Chesapeake Bay Program
m
A retrospective pri tibte first decade of
ce Bay Restoration
~
S^KT^S"--?"^
T=-> . - .^£
66When ive try
to pick out
anything by
itself, we find
it hitched to
everything
else in the
universe}?
-------
Dear Fellow Citizen,
' TKe Chesapeake Bay is'a-vast natural resource with significant economic,' recreational,
and social value to-our states' and our citizenry. We are beginning to see a recovery of
the Chesapeake Bay as a result of a'decade of hard work,, determination, and commit-
ment spearheaded' by the Chesapeake'-Bay Program, a unique public-private endeavor
" comprised of .governments in Pennsylvania/Maryland, -Virginia,-and the District of
. Columbia working together*with -the federal government,; citizens,^ and .businesses.. . .
The Chesapeake, and.its many-tributaries, has suffered, from the .'effects of more, than
two centuries of steady growth, from increasing pollution arid run-off, and from .';;
, .accumulation of sediment'and,industrial wastes:- Yet,' the Bay has begun to, respond
due in large part to. the1 action of local Citizen groups'and federal, state, and local; ; '
governments.. -.',' ''.'.: .'.'; .'":'",'. . . . ", ....,'... '."; . '....' ' /:.;.;'' .:,.;
Wh'eri you get right down to ^..cleaning up the 'Chesapeake 'Bay .is & problem that-
begins at home", rightin.ourcomfnunities.yital citizen-action restoration efforts
. carried out in the" Bay watershed clearly "demonstrate the need to directly involve people
in our restoration efforts. . '. . ',-""!.... '.'. '.-]' ','$' " ''"
This ten-year retrospective of the-fe-stora'tibn of the" Chesapeake Bay features cleanup
accomplishments and highlights the result? of our long-te'rm-"commitment to work
together. We are seeing.'an increase in aquatic grasses, crucial fobd.sources and habitat
forjrnany-of the Bay's living resou-rces-." The Bay Program's revolutionary 3-D model
now-allows scientists, ipr ihe first time to predict the'effects 'of pollution on ti>e':Bay... -.
And the resurgence, of rbckfish in the Chesapeake r'egiofi is a" positive sign that the
T
-------
' in the Bay is a
.search for knowledge that will lead us to action. At the
same, time, weare'chasingan understanding of an inter-
connected system, of life and a clear idea of our own role
within it. We are:(dealing with one 'of mankind's 'oldest
themes 'our relation to. natureand we have learned it is
' notra quiz, it is rather a dissertation. And this realization
has become a 'major step.forward in how we attackprob-'
terns'.':}.. '"..-. -.../.'' '
Throughoiit this retrospective, the work to restore the living
..resources of the Chesapeake Bay is highlighted. Progress in
ihisarenaisa kind-ofgeneric "target" by which-ourexpe-
rience ifnprovingth'e health of the Bay can, to some extent,
be gauged. Thestatusof the real targets the striped bass,^
: the soft.shell clam, and others is featured throughout the
document, ... . ."-
This is. no't-a report dn-the "State of the Bay. "It is a collec-
tion of images'thai-attempts to capture the vast bulk of
studies'/the- depth.'of the research, and the actions and
comrmtment of the people involvedin the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay over the past ten years. For the most pan,
the^wbrds of managers and researchers are usedtopaint a
picture of a. decade of learning and action. It is a work in
progress... . ;: - ;'
Note for the .reader: .. :..-,.' .,
This 'document has hyo types of text and two 'types of.sidebar material; Selected
published material from managers arid researchers of the Chesapeake Bay Program
is set in normal type. Program, commentary is set m italics. The status of the Bay's
living resources is'shpwri in'iUustrated sidebars. The ae Goal for Governance 12
III. LEARNING TO ASK THE
RlgUTQUESTIONS/FINDING
THEJKIGffr'ANSWERS...-. 15
QThe First Question........ 15
QEstablisfring the Data Base..~15
' DUsingthe Data..., .... 17
. Wutrients &
Dissolved Oxygen .19
DWater Quality &'
Civing-Resources................,.24
DToxics '.27
TSThe Bottom Line. 28
b^ast Development,
Future Growth .................cJO
IP. ANSWERS INTO ACI1ONS.~35
UHabit&t Restoration 35
QWaterQualtty.:..........,....m....,..36
DPopuiation & Land Use....,...38
QScience & Technology 38
^Partnership '.....39
V. CONTINUING ON. .41
-------
Atthesigtiing oftfie,1992:'Ametidments
Chesapeake Bay Cor^i^sion: Chairman Bernard "Bernie"'
. Fowler, District of Colurtibia Mayor Sharon Pratt Kejty, EPA
Administfator WJMatti K. Reilfy, Maryland Governor William
DonaMSchaefer, Virginia. Governor L. Douglas Wilder and
Pennsylvania Governor .Robert'P. Casey,
-------
SOFT S&ELL CLAM
Sojl shell clams grow . ,
rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay,:
reaching connnercfat size in
ttcoyears or less. They
reproduce twice per year, 'in
spring and fall, but probably
onlyfattspaivnings are
Important in maintaining
population levels.'..Principal '
ecological rotes performed by
tbc species are filtering the
' water column, providing shell
^substrateforfoitling inverte-.
brates, and serving as prey (attt
life $tagffs}for a wide. . : ',
" assortment of animals... Major
predators onjttveniles include
blue crabs, eels, and coivnose
rays. Some o'tber species that
may depend heavily on soft'
shell clams include ducks,
geese, swans, mus'krdts, and
' reiccoons. , .
Diseases may play an
important role in regulating
atlttlt populations ofsoft^ shell,
elf tins; hydrocarbon pollution .
is linked to increased '
freqjien'cy of disease. 6il
pollution tides the most tvide-
spread and persistent damage
fto soft shell clams through tox-
icity, aside from its role in in-
"ducingdlstuise. Heavy meta!sr
Jfestiddes, and similar pollu-
tants can be extremely toxic,
but the ftantfful effects to.
clams do not last if the pollu-
tion abates. The main concern
with ttie hitter toxicants is
bioacfumulation "by soft shell
slants, with'the potentialfo£
passing toxic contaminants on
'to predators or to. humans.
Siltalion caused by storm
events, dredging operations, or
erosion, can smother clam
populations. Eutrophicatibn,
enhanced byjtulrient inpiits ,
front sewage or agriculture, is.
not known to have affected soft
^shett clam populations. .
f-
t-.. i
I ' I
" *
4
.. i
1
1
,1
fc-- . ffi
^ I
A 1988 report called'<
-------
Portrait of an Ecosystenj
People around the. Chesapeake, have .aly/ays'seen and. enjoyed the Bay'^s visible
resourcesffrom oi|r marvelous beds.of Bay'grasses to birds of prey like the osprey
.and.bald eagle. But these single specie's are connected together as parts of a cotnplejc
web of interactions which make up Chesapeake Bay's ecosystem^ . .
Do out actions, the conduct of our lives, and businessfes have anything.'to do widt -
diese sppd.es, who live sudh different Jives firom our owjn? Of course. Wefwouldn't
- be-trying 'to. save Chesapeake Bay if we weren't part of her deeply rooted problems.
Chesapeake Bay - like virtually all natural-systems - runs on energy from'the sun;
.energy which (in concertwidi the mo6n) powers the tides, runs the'gfeat heat engine;
that mediates our seasons and 'climate; and sunlight that's captured by plantlife and
turned into'organic-matter that feeds us all; forest-to cattle fodder, plankton to]
poultry.' .'. ' . . : v- / . ...'."' '."-.".
For life in, Chesapeake Bay sunlight is the engine, but the "Bay "depends, on land ~
the .vast watershed'r for its nutrition. It depends on nitrogen and phosphorus,'the ''
, 'dissolved inineral fertilizers that have come-out of the Bay'g forests and rivers for
thousands of years'. The'se nutrients are'necessary for both the grqwth of life in our.
wafers-and as fertilizer for the thousands of acres of Bay grasses.-. . ~ ..
The grasses in turn provide vastforests and fields ofrefuge; forthe tiny larvaeofcrabs,
for the delicate soft shelled shedding- stage each crab undergoes as 'it grows to :
maturity, and to'the myriad species of tiny animalcules and juvenile fish which hide'
there from their predators.' Th.ese grass beds are the farms and pastures from which
sally fprui the great bounty jve call Chesapeate. ' "~ ' .
-------
IMRDCLMf,
The bard clam is found ,
along the eastern coast of
NQrtb America, from the Gulf of
St. Lawrence to Texas. In.
, Chesapeake Bay, the hard '
clam is restricted to Salinities
above approximately 12ppt.
An extensive survey of hard
clam resources, is overdue. ,' ,
long term trends inpopiila- '
lions cannot be determined.
The life cycle of the bard
clam includes a pelagic larval.
phase and a relatively sedeti-
tatj' bentbic juvenile and adult
' phase..JProdation on netv
recruits is very" high; dense
aggregations of bard clams
have beenfound in the
absence of pi-edators. Aside
, front predation and fisfting
pressure, the natural mortality
of large f clams appears very
Hard clams are important
suspension-feeding infauna,
thus tbey are important in . .
grazing of primary produc-
tioit, fransfer of carbon and
nitrogen to'bentbicfood
chains, and through excretion,
'rapid recycling of paniculate
nitrogen as ammonia. The'
majorfoo'd source for hard
clams is planhtonlc
. microalgae. In Chesapeake
Day, growth occurs in spring
and fall, tvhen optimum water
temperatures coincide with
abundant food. ' '
Gams are capable of living
in a variety of sediment types,
bitt higher abundances are ' .
found in ooarse-grained
sediments. Hard clam stocks -
are susceptible to overfishing. .
Recruitment rates.are p'oorfy
understood, as Mrs possible re- .
establishment periods if
areas are depleted through
commercial harvesting..: Hard
cliitn niaricullure is ioett
established qnd'could easily be _
expanded into sites ivithin the
nay.
,'i
I . 1
I
I"
« :
It is this bounty, 'the young and growing fishes, which-are the forage that supports
the proud raptor birds \ye find so impressive;, the osprey .^nd bald eagle. Many of
1 us thinjc of 'them, as -symbols 'of a natural system at equilibrium in its processes.
; When wehumaAs add thos.e nutrients, often together with mud and sediments, in
"quantities "far in excess of this equilibrium, Chesapeake Bay staggers under the
impact Excess^nutrients and sediments- come, from our construction, agriculture,
'and waste discharges, from the millions of us -living here. .', .'."'' ' '.,.
' The plankton -.the minute microscopic plant cells in all natural waters ~ have first ,
access to these nutrients and multiply much more quickly than- submerged grasses .
can grow. They overwhelm and overpopulate the Bay's surface 'waters, growing so
densely that, together with the _silte and mud, they shade -.out light reacting the
bottom. Aquatic grasses suffer mightily from this onslaught and fcn. the early 1970s
. nearly disappeared. ,'. . . '. '''.' . .''.'' . ' _._.' " .
Atthe.s'ame.time many industries i'n'the past considered 'discharge and.dilution the
best way to dispose of toxic chemicals. These followed the way of many substances
and spread throughout. the Bay, and for predatory birds- which ate those organisms,
the chemicals stopped in their tissues, accumulating to where their health and -ability
to reproduce was compromised. The grasses, declined, living, resources decliried.and.
with them, those symbols of a vital Bay, the osprey and bald eagle declined' top.
Chesapeake Bay is not the same as it was in past .decades;, neither is it the
seemingly inexhaustible protein factory that H. L. Mencken once extolled. .-,
Species intertwine, their" life.pathways intertwine, the welfaris of one species depends
on- the welfare of many others. -We are not exempt from that web of life and we-will
suffer together for its deficiencies.. : - . . ' '- ' : . ....'.' .',';'
o
-------
HOWTHE BAY PRQQI^Mi WORKS ;
. Th? Parliament of India contains the. elected representatives, of twenty-
four political parties. .The raucous complexify of defining and seour-
ing tbepublic interest in thisisituaiion is.hdrdfor'usto imagineforwe
' seem to.have a difficult time in'q two-party system.JButth'eChesapeake
. Bay Program (CBP) bos an even larger number of representatives,
.They come'from federal, state, andtocal agencies-interstate cpmmis-
sions; universities; private andpublic' interns) groups';: and from }h&
' - bouse next door. In a manner of speaking, it forms its owwecosystem
:, whefeth.eidentitiesof'thepdrticipanis'are. subsumed and intertwined
' ina search for Understanding andaction:. ' :
TttE ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES,
-Pre-1980: The connection between human activities and the resources of the-Bay
was recognized in .the nineteenth century. Representatives .of the oyster-industry
voiced concern over the .-decline'-of the-fishery in the twentieth century. Both
Maryland and Virginia established laboratories whose:sqle purpose was to study the
Bay and its tributaries, A number of conferences' were held (1-933,1968,197 7) and
citizens groups became active pollution control;advocates. Whereas in the,'nine-
teenth century, concern -for the Bay was voiced primarily by the oyster industry, today
. the chorus includes- boaters, ^sportsmen, .'fishermen, .and .a- large' phalanx'of
concerned citizens and their 'elected -representatives. State governments have
responded with. ah. increasingly complex and 'sophisticated- ra'nge of pollution
.control and-management agencies. In addition, the Federal government recognized
the need for the national protection of water resources aridj in' the 1970's, passed
.."a series of laws which fundamentally-changed the framework/for managing'and
. protecting water resources... :'". ''''.. ' '.-.-.-". " ''>
The specific impetus for.the EPA's Chesape_ake Bay Program came from a'toiir-of
theBay conducted by Senator Charles Mathias (R-J/tD) .in 1973. that tour...led to
conversations with Russell Train,- then the EPA Administrator. In'iiscalyear 1976,
Congress-directed'the EPA to, conduct a-.-five-yearj 25-million-d.ollar'study of
. .Chesapeake Bay...'[and]...required the EPA'to.assess water quality problems in the
Bay, to establish a data collection and" analysis'mechanism,- to coordinate all'of the
various activities involvedin'Bay research',- and-to;rriake recommendations on ways.
to improve, existing Chesapeake Bay management, mechanisms...^ '.. ''.-.-
The Ctiesdp'eake Bay Program'did not assume its'-responsibilities by
default; it was created from the ground up to act as .a- catalyst.and
organizerfor ib'e solution ofanextremely complex set of problems:
' 1983:' To effectively manage the Bayi we must recognize both its-variability ahd'its
.unity.-The Bay's water quality needs vary from region to region as do'the controls
'. necessary to support specific-regional resource use,objectives. The industrialised
Patapsco and Elizabeth River.s have a very different water quality problem than the
Choptank or P>ap_pahannock Rivers; Also', the desired and actual Use of these ar^as
.varies significandy,'industrial versus agriculture, and'fishing_. It is apparent'that we
must also target'our control strategies by geographic a'rea.^we must'.always keep in
niih'd that the Bay is a complex interactive ecosystem' arid that actions in any part'of-
the.watershed, may result in water quality degradation 'arid impacts ;6n aquatic
resources downstream. For this reason, it is essential that a Bay-wide management
mechanism with appropriate representation coordinate the respective activities of
the1 Federal and state'planning "and regulatory'agencies.. This concept is:..The
BLUE CRAB
The blue crab is one of the
most important species in the
Chesapeake. It leads the list of
. economically important
species and, would be near the
top of a list of ecologically
*. important ones. Bivalves,
crustaceans, and fish are its
favored foods and blue crabs.
Themselves are important in
the diets of striped bass, eels,
and numerous, other species.
. Hatching occurs near the
' mouth of the Bay in summer
and larvae are exported to
the continental shelf where
development occurs. The
number of post-larvae that
return to repopulate the Bay
each year is greatly influenced,
by weather conditions on the
%helf during the planktonic
larval period. Post-larvae that
dp, make it back settle in the
lower Bay to'metamorphose to
the juvenile crab stage.Juve-
-nile crabs spread throughout
the Bay and its tributaries
during the fall and the follow- .
ing spring. Submerged aquatic
Vegetation beds and shallow
nearshore areas are impor-
tamlnursery, molting, and
foraging, habitats.
Blue crabs utilize all habi-
tats in the Bay, from the
deepest to the water's edge
and from the most saline to
fresh water. They are most - ,
' abundant in deeper portions
''Of theBay during winter, but
prefer shallower waters
during summer.
I Although stock appear to be
thriving, there is concern that
overfishing may occur. Shore-
line development and contami-
nant-laden runoff water could.
degrade important nearshore
"molting and foraging habitats.
Areas that are currently
hypoxic in summer could
provide additional foraging .
and living space in the future
if conditions improve.
-------
ATLANTIC MENHADEN.
TJxf Atlantic menhaden is one "
of the most abundant . ,
species in estuarine and,
coastal Atlantic waters. The
second most important species
harvested in the United States '
intermsof quantity, it is >
processed far its oil,,protein
meal and solubles", and is tfsed
extensively as bait for
commercial and recreational
fishing, 'Menhaden are'
consumers of pbytoplankton
-. and plant detritus and, in tiirn,
are fed upon by many preda-
tory Jlsb and birds.
The Atlantic menhaden.is a '
member of the herring family,
but unlike most herrings and
shads, the menhaden is a ' '.
"coastal ocean spawner. It . .
ranges front Nova.Scotia in
Canada to central Florida. The
Chesapeake Bay is an'tmpor- '
tdnt nursery groutuifor
immature menhaden. The,
critical early,stages are spent-
itt coastal waters and, conse-
tHientfy, the eggs and larvae
aiy not exposed to pollutants
in the Bay. The Atlantic '_
ntenbadenhstock has remained
relatively stable "inrecetft
years. Menhaden are able to
tolerate sudden shifts in sdlin- ,
ity and are found throughout'
the fiayfrom almost fresh
irater'tojjlgb salinity,
The menhaden stock must be
nianaged uiiscly if it'is to tvitht,
stand heavy fishing pressure
and maintain its vial ecological
roles as an important
converter of phytoptankton ..
jttndplant detritus and as an
important food source for- ' '
huttty other species. ' .-
i
s (
, . '" ''' . Senatcir Charles.Mathias, one 6f.the
. 'hey shapersbf the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Martagemenf Committee- [now tlxe .Implementation Committee] should 'be-the '
coordinating mechanism to etisure that actions are takeri.to reduce, the flo\y o.f
pollutants into the Bay, and to restore and maintain the Bay's ecological integrity.
The Management Committee's, specific responsibilities should iriclude; .-
DCoordinating-the implerhentatipn of the Chesapeake Bay Program -.
VeCortimendations; ''..' .,:'' ' .'"''.' _.','''.
