v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 2046O
EPA/620/R-00/001
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
-------
-------
EPA/62Q/R-00/001
June 2000
PROCEEDINGS
DELMARVA COASTAL BAYS CONFERENCE III:
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
-------
ABSTRACT
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
community.
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
issues;
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
in
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
PREFACE
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-
03744.
|
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
Monitoring
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
IV
November 11-12, 1999
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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
process.
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
conecfiV
Community Foundation
Community of the Eastern Shore
Foundation
Conectiv
Delaware Center
for the Inland Bays
Delaware Coastal
Management
Program
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Maryland Coastal Bays Program
Maryland Coastal Zone
Management Program
INLAND
RAYS
DCMP
MUWARE COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Conset-vancy*
University of Delaware
Maryland
VIMS
Maryland Department of
Natural Resources
Salisbury State University
The Nature Conservancy /
Virginia Coast Reserve
Town of Ocean City,
Maryland
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,
Maryland
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
VI
November 11-12, 1999
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT , ii
PREFACE . iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v
AGENDA
1
WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND OVERVIEW OF CONFERENCE
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
SCIENTIFIC UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF COASTAL BAYS LIVING RESOURCES
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
VII
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
SESSION II
Complex Issues, Simple Truths
Bill Matuszeski, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office 39
i
STRESSORSAND TRENDS WITHIN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
': 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
VIII
November 11-12, 1999
-------
SESSION III
WELCOME AND FRIDAY OVERVIEW OF CONFERENCE
Sarah Taylor-Rogers, Maryland Department of Natural Resources 74
Fishable Waters Act
Norville Prosser, American Sportfishing Association 76
INITIATIVES IN RESOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT :
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
CURRENT DELMARVA INITIA TIVES
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
NON-REGULA TORY APPROACH TO FtESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY '
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
IX
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
SESSION IV
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
i
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
FUTURE PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
PANEL DISCUSSION: Developing Action Items for the Tri-State Region 114
V
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
WRAP UP AND ADJOURN
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
-------
AGENDA
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
9:45 am -10:30 am SCIENTIFIC UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF COASTAL BAYS LIVING RESOURCES
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
University
10:30 am -10:45 am Break - Premiere Lobby
10:45 am -11:45 am SCIENTIFIC UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF COASTAL BAYS LIVING RESOURCES - continued
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
1:30pm-2:00pm
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
STRESSORS AND TRENDS WITHIN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
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
STRESSORS AND TRENDS WITHIN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT - continued
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
9:20 am -10:00 am INITIATIVES IN RESOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT
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.
10:00 am -10:45 am CURRENT DELMARVA INITIATIVES
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
11:15am-12:00pm
12:00 pm-12:15 pm
12:15 pm-1:45pm
Break - Premiere Lobby i
NON-REGULATORY APPROACH TO RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY
Resource Supplementation through Aquaculture 'or "From Cottage Industry to an Economic
Mainstay"
Dr. Mark Luckenbach, Director, VA Institute of Marine Science Eastern Shore Laboratory
PANEL DISCUSSION: Managing Conflicts in Light of Increasing User Pressures and Stressed
Resources
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
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
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
FUTURE PRO-ACTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
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
-------
WELCOME
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
running.
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
-------
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF SHALLOW MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
I
SCOTT NIXON, PH.D.
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF OCEANOGRAPHY, RHODE ISLAND SEA GRANT PROGRAM
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
shellfish.
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
ones.
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
system.
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
together.
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
enrichment.
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.
Questions
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
10
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
CURRENT STATUS OF IMPORTANT FINFISH STOCKS
IN MARYLAND'S COASTAL BAYS
JAMES F. CASEY
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, FISHERIES SERVICE
COASTAL BAYS FISHERIES INVESTIGATION PROJECT
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
11
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
5
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
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
December.
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
12
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
influence.
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
13
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
Spot
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.
(n=17526)
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.
Bluefish
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-
100mm).
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
14
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
increase.
NUMBER
1995
1997
Figure 5. Number of bluefish citations awarded in Maryland, 1992-
1998.
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
15
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,
1972-1998.
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
Year
|»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
Year
[^Atlantic menhaden Atlantic silverside |
Figure 9. Atlantic menhaden and Atlantic silverside abundance,
Maryland Coastal Bays, 1972-1998.
300
250
200
Adjusted mean CPUE
Year
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
[Spot "«Bay Anchovy|
Figure 10. Spot and Bay anchovy abundance, Maryland Coastal
Bays, 1972-1998.
References
American Sportfishing Association. 1997.The 1006
Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in Maryland. Funded
byU.S.F&WS.
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,
387pp
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-
349.
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
17
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
FINFISH RESOURCES OF DELAWARE'S INLAND BAYS
i .. i
STEWART MICHELS
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Abstract
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
anchovy.
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
Spot
Weakfish
Atlantic croaker
Silver perch
Atlantic herring
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic menhaden
Striped anchovy
Hog choker
Summer flounder
Northern pipefish
Winter flounder
Butterfish
Mummichog
Northern kingfish
Bluefish
Black seabass
Naked goby
Scup
Oyster toadfish
Northern puffer
Inshore lizardfish
Smoth dogfish
Spotted hake
American eel
Windowpane
Striped cusk-eel
Foursplne stickleback
Tautog
Striped bass
Crevalle jack
Bluaback herring
Blackcheek tonguefish
White mullet
Pinfish
Lined seahorse
Spanish mackerel
Striped searobin
Pigfish
Atlantic moonfish
Gizzard shad
Northern searobin
Yellow perch
Black drum
Lookdown
Green goby
Etropuii spp.
