, hook-and-line, flag nets, fish pots, and a
  pound net one year, have been used to harvest anywhere
  from 60,000 pounds to 300,000 pounds of finfish per year
  from the coastal  bays.  All of these  gears have been
  utilized for many years in Maryland commercial fisheries.
  Crab harvest ranged from a half million pounds to 1.5
  million  pounds over the same period. Dip nets, trot lines,
  pots, collapsible traps and rings, feint traps, and scrapes
  (in one year), have been used. The pots take about 90-
  95% of the landings every year. Pots have been used in
  the coastal bays  since  at least 1947.  Trot lines have
  never been very successful in the coastal bays, as I think
  they are harder to use. One of the biggest issues  has
  been clam dredges and they have been in use in the
  coastal bays, to some degree, over the past 35 years,
  although the use has increased here recently. They were
  actually invented on the Chesapeake Bay in 1954.
   1 U.S. EPA Region III Environmental Services Division,
    1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
   2 Bill's Sport Shop, 1566 S. Highway One, Lewes, DE
   3 DNR Biological Monitoring and Analysis Program, 580
    Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401
   4 Virginia Institute  of Marine  Science,  PO Box 1340,
    Gloucester Point, VA 23062
   5 Coastal Conservation Association of Virginia, 2100
    Marina Shores Drive, Suite  108, Virginia Beach, VA
   6 MDE Nontidal Wetlands, "Outdoor Report" WBOC-TV,
    201 Baptist Street, Salisbury, MD 21801
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

We  should  not base decisions on  desirability  of
commercial gear just on simple measures of time in use,
or some notion that they are traditional or non-traditional.
Commercial fishing, like any other business, seeks  to
minimize input of time and capital in order to turn a profit.
Returning to labor-intensive  methods of harvest would
remove  certain  commercial  fishing   as  profitable
enterprise. We should look instead, at the effects on
habitat from the use of certain gears. Whether or not they
conflict with other water uses.

Baker: I have to agree with all of the above, except that in
every business there is a bottom line, and the bottom line
is always painful. We have got a problem in our inland
bays, and we are going to have to address it. One of the
areas has been addressed from the state of Delaware.
We just don't have dredging in Delaware. We don't have
dragging of nets.  The only thing that the commercial
clammer can use is the Chinicock rakes or the bull rakes,
and the crabber can only  use pots. We'll see them out
there in Rehoboth Bay pulling their bull rakes, but there is
no real commercial operation in the state of Delaware.
Now, there are  dredges out in the ocean, and there are
loads of clams and crabs out  in the ocean  where it
doesn't do any harm.  So I think what we have to do with
our resource is protect it, and if you want to make a living
by the boat, go out there and do it where you can do it
without doing harm to our inland bays.

We have several problems in Rehoboth Bay, arid that is
what I have to address because that is where I am from.
Rehoboth Bay has no eelgrass. We get this stinky, smelly
stuff called "crap grass". It chases tourists away. It rots
things out.  It just causes a big  problem.  This doesn't
come from the  commercial people.  But we did take a
section a couple years ago in Delaware and set it aside
and planted eelgrass.  All the tourists came in with their
Chinicock rakes and raked it right up. So there has to be
an address, not just commercially, but recreationwise too.
We have to get some law enforcement in there.  I can tell
you as a tackle dealer, the  fishery itself is back,  it  is
wonderful.  We have had a very good year this year.
Some of the regulations that were put in for the inland
bays were very good regulations. We have some good
fishing and we can continue to have that.  A lot of things
that have happened are in a good direction and I think we
should continue in that direction.  We have got to protect
our bays.   The commercial stuff is more suited to the
ocean where they won't do any harm.

Welton: I think that first of all, all the fisheries departments
have to limit the entry.  People are coming to realize that
the bay and the ocean  don't have an unlimited supply.
You  might  have some kind of technique that not many
people are  doing, and it might not harm the environment
in any measurable way, but when you have an unlimited
   number of people moving to the water and wanting to
   participate, if you are not planning to limit or cap the entry
   at this point, then you have your head in the sand and you
   are just putting off the inevitable. Our resources can't take
   that  kind of pressure.  There are a lot of advances.
   People say their grandfather, and their great-grandfather
   before him, made their living on the water, but they didn't
   have hydraulic net reels or hydraulic pot pullers.  They
   didn't have GPS where they could go right back to the
   exact same spot. They didn't have a lot of the advances
   that we have today.

   We don't advocate doing away with the advances. What
   we would like to see is the end of any method that harms
   the habitat.  Everybody, whether  it  is recreational or
   commercial, has a responsibility to preserve that habitat.
   That is the only thing that is going to make sure that there
   is plenty there for all the  user groups.  CCA has seen
   already, in Texas where they have brought back grass
   beds, they are not only limiting the commercial  harvest
   methods in those areas to ways that are compatible with
   grass,  but they are also starting to set aside  big areas
   where you haye to go upwind and cut your motor off. You
   can only drift or pole across these areas because the
   props of outboard motors are bad for these beds. So
   recreational fishermen are recognizing and are willing to
   do their fair share.

   To get to the bottom line, I think the problem is not there
   are too many advances in the gear, the problem is the
   fisheries managers, whether it be politicians or scientists
   or board members, have not put enough limits or caps or
   quotas on the number of participants and the amount of
   resources they can take.  Once they do that, I don't think
   they should go out there and tell a guy, who is making his
   living and feeding his family on the water, that you have to
   have one hand and one leg tied behind your back to make
   a living. So that it will take 365 days to catch whatever is
   allowed by science and law what would take  100 days
   using more modern gear. I think to blame it on the gear is
   not really recognizing the problem. The problem is that
   we have to  have limits and caps and quotas on the
   participants and the amount of resource harvested. Once
   you do that, let them be as efficient as they can  without
   harming the habitat.

   Orth: There  is  a  concern that is  emerging  among
   scientists about the impact of certain types of gears on
   bottom structure, whether it is sea grass beds or live
   bottom. Some of these gears, like the dredges, have
   major destructive capabilities.  They destroy the structure
   of the bottom and there is a concern that, in the long term,
   this is going to have a dramatic influence on the fisheries
   utilization of these areas.  I think we really need to look
   very cjosely at certain types of gear because they really do
   destroy the bottom. We also need to look at alternative
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference ill

uses of these areas such as aquaculture, which is an
emerging fssue in Virginia. I pointed out that in Florida,
they brought out the gill net people, and they helped out
very much  in  getting  these  people  started in  an
aquaculture fishery. 1 think there are lots of opportunities
there and the only way that I see this all happening  is to
bring everyone to the table and work together.

The sad thing is that there is no one at this table that is
actually a commercial fisherman, to tell us how they feel.
About three weeks ago, I had someone call who was a
commercial fisherman, and for about an hour and a  half,
he was asking me questions about how we do things. It
is unfortunate that we didn't have  the opportunity to
perhaps hear what they are thinking because they might
at least provide us their perspective. I do know that after
the hour and a half that I spent on the phone talking about
sea grasses and how we  map and  how  they  are
spreading, and that once I explained to him a little about
how this  plant  spreads and  its biology,  I  think he
understood.   And when  I  broached the subject of
aquaculture, the response wasn't "no", it was "it's going to
be really hard because I have all my money invested in
this gear". When I said the state will be willing to work
with him, that sort of opened the door. I would like to see
Maryland, with this issue of hydraulic clammers, at least in
the coastal bays, begin the issue of working with them to
slowly  move from hydraulic  clamming to aquaculture.
Certainly you are going to have a conflict with areas that
have SAV, but it is less invasive and we may balance with
a little  bit of area that could be called "potential habitat",
that may have more sea grass coming back because you
are limiting all that destructive activity.

/ heard a few things. Education,  we are all in this together,
we alt have to work together on it, and that perhaps there
Is a need for more regulation-regulating time, regulating
number of entries, more law enforcement, regulating the
gear.  Who should regulate this and at what level? If we
had more regulation who should that be?

Ortn: The Virginia Marine Resources Commission has
authority  to regulate  fish  as does   the  Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, and Delaware NREC.
The states individually have been the traditional regulators
and I am sure will probably continue to regulate. There is
a possibility of getting together some sort of tri-state effort.
In the Chesapeake Bay, we have a bi-state effort with bi-
state plans  for crabs, stripers, and  a number of other
species, so that may be a possibility here. We will have
the first meeting of the Coastal Bays Fisheries Advisory
group  this coming Thursday night.  This is for Maryland
and this is going to offer us an opportunity to hear all
sides of the issues and look at potential regulations where
we decide regulations may be needed.
  If you  had to name just one change that you  would
  recommend  in  either  present  harvest technology,
  research,  or data collection,  to  maintain sustainable
  catches, what would that change be?

  Dawson: My training is not as a fisheries biologist, but as
  a wildlife biologist. One thing that has been very clear to
  me, based on my training, is  that you have to protect
  those areas that are your production areas.  Habitat is
  certainly the key to fisheries  management as it is to
  wildlife management.    Those areas  that are critical
  habitats, and I think it hass come out here today that SAV
  beds are one of those areas, have to be protected.  I
  would strongly support the creation of sanctuaries where
  you couldn't use  any type of  gear that might  have an
  impact on that particular  habitat. Either zones that have
  been  delineated,  such as the SAV  beds, or  zones a
  certain distance off of the shoreline.  I think that a very
  critical thing for the coastal bays to do at this point is to
  establish either sanctuary or refuge areas.

  Speir: The question is what one change would I make in
  harvesting technology, and I think that is a little too broad
  because I think we have to deal with each fishery in turn.
  Each one of them is unique. We have 19 cooperatively
  managed species in Maryland. Some are more heavily
  exploited by sport fishermen and some are more heavily
  exploited  by commercial fishermen.   Each  pattern of
  exploitation has its own particular problems. These can
  also vary from state to state. So, I don't know that I have
  a single technology  change answer to that. However, I
  could answer the question by saying that I believe one of
  the major problems is  by-catch  and kill of unwanted
  species.  This occurs in  both recreational hook-and-line
  fisheries-you are catching small  fish  and throw them
  back, you are catching too many of a regulated species
  and throw them back-and by-catch in commercial nets of
  various sorts. I think this is a major problem and one that
  we are looking to overcome, in many cases with changes
  in technology, particularly with troll gears and  pots and
  traps.  We have a growing demand for recreational and
  commercial fisheries, and we have a limited, almost fixed,
  supply of fish. We need to find some way to make that
  supply of fish go further,  to make it useable whenever we
  take it out of the water.

  Baker: I came prepared to tell you we didn't have a
  problem in Delaware, then I saw all these presentations.
  But the  problems we have  in Delaware aren't from
  recreational  or  commercial  fisheries,  they  are from
  pollution.    The problems   in Delaware are  being
  addressed. They were  dumping raw sewage from the
  campgrounds right into  the inlet,  now they are doing  it
  through a sewage system. Rehoboth Beach has put in a
  sewage system.  I really do expect to see that we are
  going to be your shining  example.  We are very proud of
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

our state and we are very proud of what we are doing, but
we do have a couple of areas that have to be addressed.
I would like to see the eelgrass come back in Rehoboth
Bay. I would like to see more oxygenation. We have a
very good fishery there. The fishery is improving.  All of
the regulations that have been put in place are working.
So I am more on a positive side than a negative side. We
do have a recreational gill net in Delaware. This to me is
a  problem, even  though I  am  a  recreational person.
People can go to the state of Delaware and for five bucks,
get a license and go flag gill netting.  It has to be within
100 ft. of the  bank,  and it  has  to be attended, but
everybody here knows that gill nets kill fish. If that is a
problem in the other states,  and this meeting is to put 3
states together to get something  going, this is one area I
think we  all have to take  a look at.   Why does  a
recreational fisherman need a gill net? Why does he have
to go out there and kill fish every day? He is limited to the
limits of 14 trap per day at 14 inches, but how many more
is he throwing back that are not alive? So here is an area
in the recreational  end that can be corrected iin all the

Number two, nobody has mentioned the turtle. The other
states have turtle excluders in crab pots, but Delaware
doesn't. Since I have the opportunity here to speak, and
I  know  people  from  Delaware  are listening,  it  is no
problem to put in a turtle excluder. We used to be able to
drive down Route 1 twenty years ago and there were so
many turtles migrating across the road, you would have to
drive over them. We don't see the turtles today that we
saw 20 years ago,  they have all  been drowned in  these
crab pots.  It is one way that they are disappearing.   I
would like to see the turtle come back, I would like to see
the bays come back,  and these are two  areas I feel we
can address and correct, and get our population back
where it should be.

Welton: I think in Virginia there are two things we would
like to see.  First, we  shouldn't have to prove that
something is harming the environment. The people that
want to use that method have got to prove that it doesn't
harm the environment. In Virginia, it can be a very long
and rocky road to prove that something is doing damage
in time to stop it before the damage is done. I think we
need to end any  harvest techniques that  are bad for
habitat, particularly submerged aquatic vegetation.

The other thing that we would really like to see in Virginia
is recognition that we need to protect these marine
resources, whether it be  crabs or fish, until they have a
chance  to reproduce.  If  you  kill them  before they
reproduce, and you get some bad years,  you have a
problem.  Let them reproduce at least once. Constantly
we are  out there  cropping them  off before  then.  In
Virginia, we are dredging pregnant female  crabs in the
   wintertime, arid then in the summer, we are taking loads
   of sponge crabs. And we are arguing over whether the
   sponges are orange or brown, because if they are brown
   you can't take them. There is not a judge in Virginia that
   can differentiate the degrees of orange or brown enough
   to convict somebody. We are bickering about that while
   we  are killing billions  and billions  of crabs.  Some
   scientists say there are not enough males to impregnate
   the  females.  Virginia Institute of Marine Science  says
   there are not enough females.  The sponge crabs are all
   females that fpund a male and while we are arguing over
   whether there are  enough males or females they are
   killing everyone that did get pregnant. That's no way to
   manage for the future.  I think the Marine Resources
   Commission in Virginia manages to protect the industry,
   both the recreational and the commercial industry.  If the
   politicians and regulators would manage to protect the
   resource, then all the industries that depend on it would
   thrive,  and  that would  really get to  the bottom of the

   Orth: I am just going to add my perspective as a scientist
   in this panel.  It has been really interesting, given where
   we were  20 years ago  and where we are today in our
   knowledge of jsea grass systems and the other things that
   are going on.  I still think there is a significant role that we
   as scientists play in working with managers in helping
   them unravel some of these critical questions that still are
   unresolved. As an example, one of the questions I  keep
   getting all the time is does crab scraping hurt sea grass
   beds?  Now crab  scraping is different than dredging.
   Scraping is a Dredge without the teeth and the crabbers
   go in these grass beds, back and forth, and pull up a lot of
   crabs and the grass. People say they are out there pulling
   and killing the grass. I have been monitoring these grass
   beds in the areas where the scraping has  been the
   heaviest and I personally photo-interpret all the photos
   every year.  I look at 1700-2000 photos every single year
   and there are areas people scrape year in and year out
   and the grass  beds are doing really well.

   My  concern now, and  it ties  in with the fact that the
   pressure  on the  blue crab has  really been increasing, is
   that the scraping intensity is increasing more and earlier.
   If they start scraping at a time period that these plants, the
   eelgrass, are flowering, and pull off a flower before the
   seeds are mature, you are actually killing the future plants
   that are going^to be revegetating these areas. So, a lot of
   my comments have been addressing, from what I see in
   these photos from year to year in areas that are heavily
   scraped, that we do not see grass beds being damaged.
   The damage actually comes primarily from the props, the
   motors of the  boats, not the scrape itself. You see big
   prop scars  in these areas, and  I think there is a real
   educational component there. But generally, the scrapes
   do not damage the grass bed.  Tangier Island is a key
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI

area where they have been scraping for a century or more
and the grass beds still are doing very well.  But, because
of the pressure on the peeler industry-there are more and
more people scraping to get the peeler crabs because it
is such a lucrative fishery—we are now seeing scrapers in
areas that we have never  seen them before.  It is
unbelievable that in sites that have never been scraped,
now you have two to four people  scraping from the first
sign of a peeler crab all the way through the end. The
concern is that  they may actually be influencing the
regeneration of the grasses because they are pulling out
all the reproductive shoots before they even are able to
set flower. And that is a very basic question that  needs
to be addressed: At what  point can we  really pull a
flowering shoot that has seeds, so that the seeds will at
least be mature enough to continue growing and then be
released? So there are some very basic questions that
need to be addressed that are  going  to play a very
important role in the habitat.

/ am a scientist in a conservation group in Washington DC
and one of  the programs that our group  works on are
marine protected areas, where a portion of a bay (primarily
In the Carribean) is  set aside where you can't fish for a
certain period of time  during spawning aggregations in
some cases, or you could do it during times when sea
grass production is occurring. Basically there are times
when people just don't go in at all to fish, and the idea is
that this is a stocking mechanism, whereby you save
some of the species to reproduce and hopefully, this will
filter out into the  rest of the area.  Is this something that
the panel feels is a viable option for coastal bays here?

Speir:  Yes.  I have to draw some examples from the
Chesapeake because that is where most of the regulatory
activity has occurred, but we have all sorts  of restrictions
on where you can fish.  For the oyster beds,  some of them
are reserved for tongs, some are reserved for diving,
some are reserved for dredging, some are off-limits. For
striped bass, we don't allow fishing  on the  spawning
grounds during a couple months in spring. We don't allow
crabpots in the tributaries, although we do allow harvest
by trot  lines. There are all kinds of zoning arrangements
that we have, to reduce fishing  mortality on  particular
stocks during particular times of year.  So, yes it is a
viable option and it is one that is used worldwide.

When  the Maryland Saltwater Sportsfishermen went to
Annapolis to get legislation passed to  move the trawlers
out like in Virginia, we had to fight our own DNR. We are
going back to Annapolis this year, and we are talking to
the politicians about limiting the number of crab dredgers.
We have 20-25ofthem coming in ourbackbays in Ocean
City, and just literally sweep them out, and the scrapers
are doing it on the other side around Crisfield.  They are
scraping the same areas and leaving it bare. That is why
  the decline in the Tangier Sound.  So you guys are doing
  great and I thank you for being here.

  Baker: I thank you very much, I appreciate that.  I would
  like to add to that, that as a tackle dealer, and dealing with
  all the recreational fishermen, I myself arn at fault.  Go
  back 20-25 years, we used to keep shark and we used to
  keep all the bluefish that we wanted before the regulations
  were put in and there is a whole new mind set now. I can
  tell you that many of the fishermen that I  deal with in
  Delaware, and it is a lot of them, don't even keep their
  limit. They go out for the sport of fishing.  Recreational
  fishermen, in my opinion, are not the problem. I think we
  release more fish than we keep, and I would tell you that
  90% of my customers only keep what they eat.

  What is the status of the diamondback terrapin population,
  and how do the several states vary in their approach to
  protecting the terrapin?

  Speir: I am not sure I know all of the answers to that.
  Maryland still does allow commercial harvest, I believe it
  is a 5 inch minimum size, maybe 6. The harvest has not
  been very high the past 4 or 5 years.  I don't know why,
  but it is not a really desirable commercial species.  The
  only work  done  in  Maryland  has been done  in  the
  Patuxent River  by William  Rusenberg,  and he has
  calculated mortality rates and they are apparently fairly
  high.  One of the problems that he  has found in  the
  Patuxent is the loss of spawning beaches from harboring,
  either  riprap or bulkhead, and that may be equally as
  important as by-catch mortality in some of the feint traps
  that were in use there.  There is also a  high rate of
  mortality in recreational crabpots. We do allow two pots
  per pier per landowner. We did require this year the use
  of turtle excluder devices in each one of the crabpots, and
  we are requiring air space in the crab banktraps to reduce
  the  rates of mortality. Statewide, I couldn't tell you the

  / haven't heard any mention of the precautionary principle
  or approach, and I know it's a very variably interpreted
  idea, and I would like to have some idea of what the
  panelists would do with that?

  Speir: I am not sure I know exactly what the precautionary
  approach  is,  but a  developing thought  in  fisheries
  management is  the  establishment of both targets and
  thresholds for fishing mortality rates.  Targets are that
  level of fishing mortality that you would like to retain, and
  it is a safe level of mortality. You can go over it a little bit
  and not  hurt the  population.   The threshold, or limit, is
  something you  do  not want to approach.   In crab
  management  now,  we are debating where those  two
  levels should be and I think we are coming pretty much to
  agreement that we don't want to harvest at potentially the
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

maximum rate. Someone suggested this morning that we
are harvesting all of the fish at the maximum rate we can.
That is not entirely true, because we are trying to set
fishing mortality rates small enough to protect stocks in
case of something unanticipated. So we are beginning to
apply it. It is not universally applied, but it is an important

Welton:  I  have  been  going  to  the Virgina  Marine
Resources Commission for 15 years and I have been
talking to  them about how, if we are going to make a
mistake, let's make it on the side of the resource, which is
my interpretation of the precautionary approach.   In
Virginia, we have 8 voting commissioners, 7 of thesm have
family or financial or direct ties to the commercial fishing
industry. All this fisheries management is  so new and
where  Maryland  has these thresholds and  other things
they are trying in  these fisheries  management  plans,
Virginia never did fisheries management plans until the
fish were already in trouble. There are some fish out there
in Virginia that are not being overharvested, and most of
the ones  that aren't being  overharvested don't have
management plans  that are  complete  for  them yet
because they don't have the funds or manpower to do
that. So we are taking care of the crisis first.

The Coastal Conservation Association, has found that the
whole Gulf Coast and the whole Atlantic Coast has the
same problem. It is not something that is just unique here
to this area.   In the last 15  years we have  always
managed after the depletion instead of ahead of time,
which would be the precautionary approach. Now is the
time to get to what you are talking about. I think you are
seeing people beginning to get there as soon as they can
get the time and  the money and the manpower to get it
done.  Certainly Virginia and Maryland both are a  lot
different than they were 5 years ago.  So we are headed
in the right direction, but we still have a few little things to
iron out.

I go to a lot of these conferences and there is always a
slide showing infant fish in that area around the edge of a
marsh  where the grasses are.  This is the feeding area,
the nursery area, the spawing area, and so on. And yet
there seems to be no way that, at least in Delaware, you
can convince anybody to look at the cumulative effects of
continuing to arm the entire shoreline.  We  have lost
wetland after wetland after wetland because every permit
is given as if it was the only one in the entire three bays.
Is there any way that you can give us tools to convince
goverments that habitat hinges not only on the fisheries
side, but it also hinges on the nursery side?  That you
can't destroy one and save the other.

Dawson: I think the question is  how do we convince our
goverments that the critical habitats,  either  wetlands or
   shorelines, need to be protected, and that a little loss here
   is not a big thmg-that we need to look at the cumulative
   effect. I think that there are programs that have come into
   effect in the last few years to try to address that issue.  I
   particularly know the wetlands because that is what I work
   with. We have a "no net loss" mandate that says the state
   will not allow any more overall net loss of wetlands.  All
   wetlands that are lost now have to be replaced, either by
   the individual; or the state has to pick up the tab and
   replace it. That is also true about other types of habitat as
   well, but particularly in wetlands, because those wetland
   habitats are the most critical habitats that we see that
   need to be protected.

   Now, the shoreline situation is a little bit different because
   you have also' got to balance the erosion factor there. If
   you don't armour some shorelines, you are going to lose
   those, and some shorelines can't be armoured just by
   vegetation.  In some cases it is a tradeoff that you will
   allow some armouring of a shoreline, just to maintain it, as
   opposed  to  allowing it  to  erode back and losing it
   altogether. But that is still an issue. When you do these
   kinds of things,  there is a tradeoff and there is a loss of
   habitat. As far as other critical types of habitat, particularly
   headwaters habitats and riparian habitats are concerned,
   I know that in the state of Maryland, we are in the process
   of trying to restore some of those habitats and protect the
   ones that are already there.

   Baker: I can tell you that in Delaware, we have probably,
   per capita, more state park land that is protected than any
   other state if you were to take it by the square foot.  So
   Delaware is really again the shining example, we are
   doing very good.

   / am sony, but I am from Delaware and you have  a very
   rosy picture.

   Baker: I have smelled the "crap grass" in Rehoboth Bay
   and I understand what you are saying. And I go to all the
   DNREC meetings in Delaware and I have to tell you that
   they are watching what they call the recruitment. They are
   very concerned  about the flounder fishery. They  tell us
   that the fishery is in good health. How they know what the
   recruitment is, and how they get their figures, I don't know
   that.  But I do know that DNREC in Delaware is very
   concerned about recruitment, which means where they
   are spawning, and how the young  are growing, and how
   they are endangered. We are all concerned about that.
   I am very concerned about it as a recreational fisherman.
   I want to see this fishery continue for years to come.  But
   what I see in Delaware is that the homes being developed
   and the encroachment can't really happen a whole  lot
   there because we have about 30 miles of shoreline and
   about 20 miles of it is state park land.  So not a whole lot
   can hurt us there.
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

You are talking about the ocean beach, not the bays. The
bays are being eaten up.

Welton: I can't tell you what is happening here in the
coastal bays, but what is happening in Virginia Beach with
us.   I am  on  the Virginia Beach-Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Board, and when I got on that board it dealt
with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Law which said
you can't build within 50 feet of the water and then there
is another landward 50 ft. buffer. So theoretically, you are
not supposed to be able to build within 100 ft. of the edge
of the water.  When Virginia Beach adopted theirs, they
went 100 ft. from the edge of the marsh grasses, which is
the most restrictive in the state.  When I got on there,
there were builders who said if you own the land, you can
do whatever you want with it and then there were tree
huggers who said you can't do anything with the land, and
I  said there has to be a win-win situation here, and we
started giving exemptions if they would give certain things
to the land.  One of the things that evolved in the last year,
we have ended up with a "harm the shoreline" policy. We
don't want to put in vertical bulkheads.  We'll let you go
25 ft. too close to the water, but if you ever harm the
shoreline, you have to put in  riprap, and if the bottom is
suitable, we'll make you move the riprap back and we'll
make you spread it with marsh grass, cord grass, to try to
get it re-established. To let you go 25 ft. or 10 ft. too close
to  the water,  whatever  the  minimum  necessary
(somewhere between what you need and what you want)
we might require that your whole back yard has to be left
In a natural state, or there has to be a 6 ft. wide mulch bed
parallel to the water with 6 inches of mulch in it to filter off
the topsoil runoff or the chemicals.

So what we are doing is we are seeing all these people
wanting to  move to the water. We are not trying to stop
them.  How can they move and preserve it? Those are
some of the things we are doing in the last year, where we
are going with riprap and we are moving it back. We have
had five cases this year where we have required them to
put in marsh grass because when water hits a vertical
bulkhead, there is too much energy, but with a riprap
bulkhead at an angle, it doesn't. It is evolving to that, and
the government agencies are getting there, but in Virginia
Beach, we are doing that already.

Baker: That is exactly what  is happening in Delaware.
They are not allowing a bulkhead or piling to be put in,  it
is all riprap.

What do you see as the responsibility or role of the local
government in this? Do you think we'll ever evolve to the
point that we'll have a compact along the coastal bays?

Baker: Delaware has a very good organization at DNREC
and they are quite powerful. They have their meetings
  and they follow through with everything.  However, we
  have a limited law enforcement agency in Delaware. Our
  Coast Guard station is limited. They had non-enforcement
  personnel at the third busiest inlet on the East Coast, and
  they are trying to get more personnel and more funds
  raised to improve the Coast Guard Station. So, the law
  enforcement part that I alluded to earlier is still the biggest
  problem. People are going to fish and like I said, I don't
  have a problem with most of the recreational fishermen.
  I think it is a few that cause the biggest problems on that
  score. We  need better law enforcement and we need to
  continue in  the direction that we are going with the laws
  that we have. It goes back to the commercial  fishery
  mostly that  is damaging things, and they have got to be
  taken care of too.

  Welton: It doesn't make sense that I can drive two hours
  down the shore and five miles to the right you can't build
  within 100 ft. of the water, and five miles  to the left you
  can build anywhere you want - on top of the water if you
  want. What is good for the Chesapeake Bay is good for
  the coastal  bays. The forces that be have not been able
  to move that yet, but it is coming,  and it will come. That is
  not our agenda, but we 8ire certainly in support of that.  It
  is just a matter of when.  In Virginia Beach  , if  it flows
  south to the Pamlico Sound you can do whatever you
  want. If it flows north to the Chesapeake  Bay you can't.
  So that is just in one city you have got two  different rules.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999


                                       AIMN FISHER, PH.D.
                               PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Fisher. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for publication.

I am delighted to be here. This group's diverse interests,
backgrounds and expertise represent the kind of group I
want to talk with about the work being'done by our large
interdisciplinary team.

This conference  has discussed major issues for  the
Coastal Bays. Based on what we know from science and
projections of how population and development might
change, let's examine how these issues might change in
the future and then ask whether climate change will make
them better or worse. This is the strategy our team is
using in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment (MARA) of
potential impacts from climate change.

We started with four questions: 1) What are the regional
current status and stresses?   2) How might climate
change affect those stresses? 3) What actions might be
taken  to  reduce  damages or  take  advantage  of
opportunities created by climate change?   4)  What
research and information are most important to help
individual citizens and communities make smart decisions
related to climate change?   Earlier sessions have
emphasized gaps in our understanding about the critical
Coastal Bays systems and human interactions with those
systems; considering potential  impacts  from climate
change adds even more challenges to our understanding.

Our  Mid-Atlantic  Regional  Assessment is  one  of 16
studies across the country asking the same  questions.
The results are being synthesized into a  report for the
nation as a whole.  Our integrated assessment approach
looks at the physical changes that might occur as; a result
of climate change,  but recognizes that there  are other
sources of change.  Thus we develop scenarios of what
the future might be like under different conditions. These
scenarios are a basis for "what if analyses.
   An important component in developing scenarios has
   been stakeholder participation. We all are stakeholders
   when it comes to climate change - and when it comes to
   making decisions about the future of the Coastal Bays.

   The 92 people on our Advisory Committee come from a
   variety of backgrounds, including business, government,
   public interest organizations, and academics to round out
   the  needed scientific expertise.   Our  stakeholder
   involvement  goal  is to ensure  that the  Mid-Atlantic
   Regional Assessment addresses stakeholders' concerns.
   We also  havejearned that sometimes stakeholders have
   good  information that  we otherwise would not have
   access to. So stakeholder involvement has improved the
   assessment  process as well  as  its  outcomes,  by
   facilitating access to good data and by stimulating new
   ways to think about issues. We also need stakeholders'
   help to get the message out about what we are learning
   and how it might be useful to all who could be affected by,
   or have interest in, climate change.

   We originally planned to limit our focus  to forests,
   agriculture, and fresh water.  Stakeholders convinced us
   to think about additional linkages, especially impacts  to
   coastal zones, human health, and ecological systems.
   This  ambitious assessment menu  would have been
   impossible without a lot of collaboration and support.  In
   addition to funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency  (EPA), we are using  a lot of data research
   approaches and results from  EPA programs including the
   Mid-Atlantic Integrated  Assessment and several of its
   labs.  We also have collaborators at the Forest Service,
   NOAA, and   other  universities  as  well as the very
   important Advisory Committee.  These collaborators are
   crucial to our work.

   Figure 1  shows the Mid-Atlantic region, as defined for our
   assessment.    It  includes  all  (Maryland,   Delaware,
   Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) or parts (New York,
Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

New Jersey,  North Carolina) of eight  states and the
District of Columbia.  Note that its substantial coastline
includes the Coastal Bays.
Figura 1. Proposed Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment Area

One of the reports made available at this conference
(Conditions of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries, No. EPA600-
R-98-147, November 1998) is helpful as a starting point
for looking at the current situation and thinking about how
it got that way, how it might change in the future, and how
climate change might modify trends that will be happening
anyway. For instance, the Estuaries reports maps of
water clarity show some trouble spots in the Coastal Bays.
Maps  for  other measures, such  as nutrients, show
generally good conditions for the Coastal Bays. However,
combining  layers  of potential changes  in agricultural
practices,   increased   population,  and   increased
development suggests additional nutrients and sediment.
Nutrients and sediment contribute to algae blooms and
turbidity, with substantial impact on ecological habitat
because of reductions in submerged aquatic vegetation
and dissolved oxygen.

Ducks are an interesting example for tracing potential
impacts from climate change.  Why ducks?  There are
several reasons. What happens in this region can affect
the abundance of ducks elsewhere, and what happens to
ducks elsewhere can effect the abundance of ducks here.
Ducks are a common ecological indicator, so a lot of
information appears in the literature.  They fall into the
"cute and  cuddly' category, making it  easier  to get
people's  attention  about  ducks   than about say,
salamanders. More than that, ducks are important from
recreation  and economic perspectives because people
spend money to go look at or hunt ducks in the Bays.
  The collaborator who has helped us the most with ducks
  is  Lisa Sorensen at Boston University. Although her
  information is for the Chesapeake Bay, I suspect it is
  indicative for the Coastal Bays.  Table 1 shows dramatic
  changes over the last 40-50 years to selected species of
  ducks that winter in the Chesapeake Bay. Table 1 does
  not show the year-to-year variability, but note the large
  declines of mallards, northern pintails and canvasbacks,
  and the large  increases in Canada goose and  snow
  goose. Many reasons have been posited to explain these
  changes.  Our question is how climate affects what has
  already happened and what might happen in the future.

  Table 1. Waterfowl Wintering in Chesapeake Bay

Northern Pintail
Canada Goose
Snow Goose
  Knowing what climate is Sike, and how it is changing, can
  be a starting point for the question about how climate
  might affect ducks in the Coastal Bays.  Figure 2 shows
  the Mid-Atlantic region's  history  of  temperature and
  precipitation for the last 100 years. The top portion shows
  temperature and the bottom portion shows precipitation.
  The heavier  jagged lines shows the five  year running
  average. The straight line shows the trend if the variability
  is removed. Two things are notable in Figure 2.  First is
  the variability, which clearly reflects major weather events
  such as droughts. The other is the rising trend line for
  precipitation;  over  the  past  100 years,  rainfall has
  increased in the Mid-Atlantic region. Temperatures, on
  the other hand, have shown only a slight upward trend.
     1825  WtS   1915   1925   1935   1945  19SS  OtS  1975  1985  1995
   Figure 2. Present-Day Climate
 De/ma/va's Coasfa/Says Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

Although we have substantial confidence in  historical
measurements, projecting the future is more difficult.
General circulation models can be used to project future
climate, based on historical observations such as those in
Figure 2. These models also use input about what might
be the most likely changes in "driving" factors. The most
important factors are increased  carbon dioxide from
burning fossil fuels and aerosols which are from the sulfur
in fossil fuels. These two factors tend to counteract one
another,  but the  carbon  dioxide increases are more
dramatic.  Plugging these factors into the models gives
results that tend to fit one of two patterns.

Figure 3 shows temperature  projections for the Mid-
Atlantic Region, using two models. Figure 3a shows the
increase in maximum temperature and Figure 3b shows
the increase in minimum temperature. Because minimum
temperatures are  projected to rise more than maximum
temperatures, Winters (on average) are expected to be
milder and Summers (on average) are expected! to be a
bit hotter.
   1994   2004  2014  2024  2034  2044  2054  2064  2074  2084  2094
Figure 3a. GCM Projections, Maximum Temperature
    1994  2004  2014  2024   2034  2044  2054  2064   2074  2084  2094
 Figure 3b. GCM Projections, Minimum Temperature
  The two models shown in Figure 3, the Hadley Model and
  the Canadian Climate Centre (CCC) Model, have been
  chosen for use  in the National Assessment Activities
  because of the  large uncertainties  in projecting future
  climate and because they seem to be at the outer limits of
  the range of models available -  the two  patterns
  mentioned above. Keep in mind that both models project
  that within the next 100 years, it will become warmer in the
  Mid-Atlantic region.

