DECISION
MAKING
THE
CHESAPEAKE
BAY
CHESAPEAKE BAY
DATABANK
Adapted with permission from
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay: Future Conditions Report
-------
903R7O117
Chesapeake Bay Data Bank
Table of Contents
Topic Page
Section I: The Chesapeake Bay Region
Environmental Setting
Geology 1
Fall Line 1
Rock Types 1
sedimentary 1
igneous 1
metamorphic 1
Soils 1
Climate and Hydrology : 1
Precipitation 1
Evapotranspiration 1
Surface Water Hydrology (runoff) 2
Groundwater Resources (Aquifers) 2
Estuary 2
Bay Formation 2
Bay Size 2
Bay Depth 2
Tidal Currents 2
Bay Map 3
Salinity Currents 4
Other Physical Factors
Dissolved oxygen 4
Temperature 4
Light 4
Isohaline Maps 5
Nutrients 6
Biota 6
Productivity 6
Water movements 6
Re-cycling nutrients 6
Plant diversity 6
Producers 6
Aquatic plants 6
Phytoplankton 6
Macrophytes 7
Consumers '. 7
Fish and wildlife 7
Zooplankton 7
Anadromous fish 7
Finfish 7
Shellfish 7
Waterfowl 7
Other birds 8
Mammals 8
Plant and animal organisms 9
-------
The People
Population Characteristics 8
Economic Sectors 10
Family income distribution table 10
Manufacturing 10
Public Administration ' 11
Agriculture 12
Fisheries 12
Armed Forces 12
Construction 12
Trade 12
Transportation 12
Finance 12
Services 12
Economic Projections 13
OBERS Series C : 13
OBERS Series E 13
Tables of population/economic projections 14
Tables of Comparison of OBERS Series C and Series E 15
Sensitivity Analysis (Evaluation) 14
Land Use^ 15
Existing land use 15
Urban Land 15
Agricultural Land 15
Forest Lands 16
Wetlands 16
Natural areas of significance 16
Future land use 17
Urban Land 17
Agricultural Land 17
Forest Lands : 17
Wetlands 17
Problems and Conflicts 17
Sensitivity Analysis (Evaluation) 18
Satisfy Needs (Solve the Problem) 18
Local land use controls 18
State land use controls 18
Federal land use controls 18
Water Resource Problems and Needs
Water Supply
Current Water Supply 19
Municipal Water Supply 19
Domestic 19
Commercial 19
Industrial 19
Institutional 19
Public 19
Industrial Water Supply 20
Rural Domestic 20
Livestock and Poultry 21
Irrigation 22
Existing Problems 22
Existing water supply tables 21
Future Water Supply 23
Municipal 23
Industrial 23
Technology 23
-------
Rural Domestic .24
Livestock and Poultry 24
Irrigation 24
Projected water supply tables .25
Supply Analysis -i 25
Groundwater 25
Surface water • 25
Impoundments 26
Tables of Projected Deficits. 26
Analysis 26
Means to satisfy the Needs (Solve the Problem) 27
Natural stream flow 27
Impoundments 27
Groundwater 27
Desalinization 27
Institutional measures 27
Water Quality
Current Status 27
Introduction 27
Potential Sources of Water Pollution (Graphic) 28
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Area Map 29
Water Quality Parameters 30
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 30
Bacteriological Indicators 30
Suspended Solids 30
Dissolved Solids 30
Nutrients 30
Heavy metals 30
Existing Water Quality Conditions 30
Water Quality Problems Map 31
FUTURE WATER QUALITY NEEDS 31
Industrial Wastewater 33
Other Point and Nonpoint Source Problem Areas 33
Thermal Discharges ,33
Chlorine , 33
Agricultural and Urban Runoff 33
Oil and Marine Transportation 34
Sedimentation 34
Recreational and Commercial Boating Activities 34
Septic Tank Failures 34
Solid Waste Leachates 34
Management 34
Financial Capabilities 34
Manpower 34
Lack of Data Base 34
MEANS TO SATISFY THE NEEDS 34
Physical Alternatives 35
Improving Water Use Technology 35
Increased Industrial Treatment and Recirculation 35
Increased Municipal Treatment 35
Cooling of Thermal Wastes 35
Land Treatment of Wastewater 35
Control of Non-Point Source Pollutants ,. '. 35
Other Physical Methods £. 35
Management and Legislative Actions 35
in
-------
OUTDOOR RECREATION
CURRENT STATUS 36
Existing Supply and Demand 36
Problems 36
Boating Map 37
Swimming Map 38
Picnic Map 39
Camping Map 40
FUTURE DEMAND AND SUPPLY .41
Means to Satisfy Needs 42
SECTION III: NAVIGATION, FLOOD CONTROL AND SHORELINE ERO-
SION
NAVIGATION
CURRENT STATUS 44
Current Status 44
Transportation 44
Ports 44
Size of Ships 44
Navigation Projects 44
Sedimentation 44
Dredging 44
Existing Problems and Conflicts 44
Need for deeper channels 44
Maintenance of existing channels 44
Disposal of dredged materials 44
Waste discharge from watercraft 45
Shoreline erosion caused from ship's wake 45
Need for additional waterfront lands 45
PROJECTED DEMANDS : .46
Baltimore •• Harbor 46
Hampton Roads 48
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 49
James River 49
Potomac River 49
York River 50
Other Waterways 51
FUTURE SUPPLY 52
Methodology 52
Channel Capacities 52
Future Needs and Problems 52
Ports 52
Dredge disposal 52
Deeper channels 52
Maintenance 53
Means to Satisfy Needs 53
Accommodate larger vessels 53
Economical and environmental acceptable dredge disposal 54
Alleviate congestion in ports, channels, and anchorage areas 54
Minimize conflicts between recreational and commercial vessels 54
Minimize erosion damages 54
Minimize accidental oil spills 54
Expand ports 54
-------
Flood Control
Flooding: Current Status: 55
Tidal Flooding. 55
Flood Problem Areas . 56
Future Tidal Flood Problem Areas 57
Means to Satisfy Needs
Non-Structural Solutions 57
Flood Insurance 57
Flood Proofing 57
Other Non-Structural Measures 58
Structural Flooding Solutions ; 58
Levees 58
Breakwaters 58
Bulkheads 58
Revetments 58
Groins 58
Beach nourishment 58
Shoreline Erosion
Shoreline Erosion Existing 58
Shoreline Erosion Process 58
Existing Problems and Conflicts 59
Shoreline Erosion Future Problems 60
Non-structural Solutions 61
Marsh Creation ; 61
Vegetative Cover 61
Regulatory Actions 62
Structural Solutions 61
Bulkheads ,62
Revetments 62
Groins 62
Beach Nourishment 62
Section IV: Fish and Wildlife, Electric Power, Noxious Weeds
Fish and Wildlife
Current 63
Commercial Fisheries 63
Finfish •. 63
Shellfish 63
Harvesting 63
Processing 63
Commercial Furbearers 64
Sportfishing and Hunting 64
Non-consumptive Utilization of Resources 65
Existing Conflicts and Problems 65
Dredging 65
Water quality 65
Management structure 65
Federal regulations 65
Fluctuations 65
Future Fish and Wildlife Needs : 66
Finfish and Shellfish 66
Harvesting and Processing of fisheries industries 66
Wildlife 67
Conversion of farms to urban land uses 67
Reluctance of landowners to open lands to recreationists 67
Single-purpose leasing for hunting 67
Reduction of habitat 67
Single species tree farming 67
-------
Use of herbicides 67
Non-consumptive wildlife 68
Means to Satisfy the Needs 68
Industrial Finfish 68
Non-industrial Finfish 68
Wildlife 69
Electric Power
Current Status Power 70
Power Requirements and Generating Facilities 70
Market Sectors 70
Chesapeake West 70
Chesapeake East 70
Chesapeake South 70
Existing Power Facilities '.'. 71
Chesapeake Bay Power Plant Location Map 73
Cooling Water Requirements 72
Existing Problems and Conflicts 74
Steam generating plants 74
Fossil fuel plants 74
Nuclear Power Plants -. 74
National energy 74
Future Electric Power Needs 74
Projected Demands 74
Supply Methodology 75
Projected Plant Location 75
Cooling Water Consideration 76
Table of Plant Locations 76
Power Plant Location Map 77
Land Use by Power Facilities 78
Sensitivity Analysis (Evaluation) 78
Means to Satisfy Electric Power Needs , .78
Water Use .78
Land Use 79
Load Management 79
Noxious Weeds:
Current Status of Noxious Weeds 79
Eurasian Watermilfoil 80
Waterchestnut 80
Sea Lettuce 80
Means to Satisfy Future Needs of Noxious Weeds 80
General 80
Control Measures 81
Chemical : 81
Mechanical 81
Biological 81
Epilogue 84
Glossary 86
VI
-------
SECTION I
The
Chesapeake
Bay Region
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
GEOLOGY
The Chesapeake Bay Region is divided
into two. geologic provinces-the
Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Pla-
teau. These provinces run roughly
parallel to the Atlantic Ocean in sim-
ilar fashion to the Bay itself and join
at the Fall Line (see Figure 3). This
natural division generally marks
both the limit of tide as well as the
head of navigation.
The Coastal Plain Province includes
the Eastern Shore of Maryland and
Virginia, most of Delaware, and a
portion of the Western Shore. On the
Eastern Shore and in portions of the
Western Shore adjacent to the Bay, the
Coastal Plain is largely low. featureless.
and frequently marshy, with many
islands and shoals sometimes extend-
ing far offshore. The Province is a
gently rolling upland on the Western
Shore and in the northern portions of
the Eastern Shore. The Coastal Plain
reaches its highest elevation in areas
along its western margin.
The Coastal Plain runs primarily
south-easterly-dipping, sedimentary
layers such as sand, clay, marl,
gravel, and diatomaceous earth
resting on a base of hard crystalline
rock. These layers, which can be
readily seen in areas where wells have
been drilled, increase in thickness
towards the Continental Shelf (see
Figure 4) In a few isolated areas and
in locations where water has cut a
deep channel, the basement rock is
exposed in ridges.
The Piedmont Plateau is not, as its
name implies, a plateau. It is charac-
terized by low hills and ridges which
tend to rise above the general lay of
the land reaching a maximum height
near the Appalachian Province on the
west. Many of the stream valleys are
quite narrow and steep-sided, having
been cut into the hard crystalline
rocks which are characteristic of the
Province.
The parent material of the Piedmont
Province is older than that of the
Coastal Plain. The structurally
complex crystalline rocks have been
severely folded and subjected to
great heat and pressure thereby
creating metamorphic rocks.
SOILS
Soils consist of a thin layer of material
made from broken and decomposed
rock with added products of decaying
organic matter called humus. The
Study Area contains soils produced
from the three major types of rock,
namely igneous, metamorphic, and
sedimentary. The first two types are
found primarily in the Piedmont Prov-
ince, whereas the Coastal Plain is
composed of sediments.
Climate appears to have a definite
effect on soil development. Although
the Bay Area is generally characterized
by a humid climate, local variations in
temperature and rainfall produce some
differences in soil type. Soil charac- ;
teristics (texture, drainage, structure,
particle size, physical composition,
and degree of development) have had a
strong role in determining soil useful-
ness. Richer, well-drained soils are
more productive in terms of agricul-
ture. Few crops can grow on soils
which are poorly drained or which
lack plant nutrients. Soils on the
Coastal Plain are highly variable with
regard to drainage characteristics and
most need liming to neutralize their
naturally acidic condition. Piedmont
soils are medium-grained, easily tilled,
and of generally higher fertility than
those of the Coastal Plain.,A few soils
are impermeable when wet, retarding
the movement of water and causing
waterlogging. As a result, strong sur-
face runoff causes serious erosion of
slopes.
CLIMATE
The Chesapeake Bay Study Area is
characterized by a generally moderate
climate, due in a large part to the
area's nearness to the Atlantic
Ocean. Variations occur, however,
on a local short-term basis due to the
large geographical size of the Bay
Area.
Precipitation within the Bay Region
was studied at selected stations during
a 30-year sample record from 1931 to
1960. The average for the Study Area
was 44 inches per year, with geo-
graphical variations from about 40 to
46 inches per year. Snowfall, included
in the precipitation totals, averaged 13
inches per year and occurred generally
between November and March.
Three types of storm activity bring
precipitation to the Region. The first
type consists of extratropical storms
or "lows" which originate to the west,
either in the Rocky Mountains, Pacific
Northwest, or the Gulf of Mexico. The
second is tropical storm or hurricane
activity which originates in the Middle
Atlantic or the Caribbean Sea region.
The third is thunderstorm activity
which is almost always on a local scale.
It is this last activity which brings
about the greatest amount of local
variation in—precipitation in the Bay
Area.
Evapotranspiratiqn, which includes
water losses due to evaporation from
land and water surfaces and transpira-
tion from plants, amounts to approxi-
mately 60 percent of the annual pre-
cipitation or about 26 inches per year.
Authorities estimate an annual evapor-
ation of 36 to 40 inches from the Bay
itself.
The average temperature for the Study
Area is approximately 57 degrees
Fahrenheit C*F). The Bay is oriented
in a north-south direction, however,
and covers a wide latitudinal area,
allowing wide temperature variances.
As a result, the temperature at the
head of the Bay averages less than
55°F, while at the mouth it averages
almost 60° F,
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The source of freshwater for the Bay is
runoff from a drainage basin covering
about 64,160 square miles. Approxi-
mately 88 percent of this basin is
drained by five major rivers, including.
the Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahan-
nock, York, and lames. These five
rivers average an inflow of 69,000
cubic feet per second. These river
basins are subject to periodic
1
-------
Figure 4: Geologic Cross-Section of the Coastal Plain Province in Maryland
vOCEAN CITY
BERLIN SEA
jSAUSBURY SVELp
seasonal changes in flow due to
droughts and floods. Of these,
droughts are the more
geographically widespread and long-
term in nature.
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
Large reservoirs of high quality fresh-
water are located in the groundwater
aquifers of the Chesapeake Bay
Region. Aquifers are subsurface sand
and gravel-type materials with rela-
tively high ability to conduet water.
Water levels in the aquifers fluctuate
according to the balance between pre-
cipitation and aquifer recharge, on the
one hand, and evapotranspiration, run-
off, and withdrawals on the other
hand. In the Bay Area, of the average
precipitation of 44 inches per year, an
estimated 9 to 11 inches actually
contributes to the recharge of the
groundwater reservoirs.
Of the more productive aquifers in the
Chesapeake Bay Area, the water-
bearing formations known as the
Columbia Group produce very high
yields. Extensive areas on the Eastern
Shore and portions of Harford and
Baltimore Counties, Maryland, are the
principal users. The Piney Point For-
mation is important in Southern Mary-
land, portions of Maryland's Eastern
Shore and in areas near the Fall Line
in Virginia. Lastly, the Potomac Group
provides water to Anne Arundel,
Charles, and Prince Georges Counties,
Maryland and is the most important
source of groundwater in the Coastal
Plain of Virginia.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ESTUARY
The Chesapeake Bay Estuary is a mere
youngster, geologically speaking. It is
generally believed that the Bay was
formed about 10,000 years ago, at the
end of the last Ice Age, when the great
glaciers melted and poured uncount-
able billions of gallons of water back
into the world's oceans. As a result of
this great influx of water, the ocean
level rose several hundred feet and
inundated large stretches of the coastal
rivers. The ancient Susquehanna,
which had drained directly into the
Atlantic Ocean near what is now the
mouth of the Bay, was one of these
"drowned" waterways. Because the
area around the old Susquehanna was
characterized by relatively low relief,
the estuary that was formed by this
mixing of salt and freshwater covered
a large geographical area but was rela-
tively shallow. This newly formed
body of water was later to be named
"Chesapeake Bay." Chesapeake Bay
varies from 4 to 30 miles in width and
is about 200 miles long. Although the
Chesapeake is the largest estuary in the
United States, with a surface area of
approximately 4,400 square miles, the
average depth of the Bay proper is
only about 28 feet and about two-
thirds of the Bay is eighteen feet deep
or less. There are, however, deep holes
which generally occur as long narrow
troughs. These troughs are thought to
be the remnants of the ancient Susque-
hanna River valley. The deepest of
these holes is about 174 feet and
occurs off Kent Island.
Tidal Currents:
Chesapeake Bay is a complex, dynamic
system. Words like "restless," "un-
stable," and "unpredictable," which
generally describe the young of most
animal species, can also be used to
describe the young estuary. The ebb
and flood of the tides and the
constant action of the waves are the
most easy to see water movements in
the Bay. Average maximum tidal
currents range fro 0.5 knots to over 2
knots (1 knot equals 1 nautical mile
of 6,076 feet per hour.) The average
tidal fluctuation in Chesapeake Bay
is small, generally between one and
two feet. Except during periods of
unusually high winds, waves in the
Bay are relatively small, generally
less than 3 feet in height.
Salinity Currents:
In addition to the tides, there is a
second type of mixing, less obvious,
non-tidal, two-layered circulation
pattern that causes the fresh water to
move down toward the sea on the
surface layers, and the salty, more
dense water to flow up the estuary on
the bottom layers. This phenomenon
is illustrated in Figure 5. The tidal
currents provide some of the mixing
of the two layers.
Tides and wave action (as well as other
types of currents) are biologically sig-
nificant in several ways. They provide
mixing, transportation, and distribu-
tion of inorganic and organic nutri-
ents. These water movements also
affect the dispersion of eggs, larva,
spores, gametes, and smaller advanced
stages of resident plants and animals;
remove waste products and bring food
and oxygen to fixed bottom-dwelling
organisms; and circulate chemical
"clues" which aid predators in locating
their prey. Tides and waves are also
especially important ecologically to
the intertidal zone (the shoreline area
between high and low tides) of an
estuary because of their wetting action
which is beneficial to many plant and
animal species. In sheltered waters, the
mixing of water by tidal and wave
action is important to keep salinity
and temperature more even in order
not to harm some biota. The
churning caused by wave action also
-------
CHESAPEAKE
BAY
-------
Figure 5 : Circulation in a Partially Mixed Estuary
LIGHTER FRESH WATER
RIVER
SEA
plays a role in aeration of the waters
to provide sufficient oxygen for biotic
respiration.
The mixing in the estuary of sea water
and freshwater creates salinity varia-
tions within the system. In Chesapeake.
Bay, salinities range from 33 parts per
thousand at the mouth of the Bay near
the ocean to near zero at the north
end of the Bay and at the Fall Line of
the tributaries to the Bay.
Higher salinities are generally found on
the Eastern Shore than on a compara-
ble area of the Western Shore due to
the greater river inflow on the Western
Shore and to the earth's rotation.
Salinity patterns also vary seasonally
according to the amount of freshwater
inflow into the Bay system. Figure 6
illustrates these phenomena.
Due to this seasonal variation in salin-
ity and the natural density differences
between fresh and saline waters, sig-
nificant non-tidal circulation often
occurs within the Bay's small tributary
embayments. In the spring, during the
period of high freshwater inflow to the
Bay, salinity in the embayments may
be greater than in the Bay. Because of
this salinity difference, surface water
from the Bay flows into the tributaries
on the surface, while the heavier, more
saline bottom water from the tribu-
taries flows into the Bay along the
bottom. As Bay salinity becomes
greater through summer and early fall,
Bay waters flow into the bottom of
the tributaries, while tributary surface
waters flow into the Bay.
The variations in salinity that occur
in the Bay are part of the natural
estuary, and the plants and animals
that live here are ordinarily able to
adjust to the changes. Sudden or
long changes in salinity may upset
the equilibrium between organisms
and their environment. Abnormal
periods of freshwater inflow may
alter salinities sufficiently to cause
widespread damage to the
ecosystem.
i
i
Dissolved Oxygen:
Dissolved oxygen is another im-
portant physical factor. Dissolved
oxygen levels vary considerably both
seasonally and according to depth.
During .the winter the Bay is high in
dissolved oxygen content; since
oxygen is more soluble in cold water
than in warm water. With spring and
higher temperatures, the dissolved r
oxygen content decreases. While!
warmer surface waters
stay near saturation, in deeper waters
the dissolved oxygen content becomes
significantly less despite the cooler
temperatures because of increasing
oxygen demands (by bottom Dwelling
organisms and decaying organic mate-
rial) and decreased vertical mixing.
Through the summer, the waters be-
low 30 feet become oxygen deficient.
By early fall, as the surface waters cool
and sink, vertical mixing takes place
and the oxygen content at all depths
begins to steadily increase until there
is an almost uniform distribution of
oxygen. While species vary in the level
of dissolved oxygen they can with-
stand before respiration is affected,
estuarine^tpecies in general can func-
tion in waters with dissolved oxygen
levels as low as liO to 2.0 mg/liter.
Dissolved oxygen levels of about 5.0
mg/liter are generally considered'
necessary, however, to maintain a
healthy environment over the long
term.
, Temperature:
The effects of temperature on the
estuarine system .are also extremely
important. Since the waters of Chesa-
peake Bay are relatively shallow com-
pared to. the ocean, they are more
affected by atmospheric temperature
conditions. Generally speaking, the
annual temperature range in Chesa-
peake Bay is between 0°C and 29°C.
Because the mouth of the estuary is
close to the sea, it has a relatively
stable temperature as compared with
the. upper reaches. Some heat is re-
quired by all organisms for the func-
tioning of bodily processes. These
processes are restricted, however, to a
particular temperature range. Temper-
atures above or below the critical
range for a particular species can be
fatal unless the organism is able to
move out of the area. Temperature
also causes variations in water density
Light:
Light is necessary for the survival, of
plants because of its role in photo-
synthesis. Turbidity, more than any
other physical factor, determines the
depth light will penetrate in an estu-
ary. Turbidity is suspended material,
-------
Figure 6: Geographical and Seasonal Variations in Salinities in Chesapeake Bay
JH CHESAPEAKE BAY
f::
!i! SURFACE SALINITY (%„)
WINTER AVERAGE
-------
mineral and/or organic in origin, which
is transported through the estuary by
wave action, tides, and currents. While •
the absence of light may be beneficial
to some bottom dwelling organisms
since they can come out during day-
light hours and feed in relative safety,
this condition limits the distribution
of plant life because of the restriction
of photosynthetic activity. This re-
striction of plant life (especially plank-
ton in the open estuary) will reduce
the benthic (i.e., bottom dwelling) and
zooplankton populations which in
turn will reduce fish productivity.
Nutrients:
Nutrients are the minerals essential to
the normal functioning of an or-
ganism. In Chesapeake Bay, important
nutrients include nitrogen, phos-
phorus, carbon, iron, manganese, and
potassium. It is generally believed that
most of the nutrients required by
estuarine organisms are present in suf-
ficient quantity in Chesapeake Bay.
Excesses of some nutrients are often a
more important problem than defi-
ciencies, Excesses of nitrogen and
phosphorus, for example, may cause
an increase in the rate of eutrophi-
cation which, in turn, can eliminate
desirable species, encourage the
growth of obnoxious algae, and cause
low dissolved oxygen conditions from
the decay of dead organisms and other
materials. Relatively little is known
about the quantities of specific nutri-
ents necessary for the healthy func-
tioning of individual species, or more
importantly, of biological com-
munities.
While it is necessary to keep in mind
the interactions of these physical and
chemical variables when studying
Chesapeake Bay, these parameters
should not and, in fact, cannot be
addressed separately. The Bay eco-
system is characterized by the dy-
namic interplay between many com-
plex factors. As a simple example, the
levels of salinity and temperature will
both affect the metabolism of an
aquatic organism. In addition, both
salinity and temperature can cause a
drop in the oxygen concentration in
the water and thus an increase in the
required respiration rate of the or-
ganism. While it is true the effects of
these variables individually may be of
a non-critical nature, the combined
effects of the three stresses may be
6
severe to the point of causing death.
These three factors in turn, also
interact with other physical and
chemical variables, such as pH,
carbon dioxide levels, and
availability of nutrients, and
numerous others. The subtle variable
of time may- also become critical in
many cases'. The important point is
that the physical and chemical
environment provided by
Chesapeake Bay to the plants and
animals is extremely complex and
difficult, if not impossible, to
completely understand.
THE BIOTA OF CHESAPEAKE BAY
The estuary is biologically a very
special place. It is a very demanding
environment because it is constantly
changing. The resident plants and
animals must be able to adjust to
changes in physical and chemical
environment. The requirement for
adjustment limits the number of
species of plants and animals that
are able to survive and reproduce in
the estuary. Despite the fact that
relatively few species inhabit the
Bay, the Chesapeake, like most
estuaries, is an extremely productive .
ecosystem.
Productivity:
There are a number of reasons why
estuaries are so productive. First, the,
circulation patterns in the area of
mixing of lighter freshwater with
heavier sea water in a partially mixed
estuary such as Chesapeake Bay tend
to create a "nutrient trap" which
acts to retain and recirculate nutri-
ents (see Figure 5). Second, water
movements in the estuary do a great
deal of "work" removing wastes and
transporting food and nutrients en-
abling many organisms to maintain a
productive existence which does not
require the expenditure of a great deal
of energy for excretion and food
gathering. Third, the recycling and
retention of nutrients by bottom-
dwelling organisms, the effects of
deeply penetrating plant roots, and the
constant formation of detrital material
in the wetlands create a form of
"self-enriching" system. Last, estuaries
benefit from a diversity of producer
plant types which together provide
year-round energy to the system.
Chesapeake Bay has all three types of
producers that power the ecosystems
of our world: macrophytes (marsh and
sea grasses), benthic. microphytes.
(algae which live on .or near the
bottom), and phytoplankton (minute
floating plants).
PRODUCERS
AQUATIC PLANTS
As implied above, certain aquatic
plants are critical to the health and
productivity of Chesapeake Bay.
Green plants use sunlight and the
inorganic nutrients in the water to
produce the energy to drive the estua-
rine ecosystem. Thus, these plants,
ranging from the microscopic algae to
the larger rooted aquatics, are the
primary producers-the first link in the
aquatic food chain. Aquatic plants
exist in the natural environment in
many shapes, forms, and degree of
specialization. They are also found
in waters of widely varying physical
and chemical quality.
"Phytoplankton" is a general term for
aquatic plants of both fresh and saline
waters which are characteristically
free-floating and microscopic. The
most important of the phytoplankton
are the green algaes, diatoms, and
dinoflagellates. The population of
these organisms is represented by
relatively few species, but when they
do occur, they are present in tremen-
dous numbers. Phytoplankton are the
principal photosynthetic producers in
the marine, estuarine, and freshwater
environments, and will grow in the
water column to any depth that light
will penetrate. Blue-green algae are
another type of phytoplankton or-
ganism which are not generally con-
sidered to be of importance in aquatic
productivity, but are best known for
the nuisance conditions caused when
their growth occurs in excess. Huge
populations, or blooms, of these
organisms located near the surface of
the water reduce the sunlight available
to bottom-dwelling organisms. The
blooms can also give off objectionable
odors, clog industrial and municipal
water intakes, and generally cause
nuisance conditions.
Macrophytes are, as the Greek roots of
the word indicate, "large plants."
-------
Unlike the freely floating, or only
weakly motile, and minute phyto-
plankton, the macrophytic aquatic
plants are generally either rooted or
otherwise fastened in some manner to
the bottom. All of the forms require
sunlight to conduct photosynthesis
and most have defined leaflets which
grow either entirely submerged, float-
ing on the surface of the water, or out
of the water with leaf surfaces in
direct contact with the atmosphere.
The distribution of Macrophytes
ranges from entirely freshwater to the
open ocean. These types of plants are
not only important as food and
habitat for fish and wildlife, but they
are also important in the recovery of
nutrients from deep sediments.
The "Biota" section of the Chesapeake
Bay Existing Conditions Report and
Appendices 14 and 15 of the Chesa-
peake Bay Future Conditions Report
include a more detailed discussion of
aquatic plants — their types and
distribution, importance in the eco-
system, and the problems associated
with them.
CONSUMERS:
FISH AND WILDLIFE
The energy supplied to the ecosystem
by the green plants of the Bay must be
made available in some manner to the
meat-eating predators, including man,
which are higher in the food chain.
This vital link is filled by many
different varieties of organisms such as
zooplankton and various species of
worms, shellfish, crabs, and fmfish.
Zooplankton include small crustaceans
such as copepods, the larva of most of
the estuarine fishes and shellfishes,
several shrimp-like species, and other
animal forms that generally float with
the currents and tides. Phytoplankton
and plant detritus (along with ad-
sorbed bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and
micro-algae) are consumed directly by
the zooplankton and other larger
aquatic species.
If man through his activity interrupts
an established energy flow in the
environment, he may cause energy
losses to the system as well as other
detrimental biological effects. Man's
activities, for example, may cause the
loss of a detritus producing area (e.g.,
a stand of saltmarsh cordgrass) result-
ing in a decline of the organisms which
primarily feed on detritus. A loss of
this nature directly affects the next
higher'trophic level, thereby starting a
chain reaction throughout the food
web. Generally, in estuaries, there is a
great deal of dependence of larger
organisms on a few key smaller
organisms that utilize detritus and
micro-algae for food.
Like the aquatic plant communities,
the aquatic animal communities are
not spread evenly throughout the
Bay. Although the entire Estuary
serves as nursery and primary
habitat for fmfish, spawning areas
are concentrated in the areas of low
salinity and freshwater in the Upper
Bay and corresponding portions of
the major tributaries. The northern
part of Chesapeake Bay, including
the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, is probably the largest of all
spawning areas in the Bay. This area
plus the upper portions of the
Potomac, YorX, Rappahannock,
James, and Patuxent Rivers,
represent about 90 percent of the
anadromous fish (i.e., those which
ascend rivers from the sea to
reproduce) spawning grounds in the
Chesapeake Bay Region. The Bay
serves as a spawning and nursery
ground for fish caught from Maine
to North Carolina. Some of the fish
that use the Bay as a nursery include
Striped bass, weakfish, shad,
ilewife, blueback herring, croaker,
/menhaden and kingfish (see Figure
7).
Oysters are abundant in many parts of
the Estuary. The numerous small bays,
coves, and inlets between the Chester
and Nanticoke Rivers along the East-
ern Shore and the lower portions of
the Patuxent, Potomac, York, Rappa-
hannock, and James Rivers account
for approximately 90 percent of the
annual harvest of oysters.
Some species of Chesapeake Bay fish
and shellfish thrive in the saltier waters
of the Estuary. The mouth of the
Chesapeake, an area of high salinity, is
the major blue crab spawning area in
the Bay and its tributaries.
In addition to Chesapeake Bay's large
resources of fmfish and shellfish, the
marshes and woodlands in the Area
provide many thousands of acres of
natural habitat for a variety of water-
fowl, other birds, reptiles, amphibians,
and mammals.
Waterfowl:
Chesapeake Bay is the constricted
neck in the gigantic funnel pattern
that forms the Atlantic Flyway. Most
of the waterfowl reared in the area
between the western shore of Hudson
Bay and Greenland spend some time in
the marshes of the Bay and its
tributaries during their migrations.
Good wintering areas adjacent to
preferred upland feeding grounds
attract more than 75 percent of the
wintering population of Atlantic
Flyway Canada geese. The marshes
Figure 7: Fishes: Their Use of the Estuary
-------
and grain fields of the Delmarva
Peninsula are particularly attractive to
Canada geese and grain-feeding swans,
mallards, and black ducks. The Sus-
quehanna Flats, located at the head of
the Bay, support huge flocks of
American widgeon in the early fall,
while several species of diving ducks,
including canvasback, redhead, ring-
neck, and scaup, winter throughout
Chesapeake Bay. About half of the
80,000 whistling swans in North
America winter on the small estuaries
in or around the Bay. While the
Chesapeake is primarily a wintering
ground for birds that nest further
north, several species of waterfowl,
including the black duck, blue-winged
teal, and wood duck, find suitable
nesting and brood-raising habitat in
the Bay Region.
Other birds:
In addition to waterfowl, many other
species of birds are found in the Bay
Area. Some rely primarily on wetlands
for their food and other habitat
requirements. These include rails, var-
ious sparrows, marsh wrens, red-
winged blackbirds, snipe, sandpipers,
plovers, marsh hawk, shorteared owl,
herons, egrets, gulls, terns, oyster
catcher, and curlews. Many of the
above species are insectivores, feeding
on grasshoppers, caterpillars, beetles,
flies, and mosquitoes, while others
feed on seeds, frogs, snakes, fish, and
shellfish. There are numerous other
birds which rely more heavily on the
wooded uplands and agricultural lands
for providing their basic habitat and
food requirements. Among these
species are many game birds, including
wild turkey, mourning dove, bob white
quail, woodcock, and pheasant. It
should be emphasized that some of
these species require both an upland
and a wetland habitat. Modest popula-
tions of ospreys and American bald
eagles also inhabit the Bay Region.
Mammals:
The Chesapeake Bay Region is also
home for most of the common
mammals which are native to the
coastal Mid-Atlantic Region. The inter-
spersion of forest and farmland and
the proximity of shore and wetland
areas form the basis for a great variety
of ecological systems. The abundance
of food such as mast and grain crops
and the high quality cover vegetation
found on the wooded uplands and
agricultural lands support good popu-
lations of white-tailed deer, cottontail
rabbit, red fox, gray fox, gray squirrel,
woodchuck, opossum, and skunk. The
various vegetation types found in
wetland areas provide indispensible
natural habitat requirements for
beaver, o'tter, mink, muskrat, marsh
rabbit, and nutria. In addition, there
are numerous species of small mam-
mals, reptiles, and amphibians which
inhabit the Study Area and are integral
parts of both the upland and wetland
food cycles.
IMPORTANT PLANT AND ANIMAL
ORGANISMS
A survey of prominent Bay Area
scientists was conducted to deter-
mine the most important plant and
animal species based on economic,
biological, and social criteria. For
example, a species would qualify as
an "important species" if it were
either a commercial species, a
species pursued for sport, a
prominent species important for
energy transfer to organisms higher
in the food chain, a mammal or bird
protected by Federal law, or if it
caused harm to other species im-
portant to man. The common names
of the 124 species and genera
identified according to these criteria
are presented in Table 3.
PLANT AND ANIMAL
COMMUNITIES
Although the plants and animals of
Chesapeake Bay have been treated
separately in the previous discussion,
in the real world they are
bound together in communities. Bay
communities are important because of
the complex interactions between in-
habiting organisms, both plant and
animal, and between one community
and another. In the "eelgrass" com-
munity, for example, the organic
detritus formed by eelgrass, plus the
microorganisms adsorbed on it, repre-
sent the main energy source for
animals living in the community and
for animals outside the community to
which detritus is transported. In addi-
tion, eelgrass performs the following
physical and biological functions:
1. It provides a habitat for a wide
variety of organisms
2. It is utilized as a nursery ground
by fish
3. It is a food source for ducks and
brant
4. The plant physically acts as a
stabilizing factor for bottom sedi-
ments, which allows greater animal
diversity
5. It plays a role in reducing
turbidity and erosion in coastal bays.
Appendix 15 presents more detailed
information on the eelgrass com-
munity as well as the "oyster" com-
munity, two of the most important in
the Chesapeake Bay System, and the
physical and chemical parameters
which affect them.
It is evident from the preceding
discussion that Chesapeake Bay is an
almost incomprehensibly complex
physical and biological system. When
the human element is added, the
complexities and interrelationships be-
come even more involved.
THE PEOPLE
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
When Captain John Smith first ex-
plored the Chesapeake in 1608, it was
an estuary which had yet to feel the
impact of man to any significant
extent. But, even before Captain
Smith's voyage, people had settled on
the shores of the Bay drawn by its
plentiful supplies of fish and game.
These settlements were inhabited by
Assateagues, Nanticoke, Susquehan-
nock, and Choptank Indians. It was
the Indian that provided the names for
many promontories of land and water
courses. The relatively few wastes gen-
erated by the Indians were easily
assimilated by the natural cleansing
action of the Bay and its tributaries.
Later, more and more people moved
into the Bay Region, attracted first by
a soil and climate favorable to the
growth of tobacco, and later by the
development of major manufacturing
and transportation centers as well as
the founding of the Nation's capital at
Washington, D.C. By 1974, 366 years
after Captain Smith's voyage up the
8
-------
TABLE 3
IMPORTANT CHESAPEAKE BAY PLANT AND ANIMAL ORGANISMS-
COMMON NAMES
Blue-green alga
**Diatom (4 genera)
Dinoflagellate (3 species)
Sea lettuce
Green alga
Red alga
Vascular Plants
(Marsh and aquatic)
*Widgeongrass
Saltmarsh Cordgrass
Eelgrass
Horned pondweed
Wild rice
Cattails
Pondweeds
Arrow-arum
Wild celery
Cnidaria
* Stinging nettle
**Hydroid
Ctenophora (comb jellies)
Comb jelly (2 species)
Platyhelminthes
(flatworms)
Flatworm
Annelida (Worms)
** Blood worm
dam worm
Polychaete worm (4 genera)
Oligochaete worm
Mollusca (Shellfish)
Eelgrass snail
Oyster drill
Marsh periwinkle
Hooked mussel
Ribbed mussel
Oyster
Hard shell clam
Mollusca (Shellfish)
(Cont.)
**Coot clam
**Brackish water clam
Balthic macoma
Stout razor clam
Razor clam
*Soft shell clam
Asiatic clam
Arthropoda (Crabs,
shrimp, and other
crustacean!)
Barnacle
"Copepod (2 genera)
Opposum shrimp
Cumacean
Isopod (2 species)
Amphipod (5 genera)
Sand flea
**Grass shrimp
**Sand shrimp
"Xanthid crab (2 species)
Blue crab
Urochordata
Sea squirt
Pisces (Fish)
Cownose ray
Eel
**Shad, herring
Menhaden
Anchovy
Variegated minnow
Catfish, bullheads
Hogchoker
**Killifish
Silverside
**White perch
Striped bass
Black sea bass
Weakfish
**Spot
Blenny
Goby
Harvestfish
Flounder
*Life histories discussed in the "Biota" Chapter of the
Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report.
"Life histories discussed in the "Biota" Appendix of the
Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report.
Pisces (Fish) (Cont.)
**Northern puffer
Oyster toadfish
Reptiles
** Snapping turtle
"Diamond-backed terrapin
Aves (Birds)
Horned grebe
Cattle egret
Great blue heron
Glossy ibis
"Whistling swan
"Canada goose
Wood duck
"Black duck
Canvasback
Lesser scaup
"Bufflehead
"Osprey
Clapper rail
Virginia rail
American coot
American woodcock
Common snipe
Semipalmated sandpiper
Laughing gull
Herring gull
Great black-backed gull
Forster's tern
Least tern
Mammalia (Mammals)
Beaver
Muskrat
Mink
Otter
Raccoon
White-tailed deer
Endangered Species
Shortnose sturgeon
Atlantic sturgeon
Maryland darter
Southern bald eagle
American peregrine falcon
Ipswich sparrow
Delmarva fox squirrel
Bay, there were 8.2 million people
living in the Bay Region.
During Colonial times, the Chesapeake
Bay Region was one of the primary
growth centers of the New World.
However, after the decline of the
Region's tobacco industry in the 19th
century, population growth began to
lag. This period of relative stagnation
lasted until World War II when large
increases in Federal spending (espe-
cially on defense) stimulated employ-
ment and population growth within all
the economic subregions. As shown in
Table 4, the areas around Washington,
D.G. and Norfolk, Virginia, have
experienced especially high rates of
growth since World War II. Over half
of the total population growth in the
Bay Region between the time of the
Jamestown settlement to the present
occurred during the 1940-1970 period.
Population in the Region has increased
since the 1970 Census considerably.
The majority of the inhabitants of the
Chesapeake Bay Area are concentrated
in relatively small areas in and around
the major cities. People have tended
to move out of the inner cities and
rural counties and into the suburban
counties. Thirty-five of the 76
counties and major independent cities
in the Area experienced a net out-
migration during the 1960^1970
period. On the other hand, most of the
suburban counties experienced growth
rates in excess of 30 percent and
in-migrations of at least 10 percent of
their 1960 population. In the Bay
Region as a whole, net in-migration
accounted for about one-third of the
1.5 million increase in population
during the decade of the 1960's. Most
of this in-migration was in response to
large increases in employment oppor-
tunities in the Bay Region.