Harvestfish
Cleamose skate
Threespine stickleback
Bluegill
Rainwater kiilifish
Planehoad filefish
Pollock
Rough wilverslde
American shad
Feather blenny
Striped blenny
Orange filefish
Smallmouth flounder
White perch
Conger eel
Northern stargazer
Alewife
Fringed flounder
Little skate
Silver hake
American sand lance
Spotfin butterflyfish
Cownose ray
Spiny butterfly ray
Yellow stingray
Gunner
Atlantic spadefish
Banded rudderfish
Red hake
Striped kiilifish
Sandbar shark
Smooth puffer
King mackerel
Grey snapper
Cobia
Striped bass hybrid
Bluntnose stingray
Brown bullhead
White catfish
Striped burrfish
Striped mullet
Grubby
Summary
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
18
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
Delaware's Inland Bays
Recreational Harvest and Effort
ouu
250-
200
150
100
50
n
Pounds Harvested (Thous.)
E3 Angler Trips (Thout
i
! |
*> ^i \ i
> i ! |
1
'' \
; i
^
3 i: i
? S
i i s
I S
* >
1 | S 5
8889909192939495969798
Year
Recreational Catch Composition
\ 1988-98
Striped Bass
8%
Summer
Flounder
20%
Inland Bays
Commercial Landings
Commercial Catch Composition
1985 - 98
3UUUI
7UUUI
Mluul
4UUIH
JUUUI
2UUUI
lOOOl . -
n - .
"Jl
' 1
'
', f*
f
_
n
Blusflsh
30%
Spot
U) h* O> T- CO U) ^
OO 00 00 0) O> w O)
Fnday, November 11, 1999
19
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).
Spot
13%
Annual number of species collected with a 16-foot
bottom in Delaware's Inland Bays (1986-98).
45
40
jg oe
_g oa -
1 30
= 9*
<0 ZO-
IC
S on
O «ie
O
Z */)
0-
iS
(ffl
^
SE
^
C3
^_
£=
n
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Year
De/marva's Coastal Bays Conference III
20
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
o
= 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
21
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
RECENT TRENDS IN BLUE CRAB FISHERY
JOHN McCoNAUGHA, PH.D.
OCEANOGRAPHY DEPARTMENT, OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY
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,
efa/.,1989).
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
22
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
Year
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
(>20mm).
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998
Year
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
23
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
Juveniles
Adult Reproduction
Location
Offshore
Bays and Lagoons
Lower Bay
Effects on Yearclass
Strength
Very Important
Important
Important
Management Possibilities
Predictive Model
Indirect via Habitat
Enhancement
Management of Fisheries
Regulations
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
24
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
References
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.
32:512-523.
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.
16:489-499,
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.
20:6-17.
Friday, November 11, 1999
25
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI
-------
STATUS OF BLUE CRAB STOCKS IN MARYLAND'S COASTAL BAYS
' i.,
ALAN WESCHE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, FISHERIES SERVICE
COASTAL BAYS FISHERIES INVESTIGATION PROJECT
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
Population
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
26
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
state
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
27
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
2000
1500
1000
600
Thousands
Hundreds
2000
1500
1000
500
2000
1500
1000
500
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.
Million
Pounds 19«J5-98
Figure 4. Maryland Coastal Bays and Chesapeake
Blue Crab Landings, 1985-1998.
Bay
Delman/a's Coastal Bays Conference HI
28
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.
References
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
29
, Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
MOLLUSCAN INVENTORY OF THE MARYLAND COASTAL BAYS
MITCHELL L. TARNOWSKI
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SHELLFISH PROGRAM
Introduction
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
fouled.
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
30
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
31
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.
Conclusion
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
-------
THE HORSESHOE CRAB STOCK ASSESSMENT PROCESS:
SEARCHING FOR CLUES
MICHAEL J. MILLARD, PH.D.
NORTHEAST FISHERY CENTER U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
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
33
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 indexnot
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
34
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
assessment.
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)
,000
W/ stale "augmentation"
Friday, November 11, 1999
35
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference II!
-------
MIGRANT SHOREBIRDS - ROLE OF THE DELMARVA COASTAL BAYS
BRYAN WATTS, PH.D.
CENTER FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
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
36
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
37
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
38
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
39
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
westa 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
development.
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.
Agriculture
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
40
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.
Fisheries
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
system.
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.
Questions
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
41
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
42
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
UPDATE ON THE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
OF THE DELMARVA COASTAL BAYS
i
FREDERICK W. KUTZ, PH.D.1, JOHN F. PAUL, PH.D.2, AND THOMAS B. DEMoss1
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Abstract
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.
Introduction
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
02882
Friday, November 11, 1999
43
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).
Objectives
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
44
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
communities.
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
45
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
46
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
purposes.
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
Sampling
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
47
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.
Summary
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
48
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
References
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-
2398.
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
02882.
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,
MD.
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.
40-05/86/04/02.
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
49
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
WATER AND HABITAT QUALITY EFFECTS
ON LIVING RESOURCES
ROBERT MAGNIEN, PH.D.
TIDEWATER ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mote: ThB following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Magnien. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for
publication,
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
50
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
51
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
Summary
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
52
Friday, November 11,
1999
-------
IDENTIFYING AND RESOLVING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT CONFLICTS
IN A RECOVERING SEAGRASS SYSTEM
ROEJERT J. ORTH, PH.D.
SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY,
VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE
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
53
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
AN OVERVIEW OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS IN DELAWARE AND
MARYLAND'S COASTAL BAYS
BRUCE RICHARDS, PH.D.
DELAWARE CENTER FOR INLAND BAYS
introduction
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.
Pfiesteria
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
well.
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
54
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
55
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference ///
-------
INCREASING RISK FACTORS: PFIESTERIA
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
publication.
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
56
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
What habitat conditions induce toxic
outbreaks?
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
important.
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
57
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
outbreaks.
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
58
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
INCREASING RISK FACTORS: Hematodinium sp.
GREETCHEN A. MESSICK
NOAA, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
CENTER FOR COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND BIOMOLECULAR RESEARCH
Abstract
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.
Introduction
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.
Results
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.
Discussion
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.
References
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-
1CES/IC41
Friday, November 11, 1999
61
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
HARVEST PRESSURES AND EQUIPMENT IMPACTS -
HOW TO MAINTAIN A SUSTAINABLE CATCH
STANLEY LASKOWSKI, MODERATORI, BILL BAKER2, HARLEY SPEiR3,
ROBERT ORTH, PH.D.4, RICHARD WELTONS, AND STEVE DAWSON6
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
19958
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
23451
6 MDE Nontidal Wetlands, "Outdoor Report" WBOC-TV,
201 Baptist Street, Salisbury, MD 21801
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
62
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
63
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
64
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
states.
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
problem.
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
65
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 fisherywe 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
status.
/ 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
66
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
thought.
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
67
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
68
Friday, November 11, 1999
-------
CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COASTAL BAYS
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
69
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
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Canvasback
Canada Goose
Snow Goose
1950s
71,000
40,000
179,000
178,000
4,000
1990s
60,000
3,000
57,000
386,000
90,000
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
70
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.
Hadley
CCC
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
years.
-400
Hadley
CCC
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
71
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 yearsbut not
tomorrow.
., { 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
72
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
73
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
WELCOME AND FRIDAY RECAP
?ARAH TAYLOR-ROGERS, PH.D.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
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
publication.
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
bays.
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
74
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
beds.
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
Chesapeake.
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
bays?
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
75
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference
-------
THE FISHABLE WATERS ACT OF 1999
NORVILLE PROSSER
AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION
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
owned.
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
76
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
settings.
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
pollution.
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
lands.
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
citizens.
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
Agencies
Saturday, November 12, 1999
77
. 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.
Questions
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
needs.
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
78
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
program?
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
79
Oelmarva's Coastal Bays Conference M
-------
USE OF MARINE ZONING IN THE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL
SANCTUARY TO BALANCE RESOURCE PROTECTION
MARINE
WITH UTILIZATION
BILLY CAUSEY
FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
Note: The following document Is a transcription of the presentation by Mr.
Causey. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for
publication.
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
stress.
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
80
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
spend.
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
zoning.
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
transportation.
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
81
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
82
Saturday, November 12, 1999
-------
Questions
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.
businesses?
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
83
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
RHODE ISLANDS'S SALT POND REGIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN:
A CASE STUDY
VIRGINIA LEE, PH.D.
RHODE ISLAND SEA GRANT ADVISORY SERVICES IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT
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'
71°50'
71*40'
71^30'
Figure 1. The Salt Ponds Region.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
84
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.
5000
QUONCHONTAUG
POINT JUDITH/POTTER
NINK5RET/GRMH1LL
WMAPAUG/MASCHAUG
Figure 2. Trends in Housing Development, Number of houses in pond
watersheds, 1939-1988
Techniques for Balancing Uses
Formulate Effective Coastal Management
Regulations
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
ecosystem
1. Hazard Mitigation
Erosion based construction set backs (headlands &
beaches)
Designated undeveloped barrier beach segments
Prohibition of infrastructure on barriers
Vegetated buffer policy for contiguous wetlands and
tributaries
2. Balancing Commercial/Recreational Uses
Zoned shoreline and tidal waters
Encourage or prohibit activities specified for each
zone
« 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
85
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference JH
-------
THE CREATION OF A WATER USE CONFLICT
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE NORTH LANDING RIVER
ERICWALBERG
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
Introduction
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
86
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
Rivers.
The SWA is predominantly urban and suburban in the
headwaters, rural and agricultural in the southern
portion.
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
Waterway.
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
areas.
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
impact.
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
issues.
Survey results will be used in further refinement of the
map and use categories.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
87
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference #/
-------
WATER-USE PLANNING IN DELMARYANS COASTAL BAYS:
ADDRESSING CARRYING bA#ACltY ISSUES
JAMES M. FALK
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM
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
regulations
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
88
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.
Delaware
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.
Maryland
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
89
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
resources.
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
90
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.
Conclusions
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
91
; Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference HI
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF A MARYLAND COASTAL BAYS
WATER-USE MANAGEMENT PLAN
ERIC SCHWAAB
DIRECTOR, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISHERIES SERVICE
Nota:Tha following document Is a transcription of the presentation by Mr.
Schwaab. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for
publication.