  Projections from the same two models for precipitation
  show a somewhat different pattern (Figure 4).  Note that
  the CCC projections were on top in Figure 3 but are on the
  bottom in Figure 4. The CCC model shows essentially no
  increase in precipitation, but the Hadley model shows a
  substantial  increase.  The  consensus  among  our
  climatologists is that the MidAtlantic region is likely to be
  a little warmer and maybe a little wetter over the next 100
       1994  2004  2014  2024 2034 2044  2054  2064  2074  2084  2094
                                                       Figure 4. GCM Projections, Precipitation
   The next assessment step is to explore how the projected
   climate might affect ducks.  One reason that some ducks
   are doing better than others (Table 1) is because they
   have been able to change where they live or what they eat
   as their habitat has evolved. The Canada goose and the
   snow goose nave shifted to finding food in agricultural
   areas in response to the decline in submerged aquatic
   vegetation.  Other ducks are eating Baltic clams, which
   have become more  prevalent-perhaps  because  of
   warmer water.

   Note that 130,000 canvasback ducks wintered  in the
   Chesapeake Bay 40-50 years ago, and fewer than half as
   many do now, Canvasbacks tend to breed in the Prairie
   Pot Hole region. About 40% of the ones that breed there
   end up in the Atlantic flyway.  Between 90 and 99% of
   those are in the Mid-Atlantic region rather than further
   south or north in the Atlantic flyway.   Projections from
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference Hi

general circulation models, similar to those for the Mid-
Atlantic region shown in Figures 3 and 4, suggest a much
drier future for the Prairie Pot Hole region.  Drying of the
pot holes will affect the breeding habitat for canvasback
ducks. Lisa Sorensen projects a 20 to 40% decline in the
next 30 years and between 7 and 70% in the next 100
years, the much wider range for the year 2100 compared
with 2030 occurs partly because of uncertainty about what
would happen further north in Canada; new habitat for
ducks  might exist there in 100  years but still  be in
transition 30 years from now.  So impacts on ducks are
one example of how climate change could affect the
Coastal Bays because there might be fewer canvasback
ducks (and possibly other waterfowl) for people to observe
In this part of the Mid-Atlantic region.

Another potential impact from climate change is changes
in the salinity of the Coastal Bays as well as the larger
bays in the Mid-Atlantic region. The impact on salinity is
hard to project because of uncertainty about precipitation,
which in turn influences stream flows.

There is more certainty that a rise in air temperatures will
lead to higher water temperatures.   Fishermen at this
conference noted that warmer water temperatures mean
the fish come in later. But warmer average temperatures
could  affect the type of fish species that live in coastal
areas over the longer time period, partly because warmer
water cannot dissolve as much oxygen. Warmer water
also increases the biological oxygen demand.  Thus one
Impact in the shallow Coastal Bay is likely to be more time
during the summer with water quality problems because
of low oxygen levels.

Oysters might be an issue in terms  of both salinity and
water temperature.  Oysters  can tolerate a range of
salinity, but the discussion above indicates uncertainty
about  what will happen to salinity.   Warmer  water
temperatures could increase Dermo disease problems for
oysters — which could be worse if the salinity is near the
end of oysters' preferred range.

Climate change also could affect sea  level  rise in the
Delmarva peninsula. This part of the country already has
relatively high sea level rise compared to many other parts
of the world. Higher water temperatures and the changes
in hydrology that go along with climate change are likely
to mean more sea level rise. Figure 5 is based on digital
elevation maps provided by the University of Delaware.
Using GIS techniques, we  combined this with land use
information   from  EPA's  Mid-Atlantic  Integrated
Assessment  program.  Figure 5 shows what would
happen in Delaware if sea level rises by two feet. This is
about what is projected over the next 100 years—but not
               ., { Flooded Regions
               r.v'     of Delaware
               •'' ";   Due to a 24 inch Sea Lavgl Rise
   Figure 5. Flooded Regions of Delaware
   The portion of Delaware that would be flooded is only 1-
   2% of the  land mass.  Looking at the type of land use
   provides additional insights: only 0.25% of the developed
   land would be flooded, but over 20% of the emerging
   wetlands would be flooded - a habitat concern.  Maps
   such as this also syggest concern because of expected
   increases in population, and the accompanying increase
   in development. Thus the future percentage of developed
   land potentially affected by sea level rise could be a lot
   larger, leading to concerns about property values.
               :  '       I
   Another concern about sea level rise is that there would
   be less shallow habitat. This depends on  shoreline slope
   and whether the  ecosystem, can migrate.  Ecosystem
   migration becomes more difficult as more of the shoreline
   becomes developed.

   Sea level rise also could increase salt water intrusion,
   especially  because the trend is to move away from
   surface water supplies and avoid the  expenses  that
   surface water treatment ssystems have to incur to meet the
   new Safe Drinking Water Act requirements

   Another aspect of sea level rise is that wave surges from
   the same intensity of storms that we currently have will go
   further inland.  Even without development, the current
   degree of storminess would result in more damages to
   both ecosystem and property because of sea level rise.
   Projecting future storminess is even harder than projecting
   what is going to happen to climate overall.  But the best
   available information suggests that on average there will
   be more frequent and more intense  winter storms.
   Combining increased storminess with  sea level  rise
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Friday, November 11, 1999

means that what currently is a one-in-a-hundred year
storm would happen once every 25-30 years.

Implications are rather substantial for property damages
as well as ecological effects. In the period between 1978
and 1998,  the four Mid-Atlantic states of New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland and Virginia had 178,000 National
Flood Insurance policies.  Those policies brought in 81
million dollars in revenues, but paid out 327 million dollars
in claims.  The shortfall comes from all of us as tax-
payers. About 47,000 different insurance claims took the
327 million dollars, and more than 40% of the insurance
claims  were  repetitive. Thus we paid twice for storm
damage at the same property.  Discussions about fixing
the current system become even more important as we
think about the potential for increased storminess in the
Mid-Atlantic region.

Several actions can  be taken now. One is to implement
Coastal Zone Management Plans, recognizing that they
create difficult conflicts among competing interests. But
coastal zone management may be a way to reduce
property damages. Combining the possibility for warmer
temperatures with the American public's affinity for coastal
areas  and expected  population growth implies  more
development in coastal areas.  We have to be smarter
about that development to avoid losses.

On the other hand there also will  be some regional
benefits from climate change. Warmer temperatures will
extend the  recreation season and  increase tourism .
dollars. Unfortunately, hurricanes suggest a negative side
to extending the tourism  season.   Although  the  Mid-
Atlantic region has fewer hurricanes than other parts of
the country, extending the tourism season into the Fall
could increase the need for evacuation to get people out
of harm's way.

The potential impacts described above  can be put in
perspective by placing them in  the context of overall
impacts assessed for agriculture, forests,  fresh water,
coastal zones, human health and ecosystems. Pulling
together results for our first year and a half of work, our
team has identified the direction and sometimes the sign
of impact,  and how much confidence we have in the
assessment results.

Several points emerge from such a summary. One is that
there are some positive impacts for the region as a whole,
but not very many and they are not very big - despite our
best efforts to come up with benefits from climate: change.
Another  point is that there are a lot of negative! impacts
and some of them are likely to be large.  Coastal zones
are likely to suffer from erosion and salt water intrusion.
Although less certain, a substantial overall decrease in
biodiversity is likely to accompany climate changes, partly
  because it will be difficult for species to migrate.  Even
  more uncertain but potentially large (and certainly relevant
  for the Coastal Bays) are threats to ecological functioning
  as an impact of climate change.

  Despite this djscouraging description of potential impacts
  for climate change, there can  be cautious  optimism.
  Earlierdiscussions at this conference already stressed the
  need for coastal zone management, smart growth, and
  controlling nutrient runoff.  The bottom line is that the way
  to make the,Mid-Atlantic region, especially its coastal
  zones, more resilient to climate change is to make it more
  resilient to hurnan development and to environmental and
  habitat problems it is suffering now and will continue to
  suffer -  even  if we don't have climate change. Climate
  change projections gives us one more reason to do a lot
  of things that already make sense for other reasons.
 Friday, November 11, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                              WELCOME AND FRIDAY RECAP

                                ?ARAH TAYLOR-ROGERS, PH.D.
Note: Tt>9 following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Taylor-Rogers.  It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

Good morning everyone. It is a gorgeous day outside and
I can tell you that I am extremely impressed by all of you
being here inside.  It reflects the dedication and the care
that we have toward our coastal bays and what is going to
happen to them, how we are going to handle the issues
and the pressures that are focusing on these bays, and
have been for quite some time.

I remember working in the Coastal Zone Management
Program. At the time we were fostering and promoting a
concept called a "marine sanctuary" for part of the coastal
bays that would begin to focus on management of the key
resources, but still allow some  uses of these resources,
particularly in the  lower coastal  bays.  It was  quite  a
controversy.  I can  remember a public hearing in which
around 600 people attended. Two people were in favor of
the concept and the rest were opposed. Today, there is
an interest and a keen  awareness of the value of the
resources which draw us all to our coastal bays. It is so
wonderful to see this resurgence in the resources, and it's
especially wonderful to see the attention that you're giving
to the balancing of the resources, the survivability of our
fish, our bay grasses, the crabs, and our wetlands, and
seeing  how we can  manage and  deal with these
resources, keeping in mind that these resources bring
economic gain to the area as well.  So I applaud you for
being here sharing of your knowledge.

On behalf of Governor Parris Glendenning and all of my
colleagues in the Department of Natural Resources, many
of whom I see here today, I want to thank you for your
statwartness in being  here.   I  really appreciate the
expertise that you're bringing to this meeting.  This is an
important conference.   You have  many talents and
energies to share, and this tri-state effort to protect the
magnificent coastal bays won't go unnoticed. In Maryland,
  just as in Delaware and Virginia, those resources support
  our ecosystem and its wealth of wildlife  and aquatic
  resources, promote a healthy economy by  encouraging
  tourism and  other commercial activities, and benefit our
  citizens' quality of life by offering a plethora  of recreation
  opportunities. A strong partnership developed the actions
  endorsed by Governor Glendenning  this  summer, to
  restore and protect the coastal bays. In the past, we have
  worked  hard  to  help   create the   Comprehensive
  Conservation and Management  Plan for the Maryland
  Coastal Bays, and now we are supporting the Coastal
  Bays Foundation as it begins implementing its programs.
  I am happy to announce that we are working to develop
  fisheries management programs especially focused on
  our coastal bays.

  The bottom line is that Maryland is going to put its money
  where its mouth is, and it has set aside funding in order to
  implement the management plan. Even though there are
  differences among the bays, it is critical to remember that
  they are connected and should be managed  as such, with
  governments,  citizens,  businesses,   non-profits,  and
  environmental concerns  from  all three states and our
  federal agencies, working together toward common goals.
  By recognizing, in fact celebrating, that  connection, this
  conference  is presenting us with  some  exceptional
  opportunities:  to jointly  reflect on  what has  been
  accomplished, to review the activities that all three states
  are taking, to share and learn from our failures and our
  successes, and to chart a united course for the future to
  move together to restore and protect Delmarva's coastal

  Yesterday we learned about our aquatic resources in the
  coastal bays and some of the factors that impact them.
  The importance of coastal bays as a  support to a wide
  variety of organisms was discussed; the importance to our
  environment, the importance to our economy,  and
  ultimately to the unique way of life we all  enjoy in this
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

region. We also learned about the many threats to those
resources from  both  natural and  human stressors—
eutrophication, excess sediments in the water column,
habitat degradation, harmful algal blooms, and disease.
We also heard about the work that's been done, and is
being done, to control these threats, such as working in
the  watersheds  to   reduce  nutrients  and  toxins,
implementation of erosion control practices, and research
into diseases and  harmful algal blooms.  Submerged
aquatic vegetation provides essential habitat for many of
the aquatic animals, and the ongoing efforts of regular bay
grass monitoring has allowed us to  identify increased
scarring from hydraulic clam dredging in the coastal bays.
As you are all aware, this led to legislation, not only in
Virginia, but also in Maryland, prohibiting dredging in SAV

1.  We can't manage the  coastal bays  like  the
    Chesapeake or the Delaware. They are smaller, they
    are shallower, they experience warmer temperatures,
    and they have a unique hydrography. I also know we
    can't manage these coastal bays resources in the
    same  way we do  Chesapeake Bay resources,
    especially when we look at the blue crab as a key
    resource. There is the  brown shell disease (caused
    by Hematodinium sp.)  that affects the crabs in the
    coastal bays that is not experienced by the crabs in
    the Chesapeake Bay.   In the coastal bays, crabs
    mature more quickly and  at a  smaller  s;ize, and
    therefore the fishery is primarily  in peeler and soft
    crabs, which  is not necessarily  the  case in the

Yesterday, there was much mention of our finfish and
shellfish, and that we're experiencing population declines
and have done so for the last few decades, which can be
traced tooverfishing, weather changes, ordiseasse. Some
of our management plans, like the one for black sea bass,
have begun to show signs of improving fish populations,
and I  am hoping this  will  be the  same with other
submersed species that are on the decline.

As we move into the final sessions of this meeting of
minds to learn from each other and explore coastal bay
problems and solutions, we want to hear your ideas. We
want to translate them into action. And we want to answer
one more question: How can we best continue to work
together to accomplish our goals for the Del marva coastal

In closing, I ask you to join me in looking forward to
participating in today's sessions, to take away with us new
knowledge that will aid in our fight to ensure the health of
our coastal resources, and to continue to celebrate the
incredible bays that connect us.  This is a very key interest
issue of mine-starting this new effort on the coastal bays
  and  working with  my  counterparts in  Delaware  and
  Virginia.   We took the coastal bays message to the
  Department of Budget and Management and to the Chief
  of Staff for the Governor as we began to move our budget
  priorities forward.  I can tellyou that there was a keen
  interest in seeing if some funding could be provided into
  our next year's budget to support the effort that you are
  undertaking for our coastal bays. This is very important,
  because the first dollars that we managed to garner were
  dollars in-house, in the Department of Natural Resources,
  that we pulled from other programs.  What we need to do
  is constantly keep elevated the flag of the coastal bays.
  This is important. We have begun raising that flag and it
  is getting attention.  I would seek your help in doing this as
  well, because we have  a long walk together, in  restoring
  the resources and  in managing them in  the wisest way
  possible.  I will pledge and  ensure that the state does all
  that it can to implement the management plans.
 Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference

                          THE FISHABLE WATERS ACT OF 1999

                                       NORVILLE PROSSER
The Problem

No one disputes that great progress has been made in
improving the quality and safety of our nation's water
resources in the 25 years since the Clean Water Act
(CWA) was approved. Indeed, we have spent more than
$70 billion to implement the Acfs provisions  primarily
pertaining to point source pollution. But our work is not
done. The Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 as amended) generally set out two
goals for our nation.  First, the Act would be used  to
restore water quality threatened by point source pollution.
Second, the Act would restore our waterways to benefit
fisheries and wildlife.

It is this second part where the Act has admittedly been
less than successful.  Despite the improvements we've
seen in point source pollution reduction, we still face a
lack of acceptable progress in dealing with the reduction
of nonpoint source  pollution and  the  degradation  of
fisheries habitat in many of our rivers, streams and lakes.

Today, 38% of our nation's waters are not considered
fishable orswimmable and do not fully support a healthy
aquatic community. Barely two percent of America's 3.6
million stream miles are healthy enough to be considered
high quality.  And 70 percent  of the nation's riparian
corridors have been damaged in some way or destroyed
outright  At least 19,000 miles of sport-fishing streams
have declined in  terms of habitat and water quality.  41
percent of America's perennial rivers and streams are
adversely affected by  reduced flows, siltation, stream
bank erosion, and channelization. Today, slightly more
than half of the nation's wetlands have disappeared and
nearly 75 percent of the remaining wetlands are privately

What's more, the four most threatened, imperiled,  or
outright endangered groups of species have the pitiful luck
   to call our rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries, home.
   They often provide the first signs that something is wrong
   and if left unchecked could ultimately affect human health.
   The single largest reasons for this are habitat degradation
   and nonpoint source pollution.

   Waterquality improvements are being achieved every day
   in Tennessee where water quality is generally considered
   decent.   Yet even today  25 percent of Tennessee's
   streams are considered partially or severely impaired and
   23 percent of the Volunteer State's lakes are considered
   threatened, or are partially or severely impaired.

   Roughly 50 percent of America's existing water quality
   problems are generally considered to the be the result of
   nonpoint sources. As much as 75 percent of the problems
   associated with those nonpoint sources are related to
   agriculture. That's why a partnership relying on innovative
   solutions and methods focusing on overall watersheds is
   so critical to continued progress in our efforts to make
   sure that all of our streams, rivers, lakes,  and estuaries
   are indeed fishable and swimmable.

   The  Solution

   We   have put together a  voluntary,  nonregulatory,
   partnership-based,  incentive oriented plan that brings
   together the fisheries conservation community, state arid
   federal  fisheries  managers,  and  the  agriculture
   community, for the first time to begin to seriously address
   the water quality problems  associated with nonpoint
   source pollution as partners rather than adversaries. And
   we have done this in a way that recognizes the realities of
   what is both politically acceptable and financially credible.

   This concept is working on the ground in spots - Oregon,
   Washington, North Carolina, Florida -with a framework it
   can work nationally.  The Fishable Waters Act of 1999, a
   proposed amendment to the Clean Water Act, establishes
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

a system  of national support for locally led, incentive
based, voluntary partnerships to boost watersheds.

We  propose to pay for this innovative,  partnership
program to focus on overall watershed health through a
new authorized program within the Clean Water Act. The
Fishable Waters Act would also expand the spending
authority that governs the use of funds deposited in the
CWA's State Revolving Fund (SRF) so that up to  20
percent of the SRF funds allocated to each state could be
deposited  into a state's  Fisheries Habitat Account in the
form of grants  and be used to implement approved
programs  established under this measure.   If  a state
chooses to establish a program and approve the creation
of locally driven, solution oriented watershed councils, the
funds deposited into the state's fisheries Habitat Account
could be used to provide for the financial and technical
support needed to implement conservation projects and
recommendations contained in approved plans to benefit
the overall watershed  by improving the watershed's
fisheries, related habitat for fish and wildlife, and overall
water quality.

What's Different About our Approach

• The focus will now be on protecting and restoring our
  fisheries habitat on an overall watershed basis. The
  approach relies on voluntary, nonregulatory, incentive
  based, locally led partnerships.

• If a  governor or tribe does not want  to make a
  commitment to this innovative program, they don't have
  to do so. Their respective state or tribe simply won't get
  access to funds appropriated under this program, not to
  mention the expanded spending authority provided
  relative to the CWA's State Revolving Fund, as well as
  its Section 319 funds.

• We create a new incentive for the use of existing federal
  conservation  programs by allowing  funds made
  available under  this  Act to be  used to  meet the
  nonfederal cost share requirement of those programs so
  long as the  projects and agreements  where  this
  happens are part of approved plans established by the
  local watershed council.

• We include flexibility to allow for an urban,  community
  based component to help improve waters in urban

• Through the establishment of locally led watershed
  councils, we are bringing  diverse  parties  to  the
  conservation table and giving everyone an active stake
  in the future of our watersheds and fisheries.
  • Given existing political realities, we are taking the most
    aggressive approach possible to achieve real results
    and improvements in the health of our watersheds. No
    one credibly disputes the fact that much work needs to
    be done, and  most of it involves  nonpoint  source
    pollution where the EPA has largely failed to achieve the
    same level of success  it has relative to point source

  • Finally,   the  conservation  recommendations  and
    decisions about what is best for a particular watershed
    are made at the  local and state level with technical
    assistance provided by federal agencies that administer
    federal  conservation programs  and manage public

  • It provides the incentives for a consistent  national
    program to improve fisheries habitat and water quality
    that is also responsive to the needs of individual states,
    local communities, and those in agriculture.

  Nick Karas wrote in his book Brook Trout that "Manhattan
  didn't always look the way it does now".  Karas went on to
  write that brook trout fishing as "an American sport" got its
  start in many of Manhattan's creeks and streams that are
  today "covered with asphalt roads and cement sidewalks".
  This is symbolic of the importance,  indeed, the necessity,
  for us  to  find innovative, creative ways to protect and
  restore America's vast fisheries for its citizenry.  The
  Fishable Waters Act of 1999 is about providing the kind of
  creative partnerships to do just that. This legislation will
  provide the flexibility and encouragement necessary for

  The Players

  The following  organizations  have participated in  the
  development 'of this proposal either in  the drafting of its
  provisions, or providing recommendations to improve it,
  and support its  objectives.

   The Fisheries Conservation Community:
    The American Sportfishing Association
    Trout Unlimited
    The American Fisheries Society
    The BASS Anglers Sportsmen's Society
    The Izaak Walton League of America
    The Pacific :Rivers Council
    American Rivers
    The International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Saturday, November 12, 1999
.   Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

The Agriculture Community:

• The National Com Growers Association
* The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
What's Next

With the endorsement of the Fishable Waters Coalition,
which includes the American  Sportfishing Association,
Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, the
National Corn Growers Association, the National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives,  American  Rivers,  the  BASS
Anglers Sportsmen's  Society, the American Fisheries
Society, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council, the objective is
to  introduce  the  Fishable  Waters  Act   of   1999
simultaneously  in  the  House   and  Senate  by
Representative John Tanner and Senator Christopher
"Kit" Bond this fall.


Is the Fishable Waters Act meant to replace the regulatory
mandates of the Clean Water Act?

The short answer is no. It is meant to provide a national
framework  for locally  led,  voluntary,  incentive-based
partnerships between states, local communities, and other
stakeholders to improve America's fisheries habitat on an
overall watershed basis. The Fishable Waters Act is part
of an ambitious effort to put significant resources on the
ground  where they can do the most good.  So far,
significant progress has been made relative to  point
source pollution, but physical habitat impairments and
nonpoint source pollution have not been addressed with
the same degree of urgency. Section 319 funding - both
requests and appropriations - have typically not matched
the needs  regarding  nonpoint source  pollution.   We
believe  an  approach to restoring fisheries habitat that
relies  on  partnerships and  shared  resources will
accomplish  far more  than a  regulatory regime.  The
Fishable Waters Act is focused on fisheries habitat and
improving water quality on an overall watershed basis.
This, we believe, is one of the Clean Water Act's failings
to date when it comes to delivering on the Acf s important
promise of fishable and swimmable waters. The EPA is
now pursuing  a regulatory program that would require
states to set Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)  for
waterways as a way to regulate nonpoint source pollution
(see Section 303 of Clean Water Act).  Administrator
Browner recently said  this process "is the last chapter in
how we get to fishable, swimmable waters for the people
of this country". But most observers agree that it will take
at  least ten years for this regulatory  regime  to  be
   implemented on the ground, and that assumes that legal
   challenges will not derail the TMDL program before it even
   gets started.  Moreover, regulatory hammers are not
   guaranteed to succeed since, in many cases, they don't
   allow the flexibility needed to achieve  progress on the
   ground with private landowners through a collaborative
   watershed-based approach that brings everyone to the
   table as partners rather than adversaries and provides a
   national framework for creative conservation to meet our
   shared goals and objectives.  The Fishable Waters Act
   provides a framework with the resources necessary to
   allow locally led partnerships to improve fisheries habitats
   to ultimately restore both native and non-native fisheries.
   The Fishable Waters  Act and the resources - both
   financial and technical - it would bring to bear are meant
   to supplement the Section 319 program with a new effort
   that, for the first time, makes fisheries a priority and places
   trust in state and  local stakeholders to  address local

   How does the Fishable Waters Act ensure the balance
   and representation of stakeholders in a watershed?

   In two ways.  First, before a watershed council can be
   eligible for designation under an approved state or tribal
   program, membership must be "fairly balanced in terms of
   the points of view represented". Second, positions taken
   on projects or recommendations must be subject to public
   review, public meetings  are required,  the views  of all
   council members must be considered throughout the
   planning process, and when recommendations or projects
   are  not approved by the state or tribal authority clear
   reasons must be outlined.

   What impact will the proposed fishable Waters Act have
   on federal oversight of existing environmental statutes?
   Will federal authority for pollution control be undermined
   as a result of enactment of the Fishable Waters Act?

   This approach recognizes that states, local communities,
   and private landowners must be given a stake in the
   process  of restoring our watersheds.  It relies on the
   important principles of  locally led partnerships  and
   voluntary participation. While we believe it establishes the
   most effective tool yet for local communities to deal with
   habitat issues in their local watershed, it does not alter
   existing programs established under the Clean Water Act.

   Why is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) given
   the leading role in implementing the goals and objectives
   of the Fishable Waters  Act when  the  Environmental
   Protection  Agency (EPA)  has traditionally been the
   primary implementing agency for the Clean Water Act?

   This is by no means unprecedented.  While the EPA is
   recognized as the primary agency administering existing
DQlmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

provisions of the Clean Water Act, it is not alone in its
authority under the Act.  Like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  USDA
already has a role in the Clean Water Act in two areas.
The Department has administered Section 208(j) of the
Clean  Water Act, and the NRCS has for some time
assisted in  wetlands jurisdictional  determinations on
agriculture  lands with the  Corps of Engineers under
Section 404. USDA has an infrastructure on the; ground
in virtually every county, while other agencies, such as the
EPA, do not. And USDA has, since the enactment of the
1985 Farm  Bill/successfully administered a  variety of
conservation and water quality programs, including the
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve
Program, WHIP, the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program,
to name just a few.   Hundreds of millions of dollars for
conservation and water quality work has been provided
under these programs, and has led to proven success in
the conservation of more than 50 million acres of land and
water.  It bears emphasizing that the Fishable Waters Act
does not create a top down program  in which federal
agency  involvement  is  central  to  successful
implementation. This new program would rely on state
and local decision making, with USDA assigned the role
of  ensuring that  state  programs include  the  basic,
necessary authorities. There is no need for the traditional
hands-on  management  style that EPA applies to its
oversight of the Act's command-and-control programs.

Why focus on urban waters in the Fishable Waters Act?

Intensive urban development creates special challenges
in protecting and restoring aquatic systems so that they
meet  the  physical  and   biological  integrity targets
envisioned under the Clean Water Act.  Our collective
purpose is to reconnect urban  families with quality water
resources that provide both economic and recreational
rewards. This kind of partnership is not a new idea.  The
EPA  administers  an  Urban  Resources  Partnership
program, which makes funds available through a series of
USDA grants.   The  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service  also
administers a Community Fisheries Habitat program. The
Fishable Waters Act's provisions directed toward urban
waters would place even greater emphasis on protecting
and restoring these import habitats.

Why is improving access a part of the Act?

The FWA encourages landowners to provide access to
fisheries that have not in the past been open to fishing.
Many fishing spots can only be  reached by crossing
private lands,  but access cannot be allowed to detract
from habitat restoration objectives embodied in plans
approved by Watershed Councils. It is not the intent of
this program to open up wilderness areas on public lands
  through structural development such as roads.  Funds
  made available by this Act are expressly prohibited from
  being used to build roads on public lands.  The simple
  goal  here is to not forget about America's anglers who
  have contributed nearly $4 billion to sportfish restoration
  and fisheries conservation over the past five decades.

  How will the Fishable Waters Act be funded?  Since a
  change in cost-share and funding limitations is proposed
  in the Act, is there a way to ensure that those funds won't
  be used in a way that is counter-productive in terms of
  addressing  rionpoint source pollution on an  overall
  watershed basis?

  Funding would be authorized under the FWA for planning
  and implementation of approved projects, and states are
  given the authority to utilize up to 20% of funds made
  available to participating states under Section 319 and the
  CWA's State Revolving Fund. This is not a mandate or
  set-aside; rather it is an attempt to provide the states with
  additional funding flexibility in a way that doesn't harm
  those programs and supports a national  framework to
  deliver  on the  Clean Water Act's promise of  fishable
  waters. These choices are left entirely up to the states.
  The EPA expects that as many as 30 states already are
  planning to use SRF funds for nonpoint source projects,
  and even with this expanded authority the SRFs will
  continue to revolve at a level of at least $2  billion. Funds
  made available under the FWA must be used consistent
  with recommendations in approved plans and the state
  programs approved pursuant to this legislation.  Several
  categories of funding are provided:
  •  Authorizes up to $250 million to be apportioned annually
     in Fisheries Habitat Accounts established as part of
     approved programs by participating states,
  •  Authorizes up to  $25 million annually to be  used to
     assist willing  farmers and ranchers to  provide for
     livestock fencing near  rivers and streams and in turn
     help establish alternative water sources  for livestock,
  •  Authorizes up to  $50 million to annually be  used to
     purchase, through voluntary agreements, water rights to
     benefit fisheries so long as they  are consistent with
     existing state water law, and
  •  Authorizes states to reserve and transfer up to 20% of
     their Section 319 and SRF allocations into a Fisheries
     Habitat Account.

  Will  this  funding  mechanism harm the  Section 319

  This  proposed funding regime is optional for each state,
  and  will not harm  the  Section  319 program.   It will
  however, provide  flexibility so  that states can use
  available funding for a variety of efforts to restore riverine
  systems, improve fisheries habitat, and build on existing
  water quality improvements.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Oelmarva's Coastal Bays Conference M

                       WITH UTILIZATION
                                         BILLY CAUSEY
Note: The following document Is a transcription of the presentation by Mr.
Causey.  It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

The National Marine Sanctuary  program has twelve
sanctuaries administered by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, specifically In the National  Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.  We are  in the National
Ocean Service portion, specifically the Office of Ocean
Coastal Resources Management which also manages the
Coastal Program.   On the East Coast  we have the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the Monitor,
Gray's Reef - a sedimentary rock reef off of Georgia, the
Florida Keys, and another coral reef environment, Flower
Garden Banks, off the Texas and Louisiana coast about
100 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico. We have the Olympic
Coast NMS  up in the Northwest, Cordell Bank off of
California, the Gulf of Farallones, and Monterey Bay which
Is the largest National Marine Sanctuary. It encompasses
over 5300 square miles of ocean. Then we also have the
Channel Islands, the Hawaiian Humpback Whale NMS,
and in American Samoa we have Fagatele Bay.

I want to focus on the Florida Keys and  the coral reef
environment  We just heard the keynote speaker talk
about the importance of habitat and we are watching
habitat decline, not only in the coral reefs of the Florida
Keys, but all around the globe.  In the mid-eighties we
started seeing diseases such  as black  band disease
which was affecting coral heads at an alarming rate. The
cyanobacteria eats away at the  coral,  killing it at an
alarming rate. In fact, in 1986, we watched 200-year-old
coral beds die before our very eyes as a result of an
outbreak of black band disease. We also have seen other
diseases that have popped up around the Carribean, such
as white band disease. This showed up in the Keys in the
nineties and has had another severe impact on our reefs.
We have also heard about the phenomenon called "coral
  bleaching". This is something that has not only occurred
  just in the Florida Keys, but also around the globe. It
  seems to be synchronized with El Nino events, very warm
  water events. It has a very devastating impact. Although
  in the  eighties  the corals would  recover from coral
  bleaching, in the nineties and particularly in 1997 and
  1998, we saw 95% of some coral reefs in the remote parts
  of the Indo-West Pacific die as a result of coral bleaching

  In the Florida Keys, I want to discuss something that I
  think you can relate to and that is the intense development
  that we have in the area. We have 85,000 year-round
  residents.  It gets up to 130,000 residents during the
  height of the season. We have over 25,000 septic tanks,
  9,000 illegal cess pits, 900 shallow injection wells, and our
  geology is very porous.  It  is an  old fossil reef, and
  scientists have been able to flush a tracer virus into the
  toilets and within seven hours it gets into our canals. You
  may have heard about some of  the problems we were
  having in and around Key West this year where coliform
  bacteria was being picked up in  the near shore waters.
  Certainly, there is a drive now to do something about our
  water quality problems.

  Not only are coral reefs suffering, we are also seeing other
  water quality related problems in the Florida Keys. Florida
  Bay in the mid-seventies was crystal clear.  A fisherman
  could drop a fly in front of a tarpan and see  him take the
  fly. In the early 1990s, Florida Bay was on  the verge of
  collapse. We couldn't figure it out, but we knew that the
  problems were diverse. But really, the problems affecting
  Florida Bay and the Keys were coming from upstream.
  The Corps of Engineers had built over 1400 miles of
  canals to change the way the freshwater flows across the
  landscape and it changed Florida Bay from an estuary to
  a hyper-saline lagoon. Over time, as we started to get into
  the warmer period of the eighties and the even warmer
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

period of the nineties, this led to decline, algal outbreaks,
algal blooms, and serious problems.  Of course we were
getting all kinds of pollution coming from various sources
upstream of the Florida Keys and off the mainland of
South Florida. We have learned, around the globe, that
coral reefs  are in the greatest state of decline in areas
where they are located close to population centers, such
as South Florida.

We also get about three million visitors to the Keys every
year.  Sixty percent of them are snorkelers and scuba
divers that leave some sort of  impact, whether it be
physically touching the coral or standing on the coral.
About 20% of those visitors are recreational fishermen.
Recreational fishermen and divers, of all the visitors to the
Keys, spend about 13.3 million visitor days while they are
in the area.  Important to the businesses is the money they

This has led to problems resulting from boating. People
don't pay a  lot of attention to what their props are doing to
the seagrasses.  We have  lost over 10,000 acres of
seagrass as a result of prop scarring and intense use of
shallow water areas. We have also had some mEijor ship
groundings over the years.  In 1989, there were three ship
groundings within a 17 day time frame where those ships,
as a result of negligent navigation destroyed thousands of
square meters of reef surface.   That was the last straw
along with the problems of water quality and everything
that had been accumulating.

Congress designated the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary in 1990.  It is a 2800 square nautical mile area.
It runs from roughly off of Miami 220 miles to the Dry
Tortugas National  Park and all the way back, to the
Everglades National Park.  What is important here is
Biscayne National Park, Everglades National Park which
includes a  portion of Florida Bay, and the Dry Tortugas
National Park are not within our boundary. Howesver, we
do overlap four wildlife refuges and several state parks
and aquatic preserves. Sixty-five percent of the sanctuary
lies within state waters, so we have a state partnership in
the management of the sanctuary.

We were  able to start managing from on shore - our
jurisdiction does not  go above any high water - but we
were  able to start addressing  impacts  coming  from
onshore affecting  the  health of  sanctuary resources,
running through the seagrass communities, all the way
through the coral reef communities.  Coral reefs require
clear, clean, sediment-free water which is low in nutrients.
In the seventies, every day our visibility would be 100+
feet. In the eighties, it started diminishing. Now when you
get 50 feet of visibility, that is a good day.  Every once in
a while, we will get 100 feet visibility days and it reminds
everyone of what it used to be like.
  As a result of the designation of the sanctuary, Congress
  immediately prohibited oil drilling within its boundaries.
  They prohibited ships greater than 50 meters in length
  from  coming  within  certain  areas  to  be  avoided
  established within the  sanctuary boundary.  They also
  directed EPA to work with the state, the county, and with
  NOAA,  to develop a water quality protection program for
  the  sanctuary.   NOAA was directed  to develop  a
  comprehensive management plan. We started working
  on it in  1991, and we just implemented the management
  plan in July of 1997. There is a lot of complexity in putting
  a plan together and what  I am going to focus on is the

  Congress really did something different for us when they
  designated the sanctuary in that not only was it the first
  congressionally   designated  sanctuary,   but  in  the
  designation itself they asked us to consider temporal and
  geographical zoning to ensure protection  of sanctuary
  resources. This has been done successfully all over the
  world  - in  New Zealand,  Australia, the Philippines,
  Bermuda, Cayman Islands. In the Keys, management
  zones already exist within places like the National Wildlife
  Refuges, State Parks, and Looe Key.

  The  consideration of zoning in  the sanctuary was
  mentioned in the Florida Keys National Marine Sancturary
  Act, and the Final Management Plan ended up with five
  different types of zones in our comprehensive zoning plan:
  Wildlife Management  Areas, Ecological  Reserves,
  Sanctuary Preservation Areas, Special Use Areas,  and
  Existing Management Areas. I am going to go through
  each one of these and point out what they are.