In 1970, there were approximately 3.3
million people employed in the Study
Area. About 91 percent of these
worked in one of the Region's seven
SMSA's. During the 1960-1970
period, total employment increased by
about three-quarters of a million jobs
or approximately 30 percent. The
National gain during the same period
was 19.5 percent.
Compared to the Nation as a whole,
the Bay Region has a lower proportion
of workers in the blue-collar indus-
tries, such as manufacturing and min-
ing, and a higher proportion in the
white-collar industries, such as public
administration and services. Due to
a higher percentage of white collar
workers the Study Area has had
consistently lower unemployment
rates over the last several decades
than the Nation as a whole. Also
contributing to these relatively stable
employment levels are the large
numbers of workers whose jobs
depended on relatively consistent
Federal government spending.
Per capita income in the Bay Area was
$3,694 in 1969, which was about 9
percent higher than the National
figure. Median family income levels
-------
TABLE 4
POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA DURING THE
1940-1970 PERIOD BY ECONOMIC SUBREGION
Study Area Portions of BEA
Economic Regions*
Baltimore, Maryland
Washington, D. C.
Richmond, Virginia
Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va.
Wilmington, Del. SMSA
Total Study Area
Total United States
1940
Population
1,481,179
1,086,262
437,103
467,229
248,243
3,720,016
132,165,129
1970
Population
2,481,402
3,040,371
728,946
1,121,856
499,493
7,872,068
203,211,926
Absolute
Change
+ 1,000,223
+ 1,954,109
+ 291,843
+ 654,627
+ 251,250
+ 4,152,052
+71,046,797
Percentage
Change
+ 67.5
+179.9
+ 66.8
+140.1
+101.2
+111.6
+ 53.8
Source: U.S. Census Data
*See Figure 1
ranged from $16,710 in Montgomery
County, Maryland, (one of the highest
in the Nation), to $4,778 in
Northampton County, .Virginia. As
shown in Table 5, there was a
significantly higher proportion of
families in the over $15,000 income
bracket and fewer families whose
incomes were below the poverty level
in the Bay Area than in the Nation.
ECONOMIC SECTORS
MANUFACTURING
Generally speaking, the Chesapeake
Bay Region has a lower proportion of
its workers employed in heavy water-
impacting industries than in the
Nation as a whole (see Figure 8). For.
example, manufacturing activities in
the Bay Region employed some
524,000 workers in 1970, or about 16
percent of the total employment in.
the Study Area. This figure was
significantly lower than the National
figure of approximately 25 percent. In
addition, manufacturing employment
in the Bay Region grew by 6 percent
during the 1960-1970 period, which
was well below the National growth
rate of 13 percent.
Despite the fact that the manufac-
turing sector was not as important to
the economy of the Study Area as in
the Nation as a whole, the sector still
has a great deal of significance. First,
the navigation channels in Chesapeake
Bay are used by many Area manufac-
turers as a means of shipping raw
materials to their factories and
finished products to market. Second,
many manufacturing firms use water
in their production process, usually for
cleaning or cooling purposes. This
water is often returned to the Bay
system untreated or only partially
treated. Industrial wastes are sometimes
toxic as the recent kepone incident in
the James River demonstrates.
As Figure 9 indicates, in addition to
the fact that there is a relatively low
proportion of workers in manufac-
turing in the Bay Region, the majority
of the manufacturing industries which
are located in the Area are not
considered to be major water users
(i.e., chemicals, pulp and paper,
metals, petroleum refinery, and food
and kindred products). The heavy
water users that do exist are generally
concentrated in the Upper Bay around
Baltimore and in the Wilmington,
Delaware SMSA. Employment in the
chemical and metal industries is cen-
tered around Baltimore, Wilmington,
and Richmond. Food and kindred
products employment is concentrated
on the Eastern Shore, in the Washing-
ton SMSA, and in Norfolk. The only
major pulp and paper mill in the Bay
Region is located at West Point,
Virginia. There is also currently only
one major petroleum refinery in the
Region which is located at Yorktown,
Virginia. Other significant concentra-
tions of manufacturing industries are:
printing and publishing and the two
machinery categories in the Washing-
ton area, transportation equipment
around Norfolk-Portsmouth, and
tobacco processing in the Richmond
SMSA. A more detailed discussion of
industrial activity in the Bay Region is
provided in Appendix 3 - "Economic
and Social Profile".
PUBLIC ADMINISTRA TION
The public administration sector,
which includes civilian workers in the
Federal, State, and local governments,
is extremely important to the econ-
omy of the Bay Region. In 1970, this
sector employed approximately
475,000 people or about 14 percent of
the total workers. This is significantly
higher than the National average of 5
percent. Employment in this sector
grew 36 percent during the
1960-1970 decade, very close to the
37 percent rate of growth for the
Nation.
Although the public administration
sector ranked only fourth in total
employment in the Study Area, the
sector is far more important to the
Region's economy than these employ-
ment figures indicate. First, earnings
are higher than average in this sector.
This has helped to stimulate other
sectors of the economy, especially the
retail trade and service industries.
Second, the Federal portion of the
public administration sector can be
thought of as a "basic" industry since
it exports its "product" (public ser-
TABLE5
FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
STUDY AREA AND THE UNITED STATES, 1969
Study Area
United States
Percent Below
Poverty Level
11.2
12.2
"Middle" Income
Families
61.3
68.6
Percent Above
$15,000
27.5
19.2
10
-------
Figure 9: Manufacturing Employment for the Chespeake Bay Study Area and United States, 1970
Furniture, Lumber and Wood Products
13.9%
Metal Industries
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electrical Machinery, Equipment and Supplies
13.0%
Transportation Equipment
Other Durable Goods (includes stone, clay, glass and concrete
9.1% products and professional photographic and time keeping equipment)
Food and Kindred Products
Textiles and Fabricated Textile Products
Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries
Chemicals and Allied Products
1 2.9%
Other Nondurable Goods (includes tobacco,
paper, petroleum refining, rubber, plastics, and leather products)
Source: U.S. Census of Population: 1970, "General Social and Economic Characteristics."
vices) to the entire Nation, thereby,
bringing money into the Region and
creating jobs.
The bulk of the total Public Admin-
istration employment in the Study
Area (almost 66 percent) is located in
the Washington, B.C. area. Other
concentrations of workers are in the
Richmond, Virginia, vicinity, through-
out much of the Baltimore, Maryland,
SMSA, and in the Norfolk-Portsmouth
area.
The public administration sector can
be considered a "clean" industry from
a water resources viewpoint. There are
no special requirements for water for
either processing or transportation
purposes. However, fast-growing indus-
tries, such as the public administration
sector, with its tremendous drawing
capacity for workers and their fam-
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries*
Transportation. Communication and Public Utilities*
17.2%
Armed Forces
* Denotes Heavy Water-Impacting Industries
Source: U.S. Census Data
Figure 8: Employment by Economic Sectors, Chesapeake Bay Study Area and
United States, 1970
11
-------
ilies, can often cause rates of popula-
tion growth that tax the ability of
local government to provide services
such as water supply and sewerage.
The Washington, D.C. area with its
until recently overloaded waste treat-
ment plants and its increasingly inade-
quate water supply is a good example
of this.
AGRICULTURE
Although less than 2 percent of the
total workers in the Chesapeake Bay
Region are employed in the agricul-
tural sector (i.e., the actual planting,
cultivation, and harvesting of raw
agricultural goods), these activities
have a great deal of impact on the
Area's economy and water and land
resources. In 1969 (the latest data
available at .this writing), the value of
all farm products sold by commercial
farms in the Bay Region was approxi-
mately $589 million. Approximately
87 percent of the developed land in
the Bay Region is used for agricultural
purposes. Poor farming techniques,
both in the past and present, have
resulted in the extensive erosion of
valuable soils which, in turn, has
caused the siltation of many of the
Bay's waterways. Run-off from fields
sprayed with chemical fertilizers add
large quantities of nutrients to the
waterways. This practice has resulted
in an increase in the amounts of
undesirable algae and other vegetation
in some waters, thereby decreasing the
amounts of available oxygen in the
water and, in extreme cases, causing
fish kills. In addition, the use of
insecticides in agricultural areas has
caused significant damage to fish and
wildlife populations in the Bay Region
with the classic examples being the
effects of DDT on the bald eagle arid
osprey populations.
FISHERIES
Just as the Indians and early settlers
harvested the Bay's plentiful supplies
of finfish, shellfish, and crabs, modern
day watermen harvest and market
large quantities of the Chesapeake's
living treasures. In 1973, commercial
landings of shellfish and finfish totaled
565 million pounds with a value at the
dock of approximately $47.9 million.
This catch amounted to an average of
200 pounds per surface acre of water.
In addition, sport landings of finfish
and shellfish in recent years have been
estimated to be as large as the
commercial catch for some species.
However, even when the value of the
sports fishing catch is added to the
commercial catch value, the total is a
very small percentage of the value of
agricultural pro'ducts, for example, and
almost negligible when compared to
value added in the manufacturing
sector. On the other hand, the fisheries
and watermen of Chesapeake Bay add
a generous amount of regional color
and tradition to the "way of life" in
the Bay Region. These benefits are
difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
Because agricultural products and sea-
food are often perishable, they are
usually processed in close proximity to
where they are harvested. As a result,
the agricultural and seafood harvesting
sectors in the Bay Region support
locally important food processing
plants.
ARMED FORCES
Still another important source of
employment for residents of the Bay
Region is the Armed Forces. In 1970,
there were approximately 250,000
members of the Armed Forces sta-
tioned within the Study Area, repre-
senting almost 8 percent of the total
employment. This percentage was sig-
nificantly higher than the National
figure of 2.5 percent. The cities of
Norfolk and Virginia Beach in the
Hampton Roads area and Anne
Arundel, Prince Georges, and Fairfax
counties in the Baltimore and Wash-
ington, D.C., areas contained the
largest numbers of military personnel.
Construction Activitites Can Have
Severe Impacts.
CONSTRUCTION
The construction sector in the Bay
Region employed approximately
200,000 people in 1970. Construction
activities have had a great deal of
impact on the water resources of the
Bay Region. Much of the disturbed
soil on construction sites becomes
sediment in streams and rivers. This
silt can adversely affect fish and
wildlife populations, clog navigation
channels, increase the costs of treat-
ment for city and industrial water
supplies, make water-based recreation
less enjoyable, and generally lower the
aesthetic quality of a waterway.
Unfortunately, the areas in the Region
with the most construction activity are
the same areas in which there are
already significant industrial and resi-
dential strains on the Bay.
OTHER SECTORS
The remaining Bay Region workers,
which account for more than one-half
of the total, are employed in one of
the following sectors:
1. Wholesale and retail trade
2. Transportation, communica-
tions, and public utilities
3. Finance, insurance, and real
estate
4. Services
"These jobs are generally 'supportive'
of the economic sectors discussed pre-
viously. With the exception of the
transportation and public utilities
sectors which are discussed in more
detail in the "Navigation," "Electric
Power," "Water Supply," and "Water
Quality" Appendices, they do not
have a significant impact on the water
resources of the Region. Many of these
activities, however, exist in the Region
because of the proximity of the
Chesapeake Bay resource. For
example, the Bay's land and water
resources allow for the development of
certain "regionally-unique" entertain-
ment and recreation services which
help to expand the service sector.
These include such activities as private
bathing beaches, pleasure and fishing
boat rentals, and the operation of
seafood restaurants serving regional
specialities. Some of the other activi-
ties (e.g., finance, insurance, retail
trade, real estate, and certain services)
exist in the Bay Region because it is an
area which is characterized by higher
than average incomes and population
growth rates. The location of the
Nation's capitol in the Area also
attracts many workers in these sectors
due to the regulatory functions of the
Federal Government and the desir-
ability of companies in the regulated
12
-------
industries to maintain offices in the
Washington area.
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC
PROJECTIONS
OBERS SERIES C
The base projections used in the future
needs analysis for most of the Appen-
dices of the "Future Conditions
Report" are based on the Series C
OBERS projections of population,
income, earnings, and manufacturing
output prepared by the Department of
Commerce and the Department of
Agriculture. A special set of projec-
tions coinciding with the Chesapeake
Bay Study Area and the subregions as
delineated in Figure 1 was prepared by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. An explanation of the
methodology used to prepare the
OBERS projections and the special
disaggregation by BEA is contained in
Appendix 3, "An Economic and Social
Profile." Figure 10 illustrates the great
potential for growth that lies in the
Chesapeake Bay Region.
The bulk of the total population and
employment growth (about 52 percent
in each category) is expected to take
place in the Study Area portion of the
Washington, D.C. Economic Area. This
area is projected to experience popula-
tion and employment growth rates of
about 143 percent during the
1970-2020 period. The Richmond
subregion and the Wilmington SMSA
are also expected to grow at a faster
rate than the Study Area as a whole
with rates of 113 percent and 123
percent, respectively. On the other
hand, the Baltimore and Norfolk-
Portsmouth subregions are projected
to grow at significantly lower rates
with figures of 85 percent and 45
percent.
Real per capita income in the Study
Area is projected to remain slightly
above the National average through
the projection period. Table 6 presents
projections of population and per
capita income by subregion.
One of the major driving forces behind
the significant increases in population
and income outlined above will be
major increases in manufacturing out-
put. As shown in Table 7, manufactur-
ing output in the Chesapeake Bay
Region is expected to increase by 563
percent. However, the proportion of
total output accounted for by the
heavy water-impacting industries as a
group (i.e., Metals, Petroleum Refin-
ing, Food and Kindred Products,
Chemicals, and Paper and Allied
Products) is expected to decline
slightly from 56.8 percent in 1969 to
54.3 percent in 2020. In addition, the
manufacturing sector is expected to
continue to account for a significantly
lower portion of total employment
and income in the Bay Region than in
the United States.
OBERS SERIES E
Since the initiation of the future
conditions phase of the Chesapeake
Bay Study, another set of baseline
projections derived from more recent
economic and demographic data was
prepared and released by BEA. These
new projections, called the "Series E"
OBERS projections, must be con-
sidered by all Federal agencies engaged
in water resource planning as directed
by the Water Resource Council. The
basic differences between the assump-
tions made in preparing the Series C
and Series E projections are shown in
Table 8 and are discussed in more
detail in Appendix 3 - "Economic
and Social Profile." The Series E
population projection of 14.1 million
people for the total Study Area in the
year 2020 is approximately 13.5
percent less than the Series C estimate
for the same year. The Series E
projections for the Study Area for
1980 and 2000 are also lower than the
Series C projections for the same years
by 4.5 percent and 7.3 percent,
respectively. In addition, the Series E
population projections for almost all
the subregions are lower than the
comparable Series C projections.
Recently released estimates of 1975
population by county prepared by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census allow a
comparison of actual population
trends in the Chesapeake Bay Study
Area with those trends that would be
expected under the Series C and Series
E OBERS projections. The 1975
population estimate for the entire Bay
Region is approximately 370,000 less
than the Series C and 162,000 less
than Series E interpolated estimates.
However, seven of the thirteen Study
Area subregions had 1975 populations
which were greater than either the
Series C or Series E estimates. Much of
Figure 10: Population and Economic Projections for Chesapeake Bay Region
to 2020
Per Capita Income
(In Thousands)
I5.6
13
-------
the discrepancy in the total Bay
Region estimates can be explained by
a significant overestimate by both,
Series C and Series E of population
growth in the Washington, D.C. SMSA.
When population data for the Washing-
ton, D.C. SMSA is subtracted from the
Bay Region totals, the remainder for
the Region falls between the Series C
and Series E estimates.
Based on the preceding analysis, it can
be concluded that the applicability of
estimates of future resource demands
based on OBERS Series C or Series E
baseline projections depends on the
subregion of interest. It should be
emphasized, however, that 1970-75
trends may not be indicative of trends
to be expected during the entire
1970-2020 projection period.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The most fundamental assumption
made in preparing the projections of
future demands on Chesapeake Bay
presented in the Chesapeake Bay
Future Conditions Report is that the
Series C OBERS baseline projections
of population, income, and manufac-
turing activity accurately reflect future
trends in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
TABLE 6
However, in order to evaluate the
impact on the resource of the Series E
baseline projections, a "Sensitivity
Analysis" section of each Appendix
dealing with a resource use activity
was prepared. These sections present
future demands based on Series E
baseline projections which can be com-
pared to the Series C based projections
of future demands. In addition, the
sensitivity of future demands to
changes in other parameters critical to
the projection methodology was also
evaluated. The findings of these analy-
ses are summarized in this volume and
a more detailed discussion is provided
in the appropriate appendices.
SERIES C PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION, PER CAPITA INCOME, AND TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME BY
5 rRUJf*- CHESAPEAKE BAY SUBREGION (IN CONSTANT 1967 DOLLARS)
1980
Baltimore, Md.
Washington, D.C.
Richmond, Va.
Norfolk-Portsmouth,
. Va.
Wilmington, Del.
SMSA
STUDY AREA TOTAL
' All percentage changes are calculated from 1969.
Population
2,463.3
2,985.5
727.5
1,107.6
492.1
7,776.0
Per Capita
Income
J3.579
3,977
3,454
3,046
4,169
$3,682
Population
(% Increase)!
2,877.6
(16.8)
3.695.0
(23.76)
871.8
(19.8)
1.216.0
(9.B)
612.5
(24.7)
9,272.9
(19.3)
Per Capita
Income
(% Increase)
$4,912
(37.3)
5,653
(42.1)
4.828
(39.8)
4,331
(42.2)
5,804
(39.2)
$5,182
(40.7)
Population
(% Increase)
3,714.0
(50.8)
5,314.3
(78.0)
1,180.1
(62.2)
1,429.6
(29.1)
851.4
(73.0)
12,489.4
(60.6)
Pet Capita
Income
(% Increase)
$8,556
(139.0)
9,534
(139.7)
8.290 •
(140.0)
7,615
(150.0)
9,634
(131.0)
S8.913
(142.1)
Population
(% Increase)
4,596.3
(86.6)
7,397.2
(144.4)
1.555.0
(113.7)
1.656.4
(49.6)
1.115.7
(126.7)
16,320.6
(109.9)
Pet Capita
Income
(% Increase)
$14,769
(312.7)
15,612
(292.6)
14,184
(310.7)
13,186
(332.9)
16,142
(287.2)
$15,030
(308.2)
TABLE 7
MANUFACTURING OUTPUT FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION (IN MILLIONS OF 1967 DOLLARS)
BY INDUSTRY, 1969 AND PROJECTED, BASED ON OBERS SERIES C
Lumber and Wood Products
Metals
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Petroleum Refining
Food and Kindred Products
Textiles and Textile Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals
Paper and Allied Products
Other Manufacturing
TOTAL
1969
Output (1)
154.8
977.4
233.0
331.3
815.1
57.3
747.4
229.8
445.2
1,856.4
215.6
719.3
6,782.6
2000
Output Percent Increase (2) Output
433.4 180.0 807.4
2,279.9 133.3 4,095.0
835.8 258.7 1,885.9
1,595.5 381.6 4,092.6
2,534.4 210.9 4,979.7
165.4 188.6 301.2
1,795.1 140.2 3,150.4
657.4 186.0 . 1,230.3
1,428.3 220.8 2,930.8
6,989.8 276.5 15,298.5
712.5 230.5 1,549.7
2,207.7 206.9 4,614.2
21,635.2 219.0 44,935.7
2020
Percent Increase (2)
421.6
319.0
709.4
1,135.3
510.9
425.6
321.5
435.4
558.3
724.1
618.8
541.5
562.5
(1) Output in the form of "gross product originating1
(2) Percent change measured from base year (1969).
1 which is defined as that portion of GNP originating in a specific industry.
14
-------
TABLE 8
A COMPARISON OF OBERS SERIES C AND SERIES E PROJECTIONS
Item
Growth of
Population
Military
Establishment
Hours Worked
Per Year
Product Per
Man-Hour
Earnings Per
Worker
Employed
Population
Series C
Fertility rate of 2,800
children per 1,000 women
Projects a decline to 2.07
million people by 1975
and thereafter a constant.
Hours worked per em-
ployee per year are pro-
jected to decline at 0.25
percent per year.
Projected to increase
3.0 percent per year.
Series E
Gradual decline of fertility rate
fr.om 2,800 to the "replacement
fertility rate" of 2,100 children
per 1,000 women.
Projects a decline to 1.57 million
persons by 1975 and thereafter
a constant (due to smaller military
establishment and the resultant
smaller need for equipment and
supplies a significantly slow rate
of growth in the defense-related
manufacturing industries is antici-
pated).
Hours worked per employee per
year are projected to decline at
0.35 percent per year.
Projected to increase 2.9 percent
. per year.
Earnings per worker in the individual industries at the national level
are projected to converge toward the combined rate for all industries
more slowly in the Series E projections than in the Series C projections.
Projected to increase
from 40 to 41 percent
of the total population.
Projected to be between 43 and
45 percent of the total population
(higher percentages with the E
Series reflects expected higher
participation rates by women).
AGRICULTURE
LANDS 36%
URBAN LANDS 7%
WETLANDS 3%
FOREST LAND 54%
Figure 11: Major Land Use Types - Chesapeake Bay Region
LAND USE
The development of the land in the
Chesapeake Bay Region began when
the first group of Indians wandered
into the Area thousands of years ago
and established a village. Since then,
virtually all of the vast expanse of
virgin forest which existed at the time
and thousands of acres of wetlands
have been cut, drained, or filled by
more recent settlers. The original pur-
pose of this development was to pro-
vide land for the cultivation of to-
bacco and wheat. High tobacco and
wheat prices created an almost
insatiable demand for land. As the
productivity of the soil decreased after
producing several years of crops, the
land was abandoned and new land was
cleared. The abandoned land returned
to woodlands. During the Nineteenth
and Twentiest Centuries, factories, res-
idences, port facilities, commercial
establishments, and other physical
manifestations of an increasingly in-
dustrialized society replaced many of
the agricultural lands and second-
growth woodlands. The following sec-
tions present a discussion of existing
and future land use and related prob-
lems, as well as some alternative means
of satisfying the identified needs.
EXISTING LAND USE
For the purposes of this analysis,
existing land use information for the
Chesapeake Bay area was developed
using remote sensing data obtained
from high altitude aerial photography
taken in 1970. These data were
supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and are part of the Central
Atlantic Regional Ecological Test Site
(CARETS) project. Hates 4-1,4-2, and
4-3 in Appendix 4, "Water-Related
Land Resources" show the type and
general distribution of the major land
use activities in the area covered by
the CARETS project (about 95 per-
cent of the "Bay Region"). Based on
the CARETS data, estimates of land
use in the Chesapeake Bay Region
were developed. These are presented in
Figure 11.
a. Urban Land: About 43 percent
of the Bay Region is considered to be
developed (i.e., urban plus agricultural
lands). Of the 43 percent developed,
83 percent is in agricultural uses and
only 17 percent is considered urban.
Urban land uses are concentrated
around the principal urban centers
located near the head of tide on the
major tributaries of the Western Shore.
Many smaller urban centers are found
scattered throughout the Study Area,
some serving as small ports, retail and
wholesale trade centers, or political
centers such as State capitals or
county seats. Industrial, institutional,
and military reservations (of which the
Bay Region has many) are also
included as urban lands. Industrial
activities include a variety of uses
ranging from those involving the
design, assembly, finishing, and pack-
aging of light products to heavy
manufacturing activities such as steel,
pulp, or lumber milling, electric power
generating, oil refining, and chemical
processing. Most frequently, industries
are found in or adjacent to urban areas
where good transportation facilities
and ample manpower are available.
b. Agricultural Land: Land used
for the production of farm com-
modities comprises over one-third of
the Chesapeake Bay Region's land
area. As such, it constitutes the second
15
-------
largest land use type in the Study Area,
second only to forest lands. The major
physical factors governing the use of
land for agricultural purposes include
rainfall, growing season, soil, drainage,
temperature, evaporation, and the
amount of sunshine. Other factors
such as proximity to markets, tax
laws, land tenure arrangements, and
farming practices also influence the
intensity and type of agriculture. The
major agricultural areas in the Bay
Region are located on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland, Virginia and Dela-
ware, in the rural portions of the
Baltimore SMSA, in the northwestern
portion of the Washington SMSA, and
around Virginia Beach, Virginia.
c. Forestlands: Forestlands occupy
more area in the Bay Region than any
other land use type, approximately 54
percent. Since it was not possible to
distinguish between public and private
forestlands on the remote sensing data,
both are included in Figure 11. The
Virginia portion of the Study Area
accounts for almost two-thirds of the
total forest land. The Southern Mary-
land area also has a high proportion of
woodlands.
d. Wetlands: The wetlands of the
Bay Region, although accounting for
only 3 percent of the total land area,
are of crucial importance to the
ecosystem of the Bay. Wetlands.con-
sist of seasonally flooded basins and
flats, meadows, marshes, and bogs.
Each of the States in the Bay Area has
legally defined its wetlands. Maryland
defines its wetlands as all land under
the navigable waters of the State
below the mean high tide which is
affected by the regular rise and fall of
the tide. Virginia wetlands are defined
as all that land lying between mean
low water and an elevation above
mean low water equal to the factor 1.5
times the tide range. Delaware defines
its wetlands as those lands above the
mean low water elevation including
any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat
or other land subject to tidal action
and including those areas connected to
tidal waters whose surface is at or
below an elevation of two feet above
local mean high tide.
All of the counties of the Bay Region
have some wetland areas of varying
types and sizes, although it should be
16
emphasized that not all wetland types
are equally valuable to the ecosystem.
The ecological value of a particular
wetland area depends on such factors
as the type of dominant plant, flushing
action in the area which affects the
availability of nutrients to the aquatic
community, and the intensity of use
of the wetland as habitat. The major
concentration of wetland areas in the
Chesapeake Bay system is found along
the lower Eastern Shore.
e. Archaeological, Historic, and
Natural Areas of Significance: The
primary prehistoric archaeological re-
sources within the Study Area are
associated with Indian artifacts. The
numerous Indian tribes which inhab-
ited what is now Maryland, Virginia,
and Delaware left much evidence of
their existence in the form of clay
pottery and stone artifacts. Thousands
of archaeological sites have been
recorded in the Region but due to
monetary and manpower limitations,
it is believed that only a fraction of
the archaeological resources have been
discovered. Almost the entire shoreline
of the Bay and its tributaries are
thought to be potential archaeological
sites. Plates 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 in
Appendix 4, "Water-Related Land
Resources," show the existing and
potential archaeological sites in the
Chesapeake Bay Region.
The large number of historic sites in
the Bay Region provides proof of the
Region's historic significance and its
fundamental role in the development
of the Nation. Many of the sites relate
to the earliest colonial settlements, the
winning of National independence, the
founding of the Union, the Civil War
struggle, and the lives of National
leaders. Within the Study Area are
found such historically important
items as the U.S. Frigate Constellation,
the nation's oldest warship; the
Annapolis Historic District, an early
colonial port and capital of the U.S.
during a short period in 1783-1784;
Stratford Hall, home of Robert E. Lee,
Commander of the Confederate
Armies; Mt. Vernon, home of the first
President of the United States; numer-
ous battlefield sites commemorating
some of the most important Civil War
and Revolutionary War battles; the
Jamestown National Historic Site, first
permanent English colony in North
America; Williamsburg Historic Dis-
trict, capital of the Virginia Colony
during much of the eighteenth century
and an important social and cultural
center of the English colonies during
that period; arid numerous historic and
commemorative sites in the Washing-
ton, D.C. area. Appendix 4, Attach-
ment A, lists nearly 800 properties
within the Bay Area included on the
National Register of Historic Places.
There are certain other areas of the
Bay Region which are of special
importance for their ecological or
natural significance. Many of these
have been identified, and in many
cases are being protected. Included in
these types of areas are: especially
important wetlands or other floral
habitats, faunal habitats (especially for
threatened or endangered species), and
naturally scenic areas. At present,
there are twenty properties within the
Study Area designated as National
refuges or related properties (such as
the Patuxent National Wildlife Re-
search Center). The primary purpose
of these refuges is to protect wildlife
including certain endangered and
threatened species. Biological research
is conducted at a number of these
facilities while limited hunting is
offered at some. Within the Study
Area, there are also 68 State fish and
wildlife management areas and related
properties including game farms, sanc-
tuaries, and preserves. Plates 4-16,
4-17, and 4-18 of Appendix 4 show
the Federal and State conservation and
management areas in the Chesapeake
Bay Region.
The Center for Natural Areas, Ecology
Program, Smithsonian Institution, has
also shown concern for the Bay's
significant ecological and natural areas.
In 1974, this group prepared a report
entitled "Natural Areas of the Chesa-
peake Bay Region: Ecological Priori-
ties," which surveys the endangered
flora and fauna of the Bay Region and
the areas, of significant ecological
importance.
Maryland and Virginia have initiated
programs to identify and designate
certain rivers within their boundaries
as scenic rivers. The Virginia Commis-
sion of Outdoor Recreation was direc-
ted by the General Assembly to study
the Commonwealth's rivers for the
-------
purpose of designating those which
should be protected to provide for the
enjoyment of present and future
generations. As a result of this survey,
the Commission recommended estab-
lishment of a state scenic river system
in 1970. Local and State land use
controls are to be imposed along with
numerous other standards to guarantee
the protection of those rivers desig-
nated as scenic. The Maryland Legisla-
ture also recognized that certain rivers
within the State plus their adjacent
land areas possess outstanding scenic,
fish, wildlife, and other recreational
values. The State adopted a policy
which protects the water quality of
those rivers and fulfills vital conserva-
tion purposes by promoting the wise
use of land resources within the scenic
river system. Use is limited to "horse-
back riding, natural and geological
interpretation, scenic appreciation,
and other programs through which the
general public can appreciate and
enjoy the value of these areas as scenic
and wild rivers in a setting of natural
solitude." Table 4-28 of Appendix 4
lists the designated scenic and poten-
tial scenic rivers of the Chesapeake
Bay Region.
FUTURE LAND USE
The expected future distribution of
land uses in the Bay Region was
developed from the relevant county,
municipal, and regional comprehensive
land and water use plans. Plates 44,
4-5, and 4-6 in Appendix 4 present
this information based on a consistent
land use classification system. Numeri-
cal estimates of future acreages for
urban, agricultural, and forest lands
are presented in the following sections.
a. Urban: The portion of-land in
residential uses in the urban areas can
be expected to increase at roughly the
same rate as population growth if the
assumption is made that population
densities will remain at about the same
level over the projection period. This
means that the demand for residential
lands will increase by approximately
18 percent by 1980, 59 percent by the
year 2000, and about 107 percent by
2020.
As discussed in Chapter II, manufac-
turing output in the Chesapeake Bay
Region is projected to increase at a
rate of approximately 560 percent
between 1969 and 2020. It is not
valid, however, to assume that land
needed for industrial purposes will also
increase by this percentage since
output per worker and per unit of land
will probably increase during this
period. If the assumption is made that
the productivity of land increases at
about the same rate as the produc-
tivity of workers, about 3.0 percent
annually, then the land needed for
industrial purposes can be expected to
increase by 28 percent over the 1969
acreage by 2000, and by 50 percent by
2020.
b. Agricultural: The projections of
land in crops and miscellaneous farm
uses (woodland on farms is included in
the "Forests" category) in the Chesa-
peake Bay Region were derived from
OBERS projections of these land use
categories by State. Appendix 4 de-
scribes in greater detail the method-
ology used in determining projections
of agricultural land use. The amount
of acreage in cropland and miscellane-
ous farmland is projected to show a
steady decline during the projection
period as shown in Table 9.
c. Forests: Projections of private
commercial forest lands were also
disaggregated from OBERS projections
by State. As indicated in Table 10, the
projected acreage of private commer-
cial forest land within the Study Area
is expected to decline steadily over the
projection period. It should be noted
that public forest lands are not
included in these figures.
d. Wetlands: Although no projec-
tions were prepared of future wetland
acreages, it can be stated with a.high
degree of confidence that the demand
for shoreline lands for such uses as
marinas, vacation homes, or port
facilities will increase in the future.
However, more stringent Federal and
State restrictions on the development
or degradation of wetland areas along
with a growing awareness of the
ecological and economic importance
of wetlands are likely to at least slow
down the historic rate of wetlands
destruction in the Chesapeake Bay
Region. An Executive Order signed by
President Carter in 1977 sets more
stringent guidelines governing Federal
activities in wetland areas.
PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS
As shown in the previous section, the
expected increases in the demand for
residential and industrial land in the
TABLE 9
PROJECTED CROPLAND AND MISCELLANEOUS
FARMLAND* FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
(THOUSANDS OF ACRES)
State
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
TOTAL CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
1980
544
1,614
1,481
3,639
2000
519
1,493
1,305
3,317
2020
493
1,362
1,147
3,002
* Miscellaneous farmland includes pasture, range, lands occupied by buildings, roads,
ditches, ponds, and wastelands.
TABLE 10
PROJECTED ACRES OF PRIVATE COMMERCIAL
FOREST LAND FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
TOTAL:
1980
365,560
1,983,456
4,533,673
6,882,689
2000
355,940
1,935,296
4,222,717
6,513,953
2020
346,320
1,860,654
3,900,972
6,107,946
17
-------
Chesapeake Bay Region is approxi-
mately offset by decreases in agricul-
tural and forest use (each projected
separately). The locations in which
these land use changes will occur,
however, has not been clearly defined.
The conflict, then, is not one of
enough land for development, but it is
where the development should take
place. Often the best agricultural lands
or the most productive forests are also
desirable for urban development. With-
out "proper planning, other areas of
special ecological, historical, or archae-
ological significance will continue to
be destroyed in the wake of "urban
sprawl."
SENSITIVITY ANAL YSIS
Comparison of future land use de-
mands computed using OBERS Series
C projections, with those computed
using Series E, yields no significant
differences except in the demand for
residential land. Residential land re-
quirements obtained through Series E
population projections were approxi-
mately 5 percent less than the Series C
based projections for 1980, 7 percent
less for 2000, and about 13 percent
less in 2020. Due to a lack of data, it
was not possible to develop Series E
based projections of industrial land
demands.
MEANS TO SATISFY THE NEEDS
There are numerous measures available
to provide for the orderly develop-
ment and proper use of the water-
related land resources of the Chesa-
peake Bay Region. The following
section presents a general discussion of
these measures. A more thorough
analysis is available in Appendix 4.
a. Local Land Use Controls: Zon-
ing of geographical areas can be used
to guide future land use decisions so as
to encourage those which complement
each other and preclude those which
conflict. It has been used effectively to
segregate residential uses from com-
mercial and industrial uses, for exam-
ple, as well as to preserve recreational
areas, parks, conservation areas, and
natural resources of special signifi-
cance, and to control the development
of flood-prone areas.
Subdivision regulations can be used to
preserve open or agricultural lands by
restricting land use to low-density,
multiple-acre uses. Tax policies have
also proven useful in controlling land
use development. Through preferential
tax treatment, or public land acquisi-
tion policies, the preservation and
development of agricultural lands,
open space areas, and conservation
zones can be encouraged.
A few local governments within the
Study Area have attempted to curb
development and thereby control land
use within their jurisdiction through
"sewer moratoriums." Such measures
prohibit the construction of new sewer
systems or the extension of existing
systems. Some of these same counties
and towns have effectively used the
provision of water and sewer services
to guide growth to areas that have
been planned for development. Such
measures represent a primary means
for a region to plan growth in accord
with its public service and environ-
mental capabilities.
b. State Land Use Controls: Al-
though the final decisions for land use
proceedings remain the discretion of
the local authorities, the various States
in the Study Area have recognized, to
varying degrees, that local subdivisions
often do not have adequate juris-
diction or, if the land use issue has
more than a local impact, proper
authority to provide desirable manage-
ment of resources. The States have the
legislative authority to intervene in
such circumstances. The wetland laws
of Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware
are a good example of this type of
authority. These laws seek to preserve
the wetlands and to prevent their
degradation taking ecological, eco-
nomic, developmental, recreational,
and aesthetic values into account.
c. Federal Land Use Controls: One
of the most important Federal land
resource management programs is the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Coastal Zone Man-
agement Program (CZMP). Through
this program, the Federal Government
assists the States in developing a plan
for the management of land and water
areas in the coastal zone. State
programs seek to achieve wise use of
land and water resources of the coastal
zone and must give full consideration
to ecological, cultural, historic, recrea-
tional, and esthetic values as well as
needs for economic development. The
Federal CZMP provides grants to the
coastal states and territories to support
two-thirds of the cost of developing a
state program, four-fifths of the cost
of administering the program, and
one-half of the cost of acquiring,
developing, and operating estuarine
sanctuaries for research and educa-
tional purposes.
There are certain other Federal pro-
grams or items of legislation which
either directly or indirectly address the
control of land use. Examples include
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1970, the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899 (which makes it illegal to
allow any refuse to be introduced into
a navigable waterway), and the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972.
Future Federal legislation may very
well be aimed at establishing a nation-
wide land use planning and policy
process. Since 1970, various land use
control bills have been introduced in
Congress but none have, as yet, been
passed by both Houses. Although each
bill has been different from the others,
all would have established some form
of National land use policy. Each bill
has been quite controversial and has
met with great public opposition. If
this opposition is alleviated, it is
possible that some form of National
land use policy will be adopted.
18
-------
SECTION II
Wafer
Resource
Problems and
Needs
As population, industrial output, in-
comes, and leisure time in the Chesa-
peake Bay Region increase in the
future, the demands on the Area's
water and related land resources will,
most certainly, also increase. The
following sections of this chapter
present a discussion of the current
status and problems, as well as pro-
jected future demands, supplies, and
needs for the following Chesapeake
Bay water and related land resource
use categories.
1. Water Supply
2. Water Quality
3. Outdoor Recreation
WATER SUPPLY
CURRENT STATUS
The . vast quantities of surface and
ground water available in the Chesa-
peake Bay watershed are a primary
source of water supply for numerous
communities and industries. As shown
on Figure 12, more than 1,460 million
gallons of water per day (mgd) are
used by citites, industries, rural
areas, and farmers in feeding
livestock and poultry and in
irrigating. Many millions of gallons
more water are used in generating
electrical power.
Of this 2,460 mgd, approximately 900
mgd is brackish water used in indus-
trial processes, 122 mgd is reused
municipal wastewater, and the re-
mainder is freshwater from ground and
surface sources. Industrial and munic-
ipal systems accounted for over 96
percent of total water use.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Of the Bay Area's 7.9 million resi-
dents, approximately 6.5 million, or
82 percent, are served by public water
supply systems. These systems range in
size from those serving as few as 20
persons in small developments to large
municipal systems serving commercial,
institutional and industrial establish-
ments and millions of individuals.
Municipal water uses encompass a
variety of needs which may be gene-
rally classified as domestic, commer-
cial, industrial, institutional, and
public. Domestic uses include those of
the household, e.g., food preparation,
washing, lawn watering, and sanita-
tion. Uses within the commercial
category include restaurants, hotels,
laundries, and car washes; while hos-
pitals and schools are classified as
institutional. Public uses include fire
protection, street cleaning, and water
use in government buildings and insti-
tutions. Manufacturing industries use
water for processing, boiler feed,
cooling, and sanitary purposes. De-
pending on the extent and composi-
tion of a city's industrial component
and the tendency for local industry to
pay for and use public water, a
municipal system's industrial water use
component may vary radically. There
are public water supply systems in the
Bay Area that supply no water to
industry and others that support an
industrial component that may exceed
50 percent of the total use.
Table 11 shows the population served
and the average water use in each of
the 49 WSA's in the Chesapeake Bay
Area. Water use rates vary widely
between the subregions, ranging from
about 100 gallons per/capita per day
(gpcd) to nearly 190 gpcd. For the
entire Bay Region, water use averaged
139 gpcd in 1970. The importance of
the metropolitan areas is evidenced by
the fact that the Baltimore and
Washington SMSA's account for 74
percent of the population and 77
percent of the total water used among
the Region's WSA's. More detailed
data for each community is presented
in Table 5-1 of Appendix 5.
