United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Enwrbnmental Research
Laboratory
Gulf Breeze FL 32561
Middle Atlantic Region 3
6lh and Walnut Sts
Philadelphia PA 19106
Chesapeake Bay Program
CHESAPEAKE RAY PROGRAM
HANAGETei PROCESS
-------
903R81
1O3
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
JULY 1981
-------
770*0rt 7702C:i' 77DOM 76D40M 76D20M 75DOM 75D40H 7SD20n
39020M
39DOM
33040M
33020M
33D3M
37D40?
37D20M
37DQM
-
19D20M
3900M
3S040M
38DOM
37D40M
37D20.M
/ » 37DOM
36D40M.
76D40M : T6D20M ToDOf\ ,,rSp4CM 75D20M
KEY
TF -
HT -
LE -
VI -
TIDAL FRESH . . "
MAXIMUM. TURBIDITY
LOWER ESTUARIES '
WESTERN SHORE TRIBUTARY
' ET - EASTERN SHORE TRIBUTARY
*.*' '
:EE - EASTERN SHORE EMBAYMENT
. » "
- --CB - CHESAPEAKE BAY
: NUy3F.?.S REFER TO THE SUM2E? OF THE SECE.I WTTKi::
. THAT CXTSCORV
-------
MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS - TOXICS
(Underlined headings are synthesis titles)
1.0 Is there a problem in Chesapeake Bay related to toxic chemicals?
1.1 What toxic substances are present in the estuary?
1.1.1 What is the concentration of these substances in the system?
1.1.2 Where are they located in the system?
1.1.3 With what are they associated (sediment, organic matter,
dissolved in water)?
1.1.4 Are there toxic degradation products of pollutants in the
Chesapeake Bay? .
1.1.5 Which toxic substances are anthropologic? Natural?
1.2 Do toxics enfe'fing the system accumulate? If so, which-ones, at what
rate? Under what conditions? What ecosystem compartment?
1.3 Do levels of toxic chemicals found in the environment present a risk
to the ecosystem?
1.3.1 Will increased loads present a risk to any organisms?
1.3.2 . What are the correlations between the presence of toxic chemicals
and biological effects?
1.3.2.1 Submerged aquatic vegetation with herbicides, with metals
in sediment, with metals in pore water, with organics
. in sediment, with new chemical source nearby?
1.3.2.2 Benthic infauna with organics in sediment, with metals
. in sediment, with metals in pore water, with new chemical
source nearby?
1.3.2.3 Fish population with.metals in sediment, with metals in
pore water, with organics in sediment, with metals in
suspended sediment, with metals in column water, with
organics in column water, with organics-in pore water,
with new chemical source nearby?
1.3.2.4 Oyster productivity with organics in pore water, with
organics in column water, with organics in sediment, with
organics in suspended sediment, with metals in sediment,
with metals in column water, with metals in pore water, '. :
with new chemical source nearby? .
1.3.2.5 Zooplankton and all of above?
1.3.2.6 Phytoplankton and all of above?
2.0 What are the important physical, chemical, and biological processes which
interact to create the problem in 1.0?
-------
2.1 What role does sediment play in the transport and accumulation of
toxic substances?
2.1.1 What are the correlations between toxic substances and
suspended sediments, and bottom sediments?
2.1.2 How much sediment is in the Bay at the present time, where
is it located, and what is its physical characteristics?
2.1.3 How fast is sediment being added, to the system and what processes
are responsible for its transport?
. 2.2 What are the chemical environments in the system and how do they effect
toxics?
2.2.1 What is the chemical composition of the system?
2.2.2 What is the mineralogy of the inorganic sediment constituents?
2.2.3 Do toxics entering the system degrade? Which ones? At what
rate's''? Under what chemical conditions?
2.2.4 Under what, chemical "conditions do toxics remobilize?
2.3 What role does biota play in the transport of toxic substances?
2.3.1 How is sediment affected by the activities of benthic organisms?
2.3.2 Biota breakdown of to.xic materials? ;
3.0 What are the sources and loadings of the pollutants of concern?
3.1 Point and nonpoint source toxic assessment? ' !
3.1.1 What percentage of toxic input is from point sources?
3.1.2 What types of toxic substances can be attributed to certain
types of industry?