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
92
Saturday, November 12, 1999
-------
Fisheries
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
Bays
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
Course
Satisfaction Level of Boating Experience
Percent of Respondents who fish in Maryland's Coastal
Bays
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
93
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference*?//
-------
1999
Drifting Boat
31%
Cruising Beat
29%
1999
Drifting Boat
28%
Kayak
16%
Cruising Boat
13%
Headboat
Clammer 6%
1%
Figure 2. Boating Activity in Sinepuxent Bay (Inlet to Route 611
Bridge)
Figure 3. Boating Activity in Lower Sinepuxent Bay (Route 611
Bridge to South Point)
All Days
Crboat
Drboats
Jetski
Kayak
Parasail
Sailboat
Tubing
Waterski
ML
.... 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
94
Saturday, November 12, 1999
-------
MARINE RESOURCE PROTECTION INITIATIVES
AT ASSATEAGUE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE
CARL S. ZIMMERMAN
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE
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
95
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
96
Saturday, November 12, 1999
-------
RESOURCE SUPPLEMENTATION THROUGH AQUACULTURE
OR FROM COTTAGE INDUSTRY TO AN ECONOMIC MAINSTAY
MARK LUCKENBACH, PH.D.
VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, EASTERN SHORE LABORATORY
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
Luckenbach, It has been reviewed and approved by the author for
publication.
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
bays.
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
97
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
98
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
dynamics.
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.
Questions
What about the impacts of disease, such as the oyster
disease, MSX? Couldn't a similar disease destroy clam
maiiculture?
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
99
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference jjH
-------
CONFLICTS IN LIGHT OF INCREASING
'USER PRESSURES AND STRESSED RESOURCES
JONATHAN PHINNEY, MODERATOR1, RICKS SAVAGE*, NORVILLE PROSSER3,
JACKTRAVELSTEAD4, JlM MATHIAS5, MARC KOENINGS6,
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
21146
8 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, PO Box
500368, Marathon, FL 33050
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
100
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
101
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
102
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
103
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
104
Saturday, November 12, 1999
-------
UPDATE ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGARDING THE COASTAL BAYS
ERIKA FELLER
OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN WAYNE GILCHRIST, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, MARYLAND
Atote: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by
Ms. Feller. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for
publication.
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
105
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
defeated.
If anybody has any questions, you can always feel free to
give me a call. I am in the Washington office at (202) 225-
5311.
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
106
Saturday, November 12, 1999
::.: i'.ii .'-.
-------
COMMUNITY AQUACULTURE IN VIRGINIA
FRANCIS X. O'BEIRN, PH.D.
VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
Note: The following document is a transcription of the presentation by Dr.
O'Beirn. It has been reviewed and approved by the author for
publication.
Introduction
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
Development
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
107
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
phenomenon.
Overview
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
course.
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.
Benefits
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
108
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
maximized.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
109
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference^
-------
I-1!:'*"
THE ROLE OF WATER KEEPER PROGRAMS IN ESTUARY PROTECTION
JOHNTORGAN
NARRAGANSETT BAYKEEPER, SAVE THE BAY, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND
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
life.
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
110
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
111
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
PARTNERSHIP PUTS IDEALS INTO ACTIQN--DELMARVA
LOW IMPACT TOURISM EXPERIENCES
STEVE PARKER
VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
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
economies.
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
region.
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
occur.
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
112
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.
Questions
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
difference.
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
113
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
DEVELOPING ACTION ITEMS FOR THE TRI-STATE REGION
SARAH COOKSEY, MODERATOR^ JEANNE LYNCH*, CHARLES R. JENKINS, SR.S,
MARGO JACKSON*, HONORABLE SHIRLEY PRICES, ERIC ScHWAAB6,
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
there.
What can your organization or business bring to bear in
terms of action items to better manage these coastal
bays?
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
114
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
impacts.
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
115
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
116
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
Delaware.
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
agencies.
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
117
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
118
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
about.
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
119
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
120
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
opportunity.
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
time.
/ 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
bays?
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
support.
Saturday, November 12, 1999
121
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
122
Saturday, November 12, 1999
-------
WRAP-UP
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
123
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
Sponsor
Assateague Island National Seashore www.nps.gov/asis/
Speaker Carl Zimmerman, Marine Resource Protection Initiatives 95
Sponsor
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
Sponsor
": ',': '" ' ' 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
Sponsor
Conectiv "... www.conectiv.com
Sponsor
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
124
Appendices
-------
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control www.dnrec.state.de.us
Speaker: Stewart Michels, Finfish Resources of Delaware's Inland Bays 18
Sponsor
i
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
Sponsor
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
Sponsor
Maryland Department of the Environment www.mde.state.md.us
Exhibit: Wetlands Restoration in the Coastal Bays 146
t
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
Appendices
125
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
Sponsor
South Moon Under www.southmoonunder.com
Sponsor
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
Sponsor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency '. www.epa.gov
Speaker: F.W. (Rick) Kutz, The Ecological Condition of the Delmarva Coastal Bays 43
Sponsor
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
Sponsor
University of Maryland Sea Grant Program www.mdsg.umd.edu/index.html
Sponsor
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/
Sponsor
Delmarva's CoastaTBays Conference III
126
Appendices
ill:
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
PARTICIPANTS
Bob Abele
MD Coastal Bays Foundation
63 Wood Duck Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-1294
irabele@ezy.net
AlexAlmario
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
7206 National Seashore Lane i
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
alex_almario@nps.gov
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
flopez@hpl.umces.edu
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
adelhardt@owlcreek.8m.com
Ed Ambrogio
US EPA/Region III
1650 Arch Street
Phildelphia, PA 19103
ph: 215-314-2758 fax: 215-814-2782:
ambrogio.edward@epa.gov
Angela Baldwin
MD Conservation Corps
12302 Jamaica Avenue #303
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-250-1997
bertb@ezy.net
Irvin Ailes
US F&WS - Chincoteague
P. O. Box 62
Chincoteague, VA 23336
ph: 757-336-6122 fax: 757-336-5273
irvin_ailes@fws.gov
Ben Anderson
DE DNREC
820 Silvertake Blvd., Suite 220
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-4590
benanderson@state.de.us
Tonya Barker
MD Conservation Corps
6719 Lenape Place
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-4509
tbark23@aol.com
Jim Alderman
Center for the Inland Bays
467 Highway One
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-7325 fax: 302-645-5765
restore@udel.edu
Gretchen Arnold
VIMS Esistern Shore Lab
P.O. Box 350
Wachapreague, VA 23480
ph: 757-787-5816 fax: 757-787-5831
gretcheri@vims.edu
Jim Belote
Virginia Tech Extension Service
P. O. Box 60
Accomac, VA 23301
ph: 757-787-1361 fax: 757-787-1044
Appendices
127
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
Lenore Bennett
7845 Worcester Highway
Berlin, MD 21811
pn: 410-841-1899
lenore.befinett@perdue.cxjm
'I;
Kerri Berjtkowski
Chesapeake Bay Trust
60 West Street, Suite 200A
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-974-2941
cbt@ari.net
Paul Berge
AccpmacJc-Nprthampton P. D. C.