  The Wildlife Management Areas are set aside to restrict
  access to sensitive wildlife habitat.  There are 27 in the
  Final Plan. Twenty are actually managed by the U.S. Fish
  and Wildlife Service and were put into our management
  plan  by the recommendation  of the Fish and Wildlife
  Service. These areas protect turtle nesting beaches, bird
  foraging areas, and bird rookeries.  We have restrictions
  on seasonal access.  Some of them are  closed year-
  round,  where we have, for instance, bald eagle nests.
  There are certain activities that are restricted within the
  Wildlife Management Areas, but only five of the 27 are no
  access. People can get into most of them  by canoeing,
  kayaking,  and   various  non-combustible  means of

  We have 18 Sanctuary Preservation Areas.  These are
  areas, although they are small and people were at first
  criticizing us because they were so small, that capture
  65% of the shallow reef habitat - the area where most of
  the people go. In fact, 80-85% of the diving activity takes
  place in this particular habitat along the shallow reefs. By
  setting  aside a half of a square nautical mile, or maybe
 Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

one square nautical mile, we were able to encompass the
majority  of the  area used  with  a small amount of
geographical area. In these sanctuary preservation areas,
no one takes anything. Both recreational and commercial
fishing are prohibited. Spearfishing is prohibited. Tropical
fish collecting is prohibited. We don't even let scientists
take anything in those areas.  Consumptive research is
directed  to other locations.   In an  effort to reduce
socioeconomic  costs from  the Preservation Areas,
regulations allow catch and release fishing by trolling in
four of the Sanctuary Preservation Areas:  Conch Reef,
Alligator Reef, Sombrero Key, and Sand Key.

Another  zoning type  is what  people  most often call
"marine reserves". "Ecological Reserves" is what we call
them.  These are larger "no take" areas, and  they are
almost the same by regulation, but they are different by
definition and intent. These areas are to set aside a large
portion of the ecosystem to protect the biodiversity of the
area, to  protect the resources and the habitats found
throughout the sanctuary.  We only ended up with one in
the Final Management Plan, though we promised to
establish a second within a two year time frame.   This
gave us the opportunity to manage the resources from the
mangrove fringed shorelines through  the seagrasses,
which are very important as nursery and resident areas for
many of  the commercially and recreationally important
species.  We also manage all the way out to the reef track
to protect the  biodiversity of the area.  People  often
mistake our action here with thinking that we are trying to
manage these areas for fisheries intent.  That is a benefit.
We are focusing on managing these areas for protection
of the biodiversity.  We want to protect the food and the
home  of the  many  species  that help maintain the
important commercial and recreational fisheries.

We set  aside four Special  Use Areas, Conch Reef,
Tennessee Reef, Looe Key (patch reef), and  Eastern
Sambos  Reef.  These research-only areas allow only
persons as specifically authorized by a valid permit.  This
way we can tease out impacts coming from all the diving
activity, all the other uses.  Or is it really water quality and
habitat degradation? Or is it all of the above?  We also
can use these Special Use Areas for restoration. We do
coral reef restoration after we have a ship grounding or
one of these other problems, and we actually come back
and rebuild the reef to the best extent possible.

We have established a Zone Monitoring Program to be
able to detect whether or not these zones are being
successful. We set up a three level monitoring program.
One to measure the benthic community changes inside
and outside of the zones and to evaluate the effectiveness
of the "no take" zones, and also to determine the socio-
economic effect of the zones.
   Has it been easy? I don't want to leave you with a feeling
   that this has been easy.  That is why it took from 1991 to
   1997 to get the plan in place. That is why we had to come
   back later, to make a promise to do another ecological
   reserve in the future, because people were getting really
   upset. The fishermen were outright serious that they did
   not want to hear this new concept called marine zoning.
   There was a lot of resistance in that time frame to testing
   this new tool in the coastal waters of the United States.

   The final management plan ended up with the zones that
   I have already described, but at the bottom of  the
   sanctuary you will see  that Ecological Reserve Study
   Area. The area to the West, around the Tortugas region,
   was set aside  as an  area where we  needed to have
   special protection. We started working in that study area
   to set aside an area for long term protection. We called
   the  project Tortugas 2000 and we approached it  in a
   completely different way than we did in the first process.

   We started working with people at the waterfront level.
   We started working with the watermen, the fishermen, the
   divers.   We started  working with scientists  and  the
   environmental community and fisheries managers.  We
   started a process to  set aside something in  the very
   special region of the Tortugas. An area that is rich in coral
   reefs and protected species.  An area with some of the
   best remaining  corals in the Florida Keys. An area with
   some of the best water quality and some of the  best
   benthic communities remaining in the Florida Keys.  We
   have over 45-50% coral cover in some of those areas
   around the Tortugas.  We started using science!and
   oceanography information. We have a scientist who has
   dropped in over two dozen satellite tracking meters.  He
   drops them in off Shark River Slough and they zigzag
   around in different patterns. These examples showed the
   fishermen that anything spawned out in these areas could
   end up replenishing the entire Florida Keys.  Clearly, the
   area is under threat from overfishing, too much anchoring
   in the area, and vessel discharges.  We  have seen
   declines in some of the major fisheries groups. Five of 16
   species of grouper are overfished. Nine of 13 species of
   snapper are overfished. The use of Dry Tortugas National
   Park in 1984 was 18,000 visitors and in 1998 it was up to
   72,000 visitors.

   We put together a  working group of diverse  interests,
   people we felt could make a difference.  This group came
   together with a recommended, preferred alternative for a
   boundary in that region. It is 185 square nautical miles set
   around five different  jurisdictions within  the  Tortugas
   region. This major step has been unanimously accepted
   every step of the way by all of the groups involved.  This
   is  a tool  I think can  help keep  our resources be
   sustainable. I think it is a tool that is long overdue in the
   coastal communities around the United States.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999


Are there copies of the management plan on your
website? If not, how can people get them?

Yes, if anyone is interested, we have a web page for
Tortugas 2000 and we also have a web page for the
sanctuary. You can get copies of all this information with
any one of those web sites.

When you started the project, did you already have a lot
of existing research or was it necessary to put a lot of
extra money into research?

When we started initially, we didn't realize the extent of
research and information that we would need.   More
importantly, the first time around we didn't value the
importance of socio-economic information. So the second
time around we had invested heavily into understanding
who uses the area, where they use it, how often, and so
on. We also invested heavily into oceanographic research
and understanding the marine community in the area.
We have had to  come  back and  invest heavily  in
understanding the area from both the scientific viewpoint,
as well as an economic viewpoint.

Can you address how effective you have been at keeping
the targeted users out of these zones and the need for
enforcement to follow up?

There was a lot of suspect over whether or not we could
get compliance.  Enforcement is extremely important in
these areas. We implemented the zones in July of 1997,
and in August every year, we have a two day sport diving
season where people come down and catch lobsi:er. Ten
thousand boats are on the water during those days. This
year, we had 10,000 boats down there, 23 different zones,
and in two days,  our officers only gave  25 citations and
written warnings.  The first year, boats were lined around
the ledges, so we are getting excellent compliance. But
you have to have education and outreach out in front.
Now, over a full year, we only write 300 written warnings
and citations. I think we are getting excellent compliance.

How do you get the word out about the zones to the
people coming down to use the area?

We have several programs.  We have a very active
education program. One of our most effective tools is a
program we call Team OCEAN. That is where we get
volunteers and staff that go out to all the dive shops and
marinas with all kinds of information. We have all kinds of
brochures with the zones marked. But they also actually
go out on the water and do boat-to-boat encounters. They
actually will occupy the zones during high use days and
   get the word put.  The word is out and what is really
   becoming gre£t here is that within two years, the people
   that opposed the zones are now supporting them because
   they see the difference. Peer pressure is enormous, and
   that is  where, we  get  the greatest support,  from the
   community telling others.

   Where does the funding come from-state vs. federal vs.

   The majority of the funding comes from an appropriation
   from  Congress.  All National Marine Sanctuaries are
   funded from Congress through appropriations.  We have
   various partners. We have partners with CNC, TNC (The
   Nature  Conservancy),  a lot of different groups, and
   everyone  brinjgs a little bit to the table.  So  we try to
   squeeze a dollar and try to make a dollar and ten out of it.

   How big a staff do you have?

   I have 42 team members and that includes both state and
   federal. We fund our state staff 100% through the federal
   appropriations, and over half of  my staff are  state
   employees. I have the largest staff of any National Marine
   Sanctuary in the system, I have double the staff of the
   Monterey Bay NMS. For comparison, Everglades National
   Park will have 240 staff, and it gets up to over 300 during
   the season.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                      A CASE STUDY

                                     VIRGINIA LEE, PH.D.
Rhode  Island's salt ponds are smaller, shallow water
systems, basically what you call inland bays or coastal
bays (Figure 1). Like the Delmarva coastal bays, our salt
pond systems are similar in salinity (18-20 parts per
thousand), are fed largely by groundwater/freshwaterflow
into the system, and are part of barrier reef systems. As
a management area, however, we include not just the
water, but the watershed and airshed around it.

The salt pond region encompasses all of Rhode Island's
south shore - 25 miles long, 5 miles wide. This area is a
major resource recreationally,  from  an endangered
species perspective, and to real estate. Other than Cape
Cod, the area has the closest beach for Southern New
England and is a huge day trip, seasonal, and weekend
tourism destination. The area is also important as a pilot
area for coastal zone management internationally.
  In our management of coastal waters, we have identified
  six uses or zones, ranging from conservation to recreation
  to commercial navigation and industrial. Specific activities
  are promoted and/or prohibited in each specific use zone.
  As in the coastal bays,  there are lot of issues - beach
  development,  bridgeways,  declining  water quality,
  declining fisheries, and  development in the salt ponds
  watersheds. Our management policies seem to have held
  the line and stopped dramatic declines.  However, we
  continue to see dramatic changes. We lost most of our
  sea grasses in the 1930s. They came back, but now they
  are declining again.  We have also lost forests to house
  lots. These lots have wells and septic tanks, and much of
  our groundwater is getting recycled through this system.
  Many of these homes were originally rental houses which
  have now converted to year round use, and the system is
  becoming overloaded.
                                                                    - 41*25-
                                                                    - 41«!20'
              Figure 1. The Salt Ponds Region.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

Types of Use in the Salt Ponds Region
   Example: Rhode Island Coastal Zone Policies
• Residential development (Figure 2)
• Commercial development-retail, turf farms, gravel mines
• Tourism
• Port-commercial fishing fleet, charterfleet, Block Island
  Ferry, marinas
• Conserved open space - US Fish and Wildlife; refuge,
  state and town  parks  (beaches and campgrounds),
  Nature Conservancy and land trusts
• Narragansett Indian Tribe
• Regional hospitals, mental health clinic, churches
• State University, research area, student housing

Land use in the county is currently 22% developed, 8% in
agriculture,  and 40% undeveloped,  but developable.
There is the potential in the future for double the amount
of development seen in recent years.  Given this wide
variety of use, it is important that any management plan
first, promote mixed  uses, not single mandates,  and
second, allow for change.

                 POINT JUDITH/POTTER


Figure 2. Trends in Housing Development, Number of houses in pond
       watersheds, 1939-1988

Techniques for Balancing Uses

Formulate Effective Coastal Management

• Clear policies and standards
• Simplified permit procedures
• Fair and equal enforcement
• Special Area Management Plan (1984, 1999)-treaties
  between local, state, and federal governments for whole
   1. Hazard Mitigation
    • Erosion based construction set backs (headlands &
    • Designated undeveloped barrier beach segments
    • Prohibition of infrastructure on barriers
    • Vegetated buffer policy for contiguous wetlands and

   2. Balancing Commercial/Recreational Uses
    • Zoned shoreline and tidal waters
    • Encourage or  prohibit activities  specified for each
    « Variances must show overriding public benefit

   Build Constituency for Sound Management

   • Water quality improvements - Salt Pond Watchers, Salt
    Pond  Coalition,  Special  state Individual  Sewage
    Disposal Systems (ISDS) standards, University outreach
   • Landscape  conservation  -  Land  Trusts,  Nature
    Conservancy,  Audubon,  Watershed  management,
    Municipal training, State policy

   Creating and Sustaining Constituencies
   through Participation

   "Everyone has the right and the duty to influence decision
   making  and to understand the results.  Participatory
   management  guarantees  that  decisions will not  be
   arbitrary, secret or closed to questioning." (DePree 1989)

   We need to get the scientific community involved in
   critiquing policies, get public interested and engaged, as
   well as government to act it, not just speak it. It is not just
   enough  to  get the  local  people  to join together for
   participation iii the management. It is a mega-opolis from
   Richmond to Boston. We are part of a global population
   increase. Larger alliances need to be built.

   Attributes of Successful Participation

   • Carefully plan participatory activities
   • Weave participatory activities into CZM design
   • Give participatory  activities the same  attention  as
    scientific and technical activities
   • Listen to, understand and respond to a wide diversity of
    local and national stakeholders
   • Don't  be  hijacked  by  one or  two   powerful,  well-
    organized community interest groups
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference JH



The  North Landing River is located in Southeastern
Virginia in the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.
Due to the configuration of the River and the broad range
of on-water uses the number of conflicts between users of
the River is on the rise. The River is narrow and winding
and is a designated channel of the Intracoastal Waterway.
The  Intracoastal Waterway serves a large volume of
commercial and private boat traffic. The river is also very
popular  for recreational  boating, water skiing and jet
skiing. The combination of a broad range of users and a
narrow,  winding river sets the stage for a variety of
potential conflicts between users.

A second set of concerns is based on the fact that the
North Landing River watershed is home to several rare
and unique wetlands types. The Nature Conservancy and
the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
have purchased large tracts of wetlands  along the
shoreline of the River to preserve them. The type and
location of on water uses has an impact on the ecological
and aesthetic integrity of these protected areas.

To address these concerns the Hampton Roads Planning
District Commission  is coordinating  the creation of a
Water Use  Conflict Memorandum of Agreement. The
MOA is intended to establish a set of voluntary water use
areas to segregate potentially conflicting uses and protect
fragile wetlands areas. The creation of the MOA is one
aspect of the Southern Watershed Area Management
Program (SWAMP).  SWAMP is a  partnership of the
Virginia Coastal Program, the Cities of Chesapeake and
Virginia Beach and the HRPDC. Funding for the program
is through a grant from the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration.  The overarching goal of
SWAMP is the  achievement of a set of management
  enhancements for the Southern Watershed Area (SWA)
  that balance natural resource protection and sustainable
  economic  development  The  SWA   includes  the
  watersheds of the Northwest and North Landing Rivers
  and Back Bay in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.

  The draft MOA establishes four water use categories; non-
  motorized  recreation, motorized recreation, high speed
  recreation and commercial. A map included with the MOA
  designates the channel as being for commercial and
  through traffic, the smaller tributaries as being for non-
  motorized recreation, the broader southern portion of the
  River as being for motorized recreation and a portion of
  the southern  area as  being  suitable for high speed
  recreation. The intent of the MOA is that the two cities and
  the resource agencies with management responsibility on
  the North Landing River and adjacent lands will utilize the
  map and  use categories in boater safety  and other
  educational programs.
                            North Landing Rivar

   Figure 1. The Southern Watershed Area.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

The Southern Watershed Area
   Water Use Categories
• The SWA is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east,
  the Dismal Swamp to the West, and the North Carolina
  border to the; south.
• It is approximately 325 square miles in area.
• It contains Back  Bay, North Landing and Northwest
• The SWA is predominantly urban and suburban in the
  headwaters,  rural and  agricultural  in the  southern

The North Landing River

• The configuration of the North Landing River creates the
  potential for water use conflicts.
• The River is narrow and winding for most of its length.
• The main channel of the River is part of the Intracoastal
• The River is home to a broad range of commercial and
  private uses including barge traffic, fishing, skiing and
  jet skiing, canoeing and kayaking.
• A second set of concerns is based on the fact that the
  North Landing River watershed is home to several rare
  wetlands types.
• The Nature Conservancy and the Virginia Department
  of Conservation and Recreation have purchased large
  tracts of wetlands along the shore line of the River to
  preserve them.
• The type and location of on water uses has an impact
  on the ecological and aesthetic integrity of the protected

Development of the MOA

• The HRPDC is coordinating the development of a Water
  Use Conflict Memorandum of Agreement.
• Participants in the  process  include the  Cities of
  Chesapeake and Virginia Beach,  the HRPDC, the
  Virginia Departments of Conservation and Recreation,
  Environmental Quality, and Game and Inland Fisheries,
  and the Unites States Army Corps of Engineers, Coast
  Guard, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
• The next step in the development of the  MOA will
  involve various user groups in the process.
• The MOA  is intended to establish a set of voluntary
  water use areas to segregate potentially conflicting uses
  and protect fragile wetlands.
• A map has been developed depicting the use areas.
   •  A draft set of water use categories has been created for
     use in the MOA.
   •  Adherence to the water use areas is voluntary and no
     enforcement action will be associated with them.
   •  The intent is that the map and the water use categories
     will be used in  boater safety programs and other
     educational and outreach efforts targeted at users of the
     North Landing River.
   •  The  water use categories include Low  Impact
     Recreation, General Recreation, and Special Use/High
     Speed Recreation.

   Low Impact Recreation

   •  Objective:  Promote  safe   boating   by  separating
     conflicting uses, protect and preserve wetlands areas.
   •  Policies: Motorized boating  at no wake speeds, high
     speed recreation  should be avoided, best suited for
     wildlife observation,  canoeing, kayaking and fishing.

   General Recreation

   •  Objective: Promote motorized recreational activities in
     the safest areas and minimize adverse environmental
   •  Policies: Motorized boating should remain 500 feet from
     shore where possible, no wake speeds within 500 feet
     of shore or low impact uses and non-motorized craft.

   Special Use/High Speed Recreation

   •  Objective: Focus high speed motorized recreation in the
     safest and least environmentally sensitive areas.
   •  Policies: Encourage jet skiing, water skiing and other
     high speed uses only in these areas. Discourage other
     recreational activities in these areas.

   Completing the Process

   •  The next step will involve soliciting comments on the
     draft MOA from a variety of user groups, including the
     Virginia Ecotourism Association, jet ski user groups,
     marina owners, fishing clubs, etc.
   •  A revised  draft  will  be  produced  and participant
     agencies will be asked to approve and sign it.
   •  The signatory agencies will agree to use the map and
     use categories in educational programs.
   •  A survey of River users will be performed before and
     after implementation of the MOA to determine its impact
     on  awareness of safety  and environmental impact
   •  Survey results will be used in further refinement of the
     map and use categories.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference •#/

                     ADDRESSING CARRYING bA#ACltY ISSUES

                                        JAMES M. FALK
Delmarva's Coastal Bays are a series of shallow-water
coastal  lagoons  located  along  the Atlantic  Ocean
coastline. Over the years, many of the bays have seen
rapid  residential,   shoreside  development.     This
development and increase in permanent and seasonal
residents has placed intense demands, especially during
the summer months, ori the bays and their resources.
Boat traffic has been increasing and changes in the types
of vessel have also been apparent. In recent years, jet
skiers and  board  sailors compete with traditional
fishermen  and recreational crabbers. Along with the
increases  and changing activity .patterns comes new
competition between users which creates crowding and
safety issues, as well as impacts to the environment. One
method  to deal with the problems  and  concerns
associated with these increased pressures is through the
development of water-use plans.

Why Develop a Water-Use Plan?

In addition to actually observing increased  multi-use
activity on our nations waterways and in the coastal bays
of Delmarva in particular, articles in local and national
newspapers indicate the need to manage use activity on
intensely used water bodies.  Many federal, state, and
local agencies are beginning to realize that multiple-use
waterways need to be properly managed.  Issues related
to dredging, the growth of personal watercraft (PWC's),
limited public access, environmental impacts associated
with heavy use are all concerns that need to be addressed
in a systematic fashion. A key component of the planning
process  must insure input is acquired from all concerned
stakeholders.  If this is accomplished, it can be a very
effective way to  deal with  the multiple-use issues
associated with waterway management.
  What Is Water-Use Planning?

  Water-use planning can involve a number of very complex
  elements.  Some of the basic elements that should be
  considered when contemplating the development of a
  water-use plan include:
  • Managing   on-water  use  activities  to  minimize
    environmental impacts;
  • Insure safety of all water users
  • Avoid conflicts between competing users
  • Education  role  to insure  compliance of laws  and
  • Encourage public access to resources

  Developing a Wateir-Use Plan

  When developing a water-use  plan a number of initial
  steps must be undertaken.  Initially, it is important to
  determine that there is a need to manage use activities in
  a waterway. The important questions to ask are: Is heavy
  use occurring? Are safety issues and potential accidents
  a problem? Is the environment facing degradation from
  users? Secondly, there needs to be a basic understanding
  of who the users are (e.g. fishermen, water skiers, jet
  skiers, kayakers, etc.) and how they interact or conflict
  with each other. Thirdly, there is probably additional data
  on  users that still needs to be collected.  This can be
  compiled through observations (either aerial or on-water)
  during peak use time periods, or through surveying users.
  Both  field intercept surveys, as well as mail-out data
  collection efforts have worked well. Input from water users
  is critical to the overall success of any planning effort.
  Finally, it is important to focus your planning efforts to a
  few key areas. Try to determine which concerns are most
  important to achieve the desired  results.  These  may
  include enforcement, regulatory issues, or education and
  awareness approaches.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

Water-Use Planning in Deimarva's Coastal
Bays: A Voyage Underway

There are a number of past and  current efforts in the
Delmarva coastal bays region that have focused cm water-
use planning.  Activities in the states of Delaware and
Maryland   will   be  highlighted   chronologically  to
demonstrate these efforts.


Water-use  planning  in  Delaware  has  a  long  and
continuous  history.  One  of the earliest attempts to
document recreation use activities in Delaware's inland
bays occurred in 1986 as the Greely-Polhemus Group Inc.
completed a recreation survey  of the inland bays.  In
1989, the Delaware Department of Natural Resourcesand
Environmental   Control completed  aerial surveys  to
document peak use boating activity.  Also in 1989, the
consulting  firm  Hollander,  Cohen  Associates,   Inc.
completed telephone surveys of 300 residents  living in
Sussex County, Delaware (the county where the inland
bays are located). This survey effort attempted to gauge
public opinion on a number of issues related to water-use
planning in the bays. Finally in 1989, the DNREC formed
a Water-Use Plan Work Group to oversee a water-use
plan and marina assessment study being prepared by the
Battelle Memorial Institute.  In 1990, the Battelle Group
completed  its  plan which fell short of making  firm
recommendations to control water-use activities in the
bays.   In 1992, the University of Delaware Sea Grant
Program completed a study (which included both field and
mail survey of bay users) which  identified the  key
concerns of various  user groups who used the inland bays
for recreation. In 1995, the Inland Bays Estuary Program
completed   its  Comprehensive   Conservation  and
Management Plan (CCMP) and in the plan it specifically
identified the need to develop a comprehensive water-use
plan for  the bays.  A contract was awarded to the
University of Delaware Sea Grant Program to complete
this task.  In 1999, the Inland Bays Comprehensive Water-
Use Plan was completed.


Water-use planning in Maryland's coastal  bays also has
a long history, yet it has not been a continuous  voyage.
As early as 1976, Roy  Mann Associates, Inc. examined
recreational boating on tidal waters of Maryland.  In
addition to examining boating in the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries, the firm also examined recreational boating
in the coastal bays to assess the conditions and whether
carrying capacity concerns existed.  After this initial work
was completed there was limited work done in the; coastal
bays  region until  1992, when researchers from  the
   University  of  Maryland Eastern  Shore completed  an
   inventory of marina sites and characterized peak boating
   uses based on aerial surveys.  In the late 1990's the
   Coastal  Bays  of Maryland were designated a National
   Estuary by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
   A water-based activities subcommittee was formed to
   begin dealing with  water-use issues.  A draft CCMP
   completed in  1999 identified  recreation and navigation
   issues in the  bays as key concerns that needed to be
   addressed.  Also in 1999, the Maryland Department of
   Natural Resources completed a series of aerial  flights
   over the baysjto observe peak use activities occurring on
   the waters, this effort was augmented by field intercept
   surveys coordinated by the University of Delaware Sea
   Grant College Program.  More than 200 boaters were
   interviewed to' collect information on their activity patterns
   and perceptions related to boating in the coastal bays.

   Delaware Inland Bays Water-Use Plan: A
   Case Study

   With the population of Sussex County, Delaware projected
   to increase by 35% to 181,000 by the year 2020 and
   tourism growth in the coastal areas of the county also
   continuing to irise, the demands on the resources of the
   inland bays will continue to escalate. This increase in
   growth and resource use requires careful planning to
   insure that negative environmental impacts are minimized
   and user safety is insured.  Water-use planning is often
   overlooked in  many resource  management plans or not
   considered until serious problems arise.

   The development of a water-use plan was one of the nine
   key goals addressed in the Inland Bays CCMP.  Other
   planning  elements   included   establishing  and
   implementing a comprehensive non-point source pollution
   control plan, a comprehensive wastewater management
   program, and a  shoreline  protection  program that
   addresses both natural processes and human activities.
   The water-use plan tactic was strategically placed under
   the  Habitat Protection Action  Plan within the CCMP to
   ensure the ecosystem's natural resources were given
   priority status.  Valuable aquatic habitats, living resources,
   and human activities were all considered in the plan.

   The water-use plan outlines acceptable uses of the water
   to ensure that user conflicts and environmental impacts
   are minimized. The plan addresses the many competing
   and potentially conflicting  uses of the bay waters and
   strives for a balance between protecting the bays' natural
   resources and allowing for public use for current and
   future generations.

   More specifically the plan attempts to: 1) provide safe and
   enjoyable recreational experiences for the general public,
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Deimarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

2) benefit and protect existing bay uses,  3) provide
convenient and adequate access to the bays, and 4)
protect and enhance the bays' living resources, habitat,
and water quality.

There  are a number  of basic facts that laid  the
groundwork for the development of the inland bays' water-
use plan. These include:
• The  inland  bays are Public Trust waters that the
  Delaware  DNREC  is charged  with  managing and
  protecting for the citizens of the state.
• inland bay waters are considered "ERES" (exceptional
  recreational and ecological significance) waters. These
  waters are accorded a level of protection greater than
  that provided most other state waters.
• Peak use is seaspjial (May 15 - September 15) with
  intense use occurring on weekends and holidays.
• It is expected that water-use activities will increase in
  the future.
• The bays are shallow and bottom features change due
  to storms or other weather events.
• Most of the current boating regulations are designed to
  protect property and  insure personal safety, not to
  address environmental concerns.
• Additional  piers,  docks, and  shoreline stabilization
  structures will continue to increase.
• Major tributaries  (e.g. Love Creek,  Herring  Creek,
  Whites Creek, etc.) provide important habitat for fish
  and wildlife resources to spawn, nursery, and grow.
• Public access to bay waters will not keep pace with the
  increased demand.
• As Delaware's  Clean Vessel Act Program matures,
  concerns about boater wastes impacting the bay waters
  will decrease.
• The use of  less-polluting 4-cycle outboard engines will
  continue to increase.
• The  cumulative impact  of water-use activities and
  shoreline development, rather than individual activities
  or events, need to be further evaluated.
• Use activities will  change in  the future  based  on
  changing  technology,  new and  different types of
  equipment, or changes in the resource base.

With these underlying tenets, the water-use planning
process began. The plan did not address all of the issues
and problems facing the bay waters. For instance, it does
not address concerns related to the agriculture industry,
such as nutrient runpff and manure management. It does
not address concerns related to land development or land
use concerns on a large scale. At the current time there
is no attempt to eliminate any traditional bay uses or
create zones for any specific uses.

The plan does identify conflicts between uses and various
users. It also identifies a number of user impacts on the
environment.    It recommends   actions to  decrease
  environmental impacts and encourages safer uses of the
  bays to minimize accidents and personal injuries.

  The final plan represented a consensus between the
  public and private sectors to develop  action items to
  achieve the identified goals. In order to ensure the water-
  use plan  would  become an   action  plan,  all bay
  stakeholders were  invited  to become  involved.  The
  stakeholders included private citizens, individuals with a
  business interest in the bays, representatives from state,
  county and local governments and  others who were
  interested in the long-term future of the bays. Fact-finding
  meetings, public workshops and other informal gatherings
  were held to discuss the key issues which were vital to the
  development of the plan.  In addition existing literature,
  technical  reports,   and  other  water-use  planning
  documents from other states were reviewed, as well as
  pertinent Delaware literature.

  Fifteen key issues were identified by stakeholder interest
  groups  and  were  organized  into  three   major
  classifications: 1) Habitat issues are those that address
  impacts  to the environment of the  bays, 2) Use issues
  pertain to activities and water user concerns of safety,
  conflicts, or other people impacts, and 3) Habitat/Use
  issues relate to both environmental  and  user concerns.

  Habitat Issues

  • Boaters cruising in shallow water areas cause bottom
    scouring, shoreline erosion and turbidity.
  • Inland bays' users enter resource protection areas and
    habitat  restoration  sites and  cause  damage   to
    experimental test plots.
  • Marinas, boatyards and other boating facilities are sites
    where pollutants are discharged into the bays' waters.
  • Inland bays' boaters are unfamiliar with the impacts of
    boat-related pollution on the bays' ecosystem.
  • Degraded habitat areas (caused by human influences)
    result  in an ecosystem less  likely to support living

   Use Issues

  • PWC's are operated carelessly and  safety concerns
    need to be addressed.
  • Increased  private  development (both residential and
    commercial) diminishes the public's access to the bays.
  • Boating  congestion   in certain  areas of the  bays
    decreases  boater satisfaction  and  increases  the
    potential for conflicts and accidents.
  • Existing navigation  channels in the bays  are not
    adequately maintained.
  • Unattended or unmarked recreational crab pots pose
    hazards to watercraft and impact living resources.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12,  1999

Habitat/Use Issues

• There  are  too  few marine enforcement officers to
  adequately enforce existing laws and regulations in the
  inland bays watershed.
• Buoys and markers for dredged channels are ineffective
  at directing boaters in the bays.
• High speed boats,  especially in narrow tributaries,
  cause shoreline erosion and safety concerns,
• Unrestricted development of marinas, docks, and piers
  in the inland bays' watershed causes negative impacts
  on the environment and may restrict the public's use of
  water areas.
• Future  Increases in boating use on  the  bays may
  exceed an identified carrying capacity for the resource.

From these 15 issues, more than 45 targeted actions were
recommended to help remedy the problem situations. A
number of action  approaches were identified including
enforcement, education and awareness, administrative,
regulatory, waterway improvement,  and other.


Since the completion of the water-use plan in June 1999,
a water-use plan  implementation committee has been
appointed to oversee progress on the actions.  Various
state agencies and organizations, that have a vital interest
in the bays', have been charged with taking leadership
roles to insure that the actions are completed.  An annual
review of  recommendations will  take  place to  note
progress and accomplishments.

This work was supported by the Center forthe Inland Bays
and the  University of Delaware  Sea  Grant College
Program.  Co-authors of the Comprehensive Water-Use
Plan for Delaware's Inland Bays include: James  Poling,
Alan Graefe and Bennett Anderson.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
;  Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI

                           WATER-USE MANAGEMENT PLAN

                                         ERIC SCHWAAB
Nota:Tha following document Is a transcription of the presentation by Mr.
Schwaab.  It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

The Conservation Management Plan that was signed last
year was the culmination of much work, but it also laid out
the challenges  for a significant new implementation
phase  of the coastal  bays management effort.   The
convergence of several issues, particularly commercial
clamming  and   recreational   boating,  led  to  this
management planning  effort. I will be describing what the
Maryland Department  of Natural Resources is doing to
implement the water-based components of that plan.

Purpose of the Water Use Management Plan

The purpose of the Water Use Management Plan is to
address water use issues as they relate to recreational
and  commercial  fishing,  navigation,  dredging,  and
sensitive areas to maximize recreational and economic
benefits while maintaining sustainability  of the coastal
bays'  natural  resources.    This  component of  the
comprehensive management plan  is specific to use of
water surface, water column, and water bottom.  It is
separate from land use issues.

We formed a DNR workgroup consisting of Fisheries,
Coastal Zone Management, Resource Assessment, Land
and Water Conservation, Natural Resource Police, and
Maryland Coastal Bays Program.  This focused  our
activities to move forward with implementing the plan in
conjunction with existing stakeholder advisory groups of
Navigation and Dredging Advisory Group, Sensitive Areas
Interagency Task Force, and Fishery Advisory Committee.

We have both resource capacity issues, which are those
things that threaten the long-term sustainability of the
resources themselves, and social capacity issues, which
  are user conflicts, economic limitations, safety issues, etc.
  Carrying capacity, which drives management and to which
  Jim Falk referred, will be the more limiting of these two.
             •'!  '.'"li::  '  I •;•"   •'  •:!'•  ,        :'•	  .'
  Our goal is to have the following completed by  July 1,
  2000: Activities of Concern, Objectives, Management
  Recommendations, and Implementation Strategies.

  Potential management responses being reviewed include
  restriction of activities by area, restriction of activities by
  time (hour, day, season, etc.), harvest regulation (quotas,
  size  limits, creel limits, gear type,  etc.), restoration
  activities,  and public education.  These may be used
  singularly or in various combinations as determined by the
  appropriate need.

  One  related  issue  I would like to  briefly mention is
  hydraulic clamming, because there has been no mention
  of specific steps that DNR is taking to address that issue.
  Current efforts include expedited delineation of SAVbeds,
  additional marking, enhanced enforcement, and priority
  review under water use plan.

  Research and Monitoring Projects

  We  have  begun to gather data to set the  stage for
  management decisions.  Secretary of DNR, Dr. Sarah
  Taylor-Rodgers, in her commitment to  funding  the
  Comprehensive   Management  Plan,  has  included
  $300,000 to fund research and monitoring projects in the
  following areas:
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999


• Catch, Effort and Economic Data
• Analyze Existing Data
• Shellfish Stock Assessment Program
• Aerial Boat Survey
• Blue Crab Parasite Research
• Restore Hard Clam Habitat

Sensitive Areas

• Bathymetry Survey
• Digitize Waterfowl Staging Areas

Navigation and Dredging

• Evaluate PWC Impacts on Recreational Boating

Resource Assessment

• Evaluate Boating Impacts on SAV

Aerial Boat Survey of Maryland's Coastal

The purpose of this survey was to determine the number
and distribution of all boating activities (Figures 1-4). To
work from an existing base line, the 1991 survey by the
University of Maryland Eastern Shore was replicated,
using the  parameters of Delaware-Virginia state lines,
weekends (July 31-August 29) 11:00 am-1:30 pm.

Through this survey, although limited, we were able to
look at the distribution  of boats over a single day, and
then,  over all the days of the survey to determine
concentration areas. For example, a popular fishing area
had lots of anchored and drifting boats, while in other
areas, concentrations of jet skis were found.  The total
daily number of boats  ranged from 300 to nearly 500
during the survey period.  This helps us determine areas
which may be subject to some type of management over
time.  We also  can compare the results of this survey to
the similar survey done in 1991.  Preliminary results show
substantial declines in some boat traffic, but substantial
increases in jet ski traffic. This data can be combined with
that from the Access-Intercept Survey.

Access-Intercept Survey of Recreational
Boaters  and Fishermen

The coordinators for this  survey included the Maryland
Coastal   Bays  Program  Water-Based  Activities
Subcommittee and University of Delaware.  The purpose
   was  to  characterize  user  groups and obtain  an
   understanding of current satisfaction levels for boaters
   and fishermen in the coastal bays area. The survey was
   conducted August 21, 22 and 28, 29, 1999.

   Information Obtained

   • Years of Boating on Maryland's Coastal Bays
   • Number of Days Boating in 1999
   • Activities Engaged in During Boating Trip
   • Perception on Current Level of Crowding
   • Number of Boaters that have taken  Boating Safety
   • Satisfaction Level of Boating Experience
   • Percent of Respondents who fish in Maryland's Coastal
   • Targeted Species
   • Number of people who understand how Maryland's
     fishing policies & regulations are determined
   • Satisfaction level of fishing experience
   • Support for various fishery management tools

   Information gleaned from both the Aerial Boat Survey and
   the Access-Intercept Survey will form the basis for the
   kind of management decisions that we need to make in
   the future.
   Figure 1. Average'Number of Boats by Area
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference*?//

Drifting Boat
 Cruising Beat
                                                             Drifting Boat
                                    Cruising Boat
                                                                                         Clammer     6%
Figure 2. Boating Activity in Sinepuxent Bay (Inlet to Route 611
                            Figure 3. Boating Activity in Lower Sinepuxent Bay (Route 611
                                    Bridge to South Point)
                            All Days
         .... 99,800
         fORS (Not iraJMduri aa
            ••  i1?'1	t lilt in
         HIS CHART

         0-Y  99653-Z
                    by Itu
          or often mould not bo
         i HAM ol podAon idovm
         id at survey dtil.
         rrioct to U nauricri n*i
         d bv ftn U5. Com Guud.
         Figure 4. Boating Activity on All Days in Sinepuxent Bay, 1999.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999


                                      CARL S. ZIMMERMAN
Assateague Island National Seashore was established as
a unit of the National Park System in 1965 to protect and
conserve the natural resources and values of Assateague
Island and adjacent coastal waters.  Although the land
base for the National Seashore is primarily located in
Maryland, the authorized boundary includes the oceanic
and  estuarine  waters surrounding  the entire:  Island,
including  significant  portions  of Chincoteague and
Sinepuxent Bays.  In  all, the park includes more than
25,000 acres of marine and estuarine waters.