3.1.3 What percentage of toxic input is from nonpoint sources?
3.1.4 What types of toxic substances can be associated in runoff from
particular land uses? . -
3.2 Other sources of toxic input? .
3.2.1 What is the atmospheric contribution to toxic input?
3.2..2 What do the sediments contribute to toxic input?
4.0 How can we manage the toxic chemical problem?
4.1 Which pollutants need to be controlled? Can they be controlled?
4.2 How can pollutants already in the system be removed?
4.3 Where can they be placed or deactivated?
-------
4.4 What are the expected water quaj-iuy
these controls?
4.5 What are the target loads needed to maintain and/or enhance water
quality in Chesapeake Bay?
4.6 What can be done to reduce the discharges?
4.7 What control programs are now in'place to regulate toxic and sediment
inputs to the system?
4.8 What changes need to be implemented to meet these target loads?
5.0 What additional information is needed to improve our ability to manage the
Chesapeake Bay for toxics?
5.1 What is an effective monitoring program?
5.2 Identification of future research needs?
-------
.MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS - NUTRIENTS
(Underlined headings are synthesis titles) /
I
1.0 Is there a problem in the Chesapeake Bay related to nutrients?
1.1 What is the existing level of nutrient enrichment
1.2 What are the commonly used criteria for evaluating an eutrophication-
problem?
1.3 Correlations between historical trends in nutrient enrichment with
biota? with uses?
1.3.1 What are the historical trends in nutrient enrichment?
1.3.2 What are the historical trends in biota and can these be corre-
lated with nutrient enrichment (phytoplankton, zooplankton,
spawning- diversity, baygrasses,"fishes)
1.3.3 Has nutrient enrichmeht,^.affected fisheries? ;
1.3.4 Has nutrient enrichment affected recreation?
1.4 What are the effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Species Composition,
Diversity, and Trophic Relationships? .
1.4.1 Does nutrient enrichment influence species composition?
1.4.2 How does nutrient affect species diversity and community stability?
1.4.3 How does nutrient enrichment affect higher trophic levels?
2.0 What are the important processes which, interact to create the problem
cited in 1.0? .
2.1 How does Nutrient Enrichment Affect Algal Physiology?
2.1.1 What is the relationship between nutrient enrichment and algal
blooms? Algal bloom failure? ;
2.1.2 How do light quality and quantity limit algal productivity?
2.1.3 How do phytoplankton assimilation rates vary from species to
species?
2.1.4 How does nutrient enrichment affect phytoplankton assimilation
preferences?
2.1.5 How are phytoplankton assimilation rates affected by nutrient
enrichment?
2.1.6 How does nutrient enrichment affect luxuriant uptake?
2.1.7 How does nutrient enrichment affect nutrient leakage?
2.1.8 Which nutrient is limiting to a particular species?
-------
- 2 -
2.2 What are the Sediment Nutrient Dynamics?.
2.2.1 How do anaerobic processes affect nutrient regeneration from
bottom sediments?
2.2.2 What is the role of Fe and Mg on available P?
2.2.3 What are the flux rates of nutrients from bottom sediments
and how do they change seasonally?
2.2.4 How does the zone of Maximum Turbidity act as a Nutrient Sink?
2.3 Nutrient Regeneration
2.3.1 What are the rates of regeneration?
2.3.2 What mechanisms are responsible for regeneration?
***>.- ' '- ->..
2.3.3 How do the rates change seasonally and temporally?
2.4 What is the Role of Hydrodynamics on Nutrient Distribution?
2.4.1 How does stratification limit nutrient availability to the
surface layers?
2.4.2 How does circulation vary nutrient availability both temporally
and spatially? . .
2.5 What is the role of marshes?
2.5.1 What are the marsh to estuary exchange of nutrients?
2.5.2 Do the marshes buffer nutrient concentrations?
3.0 What are the sources and loadings of the. pollutants of concern?
3.1 The Concept of Limiting Nutrients
3.1.1 Is P limiting in the Bay stem during spring?
3.1.2 Is N limiting over a large portion of the Bay during the summer?
3.1.3 Is P limiting in the upper tidal portions of the tributaries?
3.1.4 Is light limiting? ,:
3.2 Point and Non-Point Source Nutrient Assessment^ :
3.2.1 What percentage of nutrient input is from non-point sources?
How do they vary over time?