_ . QDeveloping a Gompreherisive basiivwide planning process in conjunction '
. ... 'with, ongoing planning-efforts;', . . :. , . '.' ' ..'. '..;
. D Investigating new regjojial approaches to water quality, management' '
including creative financing mechanis.ms; . : ' . ' . .. .. -:' ",
DResolying regional conflicts regarding water quality issues; and-.". '''.'-
' DRevie'wihg ongoing-Bay research-efjforts arid recommending additional '. .-
research needs, i '. '.' _ ;. , ' ' . . '.-' _',-. '- ''., ; _;'' ;.-
Hope'folly,. the needs of the future can b.e'-met and the quality.pf the Bay preserved.
It is apparent -that we .are talking -about some governmental change;' long-term
commitments,, and money.- There will' be ho quickrfix' for the Chesapeake!s '
problems. We will need to Continde to. stiidyand to monitor, butwhile.we.do that,
we-'will-also need.to focUs concerted remedial action on some of .the most s'eyere
problems in'the system. Above'all, we will'need to continue the dialogue among the
state and amo_ng the users 'of ttie Bay. The new .spirit of cooperation and awareness .
'generated by the Chesapeake Bay Program has brought us to the point of believing
that, we can, after all, manage the Bay for .the benefit of all'.2 .
-------
WHO IS INVOLVED AND WHAT THEY DO
.ffie concerted effort to r&iore the Chesapeake B^
. only ten.years ago that state 'cf^d federal leaders from around.the Bay
,. region meito-pledgepfotectipnoftheQdy. It was only six years ago.in the''
.1987 Chesapeake Bay. Agreement that a' detailed 'and. coordinated
* restoration effort ivas 'launched. It was only a year ago'that the 1992
Amendments, were approved. '-.'-. '.' ' " ; ' -- ."' ': ..;. . :
:The, l^S^A^rsement^etin motiona coordinated campaign to reverse the
of a cooperative stfuctiire'todevelop and'coordinate the comprehensive
Bay', cleanup; the Chesapeake :Exeoutiue' Council, its-Implementation
Committee, arid EPA's Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. And it established
.a.Baywide 'monitoring'program to-'gather basic data\against' which
de&red change ctiuld'be measured.:: ,' '.." . '-'.''" .;
.1983-88: Marylahd, Virginia,' Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the.
Chesapeake-Bay'Commission and EPA were'the Original partners in the Chesa-
peake Bay Agreement. Six othe'r federal agencies formallyjoined'in the Bay cleanup
in 1984: Soil'Conseryatiori Service, Fi'sh'and Wildlife Service', National Oceanic and
. Atmospheric Administration, Geological Survey, U.S. Army,Corps-of Engineers,
. and the Department of Defense.' * . . - . _" -,,- ; ' :'.".''...-' '
Cqmmjtmentto'restoring theBay has enabled states whoseinstitutions' and political
_ traditions differ and1 federal agencies with, diverse missions to work together to solve
common problems 'while'.retaining the independence -of their prograrns. The-
' C'.KpsnnpaVpPyprlfriv^ flmmrfl' rvtYwirlpfi HiFii1par1f*r<;ht>n smri-^rv^ns that- sVicinps fKfi>ir-u7r»rlr
Bay Program
;. Citizens ,'
Advisory Committee
Local Government
Advisory- Com'rnittee
Scientific;& Technical
Advisory Committee
Chesapeake'
Executive Council
.Principals' Staff
Committee
Implementation
: Committee
Federal Agencies
:'. .Committee '''
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBfLflJES
Jibe Implementation
Committee -was established by
th^ Chesapeake Bay Agreement
of 1983 and is composed of
representatives for the states .
of Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania, the District of'
C^umbia, the Chesapeake Bay
"'Commission, the EPA ami-other
federal agencies (Defense,
\NtiAlA, Fish and-Wildttfe, USGS,
Agriculture and Transporta-
tion). It is responsible for
^implementing thepoUcy"
decisions and technical
istttdie,s oftherChesapeake
Executive Council and coordi-
* noting restoration and protec-
tion activities .under the 1987
&ay Agreement.
- If establishes and icoordi-
.juatesatt of the Bay^Program
subcommittees and is respon*
^sibfefor the annual tvorkpldn
"*and budget, preparation of the
Annual Report, 'technical and .
^computer support and public
outreach. It is "advised
by the Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee, the Local
Governmetit Advisory
Committee and the
Citizens Advisory
Committee whose
Chairmen are also-
Members.
B.udget & Workplan-
Steering Committee
Air Quality
.Coordination Qroup
'Subcommittees'
,'; ' ' i ' .
frib. Strategies-Public
.;Particip. Wrkgrp.
.Nonpoint.
Source
, . Toxics
/ Monitoring
Modeling 1 '
' Living .
Resources
Public .
Access
Growth & .
Develqpment
Communications
-------
BAYANCtXOVY
The bay anchovy, a smalt,
schooling species, is the most.
abundant JJsb in Chesapeake
" Say. It is a major consumer of
" plankton and is itself a major
foodofpredatory fish, terns,
ttttdjcUyflsb making it a key
species hi the Bay's food web.
< The bay anchovy occurs,
tbroHgboitt the Bay and is
Widely tolerant of salinity,ahd ,
temperature. It lives to three
years of age, seldom grows
longer than 90 mm, and .
spawns in late spring.and siim-_
aier when low dissolved oxy-
gen ntay limit the distribution
ofatt life stages. Oxygen levels
beloiv $JO mgL can- be
lethal to eggs and larvae and
DQ below 2JO mgL is critical.
Specific habitat features,. .
structure, arid shoreline
development are nofof.- .
particular concern forbay
ancboty, but bydrograpbic
features that affect water qual-
ity could limit its distribution
and" abundance. Surprisingly ,"
little is known about
toxicant ejffects on bay anchovy.
Day anchovy losses from being
entrained and impinged in
power plant cooling'systems.
may affect its abundance as .
wettas that offlsb.es that
consume it. ,
Ray anchovy populations in
the Chesapeake BayJliKtuate
annually, but no long-term '
declines have occurred.
Deteriorating water qfiality in.-
the future could affect its re-
productive potential. Summer ,
bypoxia already potentially
limits its distribution and .
productivity in the Maryland
portion of "Chesapeake Bay. A
better knowledge of toxicant
effects- on alt life stages and
better definition of tb'e bay
« aticboty's he}< role in food *
webs tvttt be important to
define d:ater quality criteria-
that may be critical.
EhtVTJ
* 1
1
The'Implementatibn Committee, the Council' si operating arm, has 26 members;.
'delegates from the jurisdictions, arid representatives of the seven federal agencies arid
three interstate commissions (Chesapeake Bay/IIcimmission, Interstate Commis-
sion on the Potomac River Basin, and Sus'quehanna River Basin Commission).
(Subcommittees'forPlanning, NonpointSpurcesi Pata Management, Modeling and
Research,. .Monitoring, arid' Living- Resources coordinate work in those categories ,
across agency and state lines. A. Scientific arid Technical. Advisory Committee,
whose membership includes directors of major Bay area research institutions, ;
also assists -the Implementation Committee. The Chesapeake Research Con-
sortium,. an organization of Bay research institutions, provides support...,
The Council has a Citizens. Advisory Committee (CAC) .-to provide a public
perspective on policy issues. CAC has 25 members: four appointed by the-chief
executive in each 'state,, and nine-at-large members norrrinated,by the Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc...3 [Another committee 'was formed in
1988 to represent the local government role in the restoration: the Local-
Government- Advisory Committee. It' has 20 , members -'from Bay Program
jurisdictions.} ' , - ; .' ', , .'' ,' : ' .-' _ ';_
.EVOLVING IN E\ DIRECTIONS
The organizational structure- of the Chesapeake Bay Program forms the
framework for looking at- the Ray. Its endurance and success depends
- upon whether or not' it allows formulation of the appropriate, questions.
199.0: As die Chesapeake Bay Pro/gram resolves some of the issues before it, other,
proble'ms come to the, forefront for consideratiari.':The first Agreement identified a
small number- of. critical issues to-, be addressed. The selection of these issues was
based, on a- consensus among citizens, resource managers', 'and" the scientific and
technical1 c6"mmunity. Thes.e groups agreed, first, that these problem's were.
important,' and,, second, that-we knew 'enough about them to 'develop successful
'.-solutions. . ' » '',,... . ;.
As time'has passed, the differerit-parts of the complex'interstate, state-federal, state-
local, .public-private, anjl legislative-executive entities that comprise, the Chesapeake
Bay Program have Coalesced into an- increasingly effective and efficient apparatus for
dealing with the various parts of the problem.- It has become apparent 'that the .
solutions to. many :p'f the problems articulated in the 1983 Agreement and its
successor.. .are notgo.ing to be as simple as was hoped in 1 983. The basic consensus
jas to the importance of the original problems still holds, but some'newly-identified
problems demand' solutions and require integration -into the Program. \
The Chesapeake Bay Program is moving in uncharted .waters. No other envimn-
m en farVnanagement effort on this scale has ever been attempted in_a system as
rnmplex as the Chesapeake.. .For convenience and manageability, the day-to-day
activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program are 'coordinated through committees and,
workgroups such as Living Resources, Modeling, Toxics, Stock Assessment-,. etc. In
reality, however, these areas are not isolated from each other, and the best decisions
consider-and integrate die deliberations of all'.diese groups., .The management
community involved in the Bay Program interacts ori'an almost continuous .basis.
This interaction is critical to the .success of a program diat deals across political
boundaries' with a natural system as cdmplex as the Chesapeake Bay .and. its.
watershed.,, '..' ' .-'''','.-
This ide'a'ef constant evolution is brought home inthe:changihg thrusts
of the basic Agreements and their Amendnients. * . . .
-------
1992: The unique 1987 pact.set the framework for restoration with clear goals and
objectives, specific cdmmLtmeiits, .and deadlines for action. Nearly all of the
commitments and deadlines, haye been met, but this is a misleading measure of
progress'because the Bay "and r~. paBaaa.aiL. ^HSaagt'W a i~
,.,' ,, >.- ' /;- '
our knowledge of its problems, ' ^»-""""«f »s* «-* ~ » ~-
have not remained static. New
connections have been found -
and new challenges created. -
Nothing speaks better to the ,
fundamental soundness of the
. Agreementthan;howthese'riew-
challenges are incorporated.- -
A decade ago, scientists were
'unable to agfee on the relative
importance ofphdsphorus and
' nitrogen as nutrients in'estuar-
: ies.and tributaries. Continuing
research, much of it ednducted
on the Chesapeake, revealed'
the importance.of both. 'More
thorough- study, on the .chemi-
cal transformations of -nutri-
ehts iri-'Bay waters, and .sedl-,
mentis, has , shown how.'
byerenrichment of nutrients,
algal bloo.msj-and die develop-
ment of oxygen-starved-Water
arerinterrelat
-------
UVJ^G RESOURCE
SUBCOMMfTIlEJB
MILESTONES
1987' _
3 Subcommittee formed
1988 , , ' .
0 Ereparcd BayuttHe '.
Resource Management- ,'
Strategy, Removing Fisb
Passage Impediments
, Strategy, an ecosystem
Monitoring Plan, and a ,;
" Fisheries Stock Assessment
Plan .
CPttbttsbed ?ftabitai Reqitire-
" meats For Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources" . '
0 Adopted Wetlands Policy
1989 .
Q Management Plans'prepared
for alosids, blue crabs,
oysters, and striped bass
Q Adopted Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Pojtcy
0 Prepared Implementation
Plans forJisb passages and
oysters' ' - , "
1990 ',
Q Adopted a Waterfowl Policy
and Management Plan and'
fishery Management plans. .
forbluefish,tvea%fisb,and ,
spotted seatrout . . . .
0 prepared Implementation .
Plans for alosids, blue .'
crabs, striped bass, ,
submerged aqttatic '
vegetation, and wetlands
1991 .. _ . " .
0 Prepared fishery Manage-
ntent Plans'for summer
flounder, spot, croaker, and
American eel
Q Published "Habitat Require-
' mcnts For Chesapeake Bay
, Living resources: 2nd
Edition"
1992
0 Published "Anadromous
Fish Habitat Restoration.-
A Resource Assessment"
1993
0 Prepared a fishery Manage-
ment Plan for black drum
' and red drum,, a Technical .
Synthesis for submerged
aquatic vegetation, and ,
,, strategics for wetlands-
mapping and the' rtistora-
tfon and protection of
', ecologically valuable
species * .
O Published "Dissolved
Oxygen Goals"
I
fin *|
| 1
im « 4
fcllLI Lf
r" -I
. - I
O
1983:'Governors tiarry Hughes of Maryland, Dick Thornburgh
'.of Pennsylvania and Charles 5. Robb of Virginia --three of the
' signatories of the historic 1983- Chesapeake Bay Agreement* ;
bottom line we finH that the special partnership' responsible for the continuity of
. management and commitment necessary to ensure long-term results is in glace and
working. ..'. , '.'/ ' , "' ,, - ,.' .,. ' " .',-.''.
The'idea of.cooperative', multi-jurisdictional governance is kfey to restoring the'Bay,
The Amendments call for an expansion'bf th^. partnership by exploring .possible
working relationships "with' the three remaining basin states * New York, West
Virginia, and Delaware - in the development of strategies for nutrient reductio'n in
tributarie's.j' ' . \.'''.' % , '..,' ' " 1 .- - '.' ' .; ' ',
THE GOAL FOR GOVERNANCE
. "Cooperative Governance" is another 'way. of saying that all tbeplayeri '
sboidd be brought into.itieganie. The:s'amemay be'said'of'the evolving
approach, to .restoring: the life of the Baytreat the'.whole patient. The
discreteprograms involvingfish ladders or grasses or assessing blue crab .
stocks are linked by the search for a better understanding 6fthe complex
relationships which bind the overall Chesapeake'ecosystem. This under-
standing is maturing and becoming more 'comprehensive. We are better^
able to track the unwinding consequences of specific actions -and gather
clues'about the best levers to pull and which signals-are reliable. ' '"':.
1987t ,'..the' Chesapeake Bay'. Program Implementation 'Committee formed the
Living "Resources Task Force directing it to "provide, for the restoration and
protection of the living resources, their habitats and ecological relationships." Its
mandate developed.from the growing recognitlon'that."the productivity, diversity'
and abundance of living resources are the best ultimate measures ofth'e Chesapeake
Bay's condition."- . ' ; ' , , ; ' '' . . .'-':
"With time, the cpmmittee realized die need for a pefihanent body of scientists and.
managers to guide "living resource restoration"; the task force ttansfor'med'into, the
current Living Resources Subcommittee. . ;.' ':' " ."'. ' . .' -
-------
. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement sets the broad agenda which the subcornmit-
tee must carry but. Mor,.e'detailed than the 1983 Agreement, the 1937 Agreement
specifies-the portion's of .the Bay ecbsyste'm requiring protection :ahd rejuvenation
and set timetables forth'e creation of man'ageme'nt plans to achieve these goals/T-he
schedule: is'demanding by-any standard;-'Yetjf the prbducti'bn''of'detailed plans
remains on track. . .'., "'-,'.' _ '.' ;-'-.- ..-. . ' .' .. '.''
'Under the framework of-the Resource Management Strategy adopted in
1988, twelve lining-resource management plans have been written,
remewedby'the'Bay'Program ahdthepublicdndadoptedbytbeExecutive
Council to guide the coordinated management of the. Chesapeake Bay's
..fish and waterfowl. While people-respect political boundaries and:road
signs,speciesdonomndeffective;coop^
"thefish and'waterfowl to survive 'andprosper, ;.'.,' ' ' ;.
1992:. Until die 'signing of the ;1987'Agreemeritj much of the restoration effort
_hinged on saving the Bay's plants and animals orte's'pecies at a' time. Implicit in the'
Living Resources Subcommittee's charge is tp''mana'gethe Bay from an ecosystem
approach. For example, we seek to restore tiot only the oyster, but also its-habitat.
The oyster reef'hosts a variety of'dependent species-.' By restoring the reef and its,
oysters, \ve will not only bolster populations of other reef species but ultimately help
clean die Bay as more: and more oyster'filter Ket water. '. . , _-.-. : :' .-
Each species has a niche.whicli-is integrally related to'all other niches in the complex
wprkirigs of'the Bay ecosystem. By nursing the ecosystem back to "healths 'we
.necessarily promote''the-well-being.pf each compo'nent speci;es;6 "...
:-.Apublici'hat.asksj"Is'
dimensional water quality 'computer.-model and are translated: into
"'measures'of progress andtargetssuch'-as threshold amounts o/'dissolved
ntirogwahdphosphprLisihatintetfere^
quantification of key aspects oftbelife oftbeBay is an essenfial ingredient
'tp;discover bow 'we are doing and h&iv we can do better. But tbere is.
anothermeasiire, and. that is. how 'the mysteries are realised in th'e, spirit
.ofthepeoplewhoUvemtbtheBdy.ttisisihetransMio^^
BayProgramfromdgovernmentandindustr^
stewards ar&indlmdudl:men, women, and. children. , . .'i'"-"
Maryland's GoverriorWittiuniDotiaMSchaeferattetidsacleanup
-------
COMMUNICATIONS
SUJSCOmtlTTEE .
MILESTONE?
1987
0 Established as the Public .
Information and Education
Subcommittee
' 0 Sponsored public outreach
and education conference
for Bay region ; ' -.
i:Jteprinted"Ba.ybook,"an. '
easy to understand guide »
'for reducing icater pollution
(at home- -
0 Reprinted the EPA's . . -!
document "Introduction to
an Ecosystem," a primer on
the Bay .
1988 ; ,.
0 Created "Bay Activity
Cards" student activity , '
cards to assist 'in teaching
about all aspects of the Bfty
1990 .
H Deivtopcd "Wetland
. Edttcation Resource
Inventory"
J991 .,
" 0 Changed name to Communi-
cations Subcommittee and
broadened mission to in-
clude developing more
effective communications
about the restoration and
the Chesapeake Bay Progratn
U Established the Chesapeake
" Bay Communications 'Office
1992 '
D Created "A Citizen's Guide"
to the Chesapeake Bay
Program," a public
education oriented
pamphlet about Chesapeake
Bay Program activities
st! Established Urban Teacher
' Trainitig Workshops in each
'A growing number of business people, .developers, and political leaders
understand thatwhatis'gpodfortheenvirphraentis ultimately good forthe economy,
and the public welfare. Many private citizens have become involved in helping the
Bay and its living resources through interest groups,, advis'ory committees, dona-
tions, arid individual volunteer work... ..', .;..