Through  most  of  the  park's history,  its  resource
management and protection programs have focused on
terrestrial species and habitats.  Over the past decade,
however, increasing attention has been directed towards
understanding,  monitoring, and  protecting the park's
estuarine environment. Much of this effort has focused on
Chincoteague Bay - the  largest of Delmarva's coastal
bays and, by most measures, the least impacted by
human activities.

Notable among recent initiatives are cooperative efforts
between the National Park Service and state of Maryland
to protect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) from the
adverse effects of hydraulic clam dredging.  More than
15,000 acres of SAV habitat, most within the boundary of
the National Seashore in Chincoteague Bay, naive been
closed  to commercial clam dredging since 1998. Unlike
other closures in the Coastal Bays, and  indeed the
remainder of the State, the Chincoteague Bay sanctuary
includes both vegetated and  adjacent non-vegetated
habitat. By including substantial areas of non-vegetated
bottom, the Chincoteague  Bay  sanctuary  provides
important benefits not found elsewhere, including the
opportunity for unhindered SAV expansion, and protection
of  non-vegetated  habitats  and   associated  biotic
communities from the physical disturbance caused by
clam dredging.  The rationale  for this approach  in
   Chincoteague Bay was that most of the SAV occurs within
   the boundary of the National Seashore and that, as such,
   those habitats merited a higher standard of protection.

   In 1998, the National Park Service proposed a nationwide
   regulation to prohibit the operation, landing, or launching
   of personal watercraft  (PWC) within all units of the
   National Park System unless such use was found to be
   compatible with an individual park's enabling legislation
   and overall management objectives. In other words, PWC
   use must be explicitly determined appropriate to a specific
   park or else it is prohibited. The regulation was developed
   to address the impacts that PWC use have on the natural
   resources of parks, including wildlife and water quality, as
   well as  visitor safety  and  protection  of  the  visitor
   experience of non-PWC users.

   Assateague Island National  Seashore was one of a
   relatively small number of parks nationwide where PWC
   use has been occurring, and where there was potential
   that PWC's  might be found compatible with the park's
   purpose. An evaluation was completed in 1999 with the
   decision that PWC use is, in fact, an appropriate use of
   Assateague  waters  under  certain  very  specific
   circumstance$-when used as transportation to and from
   traditional mooring points on the Island. As a result of this
   determination, PWC use at Assateague Island National
   Seashore will be restricted to two relatively small areas at
   either end of the Island beginning in the year 2000.

   At the southern end of the park in Virginia, PWC's will be
   allowed only within a small transportation corridor linking
   boat  launch ; points  on Chincoteague  Island  with  a
   traditional landing spot at Assateague Point on the north
   side of Toms Cove.  At  the north end  of the park in
   Maryland where PWC use has traditionally been heaviest,
   there will be a second  small transportation corridor
   providing access to the Island at the northern tip. These
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

corridors will  allow  those visitors using  PWC's as
transportation to land on the Island at traditional mooring
spots. All PWC use elsewhere within the boundary of the
National Seashore will be prohibited.

A final initiative stems from the renewal of Congressional
Interest in the designation of a federal wilderness area on
Assateague Island. During the mid -1970's, Assateague
was formally  evaluated  for potential  inclusion in the
National Wilderness  Preservation system.  The study
resulted in a portion of Assateague Island being identified
as  potential wilderness  - an  area not  suitable for
wilderness status due to several incompatible land uses
that were occurring at the time.  Since then,  however,
rhostof {fie incompatible uses have been eliminated, and
the park recently certified that lands previously identified
as potential wilderness do, in  fact, meet the criteria for
formal wilderness designation.

The area in question is located in the central portion of
Assateague Island and  includes approximately  6,500
acres.  Although water areas were specifically excluded
during the initial study, there may now be an opportunity
to expand the wilderness designation to include portions
of Chincoteague Bay. If the designation process comes
to fruition,  a federal  wilderness  on Assateague  Island
could provide an important stimulus towards the creation
of a "no-take" marine  protected area in the Coastal Bays.
No-take  sanctuaries, or  marine refugia,  have been
demonstrated   to provide a   variety  of  resource
management benefits, including increased abundance
and reproductive output of targeted  fishery species,
increased species diversity and community  stability, and
enhanced habitat complexity and quality.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999


                                   MARK LUCKENBACH, PH.D.
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Luckenbach, It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

I  plan to address three issues today: 1) the absolute
inevitability of growth in aquaculture in the coastal bays;
2) some of the procedures and the requirements for
shellfish aquaculture; and 3) our need to get smart about
how we manage the growth of aquaculture in our coastal

Aquaculture, as many of you know, has long been touted
as  the future  of coastal fisheries.  For  mqlluscan
aquaculture, that statement is not true. Aquaculture is not
the future of molluscan shell fisheries,  it is the present.
Worldwide, over  80% of oysters produced come from
intensive aquaculture, with probably similar figures for
mussels. In the U.S., approximately 60% of the oysters
that are produced are from aquaculture. Along the: eastern
coast of the United States, the production of hard clams
from aquaculture far outstrips the production from wild
harvest. In Virginia both the number and dollar value from
aquacultured clams exceeds that from wild harvest. Here
on Delmarva there are several species that are currently
cultured, and many more possibilities.

What I am going to do is to concentrate on the two current
largest  production species of  shellfish on  Delmarva
coastal bays and that is the hard clam and the oyster, but
many  of my comments apply to  other potential
aquaculture species. The hard clam aquaculture industry
has been well established in Virginia  for decades.
Estimated dockside value this past year is about 15 million
dollars, and growing. The hard clam aquaculture industry
employs hundreds of people on the Virginia coastal bays
and the  lower part  of the Chesapeake  Bay. Another
indicator of its recent success is that, beginning this year,
the USDA federal crop insurance program is  issuing
  policies that insure hard clam seeds, further confirming
  that this is farming and not fishing.

  We also have a small, but growing oyster aquaculture in
  Virginia, mostly on the Delmarva peninsula. I estimate it at
  about one million dollars this past year. A really large and
  growing, non-commercial component of this is termed
  "oyster  gardening", and  there are also a  few people
  growing  scallops.  What  is  emerging is  a  shellfish
  aquaculture industry in Virginia that is growing several
  species now and will be growing more in the future.

  Presumably, this is a good deal. We have heard in this
  conference aquaculture suggested as a solution to some
  of the problems facing our coastal bays. It's presumed to
  be sustainable and environmentally friendly, particularly
  shellfish aquaculture which does not involve the addition
  of artificial feeds. And it has very high dollar value per
  acre. One major clam grower in Virginia reports a net
  return of $65,000 per acre per year. This is an extremely
  high value per acre.

  Shellfish aquaculture begins with a hatchery phase. This
  phase involves  spawning brood stock, rearing  larvae in
  tanks,  growing  algae for food and  changing water
  frequently. After a few weeks in a hatchery,  the shellfish
  larvae metamorphose into a bottom-dwelling juvenile and
  are transferred  to a flow-through nursery facility. Both
  hatcheries and nurseries generally require waterfront
  property, a place to put in some water pumps, and a place
  to discharge water. The most critical need for this early
  phase  is excellent water quality.  It is an  absolute
  requirement for shellfish aquaculture.

  There are, of course, numerous threats to good water
  quality on aquaculture.  Obviously, development in and
  around the coastal zone and around the coastal bays can
  threaten water  quality and threaten these  operations.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Improperly managed agriculture can pose a threat to
water quality and aquaculture. High profile issues related
to this on Delmarva over the past few years include runoff
from commercial tomato farms and high-density chicken
production operations.  Bivalve  larvae  are extremely
sensitive to some pesticides, including those used for
mosquito control, reducing the feasibility of operating a
hatchery in some localities that spray pesticides for
mosquito control.

Farming practices for clams are fairly straightforward. The
bottom is "tilled",  "seed" clams planted in the field and
nets put over the  rows. The  nets  then  need  to be
maintained  by  removing  algae  and  other  fouling
organisms and inspected for predators. Generally, within
two years the clams are then harvested. In essence it is a
farm located in shallow, near-shore water.

Farms, of course, imply property lines. We use terms like
"leases" and "shellfish grounds" but the bottom line is that
property lines are a necessary component of private
farming. I suggest that this is an important reason for us
to think seriously about the  implications of developing
aquaculture in our coastal bays. I am not suggesting that
aquaculture is a bad  thing,  merely that  we need to
carefully consider its impacts and implications.

Oyster farming, at the hatchery and nursery stages, has
the same basic needs  for water quality and waterfront
property. The basic farming practices that are being quite
successful in Virginia are based on  selective breeding,
management around disease, and rapid growth to market
size. Oysters not only can be grown, and are being grown
in this  area, but  they can be grown profitably by these
means. With a few modifications to suit our area, this  is
the way oysters are grown worldwide.

But again, with these oysters, we're talking about putting
out mooring pilings and structures in the water. There  is
considerable infrastructure and investment involved  in
setting up an oyster farm. It is hard to imagine that there
are not going to be property lines if that happens.

Next, I would like to consider some of the ecological and
social  issues that I think are  raised by  doing these
practices. First, as! have previously noted, aquaculture is
very dependent upon good water quality. We have seen
in Virginia and elsewhere, that the aquaculturists become
strong advocates for water quality issues. Many of them
have taken pro-active  steps that have led to small
tributaries being cleaned up and shellfish closure areas
being opened. One case here on Delmarva has led to
litigation between shellfish aquaculturists and corporate
tomato farm.
   I have already spent some time referring to this property
   rights issue and  I will elaborate.  In Virginia we have a
   century-old  law   permitting  leasing  of  the  bottom,
   developed to support an old fishery approach of moving
   oysters around. Individuals may lease shellfish growing
   areas from the state, which continues to own the bottom
   habitats.  But,  if  you look at the  details of the lease
   structure,  it  conveys  most of the rights  of  property
   ownership to the individualsi who  hold that lease.  And
   again, that's justifiably worrisome,  because we might call
   it leasing,  but at  some level, we're talking about private
   property  rights  on  what's historically  been  public
   resources. We need to think about that and about how we
   want to manage it.

   In Virginia, this industry can, and does, employ a lot of
   individuals.  Seasonally,  hundreds of individuals,  and
   increasingly, it's a year-round employment opportunity. In
   some cases, those individuals are traditional watermen,
   but increasingly, it is a work force that requires new skills,
   including training in biology.

   Clearly,  aquaculture brings the need  for new sets of
   regulations related to habitat use, public safety, use of the
   product, and environmental impacts. In many places,
   including Maryland, aquaculture development  is being
   stymied for lack of appropriate regulations. Even where
   we're seeing aquaculture  developing rapidly, one of my
   contentions is that we're not dealing with these needs in
   an integrated fashion. We're doing it piecemeal and in the
   long run both aquaculture  and competing interests suffer
   from this lack of planning.

   We have generally presumed that the direct impacts of
   shellfish aquaculture on water quality are good, but this
   has not been thoroughly investigated. We know, for
   instance that in  terms of  nutrient  cycling, shellfish can
   remove  a lot of phytoplankton  (and,  hence, excess
   nutrients) from the water column. But, in turn they give off
   considerable  ammonia waste  that can contribute to
   macro-algal blooms. The clam farmers sweep this macro-
   algae off their nets, but we  don't know its fate or effects on
   local ecosystem dynamics.

   In summary, shellfish farming is here in the coastal bays
   and  it will continue to  grow.  It brings  with it  new
   opportunities for economic development and sustainable
   harvests of seafood, but it also poses many new issues
   related to resource management and conflicting uses of
   our coastal waters.

   To my colleagues in the research community, I urge that
   we  begin  to incorporate  these  subaqueous agro-
   ecosystems into our pictures of the landscape and into our
   model of the coastal bay systems. We have typically had
   aquaculture scientists studying  aquaculture and marine
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

 ecologists studying processes in the coastal bays, and not
 linking the two. In the same way that terrestrial ecologists
 came to realize several decades ago that agriculture is an
 important part of terrestrial  ecosystems, we  need to
 include aquaculture in our study of coastal ecosystem

 To resource managers, I suggest that we need to develop
 rational, integrated approaches towards dealing with
 issues related to siting of hatcheries and leasing of grow-
 out areas. Integrated, rational approaches that allow us to
 address a whole array  of resource  conflict issues are
 necessary to ensure the continued,  but wise growth of
 aquaculture in the region.

 I have only addressed a few issues related to aquaculture
 in Delmarva's coastal bays. I am sure there are more to
 come, but we at least need to consider the implications of
 zoning uses in our coastal zone.


 What about the impacts of disease,  such as the oyster
 disease, MSX? Couldn't a similar disease destroy clam

 Absolutely, disease could.  In fact one of the things we've
 seen is that disease, at times, has a very  big impact on
 wild fisheries as well. We heard that about blue crabs
 yesterday and the disease problems they are facing. I
 haven't talked a lot about oysters here, but certainly oyster
 diseases have had an impact on oyster resources. So one
 part of the answer is that diseases are around in any wild
 harvest or animal husbandry that we do. There is always
 the  concern  with  agriculture,  which  is  essentially
 monocrops, that you make yourself more susceptible to
 disease. For example,  when  you put single strains of
 clams in and you have millions and millions of them in an
 acre. I think the approaches that marine shallow water
 agriculture is going to have to take are some of the same
 ones that terrestrial agriculture has taken and that would
 be  by diversifying the  crop  base,  conduct selective
 breeding programs to improve stocks, and try to maintain
 some genetic diversity in the population. One of the things
we don't have the option of doing in shallow marine farms,
which is common in terrestrial agriculture, is the use of
chemical pesticides.

 / am interested in the ecological reasons, not so much the
 economic ones. It seems to me that oysters and clams are
filter feeders, and we all have a turbidity problem, and
when they're market size, they're a big hunk of protein,
which is a lot of nitrogen to get out of the system. Are
these things a viable way to treat the water and to remove
nitrogen from our overloaded nitrogen systems?
    The  question  is,  "Is  bivalve  aquaculture,  shellfish
    aquaculture, a viable way to remove excess nitrogen from
    our bays?"  Yes, in one sense it is, and I didn't mean, by
    using the example of the macro-algae,  to say that it
    wasn't.  Certainly, it is a way that a lot of nitrogen that
    made it into the phytoplankton, gets into something we eat
    and moves out of the water, but we need to move in our
    studies beyond that to understand more about their role in
    nutrient cyclinjg. That part of the story is true, but it's also
    rather simplistic, and we don't know what happens to the
    macro-algae when they bloom and the rest of the nitrogen
    that's still there.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference jjH

                                CONFLICTS IN LIGHT OF INCREASING

                           HENRY KoELLEiN7, AND BILLY CAUSEY*
                                      PANEL DISCUSSION
Nota: The following document is a transcription of the pane! discussion.

The Increased harvest pressures on limited, and in some
cases,  declining resources,  has created increased
competition and conflict among user groups in coastal
waters around the country, and Delmarva is no exception.
One suggested strategy for helping deal with this situation
is to establish sanctuary areas for resource conservation,
usage  zones  that  maximize both  recreation  and
commercial catch, as well as active (i.e. jet skis and boats)
and passive recreation.  Please comment. Also,  what
would you recommend as first priority to minimize the
conflict among user groups and sustain the resource?

Prosser: I think everyone knows that I represent the
sportfishing industry.  About a million people provide
services for those 60 million Americans that participate in
recreational fishing. Our association is only involved in
this from the long-term perspective. When it comes to
zoning as it relates to resource issues, it is non-negotiable
as  far as we are  concerned, in  applying whatever is
required  to protect living  resources in the long  term.
Having said that of course, the devil is always in the
details, and there are a lot of ways to go about doing that
and there is a multitude of management strategies that
can accomplish that

One thing of concern to us in the longer term is that while
recreational anglers have some bad actors in their midst,
they have largely been the forefront of aquatic resource
conservation. Why? Self-interest.  The healthy aquatic
resources provide their recreational activities and they
want to maintain healthy aquatic systems. So as we go
about managing conflict and applying zoning and other
practices, we have to make absolutely certain that we do
  it in the least Draconian way possible, so we can continue
  to involve families and  people in recreational fishing
  opportunities^ We have recreational fishing allowed in
  wilderness areas, in the national wildlife refuges, in the
  national park system.  There is a whole range of things
  that we can do. The bottom line is that zoning, in terms of
  recreational fishing, is the proper response in some cases.
  We heard some well thought out applications  earlier
  today. Just be very sensitive in the way you do that and
  make sure you reach out and touch base with user groups
  as you develop zoning strategies.

  Travelstead: Certainly s.anctuaries are a good thing. We
  have  heard  a  number  of  examples  of excellent
  sanctuaries this morning and yesterday. Let me provide
  you with just a few examples of how sanctuaries work in
  Virginia. Just this year we established a sanctuary for
   1  Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales Street,
     NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036
   2  Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council, 11824 Porfin Drive,
     Berlin, MD 21811
   3 American Sportsfishing Association, 1033 N. Fairfax
     Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314
   4  Virginia   Marine  Resources  Commission,   2600
     Washington Avenue/Newport News, VA 23607
   5  Mayor, Ocean City, PO Box 158, Ocean City, MD 21842
   6  Assateague Island National Seashore, 7206 National
     Seashore Lane, Berlin, MD 21811
   7  Atlantic  Coast  Chapter,  Saltwater  Sportsfishing
     Association, 538 Marlinspike Drive, Severna Park, MD
   8  Florida Keys  National Marine Sanctuary,  PO Box
     500368, Marathon, FL 33050
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 199$.

horseshoe crabs  - their spawning beaches along the
Atlantic shoreline. Typically horseshoe crabs will spawn
on those beaches.  They are very easily harvested by
hand, it doesn't take any special type of gear. They are
very vulnerable where the females  come to  spawn.
Earlier this year,  we closed all beaches to the hand-
harvest of  horseshoe crabs  during their spawning
migration.   Dr. Orth spoke yesterday about an SAV
sanctuary in Chincoteague Bay.   We have heard  a
number of discussions about that,  and it has been very
successful. We have had a striped bass spawning ground
sanctuary that has been in existence since 1982  and still
continues today.   We  have  a blue crab spawning
sanctuary at the mouth of  the Chesapeake Bay, some
90,000 acres that are protected from harvest during the
spawning  season.  We have other types of sanctuaries
that seem to be socially based.  For instance, we prohibit
the setting of gill nets around the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-
Tunnel to allow recreational  fishing  opportunities for
striped bass.  There are obviously some safety concerns
about gill nets in relation to  that structure.

All of those sanctuaries, and the ones you heard about
this morning have two things in common.  Number one,
they are based on good science - good sound information,
statistics, and data.  That makes them believable and
fairly reasonable to the public.  Number two, there has
been a general buy-in from the public that thesis things
make sense and that they  are  good,  and  that  by
participating in the development and continuation of that
sanctuary, the individual is  contributing to the benefit of
that species or that habitat or the problem that is trying to
be solved. There is no regulatory agency on the  Atlantic
Coast or anywhere else that can  enforce a sanctuary
without that buy-in. It is absolutely critical that the public
perceives whatever sanctuary we try to develop to be a
good thing and to be reasonably based.

Now a little bit of negative  comment about sanctuaries.
Keep in mind that when you develop a sanctuary,  you are
focusing the unwanted activity out  of one area and into
another. So, if you draw a  line in the water and  say we
won't have jet skis here, you are going to concentrate jet
ski effort somewhere else. So you have to focus on those
types of things, focus not only in the sanctuary, but what
is going to happen outside of the sanctuary.  Certainly we
have seen this problem with the blue crab.  We have a
tremendous spawning sanctuary at the mouth of the Bay
in Virginia that provides protection for the female crabs to
spawn in  the summertime, but we  have allowed  a
tremendous fishery to develop outside of that sanctuary.
So as those crabs migrate  to that spawning sanctuary,
they are impeded by a number of different fisheries that
exist from Baltimore to Norfolk. We have to become more
innovative in our thinking about sanctuaries, and for this
reason,  Virginia Institute  of Marine  Science   is now
    investigating a network of protected habitats that will
    provide some amount of protection in all of the various
    habitats where you find blue crab and along its migratory
    pathways to its spawning grounds.  Again, keep in mind
    that the focusing and concentrating of activities away from
    sanctuaries can backfire.

    Savage: Jack Travelstead and I both sit  on  the Mid-
    Atlantic Fisheries  Management Council and we use
    sanctuaries fajrly regularly. We had an area closed off in
    Ocean City here - a small area about three miles wide and
    six miles long r and it was closed for several years for surf
    clams.  It opened in  1990 and a fleet of clam boats in
    Ocean City have worked in that spot from 1990 until now
    and it has been very successful.   Yesterday, I was in
    Boston for scalloping and they opened a closed area too
    this year for spalloping and that was very successful.  It
    had been closed for four years.  They allowed them  to
    take 9.5 million pounds this year and that worked well.
    There are presently deep closed areas off the mouth of
    the Chesapeake Bay for scallops and everyone is looking
    forward to that opening at the end of next year.  One
    downside of closed areas that most fishermen feel is that
    people are afraid that when you close something, it is
    never going to' open again, and that scares them off. The
    more we educate them and the more they  buy into the
    system, then it can work and it does work.

    As for conflicts, as far as the fisheries management
    process goes; I will give an example. The Mid-Atlantic
    Council manages  summer flounder.  We  have some
    possible potential conflicts between recreational fishermen
    and the commercial fishermen. We have a quota and we
    split  the  quota 60-40.   Sixty percent goes to the
    commercial fishermen and 40%  to the  recreational
    fishermen. The commercial quota is a hard, fast quota -
    when they catch it they quit. The recreational quota is a
    target. When; they get to the target, they keep right on
    fishing. That has happened the last two years.  The
    recreational flounder has gone over its quota by 100%
    each year. This year, the Council is making a serious
    effort to reduce the recreational quotas.

    As far as jet ;skis, I won't even go there.   I think the
    sanctuary for them ought to be back in Japan. My friends
    in city hall will issue a business license to anybody to have
    a jet ski business and they will say, we will give you a
    license, but you can't do it here.  So they all come down
    the bay.  I live on Sinepuxent Bay right by the bridge to
    Assateague and it is nothing to stand on my front yard and
    see 25 jet skis going round and round like a swarm of
    bees all summer long. Now the Park Service is going to
    close off their half of the bay. I don't know how we are
    going to resolve that. I have a daughter who is 27, and
    she has to have a certificate of competency to say she
    can operate a boat, but some 15-year old kid can come
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

down here, put his money down, and take that jet ski and
run around In my front yard. Something needs to be done,
but I don't know what. I understand they have the right to
be there, but it is something that is grossly overlooked.

Koenings: What I try to do on a daily basis is to manage
2.2 million visitors versus trying to manage a wilderness
area. Basically, I am trying to manage an endangered
species program at the same time that we have hunting
programs. Balancing off-road vehicle use versus the need
for back country camping. And the list goes on and on. It
Is kind of like the job of mayor - trying to look at the
resource and balance that resource.
  „  •             , •• ii  i,  ,,    •          '         • .
I n the National Park Service for the last few years we have
been looking at some parks across the country that might
be used as sanctuaries.  Channel Islands in California is
certainly one of them and Assateague is the other one that
we may, in the next year or so, move forward on. There
has been a lot of discussion here about sanctuaries and
a lot of very positive comments. I am going to have to
take my  hat off to Billy  Causey.   He  has done a
remarkable job in the Florida Keys.  He did a very hard
thing and a very brave thing. To me sanctuaries may be
a very important part of a three-legged stool. Let me talk
very briefly about what I think are the other two legs that
are equally important.

One is education. It is absolutely critical. We all have a
role as stewards. We all, regardless of who we are, have
a role as stewards in protecting these areas and trying to
enhancing their values.  Many of you have heard about
the learning centerwe hope to establish opposite the park
headquarters in  cooperation  with  the  University  of
Maryland Eastern Shore, Salisbury State, DNR, and a
number of others. That is not only going to be a formal
educational laboratory but at least half the property will be
an adult educational laboratory that I hope would facilitate
the opportunity for us to continue this dialogue here in a
more formal  setting.    The center would have adult
education classes dealing with a lot of the issues that we
are dealing with here.  So adult education is extremely
important. One of the things I hope to do at the park this
year is start a field seminar program, where we bring in
 respected leaders in the field, use the park as a living
 laboratory, and more fully explore some of the things we
 have been talking about for the last day and a half here.

 The third leg of the stool is habitat.  We can talk about
 sanctuaries, and indeed in a simplistic fashion, if you look
 at the map and you see the national park and you see the
 national wildlife refuge and you see  the property the
 Nature Conservancy maintains south of us, there is a core
 of existing| sanctuary thai can be built upon. I think a lot of
 people in this room worked long and hard to come to a
 consensus on these action items that show the values
  here.  Without all of us working together to prevent the
  runoff that comes into these bays, we could basically put
  all the sanctuaries we want into place,  but what will
  happen is eventually that runoff will destroy the fabric of
  the very thing we are trying to preserve.

  The partnership of the Worcester County 2000 Program,
  the visioning process that is going on in the Coastal Bays
  Program, the things that  Jim Mathias will be doing in
  Ocean City to help out, it is all of us working together to
  maintain  that quality of the bays. That was driven home
  to me years  ago when I  first met Billy Causey.  I was
  superintendent of the National Parks in the Virgin Islands.
  We had put in sanctuaries, and we had zoned off boats,
  and we had "no anchor* zones. I had it under control. We
  were  protecting the coral  reef.   Then  I went to  a
  conference that involved  NASA and they had this great
  map of a satellite view of the Caribbean Basin. They
  showed the sediment coming out of the Orinoco River in
  Brazil, and they showed it flowing around the hump of
  Brazil and it lightly touched St. Johns in the Virgin Islands.
  Here I was dealing with a global phenomenon, that literally
  started 2000 miles away, that was completely beyond my
  control, that was having far more impact on the coral reefs
  than anything I was doing with the boats. So again, as we
  pointed out before, we need to think globally on many of
  these issues, especially when they are dealing with water
  quality or other water issues.

  Mathias: As the mayor, my challenge is that people want
  to use the resources.  We will  host over eight million
  people in Ocean City. Our challenge is enabling them to
  use the resource responsibly. Yet looking at folks whose
  legacy and history has been fishing commercially in our
  back  bays, when they speak, and we look at the success
  of Ocean City and the legacy that they have left us, as the
  mayor, I have to listen.  And when those eight million
  people come to Ocean City to use that resource, we have
  to make sure that we provide them their best expectation.
  So that is our challenge - trying to find that balance and
  sense of responsibility and make it all work and come
  together. It has happened here, I think, with the coastal
   bays program. We try to bring a working responsibility.
   Look  at what we  have been  able  to do with the
   recreational fishery.  When I came to Ocean City, I had
   heard about the catches and the "White Martin Capital of
   the World".  I was born and raised in Baltimore City.  I
   played in the alley, not in the back bay.  But now, my
   daughter loves coming home to Ocean City, and she truly
   appreciates  the place that she  is from because of the
   resources that she left behind. Clearly, I have learned the
   understanding of what this area has meant.

   As a  trustee and as a steward, as the  mayor, I try to
   shepherd  that consensus on the city  council.   Very
   fortunately we have Nancy Howard  from the Department
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

 of Natural Resources who works with us every day-she
 is out there, she hears what is going on, and it is; her job
 to get the message out.  And we have Erin Fitzsiimmons,
 whose outreach goes  back into Annapolis, back into the
 regions and the groups that are  making this happen.
 Quite frankly, I have learned one thing in politics. When
 I want to know what is going on, I go into the trenches. I
 find out from the person that is rolling up their sleeves and
 doing the job.  You are  the ones that are giving us the
 information that we need as a sustainable resource. But
 the commercial fishermen are also out there with a history
 and I have to listen to their practicality.  Henry Koellein
 and his group with recreational fisheries are bringing their
 information to the table.  Being able to put it all together
 and continue  to have an Ocean City and a coastal
 community that will survive well into this  next millennium
 is my charge and my responsibility. Balance is the issue.
 Practicality is the manner in which we operate.

 Koellein: The  Maryland  Chapter  of  the  American
 Saltwater Sportsfishing Association is proud to have 16
 delegates at this  conference.  We are trying to be
 responsible.   Our primary purpose is to protect the
 fisheries so that my ten grandchildren, and your children,
 and your children's children will know the good things that
 we know. We have been in the forefront of protecting the
 fisheries. The Maryland  Saltwater Sportsfisherman was
 the leading advocate to shut down  our rock fish industry
 in the bays.  Not just for the commercial industry, but for
 us too. Now we are living with one fish in the spring, two
 fish in the summer.  But we want fairness,  We want the
 other users of this group of fish to be  planed out with us.

 This summer was the worst summer I have seen for
 flounder in the Ocean City area, and  I have been fishing
 here since  1946. We keep records  of the flounder we
 catch and the ratio of keepers. My best day this year on
 flounder fishing on the back bays here was 38 flounder,
 four of them were keepers.  I am not complaining.  The
 commercial  boys have a smaller size limit.  We know
 when they take those fish, there is a certain amount of kill
 off that comes from the by-catch before he gets back, and
 we would like to see them match that on their allotment.

 I heard the gentleman talk about quotas.  I don't know
 where we would get the enforcement people to tell us
 when we have caught the quota, because we keep better
 records than the Department of Natural Resources do on
 the  number of flounder caught in these back bays.  The
 number  of  flounder  has  decreased.   It  has been
 overfished, I agree. But as the flounder grow in size, they
 don't come into our bay,  they go north. The majority of
them go across Delaware and into New Jersey and New
York.  So, we are not  getting that many flounder.  Last
year, we realized 0.95, or just under one flounder, per
year per trip per angler. This year we are hitting around a
    half of a flounder. We know what we are catching and we
    are able to present that. Last year we sat down with the
    Department of Natural Resources, and we worked out the
    agreement for eight  flounder at  15.5 inches with the
    season running from the  end of  April until the end of
    November.   We are actually catching  more flounder
    outside in the:ocean, out on the bass grounds, offshore
    around the wrecks,  so we  know this fishery is  being
    overfished, but it is being overfished north of us.

    We heard yesterday Bill Baker say that Delaware is light
    years ahead of Maryland.  No hydraulic clam dredging in
    the back bays of Delaware.  No trawling in the state
    waters. Virginia the same thing. Maryland is the only one
    that allows allthese clam dredgers and Maryland is the
    only one that allows trawling in state waters (state waters
    being out to the three mile line).   They have the whole
    EEZ out to the 200 mile line to do their trawling. We went
    to Annapolis and tried to  battle that, but we were not
    successful. Department of Natural  Resources didn't help
    us, they worked against  us on it for the commercial
    watermen. We are going to be back. We are going to be
    fighting. We are talking to some of the politicians because
    it is a political solution that we need.

    The commercial fishermen are not our enemies, we just
    want to share fairly with them.  We realize that you can't
    get enough flounder  in the back  bays  to  satisfy Jim
    Mathias' millions that come down  here. But we want a
    little bit more access to the fishery. We negotiated with
    the commercial fishermen to have a half-mile sanctuary at
    the opening of the inlet at the sea buoy, which is one mile
    out from the inlet, but it really hasn't been enough. That
    was the first time in history  that we  sat down and worked
    on  something.  So we're working on  these areas.  The
    challenge for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries or the
    National   Marine   Fisheries Commission  is  to
    proportionately cut back on the resource among that ratio
    of fishermen where the fish are being caught. This didn't
    happen in the! last cut back, and  I don't know  if  it will
    happen this time, but it's almost impossible to do. We
    want fairness and we will be responsible.

    Causey: Over 185 million tourists visit the nation's coasts
    every year, and in doing so,  spend about 52 billion dollars.
    There is no wonder why we question the crowded state of
    our coastal areas and the changes that we have seen in
    recent years. Decades ago,  we started using zoning to
    deal with various conflicts terrestrially. We didn't have a
    bar built next to schools or churches,  or we didn't have
    cement plants; in the  middle of downtown  city areas.
    Zoning has been used terrestrially for years to solve a lot
    of social, economic, and development questions. It has
    been long overdue in the marine environment and I think
    now we are starting to  hit that awareness around the
    coastal waters of the United States to start making a
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference lit

   difference where it can really count, and to start using this
   tool to balance use with protection.  Zoning can focus
   actions in areas, whether they are fragile coral reefs or
   delicate coastal bay bottoms, with the activities that are
   taking place.  Balance those activities and at the same
   time, be able to focus on the broader regional threats,
   such as water quality and habitat degradation.
II'   '      ' ,  ,'   '" V .  .11, 'I ], In,  Hll1 'I.",     '»
   Speaking of fairness, the recreational and commercial
   fishermen both evenly and fairly, blasted me during the
   development of our management plan. I heard as much
   from the commercial guys as I did from the recreational
   industry, only because people did not really know what
   this mood was. It was more one of suspicion and one of
   fear a,bput what this was going to do to their industry
   personally.  1 knew it was going to be a long process when
   I saw at one of our meetings that the commercial industry
   leaders and the recreational industry leaders, all going out
   of the back of the room slapping each others backs and
   going to the bar.

   Federally, we can't place blame or place lack of progress
   in this area on any one group. I think it is more important
   that we haven't gotten out the educational message that
   it will work.  Marine zoning has worked. I will give you one
   quick example arid this is the one that is helping pull a lot
   of the recreational industry around accordingly.   Cape
   Canaveral was made a marine reserve by accident years
   ago for security purposes.  All the bays around that area
   were protected because they didn't want people in there
   as they were carrying out various activities around  the
   launch pads. Now, if you look at the maps, they would
   show you that the majority of recreational world record
   catches are coming all around the fringes of Canaveral.
   So it is working. It does produce more fish and larger fish
   and they do help reduce user conflicts of various sorts.
!!  •      ',!  ,    •,	   . ,.1'Ysi'iii1:;   .',;'   ,. I'M, in1,.  . ,»"„''   ,.,   , •"
   Regarding  jet skis.   Our  sanctuary advisory council
   wanted to, at their very first meeting in  February 1992, ban
   them to the fourth shipping lanes, about 40 miles offshore.
   Of all the issues that we have dealt with, jet skis have
   been the most controversial. On our draft management
   plan, we  had approximately 6500  written and verbal
   comments.  Over 55% of them addressed jet skis and jet
   ski problems. My dilemma, of the 13.3 million visitor days
   in the Florida Keys, 11 % of the visitors coming to the Keys
   use jet skis. That is an incredible number. It is not like in
   the Channel Islands where the water is cold and you will
   freeze to death or you are afraid if you fall in you will be
   gobbled up by a white shark.   We are talking about
   people constantly on the water.

   We have to try to balance the uses. We started off in our
   final management plan treating jet skis as all other vessels
   arid frying to set in place the kind  of common  sense
   regulations that addressed all the vessels equally. And it
  is not working.  We are still getting a lot of conflicts and a
  lot of problems.  We,have a lot  of work to do in that
  particular area.  So again, returning to zoning as a tool,
  over time we will address that problem.

  There are 28 clam dredgers that come here, not from this
  locality, but from the bay and all around, Crisfield etc.
  They come in and they are going to dredge clams until
  every last clam is gone. What about the tourists that like
  to clam?

  Savage: Having clammed all my life, I can answer that
  one. The last clam that leaves here is going to be with
  one of you folks with a rig that is going to get it. Dredgers
  will leave when something else looks better for them, that
  is the way it has been forever. Years ago when those
  guys first came in the 50s and early 60s, you had to work
  in the county where you lived. The oysters all died down
  in the bay and all the guys from the southern part of the
  bay went north to work, because the only live oysters in
  the Chesapeake Bay were up the bay. They all went up
  there and got written up for being  out of their counties.