3.2.2 What percentage of nutrient input is from point sources?
3.2.3 What percentage of non-point source can be attributed to parti-
cular land uses?
-------
- 3 -
3.2.4 What are the pollutant runoff rates for particular land uses?
3.2.5 What are the nutrient loadings from the Fall Line?
3.2.6 Given projected loadings of nutrients for each of the sources,
which will be the most important in terms of their effects on
the Bay system?
3.3 Other Sources of Nutrient Input
3.3.1 . What is the atmospheric contribution to nutrient input?
3.3.2 What is the oceanic contribution to nutrient input?
3.3.3 What do the sediments contribute to nutrient enrichment? .
4.0 What materials and what sources need to be controlled and can be controlled?
*V-,,,., . -.? .-. . -
4.1 Which pollutant(s) need to be controlled? Does it vary spatially and
temporally? "" .
4.2 Of these .pollutants'and source of pollutants, which ones can be
controlled and by how much?
4.3 ';What are the expected water quality benefits which will result from
these controls?
4.4? What are the target loads needed to maintain and/or enhance water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay?
4.5 What can be done to reduce these discharges? : ;
r>!V '
4.6 ..What control programs are now in .plan to regulate nutrient inputs
to the system? . .
4.6.1 Construction grants
4.6.2 NPDES .
4.6.3 Agricultural programs . ' .
4.6.4 Sediment and erosion control program
4.6.5 Urban runo.ff NFS
4.7 What changes need to be implemented to meet these target loads?
5.0 What additional information is needed to improve out ability to manage the
Chesapeake Bay? (long term monitoring program)
5.1 What is an effective monitoring program?
5.2 Identification of future research needs?
-------
BAY GRASS MONOGRAPHS
(Underlined headings are synthesis titles)
DISTRIBUTION* AND ABUNDANCE OF BAY GRASSES [1-1]
1.1.1 What is the current distribution and abundance of bay grasses?
(Aerial photography in 1973, 1979, and 1980)
1.1.2 Have the distribution and abundance of bay grasses recently
declined? (Archival photography, published field surveys)
. 1.1.2.1 Have all speci.es declined synchronously?
1.1.2.2 Have all areas exhibited a synchronous decline?
Can epicenters of decline (such as heads of
-^tributaries) be identified? '-rs*.
"'- ' . '-''*f? V
>-X- !-.,.- ' -.-f >. - ' ' . .
1.1.2.3 Have deeper water areas been affected before
shallower are..as?
1.1.2.4 Has the decline been gradual during the recent
past, or was it a sudden, one-time event, occurring
between periods of relative stability?
1.1.3 How does this decline compare with the long term record?
(Biostratigraphy)
1.1.3.1 Has the recent decline been greater than changes that
... have occurred during the long term record?
1.1.3.2 Have past changes been cyclic?
1.1.3.3 Have different species and areas been affected
simultaneously in the past?
1.1.A How does the recent decline in Chesapeake Bay compare to the
recent record in. other parts of.the eastern seaboard and the
world? (Literature review)
-------
THE ECOLOGICAL ROLE AND VALUE OF BAY GRASSES [1.1.5]
1.1.5.1 What is the trophic structure of bay grass communities?
Are bay grasses and their epiphytes important direct or
indirect food sources 'for animals, including those
harvested by man? Are these relationships obligative
or facultative? (Inventories of biota at field sites,
comparison of vegetated and bare areas; trophic studies
showing food links).
1.1.5.2 Do'bay grasses provide habitat (nurseries, refuge,
feeding sites, substrate or epiphytes and epifauna)
for other organisms? Are these relationships obligative
or facultative? (Inventories of biota at field sites, ,
comparison of bar^ and vegetated areas, predator-prey
and. predator exclusion experiments)
*tV=-.- . - ~.1i. ,
1.1. 5. 3'". Do bay grasses affect the bay-wide nitrogen, cycle?