But how do we help the' public at large to better understand the connections among
the water, land, air, people,, and, of course, the living resources, when many of the
'specialists are just beginning;to grasp this idea? We will only conquer the problems
ofnqti-point.source poUution, as a prime example, when the majority of decisions
that are made.locally by developers,-local officials,'.engineers, homeowners,'arid.
farmers are- made with^a sense.of the'whole system, 'the water, tixe land, the air, the
people, living resources rthe Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.-Itwouldbe foolish to think!
thatwe can regulate all of these decisions at'State arid Federal-levels. But we can work
hard to educate, to offer alternatives, to coordinate our environmental programs at.
'all levels of .government, -and to- urge that the lesson's we are learning from the
Chesapeake experience" are shared and applied throughout the watershed.
SEE-ALSO: ;" -": .- '.'.'-/. /: - , : .'., . . ..' " ,
QThfe Chesapeake Bay Program: A Commitment Renewed; February 1988 '
'.DChesapeake Bay: A Framework For Actionj.September 1983. .
-------
TO ASKTHE
"BRIGHT ANSWERS;.; /;,"; '.':''' ; ; ; ;: v;, '.
At a 'most fundamental level, ihe.phrase'cleaning up the Chesapeake'.
'medns to increase the amount.of. "good'water":available in the'Bay.
"Good tvater" contains-enough dissolved 'oxygen,' 'to support the Bay's
tremendoiisvariety''' . " ' ; .' ' '. . _' ;'
...In addition to cpordinating and staffing principal research efforts,'the CBP also
developed a computerized-data management systemto compile and evaluate the data
. /collected by indiyidualCBP.projects'and by oth'er research 'efforts;. .The information
assembled in.the CBP.data'base is'considered'to be"the most,extensive body'of
scientific knowledge-o.n-any single'estruary in the'world. More important, the data
base provides a common set of knowledge about the Bay's ecological problems - a
prerequisite; necessary to carry out individually and collectively the most urgent task
of establishing common goals for action to improve the Bay. ' . '
ESTABLISHING THE DATA BASE
One branch .of this "common set-of (knowledge" has grown 'into a
coordinated Baywide water quatity monitoring: .system that develops
baseline data and records subsequent environmental changes.'Begin-
-. ningintheouterreachesoj'therwateYshed, researchers track and measure
the 'sources, of nutrients and other'pollutants.-On the Bay itself, they
monitor a variety offactorstogiveacomprehensive diagnosis of the Bay's
health. As .data 'builds, scientists unravel the technical- details: and
1984:. 'Like analysts diligently .tracking "the daily fluctuations and long-term trends
of the stock market, Bay scientists monitor the Chesapeake Bay. Routine collection
arid analysis of water samples provide information on short and long-term changes
in'water quality while the status of the-supporting members of the estuattne food
web-plankton, benthic organisms and aquatic grasses ~:afe [checked]...Building on
AMERICAN SHAD &
HICKORYSHAD
Natural shad spawning
habitats include non-tidal
reaches of virtually all
" Chesapeake Bay tributaries,
American shad juveniles leave
the estuary in late fall, mature
in the ocean, and return to the
tributaries to spawn after two
to five years. The life history of
hickory shad is similar, but
poorly known.
American shad historically
supported important recre-
ational and commercialfisher-
ies in Chesapeake Bay
tributaries, whereas hickory
shacl, because of their natu-»
rally lower abundance in the
region, were a much less
important fishery species.
"Severe stock declines of both
species in the latter half of the
~2Od?century led to drastically
lower harvests, and a fishing
'moratorium in the Maryland
portion of Chesapeake Bay
which has been in effect since
1980. The causes of the de- '
dines apparently include
overfishing in earlier decades,
blockage ofspaivning rivers by
dams and other impediments,
attd degradation of
water quality and physical ,
habitat in spawning reaches.
- The critical life stages of
shed are the eggs, larvae, and
. early juveniles... American
shad and Hickory shad are
. principally zooplanktonfeed-
ers and, in turn, are preyed '
upon by other predatory fish,
thus serving as a trophic Unk
between plankton and
piscivores in coastal and
^stuarine waters...
Although American shad
have shown some signs of
recovery in recent years,
stocks must continue to be pro-
tected, both from excessive
harvest and from degradation
, of their spawning and nursery
habitats.
-------
MONITORING
SUBCOMMITTEE
MILESTONES .
0 Subcommittee established
0 Published "Monitoring 1984:
, A First Reportfrom the
Chesapeake Bay Program , '
, Monitoring Subcommittee"
1985
Q Published "The State of the
Chesapeake Bay: A Second
Annual Monitoring Report"
1988 , ;-.'.- ."
Q Established the Coordinated
SplitSample Program to
assess'tbe comparability of
water quality data
1989
0 Published "Chesapeake Bay
Basin Monitoring Program
Atlas Volume I: Water.
Quality and Other '
Pbysiocbemical Monitoring
, -Programs"
2 Published "Chesapeake Bay
Basin Monitoring Program
Atlas Volume IK'Biological
and Living Resource
Monitoring Programs''
2 PublisbedaTbe State of the
Chesapeake Bay: Third ,
Biennial Monitoring Report"
1990 ,. ' -
3 Established Data
Analysis Issues
Trading System,
an issues resolution
system'-
1992 ' ;
D Published "Progress-
' -Report to the
Implementation
Committee on Refine-
ment to the Monitoring
Program, " a review of
the Chesapeake Bay
mainstem and tribu-
tary water quality
monitoring program
, L assessing its effective
ness to provide the
data needed to guide
tnanagemcnt decisions
*'* a data base reaching back to the'1950s, monitoring ,of the Bay's finfish'and shellfish ;
' populations provides .the information.- needed to ensure wise 'management o£
i existing living resources.^.Monitoring'serves not only to'assess the.currentwstate,pf
_ i the-Bay" and long-term trends, b'utalso to help better understand its dyhamics'in
resp'onse to pollution'reduction.- '..' " ' r '
In 1984,''stateandifederal agencies initiated a coordinated monitoring program in
the Chesapeake Bay .mainstem and its tidal-tributaries'.' Integrated with dais-wat^r
quality network are'plankton, benthos and sediment sampling...The'Chesapeake
,. t Bay Monitoring Program has since ejcpanded to include monitoring activities in the
District oFColumbia, other living resource monitoring programs, .and monitoring
- of non-tidal Bay tributaries...., ' /.' , /' .'. . -,
* -( . ',''"'.. . - '."'.'.* ...,' . * ', - '. . " ' " . \ '
...the-Bay Program's Monitoring Subcommittee published the "Chesapeake Bay
Basjn Monitoring Program Adas,-"; a document containing summary descriptions'
of ongoing, long-term environmental monitbring programs within the watershed.
r* Trie number and diversity! of monitoring programs described in'the atlas attest to..
f ' the wealth of ihforination,being generated fot management purposes. Yet,:the sheer '
number of programs emphasizes. .the heed to integrate across'.jurisdictional.
boundaries rin'essence, to trpat the Chesap'eake as" a whole.9-'.4. - . . '', .-.:
Monitoring fhe Bay is not accomplished fyttto words It involves people',
weather, and-sensifive equipment. The Chesapeake Bay Program funds
the routine i^on&onngofl9watsrqitali^paramefers^at 49''stations in
J * tbe mainstem;of'Che$£ipeakeBay.::At each station,',rneasure)n&nts.are
takenf6rdissolve:doxygen; water^ernperatiirejcoriductimty, salinity, and
pH.:Thes&,measurements are sampled from surface to bottom at J to 2
meter intervals. Qnetise of this data is to feed another sensitive devicea
collection of computer software that patterns the connections .between
t I events in the watershed and water qiiattty.in the main Bay,,--.;
Key Elements of Chesapeake Bay Modeling
Meteorological-.
.Input '
Surface Forcing
Watershed
Model
Land Use, Soil
and Geophysical
'Characteristics-
Sediment
Submodel'
3-D
Hydro
Model
Currents,
Temperatjirfe
& Salinity
Water
Quality
Model
Ocean
Boundary
Forcing
Qiemical&'
Biological
Constituents
-------
USING THE DATA "''/_; -- . '-'.//- . ''. :: ' -,--'
Tfce.Chesapeake Bay'Program, has relied heavily on, water quality
modeling to guide program strategies..'This/comprehensive'modeling
approach consists of two models, 'each with a specific role, that interact
andultim^telypr&dicttbe'^ects'ofnuiriei'it loadings in th& ioatershedon^
water quality in themdinstem, The. two models used by ibeBayPrpgrarp
'are-the Watershed Model arid the, Time. Variable Bay Model The Watef-
sbedMo'delsimula^nmoffgroundwai&jIow, dnd-nverflow to estimate
' nutrient loadings fromnpnpoint and point'sources,to,tbeMdaicbesa-
peakeBay. Tb.eseloadingestinidl^aretiseda^inputtO'fh&Time Variable
M6del,'dcontinwiKhydrodyndmKd^
estuary. , ''.. '.;''. ''' ;"" v ."'. '':'' - - " '"''-" V "
are necessary to protect living resources in specific sensitive areas of. the
in:thelatel970s.ThefirstgercerationWat
1983 an-d, was, used to support the. subseqitent development of a two-
dimensional, steady-state water quality1 model of 'the. mdinstem:.'The
_. mainstem model,. which was developed during' 1985 through, 1987, .was
used, to test- a number ;.of potential- nutrient, control scenarios. ' This
.modeling effort became'the basis for the nutrient, load reduction goal of
40 percent by the year 2000 established in the 1-987 Bay Agreement. ;.
Another iipgfdde to theModelbegan in 1988 arid 'was completed 'in 1991 .
Th'.e Three Dimensional Time Variable Model (3-D Model) was also
completed in 1991. It estimates th'e'water. quality resp]onse.of'ti)e'Bay to '
nutrient inputs^ estimated, by . the- Watershed Mbdel.^The 3-D Model
simulates sediment nutrient jlux, plankton growth, and other '.water
, quality processes. TheB-DModeliscdpableofprofilingan entireyear.and
is-'abl&.to evahtate in' detail the heeded.phosphofas and nitrogen reduc-
tions; in.tbe'nwinstem bf the Chesapeake:- Bay to achieve the. desired
'
"ment. occurs-once'-nutrient controls are -inplace,. '
. The coupled Watershed and 3-5) Models do-nptprovide absolutepredic- .
tions ofwatershed.nutrient-loads and.'resulting. Bay water quality.
However:; the models 'doprovide ah-excellenf. fool for studying cause-effect
relationships between activities in-the Bay watershed and water quality
in the main Bay. . ,, !,'.}'- '-.-. ' '-.- '''. .:"- - -
1993:, TKe major piirpdse of.the Watershed Mod'el is.to. enable Chesapeake JBay
Program managers to. look beyond' the measured data.and establish'cause-effect
relationships that explain water quality levels at various locatiorisln the syste'rru By
; .subjecting the current land use pattern and wastewater treatment plant loadings to
a full range of potential hydrqlogical conditions, .the Watershed Model is .used to
_extend snort-term water quality records- and to. examine 'the most..important
.process.es responsible for water quality levels-id various sectibhs of.the Bay.
;"Since all major processes' responsible for pollutant.dischargesiand-transport are
represented by the Watershed'Mpdd, the.model is used to evaluate the water quality
.'impacts-of alternate land use patterns afid wastewater treatment 'plant discharges
under the_ same lo'ng-term hydrolbgic. conditions.'.'- .'-.'"'. .:' : ;* ;:
,The.objectiyes of the 3-D Model are to determine the relationship between nutrient
load reductions and-reductions of eutrophication.and anoxia in the Bay. -The 3-D
.Model uses flow rate, and nutrient, load output from the. Watershed Model'to
simulate the Bay's response to these variable's. 'The model was used to reevaluate
MODELING
SUBCOMMITTEE
MILESTONES
1979 . , .
JTpeiielopment begins on the
first Hay basin Watershed
J-Mo'det
X9S2 , '
'UJUodel indicates that
>
.- nonpoint sources are the
. 'dominant supplier of
~ nutrients to the Bay
'
D Development begins on the *
"^2-D Steady State Model that
Witt determine tvhat'nutrient'
* - loadings mean in terms of
water quality
O Updating of the Watershed
»^,Model to Phase I to include^
^~fji(mpoint source^ loadings
t
D Findings from the 2-DJjfodel.
' and the updated Watershed
"** 'at* J^y ,
~ Model are used in determin-
ing the 40% nutrient reduc-
^tiongoal
D Development of the Phase II
,- - Watershed Model and the 3-D
. "itme Variable Model begins
jvifb animal waste and air
< deposition added as nuM-
~ ^"erit sources and the ability
, . to express nutrient loadings
over time expanded to- three
, - years
D First scenario run through
~ . the model
1993 '
D Published "Watershed
^ Model Application to
'Chesapeake Bay Nutrient
Loadings"
' O Published "Application of
the 3-D Eutrophication
Model to Chesapeake Bay"
D Published "Technical
Analysis of Response of
Chesapeake Bay Water
Quality Model to Loading
H ^Scenarios"
-------
AJLEWJFE&
BLUEBACK HERRING
' Spauwfng habitats of these
*Wi«r herring," include fresb-
icetter, non-tidal areas of
smaller tributaries ofChesa--,
pcak& Bay. JRiver herring .
juveniles leave their nursery
areas infaO, mature in the
^Atlantic Ocean, and return ',
after two to five years to Bay
tributarlcsjof spring spawn-
*"£
River herring sttpported
relatively important.comnter-
cialfishertes in Chesapeake
Bay until the early 1970s when
stock began to decline, dra-
tnatlcalfy. Current la/tidings
are the lou'cst on record. [
'Probable catis'es'of stock de-
clines
include loss of spawning and
nursery habitat quantity and '
quality, over-exploitation of
primarily immature indjvidtials
intbe*offshore'foreignfishery '
between 1967 and 1977} and
decimation of the 1972 year
classes and alteration of
spat&nlng habitats by tropical
storm Agnes.
The critical life history
stages ofaleutffe and blueback
herring are the eggs, larvae,
and early juveniles... "'Both
species feed principally :on
sooplankfon, small insects, ,
fish eggs, and'thq like, serving
as an important trophic link
to estuarine and coastal
piscit'ores, and to some mam-,
"mttls, amphibians and aquatic
birds. Larval forms and eggs
of these species also serve as .
prey for smeittfislb and inver-
"tebrates...
Chesapeake Bay stocks of
riyer herring have continued
to decline. Mitigation of,
stream acidification, removal
of spawning stream blockages,
, ^ implementation of effective
stormicater manage'ment
practices, andBayu'ide .
harvest restrictions are
positive steps that should be
taken to encourage recovery
of these depressed populations.
i i
I / i
I V I
i.'!-
':!
M i i
H
*
i , .1
I,"
fr-
'-, *
-
tii 4
.*
^1
o
Volunteer Monitors
GOAL: To provide data and
tfeck changes in shallow
water areas of Bay
trlbutarles.whlle promoting
public participation. ' .
STAT.US: Slnce-1985,
hundreds of volunteers
have been tralned'to
monitor water quality all
over the. Chesapeake basin.
Sponsored through-trie
Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay. . / ' ' .
New programs have .
spawned from this one.
the 1987 Bay Agreement nutrient reduction goal and forecast the time required for
water .quality to respond to nutrient controls. '. ' . .'' ': ' '. . ~ ' '' ',.''"''
By operating'the Watershed and 3-D models in a series to simulate the entire Bay
system, management agehqies-can evaluate the Baywide impacts of regional'water
quality management strategies in terms of the frequency of violations of Water quality
criteria/standards for .'different beneficial usesje.g. fisheries habitat, recreation).-
Locational differences in seasonal pollutant deliveryby point and'nonpoirit sources
can be examined with models to identify sections of the tributary river basins where
pollution controls promise the greatest benefit in terms of Chesapeake Bay water
quality. Since it represents the hydtologic'cycle in thfe tributary area of approximately
64,000 square miles, the package of models also can be used to quantify'Baywide
water.-quality impacts ofvafious water management strategies.. ' .'-'." '.'
In short, the Bay Watershed/3-P models package is a state-of-the-art planning.tool.
that'allows state, and regional management agencies to "relate upstream -water
resources management decisions to Chesapeake -Bay water quality. '.,..
AveryinipQrtantproduct:qf'thisntonitoringdndmodelingisthesecuring
pfdpoint ofineUj-and that point of view is the ecosystem. It's very much'
like the nursery rhyme: . \ . . ' . ;.' ''.'. ' , , ..,-.
; ."-. *; TJyis is the'house that Jack built. . ' -,y . :
.'-''" ,'.' ... -Thfs-is the malt ; .- . ... . ; .
. ' . That lay in the house thatfackbtiilt.'' " '..
. '.: i.';' .. { This is'the rat, "';'" .' /. ''-.'. ',-;
. .-'....-. ,, ' . ' ; That'ate the njMt ' ' . ' " , '". _ _.
.''" T^at-lay in the hotise that Jack btiilt.,-. . .'
; . ' . ; ' ' . ' 'This-is the cat, ' . : ' " '. ''.' . :.
'' . /: ". '.': '. v That, kitted the rut, , " ". : "': '', ''.'-'"'-.:
. , . . ..'.' . /; That ate the malt ' .. ''.,. ' . ".
':': That'lay in the hotise thai Jack built. ': ",'.'''
',' ". . . ' '' This is $be dog, '..', . :
That uiprriedih'e cat, ',;,,. ' .', .
:' - ,. ' .'/;,' Thai killed the rdt, . '. .' :" ; ' . :-
'"...-... '"'".. : :,Tb.ai&te.the,malt _.' ,. : '
' - .- That- fay in the house thaiJackBuilt..-: . . '
You maysiibstitutephytoptankfonfor "malt", oyster for "rat", andsoo'n-.
; to create your dumplayon the Bay's ecosystetn. The point is that you will
always find'another complexity; another dog, another cat, another
.-relationship-to unravel.and understand'. ;' '.., .'..- :.
-------
NUTRIENTS AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
, Overtime, changes in "the way we-use land have, catted a tremendous '
increase'_in,the amoiirii$ of nutrients reaching the Bay.-Th'eir impact is
'counterintuitive.-We have overfenilized the 'garden'and, instead of
, spurring luxuriant growth :a,nwng beneficial^Bay-residents, we have
triggered-qn.imidipu/-prOcess: 'Excess-phosphorus and nitrogen feed an
'^abiindtihtgrdwthofalgaewbichclouasthe^w^
needed by Bay-grasses:. Without sim, the grasses, die and 'the essential
' habitat andfoodsupplytheypfovide.vanishes. Asthealgaethemselvesdie,
they sink and-decotnpos&.-The bacteria, that cause de'cqmposition use up
dis:solved'osiygen:In an oxygen-poor habitat, -those specfes that can move
miKtJeave'andcomp^tefoffoodandspaceinsti^ Those
thaican'tleave may die. -' ' ." - -.'--...'':- ':''
In many ways, what follows 'is what the Bay Program, is, about-serious
science, hard woras, 'an intellectual quest.'designed:to produce tangible
go'als and actions: , : "-. :'''.'';.'.. .: ':V :'-. '*'.; .-''
.1992: Dissolved.oxygen is. a major factor affecting the .survival, distributidn, and
productivity of living resources-.in Chesapeake Bay.^Dissolved oxygen'in natural
waters has two majoopurces:, 1)'atmospheric oxygen which 'difius.es'into the water
'at the_:surface,, and"2) oxygen which is produced by plants-(chiefly- free-floating
microscopic plants; of phytoplanktb.ri) during/pHotosyrithesis-, Animals', plants and
bacteria consume DO by- respiration. 'Oxygen,is also consumed.by,.chemical
processes (kg. sulfide oxidation; nitrification). Depletion of DO has,harmful effects
on. animals, and-can stimulate [production of hydrbgeh sulfide and ammonia and
. th'e'rele'ase of heavy metals and- phosphate, from bottom sediments."