Use rates exceeding 150 gpcd occur in
a number of cities: Cambridge, Cris-
field, Salisbury, Leonardtown, Sea-
ford, Baltimore, Washington, Hope-
well, and Williamsburg. These high use
rates can be attributed to several
factors, not always consistent from
system to system. For example, Hope-
well's astonishing 689 gpcd is due to
an estimated 22 mgd supplied to
several large industries. Significant
industrial uses also contribute to the
high rates at Cambridge, Salisbury, and
Baltimore, while institutional, military
demands and tourism contribute to
the higher than normal use at Williams-
burg, Virginia. The extensive govern-
ment activity and array of public
facilities in Washington, D.C., cause
use rates in the Washington area to be
MUNICIPAL
868 mgd 35.2%
RURAL DOMESTIC
63 mgd 2.5%
.LIVESTOCK & POULTRY
15 mgd 0.6%
IRRIGATION
22 mgd 0.9%
INDUSTRIAL
FRESH
603 mgd 24.4%
INDUSTRIAL BRACKISH
900 mgd 30.4%
Figure 12: Average Water Use in the Chesapeake Bay Region by Type
19
-------
among the highest in the Bay Area.
Another component of water use in
most systems is leakage. In Crisfield,
Maryland, for example, losses due to
leakage constitute an unusually high
25 percent of the overall use. Most of
the public systems have use rates that
would be expected from an average
amount of residential use and mix of
other uses (approximately 80 to 150
gpcd).
In addition to the Water Service Areas
(i.e., those systems defined previously
as serving a population of 2,500 or
greater), a large number of smaller
public systems exist in the Bay Area.
Slightly less than one-half million
people are served by these small
systems. In 1970, they provided
approximately 37 mgd or about 4
percent of the total water use by
centrally-supplied systems. A large
portion of this demand occurred in the
suburban counties adjacent to areas
served by the larger systems.
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
Industrial (i.e., manufacturing) water
use in 1970 was inventoried by the
Bureau of Domestic Commerce (BDC),
U.S. Department of Commerce. The
results of this inventory are presented
in Table 12. The term gross use (G)
includes all water actually used in a
particular process, including that quan-
tity recirculated. Intake (I) represents
the actual withdrawal from the water
body plus purchases. The consumption
category (C) includes all water lost to
evaporation and water incorporated
into final products. Discharge (D) is
merely the difference between intake
and consumption (I-C). The final
column lists the percent of the gross
use that is recycled water [(G-I)/G]. As
shown in Table 12, industries in the
Baltimore SMSA, the Richmond and
Petersburg SMSA's and the non-SMSA
portion of the Norfolk-Portsmouth
Economic Area (Subregion 22-3) ac-
count for approximately 86 percent of
gross water use and about 82 percent
of the total intake of water in the Bay
Region. In addition, 99 percent of the
total water intake of 1,615 mgd was
used by only 3 percent of the
approximately 5,800 manufacturing
establishments in the Bay Region.
In addition to the concentration of
water use among a relatively small
number of plants, there is also a
concentration of water use within
particular types of industries. In the
Chesapeake Bay Region, 82 percent of
the gross water use is accounted for by
three groups of industries: paper and
allied products, chemicals and allied
products, and primary metals (see
Table 13).
In many industrial processes, signi-
ficant decreases in water supply with-
drawals could be realized if the
recycling of wastewater was more
TABLE 11
MUNICIPAL WATER USE IN 1970 BY CHESAPEAKE BAY SUBREGION
Subregion
17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA
17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore*
17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore
17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA**
18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA
18-2 Southern Maryland
18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
21-1 Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA's
21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA
22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA
22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
BAY REGION TOTAL
Population Served
Average
Use, Mgd
Per capita
Use, GPCD
1,673,820 260.3 156
73,270 13.8 188
NO LARGE SYSTEMS
5,540 0.8 153
2,726,500 382.2 140
22,500 2.2 97
19,530 2.6 133
501,690
2,600
263,260
633,640
37,210
5,959,560
74.6
0.3
27.3
66.2
4.6
831.2
149
100
104
104
123
139
* Includes Cecil County, Maryland.
** Includes Sussex County, Delaware, only.
widely used. The tendency of an
industry to recirculate water, however,
usually depends ultimately on eco-
nomics. Water will be reused in a
particular situation if the costs of
recovery and recirculation are less than
costs associated with the development
of additional sources. In locations
where water of acceptable quality is
scarce or where the cost of treating
wastewater is high, recirculation may
be attractive. Conversely, in areas with
plentiful supplies of high quality water
or where wastewater treatment costs
are low reuse is usually uneconomical.
A measure of the degree to which
recirculation technology is utilized in
each subregion is shown in the final
column of Table 12, and for each
major type of industry in Table 13. In
the Bay Region the best recycling
efficiency occurs in the paper industry
in which 88.7 percent of the gross
water used is recycled. In other words,
nearly nine times as much water would
be needed from the river, or other
source, if recirculation was not prac-
ticed—645 vs. 73 mgd. The petroleum
industry recycles least, primarily due
to the once-through use of brackish
water for cooling. However, National
figures for the petroleum industry
indicate recirculation rates at least
10-fold that in Chesapeake Bay.
The importance of brackish water in
the Chesapeake Bay Area as a source
of industrial water supply is evident
from the information in Table 14. The
total quantity of brackish water used
was 899 mgd or 56 percent of all
withdrawals by Bay Region manu-
facturers in 1970. Approximately 37
percent of industrial withdrawals was
freshwater from ground or surface
sources and the remainder was reused
municipal wastewater.
RURAL DOMESTIC
Rural domestic water supplies are
required to serve the needs of persons
that live in rural locations and that are
not served by central water supply
systems. Of the almost 1.4 million
who lived in rural areas in 1970, about
7 percent resided on farms. The
non-farm component of the popula-
tion includes persons that reside in the
suburbs of the major metropolitan
areas such as Baltimore, Washington,
D.C., and Richmond. In fact, perhaps
20
-------
surprisingly, the two major areas in
terms of rural domestic water use are,
the Baltimore and Washington
SMSA's, comprising 40 percent of the
total rural domestic use in 1970.
The total water use for rural domestic
purposes amounted to approximately
63.1 mgd in 1970. This has been rising
rapidly since 1950 due to an increasing
percentage of homes being served by
in-house plumbing and running water.
Homes with running water character-
istically use 5 to 6 times the amount
used in a home without these same
conveniences. In 1970, approximately
80 percent of the rural domestic
population resided in homes equipped
with running water and these persons
consumed about 95 percent of the
total rural domestic supply. The rural
domestic water demand comprises less
than 3 percent of all water use in the
Chesapeake Bay Region.
LIVESTOCK AND POULTR Y
Water supply for livestock and poultry
is required for two purposes—one, to
sustain the resident farm animals and
two, to produce livestock and poultry
products for the market place. The
livestock category includes animals
such as beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep,
hogs, and horses.
chickens that are
market or egg
turkeys.
In the Chesapeake Bay Region, live-
stock and poultry water consumption
amounted to 14.7 mgd in 1967, or less
than 1 percent of all uses Bay-wide.
Poultry includes
raised either for
production, and
Easily the largest component of live-
stock and poultry water use was cattle
and milk cows, which, despite an
overall decline in the number of
animals during the previous 20 years,
used 55 percent of all water used by
poultry and livestock in 1969. During
this same period water consumption
per animal has more than doubled due
to the increased stringency of sanita-
tion codes and increased milk produc-
tion per milk cow.
Water use has increased in other
categories as well. Broiler chickens,
which have increased in numbers since
1950 by 160 percent, utilized 28
percent of the poultry and livestock
water supply in 1969. Hogs and pigs
accounted for an additional 9 percent.
Declines since 1950 in absolute
numbers as well as water use have
Subiegion
17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA
17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore
17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore
17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA
18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA
18-2 Southern Maryland
18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
21-1 Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA's
21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA
22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA
22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
TOTAL BAY REGION:
TABLE 12
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE IN THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY REGION, 1970, mgd
Gross Use (G)
1,226.1
35.5
2.6
82.7
5.4
0.8
32.9
400.5
52.4
114.9
32.3
621.8
Intake (I)
990.7
34.8
2.3
65.6
4.7
0.8
27.4
286.8
26.5
100.2
25.3
50.4
Consumption (C)
43.7
0.9
0.2
1.9
0.2
0.1
1.8
14.0
5.0
0.7
1.3
4.8
2,607.9
1,615.5
74.6
Discharge (D)
947.0
33.9
2.1
63;7
4.5
0.7
25.6
272.8
21.5
99.5
24.0
45.6
1,540.9
Percent
Recycled*
19.2
1.9
11.5
20.7
13.0
0.0
16.7
28.4
49.4
12.8
21.7
91.9
38.1
"Calculated by
G-I
TABLE 13
WATER USE IN MANUFACTURING, BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR,
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, mgd, 1970
Sector
Food & Kindred Products
Paper & Allied Products
Chemicals
Petroleum
Primary Metals
Other Manufacturing
TOTAL
Gross Use
79.7
644.8
402.5
81.6
1,094.6
304.7
2,607.9
Intake
Consumption
5.6
7.6
14.5
0.7
35.1
11.1
74.6
Discharge
68.7
65.2
313.6
75.6
879.2
165.0
1,535.3
Percent
Recycled
6.8
88.7
18.5
6.5
19.4
40.0
38.1
21
-------
occurred only for sheep and horses.
Most of the livestock and poultry
water use is concentrated on the
Delmarva Peninsula and in portions of
the Baltimore and Washington
SMSA's. Poultry water use predomi-
nates on the Eastern Shore, while
dairy cow production is a significant
source of water demand around the
SMSA's. In the southern Virginia
portion of the Study Area, hogs and
pigs are an important source of water
demand in the livestock and poultry
water use category.
IRRIGATION
The amount of water used for irriga-
tion purposes varies greatly from year
to year, depending on climatological
conditions and crop patterns. Because
of the generally moderate levels of
precipitation (i.e., about 40 inches per
year), the demand for irrigated land in
the Study Area is not nearly as great as
in the Southwestern or Great Plains
areas of the United States. In 1969,
irrigation water use amounted to 8
billion gallons in the Study Area, an
increase of 18 percent over the 1964
figure. Only about 2.0 percent of the
total land in crops in the Chesapeake
Bay Region was irrigated in 1969. The
use of water for irrigation purposes is
concentrated on the Delmarva Penin-
sula. This area accounts for about 79
percent of the total irrigated water use
in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
The major irrigated crops, in terms of
acreages, were field corn (6 percent),
other field crops (30 percent), vege-
tables (52 percent), and nursery and
other crops (8 percent). According to
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
U.S. Department of Agriculture, over
two million acres of farm land in the
Study Area are potentially irrigable
although about two-thirds would re-
quire additional treatment measures
such as land leveling or drainage.
EXISTING PROBLEMS AND
CONFLICTS
Provision of water for the people,
industries, and farms of the Bay Area
is not accomplished without the water
supplier encountering certain prob-
lems. Growing affluence and economic
development with the accompanying
increased demands for water have
required municipal water authorities
to expand treatment and distribution
facilities and to search for new
sources. In some urban areas that are
located on or near the tidewater
portions of the Bay, such as Baltimore,
Newport News, Norfolk, and Ports-
mouth, nearby sources of freshwater
have long since been developed. In-
creased competition for new sources at
longer distances from the urban cen-
ters is thus occurring and the eco-
nomic, institutional, and engineering
problems associated with these large-
scale projects are substantial. For
example, Norfolk obtains a portion of
its present supply from a source
located 50 miles from the urban
center.
Seasonal variations in flow, and
longer-term cyclical trends in climate
and hydrology, can cause problems for
systems dependent for their supply on
surface water. In addition, the periods
.of highest demand for water often
coincide with the lowest river flows,
thus complicating the situation fur-
ther. This is exemplified in Wash-
ington, D.C., where supplies are ob-
tained primarily from the Potomac
River. The low flow of record, which
occurred in 1966, would not be
sufficient to meet today's maximum
demands.
Degradation of sources is another
major problem facing water users in
the Chesapeake Bay Region. Surface
waters, both reservoirs and free-
flowing streams, are especially sus-
ceptible to pollution from municipal
and industrial waste discharges, agri-
cultural activity, and other upstream
sources. Water users that depend on
groundwater as a source of supply are
also susceptible to contamination.
Seepage from septic systems and
landfills are notable sources of pollu-
tion in groundwater supplies, and
saltwater intrusion is another problem
affecting some areas around the Bay.
Conflicts also arise in attempts to
develop new water supply sources.
On-stream reservoirs and pumped stor-
age reservoirs are solutions to require-
ments for surface water development,
but increased competition for land and
other economic, social, institutional,
technical, and environmental problems
must also be considered in the plan-
TABLE 14
INDUSTRIAL WATER WITHDRAWALS, BY SOURCE, MGD
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, 1970
17-1
17-2
17-3
17-4
18-1
18-2
18-3
21-1
21-2
22-1
22-2
22-3
Subregion
Baltimore, SMSA
Maryland Eastern Shore
Virginia Eastern Shore
Non-SMSA, Delaware
Washington SMSA
Southern Maryland
Non-SMSA, Virginia
Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA
Non-SMSA, Virginia
Newport News-Hampton SMSA
Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
Non-SMSA, Virginia
Public
70.0
3.0
0.3
2.7
3.3
0.1
0.2
22.3
0.2
4.6
5.6
0.6
Self-Supplied
Ground
14.4
30.0
1.9
14.9
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.3
16.0
5.0
3.8
44.9
Surface
2.9
1.1
0.0
48.0
1.3
0.0
27.1
264.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
4.8
Brackish
781.2
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
90.6
15.9
0.0
Other
122.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
990.7
34.8
2.3
65.6
4.7
0.8
27.4
286.8
26.6
100.2
25.3
50.3
Total
Fresh
87.3
34.1
2.2
65.6
4.7
0.8
27.4
286.8
16.3
9.6
9.4
50.3
Percent
Fresh
7.8
97.9
95.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
61.3
9.6
37.1
100.0
TOTAL BAY AREA
112.7
132.1
349.5
898.8
122.2 1,615.5 594.5
36.8
22
-------
ning effort. Also, there is concern at
several levels of society regarding
proposals for large scale water diver-
sions to serve the major water-short
areas. Diversion of water from one
watershed to another causes direct
reduction of streamflow by the
amount withdrawn, and may generate
problems in the depleted reaches of
the river. The ecological value of a
waterway, for example, may be jeop-
ardized by flow reduction, especially
during periods of unusually low flows.
States rights to river flows and the
rights of individuals to flows that are
undiminished in terms of quality and
quantity (under the Doctrine of
Riparian Rights) are other difficulties
that complicate any type of large-scale
water supply development.
FUTURE
DEMANDS
MUNICIPAL
The following sections present projec-
tions of average daily water use to the
year 2020 for central water systems,
self-supplied industries, rural domestic
populations, livestock and poultry,
and irrigation.
Demands for water supplied through
central systems has been projected to
increase by approximately 170 percent
Bay-wide by 2020 (see Table 15).
Included in the tabulation are all
central public systems, whether large
or small, and the sum of demands for
all uses, including domestic, industrial,
commercial, and public. Projections
were based on expected future per
capita use rates and estimates of
population served. A complete presen-
tation of all demands on public water
systems is presented in Appendix 5,
along with all assumptions and
methodology used to make the
projections.
As shown in Table 15, the Baltimore
and Washington SMSA's are expected
to continue to account for the largest
share- of the demand for centrally
supplied water comprising 75 percent
of the total demand in both 2000 and
2020. While the Washington SMSA is
expected to experience the largest
absolute increase in demand (nearly
800 mgd between 1970 and 2020), the
water use in the Southern Maryland
area is projected to increase about 700
percent, the largest percentage increase
in the Bay Area. Demand is projected
to at least double in all of the
subregions by the year 2020. Demands
in the Bay Area as a whole are
expected to increase about 166 per-
cent.
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
A major consideration in the projec-
tion of industrial water supply de-
mands is the impact that Federal water
quality goals will have on industrial
water use habits. The 1972 Amend-
ments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (P.L. 92-500), require
application of "best practicable" treat-
ment technology by 1978, and of
"best available" technology by 1983
(without further defining the quoted
terms). In addition, the Act advocates
that a goal of "zero discharge" of
pollutants be sought. As industries
begin to comply with this directive,
and higher levels of waste treatment are
achieved, the recycling of wastewater
will probably become more economic-
ally competitive and consequently
more attractive.
Thus, projections of recycling rates for
the major water using industries in the
Bay Area constituted a major task in
the projection process. Recycling rates
were derived for three cases which
reflect various levels of technology
implementation:
a) advanced technology-attainment
of maximum theoretically possible
recycling rates by the year 2000,
b) constant technology-
maintenance of the rate of recycling at
1970 levels for all industries,
c) moderate technology—increase
in recycling rates at levels intermediate
to either a) or b) above, based on a
straight line continuation of projec-
tions through 1980.
Industrial water use projections as
determined under the assumptions of
moderate technology [case (c) above]
are shown in Table 16. Figure 14
shows the percent changes that occur
over the study period in the gross
water demand, intake, consumption,
discharge, and recycling rate. Rapidly
increasing recycling ratios, which in-
17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA,
17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore
17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore
17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA
18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA
18-2 Southern Maryland
18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
21-1 Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA's
21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA
22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA
22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
TOTAL
TABLE 15
PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY DEMAND
ON CENTRAL SYSTEMS (MGD)
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
1970
268.4
18.6
0.8
1.9
390.1
4.2
3.7
79.8
2.8
27.8
66.9
6.8
871.8
1980
326.1
23.8
1.0
2.8
497.5
6.7
5.1
95.2
4.0
37.5
80.7
10.7
1,091.1
2000
1,591.0
2020
561.0
50.2
2.2
8.4
1,175.4
33.7
16.8
222.5
10.4
68.5
147.3
26.6
2,323.0
% Increase
Over
Study Period
109
170
175
342
201
702
354
179
271
146
120
291
166
23
-------
(Percent Increase Over 1970)
11980
ooo
Figure 14: Projected Increase in Manufacturing Water Use, Chesapeake Bay Region
crease from 1.61 in 1970 to 9.48 (a
489 percent increase) by 2020 cause
the 13 percent reduction in intake by
2000. By the year 2020, however, due
to the reduced influence of increases
in recirculation rates, intakes show a
net 13 percent increase over the study
period.
Also of interest on Table 16 and
Figure 14 are expected trends in indus-
trial water consumption and industrial
discharges. Industrial water consump-
tion (water lost from the process or
incorporated into end products), for
example, is shown to increase approxi-
mately 580 mgd, or about 775 percent
between 1970 and 2020. This is due to
the increase in recycling and the over-
all increase in manufacturing produc-
tion. Increased consumption is also at
least partially due to the expected
increase in evaporative losses accom-
panying recirculation of water used for
cooling purposes. Finally, discharges
of industrial wastes are shown to
actually decrease by approximately 24
percent over the projection period due
to the increases in consumption and
recycling rates. A full and complete
presentation of the methodology used
and the resultant projections of water
requirements by industry is provided
in Appendix 5.
RURAL DOMESTIC WATER USE
Total rural domestic water use for the
Chesapeake Bay Region is presented in
Table 17. A moderate increase of
about 67 percent (40 mgd) is fore-
casted over the 50-year study period.
The relative insignificance of this fig-
ure is evident in comparison with the
1,450 mgd increase in the amount
expected to be supplied by central
systems.
Increases in water use are expected in
all subregions except Southern Mary-
land and the Newport News -
Hampton SMSA. This reflects the facts
TABLE 16
PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WATER USE
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, (mgd)
Year
1970
1975
1980
1990
2000
2020
Gioss
Water
Demand
2,607.9
3,512.5
4,408.2
6,001.6
8,591.5
17,290.2
Intake
1,615.5
1,823.9
1,581.4
1,344.1
1,397.8
1,822.9
Consumption
74.6
112.5
157.5
246.4
341.3
652.4
Discharge
1,541.3
1,711.4
1,423.9
1,097.7
1,056.5
1,170.5
Recycling
Rate
1.61
1.93
2.79
4.47
6.15
9.48
that total farm population in the
Study Area is projected to decline
from a 1970 level of approximately
92,800 to 34,800 in 2020 and that
future domestic non-farm water use is
expected to be dampened somewhat
by a conversion of many rural non-
farm users to central water systems.
Non-farm water use is expected to be
by far the largest component of total
rural domestic water use in the future
accounting for 97 percent of the total
by the year 2020.
LIVESTOCK AND POULTR Y
As shown in Table 18, future water
use for livestock and poultry is ex-
pected to decline. The Baltimore
SMSA is the only subregion which is
expected to experience a significant
increase in livestock and poultry use
during the projection period. Trie in-
creases in the Baltimore area are due
to significant projected increases in the
number of niilk cows and water use
per animal. Broilers are expected to
continue to dominate water use in
poultry production on the Eastern
Shore with slight increases projected
for both numbers of broilers and water
use. These increases, however, were
not enough to offset the projected 19
percent decrease in livestock and
poultry water use in the Bay Region
by 2020.
IRRIGATION
As shown in Table 19, the demand for
irrigation water is expected to increase
dramatically in future years, by about
250 percent between 1980 and 2020.
It should be noted that the values
shown for 1980, 2000, and 2020 are
the volumes of water needed during a
dry year, while the figures for 1969
are the actual application rates during
that year. Slightly over one-half of the
irrigation need in 2020 occurs on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland.
A major portion of the increase in
total irrigation demand in the Study
Area over the projection period is due
to increases in the corn acreage and
the proportion of corn acreage irri-
gated. This is especially true on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland where
water used for corn irrigation • is ex-
pected to account for approximately
one-third of the entire Study Area
-------
TABLE 17
PROJECTED RURAL DOMESTIC WATER USE
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, mgd
Subregion
17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA
17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore
17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore
17^t Delaware Non-SMSA
18-1 Washington, B.C. SMSA
18-2 Southern Maryland
18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
21-1 Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA's
21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA
22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA
22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
1970
15.6
8.8
1.5
3.6
10.6
4.3
2.0
4.9
2.9
1.2
0.6
3.9
TOTAL CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION: 59.9
1980
17.8
11.9
3.0
6.0
10.1
5.8
3.4
7.9
4.6
1.1
3.3
7.7
82.6
2000
15.8
15.9
3.7
7.8
12.5
5.1
4.0
9.1
5.8
0.5
2.9
8.8
91.9
2020
18.4
20.5
4.1
8.8
13.9
3.9
2.4
9.9
6.5
0.6
2.5
8.7
100.2
Percent Change
During
Protection Period
18
133
173
144
31
-9
20
102
124
-50
317
123
67
irrigation water demands in 2020.
Vegetables, soybeans, tobacco, pea-
nuts, silage, vegetables, and nursery
crops are also expected to exert in-
creasing • demands for irrigation water
in the Bay Region.
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
Results of the region-wide water sup-
ply analysis are presented in Table 21.
Measures of the available freshwater
supply presented in the table are the
combination of supply from all
sources, including:
• groundwater — estimate of ulti-
mate developable yield;
• surface water — 7-day, 10-year
drought flows at point of depar-
ture from subregion; and,
• impoundments — safe yield of
existing reservoir development.
Significant regional shortages are
shown for • the Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Area and the three sub-
regions comprising Southeastern, Vir-
ginia.
SENSITIVITY ANAL YSIS
The foregoing projections of future
water supply demands are based on
certain assumptions that were required
to transform and simplify the many
uncertainties of the future. Four areas
of critical concern with regard to
TABLE 18
PROJECTED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY WATER USE
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, (mgd)
Subregion
1969
1980
2000
17-1
17-2
17-3
17-4
18-1
18-2
18-3
21-1
21-2
22-1
22-2
22-3
Baltimore, Md. SMSA
Maryland Eastern Shore
Virginia Eastern Shore
Delaware Non-SMSA
Washington, D.C. SMSA
Southern Maryland
Virginia Non-SMSA
Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA's
Virginia Non-SMSA
Newport News-Hampton SMSA
Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
Virginia Non-SMSA
2.6
4.2
0.2
2.6
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.6
negligible
0.2
1.2
TOTAL
14.7
11.8
11.5
TABLE 19
PROJECTED DRY-YEAR IRRIGATION WATER USE,
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION*, mgd
Subregion
1969**
1980
2000
17-1
17-2
17-3
\1A
18-1
18-2
18-3
21-1
21-2
22-1
22-2
22-3
Baltimore, Md. SMSA
Maryland Eastern Shore
Virginia Eastern Shore
Delaware Non-SMSA
Washington, D.C. SMSA
Southern Maryland
Virginia Non-SMSA
Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA's
Virginia Non-SMSA
Newport News-Hampton SMSA
Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
Virginia Non-SMSA
2.9
32.5
15.9
12.2
3.1
3.7
negligible
1.8
0.5
0.2
4.4
2.5
79.7
387.4
793.9
* Assuming a 90-day growing season.
** Actual observed use.
2020
2.6
4.2
0.2
2.6
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.6
negligible
0.2
1.2
2.9
2.7
0.1
1.5
1,5
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.1
0,3
0.9
3.2
2.6
0.1
1.3
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0,1
0.2
1.0
3.8
2.6
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
1.3
11.9
2020
2.9
32.5
15.9
12.2
3.1
3.7
negligible
1.8
0.5
0.2
4.4
2.5
38.2
94.0
66.6
96.9
21.6
14.4
0.8
21.6
13.2
0.3
9.3
10.5
42.9
232.2
49.6
111.3
72.2
80.6
1.6
62.5
41.6
0.4
8.4
90.6
47.9
722.2
39.1
136.8
103.1
112.7
2.1
70.7
44.1
0.9
9.1
68.7
1,357.4
25
-------
water supply were determined to be
population growth, recycling in indus-
trial water use, improved irrigation
efficiencies, and political decisions
which might require increased agricul-
tural production.
One of the major shifts in the demo-
graphic profile of the United States in
recent years has been the declining
birth rate and the resulting decrease in
population growth rates. The effect of
reduced population levels would most
likely be a reduction in the demand in
all major water use categories assuming
all other factors remain constant.
Future water needs for use in manu-
facturing may be influenced by even
greater improvements in water reuse
and recycling than have been antici-
pated in this report.
A third area of possible impact on
water demands includes future climate
changes and irrigation efficiencies. Irri-
gation needs have been projected
assuming drought conditions, and
under conditions of more normal rain-
fall, irrigation demands can be ex-
pected to be considerably reduced.
Projections of irrigation needs also
assume that only 65 percent of the
water applied is used by the plants, the
balance being lost to drainage or evap-
oration. It is estimated that an increase
in irrigation efficiency to 80 percent (a
probable maximum) would result in a
19 percent reduction in demand.
A final consideration with regard to
future agricultural water demands is
the prospect of large scale exports of
American agricultural products. If the
United States becomes committed to .
exports of its food products to help
alleviate a world shortage, agricultural
production may increase in the Bay
Area, resulting in greater demands for
water.
MEANS TO SATISFY
THE NEEDS
There are many potential measures
available which could be used in meet-
ing the future water supply needs.
Some of the more promising are free
flowing streams, impoundments,
groundwater, desalinization, and cur-
tailed use of water. These measures are
TABLE 20
PROJECTED WATER SERVICE AREA SUPPLY DEFICITS
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
Water Service Area
Maryland
Aberdeen
Annapolis
Baltimore
Bel Air
Cambridge
Centreville
Chestertown
Crisfield
Crofton
Delmar
Denton
Easton
Edgewood (Ferryman)
Elkton
Havre de Grace
Joppatowne
King's Heights (Odenton)
Leonardtown
Lexington Park
Maryland City
Pocomoke City
Princess Anne
Salisbury
Severna Park (Severndale)
Snow Hill
Sykesville-Freedom
Westminster
Waldorf
Washington Metropolitan Area
Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission
Washington Aqueduct
Alexandria, Va.
Fairfax County
Water Authority
Goose Creek (Fairfax City), Va.
Manassas, Va.
Manassas Park, Va.
Delaware
Seaford
Virginia
Ashland
Colonial Heights-Petersburg
Fredericksburg
Hopewell
Mechanicsville
Newport News
Norfolk
Portsmouth (incl. Suffolk)
Richmond
Smithfield
West Point
Williamsburg
Deficits in the
Existing Source of Water
1980
4.1
1.5
0.0
1.1
0:9
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.7
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
25.5
6.8
0.0
0.2
2000
10.8
2.6
0.0
2.8
1.8
0.0
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
1.4
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.7
0.0
3.9
2.9
0.1
0.1
• 0.6
5.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
4.0
23.0
4.7
132.0
27.6
2.0
1.8
2020
20.6
3.2
72.0
4.4
3.2
0.2
1.0
0.8
1.3
0.0
0.2
3.0
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.3
0.0
10.0
4.8
0.5
0.4
2.0
9.3
0.6
1.0
1.8
10.4
329.0
11.9
308.0
63.1
3.4
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
1.0
4.2
1.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.3
4.3
0.0
26.4
15.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
4.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.6
11.0
21.0
57.0
29.2
0.0
0.9
0.0
7.0
26
-------
more fully discussed in the following
paragraphs.
NATURAL STREAM FLOW
Rivers such as the Susquehanna,
Potomac, Rappahannock, James, and
Appomattox presently serve as major
sources of water supply for the large
urban and industrial areas located
along their banks. It is expected that
the use of these sources will continue,
and indeed, that the withdrawals will
be much expanded. The Susquehanna
River, in particular, will experience
increased demands both upstream and
for possible diversion to the Baltimore
area. Other interbasin diversions and
the use of the upstream portions of
the major subestuaries (e.g., the Poto-
mac River) are also alternatives to be
considered in meeting future demands.
IMPOUNDMENTS
A major problem in the use of natural
stream flows as a source of water
supply is the seasonal variation in
flow. Peak demands often coincide
with the season of lowest flow in the
streams. Dam construction is a means
by which reduction of variability can
be attained, and the dependable flow
or safe yield of a watershed increased.
Water is stored in the reservoir during
periods of excess flow for use during
seasonal periods of low flow and high
domestic demands. Over the long
term, however, average stream flow
must exceed demand by a substantial
margin in order to maintain a mini-
mum conservation pool, to allow for
evaporation, and provide a minimal
base-flow below the dam.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is another water supply
source which can be developed to meet
needs in deficit areas. Massive amounts
of water are stored in the pore spaces
of the soils and rock formations of the
Bay Area. However, the amount recov-
erable is governed by economics, and
the geo-hydrologic character of the
area. Water withdrawals from wells
will cause a lowering of the water table
in a three dimensional cone of depres-
sion around the well often affecting
TABLE 21
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION FRESHWATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
AND PROJECTED DEFICITS, mgd
Freshwater Future Deficits
Subregion Supply 1980 2000
17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA
17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore
17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore
17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA
18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA
18-2 Southern Maryland
18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
21-1 Richmond-Petersburg-
Colonial Heights SMSA's
21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA
22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA
22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA
22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA
1,024*
865
250
290
936**
234
119
678
170
73***
106
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
16
0
0
0
0
62
0
0
0
0
0
62
179
2020
0
0
0
0
1,015
0
• 0
110
0
12
114
315
* Assumes allowable withdrawal from Susquehanna River of 500 mgd.
** Increases to 1,073 mgd beyond 1990 due to Bloomington Project.
*** Increases to 93 mgd beyond 1990 due to Little Creek Project.
the yields, capacities, and water qual-
ity of other wells in the area. Conse-
quently, groundwater supplies gener-
ally serve their most valuable function
in areas with small-scale, evenly dis-
persed demands, such as those for the
rural domestic population, agricultural
uses, small towns, and industries with
relatively low water requirements.
Establishments requiring concentrated
large-scale water supply developments
have invariably located in Western
Shore areas where there is a greater
potential for development of surface
waters.
DESALINIZATION
Conversion of brackish water to fresh-
water is a technique which can be used
in areas which have depleted their
conventional sources of supply. Given
a supply of sea water or other brackish
source, freshwater can be derived by
various methods including distillation,
membrane, and freezing processes. Be-
cause the cost of desalinization is
rather high, it is not normally used in
water-rich areas such as the Chesa-
peake Bay Region.
INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES
Institutional arrangements (changes in
law, custom, or practice) and policy
changes can increase the efficiency of
water use, or otherwise effect a damp-
ening of demand. Examples include
pricing and metering to encourage
thrift, implementation of plumbing
codes to encourage water-saving appli-
ances, and restrictions on use during
droughts. Homeowners, commercial
establishments, and industries alike
will curtail usage, to varying degrees,
as water supplies increase in cost.
Water use restrictions are most effec-
tive when they are applied to uses such
as lawn watering, car washing, street
cleaning, and non-critical commercial
and industrial uses in such a way that
major inconvenience and/or economic
damage is not suffered by the com-
munity. Advancing technology and a
change in public acceptance could also
lead to the reuse of wastewater for
municipal purposes in areas depleted
of the more traditional sources.
WATER QUALITY
CURRENT STATUS
INTRODUCTION
Water is one of the three basic re-
sources essential for the support of life
and without which a Nation, State, or
community cannot develop or prosper.
Normally, water contains minerals,
nutrients, and aquatic organisms which
occur naturally. Due to man's acti-
vities, however, additional materials
are often discharged into the waters.
Excesses may cause reductions in the
quality of the water resource and
render it unfit for intended uses.
27
-------
Figure 15: Potential Sources of Water Pollution
Municipa
Wastes
Overflow
Regulator
Industrial
Waste
Storm Water
Discharges
m,/
\ \ - \r y
Non-Sewered Vi
Runoff
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Treated
Effluent
28
-------
Under such conditions, the water is
termed "polluted," that is, it contains
harmful or objectionable materials re-
ducing its utility.
Water quality is the term used to
describe the biological, chemical, and
physical condition of the water in a
river, bay, ocean, or underground.
What is termed as "good" water qual-
ity differs depending on the intended
use. Man requires water for drinking
that is free of color, pathogenic bac-
teria, and objectionable taste and
odor. Industries which use water pri-
marily for cooling and steam produc-
tion require water free of materials
such as chlorides, iron, and manganese
which may be harmful to equipment.
Agriculture requires still a different
quality of water that is free of degrad-
ing materials toxic to plant and animal
life. Finally, each form of aquatic life
requires water of varying qualities in
order to assure its healthy existence.
Water quality problems generally arise
when the waste loads imposed by man
exceed the water's capacity to assim-
ilate them adequately. The resulting
degradation can be very costly, both
economically and ecologically. In-
creased cost of water treatment for
municipal and industrial use, the clos-
ing of shellfishing areas and the result-
ing income loss for persons employed
by the fishing industry, the loss of
valuable recreation areas, the degrada-
tion of aesthetic values, the corrosion
of structures exposed to water,
destruction of fish and wildlife habi-
tats, and the general reduction in the
use of receiving waters are all costs of
polluted waters.
Figure 16: The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Study Areas
"•-; > /^r >
„
" /"""/"""" T:-'X) /
.cl/\J V' ,.,„. (/IM
/GiMHiilifS f («««»•
Baltimore
Potomac
Rappahannock-York
Lower James
Lower Eastern Shore
Upper Eastern Shore
The sources of water pollution may be
classified as either "point" or "non-
point" and are illustrated in Figure 15.
Point sources are those in which the
degrading material is discharged from a
specific point. Non-point sources are
those in which the degrading material
reaches the water course through flows
over a large area.
The major point
pollution are:
sources of water
1. Municipal sewage outfalls.
2. Industrial waste outfalls.
3. Combined sewer outfalls.
The major non-point sources of water
pollution are:
1. Agricultural runoff.
2. Urban runoff.
3. Marine transportation spills.
This section of the report presents the
findings of the Cheaspeake Bay Study
as they relate to the quality of the
waters of Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. It is essentially a continu-
ation of the 1970 inventory of water
quality presented in the Existing Con-
ditions Report. With the passage of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500)
much of the water quality work origi-
nally envisioned as part of the Chesa-
peake Bay Study has been accom-
plished at the State and local level.
The geographical area considered for
the water quality study is based on the
river basins in the Chesapeake Bay's
drainage area. Within the Chesapeake
Bay Region, 18 separate river basin
segments as designated by the States
of Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware
were combined to form six regional
study areas. These are shown in Figure
16, and a complete listing of the major
river basins within each study area is
presented in Table 22.
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
The parameters used to measure water
quality are of three major types:
physical, chemical, and biological. The
most important of these parameters
29
-------
TABLE 22
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY STUDY AREAS
Study Area I - Baltimore
Lower Susquehanna River
Bush River
Gunpowder River
Patapsco-Back River
Patuxent River
Magothy River
Severn River
South River
Study Area II - Potomac
Potomac River
Occoquan River
Anacostia River
Study Area III - Rappahannock-York
Rappahannock River
York River
Pamunkey River
Mattaponi River
Ingram Bay
Fleets Bay
Mobjack Bay
The major source of information for
this analysis was the State Water Qual-
ity Management Plans required by
section 303(e) of P.L. 92-500, which
provided projections of wastewater
loadings and water quality needs for
each river basin. "Problem area" infor-
mation was taken from the State
Water Quality Inventories prepared
under Section 305(b) of P.L. 92-500.
are Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD), bacteriological indicators, sus-
pended solids, dissolved solids, temper-
ature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients,
chlorophyll a, pH, and heavy metals.
By monitoring and studying these
water quality parameters, standards
have been and are being developed to
control water pollution. These stand-
ards, required of each state by P.L.
. 92-500, reflect the goal of water qual-
ity management for the present and
future. A more detailed description of
these and other important parameters
is presented in Appendix 7, "Water
Quality," and in the Glossary of this
Summary.
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
CONDITIONS
Characterizing the quality of the Bay's
waters in one word is difficult because
of the wide variety of conditions
encountered in an area of this size;
however, a blanket statement would
Study Area IV — Lower James
James River
Appomattox River
Back River
Elizabeth River
Lynnhaven Bay
Study Area V - Lower Eastern Shore
Pocomoke River
Manokin River
Wicomico River
Nanticoke River
Study Area VI - Upper Eastern Shore
Choptank River
Wye River
Chester River
Eastern Bay
Northeast River
Elk River
C & D Canal
probably conclude that the water qual-
ity of the Bay itself is good, with most
of the severe problems occurring in the
tributaries especially near areas of high
population concentrations. However,
increasing loads from municipal
sewage treatment plants and industrial
sources, as well as from agricultural
and storm runoff, and marine trans-
portation spills are causing stresses and
problems, some very severe, through-
out the Bay Region. In addition, as yet
unidentified pollutants may be present
in the Bay and its .tributaries causing
environmental damage. For example,
preliminary results from a study by
the Smithsonian Institution indicate a
possible link between two widely used
agricultural herbicides and the decline
of certain aquatic grasses in Chesa-
peake Bay during the last decade.
Figure 17 summarizes the major water
quality problems of the larger tribu-
taries and their surrounding land areas.
In general, municipal and industrial
wastes have been found to be the
major problems in the populated areas
of Baltimore, Washington, Richmond,
and Norfolk. Other less populated
areas suffer mainly from agricultural
and land runoff as well as smaller
amounts of municipal discharges. The
following sections present a capsulated
summary of the existing water quality
conditions as they relate to the estab-
lished water quality standards for each
of the six major water quality study
areas in the entire Bay Region. More
detailed information on water quality
and the standards for these basins is
presented in Appendix 7, "Water Qual-
ity."
a. Study Area I - Baltimore. Nutri-
ents appear to be the major problem in
the Lower Susquehanna River Basin as
algal blooms have been on the increase
over the past several years. Heavy
municipal and industrial loads up-
stream have been identified as the
major contributors. High nutrient con-
centrations have also been identified in
other major rivers in the Baltimore
Study Area including the Patuxent,
Severn, South, Gunpowder, Bush, and
Back Rivers.