; P.O. Bojj'417
Accomac, VA 23301
; pn: 757-787-2936 fax: 757-787-4221
anpdcpfb@esva.net
Capt. Michael Bloxom
MD Natural Resources Police
32144 Mt. Olive Road
Salisbury, MD 21804
ph: 410-548-7070 fax: 410-543-6908
mbloxom@dnr.state.md.us
Dixie Bounds
MD Cooperative F & W/ UMES
9822 Keyser Point Road
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-651-6913 fax:410-651-7662
dlbounds@mail.umes.edu
George Boyce
Blue Heron Oyster Co.
11584 Long Point Road
Dames Quarters, MD 21820
ph: 410-784-2364
canineeye@aol.com
Myrl Burkett
Chesapeake Shellfish Aquaculture
S3-E Muirfield Drive
Reading, PA 19607
ph: 610-775-9793 fax: 610-796-7756
mburkett@epix.net
1 ' '
" l-'ft"
Robert Bussell
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
P. O. Box 198
Piney Point, MD 20674
ph: 301-994-9205
uhazoo@US.HSAvet.net
Jim Butch
Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street (3ES10)
Phildelphia, PA 19103
"ph: 215-814-2762 fax: 215-814-2782
butch.jim@epamail.epa.gov
DpnBerger
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
nbutowskj@dnr.state.md.us
KJrnberly Black
DE Nature Society
P.O. Box 700
Hockesste DE 19707
ph: 302-139-2334 fax: 302-239-2473
kfm@dnsashland.org
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
dblazer@dnr.state.md.us
Tim Brower
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
201 Baptist Street
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-543-6738 fax: 410-543-6768
tbrower@dnr.state.md.us
Wendy Carey
U of DE Sea Grant College Program
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4258 fax: 302-645-4213
wcarey@udel.edu
,, , 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
eeb4328@students.ssu.edu
Pearl Burbage
DE DNREC
820 Silverlake Blvd., Suite 220
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-4590 fax: 302-739-6140
pburbage@state.de.us
,
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
Icarter345@aol.com
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
128
Appendices
-------
Marsha Carter
2722 Chain Bridge Road, NW
Washington, DC 20016
ph: 202-966-3579 fax: 202-537-3143
Icarter345@aol.com
Kimberly Cole
DE Coastal Programs
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
kcole@steite.de.us
Beth Creamer
SSAI / NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
ph: 301-614-5582
bcreamer@see.gsfc.nasa.gov
Ron Cascio
MD Coastal Bays Program
10046 Silver Point Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-213-2017
rcascio@beachin.net
Bob Collins
E.S. Assn.. of Golf Course Superndts.