The amount of oxygen dissolved in watei: changes- as-a.furiction of temperature,
salinity, atmospheric pressure',- and biological and chemical processes. The equilib- "
.. rium .(of saturated) concentration of DO. in 'natural Waters, ranges-from about 6 to
14 parts per million'(or mg/L), The higher the temperature and salinity, the lower
. the equilibrium DO concentration. Biological processesr'such.as respiration and
.photosynthesis can affect the concentration p.f DO faster than hew equilibrium can
be reached with the atmosphere; As- a result, for relatively short periods of time, or
urider conditions of.reduced mixing, DO concentrations, can be driven far above-or
reduced well below saturation. Dissolved oxygen, can decreaseto nearzerq'(anoxia),
especially in deep'or stratified, bodies of water, or increase-as high as about 20 mg/
L (supersaturation) in dense algal blooms.'-. '- -. '','".'
-- "s.
Dissolved Oxygen -
SPOT
" *Spot is an abundant marine
anil estuariue bottom foraging
species- They occupy all areas
'of the Bay except in winter
when they migrate to coastal
' waters or concentrate in deep-
water refuges in the Say. Spot
are tolerant of a range of
environmental conditions,
generally preferring Ttrackish
fib saline waters above mud
substrate fa the Say, although
Jhey occur ubiquitously
~ throughout all Bay depths.
They are short-lived coastal
spawners with excellent re-
productive capacity; major
predators of shallow benthic
,^ invertebrate communities in
the Bay; and important prey'to
a host"of 'predatory fish. The '
larvae consume jzooplqnkton.
, Spot support a-modest
commercialfishery and are
frequently (often incidentally)
taken by sport fishermen in
summer and fall.
Although spot is an extremely
abundant and wide-ranging
sp'ecies, little is known of
factors contributing to its
stock-recruitment dynamics,
, Given its ecological importance,
'more effort should be made to
understand what contributes
to spot's success and what
may be done to assure its
continued high level of
abundance.
150
85 8& 87 88 89 90 . 91 92
; Year
, GOAL: Improve the dissolved
oxygen (DO) concentrations
to levels that will support the.
aquatic life of the Bay.
The 3D water quality model *
predicts a 20-25%
improvement in bottom DO
' levels with the attainment of
the 40% Nutrient Reduction
Goal. -.
STATUS: DO has hot yet
responded to management
actions.
^j?^
O
-------
« I. iijr.li;
Si:-:::.;',,
There are seasonal' consideration's, as well; Low .DO in Chesapeake-Bay is mostly
asspciated.with deep water during the warm months (May-September),; when the
water column is stratified into density layers with cool salty water at the bottom, and.
warm,'fresher.water near the surface. The bpttpm layer becomes oxygen
-------
fn.tfie spring, stripec! jbass, white'perch, sh'adj'Kerring, and. yellow perch, spawnfat
up the Bay's tributaries. The.eggs and larvae pf these species are quite sensitive'to
low DO, and' could be threatened by .even' moderate DO depletion associated, with
-.algal-blooms or %astewatef discharges. In the ^fell. and winter, DO depletion is
* uncommon, arid .die most sensitive life stages of die target'species generally are not
.pres'ent...10 ..- ' . ;- . .. -'>;'..;/. \ ': "'.' . ' ':' . C:*V,-':''.
rus and nitrogen are both, natural fertilizers found in. human wastes,
.animal wastes, and plant 'material: Like the seasonal freshwater flotv,
ttiesenutriejiis'have always been in the-Bay- the problem.lies in. the
amounts that are found. WbentbeBdy was surrounded by undisturbed
forest very little phosphorus arid nitrogen rein offthe-land'inlQ the water,
most of it was absorbed by the- natiirdlforest covert. Since the -1600s, the
.foresthas'been replaced'byfarnvsmingfargeamQuntsof'fertilizers, cities
covered with asphalt and concrete, and 'sprawling'suburbs rich'in
pampered lawns and. attfomobile ttse. ." ; -. - .;'.'"' :-
'Reducing the profound-impact of .excess nutrients on the.inhabitants of
Bay waters'was a centerpiece of the 1987'Bay 'Agreement The signers
agreed'to cut the "controllable" amounts'ofphosphorus :and nitrogen
feachingtheBayby4p%-bytheyear'2000.^
because'atthat level enougti'dxygenwouldbe available/ortheBdy'stiving
resources. .Controllable amounts included discharges from dispersed'or
"nonpoint" sources such as rtinoff or erosion frbrp agricultural, urban,
suburban; 'and shoreline locations-as well'as end-of-the-pipe or "point"'-
: sources 'sticb ds'wastewdter treatment plants and industry. The 1987
Agreement also called for a 'reevaltLation'ofihe 40% goal as continuing
. research.producedneiv understanding.. ''"', \ . , ': \ >'
NONPOINT SOURCE "
SUBCOMMITTEE
MILESTONES *
1985
D Subcommittee formed
1986
D Began annual technical
~, information exchange
among Bay Program
managers, Bay jurisdictions,
government agencies,
universities, and citizens
1988 " ' .*
D Published "Chesapeake Bay
Nonpoint Source Program"
1989
D Conducted and published .
'"Baywide Nutrient
, Reduction Progress Report"
1990 .
D Published "Report and
Recommendations of the
Nonpoint Source Evaluation
Panel"
t£Conducted a. national,
nonpoint source conference
arid published ^Reducing .
Pollution from Nonpoint
* Sources: The Chesapeake
Experience"
Phosphorus Concentrationis in the Bay
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
' -. ''"'''.'". Year '.,-; ;.
-GOAL: To detect trends and
measure the 'impact of load
reduction on water quality.
STATUS: Phosphorus levels
have gone down in the Ba'y 16%'
: from 1985 to 1992. . .-
Reductions are due to:
Phosphate detergent'ban,
Improved municipal treatment,
' arid ' ' ' ' !.
.- Soil erosion controls and..
nutrient management. '
-------
-------
*
*B
,,l|ii
lljlH
**! Ill
ts § S ,
u 2 £ I
- HS »
«i s »<3' *"H
*> »S § 1 a
H « LvS §
S <5i ^^ ^
$ -ft, g ^ «
a §< i ^ ^
till
6 «
^-|
fi
-------
WHITE PERCH
White perch, a.scnii-
attatfronious species-and one of
V&e most abttndantfish in
Chesapeake Bay, spends its en-
titv.ltfe in the Bay audits tidal _
trilnitarles. White percb mi-,
grate to tidal fresh and slightly
brackish leatcrs each spring to
spawn. AJlcr spawning, adults
move downstream to more
bmcftisb areas;
summer movements are local ;
and random, Wfjite percb over-
winter in the downstream por-
tions of the tributaries and
deeper saline waters through-.
out the Bay, usually at'depfbs.
greater than 6-12 meters, in ar-
eas with salinitfes in the 'teens.
White perch support commer-
cial and recreational fisheries'
in Maryland and
Virginia. From 198O-85,
. Maryland commercial catches
raittecdfroni second to fourth .
both in pounds landed and in
dollar t -altie. "Recreational
catcher exceed commercial , '
catches itt someyears.
Juvenile white perch feed
largely on mooplankton, larvae,
insects find antpbipods; adults
are piscttwes but also prey on
bottom dwellers. The ...
species occttpies an important
trophic link between-small
invertebrates and higher
predators, primarily piscivo.-
rous predators.
W^iteperch concentrate in
areas ivltb dissolved oxygen
concentrations of at least 6
«tg£. Increasing bottom-
dissoved o*$>gen in summer
tttonths to at least 5 mgl,...tvill
increase suitable babitatfor
tvbitii percb. Growth rates and;
longevity of white percb stocks
within Chesapeake Bay may.
vary widely.
s
et
It
1
1
to
t
*
II
1
*
I
1 .
t
1
Nitrogen Concentrations in
' . ,'.,.. : :. ' . ' .-'.,.- . '
"§) 0.8-
E,-
r-
. o 0.6-
D)-
O
|j Q.4-
' § 0.2-
Jl 1 A i*Wl
-,.;:;-'
. 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
:'"... '...' Ye^r" '/'"'''
the Bay
GOAL: - To detect trends and to
hiMxur* th« Impact of load "
reduction on vyator quality. , .
STATUS: Nitrogen levels hay*
essentially remained ynchangatt,
" " *
1992: The reviewbegan iti'l990 and ended in 1.992, -Data collected'from
to 1991 showed that: ; ./ " . ' . '.''." .' ' .
D .Phosphorus levels.drppped by about 16%. Phosphate detergent?bans; upgraded " .
. wastew.ater treatment plants; and improved compliance with discharge permits ' .
are'largely responsible. ;_ _ '' ''.'.'.'A-.,;
D Nitrogen levels -remained almost constant. Maintaining this level in the face of ;
rising population and increasing wastewater- discharges indicate ^that control ,
efforts are having a-positive effect. , ' , .-'. . . ' " - . '
' ' ' '-. ' ' . ' ";'.'. : '''.'' .' .'
The overall findings confirmed that the 40%.reduction goal can be achieved, that-'
it will improve water quality and habitet, and thgt it is an .appropriate strategy for the
recovery of the Bay's living'resources; - ..'-. '.-..' ' ; '.''
TheRBevdluation also.outlined a refined/apprpacb to achieve the 40%:,,
goal. The refinement was added to the basic Bay Agreement in the,
. 1992 Amendments and calls for the states to "develop; and begin .
implementation -of tributary-specific strategies by August 1993-" In
addition, and for the: first tinie, numerical' nutrient, reductions mea-
' suredinpounds-ofpbqspborttsandnitrogen were spelled ouffor regions' _ '
an dindividual tributaries. The Baywidephosphorus reduction target
.'is 8.43-Million pounds'peryear.< The nitrogen..target is 74.1 million ;
pounds per year. .-.-,. :\ / ", ',- :; . ;. -
.,, ' ' . '.,''- ' . '.'''
. Strategy development is now undemjay in each state. For each',major ,
tribiitary,th'e'strategieswillexplain the amountof'nutrient reduction that
' is-tb be made, the amount Qf that reduction tvbicb'.'b'as been itiade since,
1985, andhow the remaining reductions will be achieved, l&egoal of the-
tributary strategies.is to.setin motion additional, actionsby all basin.,, '
residents to re&icejheamoimtoftyttrogenandpbospbohis^ .
waterways. '' -. '. , -.. " ' , '.. '..'.'''.;' '.'.
WATER QUALITY AND LIVING RESOURCES
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay A^reem^tsefas a iriaprpn^ '
'determine 'the Essential-elements of habitat .qualify and environmental
.quality 'necessary to support living resources:'and 'to- see that these:
cQnditiomareattaine:dand;maintdin^."The<^
' Implementation Committee subsequently called for guidelines to deter- ,,-;
.minehabitatwquirenientsfortheBay'slivingresourcestThefi^ :
' of these needs was published in 1988.''Habitat Reqtiimmentsfor CB&a-
peake Bay Living Resources.", It was revised in 19911 to provide more-
detailed iMng resource habitat requirements. [The status descriptions of
-------
ttmaredm
Habitat Requirements document.]'Because submerged'aquatic vegeta-
. tiqn (SAtfjwas determined-to be critical to'the.Bay'sfood ctiain, sewing
, as food source, 'nursery,, and potential indicator of the Bay's health 'due
to its sensitivity to water quality,. it was included fn both these 'documents
as ti targe} commiinity.of species'. ; , '.''."''' . ; ,' -.,'-'. '",
1988: Thesharp declirie'of SAV throughout the Bay (especially iri'its upper-reaches)
created concern .over the loss of habitat .arid indicated that the Bay. was'in-trouble.
More than any other.single group 'oforganisms, SAV can'provide a biological index
of the "health" of the-Bay's shaliow.-waters. SAV functions: as a critical link among
'the different levels of .the Bay food web arid thie physical environment^ It-provides
both food and habitat for species occupying the higher levels of the Bay's food webs
SAV abundance is limited by'.turbidity -and the amount of phytOplankton in. the
1 water.- The distribution of various.SAV species is dependent mostly on salinity and
.bottom sediment "types.. ' ..'.'*.'' ': '.-. ." '..- . . '.
The Bay study concluded that nutrient enrichment was the primary factor in the
decline of SAV beds. Nutrients,, by fueling the gro wth of excess phytoplankton, 'cause
a-decrease in .water clarity and an increase in the-number of organisms that grow on
the leaves of the- SAV. Both of these responses, in turn, cause a decrease in available "
.light for the SAV.. Suspended sediments also block' light, qontrihuting to.-the
decline.
'iii
1992-: SAV has received considejrable'atteritiori in Chesapeake Bay over the last 20
years because of an unprecedented Baywide-decline of all- species beginning in the
late 1960s: This decline was caused by increasing amounts' of -nutrients and
suspended sediments in the Bay-resulting from contmue'd, uncontrolled develop-
'. ment of the Bay's shoreline and watershed and -poor land' use practices associated
with development arid agriculture. '.. ... " , - .'"-.;'... ''". :-.:'
The adoption of a Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy [in 1989]
followed by an Implementation Plan for'the" Chesapeake" Bay-Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Policy [in 1990] highlighted not only the need to develop SAV. habitat
'requirements- bat also Baywide restoration'goals for SAV distribution, .abundance,
- arid species diversity".;. ." . -. -. ' ':;". .''.-'.''-.
Chesapeake Bay SAV distribution targets and their relationships
.to the 1990 SAV aerial survey distribution data.
RESTORATION
TARGET
DESCRIPTION. . '
' . . 1-990 SAV DISTRIBUTION
AREA '- AND PERCENT OF
(hectares), ' RESTORATION TARGET
Tier I^composite beds Restoration of SAV to areas'- .
;J .'-.-' .currently orpreviously inhabited
. .. by SAV as rhapbed. through, regional
.- . and bay wide p'erial Purveys frofn 197-1
' . ' - , : to 1990, . . "
46,025
'. .. 24,393 (53%)
Tier II-one' meter
Tier.Ill-two meter'
Restoration of SAV to all-shallow ' ' In Progress.
.water areas delineated as existing or , -. "
potential SAV habitat down to'the "r. '
one meter depth, 'excluding areas, identified '' *
as unlikely to support SAV-based on
historical observations,'recent survey .-';
information, and exposfire regimes. "^ .-
Restoration of SAV 'to all' shallow.
water areas delineated.a's-existing or '.
potential SAV habitat down to the
two meter contour, excluding areas
identified under the .Tier II target as
unlikely-to" support'.SAV as well as
several^additional areas between
1 and -2 meters. " , * '. " ' "
247,658
'.- 24,39.3(10%)
STRIPED BASS
The striped bttss is a Jorge -
anadromous fish found along
the entire East Coast of North
America. Most of the coastal
migratory stock originates in
Chesapeake Bay. Striped bass
spawn in spring in tidalfresh-
tvater areas just above the
salt wedge. Most juvenile
striped bass remain in their
natal areas for the first two
years of life. Older fish
migrate from the Bay into the
coastal Atlantic Ocean.. '
Striped bass are voracious
predators...andgrow rapidly.
Larvae feed on" a variety of"
zooplankton and juveniles
feed on fish larvae, insects',
Worms, 'mysids, andamphi-
pods. Adults are piscivorous,
consuming bay anchovy, spot,
menhaden, herring, shad,
white perch, and yellow perch.
Striped bass eggs, larvae, and
juveniles serve as important
"'prey for higher predators...
Striped bass have been one
' of the most sought-after com-
mercial and recreational
finfish in Chesapeake Bay. A
long-term decline in striped '
bass stocks began- in the mid-
1970s, primarily because of
overfishing. Sustained poor
recruitment and low stock
abundance led to a complete
closure of Maryland and
Virginia fisheries by the mid-
to late-1980s. In response to
increased stocks and stronger
recruitment, limited commer-
' cial and recreational fisheries
were reopened in 1990.
There is increasing concern
that low dissolved oxygen in
the deeper water ofthe-upper
Chesapeake Bay and'in other
areas has 'eliminated much of
the summer habitat of adult
and subadult striped bass.
Acidity and contaminants in
spawning habitats h'ave been
associated with mortality of
striped bass larvae in the
Cboptank, Nanticoke and ,
Potomac Rivers.
-------
"miLQWPERCH
Yellow perch stocks in
Chesapeake Bay have declined
slttce the mltt-19()0s. The cause
for the decline has not been
identified precisely, but several
environmentalfactors ttn- '
doubtedty hinder stock recov-
ery. They include sedinientation'
from improper land zise, ;
decreased spawning habitat
(Xtused by stream blockages,
and the interaction of metals
and acfd rain. TSutropbication ,
caused by excessive nutrient
loading may atlt'ersety ajfjfeci
yettote'percb'by decreasing
dissolved oxygen, which * -
reduces the for age base for. , .
yellow perch.
Suitable habitat for yellow
pei*ch includes dissolved
oxygen greater than 5.0 mgL;
summer water tetnperattir.es
below 30 C, and gradually
warming water temperatures
during egg and larval develop-
ment (March through May}.
Yellow perch populations _
'appear able to sustain repro-
ducing populations atpH 5-O,
but pll 4.0 has been documented
Hfter rain events. Salinities .
abot'e 2JOppt reduce hatchabil-
ityofyeltoO) perch eggs. ". '
*Adull$ andjuveniles tolerate
salinities of 13.0 ppt.
* Restoration of yellow perch
t to historic abundance levels'
may be accomplished by _
reducing sedimentation and L
qutropbication in the Bay.-
Toxic inputs also must be
' reduced, and suitable yellow
perch, spawning habitat must
be restored by reducing stream
blockage. Slock recovery also
wilt require reduced mortality .
which can be accomplished .
primarily by proper manage-
ment of'the yellow perch fish-
ery.