''''What are the rates of nitrification, denitrification
and nitrogen fixation in grass beds? (Field measurements
of rates of nitrogen transformations; nutrient dosing
experiments in"lab and field; measurements of nutrient
levels in field, watershed nutrient budgets)
1.1.5.4 What role do bay grasses play in erosion 'and sediment
filtering in grass beds? (Sediment dosing experiments
in lab; field measurements of suspended sediments and
rates sediment resuspension)
-------
2.1.1 How much light do bay grasses need? (Lab. and field observations and
experiments on photosynthctic response to light, temperature ,
nitrogen and atrazine; sediment dosing experiments., epiphytic and
.epifaunal fouling experiments, long term shading experiments)
2.1.1.1 What are the response curves of bay grass species
to increasing quantities of light? . :
2.1.1.2 How ar« these response curves affected by temperatures?
2.1.1.3 How are they affected by herbicides?
2.1.1.4 How are they affected by nitrogen?
2.1.1.5 How are they affected by turbidity caused by different
classes of material?
2.1.1.6 How are they affected by aclimatization?
-T- ?:? v
2, 1.1. 7^. ...What are the action spectra of each specfes of bay grass?
2.1.2 How nuch light are bay grasses receiving? (Observations at intensive
field sites and survey sites , lab experiments; epiphytic and
fouling experiments; sediment resuspension studies)
2,1.2.1 What ard the field measured depth profiles of light
quantity for selected wavebands?
2.1.2.2 How do they vary over tidal, diel and seasonal cycles?
2.1.2.3 How do they vary between vegetated, recently denuded and
long unvegetated sites? ; . .
2.1.2.4. How are they affected by chlorophyll a and by dissolved,
collodial and suspended organic and inorganic matter (i.e.,
how ara they controlled by different kinds of turbidity?)
2.1.2.5 What are the sources of turbidity? .
2.1.2.6 How are they affected by sediment resuspension?
What are the different causes of resuspension?
2.1.2.7 How arc- they indirectly affected by nut'rient enrichment? Do
phytoplankton outcoinpete bay grasses? Is the epifaunal fouling
. hypothesis valid? . j . ,,-'. ...
2.1.2.8 How are the quantity and quality of ILgtit actually reaching
the photosynthetic tissue of SAV affected by epibiota? Do
" selected grazers "clean" grass blades? Does absence of these
grazers significantly reduce light available for photosynthesis
by bay grasses?
2.1.3 Can the balance of supply and demand of light be compared with trends
in bay grass decline to show that insuCf Iciency of light has been a
significant cause of decline?
-------
EFFECTS OK HERBICIDES CWBAY GRASSES
[2.2]
2.2.1 What levels are harmful to bay grasses? (Dosing experiments
lab, ponds, and field)
2.2.1.1 What effects do herbicides and their daughter
products have on bay grasses?
2.2.1.2 At what levels do these effects occur?
2.2.1.3 Arc effects additive, multiplicative?
2,2,1.4 Are some species or life stages (such as
seedlings) more sensitive to others?
2.2.1.5 How do herbicides enter or come into contact
with the plants? '
2.2.2 What levels are .bay grasses exposed to in the estuary?
(Field observations .at intensive -.sites and survey sites; lab
studies"oti sorption, degradation and fate) . """*"'.-
2.2.2.1 What are the_typical levels of herbicides in vegetated,
recently denuded, and long unvegetated sites?
2.2.2.2 What are the maximum levels in the spring after
application and runoff?
2.2.2.3 What are the physical and chemical pathways and
fates of herbicides? .
-V]
2.2.2.4 What effect does sediment resuspension have on
& herbicide transport and fate? .
,.; 1
2.2.2.5 What depredation rates do herbicides have and how
i< are they affected by environmental variables?
'it. - - ' '
2.2.2.6 What are the sorption constants of herbicides
and how are they affected by environmental variables?
2.2.3 Does the balance of herbicide exposure and susceptibility explain
trends in bay grass abundance?
-------
THE ROLL: OF NUTRIELNTS _IN BAY GRASS coj-MUNirrss [2.3]
2.3.L What are the nutrient requirements of bay grasses? (Dosing experiments
In lab, ponds and field; observations of ambient levels)
2,3.1.1 What art; the minimum levels for survival?