  This went through the court system, through the court of
  appeals, and the court of appeals said if  you  live  in
  Maryland you can work in Maryland.  Personally, I think
  that is a good law. I would rather those guys weren't here,
  but it is there for me if I want to go over there. You won't
  catch all the clams, you can't catch all the clams in the
  ocean. There is one sure thing. If you folks want to stop
  it, if you want to stop the draggers out there catching fish,
  you can do it, and you can do it fast. Just stop buying any.
  If you don't want the scallop poachers to catch scallops in
  the ocean, stop buying them.  That is the simple way. I
  clammed in the ocean for 21 years and never ever caught
  a clam that I couldn't sell.  But the day I couldn't sell them,
  I wasn't going to go. That is a fact of life. People like to
  eat that stuff and that is why people like me go and catch
  them. We are not rapers of resource, we have as much
  responsibility as anyone else could.

  Mathias: Gentlemen, you tell us about the clammers that
  are out there. We are working very aggressively with the
   DNR on the whole issue of balance. We are out there.
  We have the beds marked. We are looking at catch limits,
   perhaps. You look at v/here the grasses were gone and
   now they are coming back. Here are the folks that work
   it, and maybe it is in their best interest, but they are telling
   us that it is healthy.  However, we went to the people who
   understand it technologically the best and scientifically the
   best.  They have appropriated some money, they are out
   there in the back bays,  and they have sent some  law
   enforcement down here. We are out to sustain that
   resource and we are there getting the job done to the best
   of our learned ability, and we ask you to be patient.
    Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999


                                           ERIKA FELLER
Atote: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by
Ms. Feller.  It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

Congressman Gilchrest is sorry he couldn't make it here
today.  He would have enjoyed the presentations this
morning.  It has been our top priority this session, to
authorize spending $315  million over the next five years
to restore estuary habitat with the goal of restoring a
million acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010. This bill
is not a long one.  It spends a lot of money and it's got a
little bit of process. It runs through the Corps of Engineers
and it has a lot of input  from state and local levels of
government, the resource agencies, the Department of
Transportation, and the  Department of Agriculture.  It
looks like it will become law next Congress. It has been
marked  up in  a  couple  of subcommittees so far this
session, and we are hoping to get a full committee mark
up next week before Congress adjourns.

I would like to answer any questions about what is going
on legislatively.  If I can answer, I will. If I can't, I will be
happy to take your card and get you an answer.

There's seems to be a lot of interest here in jet skis, I
wonder if you could say anything about the bill to promote
responsible use of jet skis?

This bill was introduced by Congressman Jim Saxton of
New Jersey, just a couple of months ago. Wayne was an
original co-sponsor. He feels very strongly that there are
just some places that jet skis shouldn't be.  There's a lot
of places that are okay for them to be, but he definitely
thinks that sensitive shallow water habitats don't need that
kind of additional burden.  I think the bill has been referred
to Wayne's subcommittee.  We haven't started talking
about next year's agenda yet, but I am hoping we can talk
about having a couple of hearings and maybe even mark
it up.  To be perfectly candid though,  I think Wayne's
subcommittee is about as far as it will get. But we'll do our
    best.  Mr. Saxton feels very strongly about this issue, and
    really pushed; it in the re-authorization of the Coastal Zone
    Management Act, but ultimately had to take it out.

    You were talking about the restoration ofestuarine habitat.
    It wouldn 't fce, at the expense of bay bottom that provides
    the bottom of the food chain for the  fish  and other
    organisms that live in the bay would it? I know that here
    they're talking about creation of spoil islands, but I am
    concerned that you're losing valuable habitat off the bay
    bottom by filling areas to create those islands.

    The bill addresses estuary habitat very broadly.  It goes
    from benthic habitats all the way to upland  forest  and
    wetlands that can  be restored with this money.  The bill
    does not talkj about "beneficial use" projects.  There will
    likely be an amendment offered at full committee  markup
    by Gene Taylor from Mississippi to expand on authority
    granted to the  Corps in the 1996  Water Resource
    Development Act with regard to beneficial use projects.
    This would require the Corps to go forward and do more
    pro-active work  in terms of identifying opportunities for
    beneficial use.  Our preference is that our bill make the
    world  a better place and not a worse one.   There  is a
    priority on projects that actually have a net benefit and are
    likely  to result  in permanent restoration  of  habitat.
    Projects that are not going to fall apart after  five years.
    For example, places where you have programs in place to
    address  long-term  sources  of  point  and  non-point
    pollution. Basically, where these programs can fit into a
    larger management framework is where we  would  like
    them to be.  Hopefully, those management frameworks
    should address the issue of dredging. They don't now but
    that is another high priority issue for the Congressman.

    What is the number of that bill?

    It's HR 1775.: The  bill that you will find on the Internet is
    not the bill that was reported out of committee.  It was
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

            	•'	m  Hi1
substantially revised  before  subcommittee  mark up.
Subcommittee mark up is on Monday for Transportation
and there are a lot of changes. The basic gist is the same
and the definitions are the same, but the process is a little
different. If you want the updated version, you can email
me and I'll send it you.

What is the prognosis for the Coastal Zone Management
Act, particularly the non-point program?
    1	  ,     i, ,    ""!,	II  '    •'   i '   •        	
The CZMA reauthorization will not likely come to the floor
this fall and this is probably a good thing. Non-point and
property rights are two big issues in the Coastal Zone
Management Act. I don't know how familiar folks are with
this, but we actually had a pretty good bill going into full
oommit|ee mark  up and an amendment was offered  to
strip the non-point provisions. Another amendment was
offered to prohibit the federal government from requiring
the states to do anything that would limit the commercial
or private use of  property without compensation.   !t
sounds  like a restatement of the fifth amendment, but it
really goes beyond the fifth amendment. Unfortunately,
property rights and non-point are two really tough issues
on the floor. We have not  had a good record on those.
My  boss is a  moderate  and  we  have been  really
successful with a block of moderates in making the right
tiling  happen   on  the  floor  of  the  House  of
Representatives. However, on property rights we have
lost frequently, by pretty good margins.  Same with non-
point The last non-point vote I remember on the floor
was one  to increase funding for 6217 program - the
coastal  non-point program under CZMA - and we were

If anybody has any questions, you can always feel free to
give me a call.  I am in the Washington office at (202) 225-
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999
                                                                        :•:.: i'.ii .'•-.•


                                    FRANCIS X. O'BEIRN, PH.D.
 Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
 O'Beirn.  It has been reviewed and approved by the author for

 Most are aware that oyster resources in the Chesapeake
 Bay and along the entire Atlantic seaboard have been
 greatly depleted over the last number of decades. The
 reasons for the declines are as varied as the individuals
 that offer those reasons.  Suffice it to  say, there is a
 problem and a number of agencies, both in Virginia and
 elsewhere, have been addressing it from a number of
 different perspectives.

 One such strategy has been repletion efforts or shellfish
 restoration.  This primarily takes the form of planting a
 substrate, generally on footprints of previous oyster beds,
 in the hope that oysters will naturally recruit to these areas
 and establish viable oyster populations. Fresh or fossil
 oyster shell is the preferred substrate however, other shell
 substrates (clam, whelks) have been used, with varying
 degrees of success. Such shell planting is currently being
 carried out in many states along the eastern seaboard.

 Dr. Mark Luckenbach, in his article, refers to promotion of
 oyster aquaculture as a strategy that's receiving much
 attention  in Virginia.  Aquaculture is promoted from a
 restoration perspective to take the stress off the natural
 populations. Efforts to promote aquaculture have focused
 on, 1)  the development of disease tolerant stocks, 2)
 selecting for faster growth in stocks and, 3) identifying
 areas where disease exposure is minimized and growth is
 maximized. Allied to these strategies are efforts that have
 been directed at the development of efficient and effective
culture and containment systems.
    Oyster Culture Criteria and System

    Recent efforts in developing oyster culture systems have
    focused primarily on off-bottom culture and/or suspended
    culture. The advantages of suspended culture is that the
    oysters are easier to access - individuals  avoid the
    vagaries of tlie  tides that would dictate access in on-
    bottom culture methods. In the water column, silt loading
    is  reduced and  presumably algal  concentration  is
    increased. These reasons are attributed to the observed
    faster growth in oysters in suspended culture rather than
    those kept on|the bottom.

    While investigating the potential of suspended culture
    techniques, we have operated with certain criteria in mind.
    The criteria are, 1) the system must be easy to handle and
    operate, 2) the system must afford adequate protection
    from  potential predators and outside interference and 3)
    the system  must be cost effective (this is more of a
    concern for the commercial and larger scale operators).

    A system  the that fulfills some of these  requirements is
    called the Taylor float which was designed by Jake Taylor
    at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). It's
    simple in its construction, deployment and maintenance.
    Simply put, the float is a wire mesh basket that extends
    into the water about 1 foot with a PVC collar or ring that
    acts as a float.

    Typically, the commercial people would use 8'floats and
    the non-commercial prefer the smaller 4' version.  Large
    numbers of the floats can  be secured on a long-line in a
    shallow creek or body of water where they can run parallel
    with the shoreline. This makes them somewhat discrete
    and less of a navigational hazard.  They're flexible in that
    when they're hot in use, they can be inverted with the
    basket above the water line so that any attached organism
    and plants can be dried off and removed.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

A manual has been produced (entitled An Introduction to
Culturing  Oysters  in  Virginia),  that  outlines  float
construction and culturing protocols and is available from
Virginia Institute of Marine Science.  The manual is
intended for  individuals contemplating  a commercial
startup venture as well as private individuals whose goal
Is to grow a small numbers of oysters off their dock!

Aquaculture Programs

Waterman Retraining Program

Who is culturing oysters in Virginia? Many involved in the
hard clam aquaculture industry are increasing their crop
base to Include oysters.  In addition, a waterman retraining
program, with which VIMS assisted, was sponsored by the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) on the
Eastern Shore, whereby existing watermen were trained
in the culturing of oysters. They were given the seed  and
the materials, and instruction on how to tend the oysters.
Of the original ten growers  selected^ five individuals have
continued to grow oysters. Given the success of the  first
run of this program a second program is currently
underway with  ten new watermen involved. Finally the
third group growing oysters are Oyster Gardeners.

Oyster Gardening

Oyster gardening commenced in Virginia in 1989 with a
single grower.  The first oyster gardener was a retired
surgeon,  Dr.  Armisted Williams. Former governor of
Virginia, Linwood Holton quickly became involved and has
since provided considerable moral and logistical support
for the concept. Both individuals have since worked very
closely with Dr. Mark Luckenbach to develop this program.
Oyster gardeners  are individuals who grow oysters for
non-commercial  motives.  Their reasons for  growing
oysters are varied but fall under three general categories,
 1) for their own personal consumption, 2) for restoration
 activities and, 3) for environmental benefits (or perceived
 benefits).   Another reason  is that oyster gardening
 provides a wonderful social outlet, particularly for people
within a waterfront community.

 Oyster gardeners in Virginia extend from the  Potomac
 River to the Lynnhayen River, and now can be  found on
 both sides (bay and ocean-side) of the Eastern Shore of
 Virginia.  Typically, oyster gardeners are individuals with
 waterfront property. Most  have access to a dock or fixed
 structure to which they secure their floats, mostly in a
 discrete manner,  the majority of oyster gardeners are
 either retired or semi-retired individuals. However, some
 also include the entire family in the culturing operation.
 Given the large numbers involved in oyster gardening, it
 has resulted in many adaptation of culturing technique to
               ,:            i                      I : ,„
  suit the particular grower or location. The flexibility of the
  culturing systems  and protocols,  while still a attaining
  acceptable growth and survival of the oysters, has been
  a  welcome  development  of  the  oyster  gardening


  As a brief overview, in Virginia, there are approximately
  2000 oyster gardeners. EEach individual gardener can fit
  1000-1500  oysters in a float. Most of them have more
  than one float, so if you have an inlet or water body with
  moderate to low flushing, with many oyster gardeners, you
  potentially can have a very real effect on water quality in
  the system. Also, the number of gardeners has increased
  such that they have organized themselves into a number
  of associations, based on their location. There are three
  primary ones in  Virginia.   These  oyster  growers
  associations  hold workshops where  seed  can  be
  purchased. The workshops also facilitate the construction
  of floats and also handle questions related to the culturing
  of oysters.  The interest in oyster gardening has grown so
  much that  one growers association has developed a
  master oyster gardener (MOG) program based  on  the
  horticultural  master  gardener program.    The  MOG
  program has been a great success. There are always too
  many  applicants   for the  number  of  spaces.   The
  participants undergo a week long course in oyster culture
  and maintenance, and general biology and ecology of
  oysters. However, they are committed upon completion
  of the course to be available to field questions from all
  interested parties for up 2 years after they've taken the

  Another enormous educational benefit from gardening is
  that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) -primarily all
  of their oyster activities are for restoration only - have
  trained over 200 Virginia families in the culturing oysters.
  The CBF actually sponsor the purchase of seed and the
  families will then have to give the seed back to the  Bay
   Foundation for planting on their restored reefs. Many
   families will purchase additional batches of seed, to be
   used for their own personal uses (consumption or  reef
   establishment in  their own location).  The CBF also
   sponsors their Student Oyster Corps which has trained 90
   school groups in Virginia and 40-50 in Maryland, to grow
   oysters in  floats. All of the oysters grown in this manner
   are used in conjunction with reef restoration activities.


   Oyster gardening has resulted in increased environmental
   awareness on the part of the growers.  Individuals are
   taking a greater  interest in the water their oysters are
   exposed to, or the systems within which the oysters are
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

 grown.  People's awareness of water quality issues are
 heightened. Gardening has also proven to be a wonderful
 educational tool. People are learning more about marine
 ecology and molluscan biology.  Also, for the scientific
 community, it's proven to be a valuable research tool.
 Consider that the growers encompass a wide range of
 environmental conditions, we therefore, have the luxury of
 planting stocks (and most of the gardeners are amenable
 to this) under these variable conditions. This allows us to
 select stocks  suitable for culture under  a variety of
 environmental conditions.

 One of the more important benefits to oyster gardening
 has been the tremendous agency cooperation without
 much overlap in terms of effort.  In Virginia, two state
 agencies (VIMS and VMRC), a private organization (CBF),
 and the federal government (Environmental Protection
 Agency) are all  involved in various aspects of the oyster
 culture.  There's been excellent exchange of information
 among the various groups and very little territoriality.
 Another benefit has been industrial development It has
 been estimated  that  about  10  million  seed  were
 purchased  in Virginia last year, just for gardeners, alone.
 Many hardware stores areas now supply all the materials
 for people to construct an individual float. One store in
 Virginia Beach actually sells the floats which thesy have
 constructed themselves. For people that are buying one
 or two floats, they don't mind the extra expense that they
 incur by purchasing their supplies in this manner.

 Future of Community Aquaculture

What is the future of such  community  aquaculture
 programs? The future is bright, but does faces  some
 potential pitfalls. On the positive side, such programs will
 continue  to  highlight   water   quality   issues  and
 environmental awareness on the part of the growers. The
 continued educational benefits are also apparent.

 Potential pitfalls could manifest themselves in the form of
 user conflicts associated with oyster culture, especially if
 people continue with floating structures. Objections may
surface  based on  navigational  or aesthetic concerns.
 Continued  expansion of aquaculture  activities may be
constrained by the recurrent need for seed in Virginia. To
date, a single hatchery supplies the majority of the seed
for gardening activities in Virginia. While demand has
 been met for the most part, for the program to expand the
 need for alternate source of seed is obvious. Rather than
 import oyster seed from out-of-state, it would be good to
develop more hatcheries within state.

Areas that will require further research on the part of the
managers  and  scientific  community  relate to  stock
management. We need to try to develop stocks that are
    suited to particular areas, rather than moving seed all over
    the State and risk introducing diseases from one part to
    the other,  as ;has been a  problem  previously. Further
    research should  be directed at handling and growing
    protocols.  Protocols and  systems  require continuous
    assessment and development such  that effort and cost
    can be minimized while returns (either satisfaction or
    monetary in  the  case  of commercial growers) can  be
Saturday, November 12,  1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference^

Good afternoon, I hope these remarks help re-energize
you all after the lunch break. It may seem far-afield from
Delmarva Coastal Bay issues to talk about our efforts in
Narragansett Bay. But, since this panel is about citizen
action,  I want to share with you some thoughts on our
approach to environmental advocacy that could be applied
anywhere. I am going to attempt this without slides, and
without a net, so catch me if I fall.

I have served as Narragansett BayKeeper since 1994. My
program is a part of Save The Bay, Southeastern New
England's largest non-profit environmental group focused
on protecting Narragansett Bay and its rivers. Save The
Bay has been well-established in Rhode Island since
1970, but added the BayKeeper program in  1993 to
improve   its   effectiveness   on  marine  pollution,
enforcement,  and pn-the-water issues. A Keeper is a
full-time   privately-funded  non-governmental
ornbudsperson whose special responsibility is to advocate
for a specific water body. Since the first official Keeper
program was founded on the Hudson River in 1981, more
than 40 now exist throughout the United States and
internationally, and the movement is growing.

Whethera Keeper acts as an independent organization or
as  pa'rt of a larger non-profit environmental group, the
objectives and activities of each program are similar:
• To respond to citizen complaints about pollution and
  environmental mismanagement, and to act promptly
  and responsibly to remedy the problems.
• Leading direct advocacy and  community organizing
  efforts for improved environmental laws, regulations,
  and to minimize or eliminate the impacts of specific
  development proposals.
• The   use   of  citizen  lawsuits for   environmental
  enforcement and compliance.
• Establishing a visible presence on the water,  and
  serving  as a local  expert and spokesperson for the
  water body.
  Keeper programs also serve as public clearing houses of
  environmental information about their water bodies. The
  Keeper approach has been highly successful to date, with
  an impressive docket of legal victories against polluters,
  major environmental policy changes, and countless local
  achievements for their respective water bodies. Perhaps
  most significantly, Keeper programs have reinvigorated
  communities to become stewards of their rivers and
  coastal waters - to care for these places and to recognize
  the importance of clean healthy waters to our quality of

  Much  of  this  conference  so far  has focused  on
  characterizing ecological trends and  the implications of
  these observations for management.  A Keeper program
  is one effective way to translate scientific knowledge
  about the ecological health of a water body into direct
  action. When we  receive  a  pollution  complaint,  we
  typically head out into the field to investigate it, document
  it through photos and video, sampling and analysis, and
  report it to the appropriate agencies along with a request
  for action. We will  then follow up on the complaint to
  ensure that the agency has taken appropriate action.  If
  they have not, we bring pressure in  a number of ways.
  First, we  will  elevate the  issue to a higher  level of
  government,  and give the  agencies an opportunity to
  ; respond. Where that fails, we will generally bring the issue
  to the attention of the media, elected officials, and the
  public. If this fails, and the problem remains  a significant
  threat, we may take legal action.

  It is also common for citizens to seek our assistance with
  proposed development projects. Here, we do our best to
  understand the issues and to advise communities on how
  to  prevent  pollution  and  irresponsible construction,
  dredging, filling, dumping, etc. One of the reasons I was
  invited to address  this conference is that a number of
  groups in this region have expressed interest in starting
   Keeper programs, and want to know more about this.  A
 De/marva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

number of you who I have spoken with have expressed
frustration over the  lack of progress  on pollution and
conservation  issues  through  existing  government
programs in this region. While the role of government in
environmental research and protection is stronger here
than perhaps anywhere else in the country, mainy have
expressed the need for a non-governmental advocate to
serve as an independent third-party to keep the pressure
on existing programs. Where there are problems with
overly-bureaucratic or complacent  regulatory agencies,
and  where   citizens  are  not  getting  the  kind  of
responsiveness they expect from their agencies, a Keeper
can help.

Today, the environmentally-concerned public is faced with
increasing pressure from all  directions to compromise
conservation and protection standards in the interest of
"economic  progress"  or   to  reach  middle-ground
accommodations with developers and industry. Terms like
"customer friendly"  and "  permit streamlining"  are
becoming part of the  vernacular  of  environmental
agencies nationwide.

Let me say this: Be careful!  Be careful with what you
have, and what you trade  away. Let's remember that,
ultimately, we have the right and the power to choose the
kind of river or coastal bay we want. We can choose to
have waters that are clean and healthy, that are safe for
swimming and fishing everywhere. We  can choose to
assert our right to participate in coastal management,
policy and planning.  We  can hold  government and
industry accountable for pollution, and spur the actions
needed for positive change. It is not enough to resly on the
work of others to protect the coast, or to expect s>cientists
and  policy makers to determine what is best. You must
decide what you want and work for it, because  inertia
favors the status quo and inaction will inevitably mean
further losses.

The Keeper approach is only one way to strengthen
coastal  advocacy  and  protection,  and  we  do  not
evangelize. There are many effective and successful
non-governmental environmental groups that do this kind
of work without a formal Keeper program. It is important
that the approach be focused, sustainable, and  locally
specific. But, for those of you who have expressed interest
in starting Keeper programs, I would certainly be happy to
help out, and to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
 Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                          STEVE PARKER
Note; The following document Is a transcription of the presentation by Mr.
Parker. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for publication.

One important principle of ecotourism is less is more.
There are probably some gurus here in the audience who
know a whole lot more about ecotourism than I do, but we
have looked at it down at the Virginia Coast Reserve. The
travel business is the largest industry in the world. The
fastest growing segment of the world's largest business is
ecotourism,  or  nature-based  tourism or  sustainable
tourism or low  impact  tourism or adventure tourism.
Nobody Is quite sure what to call this phenomenon. There
is an international non-profit organization set up serving
that part of the business, called the Ecotourism Society.
They have over 1600 members representing 66 countries
and 55 different professions.  So it is a real business, it is
a big business and it is a growing business.

While definitions are hard to agree on, this type of travel
is   described as  providing  visitor  access   to, and
interpretation of, significant natural, historical, and/or
cultural sites with a strong educational component that
serves |p protect aridenhance those sites and resources,
while sustainably  benefiting local  peoples  and their

I am here to talk about a local organization that has grown
Op from grassroots here on the Delmarva.  The focus has
been  initially in Worcester  County.  It is called the
tielmarya  Low Impact Tourism Experience. It is a non-
profit group organized to devise and implement locally
appropriate policies, practices arid protocols, and ethics
for nature and culture based tourism operations in this
region. The two key points here is it is business driven,
and it is local operators who are involved, joining together
to  come  up with  guidelines  and  ideas  of what is
appropriate for the natural and cultural resources of this
   Ecotourism has taken a lot of criticism, and a lot of it, from
   my experience, quite appropriately. Is an airplane ride
   over the Grand Canyon ecotourism? It's debatable. Is 10
   per day ecotourism, or is 100 per day a nuisance? It has
   been characterized by critics as simply being a marketing
   gambit that disrupts indigenous communities, harms the
   environment,  and  exports  profits  to  international
   corporations. And believe me, that is occurring and does

   There is not a lot of agreement on what various terms
   mean on a global level between practitioners, promoters,
   and local people. There is a lot of controversy over what
   constitutes  sustainable  practices, and  how the local
   community, which is the key to this concept,  gains
   economic benefit.  On the other hand, if you are talking
   about such a locally placed-based phenomenon as low
   impact tourism (it occurs in a specific place at a specific
   time), I am not sure it is possible to come up with widely
   accepted definitions.

   DLITE was created  as a  grassroots,  market-driven
   approach  to protect  Delmarva's unique cultural and
   natural resources through) training  and voluntary policing.
   We have gone back  and forth between the need for
   regulations and the desirability for market-driven and
   voluntary  solutions to problems  of local ecosystems,
   particularly in the coastal bays area. I think it takes both.
   Having local businesses step up  and say we know this
   resource needs to be protected, we need to agree how to
   do it and agree about what is appropriate to accomplish
   that goal, is a major step forward. The power of locally
   vested economic self-interest in resource protection and
   the intimate contact and knowledge these operators have
   of each other and the resources,  and the willingness of
   operators  to formally agree to a common  mission
   statement, operating principles, and code of ethics, should
   be  an effective approach  to  creating  a  financially
Delmarva's Coastal jlays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

significant local travel industry that is in harmony with its
environment and beneficial to the local community.

There are three types of participants in the organization,
currently all volunteer.  One type are providers of various
services and goods for low impact tourism. Another are
members who are actually customers of these providers
and users of the  services. And the third are supporters.
People or businesses that don't quite fit the criteria as a
provider,  but  are  interested in  seeing this  concept
expanded and cultivated here on the Delmarva.

The  mission of Delmarva LITE is to promote the low
impact use of Delmarva's  natural and cultural resources
to enhance local economies and to ensure preservation of
our quality of life. In addition, there are principles and a
code of ethics that operators or providers of services are
assigning and agreeing on. Low impact tourism can play
an important role. It can  bring  some benefits to a local
community, both in terms of economic benefits and the
simple idea of uniting humanity with the rest of nature.
Mark Koenings said today that we are all stewards, and
this is a way on  a very grassroots level, to  spread the
word, to spread the knowledge and the information about
how important a healthy, functioning ecosystem is to this
coastal  bay community.

A second advantage, is the economic clout on local land
and water management practices.  Working for the Nature
Conservancy, I show up at a meeting, and everyone pretty
much knows what my agenda is and what I am looking to
do. Having a group of 10,15 or 50 local business* people
show up at a meeting and talk about land use planning
that might protect a seaside farm, or might influence how
dredge  spoils are handled, or other issues that were
brought up at this meeting, I think would carry a lot of clout
and get a much better audience.  As for economic clout,
eight million visitors come to Ocean City every year.  In
terms of low impact tourism, if you could get  those eight
million visitors to spend one extra  day, during which they
spend $100, you're looking at an increase of $800 million
per year in this local economy.  By extending the visitation
one day on either side of a visit, people go out to E&erlin, or
Snow Hill, or the Pocomoke River, or the other amazing
assets that are here, cultural and natural. That is what the
potential  market impact is.   You spread it around
Worcester County and neighboring states of Virginia and
Delaware.  This would help a lot of local businesses.

A last benefit to the local community is that if you are
going to save the world, you ought to have fun doing it.
Nature tourism, low impact tourism is fun. I went to check
out of my hotel room here this morning and took a look out
the balcony and  there were a small pod of bottle-nosed
dolphin going past my balcony.   I spent five minutes
watching them, doing some low impact tourism. The rule
   needs to be resource protection comes first. Without the
   resource, as my mother used to say, if you eat the chicken
   you're not  going to collect many eggs.  I think thafs a
   good business principle. On an education level, we need
   to think about replacing short-term greed with long-term
   greed where we are spending the interest and not the
   principal. I thihk this Delmarva LITE organization has a
   great potential for this area.  It is business-based, it is
   resource driven, and the people who have worked so hard
   on establishing it should be proud.


   Could you give me an example of what is a low impact
   tourist package? What would they include? Yourlooking
   out the window here is a perfect example except that this
   building itself is a tremendous environmental impact.

   Let me address that about this building. It was interesting
   to me that when you check in they have  this little thing to
   put your key iri when you go into the room and when you
   take it out, it shuts all the electricity down. That is done for
   energy saving'purposes. They make a nice speech about
   the environment, but it also saves them a lot of money.  It
   is a good idea, it is good for business and it's good for the
   environment. Some other things that they could do here-
   soap dispensers. You have 15 little bars of soap around
   your room, and if you get them wet, they throw the rest of
   it out. Soap dispensers are commonly used, they would
   save quite a number of bars of soap, and again would
   save them money. Towels and sheets.  I shouldn't admit
   this but at  home, I don't wash my sheets everyday and I
   don't wash my towels every day and hotels don't need to
   do that either.: And again I think it would be profitable for
   them to do that and it would also make customers feel like
   they were doing something.  How many hotel rooms are
   there in Ocean City? 10000? Every gallon of water or bar
   of soap that we save, multiply by 10000.  It makes  a

   As far as low impact tourism, it could be anything. It could
   be a trip to Furnacetown. It could be a walking tour of
   Berlin. It could be a canoe ride down the Pocomoke or a
   kayak ride in the surf here. Essentially, the concept is that
   it's not consumptive. You don't use anything while you do
   it. And it's very, very low impact. The slogan is "Only take
   pictures, only leave footprints", but it relates to everything
   that's cultural, historical, and natural. It is a very broad
   definition,  and again, not always agreed upon amongst
   people.      :
 Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III


                                 AND SUZANNE SCHWARTZ7
                                     PANEL DISCUSSION
/Vote: Tha following document Is a transcription of the panel discussion.

Cooksey: I would like to also introduce Gwynne Schultz.
Gwynne is the person who helped me cajole all these
people to spend their Saturday in Ocean City, to help us
set the stage for what is to come.  Gwunne and I kicked
around the purpose of the conference and where we
hoped to go from there. A lot of people wanted to have
the three  governors from  Delaware,  Maryland,  and
Virginia, and the administrator of the National  Ocean
Service here during this conference, to sign a tri-state
agreement.  Gwynne and I, who know how difficult it is to
get one governor to attend anything, thought that if we are
going to make that happen, then we are really going to
have to show them what we are all about. We hope that
this panel will set some type of framework so that in the
pear future, a year or perhaps in two years, we could get
all those participants here. We hope this will help set the
stage for what we want to do on the Delmarva peninsula
and that they would help us implement it. I am going to
come out of the closet here and say that I am one of those
people who likes regulations. Regulations make my job
a lot easier. And I think that if they are fair and reasonable
it is good for business.

Our first question of the panel asks what each panelist's
organization can bring to bear in terms of action items to
better manage our coastal bays. We have heard some
ideas both yesterday and today. We have heard about
fisheries management plans. We have talked about the
financial piece of this. 1 mentioned regulations.  What I
am taking away from this is what Sarah Taylor-Rogers
said this morning.  That we are on a long walk together.
I think we have a long way to go,  but I think we can get
   What can your organization or business bring to bear in
   terms of action items to better manage these coastal

   Jackson: Normally, I don't go into much background on
   NOAA because my audience is familiar with it. But I
   talked to a few people here who either don't know what
   NOAA is or don't know what OCRM is - Office of Coastal
   and Resource Management. So I'll take a few minutes
   and orient you.

   The National Oceanic arid Atmospheric Administration is
   part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.  Unknown to
   most people, it is the largest part of the Department of
   Commerce and the biggest part of its budget.  It includes
   five large areas including the National Weather Service
   where you get your weather and your Doppler.  We have
   a satellite service,  ocean  and atmospheric research,
   NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) which I am
   1  Delaware Coastal Management Program, 89 Kings
     Highway, Dover, DE 19901
   2  Worcester County Commissioner,  One W.  Market
     Street, Room 112, Snow Hill, MD 21863
   3  Bay Shore Development Corp., PO Box 572, Ocean
     City, MD 21843
   4  NOAA Office  of  Ocean  and  Coastal  Resource
     Management, 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4, Silver
     Spring, MD20910
   5  Delaware State Representative, RD2, Box 120, Millville,
     DE 19970
   6  DNR  Division  of Fisheries, 580 Taylor Avenue, B-2,
     Annapolis, MD 21401
   7  U.S. EPA Ocean and Coastal Protection Division, 401
     M Street, SW (4504^ Washington, DC 20460
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

sure you are all familiar with, and then  we have the
National Ocean Service. My office is located within the
National Ocean Service (NOS). There are a number of
different offices, in addition to mine, that can help states
in your situation such as our Science Center and the
Coastal Services Center in South Carolina.

Our mission at NOS is ocean stewardship, information
management and leadership.  Dr. Nancy Foster is the
assistant administrator for NOS and OCRM is one of its
six main areas.  Within OCRM, we are divided into three
divisions.   Marine  Sanctuaries  Division has  twelve
sanctuaries located around the country, some very large
like Florida Keys and Monterey Bay, and othesrs  very
discrete, like the Monitor off of North Carolina.  We also
have the Coastal Programs Divisions that work with your
states, the Coastal Zone Management Program which has
been in  existence for over 25 years,  and  the Estuarine
Research Reserve Division which is  growing.  We.had
three new reserves that came online this year.

The issues that you have talked about since I have been
here are ones that we deal with in some very real ways on
a daily basis. I have been asked to talk about ways in
which we could work together and look towards the future.
A lot of the future depends on funding, so some of this
may be pie in the sky, but it is at least worth talking about.
Then maybe we can move more funding down the line to
implement some of this.

One area in which we presently work and will continue to
work is the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP).
Under that program your states' programs are funded on
a yearly basis. In addition, states have a great deal to say
about what happens in their coastal zone  as a result of
having a program and being part of the Coastal Zone
Management Program. One of the key areas in which the
CZMP has been involved recently is called  Section 6217.
It is a non-point source pollution program.  Several years
ago, Congress   bid that EPA and NOAA would work
together with the coastal zone management regimes from
the states and come up with programs to reduce non-point
source pollution from a myriad  of sources,  based on
scientific measures that EPA developed.  It has  been a
long process, but we have approved, additionally from all
the states in the program, a non-point source plan. We
are in the process of working with those states to satisfy
those conditions and fully approve those plans. It appears
that Maryland is likely to be the very first states to get
unconditional approval and I applaud you for that.  I hope,
once that is done, to celebrate  with you and  make it
known, because this is an area  that is contentious on
Capitol Hill, and we would like to let people know as many
success stories as possible. Perhaps it could turn the tide
on some of the upcoming budget negotiations.
   Another area where we can be helpful is enhancing the
   local management capacity. You are basically looking at
   some big problems here and some of what we do, not just
   within OCRM,  but other areas of NOAA such as the
   Coastal Services Center, is meet with people to figure out
   what the problems and the issues are, then figure out
   what resources we can bring to bear, everything from our
   science office to our  GIS capabilities.  Sometimes we
   have training sessions on GIS, so people can look at how
   to address  specific  issues  such as public  access,
   sustainable recreational use, and planning for tourism
   impacts by looking at GIS maps showing various present

   NOAA really does a wide range of things - everything from
   weather service to fishing and everything inbetween, and
   one of the things we do as well, is surveying. We survey
   the oceans and we also do  nautical  and  aeronautical
   chartings.  Along the nautical realm, we could work with
   you to  make up-to-date charts, especially of the inland
   bays, to put things on the charts that aren't customarily
   there that may be of  help to you.  It may be third party
   information regarding where things are, or the impact that
   they have, that could  be put on a chart that would be of
   importance to you  locally. We certainly are willing to talk
   to you about such issues and see what we can do to help
   you. In the long run, it helps us as well.

   Another capability that NOAA has is photogrammetry. We
   have a division that basically overflies the coast and takes
   photogrammetric  readings.   We  can find out   what
   overflights we have of these areas and when they are
   going to do more, or if there are certain areas that could
   be targeted, or have pictures taken at a certain definition
   or something that would help in terms  of science or that
   would help your efforts.

   NOS has an Office of Habitat Restoration, as part of
   OR&R (Office of Resource and Restoration).  There are
   two areas that we work in quite often. The NOS  office
   works with situations like the Exxon Valdez and  much
   smaller spills, trying  to restore the environment.  The
   NMFS office concentrates on fisheries  in some relatively
   small areas and how to bring them back.

   Last, but not least, a reiteration of what Billy Causey said
   on marine zoning.  Because of the sanctuary program, we
   do have experience in marine zoning. Not only in Florida,
   but also in Monterey Bay, where we zoned the use of jet
   skis and successfully stood the legal challenge -  both the
   district court and the court of appeals.

   These are some areas where we have experience. We
   would be happy to work with  you or talk to you  about
   them. We learn from  you and hopefully, you will be able
   to learn from us as well.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Schwaab: I am here to represent the fisheries perspective
on  these  future actions, but I  will just make a  few
comments briefly about some of the things that we see on
the horizon. Let me start with an overview of the fisheries
mana§ement planning process.  There are essentially
three levels that we deal with.  We do  state fishery
management plans for a number of species. That is an
autho3ty that is proyidei to us under the legislature.  We
also vijork with, for example, the other Chesapeake  Bay
states under the  auspices  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay
Program to develop joint fishery management plans with
these partners. That is a situation that could be applicable
here. Then, finally, we work as members of the Atlantic
States  Marine  Fisheries  Commission  to  develop
management plans for migratory stocks that range up and
down the coast I think it is important to understand those
different levels to  understand the basic framework in
which we manage fish species.
      !,;•!! •  ,,, 	   "';,nv,  ii,',',!!!!"*,     .             ,        ', .