*
nk
I
1
4
*
i
A wealdi of scientific .studies [assembled'from around the world by'a team of Bay
scientists .and managers] have^established the importance of light availability as-the.'
major ehvironmental factor controlling SAV distribution, gf owth, and survival. The
primary- erivironrriental factors; contributing to light attenuation are used to
formulate SAV .habitat requirements: light Attenuation coefficient, chlorophyll a,
total suspended solids,; dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and dissolved inorganic
phosphorus.,.' " '; ., ' '.-'.'' '. . _ ' ''' .'
Light attenuation, through the water column and at the leaf surface, is the'principal
factor influencing SAV. The light attenuation'coefficient habitat requirement reflects
the'minimum watetcolumn light attenuation level at which SAV survive and grow;
Total suspended solids and; chlorophyll1 a directly influence;ahd, therefore, can be
Conceptual Model of SAV Habitat Interactions
Light
Water
' t, *'
. .".i , .- " .:
Chlorophyll a
:..T:-'':S
Total
Suspended :
Solids
.Particles
Water'Column
Ught
Attenuation (Kd)
,. Laaf Surface
Ught
1. Attenuation
used to explain' sources qf.vjater column light attenuation. Dissolved inorganic
nitrogen and dissolveddnorganic'phosphorus also dif ectly-affect the potential forleaf
. siirfacejighfattenuation through epiphytic grqwth. Although fh'e light attenuation
coefficient" habitat'requirement .should' be applied'as the primary SAV habitat
requirement, application of the remaining SAV habitat -requirements will help
explain regional or -site specific causes of water and leaf surface' light attenuation
which can be directly managed through riutrierit reductions arid shoreline erosion
controls.... . . .. ' . ' ....-.- ' . * ! ' ':' . ' . ""':.,
SAV distribution restoration targets, approached frpnj a Baywid'e. arid regional
perspeetiy^, were' produced through -a series of geographical overlays delineating
actual and potential SAV habitat. This technical synthesis led to the concept- of.
moriitoring SAV restoration through a tiered .set of'SAV 'distribution restoration
'targets-for areas jsrevi'ously'vegetated between 1971 and 1990" (Tier I), one. meter"
.(Tier II), arid two njeter (Tier III).- These water depth,targets were to provide
management agencies with, quantitative measures of progress in 'SAV distribution
-------
in response to .the implementation of Chesapeake Bay restoration, strategies'.
Each successive target represents expansions'in SAV distributiori in response
"to improvements -in.'water quality over time., .'measured- as: .achievement of the
SAV- habitat .requirements for one and two"meter restoration.;^ [The Tier I
. target, is. being presented:-for'adoption by the Executive Committee as a
quantifiable goal to enable.citizen's and die.Bay Program to foUoMs.restoration
progress.] The [SAV]' technical synthesis 'represents a first comprehensive
effort to link..hab.itat requirements, for a..living .resource with 'water .quality
\ restoration targets for" an -estuarine system..." ' .' . . " -.'
1TOXICS ' /''.;.-' -;''"_. ;':;' . { '; '.''':''. ,-.; ...,',;;'. ".:.':'
." -41ong wfo excess nutrients, h^d^so7vedo^genleuels,lossofbdbitatand'
, ottier stresses, toxic substances contribute tp'.tbe deterioration of-theBay.
Their,adverse effects, 'however,, are. not. always immediately apparent..
Unlike the viassive "kills'"'that leave'thpusandsoffish.bellyupynthewciter
or decaying onshore, toxic pollutants also may ouerwhelin organisms in
sensitve early life.,-Many dp not .survive, to become 0dult'breeders,,
acceleratingdeclines in stacksand'continuing adownward''spiral in'.the
. living resources of the Bay, . ' " : . , . /
1985; .-Puring'the seven-year study that initiated the Chesapeake Bay Program,"
researchers found toxic" metal and organic concentrations significantly higher, than
natural background levels in many parts of the Bay, In highly-industrial area's, such-
as.ihe Elizabeth and Eatapscq rivers, sediiheht metal concentrations were -100 times'
arid more above nature-levels..High'levels.of m'etal cpnt:amination'were found in
the Upper Potomac, .Upper J'armes, small sections of the Rappahanhock and Yotk
rivers, and the'upper. mid-Bay. Qrgariic compounds Xvere found in sediments in
mean -concentrations of hundreds of parts per million, particularly in urban'and
. industrial areas;.
"13
1:987: The research findings and current sampling indicate' that toxic substances are
accumulatirig primarily in urbanized areas such.as th'e Baltimore .Harbor and'the
Eliiabedi River. With, the'exception of these "hot spots'," Baywide concentra-
tions^of toxic substances 'are low,- and' it is. difficult,to determine their
.significance in declines in living resources. However, in highly contaminated
areas', species.diversity-has decreased.and the species mix has. tilted toward'1
pqllutioh-toleran-t organisms such as'worms, indicating that living'resources
are stressed by the elevated levels of toxic'substances-. Because some.toxicjahts"
bioaccu'mulate in the tissues, offish and shellfish; contamination also'can'
endanger human and anirnal health.
14
. i ' -T" "-- , "
The research recommended .that EPA'and-Bay jurisdictions developed '
basinwideplan to control toxicityfronipoint'dnd'nonpointsotirces. The
198.7 Bay Agreemerit expanded -upon that objective and established:
. .December. 1988. as the target'date:for.beginning, implementation of a
. control strategy:. . . ', : -.'.'" ' .-. .'".'.-."..; ."-..','-;.
1988: Unlike the commitment in the Bay Agreement to reduce the level of nutrients
by .40%, thecommitment in the Agreement to toxics reduction dqes.notcoritain-any
short; simple to understand target.. - . . . . ! :' ;.. ! '
"The long term goal of this Strategy is to work towards a toxics free Bay .by eliminating
the discharge of toxic substances 'fro rrr'all controllable sources. By the year.2000.jhe
input of toxic substances from all controllable sources to the Chesapeake Bay will
be reduced to levels -that-result in no toxic or. bioac'cumulative impacts .on the living.
..resources that' inhabit the Bay'or on human- health.'1 " -
TOXICS
MILESTONES
.
O Toxics identified as one of
" the three key areas oftbe
" ^Bay Program*
'1987. , ' .
"ufhe !<>87Agreement commits
-£ to tfte development of a
* Baywide Toxic Reduction '
Strategy '
*
Q Baywide Toxips Reduction
Strategy developed
''1989
" D Panel/armed to setpriori-
» ties for the Toxics Reduction
> Strategy
, Q toxics 'Subcommittee ,
Informed as a result of Panel
recommendations
1991 '
*Q Published "Toxics of Concern"
1992 ' . . . ,
O Began Baywide Toxics
"Reduction Strategy .
reevaluation
19W . ' "
'D Reevaluation completed
^Published "Toxics Loading
Inventory"
-------
The signatories have developed a series;pf milestones- in order to work towards the.
-goal of the strategy. Some of these milestones call for specific tasks to be completed -
'by a specific date. .Some are less specific. Some, of the milestones deal with actual .
Deductions in the amountoftoxics being discharged from pointer nonpoint sources.
Others' deal'with gathering additional data to. support future'control efforts. The ,
milestones also reflect the intention td.address the highest priority toxic problems first.15
theStrategy. 77 _
done.now to reduce existing and prevent future impacts, and what still
needs to be understood, fame tentative answers-are'forthcoming... .-
1993: Based on the findings .from-trie Strategy Reevaluatip.n, there is'no question
that, in some location's,-'toxics problems exist in Chesapeake Bay. Theinature, extent,
and severity of the problems range widely from location to location. The extent and
'magnitude of toxfc problem's pverthe whole Bay-system, however,- remains unplear.
We do know that .the Bay has documented toxic "hot spots" .(i.e., .Elizabeth,
Fatapsco, and Ahacostia rivers). We also now know that sprne locations belieyed.tp
.be relatively'free from contaminant impacts have demonstreated varying degrees of
ambient' toxicity in the bottom sediment or overlying- water column when tested-''
Whatwe dpn'tknow is how representative' this"information is^n characterizingthe --
extent and'magnitude-oftoxtcity. throughout Bay living resource habitats.- ' " .:.;'"'
There is no evidence to date of a severe systemwide response to toxics similar to the
.widespread-'effects of eutorphication-disajppearance' of.Bay'grasses, low, dissolved.'
"oxygen.conditionS'-attributed to excessive amounts-of nitrogen and phosphorus.'
Toxics have not been linked to large scale population declines, widespread fish kills,'
or loss of significant amounts of habitat. However, elevated levels of toxic substances
in the water "column, fish and shellfish tissue, .and bottom sediments' relative to
background pr "pristine"' conditions are found in many Bay habitate. What is not
known is whether, these levels are, .biologically available at .high enough cbncentra-
-'tions to cause lorlger.'term adverse impacts on the Bay's resources.lfi
THE]BibTrOMilNE " ; ; ; ',"-,'"'. '
The Chesapeake Bay's living resources^its-fish;, shellfish,..waterfowl,..
:underiuatef-vegetation, 'and the many oihet"plants and animals'whose
' Survival is'linked to the jBay'system-are the major concern of the Bay..
degradation. oftheBay.'And it is the re-birth 'of their .abundance that
'.signals the success'of the. -restoration effort. '.''. "-.,-... , ' > .-
* ' * . ' ' -. ' ' ' , ' ' *. ' ' . . *
"The measurement of our success-is not an easy-one; A compTehensiv& '.
monitoring'systemtrackschanges\in'theBay, butshort-termflitctifations .
'.are not readily related to specific pollution'control 'activities. Theunpre-.
'dicialfle.ijueath.erwet years, dry years, arid the subtle climatic changes .
thdttakeplafe over a span of'many yearshas a tremendous impact on ' -
'allforms of life in fhe Btay. Diseases, "su'cb as the'dyster-^deVastdttngMSK.
and'Dermp, may or tnaynot be related-to changes in habitat and. other
, -condition altered by hiim'an activity:. ' ,-.' . /'
It is now recognized-by 'scientists arid managers thdttoreach the overall
'goal of a dean,:."'far& built upon habitat requirements of 'critical'species
living, in Chesapeake Bay, are-required: If the many threads of the Bay
Program wrap together at one point, if is probably where the 'plants'and
anirnals.of the Bay feed, find-shelter, and reproduce. . '. ' '
-------
199Q-. Tke grp-wtti, distribution) abundance, and 'survival .of .any ofte species m a
habitat is regulated.by-a set of requirements unique to that species (e.g. dissolved
. oxygen, light, and nutrientsl.Fpreaph.particularparameter, aspecies.suTvives within
.a range of values, above orbelow which that species experiences stress'that may cause
reduced growth and productivity- p.r lead to deathv Speaes .survival depends on the.
integration of responses ;to all 'parameters that are imnortant for its 'growth!
Tolerances to one parameter (e.g. dissolyed oxygen)' 'may- either be increased or
.'de-creased by-its interaction with-pne pr.more additional parameters (e.g: tempera-
ture, .salinity). Thefefore,,a complete understanding of die species' overall-habitat
. .requirements is critical forevaluatmg-itsrespons'e.to environmental perturbations.
. . of several species ttiat characterize the many habitat types 'and food ''chain
levels of the Bay, '"J^ese so-catted "tyrgetjpecies" are surrogates, for the
- ' larger ecosystem '-and- open windows that give; us a look -at haw to
inclusively and scientifically manage the living resources Qfthe'Ch.esa-
.peafee. And. new questions always -arise:.'. '.-. ', ' :.,:'
1 991 : In compiling comprehensive" information oh the.habitat requirements of 31 '
target 'snecies'.representirig all major trophic .levels., and accounting for the- most
/important 'interactions among the species; their/predators, prey; and habitats, we
'have begun to assemble a descriptive model of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. This
; -model is both'too simplistic for predictive purposes arid too detailed for the regional
' management planning that it' should- serve, -however.' The' rnqdel -needs to be
. extended: in two < directions... First, we. can' achieve., greater predictive power by
. . specifying and quantifying the processes that couple species to each other and to their
, '. habitats in space arid time. Second,-. We can -provide managers-and planners 'with
: tools for setting goals., evaluating options, and measuring progress by sythesizing the '
.- habitat requirements 'across the spectrum of species and integrating them over
;.- regions, tenths-- and season's. -Both of thse directions .have been recognized' By the
. Chesapeake Bay Program, .and'the'next.togical steps are bein^.takert.
/ In the first instance, a. team .-of mahagers,~sGientists', and- review'ers'''has '' been
. 'assembled. to advance and coordinate the 'development of simulation models of
Chesapeake Bay ecqsystenvprocesses. These models, directed ultimately towards an
. integrated ecosystem model, eventually-will provide' quanitatiye answ'e'rs'-to difficult
habitat ques'tions...for -example, what.afe the indirect effects -of excess nutrients on
'animals at the top' of the aquatic food chain? . ': ..-' .\. ,''.-..-..
. ..'In the second', instance;, significant progress has been made in, synthesizing the
information' compiled. in_ [Habitat Requiremehts 'For Chesapeake Bay Living
: Resources]. Two reports .have been drafted and are under review, that-provide the
multi-species synthesis arid integration necessary ifor regional planning purposes: (1 )
' -Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Restoration Goals; 'and (2) Chesapeake Bay
.'Submerged- Aquatic Vegetation Habitat -and Restoration Goals': A Technical
{' Synthesis. These .'documents -embody the additional ; steps, beyond defining
. .individual species habitat needs, required to-.. [build]- water quality '.and habitat
restoration programs,.. :' " '" ' '-- ..- '/. ' - ' ..
" -, Further synthesis needs can be identified'. More cp.mplete syntheses, of contaminants
' ;concems for living resources "should be.develbped,-with reference to .the large body
. . of exposure and effects, data tfiat is becoming available for Chesapeake Bay species.
and habitats. -This' will be no. small task-, because of the enormous compl.exity of the
field and., the wide variety.'of data .sources- and sometimes questionable data quality.
'' A synthesis of physical habitat requirements and problems would benefit greatly the
REDHEAD DUCK,
The redhead dzick histori-
cally was,one of the most
popular game ducks in the
Chesapeake Bay region,
second only among diving
ducks to the larger, mttre
abundant canvasback. An
almost exclusive consumer of
submerged aquatic vegetation
' fSAV)^ the redhead never
equaled the prominence of the
canvasback as a Bay winter
resident, but rather favored
more southern winter tpiarters
where plant foods remained
available.. The redhead was
thus an abundant, although
sporadic fall and spring
migrant, and wintering birds
. displayed exclusive dependence
onSAV.
_ With similar habitat
requirements and ttfe histories,
redhead and canvasback.
populations both have
declined with the encroachment
of man on breeding, migration,
and wintering areas. Both
' species have been sensitive to
ecological changes'such as
loss and degradation" of
habitats throughout their
range. As SAVhas declined in
the Chesapeake Bay, redheads
essentially have abandoned the
^region, while canvasbacks
have switched to shellfish as
alternate food resources. In -.
the mid-195O's about 7O.OOO
r redheads wintered on the bay,
representing 4O% of the Atlantic
Flyway population. Ttiey have
" dwindled over the last decade
to 2,OOO birds, (annual average
~e$timate), representing only 2%
of the Flyutay total. Among div-
ing ducks, the redhead is the
best indicator species of the
health ofBaySAV. Clearly, the
return of the redhead'to Bay
waters will mark ft major mile-
stone in restoration of the Bay.
-------
-
growing efforts to restore, and protect, physical habitats (wetlands, .vegetated
shorelines, migration routes, salinity .regimes, benthic substrates, etc.) by helping to
establish .priorities and to assure that these actions are not undertaken in isolation
from each other'..
iff
fronrconcerned citizens to upper level managers, wants to know.-Hovering iti the .
background is the-cayeat-the second.question that always accompanies the first and
makes even the most confident scientist waver: "How. do we tell if the Bay is* getting
. better?"'''- :". -' '.''"' ' ' ' . '.-; '".'-,' ' ' . .' V ' / '
' ''. "^« .. . -.. ..' : ' '.:. '' ' '"'
These two questions form die heart and.sou.1 of the mission "to. reclaim the
Chesapeake.'The'sole aim is-to nurse the. Bay back to health with the hope that one
day we can answer .with, a resounding "Yes!" to .that first question. And, to;/
" accomplish the task, .we need a set of carefully crafted measuring sticks to gauge our
, progress. , '" ' . " ' '- - ' ''>. _ :-: . ' ' ' . . .
The Living Resources Subcommittee holds -one critical setof measuring sticks. These -
sticks measure the progress towards restoration of the Bay's mo'st precious resource:
its plants arid animals. The abpndance of the Chesapeake's plants arid animals is,
'ultimately, die true indicator ofherhealth'. Over the past few years, the subcommittee
has begun in .'earnest .to notch new and biologically significant increments on the
'living resource's measuring sticks. These refined calibrations offer scientists and
. managers more accurate toqls with which to.assess. the Bay's status... .
In a sense, restoring the Bay is'a never-ending responsibility. And, the measuring.'
sticks, unlike rulers, are not etcKed in stone. As scientists discover new information
on the life histories of the Bay's species,, the historical abundance pf these species,
' the interworkings of theecosystem;'ahd human impacto'n the Bay, the s^lfnotches
' may be added to, shifted^ or'-refined. And finally, .as we learn more about the way.'
the Bay once was and .the condition to' which we would like her restored, we must
mesh "these hopes with the realities of revitalizing her in an age in which human
activities.dominate the scene...}9'' -.-. :. ", ; . ... ' v .
PAST DEVELOPMENT, FUTLJRE GROWTH
Not allis nutrients, mefazocms, andth.ebentho$. There-are other concerns
an'd .they attach to'a key source vftheTBdy's declines-people..Although it:
is difficult to separate natural changes from those brought 'about by the'..
groiwngnumbers of people inthe basin, ivelmow enough
human impact "is the thunderbolt on the horizon; One .of the''great
challenges we face is to maintain the., balance between the .inevitable ;
growth, anddevelopmentof"the'Watershedandthehealth of the Bay. The
. questions here aren't about life in the water column, they are about life
in oiir backyard....'. .. . ;" ' ' . .'..'...'' ".' ' :
1983: Assessing the-impact of land usage and .related environmental changes on
living'.resources is difficult, primarily because .accurate records depicting Bay'
conditions reflect only a small'portion of the Chesapeake1 history. The period of
scientific research in the Bay is brief, arid many aspects of the. Bay's environment were.;
radically altered by man by the'time research was initiated. One must recognize that
the Chesapeake of today is a reflection of time, constantly changing in response to
nature, and rea'c'ting, often Unpredictably, in response to human activities. Use-.
related-conflicts and .water quality alterations caused-primarily .by nutrients arid
resource' diversity -shifts during the. past. 15' years .are unprecedented.