2.3.1.2 What levels are excessively high and what is their effect?
2,3,1.3 How are bay grasses affected by competition between
phytoplankton and grasses, and between epiphytes and grasses?
2.3.2 What levels of nutrients are bay grasses exposed to? (Field
observations, of water column and sediment levels at intensive and
survey sites; field studies of nitrogen transformation rates;
nutrient budget studies) .
2.3.2.1 What are the sources and pathways of these nutrients?
_~'"' ' ' "*rrr :.
2. 3. 2.-2-,,..How do levels vary thrp.ugh space, and tine?
2.3.2.3 How ars thes^ levels affected by other factors,
including bay grasses themselves?
2.3.3 Can the balance of supply and requirements explain trends in bay
grasses?
i
i
-------
2.4 How do temperature, nitrogen, light and atrazine simultaneously
the photosynthetic response of bay grasses? (Interaction experiments'
in lab. ponds, and field, modeling) . ' . ' "'
2.5 What factors, other than those mentioned under 2.4, might have
been prox-imate causes of the decline in bay grasses? Chlorine?
Disease? Toxic organics (other than herbicides)? Toxic metals?
2.6 Is there any evidence for or against the possibility that the
factors causing decline are not the same as those preventing
recovery?
2.7 Which of the factors listed above, can be regarded as constituting
a minimal set of proximate causes sufficient to explain the recent
decline in bay grasses? . .
2.3 How are t.H"e's'e' proximate causes influenced by other processes or events,.
such as n-utr.ient enrichment, epibi.o.t-ic fouling, or patterns and
amounts of precipitation?
....... . ^ ' i
2.9 What are the minimum requirements for establishment, growth, and
reproduction of bay grasses? ' ;
-------
CONTROLLING _POLLUTANTS TO__MAINTAIN_ BAY Gj^ASSES^
A.I Which pollutants need to be controlled? Do they vary spatially
and temporally?
A.2 OC these pollutants and sources of pollutants, which ones can be
controlled and by how nuch? - - '
A.3 What are the expected benefits to bay grasses which will result
from these controls?
A. A What are the target loads needed to maintain and/or enhance
bay grass populations in the Chesapeake Say?
A.5 What can be done to reduce these discharges?
A.6 What control programs are now in place to regulate pollutant
inputs to the system?
A. 1.1 Construction Grants /».> ^
A.1.2 NUDES
A.1.3 Ag. Programs .
A.I.A Sediment and Erosion Control Programs
A.1.5 Urban Runoff NFS ' '
A.7 What changes need to be implemented to meet these target loads?
A.3 How can changes in bay grass populations be monitored and what
abiotic variables should also be monitored, at what locations
and frequencies? ;
A.9 What additional information is needed to improve our ability to
manage the Chesapeake Bay? How will this inprova resource
management? . -
Walt Valentine
February 5, 1931
-------
TOXICS SYNTHESIS
PAPER OUTLINE
-------
TOXICS SYNTHESIS PAPER OUTLINE"
I. Introduction
A.) Definition of the Problem
1.) Symptoms of ecological degradation and overloading?
a.) Fish, crab declines .
b.) Grass disappearance
c.) . Turbidity and water quality
d.) Sediment infilling
e. Health effects
B.) How did the problem arise? -?.? : .v*?tf"
1.) Historical economic dependence on the Bay.
2.) °Rise of cities and ports.
3.) Farming practices
4.) Industrial development, activities, and products.
C.) Purpose and Objectives of Investigations
1.) Fate and Transport Studies
2.) Assessment of Concentrations
3.) Chemical Substance - Sediment Association
a.) Suspended sediment
b.) . Bottom sediment
*
. A.) Sediment - Interstitial Water - Water Column Interaction
5.) Biological Studies
II. Literature Review
A.) Other investigative findings in Chesapeake Bay
B.) Investigative findings in other estuaries
-------
III. Sources of Chemical Substances
A.) Fall Line Monitoring
B.) Source Assessment
1.) Observed chemical substance effluent concentrations and
results of effluent bioassay studies.
2.) Observed chemical concentrations .and results of
bioassay studies of sediment near effluents.