In the Patapsco River, and especially
the Baltimore Harbor Area, 32 major
industrial dischargers and 10 major
municipal dischargers along with the
heavily urbanized development in the
area are creating stressed conditions in
the surrounding waters. Major prob-
lems include low dissolved oxygen
contents, high bacterial concentra-
tions, and undesirable levels of other
pollutants such as heavy metals and
oil.
The Patuxent River also suffers from
the heavy development along its river
banks. Eighteen major municipal facil-
ities, increased construction and urban
runoff, and faulty septic systems have
been named as the principal con-
tributors to the occasional low dis-
solved oxygen contents, turbid waters,
and increased levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus found in the waters. Bac-
terial concentrations have also caused
problems in the area, especially during
periods of low flow.
b. Study Area II - Potomac. Serv-
ing as the major water supply for the
District of Columbia and surrounding
areas, the Potomac River is stressed by
the heavy urban development along its
river banks in the Washington Area.
Agricultural runoff from upstream
sources contributes high volumes of
nutrients and bacterial contamination
prior to entering the metropolitan
area.
30
-------
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Nutrients, Sedimentation
& Flow Modification
PATAPSCO & BACK RIVERS
Municipal & Industrial
Discharge & Spoil Disposal
UPPER EASTERN SHORE
Nutrients, Sedimentation,
Flow Modification, Boating
& Spoil Disposal
PATUXENT RIVER
Urbanization,
Municipal Discharge
Thermal Discharge, (\
& Offshore Development
POTOMAC RIVER
Municipal & Thermal
Discharge, Urbanization,
& Sedimentation
LOWER
EASTERN SHORE
Agricultural Runoff,
Processing Wastes
?_ & Offshore
Development
YORK a RAPPAHANNOCK RIVERS
Sedimentation, Boating Activity,
Oil Spills, & Industrial Wastes
LOWER JAMES RIVER
Municipal & Industrial Discharge,
Heavy Metals & Pesticides,
Spoil Disposal & Boating Activities
Figure 1 7: Existing Water Quality Problems in Chesapeake Bay
31
-------
Near the District, high volumes of
municipal wastewater (led by the 309
mgd from the Blue Plains Plant) and
urban runoff cause some dissolved
oxygen depletions while adding to the
nutrient enrichment of the river. Im-
proving as it nears Chesapeake Bay,
the Lower Potomac River generally
meets standards but still suffers from
the development upstream and espe-
cially the sediment generated from
urban and agricultural runoff. In 1973,
over 3 million tons of sediment were
emptied into the Potomac Estuary and
primary production, while not heavily
stressed, appears to have suffered.
Tributaries such as the Anacostia •
River, Piscataway Creek, Rock Creek,
Occoquan River, Goose Creek, and
Port Tobacco River also suffer from
urban and agricultural runoff as well as
discharges from the 'sewage treatment
plants in the area. The main problems
are high bacterial concentrations,
occasional dissolved oxygen deple-
tions, turbid waters, and increasing
nutrient concentrations.
c. Study Area III — Rappahan-
nock-York. The Rappahannock River
Basin, extensively rural in nature, has
relatively minor water quality prob-
lems with the exception of the waters
near the City of Fredericksburg. High
bacterial concentrations and occa-
sional dissolved oxygen sags in the
mainstream have been traced to exten-
sive agricultural runoff throughout the
entire basin and some of the smaller
sewage treatment plants in the area
which discharge partially treated
wastes. The Great Wicomico River and
Indian, Cockrell, and Dymer Creeks
also experience high bacterial concen-
trations and occasional dissolved oxy-
gen sags for much the same reasons.
Boating activity near the Wirdmill
Point area is causing some concern as
bacterial concentrations, nutrients,
and dissolved oxygen depletions have
been on the increase.
The York River, near its headwaters,
exhibits water of excellent quality. In
the West Point Area, however, degra-
dations in the form of low dissolved
oxygen, low pH, and high bacterial
concentrations occur, mostly the re-
sult of urban runoff, landfill runoff,
swamp drainage, and discharges from
the nearby sewage treatment plant.
Sedimentation is also a growing prob-
lem throughout the entire basin with
the primary contributor being urban
runoff, although- only 2 percent of
land area is in urban use.
King, Carter, and Sarah Creeks, all
tributaries to the York River, have
high bacterial and nutrient concentra-
tions which are attributed to local STP
discharges and marina activities in the
surrounding areas. Near the mouth of
the York River, dissolved oxygen
depletions have created some problems
and are caused by the "tidal prism"
effect which prohibits the mixing of
the layers of water that replenish
oxygen supplies.
d. Study Area IV - Lower James.
The Lower James River (from the City
of Richmond to Chesapeake Bay)
ranks as one of the most heavily
developed and industrialized basins in
the Bay Region with 35 major sewage
treatment plants and 29 large indus-
trial firms in its drainage area. Most of
the water quality problems found in
the basin are direct results of the
intensive development in the Rich-
mond, Hopewell, and Norfolk-
Newport News Area. Major problems
in the basin include low dissolved
oxygen, high nutrient concentrations,
high bacterial concentrations, high
chlorine toxicities, and excessive
amounts of heavy metals. Tributaries
such as the Elizabeth and Lynnhaven
Rivers, and Bailey and Ashton Creeks,
are also degraded and have the same
problems and sources as the mainstem
of the James. Shipping in the
Hampton Roads complex has created
some problems, with occasionally high
bacterial concentrations and oil spills
being the most prevalent. Pesticide
concentrations, while not frequently
monitored in the past, have also be-
come an area of great concern in the
James Basin following the "kepone"
incident of 1976. Illustrative of the
magnitude of the concern was the
closure, for a 7-month period, of the
lower James River to all fishing, by
Virginia Governor Mills Godwin in
June of 1976.
e. Study Area V - Lower Eastern
Shore. The Pocomoke River, while
generally of good quality, has shown
some degradation near the Pocomoke
City, Snow Hill and Crisfield Areas.
Low dissolved oxygen, high bacterial
concentrations, and nutrient enrich-
ment are the main problems. Improve-
ment of water quality conditions,
however, has been realized in recent
months due to improved treatment at
sewage treatment plants in the area.
The main sources of degradation in the
basin are now considered to be septic
tank leakage and the poor flushing
action of the Estuary particularly dur-
ing low flow conditions. The Nanti-
coke and Wicomico Rivers, especially
in the Salisbury area, suffer from high
bacterial concentrations. Shellfish
closures in the area are necessary
because of the high volumes of storm
runoff, septic tank leakage, and the
low level of treatment provided by the
existing sewage treatment plants.
Agricultural runoff is also a problem in
the basins, contributing bacteria and
nutrients from soils, manure seepage,
and feedlot runoff.
f. Study Area VI - Upper Eastern
Shore.-The Choptank, Chester and Elk
Rivers are all basically rural in char-
acter and suffer from agricultural run-
off and septic system leakage prob-
lems. High nutrient concentrations
near the upper Bay have brought
about increasing algal blooms in the
Chester and Elk Rivers. Small sewage
treatment plant discharges and scat-
tered seafood packaging wastes have
caused some bacterial problems near
the more populated areas of the
Chester and Choptank Rivers. Finally,
pleasure boating activities in the sum-
mer and fall seasons are causing some
bacterial problems near the mouths of
all the major rivers in this area.
FUTURE WATER QUALITY
NEEDS
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Increasing levels of population and per
capita income in the Chesapeake Bay
Region will mean increased municipal
wastewater volumes. Table 23 presents
data by river basin on anticipated
municipal wastewater flows and treat-
ment needs.
As shown in Table 23, projected
wastewater flows exceed the 1975
treatment plant capacity in all of the
32
-------
river basins for which projections were
available. In addition to the need for
more capacity, treatment plants pro-
viding more advanced treatment of the
wastewaters will be required in most
areas of the Bay Region in order to
meet the requirements of PL-92-500.
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Industrial discharges will have a great
bearing on the achievement of water
quality management goals in the
future, especially in highly industri-
alized areas such as Baltimore,
Richmond-Hopewell, and Norfolk.
Industrial discharges are a function of
industrial water supply and consump-
tion, the level of industrial develop-
ment, and most importantly, the
amount of water recycled. These
parameters are discussed in detail in
Appendix 5, "Municipal and Industrial
Water Supply."
The industrial discharge projections
presented in Figure 18 are median
range values which balance projections
reflecting simple historical data on one
hand and maximum attainable
recycling technology on the other. The
curve presented in Figure 18 acknowl-
edges that, while recycling rates will
indeed continue to improve, it is more
likely that a lesser degree of imple-
mentation of technology in industrial
water reuse will occur. Although the
discharge projections do not specifi-
cally address actual concentrations of
waste products or projected discharge
TABLE 23
FUTURE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS, SELECTED AREAS
Projected Flow Existing Capacity
River Basin Year (mgd) (mgd, 1975)
Lower Susquehanna 1995 3.27 1.87
Patapsco 1990 261.60 238.76
West Chesapeake 2000 32.80 19.40
Patuxent 2000 96.30 39.40
Washington Metro. 2000 543.80 344.64
Northern Virginia 2020 363.30 111.98
Rappahannock 2020 19.541 8.38
York 2020 39.601 2.98
James (Lower) 2020 386.00 163.97
Accomack-Northampton 2000 1.26 0.74
Pocomoke 2000 3.00 2.65
Nanticoke 1995 13.56 - 12.80
Elk 1995 4.99 3.40
1 Based on total population and not population served. .
Deficit
(mgd)
1.40
22.84
13.40
56.90
199.16
251.32
11.16
36.62
222.03
0.52
0.35
0.76
1.59
loadings, they do, however, serve as an
indicator of the marked decrease in
industrial discharges that may be ex-
pected in pursuit of National water
quality goals. It should be noted that
the values presented in Figure 18
include only the five major water-using
industrial groups in the Chesapeake
Bay Region (i.e., chemicals, primary
metals, paper and allied products, food
and kindred products, and petroleum).
These industries, however, account for
about 82 percent of the total water
withdrawals in the Bay Region.
OTHER POINT AND NONPOINT
SOURCE PROBLEM AREAS
a. Thermal Discharges: Increases in
the demand for electric power, as
Figure 18: Industrial Discharge Projections for the Chesapeake Bay Region with
Moderate Technology
2020
outlined in Appendix 13, Electric
Power, will create the additional prob-
lem of the disposal of heated cooling
waters. In 1972, an average of nearly
7,700 mgd was discharged from power
plants into Chesapeake Bay waters,
almost 8.5 times the average discharge
of sewage treatment plants in. the
Area. Projected withdrawals for 1980
are expected to be near 8,500 mgd; of
which 3,500 are required for the Surry
and Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plants
alone. A major concern is the effect
such heavy concentrations of heated
waters will have on the aquatic envi-
ronment. Complicating the problem
are the physical characteristics of
Chesapeake Bay, an estuary which is
relatively shallow and of moderate
temperature, thereby limiting its effi-
ciency for the dispersion of heated
effluents.
b. Chlorine: Chlorine, used widely
as a fouling preventative in industry
and as a disinfectant for municipal
wastes, has in combination with ele-
ments in receiving waters been found
to cause up to 90 percent reduction in
primary productivity near wastewater
treatment plant discharges. Future
threats center around an overabun-
dance of total chlorine residuals, due
to the increased volumes of both
municipal and industrial discharges as
well as the required lowering of coli-
form densities in discharges which
require increasing amounts of disin-
fectant.
c. Agricultural and Urban Runoff:
With approximately 40 percent of the
Bay's land area in agricultural use,
33
-------
pollutants such as nutrients, pesticides,
sediment, and animal waste products
can be expected to continue to contri-
bute a significant loading. Although
the percentage of land in agricultural
use is projected to decrease, intensive
farming practices which attempt to
grow the same or greater amounts of
crops on smaller land areas may contri-
bute even greater loadings than before.
Urban runoff may be expected to
increase markedly as population
growth and urban expansion con-
tinue. Large amounts of runoff con-
taining oils, chemicals, and sediments
cause significant problems near the
major cities of the Bay Region.
d. Oil and Marine Transportation
Spills: With the projected increase in
both total traffic and the total amount
of oil products shipped on Chesapeake
Bay (see Appendix 9, Navigation) the
probability of accidental spills may
also increase. Other hazardous chemi-
cals in transport will also be subject to
accidental spills as Bay traffic in-
creases. Other sources of oil, especially
municipal discharges, have not yet
been thoroughly researched. More de-
tailed information on these subjects
can be found in Appendix Is, Biota.
e. Sedimentation: Sedimentation, a
natural phenomenon the level of
which has been increased beyond
natural levels due to man's activities,
can also be expected to increase in the
future as population grows in the Bay
Region. A projected doubling of popu-
lation in the Chesapeake Bay Region
between 1970 and 2020 means that
the existing number of residences,
office buildings, etc., will also roughly
have to double, implying a tremendous
amount of construction activity with
its potential for causing sedimentation
problems during the projection period.
f. Recreational and Commercial
Boating Activities: The large and in-
creasing numbers of both commercial
and recreational vessels currently con-
tribute a significant amount of raw
sewage through direct overboard dis-
charges. The problems caused by these
discharges are expected to continue
into the future until adequate pump-
ing facilities can be installed to treat
the sewage at marina and port facil-
ities.
g. Septic Tank Failures: Failing
septic systems, which cause major
problems in many of the rural areas of
the Chesapeake Bay Region can be
expected to continue to plague those
areas until either the old systems are
repaired or sewer service can be pro-
vided. In those areas outside expected
sewerage expansions and where poor
soil conditions exist, new methods of
handling wastes from individual home-
sites will have to be found before
improvement can be expected.
h. Solid Waste Leachates: Seepage
from the ever increasing number of
solid waste dumps and sanitary landfill
sites may also pose a serious threat to
water quality in the future, especially
in the contamination of groundwater
supplies. Protection of both private
and public water supplies by sealing
them off from the potentially high
amounts of sodium, potassium, cal-
cium, magnesium, and organic pollu-
tants characteristic of this leachate will
be necessary to avoid contamination
problems in the future. Also, some
means of treating the collected
leachate will be necessary.
MANAGEMENT AND OTHER
PROBLEMAREAS
In pursuing the goals of improved
water quality, numerous problems are
being encountered by the responsible
management agencies. Some common
management-related problems are
presented below:
a. Financial Capabilities: The
adequacy of existing technology to
meet goals and objectives of P.L.
92-500 does not appear to be a signi-
ficant problem. The costs associated
with implementing these improve-
ments, however, appears to be a prob-
lem of great magnitude. In a 1973
report by the National Water Com-
mission to the President of the United
States, it was estimated that imple-
mentation of pollution abatement
policy based on "Best Available" tech-
nology for treatment of both muni-
cipal and industrial point source
wastes by 1983 would require expend-
itures of about $460 billion through
1983. Implementation of a true "no
discharge" policy had been estimated
to cost several times that amount.
wow or coN-moi COSTS
so-
40-
30-
zo-
_39_
_3
-------
quality needs. The measures are dis-
cussed in terms of physical alternatives
and management or legislative actions.
PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES
There are two basic approaches to
physically controlling or treating the
increasing volume of wastewater flows.
One of them involves the installation
of water-saving devices and methods
that cut down or limit the volume of
wastewater generated. The other ap-
proach concerns the various methods
and equipment available for treatment
and disposal of waste products after
generation.
a. Improving Water Use Tech-
nology: This means is actually a
method which limits the production or
per capita consumption of water and
ultimately wastewater flow. It usually
involves a "fine-tuning" of plumbing
devices which will use less water to do
the same job. Among the plumbing
provisions are toilets which use less
water, pressure relief valves which
limit water pressures, customer educa-
tion programs which encourage the
wise use of water, and shower heads
which limit flows. The institution of
these measures has been difficult be-
cause of the lack of appropriate
plumbing parts, additional costs for
refitting older devices, and follow-up
adjustments. Plumbing code revisions
seem to hold the most hope in the
future for instituting these measures.
b. Increased Industrial Treatment
and Recirculation: In keeping with the
requirements of present legislation,
improvement in treatment technology
(percent pollutant removal) will most
likely result in water of better quality.
This in turn will result in an increased
ability of industrial plants to reuse this
water in the production process and
decrease.volumes of flow to the rivers.
Two specific alternatives are pretreat-
ment and by-product recovery. Pre-
treatment of industrial wastes removes
the unique pollutants of an industrial
process prior to discharge in municipal
sewers. The potential use or sale of
waste by-products of the industrial
process will also create incentives for
industry to re-circulate wastes and
remove these pollutants as opposed to
dumping them in watercourses. In the
pulp and paper industries for example,
certain wastes can be synthesized to
produce artificial vanilla flavoring and
other valuable by-products.
c. Increased Municipal Treatment:
Increasing both the capacity and pol-
lutant removal capabilities of Bay area
sewage treatment plants can contri-
bute greatly to the improvement of
the surface waters of Chesapeake Bay.
Emphasis can also be placed upon the
construction and enlargement of
regional sewage treatment plants
which have shown the ability to treat
wastes more effectively as well as more
economically. Larger facilities also re-
lieve overloading due to combined
sewers and enable presently unserved
areas to receive wastewater treatment.
d. Cooling of Thermal Wastes:
Three methods of cooling the heated
waters of power plants are currently
available; wet towers, dry towers, and
cooling ponds. In wet towers, the hot
effluent is exposed to air circulating
through a specially shaped tower. As
water evaporates, heat is lost. Dry
towers pass the effluent through a
series of pipes over which cool air is
passed and heat is lost by radiation.
Cooling ponds are also a possible
solution, but require larger areas than
the other alternatives. Appendix 13,
"Electric Power," presents more de-
tailed information on alternatives
available to reduce the problems asso-
ciated with thermal discharges.
e. Land Treatment of Wastewater:
In a land treatment operation, sec-
ondarily treated wastes are transported
to the land treatment site instead of
being disposed of in the watercourses.
The effluent is then stored, chlori-
nated, and applied to the land surface
by a variety of basic means. The
underlying concept is based upon the
use of the soil mantle and its vege-
tative cover which acts as a "living
filter" to remove pollutants. By this
process the oxygen demanding sub-
stances are destroyed by oxidation,
the nitrogen and phosphorous con-
sumed by plant growth, and the puri-
fied water returned to the ecosystem
by groundwater recharge. Heavy
metals are also immobilized by adsorp-
tion on soil particles.
f. Control of Non-Point Source
Pollutants: Actions which seek to
reduce the amount of non-point
source pollutants such as sediment,
pesticides, oils, heavy metals, and coli-
form organisms are also very impor-
tant in improving water quality in the
Bay and its tributaries. Agricultural
runoff policies which have proven
most effective are contour plowing,
ridge planting, the construction of
sedimentation ponds and terraces, and
the diversion and treatment of wastes
from livestock feed yards. Urban run-
off controls consist mainly of devel-
oping policies to implement separate
storm drains and installation of reten-
tion basins which store runoff for later
treatment or disposal.
g. Other Physical Methods: Tech-
niques such as deep well injection of
wastes, runoff controls, alternative
means of wastewater disinfection, and
methods for improving assimilative
capacities of waterways are some other
methods that have been proposed as at
least partial solutions to the increas-
ingly complex problems of waste dis-
posal in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
These alternatives are discussed in
detail in Appendix 7.
MANAGEMENT AND LEGISLATIVE
ACTIONS
a. Management Auctions: The major
management options available to re-
duce, re-distribute, or limit the
demand for water and thereby the
volume of municipal wastewaters, are
pricing policies, sewer moratoriums,
and consumer education. Pricing poli-
cies seek to reduce consumption of
water by levying higher rates during
those periods of time when the
demand is high. Sewer moratoriums
have been used in areas where de-
mands for water and sewerage service
have exceeded the ability to provide
adequate treatment. These mora-
toriums usually prohibit the extension
of old systems. This method of re-
distributing demand has been used
effectively in the Washington Metro-
politan area where counties in the
surrounding metropolis have imple-
mented moratoriums as emergency
measures. Consumer education prac-
tices stress the voluntary conservation
of water. The basic elements of a
program of this type might involve the
distribution of information on the
water consumption characteristics of
major appliances of all brands. Other
programs might include door-to-door
35
-------
distribution of water saving packages
containing instructions for correcting
leaky and excessive water-using appli-
ances as well as dye tablets to help
detect leaks within the home.
b. Legislative Actions: For the
present and near future, the require-
ments of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972
appear to serve as a schedule to imple-
ment the desired water quality goals
for both the Chesapeake Bay Region
and the United States. Appendix 7
provides a summary of the major
provisions of PL 92-500 and other
recent supplemental legislation.
OUTDOOR RECREATION
CURRENT STATUS
EXISTING SUPPL YAND DEMAND
The Chesapeake Bay Region's approxi-
mately 7,300 miles of shoreline and
4,400 square miles of water surface
area along with its temperate climate
make it a very attractive place for
water-related recreation activities such
as sailing, boating, swimming, picnick-
ing, and camping. In order to better
plan for the use of the resource,
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plans (SCORP's) were pre-
pared by all the States in the Study
Area under the provisions of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965. These studies included an inven-
tory of existing boating, sailing, swim-
ming, camping, and picnicking activi-
ties. The results of these surveys show
that the Study Area had a public
supply at the time of the survey of
approximately 440 boat ramps,
20,200 camping sites, 26,600 picnic
tables, and 2,500 acres of beach and
swimming pools.
In many cases, the provision of facil-
ities for public recreation have not
kept pace with the burgeoning de-
mand. In the Bay Region, the number
of boat ramps and picnic tables are not
sufficient to meet existing public
demand. It is estimated that an addi-
tional 130 boat ramps and 13,600
picnic tables are needed. On the other
hand, there is presently a surplus of
swimming and camping facilities in the
Bay Region.
Due to the nature of outdoor recrea-
tion in the Chesapeake Bay Region,
boating and sailing activities deserve
special attention. Only about one-half
of one percent of the water surface
area of Chesapeake Bay and its tribu-
taries would be required to meet cur-
rent boating and sailing demands. The
inability to satisfactorily meet current
boating and sailing demands, however,
is not due to an absence of water
surface area, but as indicated above, to
an insufficient supply of public slips
and launching ramps. This is further
illustrated by the fact that the 28,000
trailer boats registered in Maryland in
1971 had access to the Bay through
only 125 public boat ramps.
Figure 20 below presents the 1970
resident (those living in the Bay
Region) outdoor recreation needs and
surpluses by recreation subregion. The
boundaries of these subregions con-
form to those of the State planning
regions as defined in the SCORP's.
Together these subregions make up the
primary areas of recreation demand
within the Chesapeake Bay Region.
As shown in Figure 20, the deficiency
in boating ramps is most acute in the
Baltimore and Washington Metro-
politan Areas while the surpluses are
the greatest in the much more sparsely
populated areas of the Eastern Shore
of Maryland and Tidewater Virginia.
Because of this, boat owners in the
Baltimore and Washington areas must
often travel unusually long distances
to launch their vessels in relatively
uncrowded environs.
The large 2,100 acre surplus of swim-
ming pool and beach acreage is due
primarily to wide expanses of ocean
beach on the Maryland, Virginia, and
Delaware coasts. It is significant to
note that the most highly urbanized
regions, Baltimore, Washington, and
Richmond show the greatest need for
additional swimming space.
More subregions have a deficiency of
picnic tables than of any other out-
door recreation facility. Only the
Southern Maryland, Virginia Tide-
water, and the Eastern Shore of Vir-
ginia subregions have a surplus of
picnic tables. Typically, the greatest
shortages are in the metropolitan areas
of Baltimore and Washington which
combined account for approximately
67 percent of the Bay Area's total net
resident need. The Richmond and
Hampton Roads subregions also have
large picnic table needs.
The Baltimore SMSA and Maryland
portion of the Washington SMSA sub-
regions are the only areas which
presently lack an adequate number of
camping sites to meet resident needs.
Combined, these two subregions show
a need for 2,100 camp sites. The
remainder of the Bay Region has a
present surplus of 15,500 sites, which
means the entire Bay Region has a
total surplus of 13,400 sites.
It is important to note that the out-
door recreation needs and surpluses
presented in Figure 20 are resident
demands only. Non-resident demand
was not disaggregated by subregicn-
of-occurrence due to time and data
constraints. If non-resident demand is
taken into account, however, there is a
substantial increase in the need for
boating and sailing ramps, swimming
acreage, picnic tables and camping
sites.
PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS
From the standpoint of the general
public, Chesapeake Bay is one of the
most inaccessible estuaries in the
Nation. Private interests have
responded to the deficits in public
recreational facilities by providing
facilities of their own. As a result, an
estimated 47 percent of all land and
water recreation areas in the Bay
Region are in private control. Control
of Chesapeake Bay's shoreline by
private interests is even more ex-
tensive. For example, according to a
study conducted by the Chesapeake
Bay Interagency Planning Committee,
only three percent of the Maryland
shoreline is publicly-owned.
Much of the recreationally desirable
land available is in competition with
other forms of land development such
as private homes, utility development,
or military reservations. For example,
in urban areas where recreation oppor-
tunities are most urgently needed, the
shoreline has often been developed as
major port and industrial complexes.
A significant percent of the publicly-
owned shoreline is held by the Federal
government, primarily the military,
and is unavailable for use by the
general public.
36
-------
SWIMMING
less than 1
0&
*'•*, si
"«£ f*
NEEDED'ACRES
•URPLUS ACRES
WASHINGTON D.C
less
37
-------
PICNIC
:&:ri[L-ri T-AQI pc
... i... IS i.,. Irf 1 .*% O i_. C V*
^ SURPLUS. TABLES
OVEW
WASHINGTON D.C
38
-------
CAMPING
SURPLUS SITES
OVER
WASHINGTON D.C
39
-------
BOATING
WASHINGTON D.C
MfcEOKi") RAMPS
SURPLUS RAMPS
overt
less than 10
40
-------
Other factors interfere with the maxi-
mum recreational utilization of the
Bay and its tributaries. Water quality
has deteriorated in many sections of
the tributaries precluding body-
contact water recreation. This problem
is especially severe in the urban areas
where demands are the greatest. For
example, the number of bathing
beaches in Baltimore County approved
for operation by county health offi-
cials has declined from 21 in 1966 to 6
in 1976.
The stinging sea nettle and the closely
related comb jellies or ctenophores
which reach peak abundance in the
summer months also discourage water
contact recreation. Other deterrents to
recreation activities include the exist-
ence of extensive and often valuable
wetlands and the occasionally objec-
tionable growth of certain aquatic
plants such as the Eurasian Water-
milfoil and water chestnut which inhi-
bit boating and swimming.
Recreational use of the Bay and its
tributaries has created problems and
conflicts in itself. For example, many
boaters are responsible for degrading
water quality by dumping refuse over-
board, discharging sewage effluent.
and spilling gas and oil into the water.
The result is unsightly debris, and in
some cases, the closing of certain areas
to both water-contact recreation and
shellfish harvesting. In addition, recre-
ational boating frequently conflicts
with other aquatic activities such as
swimming, fishing, commercial ship-
ping, and private shore front property
use (brought about by erosion of the
shoreline from boat wakes). Finally,
recreational boating has led to over-
crowding of certain waterways, par-
ticularly those most accessible to the
large urban .areas. This has created
dangerous, undesirable conditions for
both boaters and swimmers.
FUTURE DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Figure 21 illustrates the relationship
between existing supply and projected
demand for boating and sailing, swim-
ming, picnicking, and camping in the
Study Area. As can be seen, the
demand for boating ramps is expected
to exceed the existing supply by
almost six times by the year 2020.
Most of the increase in demand is
expected to occur in the three sub-
regions surrounding Baltimore and
Washington. These subregions are also
projected to have the most critical
supply deficits in 2020 with 1,150
ramps needed. A major supply deficit
in 2020 is also expected in the Rich-
mond subregjon. The only subregions
predicted by BOR to have a surplus of
ramps through the year 2020 are the
Eastern Shore of Maryland and Vir-
ginia and the Tidewater portion of
Virginia. Of the total demand for
boating ramps in 2020, almost 22
percent of the total will be accounted
for by non-resident demand.
The need for swimming beaches and
pools is also expected to increase
significantly during the next 50 years.
Although the entire Study Area has a
supply excess over the projection
period, supply deficiencies in the Balti-
more, Washington, and Richmond
metropolitan areas are expected to
increase from approximately 200 acres
of beach and swimming pool water
surface area in 1980 to almost 400
acres in 2000 and over 550 acres in the
year 2020. Large supply surpluses
were projected for the Maryland and
Virginia Eastern Shore, Delaware, and
Hampton Roads subregions. These sur-
pluses, however, were due to the large
expanses of ocean beaches in these
areas. Access to these beaches may be
a problem for many Study Area resi-
dents due to financial and/or transpor-
tation constraints. This is especially
true for many low-income families in
the urban areas where supply deficits
are most acute. Non-resident demand
F.jure 21: Projected Demand and Existing Supply for Boating and Sailing,
Swimming, Picnicking, and Camping, Chesapeake Bay Region (Resident
and Non-Resident)
Boating
and Sailing Ramps
(In Thousands)
•*- Supply -»-
-Demand -
Picknicking
Tables
(In Thousands)
-*• Supply-*
Demand -
1 Existing
1980
Swimming
Acres of Beach and Pool
(In Thousands)
Camping Sites
(In Thousands)
2000
2020
41
-------
is expected to account for 22 percent
of the total swimming demand
throughout the projection period.
In 1970, there was a total of approxi-
mately 26,600 picnic tables in the
Chesapeake Bay Study Area which was
24,800 tables short of the total resi-
dent and non-resident demand in the
same year. By the year 2000, this is
expected to increase to over 54,000
picnic tables and by 2020 approxi-
mately 95,000 tables. Typically, the
greatest projected shortages are in the
major urban areas of Baltimore, Wash-
ington, Hampton Roads, and Rich-
mond. Moderate surpluses were pro-
jected for the Southern Maryland and
Virginia Eastern Shore subregions.
Non-residents will exert demands on
picnic facilities which are expected to
amount to a fairly constant 25 percent
of total demand over the projection
period.
The entire Study Area has a surplus of
11,400 camping sites with only the
Washington and Baltimore areas show-
ing current supply deficits. By the year
2000, however, there is projected to
be a supply deficit of approximately
1,100 sites and by 2020 there is
expected to be a need for over 12,500
sites. Once again, the Baltimore and
Washington Metropolitan areas are ex-
pected to experience the largest defi-
cits with resident demand alone in
2020 amounting to five and one-half
times the existing supply. Existing
camp sites in Hampton Roads, Tide-
water Virginia, Petersburg-Hope well,
and the Eastern Shores of both Mary-
land and Virginia are expected to be
sufficient to meet resident demands
through the projection period. Non-
resident demand for camping in the
Study Area is estimated to be approxi-
mately 25 percent of total demand
throughout the projection period. For
more information on projections of
facility requirements by subregions,
see Appendix 8 of this Report.
MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS
If it is assumed that meeting future
outdoor recreation needs within the
Study Area is desirable, then there
exists a number of means to help
satisfy future boating and sailing,
swimming, picnicking, and camping
needs. The vast amounts of underuti-
lized water-related land resources in
the Study Area could be used for
much of the future recreation activi-
ties. Among the underutilized re-
sources are vast stretches of shoreline
controlled by the Federal Govern-
ment.
These areas include large tracts of
military lands such as Aberdeen Prov-
ing Ground, Edge wood Arsenal, Quan-
tico Marine Base, Fort Story, and
Camp Peary Military Reservation. The
"Baltimore Urban Recreation Analy-
sis" prepared by BOR contains infor-
mation and general findings directly
related to the use of Federal and
military lands in the Baltimore subre-
gion. The report states that, "despite
the more than 840 miles of shoreline
in the Baltimore SMSA, less than 1.5
percent of the shoreline is available for
public recreational use." Also, the
Baltimore Regional Planning Council's
document, "Chesapeake Bay: Shore-
line Utilization in the Baltimore Re-
gion," reports that 12 percent of the
Baltimore regional shoreline is in mili-
tary use. Although it is recognized that
it is not possible to open all of these
military lands to the public for recrea-
tional use, the fact remains that they
represent a very significant untapped
resource.
Watersheds and water supply reservoirs
also offer significant potential for mul-
tiple uses. Many of the water supply
reservoirs and their adjacent lands are
located on attractive, wooded upland
sites which offer the potential for
swimming, boating, picnicking, and
camping. In the past, public health
constraints, administrative policy and
public opinion have discouraged or
prevented joint use of water supply
reservoirs. However, existing restric-
tions should be reexamined in the light
of modern water treatment technology
to determine if they are essential.
Land adjacent to river channels can
also serve as a substantial additional
resource base to meet recreation
needs. The use of flood plain lands in
urban areas for a variety of quality
recreational experiences may also pre-
clude development on those flood
plains and thus reduce future flood
losses. Harbor redevelopment and mul-
tiple use of waterfront areas in urban
centers is another valuable source of
recreation lands. These multi-use areas,
which in many cases have become
rundown and underutilized, could
prove especially significant as recrea-
tion areas since they are adjacent to
large populations.
Another excellent opportunity to
meet outdoor recreation needs in the
Chesapeake Bay Study Area is the
further development of wild and sce-
nic and recreational river systems.
Rivers preserved in their natural free-
flowing state offer a wide variety of
recreational potential for such activi-
ties as canoeing, kayaking, rafting, and
boating. In addition, the scenic vistas
usually located near these rivers can
provide ample opportunity for out-
door recreation pursuits including pic-
nicking and camping. The States of
Maryland and Virginia have enacted
legislation aimed at the protection of
some of the wild and scenic rivers
within their State boundaries. Mary-
land adopted a policy which protects
the water quality of certain designated
rivers within the State and fulfills vital
conservation purposes by wise use of
resources within the scenic river sys-
tem. Currently, eight rivers have been
designated as scenic within the State.
The Virginia General Assembly en-
acted the Scenic Rivers Act in 1970 to
help coordinate efforts between Fed-
eral and State agencies to insure com-
prehensive water resource planning. To
date, 10 Virginia rivers have been
designated either scenic or potential
scenic rivers. The former group will
thus be protected for the enjoyment
of present and future generations.
Public acquisition of new land for
recreational use is frequently neces-
sary, particularly in urban areas, where
demand is great and existing recrea-
tional areas may be in extremely short
supply. To accomplish such acquisi-
tion, funding at all levels of govern-
ment will have to be increased, partic-
ularly in view of the escalating price of
land.
An alternative to the costly purchase
of new recreation lands is the expan-
sion, intensification of use, and im-
provement of existing recreation lands.
In taking such action, however, care is
required to avoid creating over-
crowded conditions or befouling recre-
ational facilities to the point where
42
-------
they can no longer be enjoyed by
anyone. Many of the existing recrea-
tional facilities within or adjacent to
the Bay Region's urban areas are in
particular need of intensification of
use, where physically possible.
Three legislative measures have been
found most effective in implementing
a program of preserving, maintaining,
and acquiring recreation lands to sat-
isfy future outdoor recreation needs.
These include zoning, which imposes
land use restrictions; tax incentives to
preserve open space lands for public
use; and eminent domain which con-
demns private land for public use. By
use of these three legislative actions,
lands can be obtained or preserved for
recreational use before residential or
commercial development pressures
occur. For example, in areas where
vacation homes are popular, residential
development around a community
waterfront park area could be encour-
aged to facilitate maximum use and
benefit from waterfront lands. Prop-
erly planned and spaced marinas, a
legitimate use of waterfront lands,
could be gjven a higher priority than
shopping centers, for example, at the
water's edge. Commercial development
not dependent upon water access
could be located inland.
Meeting all future outdoor recreation
needs may not be an entirely desirable
goal. As discussed in the "Problems
and Conflicts Section" above, recrea-
tion in the Bay Region has created
certain problems including water pol-
lution, conflicts in use of the aquatic
environment, and overcrowding of
waterways. As future recreation de-
mands increase, these problems can
also be expected to increase. By pro-
viding alternative outdoor recreation
opportunities, however, the intensity
of these problems can be reduced. In
addition, the provision of recreation
alternatives would serve to help meet
the recreation needs in the Study
Area.
One important alternative means for
meeting recreation needs is the devel-
opment of recreation trails which
would substantially add to the re-
source base in the Chesapeake Bay
area. Because of the rich archeological,
historical, and natural resources of the
Bay Region, a trail system might in-
clude biking or hiking trails which
would perhaps contribute to the tour-
ism industry. The scenic rivers and
their adjacent shoreline areas could
provide opportunity for recreation
pursuits ranging from nature walks to
birdwatching. Outdoor games and
sports such as tennis, golf, and horse-
back riding are other possible alterna-
tive means to help satisfy future recre-
ational demands in Chesapeake Bay.
43
-------
SECTION III
NAVIGATION
CURRENT STATUS
Transportation by water has changed
drastically since Colonial times when
oceangoing 500-ton sailing ships with
10- to 15-foot drafts plied the Chesa-
peake docking at individual plantation
piers. Water-based transportation,
however, has remained extremely im-
portant to the Chesapeake Bay Re-
gion's economy. A total of approxi-
mately 160 million short tons of cargo
was shipped on Chesapeake Bay during
1974, nearly three-quarters of a ton
for each man, woman, and child in the
United States. About 80 percent of
this freight passed through the ports of
Baltimore or Hampton Roads. Ap-
proximately 70 percent of the total
freight traffic in these two ports is
foreign in origin or destination. Balti-
more is basically an. importing port.
The major commodities coming into
Baltimore are metallic ores and con-
centrates, petroleum and petroleum
products, gypsum, sugar, iron and steel
products, salt, and motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment. The port
leads the Nation in the importing of
automobiles and ranks second in iron
ore. The majority of these imported
bulk commodities are processed by
firms in the Baltimore area.
Hampton Roads, on the other hand, is
an export-oriented port. Approxi-
mately 70 percent of the total freight
tonnage passing through Hampton
Roads in 1974 was coal and lignite to
be exported. Hampton Roads leads the
Nation in this category. The port's.
location in relation to the coal-rich
Central Appalachians gives the port a
locational advantage over the other
East Coast ports in the coal exporting
business. Hampton Roads also con-
ducts important trade in the exporting
of corn, wheat, soybeans, tobacco leaf,
and grain mill products, as well as in
the importing of petroleum products,
gypsum, lumber and wood products,
and chemicals.
These two Nationally significant ports
also' have important impacts on the
regional economies. For example,
according to the Maryland Port Ad-
ministration (MPA), 65,000 workers
are directly employed by port activi-
ties in the Baltimore area and another
100,000 in "port-related" industries.
A similar study in Virginia for all the
Virginia ports revealed that more than
53,000 people were directly employed
by port-related activities and another
142,000 by "harbor-oriented" activi-
ties including naval installations.
Although Baltimore and Hampton
Roads are the only major international
deepwater ports in the Chesapeake
Bay Area, there is also a significant
amount of traffic in the harbors of
some of the smaller ports such as
Richmond, Yorktown, Hopewell,
Petersburg, and Alexandria, Virginia;
Piney Point, Annapolis, Salisbury, and
Cambridge, Maryland; and Washing-
ton, D.C. The major commodities
shipped through these ports are petro-
leum and petroleum products, con-
struction materials, fertilizers, and sea-
food.
Due to the increasing size of oceango-
ing vessels during the past 100 years
and the economies involved in the use
of these ships, repeated deepenings
and widenings of Chesapeake Bay's
ship channels have been necessary. In
the Port of Baltimore, for example,
there have been many improvements
made by the Federal government, the
most notable being the authorized
deepenings to 27 feet in 1881, 35 feet
in 1905, 37 feet in 1930, 39 feet in
1945, and 42 feet in 1958. More
recently, Congress has authorized an
additional deepening of the main chan-
nels to 50 feet. In Hampton Roads
there have also been numerous im-
provements of the area's many chan-
nels, starting in 1884. The main chan-
nel into Hampton Roads was deepened
for the first time in 1907 to 30 feet,
again in 1910 to 35 feet, in 1917 to 40
feet, and finally in 1965 to 45 feet.