946 Heron Drive
Bethany Beach, DE 19930
ph: 302-539-8882 fax: 302-539-5647
ccmaint@compucenter.net
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
mata-fish-2@dnr.state.md.us
Mary Conley
MD DNR Coastal Zone Management
580 Taylor Avenue, E-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-2(30-8984 fax: 410-260-8739
mconley@dnr.state.md.us
Rachelle Daigneault
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
rachelle_daigneault@nps.gov
Billy Causey
Florida Keys Nat'l Marine Sanctuary
P. O. Box 500368
Marathon, FL 33050
ph: 305-743-2437 X26
billy.causey@noaa.gov
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
ddare@ococean.com
Lisa Challenger
Worcester County To,urism
113 Franklin Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-3110 fax: 410-632-3158
econ@ezy.net
Sarah Cooksey
DE Coastal Management Program
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE- 19901
ph: 302-739-3451 fax: 302-739-2048
scooksey@dnrec.state.de.us
Liz Davis
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
liz_davis@nps.gov
Chris Clark
S. Schultz Wetlands Assoc.
703 S. Schultz Road
Fenwick Island, DE 19944
ph: 302-539-4485 fax: 302-539-7878
clark@ilandert.com
Cathy Cooper
Assateague Coastal Trust
4862 Chevy Chase Drive
Chevy Chase , MD 20815
ph: 301-718-1691
coopercw@gwu.edu
Steve Dawson
MDE / Non-tidal Wetlands
Multi-Service Ctr., 201 Baptist Street
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-543-6703
sdawson@mde.state.md.us
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
ndehart@seacolony.com
John Clark
DE Fish & Wildlife
P. O. Box 330
Little Creek, DE 19961
ph: 302-739-4782 fax: 302-739-6780
jclark@state.de.us
Elizabeth Crager
MD Conservation Corps
909 Sumac Circle
Salisbury, MD 21804
ph: 410-546-2101
efcolol@srtudents.ssu.edu
Tom DeMoss
U S Environmental Protection Agency
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755
ph: 410-305-2739 fax: 410-305-3095
demoss.tom@epa.gov
Appendices
129
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
dpbroske@mail.rivveston.com
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
fisherann@psu.edu
Ray Godman
Beachcomber
209 Sunset Drive
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph: 410-289-5818
flco@aol.com
Charles Ep'rfanio
U of DE College of Marine Studies
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302^645-4272 fax: 302-645-4007
epi@udel.edu
Tom Ford
Land Design, Inc.
Oak Square, Suite 3
Ocean View, DE 19970
ph: 302-537-1919
landzn@aol.com
Christy Gordon
Gordon Shellfish LLC
P.O:E!ox725
Pocornoke, MD 21851
ph: 410-957-4100 fax:410-957-1303
sgordon@mafi.com
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
judith.freeman@noaa.gov
SteveGordpn
Gordon Shellfish LLC
P.O, Box 725
Pocornoke, MD 21851
ph: 410-957-4100 fax:410-957-1303
sgordon@mafi.com
John Ewart
U of DE Marine Advisory Service
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4060 fax:302-645-4213
ewart@udel.edu
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
JimFalk
U of PEJflarine Advisory Service
700 Pikjttown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4235
jfalk@udel.edu
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
dgoshorn@dnr.state.md.us
Joe Parrel
U of DE Sea Grant Program
700 Pitottpwn Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4250 fax:302-645-4007
jfarrel@udel.edu
Wallace Garrett
U of MD Cooperative Extension
P.O. Box219
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-1972 fax: 410-632-3023
wg2@umail.umd.edu
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
fehrer@shore.intercom.net
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
matt_graves@nps.gov
Ilia Fehrer
Worcester Environmental Trust
110 W. Federal Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-2640 fax: 410-632-2640
llia-JoeFehrer@webtv.net
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
Igrimaud1@juno.com
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
130
Appendices
-------
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
bhibschm@harford.cc.md.us
William Haag
16 Whaler Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-1561
carbil@prodigy.net
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
higginte@mail.wesley.edu
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
jhouston@ococean.com
Audrey HaYisen
Marine Biologist
9137 Libertytown Road
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-4932
surfish@ccisp.net
Lamere Hennessee
MD Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
ph: 410-554-5519 fax:410-554-5502
lhennessee@mgs.md.gov
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
jharding@vims.edu
John (Jack) Hett
MD State Highway Admin.
P.O. Box 2679
Salisbury, MD 21802
ph: 410-677-4027 fax: 410-543-6598
jhett@shai.state.md.us
Edythe Humphries
DE DNREC
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-4771 fax: 302-739-3491
ehumphries@state.de.us
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
Appendices
131
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
SGAAL@aol.com
Suresh Kikkeri
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
ph: 410-631-3602 fax: 410-631-3998
skikkeri@mde.state.md.us
Marc A. Koenings
Assateague Island Nat'l Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641 -1443 fax:410-641-1099
marc_koenings@nps.gov
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
billk@ezy.net
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
billk@ezy.net
Dr. Jonathan Kramer
MD Sea Grant
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
ph: 301-405-6371 fax: 301-314-9581
kramer@mdsg.umd.edu
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
fkineon@drbc.state.nj.us
Gloria Kupstas
CNO N45
2211 S.Clark Place
Arlington, VA 22244-4642
ph: 703-604-5431 fax: 703-602-4642
kupstas.gloria@hq.navy.mil
Chris Judy
MD DNR Shellfish Division
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8259 fax:410-260-8279
cjudy@dnir.state.md.us
Howard King
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8260
hking@dnr.state.md.us
Dr. Rick Kutz
US EPA MidAtlantic Assess.Team
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-5350
ph: 410-305-2742 fax: 410-305-3095
kutz.rick@epamail.epa.gov
Betty Ann Kane
Rehoboth Beach Commissioner
56 Maryland Avenue
Rehofigth Beach, DE 19971
ph: 302-546^91)62 fax: 302-547-9598
bettyannkane@sprinlmail.corn
Gretchen Knapp
Nat'l Park Service-Assateague Island
P. O.BoxSS
Chincoteague, VA 23336
ph: 757-336-6577 fax:757-336-5203
gretchen_knapp@nps.gov
Albert Lakeland
Assateague Coastal Trust
4315 Chestnut Street
Bethesda, MD 20814
ph: 301-656-1640
peteral@erols.com
Lee Karrh
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8650 fax: 410-260-8640
lkairh@dnr.state.md.us
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
kennedy@hpl.umces.edu
Phyllis Koenings
Assateague Coastal Trust
P. O. Box 731
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-629-1538 fax:410-629-1059
act@beachin.net
Stanley Laskowski
US EPA Region III Env. Services Div.