3.) EPA/State data on effluent concentrations
A.) NPDES permittee self monitoring
C.) Atmospheric . -
D.) Oceanic (spills)
E.) Chemical Substances Mas^s .--Balance rj.-:-- .:. ;&£
IV. What is the Chemical/Physical Regime in the Bay Which Influences
the Fate and'Transport of Potential Toxic'Chemicals
A.) Are there associations or correlations observed between
.sU potential toxic chemicals and the following parameters,
>£ 1.) Salinity . ',...' ... ' ' ;
.-:; 2.) Dissolved oxygen
3.) Productivity ...
4.) PH : ' \. . V .':." ' -' ": -.:':;.../.. -
? 5.) Suspended sediment concentrations
6.) Distribution and Composition of benthic biota
i - '- " :. * '.-'-''.- '''':,.-''
7.) Turbidity or secchi disk readings
V. Observed Distribution and Concentration of Chemical Substances in
the Geochemical Reservoirs of the Chesapeake Bay and Identification
of Accumulation Zones and "Hot Spots"
A.) Inorganics
-2-
-------
VI.
1.) Water - NBS, CBI
- dissolved '
- suspended material
2.) Sediments - Helz, Hill
- surface (including fluid mud)
- subsurface (including interstitial water)
B.) Organics - Huggett, Bieri
1.) Water
dissolved . .
- suspended material
2.) Sediments
3.) Biota (systems) --*»- * -j,,..
' * - -i*
.C.) Radionuclides
(Helz, NBS, Oak Ridge) .
D.) partition Coefficients (observed or literature values?)
1.) Knowing organic concentrations in sediment, what might
be the concentrations in water column? ,
2.) Using'known relationship, (i.e., surface sediment
concentration of metals and nearby water column)
develop partition coefficients for entire Bay and
predict concentrations where they are not .known.
Chracterization o'f Chemical Substances as Anthropogenic or Natural
A.) .Concentrations of Chemical Substance in: -
1.) "Normal" estuarine sediment - :
2.) Sea water
3.) Fresh water . .
A.) Soil .
-3-
-------
B.) Methodologies for determining anthropogenic or natural.
1.) NBS - Wedepohl ratios
2.) Helz - changes-in metals ratios with depth
3.) Other metals ratios . :
4.) PNA concentrations and implications - Huggett, Bieri
5.) Phthalate esters study - Helz
VII. Distribution and'Characterization of Benthic Biota'and'Biogenic
Structures in the Chesapeake Bay - Diaz, Reinharz
A.) Benthic Distribution Patterns . _,
1.) Faunal composition
2.) Vertical .distribution of the fauna
3.) Opportunists vs.""equilibrium species '' .,s*
-------
a.) Sand/silt/clay
b.) Carbon content
c.) Water content
d.) Mass accumulation
4.) Dynamic Processes
a.) Transport
b.) Accumulation - sedimentation rates
- erosion - deposition
- pb-2'10 ,
- Biostratigraphy
c.) Erosion
d.) Resuspension.. ^ . _^.. .^.
5.) Sediment Budget
B.) Integration of Chemical Substances and Sediment data.
(i.e., what are the correlations between the chemical
substances and the following parameters.)
1.) Sand/silt/clay (Huggett's organics normalized to clay)
2.) Particle size ' . .
3.) Carbon content
4.) Water content
5.) Sedimentation rates :
C.) Inter-relationship between Chemical Substance in Different
Reservoirs
1.) Bed 'sediment . , . ..
2.) Surface sediment
3.) Fluid Mud .
A.) Interstitial Water -
-5-
-------
5.) Water Column
D.) Interstitial water - bottom sediment relationship and
interaction with water column. - Hill
1.) Major chemical constituents or reaction mechanisms
characterizing this relationship.
a.) Distribution in the Bay
b.) Correlations observed between major chemical
. constituents in sediment and interstitial water.
c.) Correlations observed between major chemical
constituents in sediment and interstitial water
. and the chemical/physical properties of water
<£:,; columns. -- ,->*;,. . . '&&"
d.) Chemical stability of sediments and distribution
in the Bay.
2.). Calculated flux rate of chemical substances from the
'*' interstitial water to water column based on observed
'^ values (using picks Law).