-------
e summarizes 'a niimb'er of salient historical features
that reflect die changes in the Bay .'These'features .remind us that many Bay changes
. caused by numan Activity are hbrofrfecent.otigih, but began at the time of European
' settlement and continue today^Anpther important-aspect of; the'Bay's.'historical
'ecology is'; that/diis continuous hurrian activity'' has been operating against.-a
background of natural climatic cycles, and an occasional extreme event such as a
hurricane. The Bay ecosystem is dynamic, 'and our. view pf.its current "quality" and
, assimilative^capacity can benefit from examining the past'as we attempt to manage
its future...'' '- ' .'..- '..'.'/ .'. .".'.- .';':' -' : / ','' ;-.-; ..
The Bay is.'.-.showing changes clearly related to human activity which began to impact
.-. the Bay by the mid-170Qs. The most significant changes began in the mid-1 SOOs-and
- reached high levels around Wwri.Tlie.past 40 years'have been a time of new events
for the Bay-many possibly hot coded into, the genetic memory.of the Bay species,
-.including humans. Discharges of chlorinated hydrocarbons', heavy metals,.and
: other toxicants are all relatively, new problems .confronting the Bay and challenging
'.the capabilities ,6f scientists and Bay managers. Nutrients arid sediment, discharged
in ever increasing amounts since' colonial days, have become major problems as
urbanization-and centralized w'astetyater treatment elevated-trie rate at'which 'these
conventional poMtantS.reach the,Bay... ,. .-.'.' "'''.' '" '../" ' '
POPULATION GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE
MILESTONES
1988
0 Year 202O Panel publishes
"Population Growth and
Development in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
' to the Year 2020"
199.3 §
D Published "Cost ofProviding
Government Services to
Alternative Residential
Patterns"
fe<
Chesapeake Basin Land Use
Phosphorus
'Nitrogen
Sediment
GOAL: Land use goals may
be tributary specific.
STATUS: 40% of the basin's
:fprest have been lost. ,
Forests provide a natural
filtering system that prevents
pollutants and soil from
reaching the Chesapeake.
Basin-wide, the population grew by'4-2.million, between 1950 arid 1980 and is
expected to grow.an additional 1.9 million, to a total of 1'4.6 miliion:by2b.OO..;More
people living in the drainage basin would place additionatstress on the Chesapeake
because of increasing freshwater-with'drawal and. larger amourjts 6f wastes (sewage,
urban runoff,, construction activity, intensified agricultural activities, additional
industrial activity, etc.)-which the3ay will have to assimilate u'nless'.necessary actions
' are.taken.,: ' . " ; ' . . , .' -.'' -/ . '..
-------
PUBUC/ICCESS
SUBCQ&fMnTEE
1988 , -
u Published ?l*ttblicjlccess
19S9 . , ' . '
;~ Published the "Chesapeake
Ray and Susatteharina River
P/ibUc Access Guide*
t .
Publisbe^tbe "Chesapeake
Bay Area Public Access Plan"
r Published the "Chesapeake '
f}ay Area Public Access
technical Assistance Report"
! S*'"i-li!
mm
1988: The EPA Bay Study recognized that land use arid population growth are major ,
factors shaping environmental'conditions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Ultimately, the number of people living in the Bay basin determines' how much
. water, 'energy and land, are used, as well as how- much and what types of wastes are.
generated,'- The wastes then adversely affect long-term biological and economic
productivity in the'watershed*.' Population size dictates trie deriiands placed on tfie .
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem,' and those demands are,grow.ing. , . : '-..'
In the Bay watershed, population, increased 50 percent overall from 19.50 to.
1980...The states.of the Chesapeake watershed anticipate continued growth in the
years ahead. Based"bri their estimates, population, will increase'about 11 percent '.
basinwide between 1985 arid the year 2000..',Population growth brings' parallel
increases inindustry, commercial development, transportation and housing. These.
increases create conflicts over, land'use as 'development competes for farm acreage
and wildlife habitat Changes inland use lead to increased loadings of nutrients and
toxic substances, and can modify o'reven:destroycriticailivingresourceshabitats(e.g. ,-
wetlands)....An. increasing population generates additional >vaste which must be'
collected, treated,- discharged and assimilated.-.'.These additional wastes, stress
existing solid.andhazardous waste and:municipal wastewater facilities, as well as the .
: assimilative capacity of-air, land and water... ." ,. ' '..''
The.l 9&7 Chesapeake Bay Agreement recognizes the need to mitigate the .potential
adverse effects of continued growth and development. It calls for. "development...
'policies and guidelines" to be adopted by January 19.89; assistance to'local
governments, hi"Waluating.knd use. and'development decisions; 'incentives, .technical
assistance and guidance to encourage wedands protection; arid steps to.ensure that stats
',^and federal development projects Serves as models for die private sector..."21 .
. 1988VThe2020FaneHsdismayedby.dielackQfgrowtiimanagementandpia^
- particularly on a state and regional level. It became readily apparent that thelack of
comprehensive, state and regional'planning, uncoordinated public investment-
strategies, and undirected problem solving contribute greatly to thecurrent problems
of the watershed. Unless changed, .this.-lack of. clear policy and direction will
compound future problems... '.' . -. . , : .
The 2020 Panel assembled d vision of what should CQme to pass jn the
region by theyea,r.2Q20.'liis me&nito be a framework within which -
' reCommefndaH
-------
. New mjxeci use growth centers are planned to take advantage of existing or projected
infrastructure. Large Open space areas are located withinWking,' bicycling, or short-
drive distances of most people! Open space amenities are giveri-the same priority as'
infrastructure., '"'.. ' .'''/ .. ". ."" " -'. ' ' .' . "'.'._ '_ .'
Sefisitiv'e areas are/protected from encroachment and damage. These areas have
been.defiried and'mapped by state and local authprities,'ah'd;effective programs are
in place to .protect these naturatassets. Very sensitive areas are in public ownership
or under easement. Weda.nds'and lakes, rivers, and other waterbodies-are protected
' fro m upland impacts by undisturbed vegetated buffers. In both urban and rural areas
the shoreline of the Bay and.its tributaries forms a series jofvegetated corridors. These
-connect to large forested, areas.. ahcl "allbw fpr; enhanced water"quality, ecological
., balance, and biological diversity. Water, supply has become a statewide issue, and
safe.and adequate supplies are 'available from protected groundwater. and. surface
.. water sources. ,'- ; '''','- '. ' .... . ' ._ ''., :
Areas with resource-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, mining,.arid
^, seafood.-Harvesting;are protected from encroachment of incompatible land use's.
TKese industries reihairi important; parts'of the local.and;s.tate;ecqnqmy. They have
. brouglit their'environmental problems under control. Protection ofthese areas
./ through effective land Use controls, reasonable incentives, and innovative funding
-. 'mech'anisms.-insures a lasting; diverse'economy and resource*. use.optiOns for the
-future.' ',-._'" , . \. . ..'. . ; : " -. . ".' .' . . *.,' . " '. -.'
Transfer of development "fights from one' land, -parcel, to another better suited" for
' development is. commonplace and is, proving to be-an effective growth, and resource
: management tool;.,. '-... /,;'. _ ' ,- . ..' ..'. .'"' -'-' ,''" '".'..'":'. ,' *
,_Grp_wth in rural areas takes .place itv existing centers. Rural town's: arid highway
intersections are Defined by service boundaries and development space is- provided
. for'ah appropriate mix of uses. These centers, with the assistance-of state and federal.
governments', provide'adequate,?ewer'and water .utilities. Use of on-^site waste water
treatment is. li'mited sp..as to'prqtect -effectively .surface, and grpundwater from
pollution.' '. ' ,._': .' ' -.;- '. ' ' V. : ' . .'
'.Outside.these rural cente.rs,..re'sidential .develop.ment is limited so' as to retain the
.econo-mk,_'ecplogical, and'scenie values of the' countryside.; 'Large woodlois. and
'forests are retained .and are selectively used for managed forestry, if they.'are not
in preserves or'parks. .Quarries an.d.-other.-mining activities occur bu't are
screened' from rteighbofing'uses by well developed \vodded-buffers. Municipal,
CoUhty, -and State .roads are planned to allow for adequate capacity for rural
traffic... ' "' _ ' . .-'..' .-' -'. ._ .'-..-'"-. ,':' ' . ""'.-'-
, The'yolUmes of w.aste produced in the region have been'greatly reduced and are b'emg
. ;effectiyely handled. Energy and water use. per capita has been reduced as conserva-
tion programs have been put in place/ '.'"»,'.''.- . ..' .'.'.'
.'. The public and 'government ageh.cies are sensitive to :their responsibilities not .to
'. damage the environrrient and -to conserve resources. ' :'. :'.'
. Stewardship;of ^the land and Bay is practjced'by ordinary-citizens w;hd have .been
.made awareof how they affect-the land and water.-The quality of the Bay is'iniproved,
tourism.is strong,'resource-based industry, manufacturing^ and service businesses
.' desire to locate in the basin because of its' resource base,-amenities,-diverse'economy,
. , and the quality oflife it 'provides residents.:.^ ."'; . ';: " .;. ' ., " :. .
CANVASBACK DUCK
The Chesapeake Bay
historically was the single
most Important wintering
ground for the premier game
duck in North America, the
-carivasback.As recently as the
1950s, Chesapeake Bay'
harbored over a quarter of a
million canvasbacks, or about
hay of the estimated winter
continental population. Today,
canvasbacks on the Bay have
declined to about 50,000,
representing only one-fifth of
tbs*e continental winter
population. Among many
factors contributing to the
general decline of continental
canvasbacks - loss of prairie -
nesting habitat, loss and
degradation of important
migratory areas, andvulner-
, ability of females to hunting '
degradation of Chesapeake
Bay, the species'primary
wintering area, probably also
has played a significant -role.
-------
BAUD EAGLE
Th Chesapeake Bay may
once have provided babitatfor
as maty as three thousand
pairs of breeding bald eagles.
and for thousands ofsubadult
and migrant, birds. The popula-
tion ba& declined dramatically
over the past three centuries " ,
due to habitat destruction,
pct'secutfoti, andcontantinatioK
by DDT and other ch'chticals,
reaching a tow of 80-90 breed-
ingpairs in 1970. 4ftcrDDT .
' teas banned in 1972, the'popu-'
It it ion began to increase. In
19S9,185 pairs of eagles
nested in Maryland and
Virginia.
JBagles require large trees
for ncstingf rpqsting, and
perching. These trees must be
in areas with limited hunian^
activity. Bald eagles are 'oppor-
tunistic predator-scavengers,
consuming many different prey
species. They take fish when
they are available, but shiftto
waterfowl and mammals when
fish art; scarce. ,
Thf long-term survival of the
bahi eagle on Chesapeake Bay
ivitt be determined by the'
management of shoreline
habitat. The very rapid rate of
shoreline ^development, if
Unchecked, u'iU eliminate most
large undisturbed forest blocks
'In the next $0-100years and
U'ittlead to a decline and per-
haps extirpation of the species
front the,Chesapeake Bay
area. This can be avoided if a
series of shoreline refuges is -
created. Adequate fish and
utaterfpwt populations also-
tcitt be required to sustain the
species in the future.
, r, ,
(
*
Ml
1
I
I-
if
i-. i i
.fciiiX: i
t'j, ., i ,.ji
t "
f
::s-,::1
111 '5
..
LIVING'-RfiSQURCES / ..' , ' :.' " . ' ;.'
0 Any of the;Fishery and "Waterfowl.Management;and,Implementation Plans
Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the^Chesapeake Bay arid ,'
"'Tributaries? 1987' ', ' . :' ',;..' '.'.-"' . : ''., ''..'. ' ''
Q ImplementatiQn Plan for Pxemoving Impediments to. Migratory Fishes'in the
..Chesapeake-Bay Watershed; 1991 ' ' ' ; '.'"' ''....'
, D-'Dissolyed Oxygen Trends in the Chesapeake .Bay. (19844 990); 1991
O Chesapeake Bay Species List; 1992 ,; ' . " ' . ' , '.
D Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Technical Synthesis; ,1$92 :
D Chesapeake Bay Submerged 'Aquatic Vegetation "Habitat Requirements & .; '.
-. Technical .Synthesis; 1992 ' ;..' . ' . . . '..- '-. ,;;".'
Q Chesapeake Bay-Dissolved Oxygen Goal-for Restpratiori of Living Resources
. Habitat; 1993 ':''.. ; . ; ;.. ''"' '. ..'.',;/. . ..., / ....
' D Chesapeake Bay Wetland 'Resource Directory; 1993. '.-..', . ' ^. " : " ;
MONITORING . ' . ._., .'. . ,", ; /. .' ,..'; '...' /
D Chesapeake Bay Basin. Monitoring Program Atlas, Volume I .&. II; 1989
TOXICS" ;-;'' ' '. '. v / -; ';. ._ . '.; . ; .' ' ".'',
,D Pesticide Use in the Chesapeake Bay Basin; 1988 , . ' ' '\ '_"-'
D Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics-Analytical Capability Survey & Assessment;
f.,.1991 ' ' ." ."" -': ' ' .' ; ..'. .'.V-.' : -.,/. ;' "' ;.;. .,!.
D Annual -Loading Estimates, of Urban Toxic Pollutant in the Chesapeake Bay '.
Basin; 1991 -_' . '.,..'- . '..;' '':' . V ''. ' ",'' '
D The'.Comprehensive .Lik of Chesapeake Bay"..Basin Toxic Substances; 1.992
D Status .&. Assessment of Chesapeake -Bay Wildlife Contamination; 1992.
'."WATERQUALITY- " ' ' '. ..',,''. . . '.''" :'A ",.
'.Q Point Source AHas; 1988 ' "... ' ','. .'"'.-'.'".-'" . -' .''.": ." '.
,D A Comparison of-.Existing Water Quality., Criteria an'd Standards'with Living'
'Resources Habitat Requirements'; 1989, , * '-, :,;'-; >' ..:
D Reducing Pollution from Npnpoint Squ'rces: The Chesapeake Experience; 1990
. 'D Trends jn Phosphorus in the Chesapeake'Bay'(1'984499.0);: 1991'. t. !'";,
^D trends in-Nittogen in the Chesapeake Bay (1.984499.0); 1.99'i -; ' .-, . -.
D.Nonpoiht Source Baseline.Nutrient Loading Inventory; 1992 '."...
Q The-Role and Function of Forest-Suffers'in the Chesa'peake. Bay Basin''for' ..'
Npnpoint Source Management; 1993 . ' . ',. . ., .
MODELI-NG / ". ." ..,;.'.'.'.'"/' ". . , ;" _ ''. '
' D Land Use fpt the Chesapeake. Bay Watershed.Mpd^l; 1990: ' ."
,D Estimation of Nonp'dint Source Loading Factors in the Chesapeake Bay- .
Watershed Model; 1990''. ' . ' .' '. ' , '". ', ' ': ' ",
POPU.1ATION AND GROWTH ''.', -:-;.: . - "','
' Q Chesapeake Bay Watershed Developmerlt Policies and Guidelines; 1989.
DThe'Growth Dilemma: Tb>Chesapeake jn the 21st Century; 1'989 ' . [
-------
ANSWERS tiSfTO ACTIONS- ;':/Xv" ;'./' .':;
Th&aim of the Chesapeake Bay Program 'sgovemingpartnership and its
groundbreaking research progrcim is to produce actions that restore the
Bay.Installing.fish ladders, plantingtrees, enactinggrdwth 'management
' legislatfonjmproitingseivdgetreatm^
.' areallactiviti^thatconnectun'dertheBayPmgram.The^
. on-the threads of the Bay's web of life': The child who plants grasses in the -
waters oftheAnacostia is directly addressing the loss of-SAV, the creation
of'habitat, and'thecontribution of'nutnents...but a strong message is ako-'
'beingplantedanditiviltecho throughout the Bay to be heard riot-onlyby
. the natural inhabitants-of.the water but by their helpers, the 13,000;000
of tis on the land. , .' '; . . . , : . " .' . .
The Chesapeake Bay Pr6gfam:guide$ and coordinates -the restoration
, actions.of literally, hundreds of federal,, state, and local government
agencies, 'andworks with dozens of business, civic, agricultural, scientific
and technical, :andenvironmentalbrganizations.to. create:ofplace their
endeavors in an effective pattern. A listing of the thousands of activities
undertaken to restore the-Bay-is' not feasible, here; What does follow
attempts to capture their range qndflavor. Whatis-importantio takeaway
from 'the brief'descriptions is the reality of the new ethic ofaction-and
stewardship on the part of the residents of the Bay, We are beginning to
understand the house that we have built and how the planning and the
research of the ChesdpedkeBayProgram can be translated into impdrtant
and exciting actions:.., '-.;;'.. . ; :''"'. .'.'"'.' \ ';" ''. ,:'
: HABITAT RESTORATION
' Baywide.'-approximately 70,000 acres of underwater bay grasses arc now grpwing^
This represents' a 75% increase in acreage since l-.984j significantly reversing the
declining trends of the .1970s. Artmciarp'yster reefs are being created iri areas where
oyster disea'ses.haye less-impact a:nd;oysfer survival is likely. Waterme-n are being
employed in'thfe off-season to construct.these beds and reseed existing,oyster bars.
The Pennsylvania Fish Commission's Van Dyke Fish Cultural Station-.in central
Pennsylvania -the only' shad hatchery in the world - produced nearly 22 million shad
fry in-.l 989.. About 400,000 shad are estimated to; -make it past the river's dams and
into the Chesapeake Bay. ._" '. .' ; ; -1 . ' . '". .'_;. " ;'.--.
;.-'A record 15,964 shad were caught in. .1990 at the; Cohowingo Dam fish lift and
transported up river for spawning," many of wh'ich originated, .from, the "Van Dyke
-fish hatchery. Since 1989,'the creation of fish.passages has opened approximately
: ? 75 mile's of river to anadromous fish,, which migrate to freshwater spawning.areas
in die, spring and then return to. the saltier areas 'of the B.ay and'the Adantic Ocean.-
Passages:include fish elevators, denil fishways - step orladder4ike structures -darri'
breeches, and the removal of blockages. By 1994, migratory fish will have.access^to
moie than 140: river rriiles of historic spawning areas within Virginia's Jaines River:
.with die construction of new fish'passages. This v/ill be the .ftrsftime in'mdre than '
a century that anadrampus 'fish, will have access'to-the upper reaches ofthefames
River. Since 1987,, die construction offish passages, die removal of obstacles, and
restocking haye restored oyer'l 73 miles of habitat'around die Bay.-;... : - '...
,In 1990-1992, the- Virginia Marine.Resources Commission adapted, a.Record
numberof conservatioh measures designed to protect fish.stocks from overfishmg.'