One of the first steps that we have taken on the Maryland
coastal bays was the establishment of a local fisheries
ddvisory committee. We could use that committee as the
basis for the development of some specific management
plans for species that are important to this area. Many of
the  species,  even  within  Maryland,  that we have
management  plans  for are  predominantly  on  the
Chesapeake Bay. The management is focused on where
the bulk of those species are. there are often some very
distinct differences here that warrant the development of
separate management plans. We envision undertaking
that Iffid of approach with  this local  fisheries advisory
committee.  I believe there might come a time when it
might be appropriate for us to develop joint management
plans Jn conjunction with the other states involved in the
coastal bays. Certainly the governors of the states could
agree to undertake a planning effort of that sort as they
have done in the Chesapeake Bay model.

With respect  to the Atlantic States  Marine Fisheries
Commission,  often  we  work  together   within  the
Chesapeake Bay stateslo carry forward our Chesapeake
Bay agenda to the management planning process at
ASMFC. That can be done with the coastal bays as well.
With that being the framework, I just wanted to mention
that there are some real  opportunities for us to work
specifically on species here to accomplish that.

There are a couple of things on the horizon that we are
seeing generally, in  relation to fisheries  management
planning.  First of ail, traditionally we  built management
plans on a species by species approach. There is a lot of
interest now in developing multi-species  management
plans that might take  into account trophic levels and
predator-prey relationships where one species or multiple
species are interdependent. Single species management
plans stop short of doing the full job. We are spending a
   lot of time right now on the Chesapeake Bay talking about
   menhaden. The menhaden fishery is important in its own
   right, but it is also an important prey species for striped
   bass.  So  there is a lot of interest in exploring those
   relationships  in the fisheries management  planning
   process.  There  are also many by-catch  implications
   where there is a target species, and ancillary species are
   being affected by that fishery.  Those are the things that
   fall under the context of this multi-species management
   planning process.

   There are also, beyond multi-species, ecosystem based
   implications that we  are beginning to explore with the
   fisheries management planning  process.   Things like
   habitat  considerations.  Set-asides for environmental
   goals.  Menhaden  are filter feeders  and their  mere
   presence in bur waters has the same kind of  effect as
   might have clams or oysters with  respect to filtering and
   cleaning the water. Those are the kinds of considerations
   we are talking about.  Making sure we have stocks that
   are of a sufficient size to satisfy those ecological needs
   first are issues that are going to  be  on  the horizon.
   Related to that are the SAV  issues and the sanctuary
   concept that we heard mentioned here earlier today.

   I will also mention something that I think is going to be a
   fairly prominent part of the discussion on the coastal bays,
   particularly as we get further into this water use plan. It
   was brought up earlier by several of the presenters and
   was the focus of several of the presentations - the whole
   issue of aquaculture.  Aquaculture, among other things, is
   an alternative  economic opportunity for  some of the
   fishermen that might be involved now in commercial catch
   of wild specimens. That is something that we envision to
   be a subject of further discussion as well.

   Finally, we haven't really formulated any kind of position
   on it, but  there  is considerable interest,  beyond  the
   fisheries  advisory  committee at  the  local  level,  in
   establishing some  sort of local commission or local
   authority to  essentially separate out  some  of  these
   management   decisions  from  decisions  related  to
   Chesapeake Bay management of species.  That is
   something I think is going to continue to be talked about
   in the coming months and years.

   Lynch: The thrust of this, as we have said, is cooperation
   between the three entities to restore and protect coastal
   bays. Let's fast forward to 2099. The population  of the
   world in 2099 is  12 billion, maybe  more.   It took us all
   human history to the year  1800 to reach a population of
   one billion. Another 100 years to reach two billion.  50
   years later we reached three billion. Only 25 years later,
   we reached four billion. In 1985, only 10 years later, we
   reached five billion.  And recently, the world just topped
   out at six billion and people were celebrating. So you do
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

the math. Where will we be in another 100 years?  How
many people are we going to have in the coastal  bays
watershed - Maryland, Virginia, Delaware?  In Worcester
County, we doubled our population from 1975, and the
figures are projecting another 20,000 people within the
next 20 years.

What does this do to consumption? How many clams do
you need?  How many rockfish, how many flounder are
going to be needed to satisfy the appetites of so many?
Common sense tells us we really need to begin to  work
together more, and I think more management decisions
need to be made jointly. So here are a couple of practical
solutions or suggestions.

This conference tried to get the governors of each of the
states to come here and that is difficult for them at this
particular point in time.  So we  need to try another
approach, and that is from the bottom up.  That takes
more time, but it usually works.  If we can form alliances
among ourselves - the inland bays, the coastal bays, if we
can encourage Virginia  to get some funds and to do
something there, and if the citizens advisory committees
get involved, we have a much better chance. There is a
proposal for Wallops Island that will bring, if it happens,
4000 jobs to this area.  They are  talking about private
satellite launches at Wallops, and they can do it cheaper
at Wallops  than they can about anywhere else in the
country. Four thousand jobs in a very short time.  Twelve
thousand people. How many of them in the coastal bays
watershed?  A bunch.

Let's also concentrate on the data that we really need.  I
heard a lot of talk yesterday about data, data, data. We
didn't have this and we didn't have that. Let's concentrate
on what we really need and let's make sure thai it is in a
form that all jurisdictions can use together - you can put
it in your computer and you can analyze it and determine
what it means to you.  If Virginia is doing something, what
does  it mean  to Maryland and what does it mean to

We can have joint meetings of implementation groups and
staffs.  Not every month, maybe not even  every quarter,
but at least let's try to get together once or twice a year to
discuss progress, to discuss what the needs are, and
network  among colleagues  and  state  and  federal

Let's try to make a policy, where it is appropriate,  that we
will accept  the consensus  of the preponderance of
evidence of scientists.  That is tough, but let's try it.  How
many years have we been talking about global warming
and sea level rise and all of the sudden it is happening.
Cpuld we have reacted sooner? I don't know. But do we
need to try out every thesis of every fringe group and wait
   years for their answers?  I don't think we have the time.
   Not when you look at the tide line and we are going to get
   more billions of people.  If we are wrong, we are wrong.
   But if we subscribe to the maxim of "do no harm" to begin
   with, which I think we also need to do, then that can't hurt.
   It can help. It can cut years off of decisions.

   Let us manage for sustainability of the species. Let that
   be the driving factor. Where we displace people, we need
   to try to accommodate them in other paths, as has been
   mentioned before in aquaculture. Or train them to do
   some of the monitoring. We need to live off the interest,
   not squander, the principle.  Let's get our stocks back up
   to where we get some interest out of them.  Right now, on
   some of these things,  we don't even know if we have
   principle left.

   I think we also need to include and examine some of the
   socio-economic issues.  I just want to say a quick word
   about enforcement. I think that when something is wrong,
   it is wrong. Enforcement needs to be swift, it needs to be
   consistent, and it needs to be fair.

   Then let's reevaluate next year.  Let's set a date and
   reevaluate. I idon't mean we have to have another whole
   conference, but let's get some people together and look at
   where we are on this. Let's do the steps to get there. As
   Bill Matuszeski said the other day, complex issues, simple
   answers. I didn't agree with everything he said, but here
   are some simple things.  They seem simple, I know they
   are complex, but let's try.

   Jenkins: Most everything  that I would have said has
   already been said. Being a business man, I tend to go to
   the bottom line and look at the root cause of things. My
   friend Jeanne, just hit on the root cause. The root cause
   is people and too few resources. That is the bottom line.
   Given that as a problem, they are here, we are not going
   to get rid of them, it is a fact of life.  It does no good to talk
   about some failed policies of the past. What we have to
   learn to do is to take that challenge and create positive
   things from some things that are very negative.

   Now I have always believed in a great mathematician and
   philosopher, and I have never seen one formula that he
   talked about constantly, ever fail. That is, for every action
   there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Nothing goes up
   without coming down.  Nothing is ever empty without
   getting refilled.  There is always an action and an opposite
   and equal reaction. So if we, in the name of conservation,
   in the name of protecting natural resources, expect to
   fulfill our goals and our missions, we very simply have to
   give something back in return.

   In order for that to happen, there has to be an adaptation
   process. Many of our scientists talk about adaptation.  It
Saturday, November 12,  1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Is the ability of the marshes to grow and the ability of the
jprestsjo rrjove, the ability of the plant kingdom to change,
the ability of the animal  kingdom to adapt, to  ever
changing outside conditions.  We have people changes
that need to occur, and those occurrences can happen
th rough the type of organization that I have become a
spokesperson for - Delmarva LITE (Low Impact Tourism
Experiences). If we are going to have a natural resource
and if we wantthe public to use that natural resource, and
If we want the public to become educated about that
natural resource, then what we must do is have the public
experience that natural resource.

If we wantthis movement to stay sustained into the future,
we have to bring all the diverse and adversarial  groups
into th|s movement.  Currently, the adversarial  groups
would be business types and special interest groups that
live  in fear primarily because of ignorance,  but also
because they haven't been brought into the process in the
properway.  Delmarva LITE is making an effort to  bring in
providers. Providers could be a hotelier, such as me, or
a man that owns a" charter fishing boat or a kayak canoe
operator or a bicycle tour operator or a tour agent, where
they use the environment, with qualifications or controls,
in  a low impact way, and make money by doing it.

Now what does this do?  It takes the vast population that
has  no awareness of what you in this room have an
awareness of - to become experienced with riding a bike
on a bike trail. In Maryland we have developed some nice
bike trails.  It lets them have the experience of taking a
kayak or a canoe trip. We have developed water trails
and we are continuing to do that. Marc Koenings has
someone helping us develop one for Worcester County
where you can have the most exciting kayak experience
of your life.  You can go across Chincoteague Bay and
tour those beautiful creeks and sloughs on Assateague
Island and return. We have developed a system of inns
and hQtets. And we fiave done ail th|s in under a year.
 We have accomplished it by taking a diverse group of
 people   -political   representatives,   agencies
 representatives, business owners.  We all met in one
 room and we thrashed and beat meeting after meeting to
 refocus them - to let them be a cohesive unit.  Because
 we are one part of a chain.  Everybody in this room and
 every speaker that you Hive heard over the last two days
 represents a part of the chain. A link, if you will. What we
 must do is take thai link that we represent as Delmarva
 LITE and use it for an educational experience.
 ;'«  ........ f i   •     '  jtiiiij  i ifjji , i"    i     •...'•       ,;  ,

 There is a reason that this group is now totaling 300,
 instead of 150-200 last year.  You can thank General
 Motors and Chrysler Corporation because today they are
 producing in excess of 50% of the vehicles in the forms of
 vans and trucks and 4-wheel drives.  They have created
  an awareness of back-to-nature for profit.  Many people
  are in this room today because subliminally, they have
  gotten the message.  You can thank your travel agents.
  Subliminally, they have given you the message that when
  you see that cruise ship with the beautiful girl in the bikini
  sitting on the beach, you want to get on it.  It is carrying
  you to an ecological destination. It could be Costa Rica or
  the Galapagos Islands.  It could be anywhere.  So we
  have this great movement now, that has exploded. In my
  lifetime, I have never seen a movement like this explode
  this fast. Everybody is getting on board.  Steve Parker
  talked about  ecotourism. What we have to do is take
  each link of these chains,  forge them together, have a
  cohesive unit, and protect the resource, because all we
  have to offer is the resource.

  Delmarva LITE is not just Worcester County.  The vision
  that I have for Delmarva LITE is a vision that runs from
  Delaware,  linked with  inns, bicycle  paths, canoe
  operators, that will allow  you to come through Maryland,
  go through Virginia and to North Carolina - an East Coast
  vision.   If you want, it can run all the way to the
  Appalachians.  A vision where it is  run by a group of
  people  that have a mission and a quality goal and a
  quality standard of ethics. We will get those providers, if
  you have a standard seal of approval, that requires quality
  on your part.

  We are beginning Phase 2 of Delmarva LITE. We have
  had a very productive year.   We have 20 great board
  members,  we are  increasing membership, we  have
  received exposure, we have a web site.  I would give us
  a 9 out of 10 for that effort. Our next phase is where you
  roll your sleeves up and you go to work, and that is going
  to be the real task. That task is to increase membership.
  We need hundreds and hundreds of members.  Why?
  Linkage. If we can get a member in Delmarva LITE, we
  have him where we want him, because then we can send
  him a  newsletter.    We  can  keep him  abreast of
  environmental issues.  We can show him how he can
  have a good time with his family and how he can be a part
  of  it.  We can take that  list and use it to entice the
  providers to come in and become a part of this operation.
    The vision is there. There is no reason we can't sweep
  the entire East Coast. We are all links in the chain, and
  we have to be ever mindful of the big picture above all.

   Price: I want to share with you something that we are
  doing in Delaware.   It started in 1998 when there was
   request for rezoning on a very small body of water in the
   Oceanview area called the Salt Pond. It is pretty pristine
   compared to what most of our inland bays are like and as
   the state representative, I got involved in this process
   because  I  was concerned  about impacts  on the
  waterways.  What I  found  is that  while  I waited for
   somebody, either the sitate or the county,  to address
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

through  the  processes  we   have  in   place,  the
environmental standards that needed to be met in order
for that  commercial development  to  occur, it  never
happened. And that bothers me.  Especially this past
year, we spent a  lot  of  time  in Delaware with  the
agricultural community dealing with TMDLs. We were
concerned about toxic pfiesteria outbreaks.  The process
just wasn't in place. So I began to talk to people to try and
put together a plan to make it be in place.  That's why I
would like House Resolution 32.

This resolution  was drafted as a combined effort with
DNREC and the Office of State Planning to help us put
together   a  technical   team  of  people  to   make
recommendations to some members  of the General
Assembly (including myself and  my colleague to  the
North, John Schroeder), about what we could address to
make sure that we did everything that we could do as non-
agricultural stake holders in the inland bays watershed to
improve water quality.

When we first began I told them I am not a scientist.  I
certainly am a user of the resource and I hope that I am a
careful one. I have in my mind some things that we need
to address, but  I want those people within the state and
within the communities, to work together to explores issues
and put together an agenda of items that we can look at
and  assess where they fall. So we put together  the
Sussex County government officials, and representatives
from  the  Department  of Agriculture and  various
departments of DNREC. We included the Sussex County
Association   of  Towns  because   we  wanted   the
municipalities in the inland bays area  to buy-in to  the
importance of this and hopefully adopt recommendations
on the local level if necessary. The Center for the Inland
Bays, which has the ability to research items and give us
information, was also involved.

We are also dealing with a lot of land use issues in the
state and the  Office of State Planning Coordination also
became a member of  this team.   The idea and  the
concept was to develop changes in the land use process
and  to  investigate  and estimate the environmental
improvements that would come with these changes. We
started meeting in September and we have been meeting
every 2 or 3 weeks. We have been exploring issues and
I want to share some of the things we have been talking

We are talking about density. Density is  real important in
the inland bays area.  One controversy that has been
going on is that a couple of years ago  our inland bays
area was considered a development zone by the county
for the purposes of securing funding for sewer and water.
But just the mind set that we call it a development zone,
lends itself to that.
    We are looking at issues associated with septic systems,
    particularly cesspools (which we know we have a good
    many of in the inland bays watershed area), and the fact
    that maybe if you sell your property and it has a cesspool
    on it, you have to agree to a different system. We are
    looking at holding tanks. Apparently there is a problem.
    Most of us aren't on central water, so it is hard to measure
    what is going; in.  People are required to pump them
    periodically and they are not doing it. They are doing the
    "midnight dippfer" kind of thing where they pump the gray
    water out into a ditch and we don't have any way to
    monitor that.  But you  know that if somebody is only
    pumping it once or twice a year that maybe they are doing
    something else with the effluent.

    We are looking  at buffer areas.  In the Rhode Island
    report, it was mentioned that a 200 ft. buffer zone could
    reduce  80% of the nutrient going into the inland bays.
    That  is  an area  for which  we  formed a  separate
    subcommittee consisting of an attorney and some of the
    technical people.  We looked at environmental impact
    statements.  Newcastle County has recently adopted a
    program where  they  require those.    You  do  an
    assessment of the environmental qualities of the piece of
    land and come,back with some specific recommendations
    that have to be followed.

    We are also looking at what things should be county, what
    things should be state, and what things should be done by
    regulation. We are going to examine all these issues and
    try to figure out who is  best suited to implement them.
    When the CCMP was adopted, it was like a  wish  list.
    There are things  in it that if they had been implemented,
    would have led to better water quality and a better quality
    of life in the inland bays area today. They weren't. So, we
    will make recommendations and do what we  can on  a
    local level because that is how we think it is best to do it.
    But, if that doesn't happen this time, then I think we will go
    ahead and try to do it legislatively.

    There are several things that I believe are going to make
    this work legislatively. It is going to work because we are
    specifically talking about the inland bays watershed, not
    the whole state.  We are determined to bite off a small
    corner where we can make the most difference. I think
    the timing is ] right.  We  have seen the agriculture
    community in Delaware struggle with their share of the
    burden and it is time for the rest of us to ante  up too.  I
    have  a large  group   of  environmentally  sensitive
    constituents who, I am hopeful, will help lobby for changes
    that have to be made because we have an interest in the
    quality of life issues.  I hope that my determination and
    that of my colleague John Schroeder will help  push this
    issue further.  One of the little assets is that a lot of my
    colleagues in the General Assembly have summer places
    in the inland bays watershed area.  They have shared
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

their concerns about where we might be going with the
zest for development on the eastern side of our state. We
go back in session in the middle of January and we hope
to have something soon.  It is not important that we hit a
deadline, it is important that we do it right.

Schwartz:     In  my responsibilities  at  EPA,  I  am
responsible for programs that are regulatory in nature,
programs like the National Estuary Program that are local
and consensus based in nature, and voluntary programs
that we are making up as we go along because the other
two types of programs don't seem to address what needs
to be addressed. I am a believer in a good  mix of all of
those things, the comprehensive picture. It is very hard to
get everything covered with one program or another.

I would like to make a couple of basic points.  First, that
the National Estuary Program and  the other related
programs we  have  at EPA  and some of the other
agencies have as well, are a really good basis for coming
together on Delmarva'scoastal environment. Two of the
National Estuary Programs are in the Delmarva bays -the
Maryland Coastal Bays and the Delaware Inland Bays.  I
do  have to say that you all should be proud of both of
them of course, but particularly the Maryland Coastal Bays
which was first iq jts class of seven National Estuary
Programs to get their plan approved by EPA. They moved
quickly and did a good job and we think they are on target.
I am really excited to see this kind of conference, to see
the momentum continuing and perhaps see the impacts of
the two NEPs expanding beyond just the scope of those
specific action items and plans.
     	;   ,   ' ;• '"i,!"   s1;"1  -:;	•;•  • '.. •'  ":, "•   :;    •   ,';,,;
I know there has been a lot of talk about trying to move
forward on a tri-state plan. I would recommend to people
to  look at the  two  Comprehensive  Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMP) that were developed for the
framework.  I think, while you do need a lot of site specific
 research and you need to know as much as you can - a lot
/s known. A lot has been done and I think the whole area
could really  take advantage of what has been done and
work off of that, i want to mention a couple of specific
things of an NEP aspect. One, is land use planning. That
 is  not  something" the federal government does, but
working with the National Estuary Program we can.  In
fact, working with the Maryland Coastal Bays on their
 futures pilot, we had community members essentially
 establishing and  identifying their vision of the type  of
 future growth and the type of community that they wanted.
 It was Interesting in Worcester County, that we found
 there was generally  an  interest in preserving the rural
 riaturai resource nature of the county.

 The futures project helped to focus people on what they
 havej what they want to keep, and then the next step of
 how they are going to keep those things. I would suggest
  that would be a good example for other communities in
  the Delmaiva and we would certainly be happy to assist
  with that, for those interested in proceeding. We also are
  doing a lot of work  on helping to develop guiding
  principles for smart growth, and we can improvise some
  references and assistance if there is interest.
        :,  ,: : ''> "i , iri'm, i  ,,	,, n  i. .i"1 , -   ,  '«' * ,    j ':	 Iki *i  »

  We have heard a lot about habitat protection and both the
  Maryland Coastal Bays and  Delaware Inland Bays
  programs address those issues, particularly with respect
  to those species that move around a lot. Again  I think
  they lend themselves to integration with other areas and
  other programs.

  We have talked about the need for public education and
  awareness.  I agree that this is really important.  If you
  don't have the public interested and behind you, then your
  government agencies are  not going to be able to
  accomplish much of anything. We really don't do this stuff
  by ourselves. We don't make it up by ourselves. We are
  responding and reacting to what the local interests tend to
  be.  Outreach, in particular, is an area where volunteers
  and interested citizens can really make a difference.

  Beyond the National  Estuary Program we have some
  other programs that you might be able to take advantage
  of as you move forward. Regarding Pfiesteria, there are
  several federal activities under way to support the  states.
  We have supported Maryland and Delaware and Virginia
  in the past, and we will continue to do so should the need
  continue. We are also working with other agencies on
  algal blooms more broadly, including discussions that are
  under way regarding  the possibility of EPA supporting
  some monitoring on the brown tide  in  Delaware Inland
  Bays, which was mentioned earlier. We are also working
  with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference to look
  more at harmful algal blooms and toxins and focus more
  in that area than we have in the past.  Historically,  they
  have tended to be pathogen related and not looking so
  much at these algae related impacts.

  The message I would like to leave you with is that there is
  clearly  a need for  cooperative efforts and  program
  integration.  One is state involvement. I was very pleased
  with  the level of state involvement here because it is
   important not to underestimate the role states have, not
  only in terms of managing the resources generally, but in
  terms of managing a lot of the federal programs.  Some
  folks have mentioned the SRF funding program and the
   319 funding program and "no discharge" zones. All those
   are state-level programs. The state has to get involved,
  whether it is by determining the priorities for funding or
   whether it is by petitioning EPA to set a "no discharge"
   zone!' icani say enough about how important it is for the
   state to be involved  and agree with priorities that are
   being set locally.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999

We talked a lot about agricultural  impacts  and how
Maryland was the first state to participate with USDA in
their dubiously acronymed CREEP program to establish
more  buffer areas.  I think that is again something the
other  states could  be participating in.  The  Corps of
Engineers does dredging as many of you know, and a lot
of that material  has beneficial uses.   I couldn't help
thinking, as I was hearing about the SAV that was scarred
by clam  dredging  and where  there were  one foot
depressions, that perhaps  a program  to  bring clean
dredge material to backfill  some of those sites might
prevent some of the problems you have been  having.  I
don't know technically if that will work, I don't know what
the logistics are, but I think there are always opportunities
if we think about the whole variety in front of us. The
Federal Emergency  Management Agency (FEMA) is
moving more and more into flood prevention and working
with them on protecting and restoring wetlands is a real

Finally, one of the things we try to do at EPA, the soft side
of EPA not the regulatory side, is to provide information.
I would encourage folks, if they haven't gone to EPA's
web site, www.epa.gov, to do that. Particularly the Office
of Waters site, and the ever popular OWOW  site. We
have "surf your watershed", which has  virtually all the
watershed databases we could get. So if you want to find
out just about anything that people  have in organized
format about the Delmarva coastal bays, you could pull
those up.  We have the National Estuary Program sites.
We have information on Pfiesteria. There is a wealth of
information there.

One last thought that I would like to leave you with is that
I would certainly encourage you to continue to think about
bringing the three  governors together  and the other
appropriate folks from the federal agencies and get some
sort of tri-state agreement going. But I would echo what
Jeanne said that it is really important that you think things
through and work things out from the bottom up.  Those
kinds of things are very tricky to develop and to  get top
down. You really need to have that broad base of support
for that, then start to push up the chain in order to make
something like that happen.  We would be happy to work
with you as you try to do that.

My question is directed to Representative Price. How can
interested citizen stakeholders in the  Indian River inland
bays estuary become actively involved by sitting in on an
HR32 committee?

Price:  The committee is  set by  legislation  so  the
membership is set.  It is a public  meeting and you can
always come and listen. We do allow a comment period -
fifteen minutes at the end for questions or concerns. We
are always available to take questions and comments
   outside of meetings.   We  have almost  concluded
   discussions about different issues with the exception of
   the tributary teams that the Center for the Inland Bays
   have been working on. They are going  to come to our
   next meeting with written recommendations that they
   would like to have us look at as part of this. Obviously, we
   will get your help and your support as we go forward in the
   lobbying effort. It went through really quietly. Until it hit the
   front page of the News Journal just recently, things were
   really quiet. But there are some realtors who have some
   concerns. There are also some realtors who are very
   supportive of it.  So  we are going to try and focus on
   those.  I will be writing things in the newspaper that will
   help get you involved. 1 hope you will participate at that

   / was wondering if any of the participants can discuss the
   need for wider riparian buffers here in the coastal bay
   area. In order to protect the resource, I think we have to
   have wider buffers. I hear Rhode Island has 200 ft. Here
   the highway, department can have  limited  access to
   highways, so why can't we have limited access  to our

   Schwartz: We could have that, but in my opinion, you
   have  to  have  some really strong  leadership to put
   something like that forward. You have to have a balanced
   approach to those people who own property for a long
   time if you are telling them that they can't do what they
   plan to do for that property. We have some data that
   shows that ypu need 250 ft. minimum to really provide
   habitat protection. There are some animals, salamanders
   and birds, that need much wider corridors.  For people
   that are pro-active, and for the landowners that do want to
   cooperate, there are federal programs where they can
   recoup some of that financial loss, if it  was a loss for
   agricultural land that was taken out of production. We can
   have those buffers, we just have to have a ground swell of
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                            WRAP UP
                                    BRUCE RICHARDS, PH.D.
                          DELAWARE CENTER FOR THE INLAND BAYS*
                                                                                                 T	I!"-'
   9." 77)9/p/tow/ng document Is a transcription of the closing remarks by
Dr. Richards.

What have we learned at this third Delmarva Coastal Bays
Conference? Some basic things we've covered are
marine science  issues, some management issues, and
some policy considerations but one theme that's run
through the whole conference has been about people.
People can affect the bays.  We've had a real diversity of
people in this room-sportsfishermen, students, scientists,
managers, administrators. We had three National Estuary
Programs represented and the Secretary of Agriculture
from Delaware.  In 1996 when we had our conference, we
Invited the mayor of Ocean City, but he didn't come. This
year, the mayor of Ocean City came and he participated.
That says a lot about the emphasis on the environment
ppw.  Hppefully we didn't use too much jargon.  We tried
"to use terms that communicated the information clearly.
It was good to see some solid citizen participation like we
did today. We've got great citizen advocates for the bays.

I'll go over some key wrap-up points. Number one is water
quality.  We've learned that we  can't  control tides or
currents. We can do very little to deal with sea level rise
pr  to halt turbidity.   But  we can get people to do
something.  Bill Matuszeski said  it.  We can reduce
nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus.

Number two is fisheries.  We learned that there are
several species of  fish that are dwindling.  We have
parasites  that are  killing  crabs.  We have the real
possibility that pre-historic animals that have been around
for  millions  of years,  horseshoe crabs,  may  be
overharvested.   When  that  happens, we  also  lose
valuable eggs that are food for the migrating birds from
across the world. We can do something about that. We
can reduce our qyerharyesting and we  can generate
stocks through aquaculture and mericulture.
                                   	:	     :.  t...	.;"  ;

  Third is habitat. We've learned the importance of critical
  habitats, from sea grass beds to coral reefs.  I am sure
  you can guess who can preserve those habitats-we can.
  We can help preserve it by reducing our boating activities.

  Each of us  here has shown dedication to Delmarva's
  coastal bays. I applaud each of you and encourage you to
  continue your stewardship of the coastal bays and remain
  ambassadors of that knowledge. Share this knowledge
  with your friends, families, and neighbors, so that we can
  truly take that long walk together.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
Saturday, November 12, 1999


                                           DAVID BLAZER
                              MARYLAND COASTAL BAYS PROGRAM
Note: The following document is a transcription of the closing remarks by
Mr. Blazer.

Even though this is the end of the conference and I am the
last speaker of the day, the conference really doesn't end
here. We will all go back home, and we will analyze all
the information, the data and the discussions that have
taken place here.  So we need to take this effort and
begin.  Let's move on from here.

We have written down ideas of what we can  do in the
future and what action we can take.  When we get the
proceedings, we need  to look  at those, and start to
strategize where we go from  here. There have been a lot
of great ideas.  We've had a lot of positives out of this
conference and we've also had a lot of challenges out of
this conference.

The one thing I would like to do is to look at the goals that
were set out to us initially for this program. When I first
heard about it, we had five basic goals for this conference.

1) To focus on  resource management and on the unique
challenges of  shallow water estuarine systems.  We
looked at a lot of different resource management and the
challenges that are  here.  We talked about regional
partnerships and  tri-state  approaches  for  resolving
common  issues.   It was  tremendous  that  we had
representatives from Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, all
here at this conference.  Delegate Bob Bloxum from
Virginia's Eastern Shore was here this weekend. Jack
Travelstead from Virginia. We had a whole host of people
from   Maryland,  Bennett  Bozman,  Representative
Gilchrest's staff, Sarah Taylor-Rogers, the Secretary of
DNR, Worcester County Commissioners, and the mayor
of Ocean City.  That's a pretty impressive crowd to have
to start working on these regional aspects and the tri-state
effort.  I think we really succeeded on that goal. But we
still have some work to do  to try to get the governors
together as everybody has discussed recently.
    2) Provide a forum for successful initiatives, both within
    and outside the region.  We had some speakers from
    Florida and  Rhode Island talk about some of the things
    that they do and their successes and challenges. We may
    be able to translate a lot of that here.

    3) Develop  local,  bottom-up involvement in resource
    management.   That's probably the most obvious thing
    we've achieved. Look at the crowd we have here and the
    number of citizens.  This has  been a  well attended
    program.     \

    4) Share viewpoints  and  provide direction to minimize
    user conflicts.  We've spent most of the morning talking
    about that.

    5) Propose action items to work toward future strategies
    for resource sustainability.  Toward that goal, I think we
    ended up with about seven pages of action items at the
    end of the last panel.

    Looking back,at the  conference goals, we really have
    succeeded.  This has been an outstanding conference,
    and really just'the beginning.  We need to take this and
    move on from  here, but this has been a great beginning.
    There are a  lot of opportunities for citizen involvement-
    oyster gardening, Maryland Coastal Bays Program has
    volunteer  monitoring, you can sign up for newsletters,
    there are more conferences coming up.

    Two last points.  I want to thank the Assateague Coastal
    Trust for a great weekend, especially Phyllis Koenings for
    a fantastic job.  And  finally, I want to close by saying,
    thank you all for staying until the bitter end. While you are
    here, if you haven't had a chance to, walk around on the
    beach. It's still: a Delmarva-lous day and when you leave,
    hopefully you'll enjoy the splendor of the Maryland coastal
    bays or Delaware inland bays, whichever direction you go.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                         APPENDIX A
                                  WEB SITE RESOURCE LIST
 American Sportfishing Association	www.asafishing.org
          Speaker: Norville Prosser, Fishable Waters Act	100

 Assateague Coastal Trust  	www.actforbays.org
          Speaker Tom Patton, Welcome	5
          Exhibit: Assateague Coastal Trust	140

 Assateague Island National Seashore	www.nps.gov/asis/
          Speaker Carl Zimmerman, Marine Resource Protection Initiatives	95

 Biohabitats, Inc	-	• •	• •	www.biohabitat.com
          Exhibit: Biohabitats - Ecological Restoration	141
                  "I, I!                 •••     ,,     , ..| ^     ' '     •••    „,...,      '[" , |i'!       '       •    'II A, ' i,PL

 Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service  ....  northeastfwsigov/va/chn.htm
                  ":   •',':             '"  '       '  i       [        'I;   '.    :  :|  j .'.'I      •      i VT' '«
 College of William and Mary	•• •	www.wm.edu
          Speaker Bryan Watts, Migrant Shorebirds - Role of the Delmarva Coastal Bays  	36

 Community Foundation of the Eastern Shore  	www.intercom.net/npo/commfrid/index.html

 Conectiv       "...   	  	  	  	  	www.conectiv.com

  Delaware Centerforthe Inland Bays	www.udel.edu/ciB
          Exhibit: Delaware Center for the Inland Bays	142
          Speaker. Bruce A. Richards, An Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms	54
]        •	Sponsor
i       'A          ,, '  :'<	 ,     ,    '.,  .,••.:  ......     '  ' - '•  '•  • ' '».  i', •!• ' i,: • i1 "":    •  • '    " "     i 5:
i!     „  ,.l	:!          l :!!  i1  11,  "IP"       	  ....       .   	               '.!, ' 	 „ ,| , ' , .....    , '  .   , ,    .' „ ll lljl. , '"'ill:
  Delaware Cpastal Management Program  	  www.nos.noaa.gov/OCRM/czm/czmdelaware.html
!      ' '•  Sponsor" "'	   i              '     '"           '    '..!...'.''   '                ' ,',"
  Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control  	www.dnrec.state.de.us
        Speaker: Stewart Michels, Finfish Resources of Delaware's Inland Bays	18
Delaware Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, College of Marine Studies	darc.cms.udel.edu
        Exhibit: Shellfish Demonstration Work in Delaware's Coastal Bays 	145
        Speaker: Jim Falk, Water-Use Planning: Addressing Carrying Capacity Issues	88

Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences (DLITE)	www.delmarvalite.com
        Exhibit: Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences	142
        Speaker: Steve Parker, Partnership puts Ideals into Action		112

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary	,.. www.wave.nos.noaa.gov/nmsp/fknms
        Exhibit: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary	'.	142
        Speaker: Billy Causey, Marine Zoning to Balance Resource Protection with Utilization	80

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission	www.hrpdc.org
        Speaker: Eric Walberg, Creation of a Water Use Conflict Memorandum of Agreement  	86

Maryland Coastal Bays Program	www.dnr.state.md.us/mcbp
        Exhibit: Maryland Coastal Bays Program	!	143
        Sponsor                                              •

Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program  	 www.nos.noaa.gov/OCRM/czm/czmmaryland.html

Maryland Department of Natural Resources	I	www.dnr.state.md.us
        Exhibit: Maryland Terrapin Station Project	145
        Speaker: James Casey, Status of Important Finfish Stocks in Maryland's Coastal Bays	10
        Speaker: Dave Goshorn, Increasing Risk Factors: Pfiesteria	56
        Speaker: Robert Magnien, Water and Habitat Quality Effects on Living Resources	50
        Speaker: Eric Schwaab, Maryland Coastal Bays Water-Use Management Plan  	92
        Speaker: Mitchell Tarnowski, Molluscan Inventory of the Maryland Coastal Bays 	30
        Speaker: Sarah Taylor-Rogers, Welcome and Overview	74
        Speaker: Al Wesche, Status of Stocks:  Blue Crab Fishery in Maryland's Coastal Bays	26

Maryland Department of the Environment	www.mde.state.md.us
        Exhibit: Wetlands Restoration in the Coastal Bays	146
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center	www.csc.noaa.gov
        Exhibit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration	144
        Exhibit: Volunteering for the  Coast	146
        Speaker: Gretchen Messick, Increasing Risk Factors: Hematodirjium	59

Old Dominion University, Department of Oceanography	www.odu.edu
        Speaker: John McConaugha, Recent Trends in Blue Crab Fishery	22

Pennsylvania State University, MidAtlantic Assessment on Climate Change	www.psu.edu
        Speaker: Ann Fisher, Climate Change & Implications for the Coastal Bays	69
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference;!*//

Rhode Island Sea Grant	www.i5eagrant.gso.uri.edu/riseagrant/
         Speaker: Virginia Lee, Rhode Island's Salt Pond Regional Management Plan	84
         Speaker: Scott Nixon, Nutrient Enrichment of Shallow Marine Ecosystems ...		6

Salisbury State University 	 www.ssu.edu

South Moon Under  	• • www.southmoonunder.com

The Nature Conservancy / Virginia Coast Reserve	www.tnc.org/infield/State/Virginia/vcr.htm
      ;/;  Sponsor ]	'   "	i   ..  ,               '     '                i   „ ,     "_.', ,'„','  ", „   ,      \  „ .'	\"n
                 : ;  , ;::  •        •    .           •          . ..    •• 1   ; ;  ,,   :j  i/,      . •  >,:: "    .  ,- \~i j: ji;> :•.
Town of Ocean (Jjty, Maryland  ..	 — 1	— www.ococean.com