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia. PA 19103-2029
ph: 215-814-2989 fax: 215-814-2782
laskowski.stanley@epamail.epa.gov
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
132
Appendices
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
vlee@gso.uri.edu
Ken MacMullin
MD Coastal Bays Program
68 Wood Duck Drive !
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-9604 fax: 410-208-9614,
kingfisher68@prodigy.net
Dr. John McConaugha
Old Dominion Univ. / Oceanography
46 Elkhorn Drive
Norfolk, VA 23529
ph: 757-683-4698
jmcconau@odu.edu
Mark Lewandowski
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, E-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8809 fax: 410-260-8709
mlewandowski@dnr.state.md.us
Rob Magnien
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8630
rmagnien@mde.state.md.us
Joel McCord
Baltimore Sun
501 N. Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21278
ph: 410-332-6465 fax:410-752-6049
joelmcc47@aol.com
Connie Lewis
MD DNR Fisheries Service
580 Taylor Avenue, B-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8296 fax:410-260-8279
clewis@dnr.state.md.us
Becky Manteria
Center for Marine Conservation
1725 De Sales Street, NW, Suite 600 ,
Washington, DC 20036
ph: 202-429-2355 :
bmanteria@dccmc.org
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
lobo@ezy.net
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
anpdcjmcg@esva.net
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
ocmayor@ococean.com
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
luck@vims.edu
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
nlynch@shore.intercom.net
Ken Matill
Center for Inland Bays
1 Kensington Road
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
ph: 302-227-8056
kam0099@aol.com
Cornelia Melvin
24 Pack Lane
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-945-4708
cornelia.melvin@aol.net
Elsie MacMullin
MD Coastal Bays Program
68 Wood Duck Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-208-9604 fax: 410-208-9614
kingfisher68@prodigy.net
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
mark.mendelsohn@usace.army
Appendices
133
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
gretchen.messick@noaa.gov
BillMowitt
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, C-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8263
bmowitt@dnr.state.md.us
Tom p'Cqnnell
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
15935 Brooks Haven Drive
Goldsboro, MD 21636
ph: 410-260-8271 fax: 410-260-8278
toconnell@dnr.state.md.us
Stewart, F. Michels
DNRECDivision of Fish & Wildlife
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
ph: 302-739-4782 fax:302-739-6780
smichels@Bangate.stite.de"us
DaveMunchel
Inland Bays Citizen Mentoring
P. O. Box 984
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
JoeO'Hara
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
mike_mll!ard@fws.gov
Katherine Munson
Worcester Co. Comp. Planning
111 Franklin Street, Unit 1
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-5651 fax: 410-632-5654
ppicom@beachin.net
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
|kmmdrri@aol.c6m
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
jorth@vims.edu
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
nemazie@ca.umces.edu
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
jmodlin@dnr.state.md.us
Vivian Newman
Sierra Club
11194 Douglas Avenue
Marriottsville, MD 21104
ph: 410-442-5639 fax:410-442-0094
vivian.newman@sierraclub.org
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
snixon@gsosun1.gso.uri.edu
Thomas Parham
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8633 fax: 410-260-8640
tparham@dnr.state.md.us
Edward Morgereth
Biohabitats, Inc.
15 W. Aylesbury Road
Timonium, MD 21093
ph: 410-337-3659 fax: 410-583-5678
ectward@bbhabitat.cdrn
Dr. Francis O'Beirn
VIMS Eastern Shore Lab
P. O. Box 350
Wachapreague, VA 23480
ph: 757-787-5837 fax: 757-787-5831
francis@vims.edu
Steve Parker
Nature Conservancy/VA Coast Resv.
P.O. Box 158
Nassawadox, VA 23413
ph: 757-442-3049 fax: 757-442-5418
steveparker@esva.net
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
134
Appendices
-------
Jim Parsons
Perdue Farms Inc.
P. O. Box 1537
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-352-2378 fax: 410-352-2300
jim.parsons@perdue.com
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
lcpope@udel.edu
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
jphinney@dccmc.org
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
ksprice@udel.edu
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
staff@chesbay.org
Nina Petrovich
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmo. Admin ./CSC
2234 S. Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405
ph: 843-740-1203 fax: 843-740-1313
npetrovich@csc.noaa.gov
Ron Pilling
Assateague Coastal Trust
3024 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
ph: 410-662-9630 fax: 410-662-9631
pilling@erols.com
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
pilling@erols.com
Norville Prosser
American Sportfishing Assoc.
1033 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
ph: 703-519-9691 fax: 703-519-1872
info@asafishing.org
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
jpingree@dnrec.state.de.us
Til Purnell
Inland Bays Citizen Monitoring
Rt. 6 Box 98
Millsboro, DE 19966
ph: 302-945-1317
purnell@ce.net
Carmen Phillips
2004 Philadelphia Avenue
Ocean City, MD 21842
Joyce Pomsell
Assateague Coastal Trust
165 Teal Circle
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-8552
jgponsell@gateway.net
Dr Kim Quillin
Horn Point Laboratory
5705 Waterside Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-629-1356 fax:410-629-1466
kquillin@shore.intercom.net
Appendices
135
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
shanna_ramsey@nps.gov
Ricks Savage
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Adv. Council
11824 Porfin Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1837 fax: 410-289-7800
savageclam@aol.com
Gwynne Schultz
MD DNR Coastal Zone Management
580 Taylor Avenue, E-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8730 fax: 410-260-8739
gschultz@dnr.state.md.us
Dr. Bruce Richards
Center for the Inland Bays
467 Highway One
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302^645-7325 fax: 302-645-5765
brichard@udel.edu
Jackie Savitz
Coast Alliance
600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
ph: 202-546-9554
coast@coastalliance.org
Eric Schwaab
MD DNR Fisheries Service
580 Taylor Avenue, B-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8283
eschwaab@dnr.state.mcl.us
David Rickards
Indian River Tributary Action Team
R, Q.2;ip3<19S
Frankford, DE 19945
ph: 3Q2"-539-9034 fax: 302-539-2372
dorickards@aol.com
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
schwartz.suzanne@epa.gov
Bill Rodney
MD DNR-RAS-MANTA
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8610 fax: 410-260-8620
brodney@dnr.state.us
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
chris_seymour@nps.gov
John Roeder ', , '..