In the Chesapeake Bay and its tribu-
taries there are a total of 147 author-
ized navigation projects under the
supervision of the Baltimore and Nor-
folk Districts of the Corps of Engi-
neers. The State of Maryland has
constructed 16 navigation projects in
the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries.
There are no State projects in Virginia.
Due to the high sediment loads present
throughout most of the Chesapeake
Bay system, many of the ship channels
are in frequent need of dredging to
maintain authorized depths. The fre-
quency of maintenance dredging de-
pends on the location of the water-
way. Some waterways, such as the
James River, require maintenance
almost every year. On the other hand,
the Rappahannock Shoal Channel
(part of the Baltimore Harbor and
Channels Project) has not been main-
tained since its deepening to 42 feet in
1964.
Two types of dredge material disposal
have generally been used in' the past in
Chesapeake Bay—open water disposal
and disposal in dyked impoundments..
In the Upper Bay, open water disposal
has been used. Uncontaminated dredge
material was generally placed near the
northern shore of Kent Island while
contaminated material was disposed of
in the Pooles Island area. In the lower
Bay, the Craney Island Disposal Area
has been used for all major dredge
disposal operations for the Hampton
Roads channels. The Craney Island
site, constructed in 1957, is a Feder-
ally-authorized project located.in the
heart of the Hampton Roads port
complex. The dyked area, which
covers about 2,500 acres and has a
capacity of about 125 million cubic
yards,, is expected to be filled to its
design height of 17 feet above mean
sea level by about 1980.
EXISTING PROBLEMS AND
CONFLICTS
The major problems and conflicts rela-
tive to navigation and waterborne
commerce in the Bay Region include:
a. The need for deeper channels to
accommodate the larger ships now in
the world fleet.
b. The maintenance of existing
channel depths because of sedimenta-
tion and shoaling.
c. The disposal of dredge material
from both the maintenance and the
deepening of channel projects.
44
-------
d. Accidental and deliberate dis-
charges of wastes from commercial
and recreational craft.
e. Shoreline erosion caused by the
wakes from large ships.
f. Conflicts between recreational
boating and commercial ships in or
near the major ship channels.
g. Need for additional waterfront
lands to accommodate expanding port
facilities.
The first two problems mentioned
above stem from a basic confrontation
between man's water transportation
requirements and the Bay's geological
nature. For example, because the
Chesapeake Bay is a relatively shallow
body of water, major channel deepen-
ing projects designed to accommodate
today's larger, more efficient ships
require extensive dredging. In addition
to the natural shallowness of the Bay,
Nature's tendency to fill the Estuarine
system with sediments and to convert
it back to a riverine system causes
many existing channels to experience
shoaling problems. Dredging and
dredged material disposal operations
are consequently an important and
necessary part of commercial naviga-
tion activities on Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries. The environmental
impact of these operations has become
a very controversial issue. The princi-
pal environmental effects of the actual
dredging operation are:
1. Removal by either dredging or
filling of the original interface between
the water and the bottom, which can
be an area of high biological activity.
In most cases., the effects of removal
of the existing sediment-water inter-
face are usually localized and of rela-
tively short duration. The circulation
patterns of the Bay's waters usually
provide opportunities for the reestab-
lishment of available species within
one or two years. It should be empha-
sized, however, that exceptions do
occur (e.g., oysters because of their
need for a hard bottom) and that a
thorough analysis should be conducted
if complications are to be avoided.
2. Changes in bottom contours,
' which may affect current and salinity
patterns. In general, the creation of
deepwater areas causes further salt-
water intrusion. Saltwater intrusion
can cause complex changes in an estu-
ary's ecosystem. These changes may
involve both beneficial influences such
as the improved upstream transport of
young crabs, fish, and other species as
well as detrimental impacts such as
greater penetration of oyster predators
and parasites. The net effect will vary
with the location and magnitude of
the dredging activity as well as the
season.
3. Turbidity caused by dredging
can create various problems. Sus-
pended sediments can clog and damage
the gills of many kinds of animals,
reduce photosynthetic activity, and
reduce the buoyancy of eggs of marine
animals. As the sediments settle, a
coating may form on the bottom
interfering with the attachment of
young oysters to the beds and creating
soft • bottom layers that are uninhabit-
able for many benthic species. On the
other hand, such sediments frequently
occur naturally in estuaries and coastal
waters, and many species can tolerate
considerable quantities of suspended
material. Sediments can also be ben-
eficial to many types of organisms by
providing the type of substrate needed
by some animals and by carrying
nutrients into the marine system.
With regard to the problems associated
with the disposal of dredged material,
the major channels for Baltimore and
Hampton Roads and the approach
channels to the Chesapeake and Dela-
ware Canal are by far the major
problem areas. If for no other reason,
the sheer volume of material that must
be removed during either periodic
maintenance or an overall deepening
of these major projects creates disposal
problems. There are also significant
environmental problems associated
with dredged material disposal.
Perhaps the most .serious environ-
mental problem, and certainly the
most emotional, occurs when the
dredged material is contaminated by
industrial or municipal wastes. Heavy
metals, such as mercury, zinc, and
lead, along with such substances as
pesticides and nutrient salts can have
harmful and even toxic effects on
aquatic life. There is very limited
information on how available such
materials become to the marine envi-
ronment in various chemical forms
once they reenter the water. For
example, heavy metal contaminants
may be tightly bound to the sediment
particles physically or chemically, or
at the other extreme, simply dissolved
in the water mixed with the sediment.
The soon to be completed Dredged
Material Research Program being con-
ducted at the Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station (WES)
in Vicksburg, Mississippi, is conducting
research into these types of problems.
Another source of conflict between
waterborne commerce activities and
environmental quality is the deliberate
discharge or accidental spilling by ves-
sels of oil, garbage, sewage, and other
wastes into the Bay. Unfortunately,
these discharges and spills often occur
in congested harbor areas with poor
flushing action which causes further
degradation of often already poor
water quality. Although the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) prohibit
the discharge of harmful quantities of
oil or hazardous substances in the
waters of the United States, there is
probably no practical way to stop the
element of human error. A valve not
completely closed, a lack of attention
while filling tanks, or worst of all,
tanker collisions, could have disastrous
environmental, as well as economic,
consequences.
Waterborne commerce-related activi-
ties can also have significant impacts
on other aspects and uses of the
Chesapeake Bay resource. First, the
wave action caused by passing ships is
a major cause of erosion in some areas
of the Bay. Second, recreational fish-
ing and boating can be disrupted by
the wakes from passing ships. In addi-
tion, large areas of the Bay and its
tidal tributaries are precluded from
recreational uses because of their use
as anchorages, ship channels, or dredge
disposal areas by commercial naviga-
tion interests and/or the military. On
the other hand, large commercial and
military vessels must be constantly on
the alert for the smaller recreational
vessels to avoid collisions or swamp-
ings. Lastly, the development of a
major port is dependent on the con-
current development of land-based
45
-------
port-related facilities. However, the
development of shoreline land for ter-
minal facilities may in some cases
conflict with existing wetlands or pro-
posed recreational use of the same
land. Also, port-related facilities, be-
cause of their locational requirements,
may be subject to tidal flooding and
shoreline erosion.
EXISTING AND
PROJECTED DEMANDS
The following sections present the
projected waterborne commerce de-
mands on a commodity group basis for
the individual ports and waterways
considered in this study. Due to the
type of'analysis, it was considered to
be appropriate that additional exist-
ing information also be presented with
the projected demands.
In addition to the Ports of Baltimore
and Hampton Roads, projections were
prepared for those Chesapeake Bay
waterways with over 200,000 short
tons of commence in 1970. Because of
the differences in relative importance
to the Chesapeake Bay Region and the
Nation of the various harbors and
waterways included in this analysis,
projections were made to varying de-
grees of detail. Baltimore and Hamp-
ton Roads were analyzed in depth on a
commodity group and in some cases
an individual commodity basis. On the
other hand, projections for several of
the smaller waterways (in terms of
tonnages) were made for two groups
only-bulk oil and the total of all
other commodity groups.
There are essentially three types of
waterborne movements addressed in
this analysis-foreign, coastwise, and
internal. Foreign imports and exports
refer to traffic between the United
States and foreign ports. Coastwise
receipts and shipments apply to
domestic traffic receiving a carriage
over the ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico
(e.g., New Orleans or Puerto Rico to
Baltimore). Internal receipts and ship-
ments are confined to inland water-
ways such as Chesapeake Bay.
a. Baltimore Harbor: As shown in
Figure 22, bulk commodities, especi-
ally petroleum and ore, are expected
to continue to dominate waterborne
traffic in the Port of Baltimore. Gen-
eral cargo movements, however, are
expected to increase significantly over
the projection period so that by 2020
the tonnage moved is expected to be
higher than any other single com-
modity category.
The industrial, commercial, and resi-
dential complex surrounding Balti-
more consumes huge amounts of
petroleum fuels for heating, process-
ing, and transportation purposes. The
most important bulk oil commodities
are residual fuel, gasoline, and distil-
late fuel. Approximately 90 percent of
the bulk oil movements were inbound
from the Caribbean area, the U.S. Gulf
Coast, or the Delaware River. The
remainder were barge shipments,
mostly to points within Chesapeake
Bay. The tankers from the Caribbean
areas are typically in the 25-55,000
deadweight ton (dwt) size with up to
39-foot drafts. Tankers from the Gulf
Coast range in size up to 75,000 dwt
with 42-foot drafts.
Baltimore's large primary metals indus-
try is dominated by the Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, which employs
roughly three-quarters of the workers
in the industry. As a result, about 93
percent of the metallic ore imports in
1972 consisted of iron ore used in the
production of steel. The ships carrying
iron ore into Baltimore are the largest
that call on the Port. The average iron
ore vessel is in the 40-60,000 dwt
range with 38 to 42-foot drafts. Ves-
sels of this size use the existing 42-foot
channel to the maximum extent.
Occasionally vessels of well over
100,000 dwt bring iron ore into the
Port although they are not able to
fully load due to channel depth restric-
tions. Aluminum, manganese, chro-
mium, and other non-ferrous ores and
concentrates comprise the remaining 7
percent of metallic ore imports. Im-
ports of non-ferrous metals are pro-
jected to increase at the same rate as
iron ore imports.
Because of its proximity to the Appa-
lachian coal fields in northern West
Virginia and Pennsylvania, Baltimore is
one of the leading coal exporting ports
in the United States. Approximately
90 percent of the coal shipped out of
Baltimore is used in the production of
coke for foreign steel industries,
mainly in Japan and Western Europe.
The remainder is used in electric
power.generation. The average vessel
exporting coal out of Baltimore is in
the 35-55,000 dwt range with 37 to
42-foot drafts, although bulk coal car-
riers up to 120,000 dwt with 47-foot
drafts have called on the Port. Again,
due to channel depth restrictions,
these vessels are not able to load to
capacity.
In 1972, Baltimore exported approxi-
mately 2.9 million short tons of grain,
although the average annual export for
the last 5 years of record was only 1.5
million short tons. The major types of
grain exported in 1972 were corn (45
percent) soybeans and soybean meal
(40 percent), and wheat (13 percent).
Over two-thirds of the grain exported
from Baltimore in 1972 was destined
for Western Europe. Because of the
relatively small volumes of grain
exported through Baltimore, the aver-
age size vessel calling on the Port for
grain (15-30,000 dwt with 28 to 35-
foot drafts) is significantly smaller
than the standard world fleet grain .
carriers. Occasionally, however, much
larger vessels enter the Port to load
grain for export.
The miscellaneous bulk category for
Baltimore Harbor contains such com-
modities as gypsum, sugar, sa)t, molas-
ses, sulfuric acid, and fertilizer prod-
ucts. Approximately 72 percent of
the movements of these commodities
in 1972, were foreign imports with an
additional 17 percent classified as
domestic receipts. Practically all of
these inbound movements were raw or
partially processed materials shipped
to Baltimore for further processing by
factories in the Port area. These activi-
ties are especially important to the
local economy because they generate
jobs and income. Except for sugar
imports, which are expected to remain
constant over the projection period,
the other commodities in the miscel-
laneous bulk category are projected to
exhibit moderate increases in the level
of shipments. The vessels carrying mis-
cellaneous bulk commodities are not
as large as those carrying petroleum,
coal, ore, or grain. The largest vessels
are about 35,000 dwt with up to 37
foot drafts but the average is much
smaller.
Approximately two-thirds of the total
general cargo commerce through the
46
-------
Figure 22: Projected Waterborne Commerce - Baltimore Harbor
Bulk Petroleum
(Inbound only)
(Millions of Short Tons)
General Cargo
(Millions of Short Tons)
Miscellaneous Bulk
(Millions of Short Tons)
Bulk Ore
(Imports)
(Millions of Short Tons;
Bulk Coal
(Exports)
(Millions of Short Tons)
Figure 23: Projected Waterborne Commerce - Hampton Roads
Bulk Grain
(Exports)
(Millions of Short Tons)
Bulk Oil
(Inbound Only)
(Millions of Short Tons)
8.3 5.3
8.3
Miscellaneous Bulk
(Millions of Short Tons)
4.6
General Cargo
(Foreign Only)
(Millions jf Short Tons)
Bulk Coal
(Exports)
(Millions of Short Tons) S5 4 55.4
47
-------
Port in 1972 was foreign in origin or
destination. All of the increase in
waterborne movements of these com-
modities is expected to be foreign
traffic. The majority of the projected
general cargo commerce is expected to
be containerized. Domestic move-
ments of general cargo are not ex-
pected to increase over the projection
period due to stiff competition from
railroads and trucks in the movement
of often time-sensitive general cargo
commodities. The major foreign and
domestic general cargo commodities
shipped through Baltimore are listed in
Table 24. Most of the container ships
currently calling on Baltimore are in
the 15,000-20,000 dwt range with
drafts between 28 to 32 feet.
b. Hampton Roads: Figure 23
shows that the export of coal will
continue to dominate waterborne
commerce during the projection
period. As in the case of Baltimore,
general cargo movements are expected
to show highly significant increases
over the projection period. Waterborne
movements of commodities in the
remaining categories are expected to
decrease slightly or show only mod-
erate increases over the projection
period.
The most important commodities
within the bulk oil group were residual
fuel, gasoline, and distillate fuel, ac-
counting for about 92 percent of the
bulk oil waterborne movements in
1972. Approximately three-quarters of
the bulk oil passing through the port
complex is either foreign or domestic
inbound. Most of the remaining move-
ments consist of petroleum distributed
from Hampton Roads by barge to
points within Chesapeake Bay. The
major reason for the projected decline
in the level of inbound bulk oil move-
ments to Hampton Roads is the ex-
pected significant planned cutbacks in
residual fuel use by public utilities.
This type of use accounted for approx-
imately one-half of the total petro-
leum consumption in the area in 1972.
Increases in gasoline and distillate fuel
movements are expected to almost
offset the decreases in residual use.
Vessels carrying bulk oil commodities
into Hampton Roads are generally
about the same size as those calling on
the Port of Baltimore (i.e., up to
TABLE 24
MAJOR GENERAL CARGO COMMODITIES
AND TYPE OF TRAFFIC, BALTIMORE HARBOR, 1972
Foreign
Bananas and Plantains (I)
Lumber (I)
Metal Products (I & E)
Standard Newsprint (I)
Miscellaneous Chemicals 0 & E)
Cars and Other Transportation
Equipment (I & E)
Machinery (I & E)
Other Miscellaneous
Total
Domestic
Metal Products (S)
Miscellaneous Chemicals (S)
Agricultural, Food, and Marine
Products (R & S)
Lumber (R)
Other Miscellaneous
Total
I = Imports • E = Exports
Tons
(Thousands)
383
380
1,272
100
294
500
285
1,301
4,515
1,175
216
174
86
514
2,165
R = Receipts S = Shipments
TABLE 25
MAJOR FOREIGN GENERAL CARGO COMMODITIES
AND TYPE OF TRAFFIC, HAMPTON ROADS, 1972
Lumber, Veneer, Plywood, and
Other Wood Products (I & E)
Tobacco Leaf (I & E)
Machinery (I & E)
Motor Vehicles (I & E)
Basic Textile Products (I & E)
Metal Products (I & E)
Pulp and Paper Products (I & E)
Vegetable Oils, Margarine,
Shortening (E)
Miscellaneous Chemicals (I & E)
Other Miscellaneous
TOTAL
I = Imports E = Exports
Tons
(Thousands)
246
233
156
103
131
268
118
88
88
897
Percent
of Total
8.5
8.4
28.3
2.2
6.5
11.1
. 6.3
28.7
100.0
54.2
10.0
8.0
4.0
23.8
100.0
Percent
of Total
10.6
10.0
6.7
4.4
5.6
11.5
5.1
3.8
3.8
38.5
2,328
100.0
48
-------
75,000 dwt with 42-foot drafts from
the Gulf Coast refineries and usually
between 25-55,000 dwt with up to
39-foot drafts from the Caribbean).
These vessels, however, can normally
enter Hampton Roads loaded to a
deeper draft due to deeper channel
depths, higher tidal range, and higher
salinities.
Hampton Roads is the most strategi-
cally located port in the United States
with respect to the rich Appalachian
coal fields. Hampton Roads annually
accounts for about 90 percent of the
total U.S. overseas export. Approxi-
mately 90 percent of the coal exports
leaving Hampton Roads consist of
bituminous coal for the production of
coke for metallurgical purposes with
the remainder being used for electric
power generation. About one-half of
these exports in 1972 were shipped to
Japan with the majority of the remain-
der going to Western Europe. The
average size vessel carrying coal out of
Hampton Roads is in the 50-75,000
dwt range with 38-46-foot drafts.
However, vessels of over 100,000 dwt
are not uncommon. The largest ship to
ever call on the port was a vessel of
169,430 dwt which loaded coal bound
for Japan. Due to depth restrictions,
the vessel could not fully load.
Although far behind export coal, bulk
grain is the second largest export
commodity passing through Hampton
Roads. Most of the grains exported
through the port were grown in the
Midwestern and South Atlantic states
and are generally shipped to Western
and Eastern European countries. The
major types of grains handled are corn,
wheat, and soybeans and soybean
meal. Due to the relatively small vol-
umes of export grain handled at
Hampton Roads, the vessels carrying
these commodities are significantly
smaller than those handling coal. The
average vessel is in the 25-35,000 dwt
range with 32 to 26-foot drafts,
although ships in the 100,000 dwt
class occasionally call on the port.
Sand, gravel, and crushed rock ac-
counted for almost one-half of the
total movements in the miscellaneous
bulk category. Other important com-
modities are limestone, building
cement, and fertilizers. The com-
modities in this category are raw or
partially-processed materials shipped
into Hampton Roads from foreign and
domestic sources for further process-
ing (most by factories in the port area)
or for distribution without processing.
Movements of sand, gravel, and
crushed rock are by barge while vessels
carrying the other commodities gen-
erally average around 15,000 to
20,000 dwt with drafts of approxi-
mately 30 feet. Slightly over 80 per-
cent of the total general cargo traffic
was categorized as either foreign
imports or exports. About 60 percent
of the foreign traffic was containerized
in 1970. These container vessels are
generally in the 15,000 to 20,000 dwt
range with drafts of between 28 to 32
feet. Table 25 lists the major foreign
cargo commodities passing through
Hampton Roads.
c. Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.
Commerce through the C&D Canal is
dominated by domestic movements of
bulk oil and foreign movements of
general cargo which together ac-
counted for approximately 70 percent
of the total traffic in 1972. The C&D
Canal serves as a major passageway for
oceangoing vessels calling at Balti-
more. In 1972, approximately 58 per-
cent of the vessels engaged in foreign
traffic destined for or leaving Balti-
more traveled through the C&D Canal.
Figure 24 shows the projected levels of
commerce for bulk oil and general
cargo. Both types of traffic are pro-
jected to show moderate increases over
the projection period.
In addition to bulk oil and general
cargo, there are significantly smaller
quantities of bulk coal, bulk ore, bulk
grain, and miscellaneous bulk com-
modities passing through the C&D
Canal. These movements were assumed
to remain constant during the pro-
jection period at the 1965-1972 aver-
age of about 1.1 million short tons
although the potential exists for sub-
stantial increases if a significant num-
ber of Northeastern power plants
switch to coal.
d. James River. Major flows of
traffic on the James River consist of
internal barge receipts of bulk oil at
Richmond, Hopewell, and the Virginia
Electric and Power Company's Ches-
terfield power plant and internal barge
movements of commodities other than
bulk oil (mostly sand and gravel).
These two traffic flows accounted for
84 percent of the total waterborne
movements on the James in 1972.
Figure 25 shows the projections of
bulk oil and internal shipments for
commodities other than bulk oil for
the James. These two commodity cate-
gories are expected to continue to
dominate James River waterborne
commerce in the future accounting for
over 90 percent of the total traffic in
the year 2020.
There were also oceangoing move-
ments of chemicals and general cargo
commodities passing through Rich-
mond and Hopewell which totaled
about 500,000 short tons in 1972 but
averaged 740,000 tons over the
1970-72 period. Total oceangoing
commerce is assumed to remain con-
stant at approximately 740,000 short
tons over the projection period.
The oceangoing general cargo vessels
calling at James River ports average
about 5,000 dwt with about 22-foot
drafts, although there are some vessels
up to 12,000 dwt with loaded drafts
of 30 feet. Most of the dry cargo ships
and tankers handling chemicals are in
the 20,000 dwt class with loaded
drafts of over 30 feet. Since the main
channel to the Richmond-Hopewell
area has an authorized depth of only
25 feet, the larger vessels are not able
to load to capacity.
e. Potomac River: Traffic on the
Potomac is dominated by the move-
ment of bulk oil into the River to help
satisfy the Washington Metropolitan
Area's tremendous demand for energy.
This type of traffic accounted for
approximately 87 percent of the total
commerce on the Potomac in 1972.
Most of the remaining traffic consisted
of internal barge movements of sand
and gravel to the Washington area
from points along the Potomac River
and foreign imports of newsprint into
Alexandria, Virginia.
Waterborne bulk oil commodities des-
tined for Washington are handled by
the Steuart Petroleum Company's
facility at Piney Point, Maryland,
approximately 13 miles upstream from
the confluence of the Potomac with
49
-------
Chesapeake Bay. Large oceangoing
tankers, most in the 25-55,000 dwt
size range with between 35 and 38-
foot drafts, as well as barges from
domestic sources, carry petroleum
products into the Steuart facility
where they are unloaded and redistrib-
uted by pipeline and barge to the
Washington, D.C., and Southern Mary-
land areas. The Possum Point power
plant, owned by VEPCO, is the only
major petroleum products user on the
river which has fuel sent directly to its
plant, bypassing the Piney Point
facility.
Despite expected significant decreases
in residual fuel use by power plants in
the Washington area, the total pro-
jected bulk oil imports and receipts at
Piney Point illustrated in Figure 26
indicate a sizable increase in bulk oil
movements on the Potomac over the
next fifty years. This is due to large
projected increases in waterborne
imports and receipts of gasoline, distil-
late fuel, and other "clean" petroleum
products expected as a result of higher
than average increases in income and
population in the Washington area in
the future.
Traffic other than bulk oil on the
River is expected to remain at a fairly
constant 500,000 short tons during
the projection period.
f. York River. The largest oil refin-
ery in the Chesapeake Bay Region is
located near the mouth of the York
River at Yorktown. Although the
50,000 barrel/day refinery is not large
by Delaware River or Gulf Coast
standards where plants with capacities
of 200,000 barrels/day are not un-
common, the facility still accounted
for almost five million short tons of
waterborne petroleum commerce in
1972. Total waterborne commerce on
the York River in 1972 totaled 6.5
million short tons of which bulk oil
commodities accounted for approxi-
mately 89 percent of the total. Other
major users of bulk oil include a power
plant at Yorktown, the only major
pulp and paper mill in the Chesapeake
Bay Region at West Point, Virginia,
and the U.S. Navy at Cheatham. Total
bulk oil projections are presented in
Bulk Oil
(Domestic Only)
(Millions of Short Tons)
Figure 24: Projected Waterborne Commerce - Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
Figure 25: Projected Waterbome Commerce • James River
Bulk Oil
(Internal Receipts)
(Millions of Short Tons)
Internal Traffic
(Other Than Bulk Oil)
(Millions of Short Tons)
Figure 26: Projected Waterborne Bulk
Oil Commerce • Potomac River.
Figure 2 7: Projected Waterborne Bulk
Oil Commerce - York River.
Potomac River
Bulk Oil
(Millions of Short Tons)
(1980 ^H2000l
York River
Bulk Oil
(Millions of Short Tons)
17.4
1972 ^•1980 ^H 2000 ^M2020
50
-------
Figure 27. The capacity of the York-
town refinery is projected to increase
to approximately 170,000 barrels/day
by 2020.
Most of the vessels carrying crude
petroleum into the Yorktown refinery
are in the 70,000 dwt class with
41-foot drafts. These ships are unable
to fully load due to depth restrictions
in the York River approach channel.
g. Other Waterways. The
Wicomico, Nanticoke, and Rappahan-
nock Rivers are expected to continue
to be dominated by inbound barge
movements of bulk oil. As shown in
Figure 28, the Rappahannock River is
expected to experience by far the
most significant increases in bulk oil
movements of these three waterways
mainly due to "spillover" into the area
from the fast-growing Washington Met-
ropolitan Area. The Wicomico and
Nanticoke Rivers are expected to
experience only moderate increases in
bulk oil movements over the projec-
tion period. Of these three rivers, only
the Rappahannock has any significant
movements of commodities other than
bulk oil. About 40 percent of the
commerce on the river consisted of
industrial chemicals, pulpwood and
seafood. Movements of these com-
modities on the Rappahannock are
assumed to remain constant at the
1970-1972 level of approximately
170,000 short tons.
Virtually all of the traffic on the
Choptank River (including the Tred
Avon River) was inbound, with about
10 percent being foreign oceangoing
imports and the remainder classified as
internal barge receipts in 1972. Bulk
oil commodities accounted for a rela-
tively small 40 percent of the total
waterborne commerce. Other impor-
tant commodity flows on the Chop-
tank include slag (used for construc-
tion purposes), fertilizer, and fresh fish
shipped from Iceland to Cambridge for
processing. The majority of the pro-
jected increase in total traffic on the
Choptank River, illustrated in Figure
28, is accounted for by increases in
traffic other than bulk oil or fresh fish.
Bulk oil movements are expected to
show only moderate increases while
imports of fresh fish are projected to
Figure 28: Projected Waterborne Commerce for Selected Commodities-Wicomico,
Nanticoke, Rappahannock, and Choptank and Tred Avon Rivers
Wicomico River
Bulk Oil
(Millions of Short Tons)
Rappahannock River
Bulk Oil
(Millions of Short Tons)
1.0
Nanticoke River
Bulk Oil
(Millions of Short Tons)
Choptank and
Tred Avon Rivers
Total Commerce
(Millions of Short Tons)
1972
1980
2020
TABLE 26
FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED MAIN CHANNEL DEPTHS AT
SELECTED PORTS AND WATERWAYS, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
Port or Waterway
Baltimore Harbor and Channels
Hampton Roads
York River Entrance Channel
York River (to West Point)
James River (to Richmond)
Wicomico River (to Salisbury)
Nanticoke River (to Seaford)
Rappahannock River (to Fredericksburg)
Choptank River (to Denton)
Tred Avon River (to Eastern)
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
Authorized Depth (feet)
50*
45
37
22
35
14
.12
12
8
12
35
*Existing depth in main channel is 42 feet
51
-------
decline slowly, but steadily, during the
projection period. The vessels involved
in the importation of fresh fish are
refrigerated fishing craft which range
in size up to 4,100 dwt with 22-foot
drafts. These vessels are able to take
advantage of the municipal channel in
Cambridge which has a project depth
of 25 feet.
FUTURE SUPPLY
METHODOLOGY
The future supply analysis is actually
an analysis of the capacity of a harbor
or waterway in terms of channel
depths. The following section will pre-
sent a general inventory of existing
and authorized channel depths for the
major waterways and harbors in the
Chesapeake Bay Region. A more de-
tailed listing of channel depths by
commodity for each port considered
in this analysis is presented in Table
9-6 of Appendix 9 - "Navigation."
The basic assumption made in this
assessment of future supply .is that
there will be no further development
of the Bay's navigation system beyond
the channel improvement projects
which are currently authorized. These
"without project" projections of sup-
ply can then be compared to the "with
project" demand projections to iden-
tify specific areas or types of uses
where future use may be greater than
the existing capacity of the resource.
CHANNEL CAPACITIES
There are a great variety of channel
depths in Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. Baltimore and Hampton
Roads contain the only major deep-
water ports in the Study Area with
existing main channel depths of 42
and 45 feet, respectively. The dimen-
sions of both public and private
branch channels within these port
complexes vary considerably. With the
exception of the Chesapeake and Dela-
ware Canal, which primarily serves the
Port of Baltimore, and the York River
Entrance Channel, which handles
petroleum products, the remaining
Federal channels are 25 feet in depth
or less and handle barge traffic almost
exclusively. Table 26 lists the Feder-
ally authorized main channel depths
for the ports and waterways for which
projections were prepared in this
study.
The deepening of the main channel to
Baltimore to 50 feet was authorized
by Congress in 1970. Preconstmction
planning for this project has recently
been initiated. In addition, the Balti-
more District has recently completed a
study recommending that the Federal
government assume the responsibility
for the maintenance of the 25-foot
municipal channel at Cambridge,
Maryland and the Tred Avon River
was recently dredged from the old
channel depth of 8 feet to the new
project depth of 12 feet.
Although dredging of the C & D Canal
to the new project depth of 35 feet
from 27 feet was recently completed
by the Philadelphia District of the
Corps of Engineers, the approach
channel to the Canal from Baltimore
has experienced serious shoaling. The
newly deepened C & D Canal cannot
be used efficiently unless the approach
channel is dredged to the 35 foot
project depth.
Although an authorized depth of 35
feet was authorized for the James
River in 1962, a follow-up study com-
pleted in 1972 found that dredging to
the 35-foot depth was no longer
economically justified.
FUTURE NEEDS AND
PROBLEM AREAS
There are several types of commodity
movements on Chesapeake Bay in
which the existing channels are unable
to handle present or projected ship
sizes without serious losses in eco-
nomic efficiency. These losses develop
when large vessels must enter or leave
a port only partially loaded because of
depth limitations. When these effi-
ciency losses are severe enough to
outweigh any competitive advantage
an area might have for the movement
of a certain commodity, severe eco-
nomic consequences may result. In the
case of imported raw materials pro-
cessed in the port area, economic
losses may be severe enough to cause
cutbacks in production or even plant
closings resulting in the loss of jobs,
income, and tax revenues to the
region.
The most critical commodity move-
ments in terms of existing or potential
inefficiencies through the Ports of
Baltimore and Hampton Roads are the
bulk commodities such as iron ore,
coal, grain, and petroleum products.
Most of the larger vessels carrying
these commodities into the two ports
cannot fully load or must lighter
before entering the harbor.
In the case of Baltimore Harbor, the
authorized 50-foot project, if con-
structed, will eliminate most of these
inefficiencies. Despite the very large
increases expected in containerized
traffic in Baltimore, channel depths
are not expected to be a constraint
due to the relatively small size of
containerships when compared to the
world fleet of tankers and ore carriers.
Another major navigation-related
problem in the Baltimore Harbor area
is the disposal of dredged material.
Maintenance dredging by the Corps of
Engineers and other public and private
interests has been repeatedly delayed
because of the lack of agreement on an
economically and environmentally
acceptable disposal site for the
dredged material. The magnitude of
the disposal problem is immense. If
the 50-foot project is completed, it is
estimated that approximately 150 mil-
lion cubic yards of dredge material will
have to be disposed of during the next
50 years (including maintenance). This
quantity of material is sufficient to
cover the entire City of Baltimore to a
depth of approximately 2 feet. A
suitable disposal site will be identified
during preconstruction planning for
the 50-foot project.
In the Hampton Roads area, ineffi-
ciencies in the movement of export
coal, grain, and some of the miscel-
laneous bulk commodities would be
greatly alleviated if a deeper channel
were to be authorized and funded. The
Norfolk District of the Corps of Engi-
neers is currently investigating the
feasibility of deepening the Hampton
Roads channels. A deeper channel
might also benefit the movement of
crude oil through Hampton Roads to
the refinery at Yorktown on the York
River by allowing larger tankers (i.e.,
up to 90,000 dwt) to enter Hampton
Roads where they can be lightered for
the trip to Yorktown. One disadvan-
tage of this plan would be the possibly
damaging environmental consequences
52
-------
of a major oil spill during these lighter-
ing operations.
As in the Baltimore Harbor case, the
container vessels carrying general cargo
in and out of Hampton Roads are not
expected to increase significantly in
size in the foreseeable future. There-
fore, it is not expected that channel
depths will be a significant constraint
to the movement of containerships
through Hampton Roads.
The dredge material disposal situation
has not been nearly as critical in the
Hampton Roads area as in Baltimore.
This is due to the existence of the
Craney Island Disposal Area. The site
is nearing its capacity, however, with
complete filling expected around
1980.
The seriousness of this approaching
problem becomes evident when it is
noted that maintenance dredging alone
between 1980 and 2020 will produce
approximately 150 million cubic yards
of material to be disposed of or
utilized in some manner. If, for
example, a 55-foot channel deepening
alternative is undertaken, the total
dredged material involved increases to
approximately 280 million cubic yards
by the year 2020 (assuming a 10-year
development period).
With the recent widening and deepen-
ing of the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal to 35 feet, it is believed that
channel dimensions will not be a con-
straint to the general cargo vessels and
petroleum products carriers which use
the Canal. However, the need for
maintenance dredging in the approach
channels to the Canal is a continuing
problem.
The most immediate waterborne com-
merce related problem facing the York •
River is the lack of sufficient channel
depth to allow large tankers to bring
crude petroleum and petroleum prod-
ucts directly to the refinery and power
plant without lightering. In 1972, the
Norfolk District recommended that
the York River entrance channel be
improved by providing a two-lane,
two-level channel into the River; the
inbound lane to provide a depth of 50
feet, and the outbound lane a depth of
37 feet. However, these recommenda-
tions are subject to further investiga-
tion if the major Hampton Roads
channels are recommended and
authorized for deepening beyond 45
feet. It is possible that if the Hampton
Roads channel is deepened beyond 50
feet, the most economically acceptable
alternative is a combination of con-
tinued lightering and deepening of the
York River entrance channel.
A potential problem area concerns the
significant increase in crude petroleum
receipts and petroleum product ship-
ments projected for the Yorktown
refinery. An increase in this type of
traffic, estimated to rise almost 100
percent by 2000 and over 200 percent
by 2020, means the potential for oil
spills will probably also increase. The
area of the York River around York-
town supports important commercial
and sport fisheries which could be
adversely affected by an oil spill.
The ability of the existing channels in
the remaining so-called "minor" ports
and waterways on the Western Shore
of the Chesapeake Bay to meet future
demands depends in large measure on
the proportion of the demand for
petroleum products which will be met
by pipeline. A basic assumption used
in the preparation of the projections
of waterbome petroleum movements
was that all increases in the demand
for petroleum products in the Bay
Region would be met by waterborne,
as opposed to pipeline, receipts. If
pipeline capacities increase signifi-
cantly, then it can be expected that
the existing channels will be able to
efficiently meet future demands. If
they do not, then some channel deep-
enings may be necessary.
Another potential future problem area
involves the possible location of three
large petroleum refineries (Crown
Petroleum in Baltimore, Hampton
Roads Energy in Portsmouth, and
Stewart Petroleum at Piney Point,
Maryland). If all three of these facil-
ities are built and become operational,
approximately 25 million additional
tons of crude petroleum and as much
as 23.5 million tons of petroleum
products could be shipped on the
Bay's waters. An expansion in petro-
leum movements of this magnitude
would obviously increase the chances
of environmentally damaging oil spills.
.Another facility designed to handle
petroleum products, although of a
different type, is scheduled to begin
operations at Cove Point, Maryland, in
the near future. This facility will dis-
tribute liquid natural gas from Algeria
to a seven state area. Because of the
extremely low temperatures involved,
there is virtually no danger of a spill
since the liquid gas would vaporize
upon contact with the much warmer
air. There is some potential damage,
however, of a fire or explosion in the
event of a collision with another ves-
sel. Because of this, extraordinary
safety procedures are taken when
transporting liquid natural gas. As the
total number of vessels on Chesapeake
Bay increases in the future, the poten-
tial for collisions is also likely to
increase.
MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS
(1) A need to accommodate large
bulk vessels expected to dominate the
world bulk trade in petroleum, coal,
iron ore, and grain. The most obvious
solution to the problem of accom-
modating larger vessels than existing
channels can handle is to deepen the
channels to the required depths. There
are, however, rather important eco-
nomic and environmental considera-
tions which may preclude further
deepening. First, there are existing
tunnels under the main channels in
both Baltimore and Hampton Roads
which, in effect, limit their depths
since the cost of lowering these tun-
nels would probably be prohibitive.
Second, as channel depths increase,
the volume of dredge material to be
disposed of from both deepening and
maintenance operations increases
(usually more than proportionately).
There are several alternatives to the
deepening of shipping channels to
accommodate larger vessels. One is to
use "restricted draft" vessels which are
characterized by much wider beams to
allow a larger tonnage of cargo to be
carried by a vessel of a given draft.
However, such vessels are not pres-
ently widely available and their costs
are generally higher for a given dead-
weight tonnage.
Another alternative to deepening exist-
ing channels is the development of
so-called "superports." Under this
alternative, one or more superports
would be constructed in deep water
53
-------
off the Eastern Coast. Very large
vessels, on the order of 300,000 dwt
with approximately 75 foot drafts
would unload at the deepwater ter-
minal where the cargo (e.g., crude oil,
coal, iron ore) would be transported to
the mainland by barge or pipeline.
However, this alternative is often not
acceptable for economic, environ-
mental, or social reasons.
(2) A need for an economically
and environmentally acceptable
method of dredge material disposal.
Given that a channel should be main-
tained or deepened, there are numer-
ous alternative ways to dispose of
dredge material. The cheapest and
easiest method of dredge material dis-
posal is to deposit the material either
adjacent to the channel or to barge it
to a nearby deep underwater site. In
the past, there were two major open
water disposal sites used in the Bay—
Pooles Island Deep and Kent Island.
At this time, however, mainly for
environmental reasons, the use of open
water disposal in the Bay in the near
future appears unlikely.
Open water disposal in the Atlantic
Ocean is another possibility for the
disposal of dredge material. The major
advantage to this alternative is the
almost limitless physical capacity of
the ocean. This alternative has been
used in the past in the Hampton Roads
area, but the Baltimore area is too far
from the ocean for this type of dis-
posal to be economically feasible.
In addition, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality has recommended to
the President that ocean disposal of
polluted dredge material be phased out
as soon as alternatives can be found
and implemented.
Another alternative method of dredge
material disposal is a dyked contain-
ment structure. Both the Craney
Island site, which has served the
Hampton Roads dredge needs for a
number of years, and the proposed
Hart-Miller Islands site in Baltimore
are this type of structure. These speci-
fic projects are discussed in more
detail in Appendix 9. In general,
dyked disposal sites are one of the
least expensive forms of disposal and
they can eventually support such uses
as ballfields, parks, nature trails, and
boat launching ramps. Local accept-
dredge material disposal sites, anchor-
ages, and even channels to avoid,
whenever possible, popular boating
by the construction and filling opera-
tions.
Other methods of dredged material
disposal and/or utilization such as
underwater sanitary landfills, "on-
land" disposal at land-locked sites,
beach nourishment, or the manufac-
ture of bricks, have economic and
environmental advantages and disad-
vantages depending on the project site,
quality of the dredged material, and
other variables. For the most part,
however, these alternatives are best
suited for smaller projects and are not
solutions to long-range or large dredge
material disposal problems.