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  	'.	www.epa.gov
         Speaker: F.W. (Rick) Kutz, The Ecological Condition of the Delmarva Coastal Bays	43
           •	•	UN  ; if   , '     ,    .' ':    •       .          "•,•':• ,.,;::..   j  , ! :«',.,.,!.... r      ..   ,'  1 ••;' ''
    Chesapeake Bay Program Office	www.epa.gov/r3chespk/index.htm
         Speaker: Bill Matuszeski, Complex Issues, Simple Truths	39
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	  www.fws.gov
         Exhibit: BayScapes - Landscaping to Benefit People and Wildlife	140
         Speaker.  Michael Millard, The Horseshoe Crab Stock Assessment Process	33

University of Maryland Eastern Shore Cooperative Extension Service	  www.umes.umd.edu

University of Maryland Sea Grant Program	www.mdsg.umd.edu/index.html

Virginia Institute of Marine Science	  www.vimsiedu
         Exhibit: Eelgrass - Habitat Fragmentation & Patchiness in Transplanted Beds  	142
         Exhibit: Oyster Aquaculture and Oyster Reef Restoration	144
         Speaker  Mark Luckenbach, Resource Supplementation through Aquaculture	97
         Speaker.  Francis X. O'Beirn, Community Aquaculture  Programs-Oyster Gardening	107
         Speaker: Robert J. Orth.Conflicts in a Recovering Seagrass System	53
         ""!        < ,  	                     pi          ,,      i,         i           ,            	

    Submerged Aquatic Vegetation		 www.vims.edu/bio/sav
         Exhibit: S/W - Assessment of SAV and Aquaculture Bottom Land Use  .....'	145
         Exhibit: 'SAV -identifying and  Resolving Fisheries Management Conflicts   ..............  145
,      -!A  '	    , ":!   -ij  (.  •      ,  •  _•   " •,'  -"-	" j •  	..: •   •	;;   ',   .5 •••'• s i'   •:.  r j   '-i '"  •   '    •••• -      i •;

Water, Keeper Alliance	www.keeper.org
         Exhibit: Narragarisett BayKeeper	  I.....".	  144
         Speaker.  John Torgan, The Role of Water Keeper Programs in Estuary Protection	110

Worcester County, Maryland 	skipjack.net/le_shore/worcestr/
Delmarva's CoastaTBays Conference III
           	i;h';ili	i'j  Liljijlliljilil',:" liUiill! Ill
                                          JlliLliill'ic	I	liij n,|  ill ,,.ii,i
                                                      /i/il ....... ..... ilmiiaiiinriiii,,:;:;! ..... iiliiilii .....
                                                                     ,i.:,.,.:i.i, ...... ill ........ ,i!ll ....... il-li,, ..... ',

                                             APPENDIX B

Bob Abele
MD Coastal Bays Foundation
63 Wood Duck Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-1294
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
7206 National Seashore Lane      i
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
   Kim Ayvazian
   312 Pilottown Road
   Lewes, DE  19958
Helen Abrams
Inland Bays Citizen Montoring
Pinewater Farms, 4 Blackberry Lane
Harbeson, DE 19951
Fatima Alves
U of MD Center for Environ. Science
P. O. Box 775
Cambridge, MD 21613
ph: 410-228-9250 fax: 410-228-3843
   Bill Baker
   1566 South Highway One
   Lewes, DE  19958
   ph: 302-645-7654
Laurie Adelhardt
Owl Creek Consulting
45 Drawbridge Road
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-9701 fax: 410-208-9704
Ed Ambrogio
1650 Arch Street
Phildelphia, PA 19103
ph: 215-314-2758 fax: 215-814-2782:
   Angela Baldwin
   MD Conservation Corps
   12302 Jamaica Avenue #303
   Ocean City, MD 21842
   ph: 410-250-1997
Irvin Ailes
US F&WS - Chincoteague
P. O. Box 62
Chincoteague, VA 23336
ph: 757-336-6122 fax: 757-336-5273
Ben Anderson
820 Silvertake Blvd., Suite 220
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-4590
   Tonya Barker
   MD Conservation Corps
   6719 Lenape Place
   Snow Hill, MD 21863
   ph: 410-632-4509
Jim Alderman
Center for the Inland Bays
467 Highway One
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-7325 fax: 302-645-5765
Gretchen Arnold
VIMS Esistern Shore Lab
P.O. Box 350
Wachapreague, VA 23480
ph: 757-787-5816 fax: 757-787-5831
   Jim Belote
   Virginia Tech Extension Service
   P. O. Box 60
   Accomac, VA 23301
   ph: 757-787-1361 fax: 757-787-1044
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

      Lenore Bennett
      7845 Worcester Highway
      Berlin, MD  21811
      pn: 410-841-1899
Kerri Berjtkowski
Chesapeake Bay Trust
60 West Street, Suite 200A
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-974-2941
    •  Paul Berge
      AccpmacJc-Nprthampton P. D. C.
    ;  P.O. Bojj'417
      Accomac, VA 23301
    ;  pn: 757-787-2936 fax: 757-787-4221
                                     Capt. Michael Bloxom
                                     MD Natural Resources Police
                                     32144 Mt. Olive Road
                                     Salisbury, MD 21804
                                     ph: 410-548-7070 fax: 410-543-6908
                                           Dixie Bounds
                                           MD Cooperative F & W/ UMES
                                           9822 Keyser Point Road
                                           Ocean City, MD 21842
                                           ph: 410-651-6913 fax:410-651-7662
                                     George Boyce
                                     Blue Heron Oyster Co.
                                     11584 Long Point Road
                                     Dames Quarters, MD 21820
                                     ph: 410-784-2364
                                                                           Myrl Burkett
                                                                           Chesapeake Shellfish Aquaculture
                                                                           S3-E Muirfield Drive
                                                                           Reading, PA  19607
                                                                           ph: 610-775-9793 fax: 610-796-7756
                                                                          1      '          '
                                                                                                               " l-'ft"
                                                                           Robert Bussell
                                                                           MD Dept. of Natural Resources
                                                                           P. O. Box 198
                                                                           Piney Point, MD 20674
                                                                           ph: 301-994-9205
                                                                           Jim Butch
                                                                           Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                           1650 Arch Street (3ES10)
                                                                           Phildelphia, PA 19103
                                                                          "ph: 215-814-2762 fax: 215-814-2782
      Caine Woods Community Assoc.
    i  14000 Sand Dune Road
      Ocean City, MD 21842
      ph: 410-250-7693
                                     Dr. Walter Boynton
                                     Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
                                     P. O.BoxSS
                                     Solomons, MD 20688
                                     ph: 410-326-7275 fax:410-326-7378
                                                                           Nancy Butowski
                                                                           MD Dept. of Natural Resources
                                                                           580 Taylor Avenue, B-2
                                                                           Annapolis, MD 21401
                                                                           ph: 410-260-8268 fax: 410-260-8279
KJrnberly Black
DE Nature Society
P.O. Box 700
Hockesste DE 19707
ph: 302-139-2334 fax: 302-239-2473
                                           Gregory Breese
                                           US Fish & Wildlife Service
                                           2610 Whitehall Neck Road
                                           Smyrna, DE  19977
                                           ph: 302-653-9152 fax: 302-653-9421
                                                                           Wayne Cannon
                                                                           WGMD - FM Radio
                                                                           P.O. Box530
                                                                           Reboboth Beach, DE  19971
                                                                           ph: 800-933-0127 fax: 302-945-3781
I !  ' ' I
David Blazer
MD Coastal Bays Program
9609 Stephen Decatur Highway
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-213:2297 fax: 410-213-2574
                                      Tim Brower
                                      MD Dept. of Natural Resources
                                      201 Baptist Street
                                      Salisbury, MD 21801
                                      ph: 410-543-6738 fax: 410-543-6768
Wendy Carey
U of DE Sea Grant College Program
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4258 fax: 302-645-4213
                    	,,  , ri       ,
      Virginia House of Delegates
     ,p?o.B0jx27   ;     ;;:  	;;;.
      Mappsviile, VA 23407
      ph: 757-824-3456 fax: 757-824-3786
      Pat Bloxom
      P.O. Box 27
      Mappsville, VA 23407
      ph: 757-824-3456 fax: 757-824-3786
                                      Erin Browning
                                      Salisbury State University
                                      SSU, Box 1132
                                      Salisbury, MD 21801
                                      ph: 410-548-2797
                                      Pearl Burbage
                                      DE DNREC
                                      820 Silverlake Blvd., Suite 220
                                      Dover, DE 19901
                                      ph: 302-739-4590  fax: 302-739-6140
                                                                           Kristen Carson
                                                                           MD Conservation Corps
                                                                           710 Goldsborough Street
                                                                           Salisbury, MD 21801
                                                                           ph: 410-543-7909
                                                                           Luther Carter
                                                                           Independent Journalist
                                                                           2722 Chain Bridge Road, NW
                                                                           Washington, DC 20016
                                                                           ph: 202-966-3579 fax: 202-537-3143
      Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Marsha Carter
2722 Chain Bridge Road, NW
Washington, DC 20016
ph: 202-966-3579 fax: 202-537-3143
Kimberly Cole
DE Coastal Programs
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
  Beth Creamer
  Goddard Space Flight Center
  Greenbelt, MD 20771
  ph: 301-614-5582
Ron Cascio
MD Coastal Bays Program
10046 Silver Point Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-213-2017
Bob Collins
E.S. Assn.. of Golf Course Superndts.
946 Heron Drive
Bethany Beach, DE 19930
ph: 302-539-8882 fax: 302-539-5647
  Carolyn Cummins
  West Ocean City Assoc., MCBP
  9628 Oceanview Lane
  Ocean City, MD 21842
  ph: 410-213-0586
Jim Casey
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
301 Marine Academy Drive
Stevensville, MD 21666
ph: 410-643-4601 fax: 410-643-4136
Mary Conley
MD DNR Coastal Zone Management
580 Taylor Avenue, E-2
Annapolis, MD  21401
ph: 410-2(30-8984 fax: 410-260-8739
  Rachelle Daigneault
  Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
  7206 National Seashore Lane
  Berlin, MD 21811
  ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
Billy Causey
Florida Keys Nat'l Marine Sanctuary
P. O. Box 500368
Marathon, FL  33050
ph: 305-743-2437 X26
Joan Cook
United States Power Squadron
239 Ocean Parkway
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-6168
jvcookel @juno.com
  Dennis Dare
  Town of Ocean City
  P. O. Box 158
  Ocean City, MD 21843
  ph: 410-289-8837 fax: 410-289-7385
Lisa Challenger
Worcester County To,urism
113 Franklin Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-3110 fax: 410-632-3158
Sarah Cooksey
DE Coastal Management Program
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE- 19901
ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
   Liz Davis
   Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
   7206 National Seashore Lane
   Berlin, MD 21811
   ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
Chris Clark
S. Schultz Wetlands Assoc.
703 S. Schultz Road
Fenwick Island, DE 19944
ph: 302-539-4485  fax: 302-539-7878
 Cathy Cooper
 Assateague Coastal Trust
 4862 Chevy Chase Drive
 Chevy Chase , MD 20815
 ph: 301-718-1691
   Steve Dawson
   MDE / Non-tidal Wetlands
   Multi-Service Ctr., 201 Baptist Street
   Salisbury, MD 21801
   ph: 410-543-6703
 Jessica Clark
 703 S. Schultz Road
 Fenwick Island, DE 19944
 Sandy Coyman
 Worcester Co. Comp. Planning
 111 Franklin Street, Unit 1
 Snow Hill, MD 21863
 ph: 410-632-5651  fax:410-632-5654
   Natalee DeHart
   Carl M. Freeman Communities
   400 Freeport Court
   Bethany Beach, DE 19930
   ph: 302-536-7203
 John Clark
 DE Fish & Wildlife
 P. O. Box 330
 Little Creek, DE 19961
 ph: 302-739-4782 fax: 302-739-6780
 Elizabeth Crager
 MD Conservation Corps
 909 Sumac Circle
 Salisbury, MD 21804
 ph: 410-546-2101
   Tom DeMoss
   U S Environmental Protection Agency
   701 Mapes Road
   Fort Meade, MD 20755
   ph: 410-305-2739 fax: 410-305-3095
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI

Charles Dobroski
Roy F. Weston, Inc
P. O. BOJC2653
.WestCjjgstef, PA  19380-1469
ph: 6ir>70-i-7216  fax: 610-701-7401
Ann Fisher
Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
Penn State Uniy., 107 Armsby Bldg.
University Park" PA  16802
ph: 814-865-3143 fax: 814-865-3746
Ray Godman
209 Sunset Drive
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-289-5818
Charles Ep'rfanio
U of DE College of Marine Studies
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE  19958
ph: 302^645-4272 fax: 302-645-4007
Tom Ford
Land Design, Inc.
Oak Square, Suite 3
Ocean View, DE 19970
ph: 302-537-1919
Christy Gordon
Gordon Shellfish LLC
Pocornoke, MD 21851
ph: 410-957-4100 fax:410-957-1303
Dennis Evans
10321 Hayes Landing Road
Berlin. MD 21811
ph: 410-641-2519
Judith Freeman
Nat'l. Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A
Annapolis, MD 21403
ph: 410-267-5661 fax: 410-267-5666
Gordon Shellfish LLC
P.O, Box 725
Pocornoke, MD 21851
ph: 410-957-4100 fax:410-957-1303
John Ewart
U of DE Marine Advisory Service
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4060 fax:302-645-4213
Todd Fritchman
Indian River High School
#10 South Lake Terrrace
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
ph: 302-226-5474 fax: 302-732-5491
Laura Belle Gordy
VA Marine Resource Commision
25518 Main Street
Onley, VA 23418
ph: 757-787-3658
U of PEJflarine Advisory Service
700 Pikjttown Road
Lewes, DE  19958
ph: 302-645-4235
Mary Jo Garreis
MJG Enterprises
129 Severn Way
Arnold, MD 21012
ph: 410-757-1232 fax:410-349-8511
Dr. Dave Goshorn
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8640 fax: 410-260-8640
Joe Parrel
U of DE Sea Grant Program
700 Pitottpwn Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4250 fax:302-645-4007
Wallace Garrett
U of MD Cooperative Extension
P.O. Box219
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-1972 fax: 410-632-3023
Robert Grady
MD Saltwtr. Sportfishermen's Assn
358 Ocean Parkway
Berlin!'MD 21811
ph: 410-208-0530
Kimberly Fehrer
Assateague Coastal Trust
P. O. Box 731
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-629-1538 fax: 410-629-1059
Jessica Glass
MD Conservation Corps
381 Mallard Lakes
Selbyville, DE 19975
ph: 302-436-6190
Matt Graves
NPS Assateague Island
7206 Rational Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
Ilia Fehrer
Worcester Environmental Trust
110 W. Federal Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-2640 fax: 410-632-2640
Charles Glover
Ocean Pines / O.C. Power Squadron
16 Sandpiper Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-8488
Lowell Grimaud
Bethany Marina
33 Yacht Basin Road
Oceari View, DE 19970
ph: 302-539-7099
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Louise Gulyas
Worcester County Commissioner
One W. Market Street, Rm 112
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-1194 fax:410-632-3131
Robyn Harris
MD Conservation Corps
8543 North Prong Lane
Delmar, MD 21875
   Bill Hibschman
   Harford Community College
   401 Thomas Run Road
   Bel Air, MD 21015
   ph: 410-836-4306 fax:410-836-4410
William Haag
16 Whaler Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-1561
Cindy Harris
Macro International Inc.
P.O. Box 303
Ocean Ciiy, MD 21843
ph: 410-289-0039 fax: 410-289-2463
   Terry Higgins
   Wesley College
   120 N. State Street
   Dover, DE 19901
   ph: 302-736-2477 fax: 302-736-2301
David Hail
Vanguard Communications
1019 19th Street, NW, #1200
Washington, DC 20036
ph: 202-331-4323 fax: 202-331-9420
dhall@vancomm .com
Frances Hart
Inland Bays Citizen Monitoring
5406 Juliet Street
Springfield, VA 22151
   Louise Hildreth
   Assateague Coastal Trust
   912 Rolandvue Road
   Baltimore, MD 21204
   ph: 410-337-8657
Helen Hamilton
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
Edward Hartman
MD Saltwfir. Sportsfishermen's Assn
29 Grant Avenue
Selbyville, DE 19975
ph: 302-436-4611
   Lisa Hoeben
   MD Conservation Corps
   1012 Adams Avenue, Apt. 3-C
   Salisbury, MD 21804
   ph: 410-219-3663
Robert Hammond
MD Saltwtr. Sportsfishermen's Assn
117 Red Cedar Drive
Milton, DE 19968
ph: 302-684-2666
Bill Haugriey
Indian River Tributary Action Team
R. D. 1, Box 291
Long Neck, DE 19966
ph: 302-945-9300
   Jesse Houston
   Town of Ocean City
   P.O. Box 158
   Ocean City, MD 21843
   ph: 410-289-8855 fax: 410-289-7385
Audrey HaYisen
Marine Biologist
9137 Libertytown Road
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-4932
Lamere Hennessee
MD Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
ph: 410-554-5519 fax:410-554-5502
   Bob Hulburd
   C. R. A. S. H.
   10 Whaler Lane
   Berlin, MD 21811
   ph: 410-641-3939 fax: 410-641-9555
Juliana Harding
Dept. of Fisheries Science
VIMS, PO Box 1346
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
ph: 804-684-7302
John (Jack) Hett
MD State Highway Admin.
P.O. Box 2679
Salisbury, MD 21802
ph: 410-677-4027 fax: 410-543-6598
   Edythe Humphries
   89 Kings Highway
   Dover, DE  19901
   ph: 302-739-4771 fax: 302-739-3491
William Harkum
MD Saltwtr. Sportsfishermen's Assn
5 Roycreek Lane
Selbyville, DE 19975
Jim Hewes
DE DNR / DE Coastal Programs
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE: 19901
ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
   Margo Jackson
   NOAA Oceans & Coastal Resources
   1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4
   Silver Spring, MD 20910
   ph: 301-713-3155 fax:301-713-4012
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                                                                        '	:l .
         Charles "Buddy" Jenkins
         Bay Shore Development Corp.
         P.O. Box 572
         Ocean City, MID 21843
         ph: 410-289-9100
Suresh Kikkeri
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
ph: 410-631-3602 fax: 410-631-3998
Marc A. Koenings
Assateague Island Nat'l Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641 -1443 fax:410-641-1099
         Bud Jenkins
         MD Tributary Strategies Team
         405 Edgewater Road
         Pasadena, MD 21122-5635
         ph: 410-255-8220
William Killinger
1264 Ocean Parkway
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-9355
Ralph Kraft
Commercial Fishing
13226 Pine Beach Road
Princess Anne, MD 21853
ph: 410-651-9213
         Jim Johnson
         Anne Arundel Planning & Codes
         P.O. Box 6675
         Annapolis, MD  21401
         ph: 410-222-7441 fax: 410-222-7255
Joleen Killinger
1264 Ocean Parkway
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-9355
Dr. Jonathan Kramer
MD Sea Grant
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
ph: 301-405-6371 fax: 301-314-9581
         Judy Johnson
         Assateague Coastal Trust
         P.O. Box 731
         Berlin, MD 21811
Forsyth Kineon
DE Estuary Program
P.O. Box7360
W. Trenton, NJ 08628-0360
ph: 609-883-9500 fax: 609-883-9522
Gloria Kupstas
2211 S.Clark Place
Arlington, VA  22244-4642
ph: 703-604-5431 fax: 703-602-4642
         Chris Judy
         MD DNR Shellfish Division
         580 Taylor Avenue
         Annapolis, MD 21401
         ph: 410-260-8259 fax:410-260-8279
Howard King
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8260
Dr. Rick Kutz
US EPA MidAtlantic Assess.Team
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-5350
ph: 410-305-2742 fax: 410-305-3095
          Betty Ann Kane
          Rehoboth Beach Commissioner
          56 Maryland Avenue
          Rehofigth Beach, DE  19971
          ph: 302-546^91)62  fax: 302-547-9598
Gretchen Knapp
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
P. O.BoxSS
Chincoteague, VA 23336
ph: 757-336-6577  fax:757-336-5203
Albert Lakeland
Assateague Coastal Trust
4315 Chestnut Street
Bethesda, MD  20814
ph: 301-656-1640
          Lee Karrh
          MD Dept. of Natural Resources
          580 Taylor Avenue, D-2
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          ph: 410-260-8650 fax: 410-260-8640
Henry Koellein
MD Saltwtr. Sportsfishermen's Assn
538 Mariinspike Drive
Sevema Park, MD 21146
ph: 410-647-8218
Abigail Lambert
Lower Shore Land Trust
213 Downtown Plaza, Suite 305
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-341-6575
          Vic Kennedy
          U of MD Horn Point Laboratory
          Box 775
          Cambridge, MD 21613
          ph: 410-221-8286 fax: 410-221-8490
 Phyllis Koenings
 Assateague Coastal Trust
 P. O. Box 731
 Berlin, MD  21811
 ph: 410-629-1538  fax:410-629-1059
 Stanley Laskowski
 US EPA Region III Env. Services Div.
 1650 Arch Street
 Philadelphia. PA 19103-2029
 ph: 215-814-2989 fax: 215-814-2782
          Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
I  i  i j !-. '      Mi	  •. •	i:ii.  ,'. >«

Dr. Virginia Lee
Sea Grant-Coastal Resources Center
Univ.of Rhode Island Bay Campus
Narragansett, Rl 02882
ph: 401-874-6490 fax: 401-789-4670
Ken MacMullin
MD Coastal Bays Program
68 Wood Duck Drive              !
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-9604  fax: 410-208-9614,
   Dr. John McConaugha
   Old Dominion Univ. / Oceanography
   46 Elkhorn Drive
   Norfolk, VA 23529
   ph: 757-683-4698
Mark Lewandowski
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, E-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8809 fax: 410-260-8709
Rob Magnien
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8630
   Joel McCord
   Baltimore Sun
   501 N. Calvert Street
   Baltimore, MD 21278
   ph: 410-332-6465  fax:410-752-6049
Connie Lewis
MD DNR Fisheries Service
580 Taylor Avenue, B-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8296 fax:410-260-8279
Becky Manteria
Center for Marine Conservation
1725 De Sales Street, NW, Suite 600 ,
Washington, DC 20036
ph: 202-429-2355                :
   John McFalls
   MD Saltwtr. Sportsfishermen's Assn
   682 Ocean Parkway
   Berlin, MD 21811
   ph: 410-208-1291
Jim Lobo
MD Saltwtr. Sportfishermen's Assn
35 Seafarer
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-7614
Sam Martin
Martin Fish Company, Inc.
12929 Harbor Road
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-213-2195
   Jim McGowan
   Accomack-Northampton P. D. C.
   P.O. Box417
   Accomac, VA 23301
   ph: 757-787-2936 fax: 757-787-4221
Dick Loos
Chinoteague Bay Foundation
6900 Ridgewood Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
ph: 301-365-1288
Jim Mathias
Mayor, Ocean City
P. O. Box 158
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-289-8931
   Pat Mcllvaine
   Loudoun Soil & Water Conserv. Dist.
   30 Catoctin Circle, SE, Suite H
   Leesburg.VA 20175
   ph: 703-777-2075 fax: 703-443-0187
Dr. Mark Luckenbach
VA Institute of Marine Science
Eastern Shore Lab, PO Box 350
Wachapreague, VA  23480
ph: 757-787-5816 fax: 757-787-5831
Bill Matuszeski
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue               '
Annapolis, MD 21403            i
ph: 410-267-5709                ',
   Bruce McNeil
   MD Saltwtr. Sportsfishermen's Assn
   38 Anchor Way Drive
   Berlin, MD 21811
   ph: 410-213-2557
Jeanne Lynch
Worcester County Commissioner
One W. Market Street, Rm 112
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-1194 fax: 410-632-3131
Ken Matill
Center for Inland Bays
1 Kensington Road
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
ph: 302-227-8056
   Cornelia Melvin
   24 Pack Lane
   Lewes, DE 19958
   ph: 302-945-4708
Elsie MacMullin
MD Coastal Bays Program
68 Wood Duck Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-9604 fax: 410-208-9614
Dr. Eric May
MD Fish & Wildlife Coop. Res. Unit
UMES, 1120 Trigg Hall
Princess Anne, MD 21853
ph: 410-1351-6069 fax: 410-651-7662
ebmay@mail.umes.edu           !
   Mark Mendelsohn
   Corps of Engineers-Planning Division
   P. O. Box1715, MS11700-M
   Baltimore, MD 21203
   ph: 410-962-9499 fax: 410-962-4698
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                                                                                         •. r	rt
                                                                                                         * i a1'
Gretcheji Messick
NOAA, Nafl Ocean Svc., Oxford Lab
904 S. Mom's Street
Oxford, MD 21654
ph:410326-5193 fax: 41(^226-5925
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, C-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8263
                                                                           Tom p'Cqnnell
                                                                           MD Dept. of Natural Resources
                                                                           15935 Brooks Haven Drive
                                                                           Goldsboro, MD 21636
                                                                           ph: 410-260-8271  fax: 410-260-8278
Stewart, F. Michels
DNRECDivision of Fish & Wildlife
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-4782 fax:302-739-6780
Inland Bays Citizen Mentoring
P. O. Box 984
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
                                                                           MD Coastal Bays Program
                                                                           1919 Martin Drive
                                                                           Ocean City, MD 21842
                                                                           ph: 410-289-0852
Dr. Michael J. Millard
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Northeast Fisheries Ctr., PO Box 75
Lamar.PA 16848
ph: 570726-4247 fax: 570:726-2416
Katherine Munson
Worcester Co. Comp. Planning
111 Franklin Street, Unit 1
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-5651 fax: 410-632-5654
                                                                           Mary Ochse
                                                                           Assateague Coastal Trust
                                                                           P. O. Box 551
                                                                           Ocean City, MD 21842
                                                                           ph: 410-352-5289 fax: 410-289-5726
                                                                           Ibeahm511 @aol.com
Kent Minichiello
3118-18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20010
ph: 202-265-7396 fax:202-462-4253
Bob Nelson
Worcester Co. Comp. Planning
111 Franklin Street, Unit 1
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-6325651  fax:410-632-5654
                                                                           Dr. Robert J. Orth
                                                                           VA Institute of Marine Science
                                                                           P.O. Box1340
                                                                           Gloucester Point, VA 23062
                                                                           ph: 804-684-7392  fax: 804-684-7293
Marcia Minichiello
3118-18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20010
ph: 202-265-7396 fax: 202-462-4253
Dave Nemazie
U of MD Center for Environ. Science
P O. Box 775
Cambridge, MD  21613
ph: 410-228-9250 fax: 410-228-3843
                                                                           Janice Outen
                                                                           MD Dept. of Environment
                                                                           2500 Broening Highway
                                                                           Baltimore, MD 21224
                                                                           ph: 410-631-8059
Judith %)d|in
MD Dept of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, 6-4
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410:260-8418  fax:410-260-8404
Vivian Newman
Sierra Club
11194 Douglas Avenue
Marriottsville, MD 21104
ph: 410-442-5639 fax:410-442-0094
                                                                           Christopher Overbaugh
                                                                           MD Coastal' Bays Program
                                                                           11647 Beauchamp Road
                                                                           Berlin, MD 21811
                                                                           ph: 410-208-6103
Claude Montane
P.O.Box 214
Ocean City, MD 21843
ph: 410-289-0628
Dr. Scott Nixon
Graduate School of Oceanography
Univ. of Rhode Island, South Ferry Rd.
Narragansett, Rl 02882-1197
ph: 401-874-6800 fax:401-789-8340
                                                                           Thomas Parham
                                                                           MD Dept. of Natural Resources
                                                                           580 Taylor Avenue, D-2
                                                                           Annapolis, MD 21401
                                                                           ph: 410-260-8633 fax: 410-260-8640
Edward Morgereth
Biohabitats, Inc.
15 W. Aylesbury Road
Timonium, MD 21093
ph: 410-337-3659 fax: 410-583-5678
 Dr. Francis O'Beirn
 VIMS Eastern Shore Lab
 P. O. Box 350
 Wachapreague, VA 23480
 ph: 757-787-5837 fax: 757-787-5831
                                                                           Steve Parker
                                                                           Nature Conservancy/VA Coast Resv.
                                                                           P.O. Box 158
                                                                           Nassawadox, VA 23413
                                                                           ph: 757-442-3049 fax: 757-442-5418
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Jim Parsons
Perdue Farms Inc.
P. O. Box 1537
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-352-2378 fax: 410-352-2300
Joe Phillips
2004 Philadelphia Avenue
Ocean City, MD 21842
   Linda Popels
   U of DE, College of Marine Studies
   700 Pilottown Road
   Lewes, DE  19958
   ph: 302-645-4265
Joe Pasko
MD Saltwtr. Sportfishermen's Assn
53 Anchor Way Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-213-1760
Jonathan Phinney
Center for Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC  20036
ph: 202-429-5609 fax: 202-872-0619
   Hon. Shirley Price
   Delaware State Representative
   RD 2 , Box 120
   Millville, DE 19970
   ph: 302-539-6738 fax: 302-739-2313
Tom Patton
Assateague Coastal Trust
P.O.Box 578
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-2355 fax: 410-641-0056
Dave Phoebus
200 South Chester Street
Baltimore, MD 21231
ph: 410-327-1610
   Kent Price
   U of DE & Center for the Inland Bays
   700 Pilottown Road
   Lewes, DE 19958
   ph: 302-645-4256 fax:302-645-4312
Joe Perry
Town of O.C., Eagles Landing Golf
8828 Bald Eagle Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-213-0830 fax:410-213-7748
Grace Pierce-Beck
Center for the Inland Bays
20 Muirfield Court
Dover, DE 19904
ph: 302-674-5568 fax: 302-674-4159
   Jim Price
   Chesapeake Bay Acid Rain Fnd.
   P.O. Box1538
   Easton, MD 21601
   ph: 410-822-5398 fax: 410-822-3697
Nina Petrovich
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmo. Admin ./CSC
2234 S. Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405
ph: 843-740-1203 fax: 843-740-1313
Ron Pilling
Assateague Coastal Trust
3024 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
ph: 410-662-9630 fax: 410-662-9631
   Henrietta Price
   Chesapeake Bay Acid Rain Fnd.
   P.O. Box1538
   Easton, MD 21601
   ph: 410-822-5398
Jeff Phillips
2004 Philadelphia Avenue
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-289-2722
Pat Pilling
3024 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
ph: 410-662-9630 fax: 410-662-9631
   Norville Prosser
   American Sportfishing Assoc.
   1033 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 200
   Alexandria, VA 22314
   ph: 703-519-9691 fax: 703-519-1872
Janet Phillips
2004 Philadelphia Avenue
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-289-2722
Jack Pingree
DE DNR & Environmental Control
P. O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
ph: 302-739-4590 fax: 302-739-6140
   Til Purnell
   Inland Bays Citizen Monitoring
   Rt. 6 Box 98
   Millsboro, DE  19966
   ph: 302-945-1317
Carmen Phillips
2004 Philadelphia Avenue
Ocean City, MD 21842
Joyce Pomsell
Assateague Coastal Trust
165 Teal Circle
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-8552
   Dr Kim Quillin
   Horn Point Laboratory
   5705 Waterside Drive
   Berlin, MD 21811
   ph: 410-629-1356 fax:410-629-1466
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Shanna Ramsey
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443
Ricks Savage
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Adv. Council
11824 Porfin Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1837 fax: 410-289-7800
Gwynne Schultz
MD DNR Coastal Zone Management
580 Taylor Avenue, E-2
Annapolis, MD  21401
ph: 410-260-8730 fax: 410-260-8739
Dr. Bruce Richards
Center for the Inland Bays
467 Highway One
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302^645-7325 fax: 302-645-5765
Jackie Savitz
Coast Alliance
600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
ph: 202-546-9554
Eric Schwaab
MD DNR Fisheries Service
580 Taylor Avenue, B-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8283
David Rickards
Indian River Tributary Action Team
R, Q.2;ip3<19S	
Frankford, DE 19945
ph: 3Q2"-539-9034 fax: 302-539-2372
Bob Scarborough
DE DNR Coastal Programs
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
Suzanne Schwartz
Oceans & Coastal Protection Division
US EPA, 401 M Street, SW (4504F)
Washington, DC 20460
ph: 202-260-6426 fax: 202-260-9960
Bill Rodney
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8610 fax: 410-260-8620
Dr. A. David Scarfe
Chesapeake Shellfish Aquaculture
S3:E Muirfield Drive
Reading, PA 19607
ph: 610-775-9793 fax:610-796-7756
Chris Seymour
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
John Roeder  ',    ,  '„..
Assateague State Park
1 86 Saridyhook Road
Berlin, MD  21811
  •    ,                 .
 Paige Ross
 VIMS Eastern Shore Lab
 P.O. §0X350 "'
 Wachapreague, VA 23480
 ph: 757-787-0959
Don Schaefer
USCG Auxiliary
78 Bluebill Court
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-8898
 Charles Schonder
 94 Sugarland Run Drive
 Sterling, VA 20164
 ph: 703-941-7216
Michael Short
Cape Gazette
P.O.Box 213
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-7327 fax: 302-645-1664
   .  ..          •
 Tom Shuster
 Ocean City Recreation & Parks
 200 125th Street
 Ocean City, MD 21842
 ph: 410-250-0125
                                                                                                         I; 1;
 Debbie Rouse
 DE DNR & Environmental Control
 P. O. Box 1401
 Dover, DE 19S03
 ph: 302-739-4590 fax: 302-739-6140
 Chuck Schonder
 DNREC, Delaware Coastal Programs
 89 Kings Highway
 Dover, DE  19901
 ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
 Debbie Shuster
 12517 Deer Point Circle
 Berlin, MD  21811
 ph: 410-213-9658
 Monda Sagalkin
 Defenders of Wildlife
 17407 Taylors Landing Road
 Sharpsburg. MD  21782
 ph: 301-432-6847 fax: 301-766-0089
 John Schroer
 US F&WS - Chincoteague
 P. O. Box 62
 Chincoteague, VA 23336
 ph: 757-336-6122 fax: 757-336-5273
 U of MD Eastern Shore
 Princess Anne, MD 21853
 ph: 410-651-6291  fax:410-651-7662
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

I    John Siowik
•    731-B Bradley Road
•    Ocean City, MD 21842
•    ph: 410-524-3869