Size and catch limits were adppted:for spotted seatroUt; .weakfish, black drum, red ,
.drum, amberjack, cpbia and Spanish_and king mackerel.' In addition,"fisheries ".
CITIZENS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
MILESTONES
1987 s
0 Held public meetings
around, the Bay region to
solicit public comment on
the proposed 1987 Bay
Agreement .
1988
D Encouraged the formation
of the Toxics Subcommittee
as a way to deal with toxics
issues
1989
D Participated in the
development 'of several
Fisheries Management Plans
1990
0 Participated in the
development oftheJPublic
Access Plan, the Boat
Pollution Task Force Report,
and the Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement
Strategy
1991 .
D Initiated a process for
working with Bay region
businesses to promote
pollution prevention
programs
1992
Q "Participated in the Toxics
Strategy "Revaluation, the
Environmental indicators
program, the development
of criteria for Nutrient
Management Plans, and the
'Tributary Strategy Public
Participation Workgroup
-------
.management plans, designed to summarize the status of fish stocks and.'make
recommendations for future rnahagement, were adopted for bluefish, .spot, croaker,
American eel, and summer flounder. These fisheries management plans are being
formulated in cooperation with the State of Maryland. ' ', ' -'_..
EPA Administrettor Carol M. Browner, arid US.'Senators Paul .
Sarbanes and. Barbara Mikulski discuss1 progress.
The Army Corps of .Engineers, EPA, .the -National; Oceanic, and Atmospheric
Administration. (NDAA),- the UiS. Fish &. Wildlife, Service, the Port of Baltimore
and Maryland Environmental Service are wo rising together to rebuild the eroding
. Poplar Island chain .and create valuable habitat for a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds
and small fish- The islands arebei'ng restored using dredged material from the outer,
channel approaches to Baltimore. Harbor. , . .
The Department of Defense has -66 installations irrttie Bay watershed iotalli'ng
approximatelv 350;000 acres'/ Army installations comprise a total of approximately
,.:.2l8,000pf diese acres. Nearly 82%.of d>e land the Army, manages is .undeveloped
and. 'approximately 20,838 acres is >vedands. As stewards of this land and active .
partlcipahts in the 1-990 Department of Defense/Environmerital Protection Agency
. Cooperative Agreement concerning Chesapeake Bay activities, the Army is helping
preserve the- natural -environment of .the Bay. The Marine-' Corps, in its 'role as
stewards of the. Bay, 'has' initiated habitat restoration projects-such as a 171 -acre
'reforestation program ;at Quanticb; . Virginia. . .':',.:'
liil:1",1-!";!;1!1!"!,!
|# .ill. «i
**T :T: !
. ...
The 1 987. goal of reducing 'nittogen 'arid'phbsphorus flpwinto the Bay by 40% has
produced significant reducti'ons.rrpm bodi point and nonpoint: sources.: The'
PENNVEST Program' in Pennsylvania, for example, has. provided $1,09 -million in
loan funding 'to 'finance 82''sewerage projects in the Bay- basin.', Thirty-two "percent
. -of all PENNVEST funds have been committed to sewage treatment projects within
the Chesapeake 'Bay basin. ' , ' .//.. ,'. -. ^ .-'
-------
A- Wtit on pkospkate detergents was implemented within, the jurisdictions of the
'" .Chesapeake'Ray Program beginning in .die 1980s to reduce phosphorus, entering
; the Bay. This action, coupled with.^municipal upgrades 'to- remove'phosphorus in
. sewage treatment;plants', has led to a 41 % f.eductfon.in the amounfof phosphorus
' entering the Bay from ppintspurces since 1985. The phosphate bari reduced sewage
treatment plarit operation and maintenancecos.ts for chemicals and sludge handling
'where phosphorus removal is required. For example; costs at Blue Plains Treatment
Plant in Washington, D.C. were'reduced by $6.5 million per year; a 10% reduction
'of the pjantfs operating -budget,.The phosphorus ban, sewage treatment plant
_ upgrades, plus'other methods of reducing phosphorus' including nonpoirit source
reductions, has led to an approximately .16% reduction, in -the Bay since 1985.
'Greater reductions have been achieved in several -river basins.." ' :.. ,
In Maryland;, municipat wastewater treatment plants discharge 390 million-gallons
. of treated {sewage-each day ifitp the-;Bay and its tributaries.- In 1992, all major
murddpal'sewage treatment plants metmeir'pem^
... Biological -^utrient Removal. (BNR)'technology, is' being insatutedjnl sewage
treatment systems throughout the watershed. BNR is leading-edge;, cost-effective
i technology in point source nutrient removal. Currently eight of trie-eleven sewage
treatment plants removing nitrogen in the Bay states use BNRtechnology and most
planned upgrades to meet tte 40% reduction goals wiirimplementBNRtechnology
, to-reduce nitrogen. , ., '.'- " - ',' . "'.''.''' '. .'-.-"
In June 1993., the Pennsylvania Qeheral Assembly .enacted a mandatory nutrient
. management law to .reduce nutrient pollution.from dairy, poultry and'other livestock
. operations. The law ^requires the state's .largest farms to'develop,, and implement
nutrient management .plans, ' ' '.,'-'. '' . ".'-._ , '.; .'''-'-
;'More than.300jOQO acres: of agricultural land in.l 5,000 different programs are riow;
.. farmed under Chesapeake Bay Program nutrient reduction initiatives, and erosion
..and runoffcontrol measures. In addition to'the.Chesapeake Bay Program-initiatives:
farmers are implementing similar control measures .under U.S.- Department of
, Agriculture, state,.and other'guidelines and programs,-as well as their own voluntary
measures. T.he measures include such farming practices as h'o-till farming, cbritoiir
plowing'; the construction of manure storage facilities, -and other agricultural' Best
Management Practices (BMP). The'Soil Conservation Service estimates thatit-assists
'an average'of 47,000 landowner/ppe'rators. annually;thrOUgriout the" basin.with
technical assistance to plan, design, or install conservation practices that protect and
restore the Bay. ,''".''' ..'..' "...'''.' ' -'" ."' '
'. Atotal.of 1,059 farmers in Pennsylvania participate in the Chesapeake Bay Program..
. This means 41,952 ac'res with nutrient management plans and 2.1 .millionpoUnds
.of hitrogen, 2.,1 million^ potinds of phosphorus, and'73,634 tons .of'sediment
prevented from reaching the Susquehanna River, These savings'.translate into
approximately a 3% reduction, in nitrogen-and an 8% reduction in phosphorus"
delivered to. the Bay from.the. Susquehanna. River.: Virginia's Department of
Conservation and-Recreation enlisted a tptal.of.l,01.7 farmers in'its croplands Best
Management Practices program between 1990"arid 1992,. The croplands program
prevented approximately.' 314,500 to'ns of soil'from eroding from Virginia farm-
, la'nds.'The Animal-Wastes BMPenlfeted 1-08 farmers, resultingin-150;053 tons of
jva'stes treated. In Maryland in 1992 alone, ovef'l.i-OO nutrienfmanagement plans
.. for nearly 100,000 acreswere written. On average', these plan's are reducing nitrogen
-applications by-32 pounds per acre and.phosphoras applications' by 39 pounds per.
"acre. . ' '' ..-...'' ''... ;. " ," ' ".' ' .. '."".:' ''- .;'.-.': - " .' ' : '.-;'''.
AMERICAN
BLACKDUCK
The American black duck is
a species of concern both in
Chesapeake Ray and continen-
tatty because of a long term de-
c&e in population numbers
since the 1950s. Ztie Chesapeake
Bay is an important area to
black ducks because they
breeOf -migrate through, and
winter there. It is probable
that at one time, a significant.
proportion of the continental '
'population of black ducks
Mere produced in the Chesa-
peake Bay region. Habitat
degradation, through-erosion,
development, and eutrophica*.
Tdon, is a primary causeforthe
re'duction,in numbers of black
ducks produced on the. Bay.
Another problem for the re-
maining black ducks may be
the release of hand-reared
mallards into the wild. The,
^production and wintering
^conditions for black ducks'ott
the bay can be improved with a
more active habitat manage-
ment programMimed at
increasing the abundance of
submerged aquatic vegetation,
protecting existing breeding
and sanctuary wetlands, and
continuing conservative hunting -
regulations.
-------
SCIENTIFIC AND \
TECIfNICAL ADVISORY
MILESTONES
1984 -
. 0 Fonned as Committee with
representatives from major
universities, research
institutions, andfederal
, agencies in the Bay ivater-"
shed to integrate the latest.
sdcittific findings and tech-
nologies into Bay Program '
policy decisions
1984-86 .-,''
1:1 Helped unravel the nitrogen
and phosphorus issue,
pioneered AYR technology,
and integrated these new '
* ideas into the Bay Program
! j ff anted Conservationist of
the Year by the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation - .
1988-93 ,
0 Offered 'the Bay Program
consensus recommendations
ott such issues as toxicology,
modellng^estnarinc ecosystem
processes, oyster science
and management, and sub-
merged aquatic vegetation
research priorities
0 Helped steer restoration '
efforts by focusing the
knowledge and expertise of
the scientific community of
Bay Program scientific and
technical issues by serving
, on Program committee's, ,by
conducting reviews of
Program reports, and by
s/tonsorlng workshops, .
, research conferences, and
papers synthesizing perti-
nent scientific literature.
ill1
ffftm
*
ITT
in
1
A ban on the use of tributyltin (TBT) boat paints was implemented to eliminate TBT .
, as a toxin entering the Bay. The efforts of the Chesapeake Bay Program led to federal
legislation and a nationwide ban. Voluntary Integrated Pest Management practices
_t» decrease the use of pesjlcides. and pesticide runoff have been increasingly put to
use. The Chesapeake Bay Prpgram'has developed a,"Toxtcs of Concern List" of the .
chemicals most harmful to die Bay. Strategies are now being develppedto -remove
or reduce the impact of these chemicals', Some important/small bottom-dwelling-'
animals such as worms arid Other creatures, which serve as 'fish food and indicators '
of cleaner water conditions have returned to. Baltimore Harbor. Toxic loadings in
. the Harbor decreased dramatically between 1975 and 1985 through regulatory and
voluntary efforts,.and 'the behthie community'present is measurably improving.
-,Maryland conducts regular monitoring-of levels of toxic substances in its shellfish
'arid crabs. Information from this program indicates that mercury levels iri Maryland
oysters'have dropped-by 60% since 1974. Monitoring of Maryland crabs shows that ''
chlordane ~-a termite insecticide removed from the market,in 1987 * is no.longer
detected i-ri crabs. '''".-' '' ... ','
..POPULATION A^D LAND USE : ; ...; ',
' .Landmark growth and land use legislation has been.enacted with-the passage of
Maryland's Economic Growth, Resource. Protection, and Planning Act .of 1992,
. Legislation to protect, buffer, and stabilize environmentally sensitive .Bay shoreline
areas,-such as Maryland's Critical Areas Program"and, Virginia's Chesapeake Bay "
Preservation Act, has been passed. The Chesapeake Bay .Preservation Act requires
Tidewater communities to identify and inventory environmentally sensitive lands,
designate preservation areas based upon this inventory, then amend local zoning,
'subdivision, and cpmprehensive plans to protect those lands. By mid-1992, all. 17
.cities within Tidewater .Virginia had adopted Preservation Areas, and criteria for
- protecting'those lands. In addition, 28 of the 29 counties and 19 of the 38 towns
had adopted local ordinances. ,' ' .. . : : .; - . . .
'In Pennsylvania, oyer.411 ,ODO feet of streambank have been protected by .contract
with 229 landowners-through Chesapeake Bay. Program initiatives. In Washington j
D.C., projects' to stop erosion of polluting sediments, such as die Watts Branch
Streambank Stabilization Project.have begun. Also.in Pennsylvania, the. General
. Assembly enacted legislation re-establishing the State Planning Board as an advisory
board within the Governor's Office to provide support to population, growth.and
'development initiatives: The Board is charged with developing strategic plans and.
making recommendations to'the Governor on broad public.policy initiatives. '
U.S.. Forest Service professionals in the Bay states have completed Forest Steward-.
ship Plans and enhancement projects on thousands of acres of the watershed',
.restored Qver 50 miles of riparian forest,'planted millions' of trees, given tens of
thousands of hours of volunteer time, and. initiated hundreds of individual local'
projects to involve arid'educate the public abqut the valuable role of forests as'a Bay
watershed.land use., .. . . .' .''.''. ,-..- '. ';..-"
.SCIENCE AND TECHNQLOGY '.' '. ""'. '. . :
'. The-Chesapeake Bay Program-has remained'on die cutting e.dge of knowledge'.
concerning the Bay .and estuarine science. The actions of colleges, universities, and
research laboratories within the watershed have be^ri invaluable to'the'restoration process.
Computer modeling to predict the outcome of influences and .management
decisions is'a valuable tool in tne-restoration effort.. The Chesapeake .Bay Program
-------
.Kas incotpoiated data from, .the most sophisticated 3-D computer modeling in-the
world to determine die impact of nutrient loadings'on die Bay/The 3-D computer
t . ..model is being used in, conjunction; with fbasinwide ..watershed 'modeling to
.ideterminejo.adings in "the individual tributary watershed. Information: developed
. through modeling has been instrumental in determining the nutrient reduction
targets for each of the tributaries .:The Chesapeake BayTfogram's extensive use of
watershed rnodeling ij th.e,first time watershed-models have been used.irx so large
an application. . .'' _ , ' .':.,--.' ' '/.. ' ; . . ', '
" Government and citizen, water'monitoring programs determine.trends in the Bay.
..The Chesapeake Bay Program's monitoring effort has been used as a model for the
, 'National Estuary Program, - ah estuarine restoration endeavor that now includes 21
estuaries nationwide. The Bay Program's"Citizen Monitoring Program, developed
through, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay/has fostered similar volunteer water
quality citizen monitoring efforts throughout the country, and has been a leader in,
maintaining quality' data fo.r various applications' in restoration efforts.
The. Chesapeake Bay Program is piqneering a, multi-media, coordinated approach
. (water, land, -air) to finding solutions to the Bay* Traditionally, experts within the
.different fields and sciences would investigate ecological problems.separately. The
Bay Program takes an .all-inclusive look at the sources of pollutants affecting the Bay.
PARTNERSHIP . "::.'-:.':.' '' . -/'.''v..'."' ' .
. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a model for inter-governmental cooperation atdiree
levels. Pvepresentatives from federal, state, and local governments., and agencies are '
direcdy.engaged 'in a-'consensus-based approach to -policy setting and p'roblem
resolution, The Program operates through 12 major committees and more than 5.0
.workgfoups'and^task forces to promote direct involvement in'framing solutions for
pollution control, prevention j and living respurces management Through this committee
structure,- so me 250 key ' ": '" ~! ! ' :
.'. decision-makers -from
throughouttheregi6n~gdv-
ernmentofficials, and mem-
bers of the scientific and
technical-communities, en-
vironmental groups, .agri-
culture, business and irt-.
dustry, and the public at
large -participate. . ' :'' ;
.The Chief Executives .of
Virginia, Maryland, Penn^
sylyani.a,-the District of Co-
1 lumbia, the U.S. EPA,''and
die 'Chesapeake Bay Com-
-mission are direcdy. engage'd
1 in reviewing progress1 and
adopting policies'arid com-
mitments for future restora-!
tion initiatives.; This high
level of commitment from ^ public-private partnership ~ Chesapeake
the members of the Chesa- &W foundation President William C. Baker
peake Executive Council ex- O^ft) and Virginia legislator Tayloe Murphy
.:, emplifies' die significant institutional support diat guides all Chesapeake-'Bay
Program efforts, ''. ' ...-. : ' ' - .' ." ':'.'' ' -.".'.'. . ;
iOCAL GOVERNMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MILESTONES
1987 '"
O Committee formed
1988
' D Conducted, Saving the
' Chesapeake: A Conference
far Local Officials
1989 '
0 Prepared whitepaper
"Nonpoint Source Control
Needs for Protection of the
Chesapeake Bay and its
Tributaries"
' 0 Conducted Investing in the
Chesapeake Bay: A ,
Conference for Local
, Officials
1990
O Published "Chesapeake Bay
Restoration: Innovations at
the local Level" *
- Q Prepared whitepaper
"Financing the Future of the
- Chesapeake Bay"
1991
O Co-sponsored workshops on
wetlands and environmental
. stewardship
1992 .
^Published "Local Solutions:
~A Guide to Household
Hazardous Waste
Management in
the Chesapeake
Bay Region"
1993
^Published
"Greenspace; A
Local Government
Guide to Develop-
ing Greenways
Through Open
Space~and
Buffers;"
"Greenways
Around the Bay;"
and "Tributary
Strategies" .
-------
COLONIAL
WADING BIRDS
Six specie? of colonial '
nesting leading^ birds, the great
Mite heron, great egret, snowy
egret, little blue heron, green-
bached heron, and blach-
croii'ncd night heron, are
prominent avian residents, of .
the Chesapeake Bay region.
They are top carnivores in 'a ,
complex food web and, thus
tnay be tt$<*ftitas indicators of '
change in leettand'attatity."
JExceptfor litltef b.tuc herons,
then; is tittle evidence to . '
suggest that populations in the
bay may be declining; in fact, it
se'etns likely that great blue,
'herons
-------
CONTINUING
Thebody:ofwater an.d land we call the Chesapeake is'a-powerful symbol.
it is the subject of great science, it is an object'of contemplation and
-^wonder, it holds'mysteries and secrets. But the Chesapeake Bay 'doesn't
hesitate to give up its secrets; it doesn't'even know it has them, ft exists as
.an elemental, piece of ' the natural world in'total majesty' dnd: total
indifference. When iye~ call her "she".'or "Chesapeake," weure reaching,
' for attributes we can iinderstandandth6seattnbiitesare,the.fanctioning
and fecundity of the resource in measures of our own 'devisingmeasures
ihattalkabQittnumber$ofcrdb$,leliek .
of.habitat. But-this'watery 'domain', like the atom in the Nineteenth
Century, has yet: to be quantified and apportioned.^ holds dreanisfor
science; it holds'realities for politics.' -' ' '" .; .v'''- '[_. ' : /
.: ifie decided inthi? 1970s that something was wrong. Something'was-not.
. .as we anticipated^frbnifoiir understanding of the way things used to be.
Granted that 'we are thepne^thafgive value to.itscurrentforms oflifednd
'"its current "c6ndiiion"'ahd granted, that the Bay's web'ofUfecontfni4es
with or without dur.intetference-^wbdfis good 'dnd'-what 'is not good
remains the'object of 'intense human effort, for iri the Chesapeake Bay'tve '
Jtnd.a reflection of the best we have to give. :-''- :~ . . ,. '' "." '
WeurillconnnuetomanMlandwewittcontin^
is, not a temporary setback, -it would be losing ^d ptirt. of ourselves for
generations to. come.-. ,- .i ',-' :'';.".'., .,- - ',,-':-. .'..