Assateague State Park
1 86 Saridyhook Road
Berlin, MD 21811
jollyroggshore.intercom.net
, .
Paige Ross
VIMS Eastern Shore Lab
P.O. §0X350 "'
Wachapreague, VA 23480
ph: 757-787-0959
pg@vims.edu
Don Schaefer
USCG Auxiliary
78 Bluebill Court
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-8898
donaldschaef@prodigy.net
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
mshort@capegazette.com
. ..
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
drouse@dnrec.state.de.us
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
john_d_schroer@fws.gov
WardSlacum
U of MD Eastern Shore
112C)TriggHall
Princess Anne, MD 21853
ph: 410-651-6291 fax:410-651-7662
hslacum@umes-bird.umd.edu
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
136
Appendices
-------
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
kmsmith@dnr.state.md
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
hspeir@dnr.state.md.us
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
ullman@udel.edu
Jennifer Stott
MD Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
ph: 410-554-5571 fax:410-554-5502
jstott@mgs.dnr.md.gov
John Torgan ;
Narragansett BayKeeper
Save The Bay, 434 Smith Street ',
Providence, Rl 2906
ph: 401 -272-3540 fax: 401 -273-7153
narraganbay@keeper.org
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
jackt@state.de.us
Jack Travelstead
VA Marine Resources Commission
2600 Washington Avenue
Newport News, VA 23607
ph: 757-247-2248
Jtravelste@mrc.state.va.us
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
mtarnowski@aya.yale.edu
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
walbeck.eric@epa.gov
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
pturgeon@mde.state.md.us
Eric Walberg
Hampton Rds. Planning Dist. Comm.
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
ph: 757-420-8300
ewalberg@hrpdc.seva.net
Appendices
137
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
robert_e_wilson@fws.gov
Dr. Bryan Watts
Center for Conservation Biology
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
ph; 757-481-1226
ixiwatt@mail.wm.edu
Lee Whaley
Senator Paul Sarbanes Office
110 West Church Street, Suite D
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-860-2131 fax: 410-860-2134
lee_whaley@sarbanes.senate.gov
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
cwaznlak@dnr.state.rhd.us
Jessica V^ebber _'[" ,'"" ,' '
= Entrix, Iric"
200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19809
ph: 302-792-9310 fax: 302-792-9329
|webber@entrix.com
Ed Whereat
Inland Bays Citizen Mentoring
Univ. of Delaware, 700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
ph: 302-645-4252
whereat@udel.edu
Marguerite Whilden
MD DNR Fisheries Service
580 Taylor Avenue, B-4
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: 410-260-8269 fax: 410-260-8278
mwhilden@dnr.state.md.us
Donald Winslow
Assateague Coastal Trust
63 Lookout Point
Berlin, MD 21811
ph:4iO-2d8-66i3
dwin63@bigfoot.corh
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
dwel1s@mgs.md.gov
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
CWRAC, SWQAC
3409 Coastal Highway
Ocean City, MD 21842
ph:410-289-3202
,., . , ,
Philip Wirth
Versar Inc.
9200 Rumsey Road
Columbia, MD 21045
ph: 410-740-6066 fax: 410-964-5156
wirthphi@versar.com
Walter" Witt
MD Conservation Corps
4011 Old Furnance Road
Snow Hill, MD 21863
ph: 410-632-3561
walter^witt@email.msn.com
Richard Welton
Coastal Conservation &soc.,VA
2lpO Manna Shores'Snyej §urfe 108""
Vfrginia Beach, VA 23451
ph: 757-481-1226
CCAVAST@aol.com
Robert Whitman
Delaware General Assembly
814 Dallam Road
Newark, DE 19711
ph: 302-731-4208
rwhitman@ix.netcom.com
John Wqlflin
US Fish & Wildlife Service
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Anhapoiis, Mb 21401
ph: 410-573-4573 fax: 410-269-0832
john_wolflin@fws.gov
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
dwilson@dnr.state.md.us
Harry Womack
Salisbury State University
1101 Camden Avenue
Salisbury, MD 21801
ph: 410-546-3692
HEWOMACK@ssu.edu
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
estierstorfer@mde.state.md.us
Helen Woods
VA Institute of Marine Science
P. O. Box 995
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
ph: 804-684-7663
hwoods@vims.edu
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
jzhou@dnr.state.md.us
Carl Zimmerman
Assateague Island National Seashore
7604 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
ph: 410-641-1443 fax:410-641-1099
carl_zimmerman@nps.gov
Appendices
139
Delmarva's Coastal Bays Conference III
-------
"" if'.1 f','K\
APPENDIX C
EXHIBITORS
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
140
Appendices
'!:; .
i
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.
Appendices
141
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:
www.wave.nos.noaa.gov/nmsp/fknms
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
142
Appendices
-------
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.
Appendices
143
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
144
Appendices
-------
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.
Appendices
145
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
146
Appendices
-------
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).
i
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
wetlands.
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.
Appendices
147
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:
itHi
*,
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
148
Appendices
-------
-------
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.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/620/R-00/001
------- |