I    Kevin Smith
      DNR Watershed Restoration Div.
      580 Taylor Avenue
      Annapolis, MD 21403
      ph: 410-260-8797 fax: 410-260-8779
Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rogers
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis;, MD 21401
ph: 410-2:60-8100 fax: 410-260-8111
James Thomas
Izaak Wailton League
2 W. Ring Factory Road
Bel Air, MD 21014-5302
ph: 410-838-3966
  Thomas Turner
  Loudoun Soil & Water Conserv. Dist.
  30 Catoctin Circle, SE, Suite H
  Leesburg, VA 20175
  ph: 703-777-2075 fax: 703-443-0187
  Alice Tweedy
  MD Coastal Bays Program
  3522 Figgs Landing Road
  Snow Hill, MD 21863
  ph: 410-632-0991
      Harley Speir
      MD Dept. of Natural Resources
      580 Taylor Avenue
      Annapolis, MD 21401
      ph: 410-260-8271
Suzanne Thurman
Carmine Environmental Center
RR 2 Box 161
Lewes, DE  19958
ph: 302-945-0677
  Bud Tweedy
  MD Coastal Bays Program
  3522 Figgs Landing Road
  Snow Hill, MD 21863
  ph: 410-632-0991
      Jack Stewart
      Indian River Tributary Action Team
      P. O. Box 1252
      Ocean View, DE 19970
      ph: 302-537-2682
Shuli Tor
P.O. Box1221
Chincoteague, VA 23336
ph: 757-336-3673
  Dr. William Ullman
  U of DE College of Marine Studies
  700 Pilottown Road
  Lewes, DE  19958
  ph: 302-645-4302 fax: 302-645-4007
      Jennifer Stott
      MD Geological Survey
      2300 St. Paul Street
      Baltimore, MD 21218
      ph: 410-554-5571 fax:410-554-5502
John Torgan                     ;
Narragansett BayKeeper
Save The Bay, 434 Smith Street     ',
Providence, Rl 2906
ph: 401 -272-3540  fax: 401 -273-7153
  Wolfgang von Baumgart
  Solutions to Avoid Red Tide
  37 Comanche Circle
  Millsboro. DE 19966
  ph: 302-945-2646
      Jack Tarburton
      DE Dept. of Agriculture
      2320 S. DuPont Highway
      Dover, DE 19901
      ph: 302-739-4811 fax:302-697-4463
 Jack Travelstead
 VA Marine Resources Commission
 2600 Washington Avenue
 Newport News, VA 23607
 ph: 757-247-2248
  Adele von Baumgart
  Indian River Tributary Team
  37 Comanche Circle
  Millsboro, DE 19966
  ph: 302-945-2646
      Mitchell Tarnowski
      MD Dept. of Natural Resources
      580 Taylor Avenue
      Annapolis, MD  21401
      ph: 410-260-8258
 Tim Tull
 Commercial Fishing / MCBP
 4508 Outten Road
 Snow Hill, MD  21863
 ph: 410-632-3056
   Eric Walbeck
   US EPA, Region III / MAIA team
   110 Marykay Road
   Timonium, MD 21093
   ph: 410-305-2760 fax:410-305-3095
      Jack Tawil
      MD Dept. of Natural Resources
      580 Taylor Avenue, E-2
      Annapolis, MD 21401
      ph: 410-260-8711  fax:410-260-8709
 Paryse Turgeon
 MD Dept. of the Environment
 2500 Broening Highway           '
 Baltimore, MD 21224
 ph: 410-631-6749 fax: 410-631-3873
   Eric Walberg
   Hampton Rds. Planning Dist. Comm.
   723 Woodlake Drive
   Chesapeake, VA 23320
   ph: 757-420-8300
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

George E. Ward, Jr.
6125 George Island Landing Road
Stockton, MD 21864
ph: 410-632-0499
Al Wesche
MD DNR - Fisheris Service
12917 Harbor Road
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-213-1531  fax: 410-213-2846
                                                                             Bob Wilson
                                                                             US F&WS - Chincoteague
                                                                             P.O. Box 62
                                                                             Chincoteague, VA 23336
                                                                             ph: 757-336-6122 fax: 757-336-5273
Dr. Bryan Watts
Center for Conservation Biology
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
ph; 757-481-1226
Lee Whaley
Senator Paul Sarbanes Office
110 West Church Street, Suite D
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-860-2131 fax: 410-860-2134
                                                                             Bob Wilson
                                                                             Assateague Coastal Trust
                                                                             6302 Knoll Hill Drive
                                                                             Berlin, MD 21811
                                                                             ph: 410-629-1434
Cathy Wazniak
MD Coastal Bays Program
9609 Stephen Decatur Highway
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-260-8638 fax: 410-260-8640
  Jessica V^ebber    _'["   ,'""     ,'   '
 = Entrix, Iric"
  200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 200
  Wilmington, DE 19809
  ph: 302-792-9310 fax: 302-792-9329
Ed Whereat
Inland Bays Citizen Mentoring
Univ. of Delaware, 700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4252
                                      Marguerite Whilden
                                      MD DNR Fisheries Service
                                      580 Taylor Avenue, B-4
                                      Annapolis, MD 21401
                                      ph: 410-260-8269 fax: 410-260-8278
                                                                             Donald Winslow
                                                                             Assateague Coastal Trust
                                                                             63 Lookout Point
                                                                             Berlin, MD  21811
                                      Marion Winslow
                                      Assateague Coastal Trust
                                      63 Lookout Point
                                      Berlin, MD 21811
                                      ph: 410-208-6613
;       ••<	• i    .      	"
Darlene Wells
MD Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul Street
Baltimore; Mb 21218
ph: 410-554-5518 fax:410-554-5502
Carol Wells
Inland Bays Citizen Mentoring
Pinewater Farms, 4 Blackberry Lane
Harbeson, DE 19951
Jack White
Va Marine Resource Commission
1 Randolph Avenue
Cape Charles, VA  23310
ph: 57-678-0440
Larry Whitlock
3409 Coastal Highway
Ocean City, MD  21842
                                                                              •    ,.,  .               ,        ,
                                                                             Philip Wirth
                                                                             Versar Inc.
                                                                             9200 Rumsey Road
                                                                             Columbia, MD 21045
                                                                             ph: 410-740-6066 fax: 410-964-5156
                                                                             Walter" Witt
                                                                             MD Conservation Corps
                                                                             4011 Old Furnance Road
                                                                             Snow Hill, MD 21863
                                                                             ph: 410-632-3561
Richard Welton
Coastal Conservation &soc.,VA
2lpO Manna Shores'Snyej	§urfe 108""
Vfrginia Beach, VA 23451
ph: 757-481-1226
Robert Whitman
Delaware General Assembly
814 Dallam Road
Newark, DE  19711
ph: 302-731-4208
                                                                             John Wqlflin
                                                                             US Fish & Wildlife Service
                                                                             177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
                                                                             Anhapoiis, Mb 21401
                                                                             ph: 410-573-4573 fax: 410-269-0832
  MD Salhvtr, Sportsfishermen's Assn
{ '"liPlntgl'briye	
ii , Berlin, MD 2W1	
  ph: 410-208-0768
                                      Dave Wilson
                                      MD Coastal Bays Program
                                      9609 Stephen Decatur Highway
                                      Berlin", MD  21811
                                      ph: 410-213-2297  fax: 410-213-2574
                                      Harry Womack
                                      Salisbury State University
                                      1101 Camden Avenue
                                      Salisbury, MD 21801
                                      ph: 410-546-3692
                                                                                                          I !*'
De/ma/va's Coastal Bays Conference III
 Susan Woods
 MD Dept of the Environment
 2500 Broening Highway
 Baltimore, MD 21224
 ph: 410-631-3172 fax: 410-631-3936
Helen Woods
VA Institute of Marine Science
P. O. Box 995
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
ph: 804-684-7663
Carl Yetter
DE DNR/ DE Coastal Programs
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE  19901
ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
Nancy Zapotocki
Worcester County Comp. Planning
111 Franklin Street, Unit 1
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-5651 fax:410-632-5654
Jian Zhou
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8297 fax:410-260-8278
Carl Zimmerman
Assateague Island National Seashore
7604 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                  "" if'.1   f','K\
                                               APPENDIX C

What is the History and Current Status of Maryland's Eel Populations?
   Julie A. Weeder and William P. Mowitt, Fisheries Service, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
   Tawes State Office Building C-2, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis MD 21 401
   ph: 4iO-643"-6' 78~§; fax: 41 0-643-41 36; mata-fish-2@dnr.state.md. us
      The American Eel (anguilla rostrata) fishery is economically important in Maryland's coastal bays and Chesapeake Bay. In
      recent years, coast-wide commercial catches of the American eel have been declining, while Maryland catches have
      iQCjeased, in the 1990s. The U.S. eel fishery is driven by European and Asian demand for live eels for consumption and
      fishery restoration, the number and weight of eels have declined substantially between the early 1980s and the late
      i$90s. We determined the size and age of eels caught in the commercial fishery from 1 997 to 1 999. Growth rates
      between rivers varied significantly. The fishery was dominated by young, small eels, and eels were entering the fishery at a
      Very young age. Few large, old eels were observed.  Declining harvest, high rates of growth and the relative scarcity of
      large, older eels is consistent with a fishery which is not attaining maximum yield due to natural or induced pressures.

Assateague Coastal Trust
   P. Q. Box 731 , Berlin MD 21 81 1
   ph: 4^-629-1531; fax: 410-629-1059;
      "[he Assateague Coastal Trust (ACT) is the only Delmarva grassroots, non-profit organization working to preserve
      Assateague Island and the living resources of the coastal ecosystem. ACT is nationally recognized for its long history of
      protecting Assateague Island National Seashore, Assateague State Park, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and the
      Delmarya 'cpisiif bays through advocacy efforts and by sponsoring outreach programs to promote awareness among
      Klmarva's dtlzins and visitors about these natural resources and their long-term sustainability. Since its inception in
      |970, the organization (originally known as the Committee to Preserve Assateague Island) has successfully led efforts to
      protect the ecological health of Assateague Island and its rich resources, the adjacent coastal bays as well as other
      threatened areas where land meets water in the mid-Atlantic region.
      1* .  : ........ • !'<  •• Bill  . ""ir  '. ' .  '•   -' v|,,  ,, . ...... . ••      !•  •:           i      •;•   • . . . . • . u • |    •• •,.   ..... • • •.          •• ,  &•>•
        "          , ,'*.!.   r,l        .1  .rvi;  ! .      .     'i                     ..........        i       ""           ,    1  II  'Sir!,'
 Bacterial Contamination in Maryland's Coastal Bay Canals
    Dr. Harry Womack / Students, Salisbury State University
    1 1 01 Camden Avenue, Salisbury MD 21 801
    ph! 410-543-6492: fax: 410-543-6433: HEWOMACKQjssu.edu
      Coliform bacteria, used widely as a measure of water contamination by intestinal waste, were periodically measured for a
      year in seven Coastal Bay dead-end canals. The canals were shown to be massively contaminated with coliforms,
      especially during summer months.  These studies, combined with previous physical and chemical characteristics
      assessment, indicate very poor water quality due to heavy nutrient and waste contamination and lack of adequate flushing.

 BayScapes - Landscaping to Benefit People and Wildlife
    US Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office
    177 Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis MD  21401
    ph: 410-573-4581; http://www.fws.gov/r5cbfo
      BayScapes are environmentally sound landscapes benefiting people, wildlife, and water quality.  Using BayScapes
      principles, you  can create: low-input landscapes, requiring less mowing, fertilizing, and pesticide use; attractive, colorful
      landscapes with hundreds of colorful and beneficial plants to choose from; diverse habitats for songbirds, small mammals,
      Butterflies and  other creatures. Beneficial plants are well adapted to local climate and soil types. As a result, they require
      minjmaJ maintenance and often help wildlife as well, by providing food, shelter, and places to raise their young.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
                                                                                 '!:;„ •.
                                                                                                            I .&.  If

Biohabitats - Ecological Restoration
   Edward Morgereth                                                   :
   15 W. Aylelsbury Road, Timonium MD 21093                          !
   ph: 410-337-3659: about@biohabitat.com
      Biohabitats, Inc. is an environmental consulting and design firm specializing in ecological assessments, planning, and
      restoration. Founded in 1982, Biohabitats operates throughout the Mid Atlantic region providing comprehensive solutions
      to environmental problems for a wide variety of projects. Biohabitats has a multi-disciplinary staff that includes
      environmental scientists, field ecologists, landscape architects, and cartographers. Biohabitats Inc. works with private land
      developers, industrial and commercial corporations, utilities and federal, state, and local government agencies to produce
      environmentally sensitive land use plans and ecological restoration designs.

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service    ;
   P.O. Box 62
   Chincoteague, VA 23336                                             \
   ph: 757-336-6122 fax: 757-336-5273;  R5RW-chnwr@fws.gov: www.chjnco.fws.gov
      The Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1943 to provide habitat and protection for migrating birds in
      response to the dwindling of once enormous waterfowl populations in the Delmarva region. During the early 1900's
      wholesale conversion of wetlands to agriculture and private development, coupled with outlaw market gunning for food and
      plumage had threatened many bird species. The location of the refuge, most of which is on the Virginia end of Assateague
      Island, is along the Atlantic flyway and  provides essential coastal habitat for migrating and nesting birds and indigenous
      wildlife. Chincoteague refuge is known as one of the East's finest birdwatching areas.

CISNet Program: Collaborative Research in Delaware's Inland Bays
   Dr. William J. Ullman, College of Marine Studies
   University of Delaware, Lewes DE 19958-1298
   ph: 302-645-4302; ullman@udel.edu
      Delaware's Inland Bays were chosen in 1998 as one of eleven sites of the Coastal Intensive Site Network (CISNet).  At
      each CISNet site, there are one or more long-term monitoring and research projects to use ecological indicators to monitor
      the environmental conditions of the site and to integrate the response of the site to environmental stress. These
      investigations provide information that will help environmental managers facing similar environmental issues at other
      estuarine sites.  The Inland Bays Program focuses on nutrient sources, sinks, transport and utilization within Indian River
      and Rehoboth Bays and their watersheds, and represents the largest coordinated research effort concerning Delaware's
      Inland Bays and its watershed in the history of such studies.  The National CISNet Program is a collaboration of the U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin, and the National Aeronautics & Space
      Admin. Additional support for this program comes from the Delaware Sea Grant College Program, the Delaware Dept. of
      Natural Resources & Environmental Control, the Delaware Geological Survey, and the Center for the Inland Bays.

Climate Change Outreach Program - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
   David Hall, EPA Climate Change Outreach Program
   1019 19th Street, NW, Suite  1200, Washington DC 20036
   ph: 202-331-4323; fax: 202-331-9420: dhall@vancomm.com
      The earth's climate is predicted to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the
      atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and
      chlorofluorocarbons. The heat-trapping properly of these greenhouse gases is undisputed. Although there is uncertainty
      about exactly how and when the earth's climate will respond to enhanced concentrations of greenhouse gases,
      observations indicate that detectable changes are under way. There most likely will be increases in temperature and
      changes in precipitation, soil moisture, and sea level, which could have adverse effects on many ecological systems, as
      well as on human health and the economy. At EEPA's Climate Change Program booth learn how climate change and sea
      level rise may affect the Delmarva area's coastal communities, wildlife, and ecosystems.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

 Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
    467 Highway One, Lewes DE 19958
    ph: 302-645-7325; fax: 302-645-5765; www.udel.edu/CIB
      The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays was established as a nonprofit organization in 1994 under the Inland Bays
      Watershed Enfo§ncernent Act. Its rnissiop is to pvereee the irnplemeritation of the Inland Bays Comprehensive
      Conservation and Management Plan and to facilitate a long-term approach for the wise use and enhancement of the inland
      bays watershed by conducting public outreach and education, developing and implementing conservation projects, and
      establishing a long-term process for the preservation of the inland bays watershed. The goals of the Center for the Inland
      Bays are: 1) To sponsor and support educational activities, restoration efforts, and land acquisition programs that lead to
      the present and future preservation and enhancement of the inland bays watershed; 2) To build, maintain, and foster the
      partnership among the general public; the private sector; and local, state,  and federal governments, which is essential for
      establishing and sustaining policy, programs, and the political will to preserve and restore the resources of the inland bays
      watershed; and 3) To serve as a neutral forum where inland bays watershed issues may be analyzed and considered for
      the purposes of providing responsible officials and the public with a basis  for making informed decisions concerning the
      management of the resources of the inland bays watershed.

 Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences (DLITE)
    Lisa Challenger, Worcester County Economic Development
    113 Franklin Street, #1, Snow Hill MD 21863
    ph; 410-632-3110; fax: 410-632-3158; econ@ezv.net: www.delmarvalite.com
      Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences is a 501(c)(3) organization organized to devise and implement locally-
      appropriate policies, practices, protocols and ethics for nature and culture-based tourism operations on Delmarva. It is
      comprised of tourism-oriented businesses,  local and regional organizations and individuals who recognize the important
      values, both human and economic, of the area's distinctive natural and cultural histories. Memberships are available.
••' !.  "•   '''il1'!'"'  '   nil; •  ''iliif'ilp'ii1' ' :'''''!Hi[ • 4i'"' •;''  '•   ' '>   " ;''   '   i  '  '• "''i  l  n           '    i  i n      i      "... •];, •!• • M«U"     * , ,. .^.rip •.» j •mhi
 Eelgrass: Habitat fragmentation and Patchiness in Transplanted Eelgrass Beds -
 Effects on Decapods and Fish
    Helen Woods, Virginia Institute of Marine  Science
    Gloucester Point VA 23062
    ph; 804-684-7663; fax: 804-684-7140; www.vims.edu/~hwoods

 Exotic Species Research: Veined Rapa Whelk
    Juliana Harding  , VA institute of Marinei Science, Department of Fisheries Science
    P.O. Box 1346, Gloucester Point VA 23062-1346                                ]  "\
    ph: 804-684-7302: jharding@vims.edu: www.vims.edu/fish/ovreef/rapven.htnnl
      The recent discovery of the Veined Rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) in the lower Chesapeake Bay has potentially serious
      ecological and economic consequences. This large gastropod is native to the orient but has also been introduced into the
      Black, Aegean, and Adriatic Seas.  The presence of this animal poses ecological consequences for native gastropod and
      shellfish populations in that Rapa Whelks are voracious predators and have been identified as major contributors to the
      decimation of shellfish stocks in the Black Sea since their introduction. Economically, the two most favored prey items for
      this animal are also the targets of viable Chesapeake Bay commercial fisheries: hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) and
      oyster (Crassostrea virginica). The Rapa whelk's life history, habitat preferences, and  distinguishing characteristics will be
      discussed in the context of the lower Chesapeake Bay and the ongoing research effort at the Virginia Institute of Marine
      Science (VIMS). Research updates are available from the VIMS Rapa Whelk Research.

 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
    P. 6" Box 500368, Marathon FL 33050
    ph; 305-743-2437; fax: 305-743-2357; fknms@ocean.nos.noaa.gov:
      Developed to protect America's coral reef and its surrounding marine communities for the use and enjoyment of future
      generations, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) has established five types of zones: Wildlife
      Management Areas, Ecological Reserves, Sanctuary Preservation Areas, Existing Management Areas and Special Use
      Areas. Information and posters about the FKNMS.
 Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Haplosporidium Coastale - Still Active in the Waters of Chincoteague Bay in 1999
   D. Howard, C.A. Farley, and G. Ward, NOAA / Cooperative Oxford Lab
   904 S. Morris Street, Oxford MD 21654
     Haplosporidium coastals (seaside organism or SSO) is still prevalent in Chincoteague Bay 30 years after it was discovered
     and described by Wood and Andrews in 1962. Researchers were interested to see if SSO would develop in oysters
     transferred to Chincoteague Bay from an area in Chesapeake Bay where the disease was not present. The objective was
     to find out if the oysters would contract the disease by exposing them to the1 parameters described by J. Couch and
     Rosenfield in 1967.

Hard Clam Aquaculture                                                :
   Steve and Christy Gordon, Gordon Shellfish, LLC
   P. O. Box 336, Pocomoke City MD 21851
   ph: 410-957-4100; fax: 410-957-1301; saordon@mafi.com
     Local residents can learn about the business of hard clam aquaculture.

Horseshoe Crabs - Raising HSC in the Classroom
   Cindy Grove, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
   Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis MD 21401;
   ph: 410-260-8716: carove@dnr.state.md.us
     Maryland students and teachers are learning about horseshoe crabs through this new program developed by the MD Dep.
     Of Natural Resources, Aquatic Resources Education Program, Conservation Education Unit, and the Maryland Fisheries
     Service. A cooperative program piloted in the 1998-99 school year, the horseshoe crab project allows students in grades 4
     - 8 to study management issues, connections to the bio-medical industry, life history and ecological roles, and economic
     issues involving horseshoe crabs. Classroom presentations are conducted by TEAM DNR (Teaching Environmental
     Awareness in Maryland) and volunteers and participating classrooms are outfitted with equipment, horseshoe crab eggs,
     resources materials, and a teachers packet with activities and writing prompts. This program allows Maryland students to
     get involved in real life management issues while working across multiple subject areas.

Maryland Coastal Bays Program                                       :
   Dave Wilson,  Outreach Director                                     .         .
   9609 Stephen Decatur Highway, Berlin  MD 2:1811
   ph: 410-213-2297; fax: 410-213-2574; dwilson@dnr.state.md.us: www.dnr.state.md.us/mcbp
     As part of the National Estuary Program, the Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MCBP) is a cooperative effort between
     Worcester County, Berlin, Ocean City, the State of Maryland, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which have come
     together to work with the citizens of Worcester County to produce the first ever management plan for their bays. The MCBP
     is involved in hands-on volunteer projects, public education and outreach and implementation of the Comprehensive
     Conservation Management Plan (CCMP). The exhibit provides photographs of Worcester County, copies of the CCMP and
     information about the Maryland Coastal Bays Foundation.                <

Maryland Conservation Council
   Millie Kriemelmeyer
   16900 Mattawoman Lane, Waldorf MD 20603
   ph: 301-372-8766; fax: 301-782-7615; hkriernel@radix.net
      The Maryland Conservation Council (MCC) is a statewide coalition of environmental organizations and concerned citizens,
      incorporated in 1969. MCC's purpose is to provide an effective and continuing coordinating structure to work for the
      preservation and appreciation of Maryland's rich natural heritage, to sustain the vitality of its biological diversity and of its
      varied ecological systems, and to ensure the wise use of its resources. MC'C meets monthly around the state. MCC also
      publishes the weekly "Conservation Report" during the MD State Legislature session to keep members updated on
      important environmental legislation.

Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Association - Atlantic Coast Chapter
   Henry Koellein, Jr.
   538 Marlinspike Drive, Severna Park MD  21146
   ph: 410-208-0567; barck@erols.com
      The Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Association works to provide a unified voice to preserve and protect the rights,
      traditions, and future of recreational fishing. The Atlantic Coast Chapter, with 300 members, is an area leader in that effort.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

 Maryland Terrapin Station Project
    Marguerite Whilden, Maryland DNR, Fisheries Service Outreach & Advancement
    Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis MD 21401
    ph: 410-260-8269: mwhilden@dnr.state.md.us
       The Maryland Terrapin Station Project includes outreach and advancement of Fisheries among the non-traditional
       audiences, new crab pot regulations to reduce by-catch, terrapin nesting sanctuaries, the terrapin head-start and
       repatriation program, and stock monitoring and management measures. The Terrapin Research Consortium, convened to
       discuss range-wide research, management and conservation of the diamondback terrapin, will also be introduced.
                                                                                 ;   i

 Narragansett BayKeeper / Water Keeper Alliance
    John Torgan, Save The Bay
    434 Smith Street, Providence Rl 02906
    ph: 401-272-3540; fax: 410-273-7153; narraganbay@keeper.org

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    1305 East-West Highway, SSMC-4, Silver Spring MD 20910
    ph: 301-713-3155; fax: 301-713-4012
       NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management includes Coastal zone Management - a voluntary partnership
       of federal and state government to reduce conflicts between land and water uses in the coastal zone and conserve coastal
       resources. The crux of the CZMA is that responsible development and conservation of coastal resources can and must go
       hand-in-hand to keep our economy strong, our waters clean and our resources healthy arid productive.
                    i ,!'Pllf!,!l 'i1', li1'11!,*,,
 Ocean City Power Squadron
:  , , Joan Cook	           	,	[
    239 Qcean Parky/ay, Berlin MD 21811
    ph: 4j p-641 Ig-jgg: jvcookel @iunq.com
       The dcean City Power Squadron (member of the United States Power Squadron) is a social and fraternal organization
       dedicated to safe boating operation. Safe boating is promoted through education and community involvement.

 Oyster Aquaculture and Oyster Reef Restoration
    Mark Luckenbach, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Eastern Shore Laboratory
    P. O. Box 350 Wachapreague VA 23480
    ph: 757:787-5816; fax: 757-787-5831; luck@vims.edu: www.vims.edu

 Oyster Gardening Project - Assateague Coastal Trust
    Ron Pilling
    P. O. Box 731, Berlin MD 21811
    ph: 410-629-1538: act@beachin.net or pilling@erols.com
       In an effort to assist with research to help build a sustainable population of oysters that will reproduce and increase the
       Assateague Coastal Trust will be partnering with the Oyster Alliance (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Maryland Sea Grant
       Extension Program, University of MD Center for Environmental Science and the Oyster Recovery Partnership) in an oyster
       gardening project.  Individuals and school groups interested in volunteering will build a Taylor float to hold oyster spat and
       then learn how to monitor the growing oysters, maintain the float and collect data. Information from the oyster gardeners up
       and down the coast will assist scientists find the species of oysters that are resistant to disease and determine where and
       how oysters are most likely to survive in the Coastal Bays.
 pelmarya's Coastal Bays Conference III

 P'lasticulture: Evaluating the Impacts of Runoff from Vegetable Farms on Living Resources In Tidal Creeks
  G. Arnold, M. Luckenbach                                           !
  Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Eastern Shore Laboratory, Wachapreague VA 23480
  M. Roberts, Jr., M. Newman, D. Powell, M. linger, G. Vadas, M. Vogelbein
  Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062
  ph: 757-787-5816; aretchen@.vims.edu                                                                    .
     In North America, commercial vegetable growers are increasingly using impermeable plastic as a crop mulch. This farming
     practice termed plasticulture, increases surface water runoff that can carry increased loadings of pesticides to nearby
     estuarine waters. In coastal Virginia, cultivation of tomatoes, peppers, and eggplant in plasticulture is thought to cause
     adverse effects on living resources in tidal creeks.  We have used a multi-faceted approach that combines field and
     laboratory bioassays, chemical analyses of runoff from fields, and characterization of benthos and nekton in receiving tidal
     creeks to assess the impacts of plasticulture use.  Six watersheds that contain different amounts of plasticulture have been
     examined for several years. Our initial results emphasized the importance of managing storm water runoff from these
     fields.  Current efforts are focused on evaluating the efficacy of management practices presently used by farmers to
     address these concerns.

Restoring The Bay Scallop Argopecten Irradians To Chincoteague Bay, Maryland
   Mitchell L. Tarnowski, Robert Bussell  and Mark Homer, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
   Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis MD 21401
      Bay scallops were once found throughout the coastal bays system and formed the basis of a small but lucrative fishery
      centered around Chincoteague, Va. However, when a blight eradicated the eelgrass meadows in the early 1930's, the
      scallops lost their preferred habitat and also disappeared. In recent years sea grasses have made a remarkable recovery in
      this region. With thousands of acres of sea grass meadows now in existence, and stable, relatively high year-round
      salinities afforded through the stabilization of the Ocean City (Md.) Inlet, conditions appear to be optimal for the return of
      the bay scallop. It seemed that the primary hindrance to the return of the bay scallop was the absence of a near-by source
      of reproducing adults. A restoration effort by the MDNR Shellfish Program resulted in the planting of 1.2 million seed
      scallops in Chincoteague Bay in 1997  and 1998. It was intended that these would serve as brood stock whose progeny
      would  begin to repopulate the bay. Using a combination of fenced exclosure? and crab pots to protect the young scallops
      from predators, over 85% of the plantings survived to sexual maturity. Although this species generally spawns once, the
      scallops planted in 1997 spawned an unprecedented three times, including twice in one season. Growth rates have been
      disappointing however, with few scallops reaching market size. Progeny from the 1997 planting have yet to be confirmed.
      The second year of recruitment will be evaluated  next spring.

 SAV - Assessment of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Aquaculture Bottom Land Use in the Lower
 Chesapeake Bay Estuary
   A.V. Lombana, R.J. Orth, J.van Montfrans, R.N. Lipcius, D.J. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, J.R. Fishman
   Virginia Institute of Marine Science; School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary
   Gloucester Point VA 23062
   ph: 804-684-7392; fax: 804-684-7293; http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav

 SAV - Identifying & Resolving Fisheries  Management Conflicts in a Recovering Seagrass System
   R.J. Orth, D.J. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, J.R.  Fishrnan
   Virginia  Institute of Marine Science; School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary
   Gloucester Point VA 23062
   ph: 804-684-7392; fax: 804-684-7293; http://vvww.vims.edu/bio/sav    |

 Shellfish Demonstration Work in Delaware's Coastal Bays 1998-1999
   John W. Ewart, DE Aquaculture Resource Center
   Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, College of Marine Studies
   University of Delaware,  700 Pilottown Road, Lewes DE 19958
   ph: 302-645-4060; fax: 3Q2-645-4Q07:ewartfii>udel.edu: http://darc.cms.udel.edu/
      Maintaining healthy populations of shellfish for their ecological, recreational and commercial contribution to the overall
      health and productivity of the estuary is a priority  of the Center for the Inland  Bay's Comprehensive Management Plan.
      Shellfish field demonstration work conducted during the initial 1998 season established a 5,600 square foot enclosure at
      the James Farm site in Indian River Bay for planting and evaluation of two species of commercially important bivalve
      molluscs. Two small scale bottom plantings of hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) simulating a pilot scale stock
      enhancement effort were established at the James Farm enclosure (3500 clams) and at Savage's Ditch in Rehoboth Bay
       (10,000 clams). Two size classes of native Delaware Bay oyster seed (Crassostrea virginica) were deployed in off-bottom
      "transient" culture gear at the James Farm site. Fish growth and survival was monitored at all sites summer and fall 1998.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

Shoreline Changes - Maryland's Coastal Bays
   Lamere Hennes;|ee and Jennifer Stott
   Maryland Geological Survey
   2300 St. Paul Street, Baltimore MD 21218
   ph: 410-554-5519: fax: 410-554-5502: lhennessee@mgs.md.gov
      The Maryland Geological Survey is compiling digital and paper Shoreline Changes maps for the nine 7.5-minute
      quadrangles of the coastal bays in Maryland. Digital shoreline vectors, representing various shoreline positions between
      tfie years 1850 and 1 089, are being digitized from MGS's Historical Shorelines and Erosion Rates Atlas, NOAA coastal
      survey maps, and a digital wetlands delineation based on 1988-1989 orthopnotography. The six northern quads are
      complete; the three southern quads will be finished within a year. The digital shorelines are being used to calculate coastal
      Ipnd loss overlme. Erosion studies, coupled with information about sea level rise, enable managers to plan more
      |Jfe<:tiyeIy 'for "the effects of global warming on coastal communities and the related infrastructure. This information may
      also be used to address a variety of other coastal issues: (1) determining seyja£;kg for f|OOCj insurance and other purposes,
      (2) determining the volume of sediment lost by erosion, a critical component in calculating a sediment budget for the
      coastal bays, (3) assessing the effects of shoreline erosion on bay water quality (e.g., turbidity, nutrient loading) and
      subaqueous habitats* and (4) understanding the processes responsible for shoreline erosion.
              '        '         •     '    '       •                    '            ""  •                      '      •
Survey Site Maps for EPA's 1 998 "Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries" Report
   Frederick W. (Rick) Kutz, US Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic Assessment Team
   701 Mapes Road, Fort Meade MD 20755
   ph: 410-305-2742: fax: 410-305-3095: kut2.rick@epamail.epa.gov
      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has led efforts to protect and restore the nation's estuaries by implementing
      such laws as the Clean Water Act and by participating in projects like National Estuary F'rograms. This display identifies
      survey sites in Sinepuxent, Chincoteague and the Virginia Coastal Bays on GIS map of the area that were used to compile
      8ata for the "Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries* report.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science Eastern Shore Laboratory - An Overview
   Francis X. O'Beirn, PhD, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Eastern Shore Lab
   P. O. Box 350, Wachapreague VA 23480
   ph: 575-787-5837; fax: 575-787-5831: francis@vims.edu: www.vims.edu
      The Eastern Shore Laboratory of Virginia Institute of Marine Science was founded in the 60's and originally served as an
      outpost to monitor disease causing organisms of oysters. Since then, the scope of operations at the lab have greatly
      expanded. In addition to involvement in shellfish, aquaculture, research at the laboratory has focused on oyster reed
      restoration efforts and land use practices as they relate to water quality. In addition, the laboratory has an active education
      program which caters to students of all ages. The laboratory also caters to visiting scientists studying all aspects of the
      coastal bays and near shore waters.

Volunteering For The Coast - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
   Nina Petrovtoh, NpAA, Coastal Services Center
   2234ST Hobson Avenue,  Charleston SC 29405
   ph: 843-740-1 203; fax: 843-740-1313: npetrovich@csc.noaa.gov
      Learn about the public outreach efforts and ways to get .information about NOAA and coastal initiatives.

Wetlands Restoration in the Coastal Bays
   Sus^n Woods, Maryland Department of the Environment
   2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore MD 21224
   ph: 416-631-3172: fax: 410-631-3936: estierstorfer@mde.state.md.us: www.mde.state.md.us
      MDE's display highlights restoring Maryland's wetlands and help our coastal bays.  Become part of the solution, help
      restore' Maryland's wetlands. Involve your business, school, community group or local government. Financial and technical
      assistance available.
Pelmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III

                                          APPENDIX D
                                   CONFERENCE EVALUATION
1 a. Did the Conference cover what you expected?            :

     All those who responded said yes.
     The respondents found the conference to be very valuable and praised the Assateague Coastal Trust (ACT)
     for doing an excellent job in organizing it.

1b. What were the coverage strengths?

     Many of the respondents commented that the main coverage strength was the diversity of coverage, citing a
     diversity of lecture topics, representation from all three states, representation at different levels of organization,
     from local to statewide, and a good blend of science, management, and citizen interest. The specific topics
     that were named as coverage strengths were: natural resources overview, management issues, tristate
     program updates, and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).

1 c. What other items would you like to have seen addressed?

     •  The role of education/outreach in providing for the long-term health of coastal bays.
     •  More specific details of existing programs ~ what works, what didn't, and why - to inspire new initiatives.
        Need for adequate riparian buffers, public acquisition of sensitive areas and floodplains.
     •  More emphasis on developing solutions or recommendations about multi-use conflicts.
     •  Discussion of how much human impact is tolerable - where do we draw the line?
     •  More discussion of land use in the watershed. For example: sprawl development and impacts of sewage
        runoff, agriculture, monitoring of pesticide use in golf courses.
     •   More discussion of terrestrial animals in the watershed.
     •   More discussion of recreational interests such as fishing, boating, birdwatching.
     •   More balanced representation of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia.
     •   More discussion of what measures can be taken to discourage developers and builders from developing
     •   Review of the impact of the Route 50 bridge rock fill on flushing of northern bays - the rock fill has had
         more of an impact than most people realize.

2. What do you think are  the most important issues associated with preserving the aquatic
resources of the tristate region?                               :

     1. Education of all public in the coastal bays watershed about natural resources.
     2. Habitat protection.                                        ;
     3. Preservation of water quality.
     4. Reduction of human impacts.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference IH

 3.  What specific actions can be taken to address these issues?
•:!. ''     i  i         11    ill        '  :\:i "          '!'": ;' •!  i ''       M      II
      •   Education at all levels (e.g.  signs at boat ramps, pamphlets at jet ski rentals, user-targeted mailings, boater
          education programs; school programs; education of politicians).
      •   Better coordination among the three states. Share data and expertise.  Enforce equivalent fisheries
      	   restrictions across three states.      	     	\
      »   Land use planning. Control growth in critical areas and expand buffers along waterways. Protect
          farmlands from development.
      »   Zone water ways. Ban hydraulic clamming. Zone SAV beds wider than present to allow expansion.  Limit
          jet ski use areas. Establish no-take zones.
      p   Enforcement of regulations (at local or federal level; possibly funded by a small tourism tax). Publish a list
          of state and loral contactsisp that citizensi may report violation.
      •   Determine actions that wouid protect bays against invasive species.
      •   Encourage nutrient management on farms; export manure.
      •   Encourage aquaculture.
      I   Research; weneed more data to make informed, good management decisions.
      •   Political action to influence  legislation.
      *   Continue communication among interest groups.
 4.  Other Comments:
          Many presentations were well organized and executed, but the communication of ideas would be
          Improved if speakers would summarize the main ideas, hot just the data.
          Next time, more representation of commercial fishing interests, especially hydraulic clam dredging; invite
          representation of commercial jet ski industry; encourage representation by local town councils.
          Time keeping was a problem, especially for panel discussions. Next time use a timer.  Panelists should
          have a limited time to introduce their key ideas to enable more interaction among panelists and between
          panelists and audience.
          More time for questions and answers. This time would also allow time for citizens to present their views.
        .  Exhibits were excellent.   	\	'	'	' :_'_	"	^^	'  _	'  '  '   /_'M
          Facilities; the seminar room was poorly designed for a large group; many people could not see the
          screen, ^ext time provide a wireless microphone and an adjustable podium for tall speakers. Next time
          have recycling bins available at meals.
 Total §tfendanc§a| Jfte conference was 284.  The summary above is based on 3$ evaluation
 forms that were turned in after the conference, representing 12% of the conference participants.
                                                                          if  r  '     . •• •  •
                                                                         Jill;' [' '••<',;:':  ("t;''.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III


United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for
   Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.

If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERED ;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
    PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use