; 3.) Calculated flux rates of chemical substances from the
interstitial water to water column for all areas of the
Bay based on extrapolation of observed values to areas
where some sediment and interstitial water properties
are known, but chemical substance values are unknown in
interstitial water but known in bed sediment.
4.) Same as #3, but where chemical substance values are
unknown in interstitial water and bed sediment and
known in surface sediment.
5.) Capacity of sediment as reservoir for chemical
substance flux.
-6-
-------
IX. Toxicity Assessment of Selected Chemicals
X. Bioassay Studies
(if not covered previously)
XI. Assessment of Toxicity in'Bay
XII. Future Toxicity Scenario
XIII. Management Strategies
XIV. Monitoring Strategies
XV. Research Needs
Appendix I. Brief answers to management questions
-7-
-------
NUTRIENT SYNTHESIS
PAPER OUTLINE
-------
Synthesis Report, C. F. D'Elia
1.0 Are there nutrient enrichment problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries?
1.1 Why do we suspect there are problems, where are they, and how
severe are they?
1. Hypotheses
a. Anthropogenic loadings have increased and will continue
to do so.
examples: Potomac River, Patuxent River
b. Levels of nutrients in the water column are measurably
.higher than before; explained completely below.
. c. The following locations are considered highly enriched":
upper;:Bay, upper Potomac, upper James. >Vk>
d. The following locations are considered moderately
enriched: mid-Bay, western shore tributaries, with .
. the Patuxent being the best example, Susquehanna.
1.2 What are the consequences of nutrient enrichment and by what
criteria do we evaluate and predict problems related to nutrient
enrichment?
1. Hypotheses of consequences and explanations thereof.
a. Nutrient concentrations increase.
b. Algal production increases.
i. Algal biomass and chlorophyll levels become higher,
secchi depth lower "?
ii. Algal production rates become higher
v. _ . ' _
iii. Algal species composition changes
c. Dissolved oxygen levels change. '
I. What affects DO concentration in water.
(a) Diffusion and solubility
(b) Photosynthesis . "'
(c) Respiration
(d) Decay of organic matter (BOD, UBOD)
(e) Chemical oxygen demand
-------
- 3 -
ii. Nutrient .enrichment manifests itself in greater.^diel.
DO variations and lower DO levels in the water columns,
especially in the summer.
d. Estuary responses to nutrient enrichment are more complex
and not as well understood as in lotic or lacustrine
freshwater situations.
e. Changes in biota other than plant material occur --
alterations in trophic pathways. .. .
i. zooplankton
ii. fishes . . .
iii. 'Shellfish . '
iv. bacteria
Criteria^or evaluation.-w...,,v:: ^.:
a. Primary indicators ' v
i. nutrient, concentrations
(a) NH4+ . ' ' .
(b) N03~
(c) etc.
ii. oxygen concentrations
iii. Secchi depth or chlorophyll concentration
iv. algal species shifts
b. Secondary
i. dynamic measurements (productivity, etc.)
Iii. bacteria '''_
iv. etc. '
3. Techniques for evaluating or predicting
i. water quality indices
(a) examples
(b) strengths
-------
- 4 -
(i) simple
(ii) warning sign of trouble
(c) Weaknesses
- (i) use-related
(ii) data gaps are a problem
(iii) misinterpreted capabilities
(iv) doesn't tell how to rectify the problem
ii. Water quality models .
(a) examples '..
(b) strengths ...
'* --.- >&?<>
(i)... helps one conceptualize system '"«?$''
(ii) provides one with some idea of what needs to be
controlled to manage problem and what information
needs to be gathered to do so.
(c) weaknesses' '
. (i) use-related
(ii) data gaps are a problem . -
(iii) misinterpreted capabilities
.(iv) poor state-of-the-art for estuaries which are
very complex
(v) projections not predictions ... . .
(vi) cause/effect relationships may be coincidental.
1.3 What have the historical trends in nutrient enrichment and its
consequences been and how much dare-we infer from these trends?
... CO..^
1.3.1 What are the statistical difficulties in trying to establish
that long-term trends have occurred and attribute causes to
them? (with W. C. Boicourt).
1. Gaps in data records
2. Correlation is not cause and effect
3. Long-term trends can be distinguished in the presence of
high variability only if high frequency variation is
small enough.