(3) A need to alleviate potential
congestion problems in port, channel,
and anchorage areas. One possible
solution to the potential congestion
and traffic management problems was
recently recommended by the Fifth
Coast Guard District to the Comman-
dant in Washington, D.C. After a two
year study of the movements of com-
mercial vessels on Chesapeake Bay,
Coast Guard marine safety experts
recommended implementation of a
comprehensive traffic management
system. The plan, which was oriented
towards the Port of Baltimore and
specifically to the movement of liquid
natural gas into the Cove Point ter-
minal south of Baltimore, would re-
quire the installation of government-
operated communications centers at
both ends of the Bay. With this net-
work, marine traffic could be con-
trolled in a manner similar to air
traffic at a major international airport.
This management responsibility has
traditionally been delegated to ship
pilots and captains. The Coast Guard
had not yet made a final decision on
the Fifth District's recommendations.
(4) A need to minimize the poten-
tial conflicts between commercial and
recreational users of the Bay's waters
and beaches. Minimizing potential con-
flicts between commercial and recrea-
tional uses of Chesapeake Bay can best
be minimized by a careful selection of
dredge material disposal sites, anchor-
ages, and even channels to avoid,
whenever possible, popular boating
and sailing, fishing, swimming, and
nature areas. Lightering sites, espe-
cially for petroleum, should be located
where possible accidents would have
the least effects on recreation areas.
(5) A need to minimize the erosion
damages from waves caused by com-
mercial and military vessels. As men-
tioned earlier, erosion caused by the
wakes from ships is a serious problem
in some areas. The simplest corrective
action is to .lower permitted vessel
speeds in areas of high erosion poten-
tial, thus decreasing the eroding power
of the ship-induced waves. Today's
merchant ships, however, are ex-
tremely expensive to operate so that
delays caused by reduced speed limits
could increase shipping costs con-
siderably, thereby offsetting any bene-
fit to the shoreline areas affected by
erosion. Another possible solution to
the erosion problem would be the
provision of non-structural or struc-
tural shoreline protection measures,in
the critically eroding areas.
(6) A need to minimize accidental
spills and eliminate deliberate dis-
charges of wastes from commercial
and recreation craft. As discussed
earlier, a comprehensive traffic man-
agement system for the Bay would
reduce the potential for a collision or
accident that could result in a massive
spill. Appropriate Federal, State, and
local controls with substantial pen-
alties for non-compliance would prob-
ably be effective in reducing the
number of occurrences. Lastly, re-
sponse teams can and are being estab-
lished at Federal, State, and local
levels to minimize damage in the event
of an accidental spill.
In response to Public Law 92-500 the
provision of holding tanks or other
suitable flow-through devices on all
ships will be very effective in elimi-
nating this problem. Attendant with
the inclusion of ship board tanks and
devices is the need for shore-based
facilities that can treat the effluent
pumped from ships.
(7) A need to provide additional
lands to accommodate expanding port
facilities. The present and future needs
for lands to be used for port-related
facilities requires that the appropriate
transportation and planning agencies
of State and local governments de-
velop zoning and land use plans that
will insure the orderly development of
54
-------
the necessary improvements. As part
of the development of the appropriate
land use plans, consideration will have
to be given to the impact on adjacent
lands, the need for lands for com-
peting uses such as recreation, and
conflicts with natural phenomenon
including hurricane flooding and
shoreline erosion.
FLOOD CONTROL
CURRENT STATUS
THE TIDAL FLOODING
PROBLEM
Since man first settled on the shoreline
of Chesapeake Bay, he has been sub-
ject to periodic tidal flooding which
has resulted in immeasurable human
suffering and millions of dollars of
property damage. Serious tidal flood-
ing in the Chesapeake Bay Region is
caused by either hurricanes or "north-
easters." Hurricanes which reach the
Middle Atlantic States are usually
formed either in the Cape Verde
Region or the western Caribbean Sea
and move westerly and northwesterly.
In most cases these storms change to a
northerly and northeasterly direction
in the vicinity of the East Coast of the
United States.
As a hurricane progresses over the
open water of the ocean, a tidal surge
is built up, not only by the force of
the wind and the forward movement
of the storm wind field, but also by
differences in atmospheric pressure
accompanying the storm. The actual
height reached by a hurricane tidal
surge and the consequent damages
incurred depend on many factors in-
cluding shoreline configuration, bot-
tom slope, difference in atmospheric
pressure and wind speed. Generally the
tidal surge is increased as the storm
approaches land because of both the
decreasing depth of the ocean and the
contours of the coastline. An addi-
tional rise usually occurs when the
tidal surge invades a bay or estuary
and hurricane winds drive waters to
higher levels in the more shallow
waters. Tidal surges are greater, and
the tidal flooding more severe in
coastal communities which lie to the
right of the storm path due to the
counterclockwise spiraling of the hur-
ricane winds and the forward move-
ment of the storm.
TABLE 27
TIDAL ELEVATIONS DURING RECENT CHESAPEAKE BAY STORMS
Storm
August 1933
September 1936
October 1954 "Hazel"
August 1955 "Connie"
August 1955 "Diane"
April 1956 "Northeaster"
March 1962 "Northeaster"
Tidal Elevations (Feet Above Mean Sea Level)
Norfolk Mid-Bay Washington Baltimore
8.0
7.5
3.3
4.4
4.4
6.5
7.4
7.3
4.8
4.6
4.5
2.8
6.0
9.6
3.0
7.3
5.2
5.6
4.0
8.2
2.3
6.0
6.9
5.0
3.3
4.7
TABLE 28
TIDAL FLOOD DAMAGES OF RECENT CHESAPEAKE BAY STORMS
Location
Baltimore Metro Area
Washington Metro Area
Maryland Tidewater Area
Norfolk Metro Area
Virginia Tidewater Area
"Northeaster" is a term given to a high
intensity storm which almost invari-
ably develops near the Atlantic Coast.
These storms form so rapidly that an
apparently harmless weather situation
may be transformed into a severe
storm in as little as 6 hours. Most
northeasters occur in the winter
months when the temperature con-
trasts between the continental and
maritime air masses are the greatest.
The East Coast of the United States
has a comparatively high incidence of
this type of storm, with the area near
Norfolk, Virginia, being one of the
• centers of highest frequency.
In the course of recorded history, the
Chesapeake Bay Region has been sub-
jected to about 100 storms that have
caused damaging tidal flooding. The
accounts of most of the storms that
occurred prior to 1900 are very brief
and are usually found only in early
newspaper articles and private jour-
nals. The earliest known account of a
great storm in this Area appeared in
Arthur P. Middleton's Tobacco Coast.
Storms and Damages in Thousands of Dollars
August 1933
$23,500
12,000
11,400
8,500
Negligible
October 1954
"Hazel"
$6,900
4;soo
9,100
Negligible
Negligible
August 1955
"Connie"
$11,500
300
1,800
Negligible
Negligible
March 1962
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
$ 4,800
24,700
This storm was the great "Hurry-
Cane" of August 1667 in which fields
were inundated, crops were torn to
shreds, houses and barns were carried
away, and even the largest vessels were
washed up on the beach. J. Thomas
Scharf, in his History of Baltimore
City and County, states that one of
the most destructive storms of later
times occurred in July 1837. The
water rose twenty feet above its nor-
mal level and many sections of the city
were flooded by more than five feet of
water. However, the elevation and the
area inundated by these early tidal
floods was seldom accurately docu-
mented and it was not until the early
part of the 20th century that a pro-
gram to maintain continuous records
of tidal elevations was initiated. The
damages and loss of life suffered dur-
ing these early floods is also not well
documented.
Shown in Table 27 are the recorded
tidal elevations at several locations for
the most severe floods that have oc-
curred in this Century. It should be
55
-------
noted that the relative seveiity of
flooding varies around the Bay since it
is a function of changes in storm paths
and variances in climatological and
astronomical tide conditions.
The hurricane of 23 August 1933 was
the most destructive ever recorded.
The hurricane center entered the main-
land near Cape Hatteras, passed
slightly west of Norfolk, Virginia, and
continued in a northerly direction
passing just east of Washington, D.C. It
moved at or near the critical speed for
producing the maximum surge, and its
time of arrival coincided with the
astronomical high tide as it proceeded
upstream. The results were tides rang-
ing from 8.0 feet above mean sea level
(msl) at Norfolk to as high as 11.0 feet
(msl) at Washington, D.C. In addition
to flooding damage, the high winds
associated with this storm generated
very destructive waves which caused
extensive shoreline erosion.
Shown in Table 28 is an estimate of
the damages that were caused by the
four most damaging storms that have
passed through the Bay Region. The
estimates reflect the actual physical
damages that occurred, updated to
reflect 1975 price levels. These figures
do not reflect the damages that would
result from a recurrence of these
storms under today's conditions due
to differences in intensity of develop-
ment in the flood plain.
FLOOD PROBLEM AREAS
Existing flood problem areas were
. identified by considering the degree of
tidal flooding that would be experi-
enced by those communities located
along the shoreline of the Bay and its
tributaries. The analysis was limited to
communities or urbanized areas since
residential, commercial, and industrial
development would suffer the greatest
monetary losses as a result of a tidal
flood.
The initial step in the analysis was to
identify all Bay communities having a
population of 1,000 or greater that are
located either in total or in part within
the "Standard Project Tidal Flood
Plain." The Standard Project Tidal
Flood (SPTF) is defined as the largest
tidal flood that is likely to occur under
TABLE 29
FLOODPRONE COMMUNITIES, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
STATE OF MARYLAND
Anne Arundel County
*Arundel on the Bay
*Avalon Shores (Shady Side, Curtis
Pt. to Horseshoe Pt and West
Shady Side)
Broadwatei
Columbia Beach
*Deale
Eastport
Franklin Manor on the Bay
and Cape Anne
Galesville
Rose Haven
* Baltimore City
Baltimore County
Back River Neck
*Dundalk (Including Sparrows Pt.)
* Middle River Neck
•Patapsco River Neck
Calvert County
Cove Point
North Beach on the Bay
Solomons Island
Caroline County
Choptank
*Denton
Federalsburg
Cecil County
Elkton
Northeast
Charles County
Cobb Island
Dorchester County
*Cambridge
Harford County
Havre de Grace
Kent County
*Rock Hall
Queen Anne's County
Dominion
*Grasonville
Stevensville
St. Mary's County
Colton
*Piney Point
St. Clement Shores
St. George Island
STATE OF MARYLAND (Cont.)
Somerset County
*Crisfield
* Smith Island
Talbot County
Easton
Oxford
*St. Michaels
*Tilghman Island
Wicomico County
Bivalve
Nanticoke
* Salisbury
Worcester County
*Pocomoke City
*Snow Hill
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Independent Cities
•Fredericksburg
"Hampton
•Norfolk
•Portsmouth
•Virginia Beach
•Chesapeake
Accomack County
Onancock
Sax is
•Tangier Island
King George County
•Dahlgren
King William County
•West Point
Northampton County
•Cape Charles
Westmoreland County
•Colonial Beach
York County
•Poquoson
•WASHINGTON, D.C.
•Indicates "critically" floodprone communities.
the most severe combination of mete-
orological and hydrological conditions
that are considered reasonably charac-
teristic of the geographic region.
The next step in the flooding analysis
was to identify those communities
that should be classified as "flood-
prone." In order for a community to
be designated as floodprone, at least
50 acres of land that were developed
for intensive use had to be inundated
by the SPTF. Intensive land use was
defined as residential (four dwelling
units/acre or greater), commercial
56
-------
(including institutional), or industrial
development. The 59 Bay Region com-
munities identified as floodprone are
shown on Table 29. Approximately
82,000 acres of land in these com-
munities were found to be located in
the SPTF flood plain.
The last step in the flooding analysis
was to further examine the com-
munities designated as floodprone and
classify each as to whether or not the
tidal flood problem was considered to
be "critical." The flood problem was
considered to be critical if the Inter-
mediate Regional Tidal Flood (IRTF)
inundated 25 acres or more of inten-
sively developed land and also' caused
significant physical damage. The .IRTF
is defined as that tidal flood which has
a one percent chance of occurrence in
any one year, generally referred to as
the 100-year flood. Elevations for the
100-year tidal flood were approxi-
mated for points around Chesapeake
Bay based on historical records. The
flood heights used were found to range
between 6.0 and 11.0 feet above msl.
The communities asterisked on Table
29 are classified as "critical floodprone
areas." Approximately 27,000 acres of
land in these 32 communities were
found to be in the 100-year tidal flood
plain.
FUTURE TIDAL FLOOD
PROBLEM AREAS
The criteria used for designating an
area as future floodprone was that 50
acres or more of land proposed for
intensive land use fall within the
Standard Project Tidal Flood Plain.
Areas were considered to be "criti-
cally" floodprone if 25 acres or more
of land proposed for intensive land use
were within the 100-year flood plain.
The communities found to be criti-
cally floodprone in the future are
shown on Table 30. Based on a com-
parison of the existing and future
acreage it should be noted that an
additional 58,430 acres of land is
proposed for intensive development
within the Standard Project Tidal
Flood Plain and 19,460 acres of land
within the 100-year flood plain.
MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS
NON-STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
a. mood Insurance: Until recently,
insurance against flood-caused losses
TABLE 30
CRITICAL FUTURE FLOODPRONE AREAS, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
STATE OF MARYLAND
Anne Arundel County
Arundel on the Bay
Baltimore County
Dundalk (Including Sparrows Point)
Cecil County
Elkton
Northeast
Kent County
Rock Hall
Queen Anne's County
Grasonville
Stevensville
Somerset County
Smith Island
was virtually non-existent. Now, how-
ever, flood insurance is available in
floodprone communities under the
Federally-subsidized National Flood
Insurance Program. A cooperative
effort of the Federal Government and
the private insurance industry, the
program is operated by the Federal
Insurance Administration of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). In return for
making low cost insurance available
for existing floodprone property, the
program places certain obligations
upon the community. The community
is required to adopt and enforce land
use and other control measures that
will guide new development in flood-
prone areas so that flood damage is
avoided or reduced. Most of the
affected counties and local jurisdic-
tions in the Region are enrolled in the
Flood Insurance Program.
b. Flood Proofing: Flood proofing
is actually a combination of structural
changes and adjustments to properties
subject to flooding. Although it is
more economically applied to new
construction, it is also applicable to
existing facilities. Flood proofing is
recommended where traditional collec-
tive types of flood protection are not
feasible and where moderate flooding
with low stage, low velocity, and short
duration is experienced.
Flood proofing measures can be clas-
sified into three broad types. First,
there are permanent measures which
become an integral part of the struc-
STATE OF MARYLAND (Cont)
Talbot County
St. Michaels
Wicomico County
Salisbury
Worchester County
Pocomoke City
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Independent Cities
Hampton
Norfolk
Virginia Beach
Chesapeake
York County
Poquoson
ture. Second, there are standby meas-
ures which are used only during
floods, but which are constructed or
made ready prior to any flood threat.
Third, there are emergency measures
which are carried out during a flood
according to a predetermined plan.
Permanent measures essentially involve
either the elimination of openings
through which water can enter or the
reorganization of space within build-
ings. For example, unnecessary doors
and windows can be permanently
sealed with brick; a watertight flood
shield at a doorway opening can also
serve as the door; valves can be in-
stalled on basement sewer pipes to
prevent flood water from backing up
into the basement; or boilers, air con-
ditioning units, and other immobile
machinery can be moved to higher
elevations and replaced with movable
furniture or stock. Adjustments such
as these can be most easily undertaken
in existing buildings during periods of
remodeling or expansion.
Standby measures are most desirable
when it is necessary to maintain access
into structures at points below se-
lected flood protection levels. For
example, display windows at com-
mercial structures must not be blocked
in order to serve their main purpose.
These types of openings cannot be
permanently flood proofed, but they
can be fitted with removable flood
shields. Since the placement and instal-
lation of such devices requires several
hours, a flood warning system has to
be established before such flood proof-
57
-------
ing measures can become effective.
Emergency measures are carried out
during an actual flood experience.
These measures may be designed to
keep water out of buildings, for
example, the sandbagging of entrances
or the use of planking covered over
with polyethylene sheeting. More
often they are intended only to pro-
tect equipment and stock. A widely
used emergency measure is the
planned removal of contents to higher
locations when a certain flood stage is
reached. Again, an effective flood
warning system is crucial to the effec-
tiveness of this type of measure.
c. Other Non-Structural Measures:
Other non-structural measures used in
reducing flood damages are: perma-
nent or temporary evacuation of the
flood plain, land use controls and
building codes designed to control the
extent and type of future development
in the flood plain, and public aware-
ness programs to make the potential
hazards of tidal flooding known to the
prospective developer and/or home-
owner.
STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
Structural solutions are. defined as
those man-made structures that are
designed to protect an area from tidal
flood damages. Floodwalls and levees
are two examples of these types of
structures. While differing in design,
appearance, and cost, floodwalls and
levees serve essentially the same pur-
pose. Both are constructed near the
shoreline to protect landside develop-
ment from inundation by tidal flood-
waters. Eloodwalls are generally con-
crete and may have vertical, curved or
stepped faces. Levees are usually earth
embankments having a top width of
approximately 10 feet and side slopes
that vary between 1 on 2 and 1 on 4.
Levees are generally less expensive
than floodwalls and are particularly
applicable in areas where construction
materials are nearby and there is suf-
ficient area between the shoreline and
the development for their construc-
tion. Floodwalls may be used where
the close proximity of the develop-
ment to the shoreline precludes the
construction of levees.
Because of the high cost of providing
this type of protection, the appli-
cability of levees and floodwalls in the
Bay Region would generally be limited
to those highly developed urbanized
areas where there is extensive residen-
tial, commercial, or industrial develop-
ment that is subject to damaging
flooding. It should also be noted that
providing a levee or floodwall of suf-
ficient height to protect against a
major tidal flood could severely re-
strict the use of the shoreline for
recreational or transportation and
shipping purposes. Also, the
protection may be considered unac-
ceptable from an aesthetic standpoint
if the view of the water body is
restricted.
A breakwater is another type of flood
protection structure. It is designed to
break the force of storm waves and
thus reduce the damage that would be
experienced by storm waves breaking
on shoreline development. Break-
waters are also used to create harbors
of refuge that provide safe mooring for
recreational and commercial craft.
Breakwaters may be either shore con-
nected or located offshore and are
generally classified by either the con-
struction materials or the method of
construction. Different types of break-
waters may be constructed of stone or
concrete blocks (rubble-mound break-
waters), stone-asphalt mixtures, rein- •
forced concrete shells filled wtih stone
or sand, steel sheet piling cells filled
with sand, timber cribs filled with
rubble, or mobile or floating break-
waters which may be moved into place
when a tidal flood is predicted. The
most common type of breakwater in
the Chesapeake Bay Region is the
shore connected, rubble-mound break-
water. In the sheltered waters of the
Bay and the sub-estuaries this type of
protection is very effective and usually
can be constructed with materials that
are available locally.
Recreational and commercial craft are
particularly susceptible to damage
caused by the large waves associated
with tidal flooding. Harbors of refuge
provide areas of calm water for the
safe mooring of all types of craft.
Harbors of refuge can be naturally
sheltered areas such as coves or inlets
or existing marinas, and mooring areas
protected through the use of break-
waters as discussed above.
Other structural measures including
bulkheads, revetments, groins, and
beach nourishment that are used pri-
marily for shoreline erosion control
also have some applicability as flood
control measures. A detailed descrip-
tion of these measures is included in
Appendix 11 - Shoreline Erosion.
SHORELINE EROSION
CURRENT STATUS
THE SHORELINE EROSION
PROCESS
The shorelands of Chesapeake Bay are
composed of three physiographic
elements—fastland, shore, and near-
shore (Figure 29). The fastland is that
area landward of normal water levels.
The shore is the zone of beaches and
wetlands which serve as a buffer
between the water body and the fast-
land. Lastly, the nearshore extends
waterward from the mean low water
level to the 12-foot depth contour. In
the Chesapeake Bay proper, the near-
shore is generally comprised of a shal-
low water belt more than 1,000 feet
wide before the 6-foot mean low water
depth contour is encountered. From
the 6-foot contour outward, the depth
increases at a more rapid rate.
While the causes of shoreline erosion
are complex and not completely
understood, the primary processes re-
sponsible for erosion are wave action,
tidal currents, and groundwater activ-
ity. Waves generated by wind are the
cause of most of the shoreline erosion
in the Bay Region. The amount of
wave energy which reaches the shore-
line is dependent on the slope of the
nearshore. A shallow nearshore will
dissipate more wave energy than a
deep nearshore. In addition, less wave
energy is received by a shoreline if
there is a shoal, tidal flat, or aquatic
vegetaion immediately offshore. Simi-
larly, a wide beach is better than a
narrow beach for wave dissipation.
Conversely, where the shoreline has
none of the above natural features and
wave action is strong, undercutting of
the ground landward of the beach will
cause sliding, slumping, and resultant
loss of fastland.
Waves associated with hurricanes or
other large storms can be extremely
58
-------
damaging. These storms can generate
very large, steep wind waves which can
remove considerable material from the
shore zone and carry it offshore.
Strong winds of these storms often
raise water levels and expose to wave
attack lands of higher elevation that
are not ordinarily vulnerable.
Erosion problems caused by tidal cur-
rents are usually most severe in con-
stricted areas such as inlets to lagoons
and bays or at entrances to harbors. In
addition to creating currents which
cause erosion, the tides constantly
change the level at which waves attack
the beach, thereby aggravating the
problem.
Another process which contributes to
the erosion of the shoreline is the
seepage of groundwater through the
fastland and into the exposed shore
zone. As shown on Figure 30, taken
from the Chester River Study prepared
by the State of Maryland and the
Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
water percolates downward through
porous soils and flows out through
exposed bank faces often causing an
erosion of bank materials. This process
is accelerated where man has removed
the natural cover on the land adjacent
to the banks thus increasing the
amount of rainfall seeping into the
ground.
To a much lesser degree, three other
factors contribute to the shoreline
erosion problem in Chesapeake Bay.
First, the long term rise of sea level has
resulted in the inundation or loss of
land to the Bay. An average rise of
0.01 feet per year has been recorded in
the lower Chesapeake Bay. At Fort
McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland, the
National Ocean Survey tide gage indi-
cated a 0.6 foot rise in mean sea level
between 1902 and 1962. These seem-
ingly insignificant rates of increase can
over the years inundate significant
land area particularly where shorelands
have very gentle slopes. Second, rain-
fall runoff can cause or contribute
significantly to shoreline erosion, par-
ticularly in areas where the adjacent
shoreline is rolling and broken and
soils are made up of easily erodible
materials. Last, in some areas of the
FASTLAND
MLW — "MEAN LOW WATER"
Figure 29: Shorelands of Chesapeake Bay
Figure 30: Shoreline Erosion Caused by the Seepage of Groundwater
Bay, especially around busy harbors
and waterways such as the Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal, the wakes from
passing ships are a significant erosive
force.
EXISTING PROBLEMS AND
CONFLICTS
The natural processes discussed in the
preceding paragraphs have claimed
thousands of acres of land around
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Over the last 100 years alone, approxi-
mately 45,000 acres of land have been
lost due to tidal erosion. The configu-
ration of the shoreline has changed
markedly in some areas; and certain
islands, some of which exceeded 400
acres in size, have ceased to exist.
The most significant impact of the loss
of this amount of land has been on the
landowners who have witnessed the
loss of both valuable shoreland and
improvements that may have been
constructed too close to the shoreline.
Attempts to try to arrest the rate of
erosion through either poorly designed
or constructed protective measures
have further frustrated property
owners when their efforts proved
futile. In many cases, man has acceler-
ated the rate of erosion by eliminating
natural protective devices such as vege-
tative cover that inhibit erosion.
59
-------
Sediment, the product of erosion, has
also had significant impacts on both
the natural environment and man's use
of the resource. Sediment from shore-
line erosion may eventually be de-
posited in either natural or man-made
navigation channels requiring main-
tenance dredging and the problems
normally associated with the disposal
of the dredged material. In addition,
sediment also has a considerable
impact on water quality and the biota
of the Bay. Sediment can cover pro-
ductive oyster beds and valuable
aquatic plants. The reduced light pene-
tration into turbid waters can also be
very detrimental to aquatic life.
In order to define those areas or
reaches of tidal shoreline along the
Bay and its tributaries that are suf-
fering "critical" losses of land, an
inventory of historical erosion rates
and the adjacent land use was com-
piled. The erosion rates used in the
compilation were developed by the
Maryland Geological Survey and the
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
for the Maryland and Virginia portions
of the Bay, Respectively.
In the determination of the shoreline
erosion rates the shoreline was broken
down into workable lengths called
"reaches," which range from several
hundred to several thousand feet in
length. These reaches were established
based on physiographic characteristics
including the erosion or deposition
rate. The inventory of the erosion
rates on a reach by reach basis for each
tidal county in Maryland and Virginia
is included in Tables A-l and A-2,
respectively, of Appendix 11—Shore-
line Erosion.
Using these erosion rates along with
land use information developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey as part of the
CARETS program, reaches were
designated as having critical erosion
problems if they met or exceeded the
following criteria:
1. The erosion rate was equal to or
greater than 3 feet per year regardless
of adjacent land use.
2. The erosion rate was equal to or
greater than 2 feet per year and the
adjacent land use was intensive, i.e.,
residential, commercial, or industrial.
TABLE 31
LENGTH OF CRITICALLY
ERODING SHORELINE
STATE OF MARYLAND
County/City
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
Calvert
Cecil
Charles
Dorchester
Harford
Kent
Queen Anne's
Somerset
St. Mary's
Talbot
Wicomico
Length of Critical
Shoreline Miles
TOTAL
259.5
TABLE 32
LENGTH OF CRITICALLY
ERODING SHORELINE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
County /City
Accomack
Essex
Gloucester
Hampton
Isle of Wight
Lancaster
Ma thews
Middlesex
Northampton
Northumberland
Richmond
Surry
Virginia Beach
Westmoreland
York
TOTAL
Length of Critical
Shoreline. Miles
142.9
Using the above criteria and assump-
tions, approximately 403 miles of
shoreline were identified as existing
"critical erosion reaches." Table 11-1
of Appendix 11 lists each critical reach
by county and state, the land use in
the reach, reach length, erosion rate
and an evaluation of existing structural
sHoreline protection measures within
the reach. Plates 11-1 through 11-3 in
Appendix 11 show the location of
these critical reaches. Tables 31 and 32
in this Summary list the amount of
critically eroding shoreline by county
for Maryland and Virginia.
TABLE 33
FUTURE CRITICALLY ERODING
REACHES
(MARYLAND)
LOCALITY
WATER BODY/
REACH DESIGNATION
Anne Arundel County
Chesapeake Bay
Bodkin Point
Persimmon Point
Calvert County
Chesapeake Bay
From approximately V4 mile north
of Plum Point to Parker Creek
From approximately % mile north
of Flag Ponds to Cove Point
Cape Anne
Cecil County
Northeast River
Charlestown to Carpenter Point
Northeast Heights to Red Point
Kent County
Chesapeake Bay
2 miles south of Tolchester Beach to
Tavern Creek
Queen Anne's County
Chesapeake Bay
Broad Creek to % mile south of
Carney Creek
Chesapeake Bay
Jackson Creek to Piney Cove
Eastern Bay
Greenwood to Bennett Point
Wicomico County
Nanticoke River
Roaring Point
Bivalve Harbor to 1 mile north
FUTURE SHORELINE
EROSION PROBLEMS
The method employed to delineate
future problem areas is essentially the
same as that used to define the exist-
ing critical areas. It was assumed that
the historical erosion rates were reflec-
tive of future erosion rates in the same
reaches. It was further assumed that
future land use adjacent to the shore-
line would develop as shown in the
6O
-------
latest regional, county, or municipal
land use planning documents. Given
the historical erosion rates and pro-
jected future land use adjacent to the
shoreline, the entire Bay shoreline was
surveyed to determine if any future
development was proposed in areas
subjected to significant shoreline
erosion.
It was determined that an additional
44.4 miles of Bay shoreline has the
potential to become a serious problem.
(See Tables 33 and 34). This is in
addition to the over 400 miles of
shoreline that is currently classified as
critical based on existing development.
NON-STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
Nonstructural solutions consist of de-
vices which enhance the effectiveness
of natural protective features and reg-
ulatory actions that can be employed
to avoid a land use-erosion conflict.
The following nonstructural measures
have applicability in shoreline erosion
problems in Chesapeake Bay.
a. Marsh Creation. As previously
mentioned, marshes tend to buffer the
shoreline against wave action and its
consequential erosive forces. Under
certain conditions, marshes can be
created by selective placement of
material in the nearshore zone and the '
seeding and transplanting of native
plants such as saltmarsh cordgrass
(Spartina Alterniflora). A possible
source of material for the creation of
marshes is dredged material from chan-
nel maintenance and deepening pro-
jects. The use of this material would
not only serve to provide erosion
control and create additional fish and
wildlife habitat, but it could help solve
the problem of finding acceptable dis-
posal sites for dredged material.
b. Vegetative Cover. In addition to
improving the ability of the shoreline
and fastland areas to resist erosion,
vegetation can trap windblown mate-
rial and thus aid in the formation of a
protective dune. Vegetation as a sole
protection against erosion has proven
to be unsuccessful except in well-
protected areas. Its widest application
has been its use in conjunction with
other structural measures such as bulk-
heads and groins. It has also been used
TABLE 34
FUTURE CRITICALLY ERODING
REACHES
(VIRGINIA)
LOCALITY
WATER BODY/
REACH DESIGNATION
Gloucester County
Ware River
Ware River Point to Old House Creek
Mobjack Bay
Ware River Point to Turtleneck Point
York River
Sandy Point to east of Perrin River
City of Hampton
Back River
Harris Creek to North End Point
Lancaster County
Rappahannock River
Wyatt Creek to Greenvale Creek
Navy Auxiliary Air Force to
Mulberry Creek
Mulberry Creek to Curletts Point
Corrotoman River
Eastern Shoreline
Northumberland County
Potomac River
Eastern Shoreline of Wilkens Creek
Chesapeake Bay
Taskmers Creek to Warehouse Creek
Richmond County
Rappahannock River
Morattico Creek to Tarpley Point
Tarpley Point to Sharps Road Point
Sharps Road Point to Rechardson
Creek
Waverly Point to McGuire Creek
Westmoreland County
Potomac River
Ragged Point to Jackson Crsek
York County
York River
Skimino-Creek to 1.8 mile south
to stabilize backfills of bulkheads and
in combination with groins in the
creation and stabilization of beaches.
c. Regulatory Actions and Public
Awareness Programs. Land use regula-
tions can be used to set aside critically
eroding reaches for such non-intensive
uses as recreation or open space. This
action would prohibit development of
structures that would be threatened by
a rapidly receding shoreline.
A second approach is to adopt build-
ing codes which would allow for devel-
opment in eroding areas but that
would require the construction of the
appropriate erosion control measures.
The developer would be required to
provide continuous protection for the
length of the reach.
A public awareness program could be
used to advise the public as to the
location and severity of shoreline ero-
sion and could also provide informa-
tion as to the structural and nonstruc-
tural measures that could be used to
control erosion.
STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
Structural solutions are defined as
those man-made structures that are
designed to either prevent waves and
tidal action from reaching credible
material or that retard the longshore
transport of littoral drift (i.e., the
movement of sediments parallel to the
shore in the nearshore zone by waves
and currents) and thus aid the build-up
of the natural nearshore defenses.
Bulkheads and revetments are the
most commonly used structures that
prevent erosive forces from reaching
the fastland while groins and beach
nourishment are most frequently
employed in the Region to build up
the nearshore. The following para-
graphs include a general discussion of
the above mentioned structural meas-
ures and their general design character-
istics.
a. Bulkheads. The main purpose of
a bulkhead is to retain the earth
behind it, to deflect the energy of
incoming waves, and to prevent flood-
ing. Bulkheads which are essentially
vertical walls, can be constructed of
wood, stone, concrete, or metals, but
are commonly made of wood, with a
framework of pilings and cross-timbers
called wales covered with a sheathing
of thick boards nailed or bolted to the
framework. Areas around Chesapeake
Bay where such protection can be
61
-------
most effectively used are in sheltered
waters such as coves, harbors, and in
small bays. In open waters, such as on
the Bay proper, bulkheads may. be
relatively ineffective as the severity of
the water action causes scouring at the
bottom of the structure and eventually
undermines the bulkhead itself.
b. Revetments. A revetment con-
sists of armoring the sloping face of
the shore with one or more layers of
riprap or concrete. The sloping charac-
teristic in this design serves to dissipate
wave energy as the water rolls up tne
incline. Riprap is composed of stone,
chunks of concrete, rubble or brick
and it is the most common type of
revetment construction employed in
the Bay Area. The irregular surface of
riprap also serves to break up water
momentum and provide niches which
capture sediment and thus adds stabil-
ity. Gabions consisting of riprap en-
closed in wire mesh cages may also be
used. These baskets capture sediment
and grow protective vegetation which
eventually blends the structure into
the surroundings. Properly designed
revetments can effectively retard ero-
sion even in severe cases. In certain
ineffective attempts to halt erosion,
unsuitable materials such as junked car
bodies, engines, and tires have been
used as riprap to absorb wave energy.
c. Groins. A groin is a barrier-type
structure which extends perpendicular
to the shoreline into the nearshore
zone of sand movement. The basic
purpose of a groin is to interrupt
alongshore sand movement in order to
accumulate sand on the shore or to
retard sand losses. Some groins or
groin fields interrupt the flow of sand
to downdrift areas thus causing dam-
age to these shorelines. In order to
minimize damage to the shoreline
downstream from a groin, it has to be
designed with the top profile not
higher than that of a beach of reason-
able dimensions. When full, a groin of
this type will permit the stream of
sand to pass over its top and continue
on downstream to nourish the neigh-
boring shores. Groins should not be
built unless properly designed for the
particular site and the effects of the
groins on adjacent beaches have been
adequately studied by an engineer
experienced in this field.
d. Beach Nourishment. Another
measure which can be used either
singularly or in connection with the
previously mentioned measures is
beach nourishment. Beach nourish-
ment is the addition of sand from
another source to an eroding natural
beach thereby replacing the material
lost to erosion and extending the
natural protection provided by the
nearshore. To restore an eroded beach
and stabilize it at the restored posi-
tion, material is placed directly along
the eroded sector and additional mate-
rial is stockpiled at the updrift end of
the problem area. The stockpiled
material will then maintain the re-
stored portion of the beach. When
conditions are suitable for artificial
nourishment, long reaches of shore
may be protected by this method at a
relatively low cost per linear foot of
shoreline.
62
-------
SECTION IV
FISH AND WILDLIFE
The fish and wildlife of the Chesa-
peake Bay Area contribute in many
ways to making the Bay what it is
today, both in terms of commercial
markets and in terms of recreational
enjoyment. Increasingly, people are
turning to the out-of-doors for use of
their leisure time, and fish and wildlife
contribute both directly and indirectly
to the value of the outdoor experi-
ence. Sport hunting and fishing,, for
example, are major activities of out-
door enthusiasts, as are such activities
as birdwatching and nature photo-
graphy. In addition, commercial inter-
ests rely on fish and wildlife resources
as a source of income and employ-
ment. The future requirements for fish
and wildlife for commercial and recre-
ational uses are the subject of this
section. The strictly biological value of
fish and wildlife as part of the Bay
ecosystem is discussed in Chapter II.
CURRENT STATUS
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
A commercial fishery is a business that
involves catching, or "harvesting," a
particular finfish or shellfish, deliver-
ance of the product to the wholesale
market, and subsequently "process-
ing" the product for the retail trade.
"Harvesting" and "processing" are the
terms used to describe the two particu-
lar sectors of the commercial fishing
industry.
In the harvesting sector, average com-
mercial landings during the period
1966 to 1970 totaled 381 million
pounds worth nearly $30 million.
About 82 percent of this total harvest
of finfish and shellfish was landed in
areas located on Chesapeake Bay
proper, as shown in Table 35, with the
balance being landed in tributaries to
the Bay. Finfish consist of both edible
and industrial species. The latter in-
clude mainly menhaden and alewives,
which together averaged 243 million
pounds worth $3.7 million between
1966 and 1970. Menhaden alone
accounted for 90 percent of all finfish
landings by weight in 1970. Edible
finfish types include striped bass,
weakfish, shad, catfish, bluefish, and
white perch, among others.
Shellfish, which are commonly har-
vested commercially, include crabs,
oysters, and soft clams. Based on data
presented in Table 35, shellfish har-
vests between 1966 and 1970 averaged
88 million pounds (excludes shell
weight of clams and oysters) worth $23
million . The fact that shellfish repre-
sent the big money crop in Chesapeake
Bay is illustrated in Figure 3.1 which
compares finfish with shellfish in
terms of both landings weight and
value. Shellfish comprise only 24 of
the total commercial harvest by
weight, but a substantial 78 percent of
the total value.
The most recent data available on
commercial harvests of finfish and
shellfish in Chesapeake Bay are for
1973. During the year, commercial
landings of bluefish exceeded all pre-
vious records at 2.8 million pounds as
did landings of the gray sea trout
which were 4.4 million pounds. This is
a 93 percent increase in poundage for
the latter species and a 134 percent
increase in value over 1972. Landings
of croaker were up 188 percent after
being very scarce the previous 6 years.
In contrast, landings of alewives in
1973 were nearly half of the 1970
catch and commercial catches of yel-
low and white perch were also down
markedly from 1970 levels.
Commercial shellfish harvests in 1973
were of comparable magnitude to har-
vests of 1966-1970, in terms of both
weight and value. Of interest, however,
is the fact that oysters were harvested
in Maryland waters in quantities unex-
ceeded since 1937, despite the impacts
of Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972, and
that harvests in Virginia were the
lowest on record. This apparent dis-
crepancy can be explained by the fact
that oysters in Maryland experienced
good reproductive years in 1969 and
1970 which resulted in oysters of
sufficient size to survive the large
freshwater influx due to Agnes.
Oysters in the State did not have a
good reproductive year during . the
1971-1976 period, however, and this is
expected to affect future landings.
Factors affecting the Virginia oysters
include a disease which invaded the
Commonwealth's oyster beds in the
early 1960's; poor reproductive years
prior to 1973; and the effects of
Agnes. The clam landings, and to a
Landings
(Lbs.)
(Millions)
293 .
SHELLFISH
Figure 31'.AverageFinfish andShellfish
Harvest, 1966-1970, Chesapeake
Bay Region.
lesser extent crab catches, in both
States were down considerably from
previous years due to a large extent to
the effects of Tropical Storm Agnes.
Employment in the harvesting and
processing sectors is also an important
component of the commercial fishing
industry. The most recent data from
1973 show employment in the com-
mercial harvesting sector to be about
17,400 full-time and part-time fisher-
men operating nearly 12,000 vessels of
various sizes. The number of fishermen
in the Chesapeake Bay Region has
stayed relatively constant since 1954,
fluctuating between a low of 16,800 in
1962 to a high of 20,200 in 1955. The
number of vessels has also stayed fairly
constant during this period.
In addition, in Maryland and Virginia,
about 7,100 persons were employed in
the processing sector in wholesale and
processing plants in 1973. Since fresh
seafood is highly perishable, much of
the Chesapeake Bay catch is processed
and wholesaled in close proximity to
where the landings are made. Average
annual employment in the Chesapeake
Bay seafood wholesaling and process-
ing industries has been characterized
by modest gains since the early 1950's.
The number of establishments has
declined steadily, however, since the
late 1950's when the average number
of establishments in the Region was
704.
63
-------
TABLE 35
COMMERCIAL FISHERY HARVEST
AVERAGE 1966-1970 ( j )
CHESAPEAKE BAY AND TRIBUTARIES v '
(IN THOUSANDS)
Finfish
Water Area
Chesapeake Bay \ *•)
Chester River
Choptank River
Nanticoke River
Patuxent River
Wicomico River
Potomac River
Rappahannock River
York River
James River
TOTAL STUDY
AREA
Acres
2,041
35
69
18
• 30
10
310
98
55
166
2,832
Edible
Pounds Dollars
24,177
436
880
506
260
96
11,006
4,898
2,513
4,695
49,467
1,443
54
118
67
39
11
590
219
113
264
2,918
Industrial
Pounds Dollars
234,976
6
7
24
5
9
3,974
1,993
'1,577
1,125 •
243,696
3,590
Negl.