1990s The Chesapeake "Bay is an extremely complex and variable' es'tuarine
'. eeosysfem, "itifluenced by diverse factors.,. Withiri the Bay's naturaf boundaries,- a
spectrum of aquatic environments -ranging .from freshwater to nearly full'Strength
seawater-supports diverge organ'ism^.arid allows.many cnernical'reactions to take
place. Characterized by complexities ih'circulanbn patterns, nutrientcycles, and food
webs,--£h,e;Chesapeake Bay is a unique arid'.highly productive natural systemi' ''-
Historically, the Chesapeake Bay has demonstrated a remarkable resilience to many
natural or man-made perturbations. Unusual events such as hurricanes,..<3roughts,
and seasonal', temperature- extremes have caused imbalances, 'but trie Bay -has
.-. gradually, recovered its former state, of dynamic "equilibrium, ', Similarly, the Bay'-
: remained.relatiyely unchanged over several centuries of urbanization/shipping; ind
fishing. .- .. ' -. _ ;. :'.:' ;. _' . '';'.';»','.,'...'
-Yet today the Chesapeake Bay appears to be a-fragile e^psystem "increasingly
vulnerable to the relendess. encroachment of man'. In'fact, most of the problems
,.- ciirrendy perceived as causing declines'inVthe health of the Bay. have: a'common
denominator-people'. Man has .direcdy influenced the estuary by adding his wastes
and by withdrawing resolirces from the Bay and its .tributaries'. lii addition, people
' have .acted' indirectly by changing- the character' of die land, water, and air that
- .surr6und..and.interact with.the Bay. In:short,-man-is-aitering.the hydrological a'nd
.ecological, qontlnuurn of the .Chesapeake Bay watershed.; Today we recognize'
ecosystem thresholds'beyond which resilience pr-'assimilatiye" capacity, can -be
exceeded resulting iri such perceptible'changes as low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions.; increasingly mrbid.water,-or.low.ered abundances offish,' shellfish, and other"
'organisms. :\'.-.' :i .-." ; .' ; :. ' ;- : '"'"'.. -'-.....-
OSPREY
Osfrreysfeed almost
exclusively on live fish. Their
position as consumer at the
fop of an aquatic food-chain
proved hazardous from the
1950s through, the early 1970s
when organocblorine pesticides
- (DDT) adversely affected their
reproductive success leading
to a population decline. The
banning of some persistent
pesticides during the 1970s
. enabled Chesapeake Bay
osprey populations to
increase to an estimated 2,OOO
pairs by the 1980s. Pesticides
are still used in South American
wintering areas, however, the
effects on Chesapeake-Bay
osprey populations are
unknown.
Cisprey foraging efficiency
and energy budgets and.the
prey type, abundance, and
nutritional value are poorly
understood and need
research. This is especially
"important in view of reported
deteriorating water quality
and decreasing fish popula- '
tions.Management ofospreys
in the bay should include
enhanced public awareness of
osprey ecology, creation and
maintenance of artificial nest
structures, monitoring of
foraging and nesting success,
and analysis of eggs and body
tissue for presence and effects
of toxic chemicals and metals.
-------
WOOD DUCK
Threatened with extinction ,
by habitat loss and unregulated
* hunting near the turti of the
century, the wood (luck has
recovered to become one of our
most abundant game ducks.A
widely distributed species of
' forested wetland habitats, the
ipoad duck is an abundant fall
and spring migrant - the most .'
abundant breeding anatid in
the Chesapeake Bay drainage.
The species'primary habitats
are interior bottomland hard-
ivaodforests and adjoining
river and bay marshes. Wood ,
ducks also occupy "habitats ex-
tendingfro'm tidal-brackish bay'
" marshes to the very tops'of wa-
' tersbeds, including the smallest
q/~ watercourses and tempo-
rary and seasonal pools .within
flood plain forests. Wood ducks
"are teen-known for their beauti-
ful plumage, dependence on .
tree caviliesfor nesting, and
colonial roosting habit, espe-
' dattyinfall.
Although protection of la,rge
" contiguous bottomland liard-
tvoods and large riverine
ntarshcs.is crucial to mainte-
nance of wood duck poptda-
tions within the Bay region,
conservation oficetlands arid
riparian forest (along even the
smallest oftcatercourses) toil!
{>rotecf the diversity of habitats
beneficial to wood ducks. .
. Emphasis should be placed on
managing riparian timber for '
mature and old growth and
especially to produce masi-
bi'aring and cdviiy-pt-oducing "
species. ' .
* Channelisation and other
"actions that alter natural
hydrology or habitats along
tvatercourses.are detrimental
' to teoqil ducks. Prudent man-
ag&n&ttt also includes conser-
t*atli>e harvest limitations for '
maintenance of an abundance,
of wood ducks in the future.
n
On a more subtle level.'many researchers point 'to changes in the pathways of carbon
arid energy, through the-Bay food web'. Although increased amounts of nutrients
such as phosphorus and nitrogen have stimulated greater, production of phytoplank- .
ton, it appears that the carbon.energy resulting from photosynthesis is notyielding
greater quantities of useful- metazoans such as firiftsh: and shellfish.. Indeed, it appears
that.the'collective effects- of water quality changes, .habitat losses; recruitment failure,
and fishing mortalities have .shifted carbon energy away from the economically
productive metazoan ' food web and. into the "trophic "dead- end" of micro bial
production. By reminetalizing excess carbon production in the microbjal food web,
the ecosystem consumes .precious oxygen arid subsequently loses habitat-.for the
more..userul metazoan species.- -.,.';.,"'-'' . . . . ' '"
These kinds of Bay-wide impacts' result from massive inputs of nutrients and other
chemicals Coming from sewage treatment plants Or industrial operations (referred:'.
to as point sources) or from the stormwater runoff of rural qr urban land (called noftr .
point sources). These natural, materials jnor,mally recycle in the environment amo'ng
plants and animals, bramongland, air, and water. But the large human population ''
in the Bay watershed has disrupted "the balance of the recycling'. process and has led
to severe problems in soine -regions of the Chesapeake. Bay.. . ..... - . ,
Another type, of problem confronting the. Bay cornes from, toxic compounds-
manmade products created by industrial activity,, or naturally-occurring chemicals
that a.re concentrated to. levels, fa'r exceeding the trace quantities-'normally' found in
the environment. Toxic materials tend to be concentrated in regions of the .Bay:close
to manufacturihg industries of waste disposal sites. - Problems caused by toxic .
compounds are difficultto predict or understand because of their extremely complex
chemical properties. However, these -compounds can cause seripus human and-
environmental health hazards when they, enter the Bay. ' _ . , ;' ' '
The complex iterations between pollutants frorji point and nbnpoirit sources, toxic
cpmppunds, and ecosystem change arefurthef.exaeerbated by the diverse .cause-and-
effect sequences occurring. throughout the .Bay watershed-. For example, 'land use
changes in Pennsylvania could begin a sequence of physical,' chemical, and biological ,
events, that mUch later produce oxygen deficiencies in Maryland deep -^ater. Thus, -
the. observed impact is separated from its;cause in both time and space. ' -.
These complexities underscore not only the need for research, but also the
importance of presenting research findings to enyirpntrjental decisipn-makers.
Management options can be complex and can 'require years of sustained effort before
yielding significant improvements. Clearly, the Bay. system does not necessarily
respond.to instant management fixes'; nor dpes it hold to boldly declared target dates
for restoration milestones. Why?,' Because we simply don't know all the a'nswers.2J
Buttveii)illhe6pontryin^-andweuiittkeep:on making' progress. ,, .-
Writing in the July,, 1993, Pay Journal, jBfllMatti&zeski,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office -offers these thoughts afi&r a, "visit ",
representatives from Congress, the new, Adjmiriisfraiion,, and-.several
enyimnmettial groups \tc >th& 'Bay > Program. Office: .'; ]-,''' ; ;
1993:vFirst, there seemed to be agreement that we have, perhaps, even in the last
year, reached a 'point of equilibrium in the Bay, that the patient has been stabilized:
'.Certainly the picture is' mixed -some systems are still measured 'in decline, while
others' are iooking'healthier and showing trackable improvements. And clearly jwhat
'we do to enco.iirage the naturaLrecoyery potential of thejnealthier systems will play.
a key role in overall restoration.. .pe'rhaps. We .have completed the period .of
. containment, and entered the period of true restoration of the ,Bay..." - - '
-------
' Secpnd,,there was a feeling that the Chesapeake Bay will; always be a natural system
under stress, if nothing else due to .the simple fact that 13 to 16 .million people will
'.beliving in the watershed. Furthermore, the de'mands.and lifestyles of these people,
-can be expected to undergo change, change that wiirript'always reduce and may often
-increase their impacts on the Bay ecosystem. In short, over the long term we must
"learn how to manage a populated watershed in'.a-changing world... '
. Third,.;. the job of "Saving the Bay' '-will never end. Assuming that the Work of these
'.decades leads to stabilization and restoration, the years beyond will require us to-hold
onto thatrenewed Chesapeake. This will require as much knowledge, vigilance, and
commitment as the .restoration, effort itself... " ' ;. ..-'.' _''
Finally, there was agreement that it was. important to spread'the sense that "we're
.all in this,together." " -\. _ ' . _' .. , , ';- .'. '. .' _' ' ,
-------
f
in
in i
1 *
,1-
111,
I
.
1' Harry W-- Wells, Jr., Stephen, j.. Katsanos-, and Frances H. Flanigan, "An ;
Intrbduction To Chesapeake Bay," Mary E.'Gillelan fit al Chesapeake Bay; A
Framework For Action' (Annapolis; USEPA, .Chesapeake Bay Program, September
1983) ' Y'. '- '* ':;. '.''. v- ":' ' .- ";'>-" ',/':-: '"''' , " ;''./' :-: "'
2 Mary E. Qillplan,ef_gl. Chesapeake Bay; A Framework For Action (Annapolis:
USE'PAj Chesapeake Bay Program, September"!983) ";',-' -'.'.
3 Chesapeake,- Implementation Committee, The Ch'esapeake Bay .PfoBrarri; A
_ Committment Renewed (February. 1938) '_... _ - ,,, : ; *->' '.
4 Maurice P. Lynch", "Introduction," Perspectives on the Chesapeake BayJ-9-9-CL..
Advances, in 'Estiiarine'Sciences, ed. Michael-Haire and Elizabeth, C; Krome
(USEPA'for the Chesapeake Say Program,. April. 1,990). Y . ,.-';
5 Chesapeake Bay Prbgress Report 1992'"Maryland Restoring the Chtesapeake" ;
(Anpapoiis: Office of the. Governor, 1993) .;..-. :Y ..''':'.
6 Annual Summary,-Living Resources Suhcommitte'e (Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay..
Prog-ram,: July ,1992); :. ."' '; ' ';'.'-. . .' '. ", ;.; '-..'",
7,S.J. Jordanetal. "Living Resources: Th'e.Ultimate Result,!' Wat. Sq. Tecru^Yol,,,
26, No, 12 (Great Britain; 1^92)- ' '''.'-. ''-. :;:, '' .' ' . ''-' ' ' '. ':'."
8 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework For Actiok,'Qpj_cit. - ' .."".'
9 The State of the Chesapeake' Bay, Third Biennial Monitoring Report - 1989
(Annapolis: Data. Analysis Workgroup of the Monitoring Subcommittee, 1989)
10. Steve Jordan'£t_al. Chesapeake Bay Dissolved^ Oxygen Goal for Restoration of
Living Resnflrr.es 'Habitats, A Synthesis of Living Resource Habitat; Requirements
with Guidelines' jfot Their Use in .Evaluating Moxlel Results and .Monitoring
Information' (Annapolis: -Maryland. Department of Natural Resources -for the
Chesapeake Bay Program, December 1992) .'.'/. ' '. / ' . , ''''
11 ACbmrriitment Renewed, op^-cit. '"'''-, ' ';
; 12'lhid. /'..' \' ..'_;'_' " ;.:. "' '._'_ --;-, ' ..'...-'; '' ''",'.''<.:
13 A Cbmrnitment Renewed,VQ(uiir. / .... .' ' _.'' - , '
1,4 A Commitment Renewed, op^cit '_ -. ':-.- . ',. . ','' -., ;
15 Chesapeake'Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy'. (Anhap'olisi Chesapeake
Executive'Council, December 1988), '- . ' " ' Y ''''.'
,16 .Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy .Ree'valuatioti Report, Preliminary Praft:.-
(Annapolis: Tb?dcs Subcommittee, August 1,993) '" . ''..- ..
17 Richard'A. Batiukfital. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic-Vegetation' Habitat-
Reqiiifements and Restoration Targets: ATechnicftl Synthesis (Annapolis': USEPA
for the Chesapeake Bay'Program, December 1-992) - . '. ' . ... . '
18 Steven L. Fiinderburk eLal- Hahirat-Requtre'ments for Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources',' (Annapolis,:"Habitat"Objective Workgroup of the Living Resources
Subcommittee and die Chesapeake,Res.earch Consortium', Inc., June 1991)
19 Annual Summary, Living.'Resources Subcommittee, apYii- - .-. ''. - ..
20_ Chesapeake Bay: A Framework For Action, ap^cit. :- . Y
21 A Commitment Renewed, op^cit. ' " .,'.-'. ' "
22 Y-ear-2020 Panpl, Pnpirlaripn' Growth and Development in the ChesapeakeJBay .
Wafershfed 'fn rha 'Year.2020: Summary. (Annapolis: Report to .the. Chesapeake
Executive Council,,December 1988). ;, . ,.-.,. ''' ' ;
23" Joseph .A. Mihursky and..Michael Haire,'"Preface,'" Perspectives QixJthe .
Chesapeake Bay, 1990 ^ Advances In Estaarine Sciences (Virgina: USEPA for the
Chesapeake Ba'y Program, April; 1990),' ' : ' .' ' ...
-------
Fot; adoLtticitiaL Information, on. tKe
'Chesapeake Bay Program or on How
.you.can.h.elp in restoring the Bay/
contact the ijollowirigs
State of.Marylarid -.-''' '-"
Governor's Chesapeake'Bay
Communications Office
lOO'S.tate Circle' . . '; .'- ', '
. State'House. '".. , ' .
' Anriapolis,-MD-21401 '",-".' ;
;.(41 oy974-5300,;'"' .'. ','V;'.;
CommoHwealdi of Pennsylvania
, PA."Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box2063 ." .,' .' .'.'.
, Harrisbur^, PA 17105-2063.. .' .
'(7.17)7787-1323 '.-" .- " ; " - .
District,ofColumbia '.,'t '
.. Department; of Consumer , "
and Regu'latoTy'Affairs .'.,'.,
Envirpnmental Regulatio.n Administration,
ilOO Martin. Luther King, Jr.. Avenue, S E
Suite 203- ;'/; .'..' . .',''
':Washington, D.C. -20020 ~ "
(202) 404-1146 -'^: , . ". V
Pomm'oriwealjh 'of Virginia '' *. '
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
'202.N.-'9th Street ' \.\':"''."?
Suite900 ,/'. ',-''..'. .:.-'.. ;;
'Richmond, VA 23219 ' .''~ . '
(804)371-4500; -,::.' ':.'':
TKe following Federal Agencies
participate in the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration' Programs /..
U.S. 'Environmental Protectioni Agency
.410 -Severn Avenue1, Suite 1'09 '
Annapolis;. MD 21403.-\" ,.
(410J"26Yo06.i'i ''-- i :''',
TjI'.S. Department of Agriculture.,, ' i
1 Soil1 C0nservatiori Se'pvice
1 '', ' ;.',. 410'Severn Avenuej Suite 109
:;; 'Annapolis, MD 21'403
,! ..'(410) 267-0061. . :;
.' ' . Forest .Service '.
" ' ', . 410 Seyerri Avebjie, Suite -109
',.''-.' ' 'Annapolis, MD 214Q3.
-'':-. ' (410)267-0061, , -. .'.
',,."' Agriculture Stabilization
and Conservation Service
''-. ''.:" '. ' USDA ASCS,- River Center
'' ' -'. 10270; BOl'dColUmbia Road'
' .': - Columbia, MD,21046
'.- '' - . '(410)3814550
U.S.".Department o£E)efense
Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security)
400 Army Navy-Drive'#206
Arlington, VA 22202-2884
(7P.3)'6.95-83:56
U:S. Army Corps of Engineers
Office of the Director
Environmental Program (Army)
Chief of Engineers
'260prArmy, Pentagon1
'Washington, DC 2031"0-260'0
(703) 696-8078
U.-S. Air Forge
AFCEE/ESA,
77 Porsyth Steeet, SW, Suite 291
-.Adan'ta, GA30335^801
U S Marine Corps
Commandant of
' fhe Marine Corps (LFL)
Headquarters, Marine' Corps
2 Navy Annex,
.Washington, DC 203804775
.(703)696-1620
.Defense Logistics Agency, (GAA'E)'
Headquarters'
Cameron Station
- -Alexandria, VA 32304-6'i'OO -
Department of th& Navy
.Commanding Officer
.COMNAVBASE Norfolk
Norfolk,! VA 23511-6002'
V'.S. Department iaf the Interior
-U..S: 'Fish'and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay.Field,Office
180 Admiral Co'chrane Drive
Suite 535
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)224-2732.
National Park Service
2nd & Chestnut Customs House'
Room 260
'Philadelphia, -PA19ld6.
, (215)597^932
U;S. Geolpgfcal; Surrey
Water Resources Division
'208 Carrol -Building
.8600-LaSaUe Road"
Towson, MD 2,1"204
(410) 8284538
..U.S. 'Department of-Transportation >
Chief, Marine Safety .Division ' .
5th,.Co'ast Guard District,
431- CraWford Street, Fe:dera.l'Building
: Portsmouth, .VA 23705-5004
'(804)" 398^503'
t *
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceariic and- ; '
Atmcigpheric' Administration
' 410 Severn Avenue,.Suite 107A .
Annapolis, MP'21'403' "
(410) 280-1 §71 . ,' ' ;:. . -
...-''.. " ' .'':' fbe-Cbesapealte Bay Program gratefully
,'' ' . : . acknowledges the photo contributions
'' , , ' . . . ofM.E. Warren and Dick Tonilinsdn
Writer & Editor
Bruce Galloway
^Design & Layout
Peter Lampett &
Jay son Knott'
- Maryland Department
* of Natural Resources,
Public Communications
Office
printed-on Recycled Paper
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue
AnndpoUs, Maryland 21403
------- |