Negi.
1
Negl.
Negl.
73
35
30
20
3,749
Shellfish
Pounds Dollars
54,244
2,012
4,800
537
896
143
10,543
7,498
3,856
3,834
88,363
8,166
889
1,730
236
500
93
4,673
2,005
572
4,398
23,262
Total
Pounds Dollars
313,397
2,454
5,687
1,067
1,161
248
25,523
14,389
7,946
9,654 '
381,526
13,199
943
1,848
304
539
104
5,336
2,259
715
4,682
29,929
' 'This table was based on preliminary unpublished data developed in 1972.
^ ' Bay proper exclusive of tributaries.
This fact reflects the National
trend in recent decades toward larger
establishments of higher employment.
Most of the seafood processing and
wholesaling establishments in the
Chesapeake Bay Region were located
in the Northern Neck area of Virginia
(i.e., the tidewater portion of Virginia
between the Potomac and Rappahan-
nock Rivers) and on the middle and
lower portions of the Maryland and
Virginia Eastern Shore.
COMMERCIAL FURBEARERS
A significant economic resource of the
Bay Region, but one that is often
overlooked, is the furbearing mammals
of the wetland and terrestrial habitats
found within the Study Area. Fur-
bearing species commonly trapped in
the Study Area are beaver, gray fox,
red fox, mink, muskrat, opossum,
otter, raccoon, skunk, weasel, and
bobcat. The muskrat is of primary
economic importance since it provides
approximately 69 percent of the total
income of Bay trappers. The fur har-
vest for the 1971-72 season in Mary-
land and Virginia was valued at
approximately $1.8 million, including
the meat value of certain of the species
(especially muskrat). Although specific
data are not available, a major portion
of the total bi-state fur harvest is felt
by experts to derive, from the Bay
Region. In addition, it should be noted
that the value of the harvest represents
money paid trappers and does not
represent economic activity generated
in the processing and retailing sectors
of the industry.
SPORT FISHING AND
HUNTING
Increases in income, population, and
available leisure time have stimulated
increases in sport fishing and hunting
in the Chesapeake Bay Area. Recrea-
tional fishing accounts for a significant
portion of the total landings for
several species offish within the Study
Area, including, in order of pounds
landed in 1970: spot, striped bass,
white perch, weakfish, shad, croaker,
flounder, yellow perch, catfish, and
bluefish. All of these but striped bass,
flounder, and catfish actually ex-
ceeded the commercial catch, demon-
strating the importance of recreational
fishing in the Bay. Shellfish are also
taken by a considerable number of
people on a recreational basis. It has
been estimated that blue crabs are
sought by as many people as are game
fish, and that the recreational quantity
caught may equal the whole com-
mercial harvest. Definitive statistics on
recreational harvests of shellfish are
not available.
Hunting is also an important form of
recreation within the Study Area.
Upland forests, farm lands, wetlands
and open water are utilized as a source
of food or shelter for various species
of game animals. The upland forest
and farm land provide habitat for deer,
rabbit, squirrel, woodchuck, raccoon,
and opossum as well as game birds
such as turkey, quail, dove, woodcock.
and others. More closely associated
with the Bay are the many species
which depend on the wetlands and
open water for their habitat require-
ments. The most significant of these
are the numerous species of waterfowl
64
-------
which winter in the Bay area and
provide many man-days of hunting
experience for outdoor enthusiasts, as
well as' significant economic benefit to
the Region. Expenditures for licenses,
hunting land leases, food, lodging,
gasoline, club memberships, and equip-
ment are estimated to amount to $300
to $500 annually per waterfowl
hunter. The estimated annual value of
waterfowl hunting in the State of
Maryland is 10.5 to 17.5 million
dollars.
NON-CONSUMPTIVE UTILIZATION
OF RESOURCES
The wetland and upland habitat as
well as the waters of the Bay and its
tributaries provide habitats which sup-
port an extensive variety of flora and
fauna. These organisms provide a
source of recreation to large numbers
of people who enjoy birdwatching,
nature walking and nature photog-
raphy. Research indicates that the
number of people in the U.S. in 1970
that participated in these non-
consumptive outdoor activities was
about 9 percent higher than the
number of people fishing and hunting.
Aside from the enjoyment which is
gained from an association with the
natural resources of the area, the Bay,
its tributaries, associated wetlands, and
upland areas provide valuable educa-
tional services as classrooms for
natural science studies.
EXISTING PROBLEMS AND
CONFLICTS
With growth of the population and
development of the economy in the
Bay Area, conflicts have arisen
between the need for more intensive
use of the existing land and water
resources and the need for these same
resources to maintain fish and wildlife
populations. This is especially true in
the wetland areas where dredge-and-fill
operations have been performed to
develop industrial and agricultural
lands, and to provide for second home
development, and marinas.
Water quality problems, which have
also become more pronounced with
increased economic development and
population growth, have serious impli-
cations for fish and wildlife. Almost
every activity of man in the Chesa-
peake Bay Area produces a waste
product that often is most conven-
iently dumped in a nearby river or
stream. These tributaries invariably
flow to the Bay. Problems that result
are as varied as the constituents them-
selves. With trie many new substances
being developed each year, the task of
assessing the effects on the environ-
ment of the resulting effluents and the
possible interrelationships between
constituent and other variables, such
as temperature and salinity, may al-
ready be impossible.
Conflicts and problems also arise
within the internal workings of the
various elements of the fish and wild-
life management structure. This is be-
cause management of the wildlife,
fisheries, and shellfish resources of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is
the responsibility of several organiza-
tions including the Federal Govern-
ment, the States of Maryland, Dela-
ware, and Virginia, and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission. The
inconsistencies in laws promulgated by
. these organizations create conflicts in
the management practices and utiliza-
tion of the resource. In the case of
migratory birds, for example, the basic
regulations regarding bag limits and
the number of days a species may be
hunted during a season are set by
Federal regulation. However, the
actual dates for the opening of a
season are determined by the States
under guidelines set forth by the
Federal regulations. The hunters of a
state having a later opening date,
therefore, often feel that they will
have a decreased chance for success
since the species sought has been
previously hunted in a neighboring
state and may be "gun shy." Crabbing
regulations are another example of this
type of problem. Virginia allows the
dredging of wintering crabs which are
buried in the Bay bottom while Mary-"
land forbids this activity. Many Mary-
landers feel that this dredging depletes
the supply of crabs which would be
available to them the following season.
Also, the management and regulation
of anadromous fish catches in the
Lower Chesapeake Bay obviously
affects the fishery in the Upper Bay.
For example, concentrated offshore
fishing efforts for herring (under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Govern-
ment) have greatly reduced the spawn-
ing runs of this species in the Bay each
spring.
Fluctuations that occur in finfish and
shellfish populations are another prob-
lem to be considered. Historically, the
populations of many species have
varied cyclically over periods of years,
due to complex biological factors such
as predator-prey relationships^ physical
and chemical factors such as changes
in salinities due to long term drought
or rainy periods; or man-caused factors
such as pollution or level of exploita-
tion of the resource. These causative
factors are far from being understood,
much less controlled. Fluctuations in
Maryland blue crab populations, as
indicated by landings, are a classic
example of this "boom" or "bust"
phenomenon. For example, in the
State of Maryland between 1953 and
1957 the catch went from 28 million
bushels down to 16 million and then
back up to slightly less than 32 million
bushels. The all-time record low
harvest for Maryland of 10 million
bushels in 1968 was followed in 1969
by a respectable 25 million bushels
(the all-time record high for the State
was 37 million bushels). There are at
least two major factors in explaining
the volatility of'the blue crab popula-
tion. First, its short life span of two to
three years creates a high "turnover"
of crabs. Second, the crabs caught in
Maryland are transported as larva and
tiny . crabs from their spawning
grounds in Virginia into the upper
Estuary. The condition of the upper
Estuary when the young crabs arrive
and the physical, chemical, and biolog-
ical stresses they must endure during
their journey are critical to the Mary-
land harvest the following years. It is
interesting to note that in 1968 when
the Maryland catch dropped by nearly
two-thirds, the Virginia catch was off
by only about one-fifth.-
The striped bass population in Chesa-
peake Bay also follows distinct cycles.
There are several factors suspected of
producing a "dominant-year class"
including some little understood bio-
logical mechanism which triggers a
larger than normal hatch when the
adult population has declined below a
certain level. This phenomenon has
also been observed in other species.
65
-------
Some researchers believe that the
number of rockfish (striped bass) in
the Bay is inversely related to the
bluefish population since the more
aggressive bluefish compete for the
same food supply and even prey on
the young striped bass. As the blue
crab and striped bass examples indi-
cate, often drastic fluctuations in
species populations are a natural
phenomenon. However, since the
reasons for this phenomenon are not
completely understood, it is extremely
difficult to separate the natural fluctu-
ations from fluctuations caused by
man-related factors such as excess
nutrients, thermal effluents, sedimen-
tation, or other pollutants.
FUTURE FISH AND
WILDLIFE NEEDS
FINFISHAND SHELLFISH
Needs for fish and shellfish resources
were obtained through comparison of
future demand with available supply.
Functions of future demand involved
such parameters as market price,
projections of commercial and recre-
ational catch, and costs of the harvest-
ing effort. Population dynamics for
each species were based, in part, on
estimates of maximum sustainable
yields (MSVs). MSVs are defined as
the greatest harvest which can be
taken from a population without
affecting subsequent harvests.
Typical supply versus demand curves
are shown in Figure 32 to illustrate the
relationship between MSY, supply,
demand, and commodity price. The
term "supply" refers only to the
amount commercially harvested.
Excess demand is shown for the years
2000 and 2020 where the demand
curves do not intersect the supply
curve. In these cases, sufficient sup-
plies cannot be had at any price since
the MSY has been exceeded. Sustained
harvesting beyond the MSY results in
eventual decline in the species popula-
tion due to overharvesting. As total
harvest of a species approaches MSY,
it was assumed that recreational
catches will have precedence over
those in the commercial sector. As a
result, commercial catches of many
recreationally important species are
actually projected to decline over the
projection period.
TABLE 36
PROJECTED PERIOD OF EXCEEDENCE OF MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD
(MSY) FOR THE MAJOR COMMERCIAL AND SPORTS SPECIES
Species
Blue Crab
Oysters
Softshell Gams
Menhaden
Alewife
Spot
Striped Bass
White Perch
Shad
Weakflsh (Sea Trout)
Flounder
Catfish
Scup
Sea Bass
American Eel
Yellow Perch
Base Year Catches*
Percent
l.OOOlbs MSY
Period of MSY Exceedence
Prior to 1980 1980-2000 2000-2020
61,373 94 X
23,740 79 X
5,412 90 X
449,790 90 X
21,110 84 X
14,193 96 X
11,159 96 X
7,225 64 - X
7,120 . 93 X
5,174 81 X
4,575 89 X
2,440 54 (will not-be exceeded before 2020)
2,281 35 (will not be exceeded before 2020)
2,084 42 (will not be exceeded before 2020)
1,692 99-
1,511 44 (will not be exceeded before 2020)
' Represents commercial plus recreational catch except for blue crabs, oysters, and soft clams.
Results of the analysis, conducted as
described above for each species, are
shown in Table 36. All of the commer-
cially and recreationally important
species, with four exceptions, are
projected to experience commercial
and recreational pressures which will
exceed their MSY's at some time
during the projection period. MSY is
expected to be exceeded for half of
the species by the year 2000. Of this
latter group, with the exception of the
blue crab and American eel, projected
increases in recreational catches are
the major reason for the early exceed-
ence of MSY. Oysters, soft clams,
menhaden, and alewife are primarily
commercial species which explains, at
least in part, the later period for MSY
exceedenc^)-Catfish, scup, sea bass,
and yellow perch populations are cap-
able of withstanding significant in-
creases in fishing intensity, without
adverse effect. All four species are
underutilized commercially for a
number of social and economic
reasons.
It should be noted that as commercial
and recreational demands increase rela-
tive to the capacity of the fisheries,
the market system responds by in-
creasing prices. For example, the
prices, after adjustment for inflation,
of blue crabs, oysters, and striped bass
are expected to increase by 525 per-
cent, 194 percent, and 967 percent,
respectively, between 1970 and 2020.
The upward pressure on prices is espe-
cially acute due to the basic assump-
tion used in the analysis that as
catches approach MSY, recreational
utilization of these finfish and shellfish
species will take precedence over com-
mercial uses.
THE HAR VESTING AND
PROCESSING SECTORS
Future needs in the harvesting and
66
-------
processing sectors of the commercial
fisheries industry will be affected by
the projections of future market price
and demand presented in the previous
section. The decrease in commercial
landings indicated for a majority of
the finfish species for which projec-
tions were made was interpreted as
revealing a contraction in the finfish
segment of the harvesting sector. While
increases in commercial landings of
some finfish species were revealed,
most notably yellow perch, catfish, sea
bass, and alewife, these are not con-
sidered to be large enough to offset
the employment losses in the declining
fisheries.
Of the projections made for the three
shellfish species, the predicted in-
creases in oyster landings was the only
result considered to be significant to
the harvesting sector. The predicted
landing increases, however, cannot be
interpreted as implying a need for
expansion of employment in the
oyster harvesting industry. Of critical
importance is the present capacity of
the oyster fishery and the degree to
which it is utilized. Currently, in Mary-
land, for example, each licensed oys-
terman is limited to a catch of 25
bushels per day. Assuming two persons
per rig, the catch limit would be 50
bushels. Experience has indicated that
various rigs are capable of harvesting
two or three times this quantity. In
light of this, it was concluded that the
present capacity of the harvesting
sector of the oyster industry would be
sufficient to meet future demands.
The future of the processing sector
was found to be a function of the
projections for alewife, menhaden,
oyster, blue crabs, and clams. Since
commercial catches of these species
are generally expected to increase or
remain fairly constant over the projec-
tion period, the projections of yield
appear, at a minimum, to be capable
of supporting a processing sector of
current size and degree of utilization.
WILDLIFE
Future needs for wildlife in the Chesa-
peake Bay Area were determined in
terms of recreation days of hunter
participation for small game, big game,
and waterfowl. Hunting demands were
based on license price, population, and
expected hunter participation rates.
For big game, since hunter effort in
this category has historically been
insensitive to license price, projections
were made a function of population
only. The projected demands for small
game and waterfowl hunting were
made based on the assumption that
license prices will increase in the fu-
ture.
As shown in Figure 33, waterfowl
hunting, perhaps economically the
most important type of hunting effort
in the Bay Region, is projected to
increase by 70 percent during the
projection period. Big game hunting is
projected to increase at the highest
rate of any of the three types of
hunting effort in the Bay Region (141
percent) and by 2020 is expected to
be the most popular type of hunting in
the Region. Small game hunting de-
mand is projected to decline over the
projection period.
The amount of land available for the
use of hunters as well as the amount of
habitat for the game animals were the
critical factors in determining supply.
It was not deemed practical to project
the numbers of individuals within a
given species available for hunting pur-
poses. The increase in the amount of
land needed to satisfy future hunting
needs was assumed to be proportional
to the increase in hunting effort. Based
on this, land access requirements will
increase by 7, 35, and 61 percent, by.
1980, 2000, and 2020, respectively^
over the amount available in 1970. "
Factors affecting the accessibility of
land to hunters, and the maintenance
and health of game populations
include:
1) conversion of farm and
woodlands to urban and suburban land
uses;
2) reluctance of land owners to
open private lands to recreationists;
3) single-purpose leasing of agricul-
tural and other lands for hunting;
4) impact of large-scale modern
farming on reduction of habitat;
5) single species tree farming prac-
tices which decrease wildlife use;
6) use of herbicides for weed con-
trol which eliminates small game habi-
tat.
Big Game
Recreation Days (Millions)
Waterfowl
Recreation Days (Millions)
•2000
•2020
Figure 33: Projected Hunter Effort in the Chesapeake.Say Region
67
-------
NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE
Future needs for wildlife to support
such non-consumptive uses as bird
watching, wildlife photography, and
just plain enjoyment of nature, are
expected to increase with future popu-
lation and increases in leisure time. As
shown in Figure 34, non-consumptive
wildlife utilization in terms of recre-
ation days in the Chesapeake Bay Area
(excluding nature walking) is projected
to increase at a slightly higher rate
than the population. Nature walking is
expected to increase at a rate equal to
population growth. A total increase of
34.6 million recreation days is pro-
jected to occur by the year 2020.
As in the hunting analysis, the factors
most affecting the provision of a qual-
ity non-consumptive recreational
experience are-the availability of suit-
able habitats for wildlife and the pro-
vision of public access. At the present
time the amount of land and wildlife
habitat which is available to the non-
consumptive resource user in the
Study Area includes about 814,000
acres of public, semi-public and park
lands. An add:tional 11.5 million acres
of privately owned agricultural lands,
woodlands and wetlands are located in
the Bay, an unknown quantity of
which is accessible to the public.
Assuming a constant percentage of the
resources users will continue to use the
non-public areas, future projections
can be made regarding the acreage of
public lands required to provide non-
consumptive resources users with an
experience of equal quality to the
present recreational experience. These
projections are shown in Table 37.
TABLE 37
PUBLIC LAND REQUIRED TO
MEET FUTURE NON-CONSUMPTIVE
RECREATIONAL DEMAND
Year
1970
1980
2000
2020
Number
of Rec Days
18,130,000.
21,448,000
30,871,000
41,078,000
Acres of
Public Land
814,000
964,000
1,387,000
1,845,000
The most significant problem facing
the provision of land for non-
consumptive wildlife purposes is the
inevitable conflicts with other land
uses in a developing area such as the
Chesapeake Bay Region. For the bird
watcher, wildlife photographer, and
nature walker, a quality experience
relies upon a variety and abundance of
wildlife in a natural uncrowded
setting. Because of expected increases
in population and development pres-
sures, there is a threat of degradation
in many areas. For example, the devel-
opment of lands adjacent to recrea-
tional areas may cause overutilization,
noise, and the disappearance of seclu-
sive species, all of which reduce the
desirability of the area.
MEANS TO SATISFY
THE NEEDS
SHELLFISH
Demands for oysters, blue crabs, and
softshell clams are projected to exceed
MSY by the end of the projection
period. The supply of oysters can, and
presently is, being supplemented by
the management and cultivation of the
species by both State and private
interests. More intensive effort in this
regard would help to satisfy the ex-
pected demands over the projection
period. The cultivation of softshell
clams, while not presently practiced, is
a possible means of meeting excess
demands for this species. The possi-
bility also exists that other species
may be harvested to fulfill some of the
demand for softshell clams. The substi-
tution could derive from an increased
harvest of hard clams (which unfor-
tunately are already over harvested in
some areas), or more likely from util-
ization of a species such as the
brackish water clam (Rangia cuneata),
which at present is not sought
commercially.
The cost of culture practices for blue
crabs would probably be prohibitive
due to fluctuations in the natural
supply and market price. This vari-
ability would keep the culture of the
species from being profitable on a
regular basis. Thus, if the need is to be
satisfied, it will probably be by in-
creasing the blue crab harvest in other
areas such as South Carolina or
Louisiana and importing into the Bay
Region.
INDUSTRIAL FINFISH
The demand for both menhaden and
alewife, the major industrial species in
Chesapeake Bay, is projected to ex-
ceed the MSY by 2020. Since artificial
cultivation of most estuarine finfish
species is either uneconomical or
impractical, substitute species or
products will have to be found in
order to fulfill the needs for the
products derived from these species.
For example, soy beans are currently
Birdwatching
& Nature Photography, etc
Nature Walking
Recreation Days (Millions)
14.5
2000
2020
Figure 34: Projected Non-Consumptive Wildlife-Related Outdoor Activity in the
Chesapeake Bay Region
68
-------
being processed to produce many
products which can be substituted for
menhaden and alewife. Agriculture
cannot, however, be considered as the
ultimate solution to meeting these
demands since the production cap-
abilities of these lands are finite and
they must also be used to meet the
demands for other products.
NON-INDUSTRIAL FINFISH
Edible species commonly sought by
sport and commercial fishermen in the
Bay include white perch, striped bass,
shad, flounder, spot, weakfish, eel,
yellow perch, sea bass, scup, and cat-
fish. Of these eleven species only the
last four are projected to have supplies
that will meet the demands through
the year 2020 as shown earlier in
Table 36. When considering the means
to satisfy the needs for these species, a
first alternative might be a manage-
ment program to insure increased
production of these species by improv-
ing habitat, or by controlling the
harvest of individual species based on
population surveys.
If management practices are to be
effectively implemented on a Bay-wide
basis, records of the sport fishing
utilization are necessary. One method
of providing this information and at
the same time providing funds for the
initiation of management and research
programs would be through the sale of
-•salt water fishing licenses. Although
this proposal has been suggested and
rejected previously, it is still a viable
method for gaining the data and
knowledge necessary to insure contin-
uance of a quality fishery in the Bay.
The harvest of under-utilized species
has provided an interim solution to the
fulfillment of the needs for fisheries
products on previous occasions and
could be an aid in the fulfillment of
the needs for overall production in the
future. Care should be taken, however,
to provide management practices to
protect the under-utilized species from
depletion once a market is opened.
Such exploitation has occurred with
the surf clam. Because of a lack of
restrictions and an available market,
vast areas of once productive surf clam
beds have been rapidly depleted.
WILDLIFE
The lack of information concerning
factors that influence the population
of many wildlife species, and possible
future changes in human utilization of
these species hinders an accurate deter-
mination of future needs. Due to this,
any consideration of the means to
satisfy the needs must, of necessity, be
in generalized terms. Because the
projections indicate greatly increased
demands for wildlife resources, the
means to be discussed i~ this section
will include methods for increasing
supply and availability.
As implied previously, the problem of
maintaining an adequate supply of
wildlife to meet all our projected
needs must be considered on two
levels—the pnmary level being the
requirements that must be met in
order for wildlife to sustain viable
populations; the secondary level being
a problem of providing access to the
wildlife for human use. As is the case
with public acquisition, of key wildlife
habitat, the solution to these two
problems may coincide.
Other than the actual hunting of the
animals, wildlife populations are im-
pacted by two major areas of man's
activities. These are land use and pollu-
tion, with land use probably the most
significant.
If the land use problem is to be
resolved, a firm commitment on the
part of the public and responsible
public officials will be required to
conserve existing desirable wildlife
habitat, reclaim certain lands to sup-
port desired wildlife types, acquire
additional public lands, and discourage
land use practices which are unneces-
sarily destructive of wildlife habitat.
These measures would help insure
stabilization and enhancement of wild-
life populations. Strict zoning will be
required to regulate land use. Coupled
with zoning, purchasing mechanisms
such as bond issues should be devel-
oped to buy those lands considered
especially important to wildlife. If
purchase is not desirable, then long-
term leasing arrangements offer an
alternative, in conjunction with tax
incentives to affected land owners.
Pollution, a by-product of civilization,
also has a significant effect on wildlife
populations. A prime example of the
adverse impact of pollution on wildlife
is the absence of many species of
fish-eating furbearers along stretches
of water that are polluted. Other
examples include the impact of chlo-
rinated hydrocarbons on the repro-
ductive success of fish-eating carniv-
orous birds such as the osprey and
bald eagle, and the as yet unknown
effects of trace metal consumption by
certain species of waterfowl and shore
and wading birds. Oil pollution can
also cause a serious adverse impact on
aquatic oriented bird populations. In
the Bay Region, thousands of bird
deaths have resulted from oil spills.
The solution to this type of problem
lies with careful and thorough enforce-
ment of existing pollution control laws
and with the vigorous pursuit of new
technology to control and abate pollu-
tion sources.
Other than the need for viable wildlife
populations themselves, is the need for
increased land access to the resource.
Purchase of additional lands partic-
ularly valuable to wildlife certainly
offers a partial solution to meeting
these needs. Land purchase, of course,
should not be considered a complete
answer to land access shortages. Com-
bined with purchase of lands especially
valuable to wildlife, a program of
wildlife access leases could also be
instituted. Such leases could be an
adjunct to the -wildlife management
leases previously proposed. The pur-
pose of the combined wildlife manage-
ment and access, lease would be to
provide large areas where wildlife habi-
tat can be actively managed and where
access by the wildlife viewer and
hunter would be .allowed on a man-
aged basis. A fee for all wildlife users
could be charged to supply funding for
the program. Success of such a pro-
gram would depend to a large extent
on cooperation between the wildlife
utilization groups, the involved state
agencies, and the individual land
owners.
There are undoubtedly numerous
other approaches to the problems. A
key realization that must underlie any
successful solution is that the threat to
fish and wildlife is not the sole respon-
sibility of the sport and commercial
fisherman nor the hunter or commer-
cial trapper. The real threats to these
69
-------
resources are adverse land and water
uses and an apathetic attitude on the
part of the public toward preserving
fish and wildlife habitat. If these
factors can be incorporated into a
comprehensive conservation, enhance-
ment, and preservation program
directed toward maintaining quality
habitat, then an effective program can
be developed to balance human utiliza-
tion with the productive capability of
the resource. Until such programs are
in effect the resource manager will be
faced with a continuously dwindling
resource base and a concurrent and
continuous increase in resource needs.
ELECTRIC POWER
CURRENT STATUS
POWER REQUIREMENTS AND
GENERATING FACILITIES
In studying the electric power
resources of Chesapeake Bay, a geo-
graphic area encompassing the electric
utilities serving the Bay Region was
defined. This area, the Chesapeake Bay
Market Area, is delineated in Figure
35.
The total number of utilities serving
the Chesapeake Market Area is 74. The
utilities are of varied ownerships:
private corporations, municipalities,
consumer cooperatives, and the
Federal government. Investor-owned
utilities provide 90 percent of the
energy requirements for the Market
and are responsible for 95 percent of
the electricity generated.' They also
operate virtually all of the trans-
mission facilities. The municipally-
owned utilities are small and derive
most or all of their energy from the
large investor-owned utilities with only
minimal generation of their own. The
cooperatively-owned utilities for the
most part purchase all their energy
from other utilities. Where they do
have generating capacity, it is in small
plants with relatively little output.
There is only one Federal utility in the
Market Area, the Kerf and Philpott
Project. This project, operated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pro-
duces wholesale energy for many of
the cooperatives in Chesapeake South
and other utilities outside the Market
Area.
The utilities within the Chesapeake
Market Area operate as bulk power
suppliers, wholesale generators, or
wholesale purchasers. The bulk power
suppliers operate substantially all of
the generating and transmission facil-
ities in the Chesapeake Market. They,
besides furnishing their own franchise
requirements, sell large amounts of
energy to other utilities, mainly
municipals and cooperatives.
Wholesale generators operate a gener-
ating plant and sometimes associated
transmission lines and sell the entire
output to other utilities under long-
term contracts. There are two such
utilities in the Market Area, the Kerr
and Philpott Project and Susquehanna
Electric Company; both operate
hydroelectic plants.
Wholesale purchasers are the most
numerous of the utilities in the Chesa-
peake Market. They buy energy at
bulk rates from bulk power suppliers
or wholesale generators and resell it to
their own retail customers. In several
instances the purchased energy is sup-
plemented by a minor amount of
self-generation. They are of municipal,
investor, or cooperative ownership.
MARKET SECTORS
In recognition of the geographical and
technical characteristics of the Market
Area utilities, the Market was divided
into three Sectors: Chesapeake West,
Chesapeake East, and Chesapeake
South. As shown in Figure 35, Chesa-
peake West includes the Baltimore-
Washington corridor of the
Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland
power interconnection (PJM Pool);
Chesapeake East takes in the Delmarva
Peninsula portion of the PJM Pool;
and Chesapeake South covers the Vir-
ginia portion of the Virginia-North
Carolina-South Carolina power inter-
connection (VACAR Pool). Figure 36
shows the relative energy requirements
in each market sector as of 1972. A
brief description of each sector
follows.
a. Chesapeake West. There are
three utilities which serve the Chesa-
peake West sector: the Potomac Elec-
tric Power Company, Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company, and the
Southern Maryland Electric Coopera-
tive. The energy requirements of
Chesapeake West in 1972 were 28,252
gigawatthours while the amount of
energy generated was 32,311 gigawatt-
hours. Almost all of this excess energy
was delivered to more northerly
members of the PJM pool outside the
Chesapeake Bay Market with only
minor amounts flowing into Chea-
peake South. The generating facilities
are all in investor-owned utilities with
86 percent of the total generation
accounted for by fossil steam plants
and the remainder by combustion
plants. Southern Maryland Electric
Cooperative purchases its entire needs
from the Potomac Electric Power
Company. It is the largest cooperative
in the Market Area with energy re-
quirements in 1972 of 676 gigawatt-
hours.
b. Chesapeake East. Chesapeake
East has 24 utilities: 8 investor-owned,
13 municipally-owned, and 3 cooper-
atives. The largest investor-owned
utility, Delmarva Power and Light
Company, supplies more than half of
the Sector's energy requirements and
accounts for about 2/3 of its gener-
ation. The energy used in this Sector
in 1972 was 7,370 gigawatthours while
8,876 gigawatthours was generated.
Approximately 65 percent of the
energy was generated in fossil steam
plants, 11 percent in combustion facil-
ities, and 24 percent in a single hydro-
electric plant at Conowingo on the
Susquehanna River in Maryland. The
bulk of the excess generation came
from the hydroelectric plant and was
delivered to the more northerhly parts
of the PJM Pool beyond the Market
boundaries. Easton Municipal, the
Market Area's only isolated utility, is
located in Chesapeake East. Easton's
entire energy requirements of 75 giga-
watthours in 1972 were furnished by
this combustion plant.
c. Chesapeake South. Three
investor-owned utilities, 23 munic-
ipals, 20 cooperatives, and one
Federally-operated project serve
Chesapeake South. The energy require-
ment of this Sector in 1972 was
29,474 gigawatthours while 26,414
gigawatthours were generated. There
was a modest net import of electricity,
almost entirely from outside the
Chesapeake Bay Market Area. Virginia
70
-------
F/'gure 35: Chesapeake Bay Market Sector and Study Area
Electric and Power Company account-
ing for about 90% of both energy and
generation is the major utility in
Chesapeake South. The only other
significant generation in the Sector is
at the Kerr and Philpott Project of the
Corps of Engineers. This project pro-
duced 698 gigawatthours from its two
hydroelectric plants, which was de-
livered at wholesale rates to cooper-
atives in the Sector and certain utilities
beyond the Market boundaries. Fossil
fuel steam plants accounted for 70
percent of total generating capacity,
nuclear steam for 13 percent, combus-
tion plants for 9 percent, and hydro
facilities for 8 percent.
Figure 37 shows the "energy account"
for the Chesapeake Bay Market Area
in 1972. This energy account is a
flowchart showing the source and dis-
position of energy for each of the
three Sectors. For example, in Chesa-
peake East, 8,876 gigawatthours of
electricity were generated during the
year-6,429 by fossil fuel plants, 2,243
by hydroelectric plants and 204 by
combustion plants. Of the total gener-
ation of 8,876 gigawatthours, 2,426
were sold to customers outside the
Chesapeake Bay Market Area. On the
other hand, utilities in the Chesapeake
East Sector bought 847 gigawatthours
of electricity from utilities outside the
Market Area. In addition, 73 gigawatt-
hours of electricity were bought from
industrial and commercial concerns in
the Market Area which operate gener-
ating plants for their own internal use.
The 7,370 gigawatthours figure repre-
sents the total energy requirements of
the Chesapeake East Sector—the net
sum of total generation, receipts, and
deliveries. Similar, more detailed
energy accounts are presented for each
Sector in Appendix 13-"Electric
Power."
EXISTING POWER
FACILITIES
As shown on Table 38, approximately
91 percent of the electric power pro-
duced in the Market Area was gener-
ated by fossil steam generation plants
using coal, oil, or gas as fuels. Oil was
Chesapeake
(Gigawatthours)
WEST
28,252
EAST
msmm^;
•jjj:mmm ;.
M
:.: .'.'.':.•-.-.-. v. v.;v^::.'
SOUTH
»
P|r,
29,474
Figure 36: Total Energy Requirements
of Chesapeake Bay Market
Sectors, 1972
the most frequently used type of fossil
fuel in 1972. The remainder of the
electricity was produced by hydro-
power, nuclear or combustion facil-
ities. The only nuclear plant in opera-
tion at the time in the Market Area
(located at Surry, Virginia) operated at
less than full capacity during 1972. In
1973, the first year of full service for
the plant, approximately 6,900 giga-
watthours of electricity were
produced. Another nuclear plant of
similar capacity began operations in
May, 1975 at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.
Shown in Figure 38 are the power
plants which were located in the
Chesapeake Bay Market Area in 1972.
In addition to the power plants them-
selves, many miles of major trans-
mission lines are required in order for
a modem utility to efficiently serve its
customers. The Chesapeake Bay Mar-
ket Area has approximately 2,672
71
-------
fossil
31189
OUTSIDE CHESAPEAKE BAY
combustion
1122
/
'
ee
04
5(
13
24
26
8
fossil
6429
\7
h
zi
hydro
combustion
204
Figure 37: Energy Account for Chesapeake Bay Market Area, 1972
miles of 230 to 500 kilovolt (KV)
transmission lines. These size lines are
supported by steel towers. In addition,
131 miles of 138 KV transmission
lines, usually supported by wood
frames although steel poles and towers
are occasionally used, are located in
the Market Area. These transmission
lines have obvious adverse visual im-
pacts on the environment and when
the amount of right-of-way required is
considered, they consume a surpris-
ingly large amount of land. In 1972,
the amount of land used by trans-
mission lines and right-of-ways
amounted to approximately 54,000
acres.
COOLING WATER REQUIREMENTS
The production of electricity by the
steam cycle involves the condensation
of exhaust steam back to water and
the consequent release of waste heat.
Nearly all existing steam-electric plants
use cooling water in the process of
removing the waste heat from the
power generating system. The heated
TABLE 38
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF FUEL TYPES
TO TOTAL ELECTRIC GENERATION - 1972
Sectoi
Chesapeake East
Chesapeake West
Chesapeake South
TOTAL MARKET
AREA
Fossil Steam Generation
Coal Oil Gas Hydiopowei
Nuclear
29
48
26
42
48
64
25
Combustion
2
4
2
36 54
<1
<1
cooling water, having accomplished its
task is returned to its source, in this
case, usually Chesapeake Bay or one of
its tributaries.
All but three of the steam plants in the
Chesapeake Market employ "once-
through" cooling (i.e., as opposed to
re-cycled cooling waters). The rate of
flow of the cooling water through the
plant and the rise in cooling water
temperature .differ among plants be-
cause of variations in design and oper-
ating conditions of the facility. There
is only a slight consumptive use of
water in the once-through system due
to the small evaporative losses caused
by the increased temperature of the
cooling water discharge. In general, the
temperature rise of cooling water in
the plant is usually in the range of
10°F to 25°F .(6°C to 14°C). Maxi-
mum allowable temperature increases
are established by Federal and State
regulations. Large nuclear steam-
electric plants, however, require
approximately 50 percent more cool-
ing water for a given temperature rise
than a fossil plant of equal size. This
has a great deal of significance since, as
shown in the next section, nuclear
plants are projected to supply a much
larger portion of the Region's energy
requirements in the future. Where ade-
quate supplies of natural water 'are
available, the once-through cooling
system is usually adopted because it is
the most economical method of
cooling.
Where natural bodies of water of
adequate size are not available at the
site, or are excluded from use by water
quality standards, cooling ponds or
towers may be constructed. The only
cooling pond installation contem-
plated for the Chesapeake Bay Study
Area is at the North Anna plant on the
North Anna River in Virginia which is
presently under construction. Where
cooling towers are used, the heated
water is cooled for reuse by a stream
of flowing air. The air flow is usually a
natural draft rising through the tower
which is contoured to create the neces-
sary circulatory conditions. Such
natural draft towers are huge strucr
tures, about 300 feet in diameter at
the base and some 450 feet tall. Each
tower provides cooling for a generating
plant of about 500 to 1,000 mega-
watts.
72
-------
PENN.
Jlujfo
CONOWING08\
.H^RVE-OE-GRACEB
LEGEND
MARKET AREA BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
FOSSIL STEAM
NUCLEAR STEAM
Figure 38: Chesapeake Bay Power Plant Location Map, 1972
73
-------
In the "wet cooling tower" the warm
water is sprayed into the stream of
flowing air. This facilitates the heat
dissipation by evaporation as air moves
through the tower. The cooled water is
collected in a basin under the tower
from which it can be pumped back to
the plant for reuse. The water which is
lost through evaporation is replaced by
withdrawals from a local natural water
body. Currently, there is only one
natural draft wet cooling tower in
operation in the Chesapeake Bay Mar-
ket Area. This plant is located at Chalk
Point, Maryland, and has been in
operation since 1975. However, many
cooling towers of this type are in-
cluded in the plans for facilities sched-
uled to be constructed in the future.
EXISTING PROBLEMS
AND CONFLICTS
In addition to the conflicts of use
which may arise in the Study Area as a
result of multiple demands for water
or land, the resolution of certain social
issues currently affecting the utility
industry could also influence use of
water and land for the generation of
electric power in the Study Area.
Prevailing controversies concerning the
generation of electric power and its
impact on the environment include
such issues as esthetics, air pollution,
water quality, impingement and en-
trainment of fish, radiological effects,
and the disposal of nuclear wastes.
Steam generating plants are expansive
installations that can present a rela-
tively unsightly overall appearance and
hydroelectric plants_can often intrude
on scenic areas. Both entail compe-
titive use of water and may preclude
other esthetic developments. Conceal-
ment of transmission towers and trans-
mission lines is sometimes difficult;
they cannot always be placed out of
view or effectively blended into the
surroundings.
The types and quantities of emissions
from the combustion of fossil fuels in
the production of electric power
created a demand for air pollution
control as a major siting criteria in
planning future plants. The necessity
for large quantities of cooling water
introduces problems of fish impinge-
ment, entrapment, and entrainment.
The effects of releasing this water in a
heated condition and its impact on
aquatic life are other issues of contro-
versy. Environmental regulations cur-
rently prescribe the use of a closed
cycle cooling system for generating
units to be installed in 1985 and
thereafter. The resulting reduction of
heat input to the cooling water source
is offset by an approximately twofold
increase in evaporative water consump-
tion. The varied impacts of the ther-
mal and consumption effects may
exchange an apparent current problem
for a potential future problem.
During their operation nuclear power
plants are permitted to release, under
well controlled and carefully moni-
tored conditions, low levels of radio-
activity. Current technologies for the
treatment and storage of radioactive
wastes are characterized as currently
adequate. The adequacy of these tech-
nologies however, are controversial.
With increasing emphasis on environ-
mental protection, the utility industry,
in cooperation with the Federal Gov-
ernment, some state governments, and
some research institutes, have ongoing
programs which are attempting to find
ways to minimize the environmental
impact of electric power generation
and still maintain a reasonable cost for
electric power.
The public, government, and the elec-
tric industry in general are all cur-
rently enmeshed in a reassessment and
revaluation of the generation of elec-
tric power by nuclear fission. The
public inquiry with regard to safety
and long-term justification of a nuclear
program and the economic impact of
double-digit inflation on the cost of
nuclear power has introduced some
question regarding the future of
nuclear power generation. Final resolu-
tion of these issues could influence the
utilization of nuclear capacity
throughout the country and in the
Market Area. The Chesapeake Bay
Market utilities presently plan the
installation of considerable nuclear
capacity but still anticipate substantial
additions of fossil generation. Because
of the lower thermal efficiencies of
nuclear units, increasing nuclear
capacity increases water use about 50
percent for each nuclear unit which
replaces a comparably-sized fossil unit.
Land use for plant siting is reduced
because large fuel storage and handling
areas, needed for coal or oil, are not
required for nuclear fuel, but trans-
mission rights-of-way could require
more land because of the need to site
nuclear facilities further from the pop-
ulation centers. Opportunities for joint
use of the land would also tend to be
less because of the remote locations,
but such settings might be attractive
for recreational development.
Should future -events constrain the
installation of additional nuclear
capacity base load requirements would
have to be met with generation by coal
or oil. In this regard, conflicts between
the national energy and environmental
interests and between these interests
and the economic vitality of the elec-
tric utilities are currently evident and
resolution of these conflicts could
have varied impacts on the water and
land requirements.
The goal of national energy inde-
pendence favors the consumption of
coal while environmental laws often
preclude the combustion of certain
types of coal in power plants without
adequate environmental equipment.
The resultant economic penalty, in
addition to uncertainties of supply and
regulatory postures pertaining to coal
combustion, tends to discourage the
use of coal. Coal-fired plants need
relatively large land areas for coal
storage, handling, and ash disposal.
Fuel storage and handling and ash
disposal in oil-fired plants involve less
land area but would likely involve
more waterfront land area to accom-
modate waterborne oil transport. The
use of imported oil would be undesir-
able from both energy independence
and national security postures.
FUTURE ELECTRIC POWER
NEEDS, SUPPLIES, AND
PROBLEMS
PROJECTED DEMANDS
In general, the projections of demand
in this analysis were developed by
extrapolating various historical trends
and subjectively modifying those
trends to reflect judgements regarding
factors currently in force and which
could plausibly continue into the
future. The projections chosen reflect
a belief that growth in the use of
electric power will continue but at a
somewhat reduced rate. This approach
74
-------
Chesapeake East
(Gigawattshours)
7,370
93,825
Chesapeake West
{Gigawatthours)
28.252
' ' J * S ' '
"' '•' " '"- -^
^'^ %
370,000
Chesapeake South
(Gigawatthours)
29,474
411,625
L
-,2000
2020
Figure 39: Projected Energy Requirements Including Peak Demand for Chesapeake Bay Market Areas
is believed to be moderately conserv-
ative with regard to the potential for
energy conservation but recognizes the
significant role electric power will con-
tinue to play in the National economy.
Even with "conservative" growth
rates, the total use of electricity in the
Chesapeake Bay Market Area is ex-
pected to increase by a factor of over
5 times by the year 2000 and approxi-
mately 13.5 times by the end of the
projection period. As shown in Figure
39, the Chesapeake South Sector
which includes the major metropolitan
areas of Norfolk-Portsmouth,
Hampton-Newport News, Richmond,
and the Virginia suburbs of Wash-
ington, D.C. is expected to experience
the highest rate of increase. While the
rate of growth for the other Sectors
are lower than those of Chesapeake
South, the rates still reflect significant
increases in electricity requirements
for these sectors by the year 2020.
SUPPL Y METHODOLOGY
The power supply facilities projected
through 1985 are either in service,
under construction or in the advanced
design stage. Accordingly, the pro-
jected supply picture through this
period reflects the generation already
planned by utilities in the Market Area
at this writing.
For the years after 1985 the supply
program utilized current and expected
trends in the relative proportions of
steam generation to total generation
and of nuclear generation to fossil.
The capacity projected assumes all
units projected for meeting Market
Area loads after 1985 are located
within the Market Area.
With regard to future water consump-
tion and withdrawal rates by power
plants, once-through cooling is pro-
hibited, under the present EPA regula-
tions, on all plants scheduled for ser-
vice in 1985 and thereafter. Plants
scheduled before 1985 employing the
once-through system may retain them
throughout the remainder of their
useful lives. For this Study, it is
assumed that all projected capacity on
line after 1985 will employ the wet
towers cooling method.
PROJECTED SUPPL Y AND
PLANT LOCATION
It is projected that by the year 1985,
approximately 44 percent of the
Market Area's total energy will be
generated in nuclear power plants. By
2000, the percentage is expected to
increase to 67 percent and to 72
percent by 2020. Fossil fuel steam
plants are expected to remain the
major source of electric power to the
year 1985 at which time they are
expected to generate 50 percent of
total Market Area energy require-
ments. By the year 2000, however,
fossil fuel's share dips to 29 percent
and to 26 percent by 2020. It is
anticipated that the remainder of the
energy requirements will be met by
hydroelectric and combustion type
plants and possibly other generating
modes presently not available.
Shown on Figure 40 are the projected
steam electric power plant sites for the
year 2000. Table 39 gives the sizes and
locations of these plants. Considera-
tion was given only to steam-electric
plants, both nuclear and fossil fuel,
because of their demands for cooling
water and consequent potential im-
pacts on the aquatic environment and
shoreline areas. These two means of
generation are expected to produce
about 96 percent of the electrical
energy required in the Chesapeake
Market Area in 2000. The locations of
future facih'ties is fairly well known
through 1985, but, for installations
scheduled beyond 1985, there is a
great deal of uncertainty regarding
specific sites. The location of these
plants was based on several criteria
including the availability of ample
water supply, proximity to load
centers, and the need to keep trans-
mission lines short. In addition, sites in
Maryland were selected in accordance
with criteria developed by the Mary-
land Power Plant Siting Program al-
though these sites were not necessarily
those chosen under the Siting
Program.
Because of the degree of uncertainty
attending site location in the long-
range future, no attempt was made to
predict where plants would be located
beyond 2000.
;75
-------
COOLING WATER
CONSIDERATIONS
Figure 41 illustrates the expected
levels of water use and consumption
by power plants for selected years.
The information for the 1980-2000
period in Figure 41 is taken from
Tables 13-10 and 13-11 of Appendix
13 and accounts for both new units
added and old units removed through-
out the period. For 2000 through
2020, water use rates are assumed to
be the same as those for the year 2000
although technological improvements
between 2000 and 2020 may reduce
the water requirements shown in
Figure 41. Water withdrawals are ex-
pected to decrease over the projection
period so that by 2020 withdrawals
will be 18 percent of the 1972 figure.
Water consumption, however, is pro-
jected to increase by approximately
nine times. This apparent discrepancy
is due to two factors. First, once-
through cooling systems, which have
much higher withdrawal rates than
other types of cooling systems, are
prohibited on all plants scheduled to
begin service on or after 1985. Second,
it was assumed that cooling towers
would be used for all projected
capacity after 1985. Cooling towers
TABLE 39
STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY MARKET AREA, 2000
Plant
Chesapeake West
Douglas Point
. Calvert Cliffs
Bush River*
Elms*
Lake Shore*
Aquasco*
Chalk Point
Motgantown
Brandon Shores
Wagner
Benning
Chesapeake East
Summit
Conowingo*
Thornton*
Bethlehem*
Red Lion*
Havre-de-Grace*
Vienna
Indian River
Edge Moor
McKee Run
Chesapeake South
Free Ferry*
North Anna
Surry
Chowan*
Ramirez*
Roanoke*
Yorktown
Qaremont*
Possum Point
Smithfleld*
Chesterfield
Portsmouth
Fuel Service-Area
Nuclear Potomac El Pr. Co.
Nuclear Baltimore G&E Co.
Nuclear Baltimore G&E Co.
Nuclear Potomac El Pr. Co.
Nuclear Baltimore G&E Co.
Nuclear Potomac El Pr. Co.
Fossil Potomac El Pr. Co.
Fossil Potomac El Pr. Co.
Fossil Baltimore G&E Co.
Fossil Baltimore G&E Co.
Fossil Potomac El Pr. Co.
Nuclear Delmarva P&L Co.
Nuclear Conowingo Pr. Co.
Nuclear Delmarva P&L Ma.
Nuclear Delmarva P&L Ma.
Fossil Delmarva P&L Co.
Fossil Conowingo Pr. Co.
Fossil Delmarva P&L Ma.
Fossil Delmarva P&L Co.
Fossil Delmarva P&L Co.
Fossil Dover Municipal
Nuclear Virginia E&P Co.
Nuclear Virginia E&P Co.
Nuclear Virginia E&P Co.
Nuclear Virginia E&P Co.
Nuclear Virginia E&P Co.
Nuclear Virginia E&P Co.
Fossil Virginia E&P Co.
Fossil Virginia E&P Co.
Fossil Virginia E&P Co.
Fossil Virginia E&P Co.
Fossil Virginia E&P Co.
Fossil Virginia E&P Co.
Location
City
Nanjemoy
Lusby
Bush River
St. Marys City
Millersville
Aquasco
Brandywine
Newburg
Foremans Corner
Arundel Village
Benning
Summit Bridge
Conowingo
Still Pond
Bethlehem
Red Lion
Havre-de-Grace
Vienna
Millsboro
Edge Moor
Dover
Barco
Minerva
Surry
CoSeld
Mamie
Palmyra
Yorktown
Claremont
Dumfries
Smithfield
Chester
Chesapeake
State
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
DC
DE
MD
MD
MD
DE
MD
MD
DE
DE
DE
NC
VA
VA
NC
NC
NC
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
' Plant projected and sited by FPC; all others are existing or scheduled by the utilities.
Capability
MW
3400
3304
3000
3000
3000
2700
1890
1801
1800
774
580
25249
3040
3000
3000
2700
2000
1000
962
677
564
110
17053
3760
3760
3290
2820
2820
2820
2660
2535
2180
1690
1484
1050
30870
Total 73172
76
-------
CHINCOTEAGUE
I r: SOUTH MADISON ST
>, *«
lELAWARE CITY
. CONOWINGO
OTCH CLIFF PERRYM
PHILADELPHIA RO^ V rW/-/
• • • 4
D
LEGEND
MARKET AREA BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
ALL OTHER
FOSSIL STEAM
HYDROELECTRIC
NUCLEAR STREAM
Figure 40: Chesapeake Bay Power Plant Location Map, 2000
77
-------
have much higher consumption rates
than once-through cooling systems.
LAND USE BY POWER
FACILITIES
Estimates of electric utility land use in
the Chesapeake Bay Study Area was
restricted to that required for large
steam electric plants and the related
high-voltage transmission rights-
of-way. No attempt was made to
estimate land use requirements asso-
ciated with subtransmission or distri-
bution faculties.
Power plant land requirements vary
with regard to plant type, size, loca-
tion and fuel use.
Table 40 shows projected land require-
ments for power plants within the
Chesapeake Bay Study Area, as de-
fined in Figure 1. The magnitude of
the quantity of land needed for future
power plant sites is obvious when it is
realized that the land area of Washing-
ton, D.C. is about 42,900 acres.
It is reasonable to assume that the land
occupied by future transmission lines
will also increase significantly, especi-
ally considering the fact that nuclear
plants will have to be located further
away from population centers for
safety reasons. This is somewhat offset
by the fact that transmission lines will
probably have a higher capacity in the
future.
SENSITIVITY ANAL YSIS
The projections of future demands for
water and land by power plants in the
Bay Region in the preceding sections
were based on the assumption of a
"conservative" growth in the demand
for electric power. As part of the
power analysis, the sensitivity of
increase by approximately 30 percent
in the year 2000 and about 95 percent
in 2020. Under a "low" rate of growth
assumption, which is a further damp-
ening of the "conservative" growth
trend, water and land requirements
would decrease by approximately 20
percent in 2000 and about 30 percent
in 2020. Water and land requirements
under both the low and conservative
growth assumptions were shown to be
significantly lower than under the his-
torical trend growth rate. Table 13-15
in Appendix 13 presents more detailed
data on the results of this analysis.
The sensitivity analysis section of
Appendix 13 also investigated the
impact on water withdrawal and con-
sumption in the year 2020 of varying
the future fossil/nuclear plant mix and
closed-cycle/once-through cooling
system mix. TJie results for water
withdrawal varied from a low of 1541
mgd with an all fossil fuel, all closed
cycle system to a high of 4551 mgd
with an all nuclear, all once-through
system. Water consumption ranged
from 452 mgd for all fossil fuel,
once-through plants to 1,313 mgd for
all nuclear, closed cycle plants. It is
obvious from this analysis that any
economic considerations or govern-
ment regulations affecting the type of
fuel or cooling system allowed in
power plants can have significant
impacts on power plant water require-
ments.
MEANS TO SATISFY
ELECTRIC POWER NEEDS
The previous section presents one
possible pattern of future load require-
future demands for water and land to
changes in the rate of growth was
evaluated. Assuming a "high" rate of
growth, which is an extension of his-
torical trends, both water and land
requirements would be expected to
TABLE 40
PROJECTED LAND REQUIRED FOR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANTS
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA (ACRES)
Sector
Chesapeake East
Chesapeake West
Chesapeake South
TOTAL CHESAPEAKE
BAY REGION
1985
3,300
6,700
6,100
16,100
2000
8,400
16,500
9,200
34,100
2020
ments and power supply based on
reasonably expected economic and
technological developments in the
Chesapeake Bay Market Area. That
portrayal is but one possibility of what
may develop. By suitable extensions of
utility technologies and applications of
new philosophies of service modifica-
tion (including public education pro-
grams designed to inform the public of
the importance of energy conserva-
tion) the land and water use indicated
might be altered dramatically. The
sections which follow explore some of
the areas where such modifications
could appear.
WATER USE
Steam-electric plants offer a theoreti-
cal maximum thermal efficiency of
some 55%, the remaining 45% of the
Figure 41: Projected Cooling Water
in the Bay Market Area
89,800
Withdrawal Rates
(MGD)
m
••im
9.4
»
2.3
2.3
Consumption Rates
(MGO)
?
-.^-.
1.2.
1.2
[•Jj1972 Ql985 , 2000 2020
78
-------
energy being rejected as heat. Actual
efficiencies, including the mechanical
and electrical losses, are about 40% for
fossil plants and about 25% for nuclear
plants.
The continued dependence on the
thermal process to produce electricity
will most probably result in the in-
creasing use of the water from Chesa-
peake Bay and its estuarine and fresh-
water tributaries for cooling purposes.
Either the water is returned to the Bay
in a heated condition for a once-
through system or is lost at an in-
creased rate to the atmosphere in a
cooling tower system. Reduction of
the water volumes so heated or con-
sumed may possibly be accomplished
in a number of ways — e.g., increasing
steam-electric efficiencies, changing
the generation mix, increasing waste
heat utilization.
Steam-electric efficiencies may be
increased through the development of
better metals and other suitable mate-
rials in the heat transfer mechanism
which could make possible a reduced
production of reject heat correspond-
ing to the same amount of electrical
energy generated.
Hydroelectric and combustion plants
could, to a limited degree, be substi-
tuted for steam-electric plants with the
purpose of saving water; however the
potential for additional hydro-electric
generation is limited in the Study
Area. In addition, combustion plants
use an expensive grade of oil and are
generally designed for limited opera-
tion. Such devices as magnetohydrody-
namics, windmills, and solar cells use
no water and may, conceivably, be
brought into more common use early
in the next century.
Reject heat is presently put to bene-
ficial uses by providing steam for
industrial and commercial purposes.
Actually, such opportunities are now
rare, but selected future industrial
development might possibly be coordi-
nated with the scheduling of gener-
ating plants to create an "industrial.
park" centered on the plant.
LAND USE
Virtually all existing electric power
facilities are located above ground on
sites dedicated for the single purpose
of the particular facility. In the pre-
vious section, future electric power
land use was approximated based on
typical dimensions and samplings. The
resultant order of demand for land in
the Chesapeake Bay suggests a need
for additional consideration of these
requirements. The demand for land
might be reduced by additional rede-
velopment of existing sites, more com-
pact design of facilities, multiple use
of future sites and rights-of-way, and
underground construction.
LOAD MANAGEMENT
Historically, the demand for electric
energy has been an outgrowth of the
overall economic and social climate of
the utility's territory. All demand was
supplied in full without qualification
other than economic return. Virtually
all present day rate structures actually
encourage energy use by lowering the
unit price of energy as the consump-
tion increases and by maintaining con-
stant rates regardless of the time of
day or season of year. In the interest
of minimizing the water and land use
necessary for electric power genera-
tion, demand manipulation and modi-
fication should also be considered. A
possible means of restructuring rate
schedules is the introduction of time
dependency. The cost of producing
electricity, and the ecological effects
of such production varies throughout
the day and year. If rates were made
dependent on time, the price of the
electricity could better convey to the
consumer the costs associated with his
demand for service and could en-
courage him to adjust his use toward
the lower-priced periods of the day or
year.
Much of the electrical energy pur-
chased by the consumer is never trans-
formed into useful work but is lost in
the conversion process employed by
the various household and industrial
appliances and equipment. Part of the
loss is due to the design of the
appliance and part is due to the
operation of the appliance by the
consumer. By encouraging manufac-
turers and consumers to consider over-
all lifetime operating costs as well as
the initial cost of the product, more
efficient appliances could be marketed
with a resultant reduction in demand.
NOXIOUS WEEDS
As previously mentioned in Chapter 2
of this Summary, the aquatic plants
which inhabit the Chesapeake Bay
Area waters are very important and
serve as the primary producers or vital
life line for other Bay species. Without
the first link in the food chain pro-
vided by these plants, most forms of
higher life within the Bay would suffer
and the tremendous productivity of
the Bay would decrease. However, as
with any resource, an overabundance
can also lead to problems. With some
aquatic plants, excessive growths or
heavy concentrations can cause con-
flicts and actually restrict the use of
other resources. At this point, these
plants become a hinderance and are
termed "noxious weeds".
Noxious weed problems arise when the
plants occur in such a place or to such
an extent that they limit other bene-
ficial water related uses such as naviga-
tion, recreation, fish and wildlife,
water quality, and public health. In
navigation channels, aquatic plants can
and have grown sufficiently dense to
block or impede boat traffic and
present a navigation hazard. Recrea-
tion opportunities including swim-
ming, boating and fishing have also
been restricted as the result of exces-
sive growths of several species. Fish
and wildlife can be adversely affected
when the plants occlude needed sun-
light for food production, exhaust
dissolved oxygen supplies, and "crowd
out" plants which may be more desir-
able foods for waterfowl. Water qual-
ity problems that can b.e caused by
excessive growths include low dis-
solved oxygen, reduction of the aes-
thetic value of water resources, and
possible release of hydrogen sulfide gas
from anaerobically decaying
"blooms." Finally, public health can
be endangered when the aquatic vege-
tation provides a favorable condition
for the proliferation of mosquitoes
which can transmit diseases such as
malaria and encephalitis.
On a worldwide basis, noxious weed
problems are of more concern in
warmer latitudes than in the Chesa-
peake Bay Region. Central and South
America, Africa, Asia, and the
Southern United States all have more
acute problems with the state of Flor-
79
-------
ida alone spending almost $15 million
annually on weed control programs.
While certain aquatic plants have
caused problems in the Bay Region in
the past, today only an occasional
isolated report of a noxious weed
problem can be found. The problem
species are still present in the Bay
waters, but only as mere fragments of
previous volumes, and none in suf-
ficient numbers to require compre-
hensive control measures.
CURRENT STATUS
The plants which have caused the most
widespread problems in Chesapeake
Bay include Eurasian watermilfoil,
water chestnut, and sea lettuce. While,
as noted above, these species are pres-
ently not a problem in the Bay
Region, a brief description of each is
provided due to their potential for
reemergence in the future. A more
detailed discussion of the character-
istics and history of each of these
plants as well as other less prominent
plants can be found in Appendix 14,
"Noxious Weeds."
EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL
Eurasian watermilfoil is a submerged
aquatic plant having an appearance as
shown in Figure 42. Growing over a
wide range of environmental condi-
tions, the plant flourishes in water
depths of up to 8 feet and in waters
ranging from fresh to 15 ppt salinity.
It roots easily in bottoms ranging from
hard packed sand to muck, and under
the right conditions grows rapidly to
the water surface, sometimes forming
a dense interwoven mat of material.
t
Known to be a native of Eurasia, the
manner in which watermilfoil came to
inhabit the waters of the United States
is uncertain. It has been proposed,
however, that either the plant came
over in ships' ballasts which discharged
into American waters, or that it came
over initially in supplies of imported
aquarium fish.
Watermilfoil problems were first docu-
mented in the Bay Area in the early
1930's and surfaced again in the late
1950's to early 1960's. The areas most
affected by this weed were the Gun-
powder and Middle River areas in the
northern Bay Area and tributaries of
the Potomac and Rappahannock
Rivers in the lower Bay Area. From
1967 to the present time, however,
Eurasian Watermilfoil has become
increasingly scarce and its masses have
been estimated at only one percent of
its 1963 tonnage. In part, the reasons
for the remarkable decline are two
diseases which affect only the milfoil
plants and the drought of the middle
1960's which caused salinities to in-
crease above the plant's tolerance
level.
WATER CHESTNUT
Like watermilfoil, the water chestnut
is an import of Eurasian origin. The
plant grows from seeds and produces
as many as 10 to 15 rosettes or clumps
of leaves which float on the water
surface and can cluster up to 10 feet in
diameter. A single rosette of the water
chestnut is shown in Figure 43. The
manner by which water chestnut dis-
tributes itself from one area to another
is not fully understood, but the plant
is known to tolerate no salinity and
can grow in waters as deep as 15 feet.
In areas of intense growth, the rosettes
may become so crowded that the
leaves are pushed upright out of the
water forming a field of vegetation
which makes boating, fishing, and
other water related activities difficult
if not impossible.
In the Chesapeake Bay Area, the water
chestnut was first believed to have
been planted as an ornament in gold-
fish ponds in Washington, D.C., before
World War I. By 1923, the plant had
spread to the Potomac River and ten
years later almost 10,000 acres were
infested near Alexandria, Virginia.
More recently, the Gunpowder and
Sassafras Rivers have had some water
chestnut problems in 1955 and 1964,
respectively. Today -because of the
many years of control efforts, and
expenditures for their removal, only
yearly surveillance and hand pulling of
the water chestnut is required to avoid
problems.
SEA LETTUCE
Sea lettuce, a green alga with a world-
wide distribution, grows mainly in
estuaries and salt marshes of low cur-
rent velocity, and salinity over 12 ppt.
The general appearance of the plant is
shown in Figure 44. Typically, the
plants grow at scattered 2 or 3 foot
intervals to depths of about 20 feet,
but are most abundant on shallow
sand flats. When washed up on
beaches, the lettuce rots and produces
various gases, the worst of which is
hydrogen sulfide. This noxious gas can
discolor lead paint, tarnish silverware,
and in sufficient concentrations create
a health hazard.
Sea lettuce problems have been docu-
mented for many years in the Bay
Area, Long Island Sound, and at the
many places along the back bays of
the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey. In
Maryland, the sea lettuce problem
peaked in 1965 with most of the
problems occurring in the Potomac
River and its tributaries. Virginia's sea
lettuce problems have centered basic-
ally around the Norfolk Area where
local shoreline residents requested
relief regularly during the 1960's. For-
tunately, most problems arising as a
result of sea lettuce growth are only of
a temporary nature. The floating mats
of lettuce typically remain for from
two to six weeks and are usually
washed away by currents, alleviating
the problem.
MEANS TO SATISFY FUTURE
NEEDS
GENERAL
Although present water resource utili-
zation is not hindered by the presence
of aquatic plant growth in the Chesa-
peake Bay Area, the potential exists
for problems to develop in the future.
All plants require certain combinations
of such growth factors as sunlight,
salinity, temperature, and nutrients
before growth and reproduction will
occur. It is not known whether an
improper balance of these growth fac-
tors or some other reason such as
disease has caused the recent decline in
many types of aquatic vegetation
including noxious varieties in the Bay;
but, new growth can be expected with
the return of favorable conditions. If a
resurgence of noxious plant growth
creates conflicts with other uses of the
Bay's resources, consideration will
have to be given to control measures.
This section provides a brief overview
of the various categories of control
measures that have been employed in
80
-------
the past and that have some potential
for use in the Bay Region. More
specific discussion of these measures
can be found in Appendix 14, "Nox-
ious Weeds."
CONTROL MEASURES
Since the emergence of aquatic plant
problems in America at the end of the
nineteenth century, many methods
have been devised to control plant
growths. Today, more sophisticated
measures have been devised, re-
searched, and put into practice for the
eradication of noxious weed problems.
These measures fall into three basic
categories: chemical control, mechani-
cal control, and biological control.
One of the most direct, time effective,
and efficient means of controlling
nuisance aquatic growths is through
the use of chemicals. This involves the
direct application of substances such
as copper sulfate, 2,4-D, diquat,
endothall, and silvex directly to the
waters. However, the use of these
chemicals must be carefully controlled
because of their adverse side effects. In
high concentrations, many of these
herbicides are highly deleterious to
aquatic organisms such as finfish and
shellfish, and also may damage or
eliminate desirable waterfowl food
plants and other valuable vegetation.
Another potential problem is the pos-
sible adverse effect on human beings
who ingest water or food that is
contaminated with these chemicals.
Mechanical aquatic weed control in-
volves the use of various types of
equipment to cut, uproot, collect,
mash, and otherwise destroy the
plants. In use for some time, the first
mechanical control programs used a
crusher which pulverized the plants
and left the remains to sink and rot in
the water. Newer types of equipment
that have and are being investigated
for possible field operations include
spray equipment, wood chippers, de-
vices for transporting personnel and
equipment over difficult terrain,
amphibious tractors, and a machine
which floats on its own cushion of air
at high speeds.
Biological control of noxious aquatic
plants is perhaps the most ideal from a
cost and permanence point of view. In
the form of plant pathogens or insect
or animal predator species, this type of
control can become self-perpetuating
at virtually no cost other than that
needed to initiate the process. Insect
or animal predators that are being
investigated in aquatic control pro-
grams include the Agasicles beetle, the
white amur (an herbivorous fish), and
other animals such as snails, crayfish,
thrips, moths, grasshoppers, aphids,
and the manatee. Plant diseases, such
as various forms of fungi, bacteria, and
viruses are also being investigated for
the control of the water hyacinth and
the watermilfoil. Experimental efforts
to utilize these biological methods
with a minimum of adverse impacts
have been successful in some areas of
the United States in recent years,
although a complete understanding of
the complicated process involved is
still somewhat lacking.
81
-------
Figure 42: Eurasian Watermllfoll
82
-------
Figure 43: Water Chestnut
Figure 44: Sea Lettuce
83
-------
Epilogue
Since Captain John Smith first ex-
plored Chesapeake Bay in 1608, many
changes have taken place-changes
which have resulted in a thriving,
diversified economy and one of the
highest standards of living in the
United States for the residents of the
Chesapeake Bay Region. However, this
rise in the standard of living has not
been without sacrifices or trade-offs
regarding the Bay's resources. Man has
cut vast virgin forests, destroyed many
thousands of acres of wetlands, used
the Bay and its tributaries as receiving
waters for municipal and industrial
wastes, and added huge quantities of
sediments to the Bay's waters.
Man's misuse of the Bay's resources
was usually not intentionally mali-
cious. It was simply a matter of people
performing the acts of living, working
and playing, that have been the genesis
of most of the Bay's problems. Com-
pounding the situation was a general
lack of understanding of the complexi-
ties and interrelationships of the Bay's
ecosystem and the finite capacity of
the Bay to assimilate wastes.
In 1974, 366 years after Captain
Smith's voyage up the Bay, there were
8.2 million people living in the Bay
Region. Population in the Bay Region
has more than doubled since 1940.
These rapid growth rates have com-
pounded the Bay-related problems
by overloading the capacities of ex-
isting water supply, waste treatment,
and recreational facilities.
During the next 50 years, population
is projected to more than double once
again so that by the year 2020 approx-
imately 16.3 million people will reside
in the Bay Region. As a result of these
projected increases in population, as
well as expected increases in per capita
income and manufacturing output, sig-
nificant additional demands will be
placed on Chesapeake Bay's water and
related land resources. For example,
31 of the 49 major central water
supply systems in the Region are
expected to have average water de-
mands which will exceed presently
developed supplies; water consump-
tion by both industry and power
plants is projected to increase by
nearly nine times; boating and sailing
activity is projected to increase by
more than five times'and swimming by
nearly four and one-half times; total
waterbome commerce on Chesapeake
Bay is expected to approximately
double; and nearly 20,000 acres of
land within the 100-year tidal flood
plain have been proposed for intensive
development.
Although there is much room for
honest debate over the magnitude of
the projected levels of demands on the
Bay's resources presented in this re-
port, there is no debate about the
assertion that there will be continued
development by man in the Chesa-
peake Bay Region. With proper plan-
ning, tomorrow's development will be
tempered by a growing awareness of
the environmental costs of unregulated
growth, and also by the knowledge
that environmental enhancement and
preservation have often significant
economic costs which cannot be disre-
garded. Informed decisions will have
-to be made concerning future uses of
the Bay's resources based on a
thorough analysis of all the costs and
benefits—economic, environmental,
and social.
Essential inputs to such a planning
effort are both study and research
designed to provide a better under-
standing of the incredibly complex
ecological, economic, and environ-
mental "system" called the Chesa-
peake Bay Region. An important part
of such research should be work which
is oriented toward gaining more know-
ledge of the role of the Estuary's
natural physical and chemical pro-
cesses in the overall health of the
ecosystem. Research is also needed to
provide a better understanding of the
biological component of the ecosys-
tem such as predator-prey relation-
ships and the biological reasons for
species population fluctuations. Also
of critical importance 'is a need for
methodologies to better estimate the
value of such non-market items as an
acre of wetland, a day of bird watch-
ing, an endangered species habitat, or
84
-------
the aesthetic appeal of a clean river or
bay.
There are numerous studies and re-
search projects underway at all levels
of government and at private institu-
tions which are addressing these types
of problems. Unfortunately, research
efforts are sometimes not coordinated
and therefore much time and money is
lost due to duplication of effort
and/or lack of direction.
In addition to their involvement in
research efforts, a large number of
Federal, State, and local agencies, as
well as several interstate commissions,
are involved in different aspects of
water resource management in the
Region. Inconsistencies in the laws
promulgated by these various levels of
government, many of which have con-
flicting interests, often create prob-
lems in what is essentially a regional
resource— Chesapeake Bay.
The Corps of Engineers Chesapeake
Bay Existing Conditions Report was
the first major study effort which
addressed Chesapeake Bay from a
regional perspective. Just as important,
the report contained much of the basic
data required to project the future
demands on the Bay. The primary
focus of this study, the Chesapeake
Bay Future Conditions Report, is to
present the projection of water re-
source needs to the year 2020 with the
purpose of identifying the problems
and conflicts which would result from
the unrestrained growth in use of the
Bay's resources. This report provides
the basic information necessary to
proceed into the next phase of the
program which is the formulation and
recommendation of solutions to pri-
ority problems.
The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model
at Matapeake, Maryland, will be a
major planning tool during the next
phase of the study. The nine acre
model will provide a means of repro-
ducing, to a manageable scale, some of
the physical phenomena (e.g., cur-
rents, tides, salinities) that occur
throughout this large and complex
system. In addition, as an operational
focal point it will promote more ef-
fective liaison among the agencies
working in the Bay Region by helping
to reduce duplication of research and
by leading to the accelerated dissemi-
nation of knowledge among interested
parties. The model will also be extreme-
ly valuable as an educational tool for
the public in the magnitude and com-
plexity of the problems and conflicts
facing Chesapeake Bay. Construction
of the Chesapeake Bay Model was
completed in May 1976. Verfication,
or "fine-tuning" of the model is cur-
rently underway and is scheduled for
completion in 1977.
Based On the findings of the Future
Conditions Report, the capabilities
and limitations of the Hydraulic
Model, and input from the Study's
public involvement program, exsting
and potential management problems
will be identified and prioritized. In
prioritizing these problems, emphasis
will be placed on (1) selecting prob-
lems for study that are considered to
be high priority and that have Bay-
wide significance; (2) maximizing the
use of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic
Model; and (3) avoiding any duplica-
tion of work being conducted under
other existing or proposed programs.
Major problem areas under considera-
tion for further study during the next
phase of the Study include the effects
on the Bay and its people of extreme
freshwater inflow conditions, naviga-
tion channel modifications, increases
in power plant thermal effluents, tidal
flooding, and wastewater dispersion.
The findings of the Future Conditions
Report and the Chesapeake Bay
Hydraulic Model will add tremen-
dously to the growing body of know-
ledge of the Chesapeake Bay system.
The system is immensely complex,
however, and future increases in many
types of demands will be great in
magnitude and rapid in occurrence. We
cannot hope to completely understand
the workings of the entire system. We
can, however, develop enough know-
ledge to identify future activites by
man which would result in significant
adverse or beneficial impacts on the
integrity of Chesapeake Bay and the
welfare of the people of the Region
and Nation; The goal, not only of the
Corps of Engineers, but also of all
parties interested in the future of
Chesapeake Bay, is a well-coordinated
water-land management plan which
will guide man in utilizing the re-
sources of Chesapeake Bay to provide
the greatest benefits to the greatest
number of peopje.
85
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY DATA BANK GLOSSARY
Aquifer—A sedimentary layer of earth or
porous rock that contains water. Like a surface
stream, water in an aquifer flows underground
from the source to discharge points — either
wells, swamps, springs, or lakes.
Bay Region—The geographical area which in-
cludes those counties which are located on the
Chesapeake Bay or one of its tidal tributaries.
(See tributary)
Bacteriological Indicators—Coliform bacteria
are found in the feces (solid wastes) of humans
and animals. Coliform bacteria, although
harmless to humans, are found with pathogenic
bacteria in domestic waste products.
Pathogenic bacteria cause diseases. Bacterial
counts are made with the assumption that if
coliform bacteria are present, pathogenic
bacteria are also likely to be present. (See col-
iform)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)—A
measure of oxygen depleting power of the
organics in a waste water discharge.
Biome—A natural community of interacting
plants and animals with its composition largely
controlled by climatic conditions.
Biomass—The total mass or weight of living
material in a unit of area.
Bloom—A sudden development of large
numbers of organisms, such as algae, in bodies
of water.
Brackish Water—A mixture of salt water from
the ocean and freshwater from the land with a
salinity greater than one part per thousand
(PPO.
Coliform—A type of bacteria found in the in-
testines of animals and humans.
Channelization—Changing the course and
shape of a stream bed to permit more efficient
stream flow.
Consumer—Any living thing that is unable to
manufacture its own food from nonliving
substances and which depends instead on the
energy stored in other living things which it eats
for its food supply.
Consumption (Water)—The amount of water
lost between the points of intake and discharge
through incorporation into products, evapora-
tion, etc.
Deadweight Tonnage (DWT)—The weight in
tons (2000 Ib/ton) of cargo, supplies, fuel,
passengers and crew when a ship is loaded to
the maximum.
Detritus—Minute particles of decaying remains
of dead plants, animals, and bacteria.
Dissolved 'Oxygen (DO)—The amount of ox-
ygen dissolved in water. Adequate DO is
necessary for the survival of fish and other
aquatic organisms. DO is measured in units of
parts per million (ppm) dissolved oxygen found
in the water.
Dissolved Solids—A measure of the total
amount of organic and inorganic material
which has been dissolved in water. Sulfates,
carbonates, phosphates, nitrates, and chlorides
are among the most common dissolved solids.
Draft—The distance from the water level to the
lowest point of the vessel which is under water.
Ecology—A branch of science concerned with
the interrelationship of organisms to one
another and to the environment.
Ecosystem—System of exchanges of materials
and enefgy between living things and their
physical environment. The living or biotic com-
munity and the nonliving environment function
together as a system.
Endangered Species—Those species of animals
and plants which are so few in numbers as to be
in danger of extinction throughout their natural
habitat.
Estuary—A semienclosed coastal body of water
which has a free connection with the open sea.
Estuaries are strongly affected by tidal action
and the mixing of seawater with freshwater
from land drainage. Examples are: mouths of
rivers, coastal bays, tidal marshes, and bodies
of water behind barrier beaches.
Eutrophication—The process by which a lake
becomes rich in dissolved nutrients and defi-
cient in oxygen. Eutrophication occurs either as
a natural stage in lake maturation or is ar-
tificially induced by human activities, principal-
ly by the addition of fertilizers and organic
wastes to the body of water.
Evapotranspiration—A combined loss of water
from a given area by evaporation from surface
water and from the transpiration of plants.
Fall Lin. —The geological boundary between
softer sedimentary rocks and harder crystalline
rocks. Usually, there is a waterfall as a river
crosses the fall line because the sedimentary
rocks wear away more easily than the
crystalline rocks.
Food Web—A system of interlocking food
chains in which energy and materials are passed
86
-------
through a series of plant-eating and meat-eating
consumers.
Groundwater—Water found underground in
porous rock or soil layers. (See aquifers)
Isohaline Lines—Lines on a map showing the
varying degrees of salinity that exist within
estuary waters. These lines slant upwards to the
right due to the rotation of the earth.
Habitat—The place where a plant or animal
species naturally lives and grows, its immediate
surroundings.
Heavy Metals—Elements such as mercury,
lead, zinc, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic
which are important because of their poisonous
effects in low concentrations to plants and
animals. A problem with heavy metals is that
many fish and shellfish concentrate these
materials in their tissues, affecting the natural
food chain and presenting a consumption
hazard to man.
Hydroelectric Power—Electricity generated by
the conversion of falling water into electrical
energy.
Hydrology—A branch of science dealing with
properties, distribution, and circulation of
water.
Marsh—A wetland dominated by herbaceous
or nonwoody plants, often developing in
shallow ponds or depressions, river margins,
tidal areas, and estuaries. Marshes may contain
either salt or fresh water. Vegetation is
dominated by grasses and sedges,
Maximum Sustainable Yield—The greatest
harvest which can be taken from a population
without affecting subsequent harvests.
Non-Point Sources—Those sources from which
materials reach a watercourse from runoff over
a large area (e.g., pesticides from fields), not
from a particular location, as in point source
{e.g., particulate matter from smokestacks).
Nutrient—A chemical element, organic com-
pound, or inorganic compound used in the
growth of living organisms.
Parent Material—The unweathered rock or
organic matter from which soil is originated.
pH—The measure of hydrogen ion concentra-
tion. pH reflects either acidic or alkaline condi-
tions. Neutrality is represented by a pH of 7.
Alkaline (basic) conditions above 8.5 can
decrease reproductive capabilities in many
aquatic species. Acidic water, pH less than 6,
can harm and even kill many forms of aquatic
life.
Phytoplankton—Microscopic aquatic plants.
Pollutant—A substance, medium, or agent
which causes physical impurity. Any gas, li-
quid, or solid whose nature contaminates the
water, air, or ground to a level of quality which
is less desirable.
Point Sources—Those sources in which
material is discharged from a specific point (ef-
fluent from a wastewater treatment plant, ef-
fluent from a factory, warm water from a
power plant are some examples.)
Producers—Primarily green plants. These are
the basic link in any food web. By a means of
photosynthesis, plants manufacture the food
on which all other living things ultimately de-
pend.
Salinity—Concentration of salt in water usually
measured in parts per thousand (ppt).
Salinity Currents—Vertical movements in the
estuarine waters caused by the density of the
salts mixing with the less dense fresh water.
Sewage—Waste materials carried in sewers and
drains. Refuse in water.
Siltation—The formation of deposits of fine
particles of clay, sand, or other particles that
have been carried by moving water.
Soil—Upper layer of earth consisting of
disintegrated rock with a mixture of organic
matter,twater, and air in which living organisms
may be found.
Suspended Solids—Those solids which remain
suspended in water and cannot pass through the
holes in a standardized filter one millionth of
an inch in diameter.
Tidal Currents—Horizontal movements in
ocean and estuarine waters caused by changes
in the elevation of the surface through tidal
changes.
Tidal Flooding—The flooding of land by tides
higher than those usually caused by hurricanes
or "northeasters".
Tributary—A stream of water that flows into a
larger body of water; for example, the Potomac
River is a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Any
river that flows into the Bay is a tributary of the
Bay. Such rivers also have many smaller
tributary streams of water flowing into them.
Turbidity^A state of having disturbed sedi-
ment, of being opaque, cloudy, or muddy, with
matter in suspension.
Wetlands—Any area characterized by high soil
moisture and often high biological productivi-
ty, where the water table is at or near the sur-
face for most of the year.
Zooplankton—Microscopic animals in water.
87
------- |