-------
- 5 -
1.3.2 What are the historical trends in the "primary indicators"
(see above) of nutrient enrichment.
1. Hypothesis
a. Primary indicators have been changing with time.
2. Examples
a. Patuxent and Potomac Rivers .
b. etc. - summary of Heinle et al report.
1.3.3 What are the historical trends in the "secondary
indicators" (see above) of nutrient enrichment?
1. Hypothesis. ;
. a. Secondary indicators have changed but the data
record is inadequate to document the cha'ng^'S.
1.3.4 What are the historical changes in biota and can they be
attributed to nutrient enrichment?
1. Hypotheses .
a. There have been historical changes in chlorophyll
levels as documented in 1.3.1.
'* b. There hsve been shifts with time in algal species
composition in places.
* C« ^AV ck-v^-W
c. Other changes have occurred but they are difficult
to discern for lack of data, for climatic reasons,
or because statistical "noise" is great. See above.
1.3.5 Has nutrient enrichment affected recreation?
1. Hypotheses.
-. a. Bacterial (pathogen) levels have increased in upper
tributaries and may necessitate closure to fishing
and swimming this may not so much be due to
.enrichment as due to storm washout, sewage input, etc.
de-
fa. Transparency of the water has increased making it
- aesthetically less pleasing to swim in.
1.4 What are the effects of nutrient enrichment on species composition,
diversity and trophic relationships?
1. Hypotheses
a. Species composition shifts as a consequence of nutrient
enrichment relate primarily to the first trophic level.
-------
b. Only the most obvious changes are readily discerned, e.g.
blue-green algae appearing in upper tributaries.
c. Species composition changes due to trophic pathway alter-
ations are very difficult to document, except when a
consequence of low DO mortality. . -
1.5 Where are the greatest gaps in our knowledge regarding the effects
of nutrient enrichment, where do we go from here and what studies
must be done? .
1. We need to understand trophic systems of Bay.
2. We need better and more complete data. . .
3. We need dose/response experiments.
4. etc.
-------
\ A .- .
L. -. HCttkOV ,
NUTRIENT PROCESSES . ';
'I. Nutrient Availability 'and Phytoplankton Physiology
' . A. Patterns of Nutrient Availability
1. Open Bay ': . * .'*;' ' . .
2. Tributaries '. . '."\ '.'?
B. Incident Radiation and Phytoplankton Productivity
C. Phytoplankton Responses to Nutrients and Physical Processes
. 1. Response to Nut.rients/-
2. Response to Physical Processes
3. Particle Flux ... ....
A. Lateral Distribution of Ammonium _.
-------
B. Oxygen Utilization
1. Water Column Respiration
2. Sediment Respiration .
;': 3. Chemical Oxygen Demand ' .
= - A. . Ultimate Biological Oxygen Demand
-------
NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT SOURCES TO THE ESTUARINE WATER COLUMN
A CBP Synthesis Paper Outline
I. Introduction
A. Problem Definition
1. Potential effects of over enrichment
2. Sedimentation
3. Turbidity .
B. Overview of Sources ;
II. ' Atmospheric/Estuarine Water Column Interface
A. Wetfall ~" " ' **'''
1. Quantity
2. Quality
B. Dryfall
1. Quantity
2. Quality
C. Loses
1. Volitilization
2. Denitrification
3. etc.
Ill. Fluvial/Estuarine Water. Column'Interface
A. Non Point Sources
1. Quantity (flow) .
2. Quality
3. Deterministic Parameters
a. Geology/Physiography
b. Soils
- . c. Slopes
d. Cover
e. Land uses
f. etc.
B. Point Sources
1. P'OTW's
a. Existing loadings
b. Future loadings
-------
\
2. Industrial
a. Existing loadings
b. Future loadings
C. Significance of Instream Processes
. 1. Travel time ;
2. Wetlands, marshes, etc.
IV. Sediment/Estuarine Water Column Interface
1. Sediment nutrient fluxes
2. Sediment oxygen demands .
V. Ocean ("down stream")/Estuarine Water Column Interface
VI. Conclusions
1. Relative importance of sources -i".
-..-,, *'
2. Need for control of sources
-------
SAV SYNTHESIS
PAPER OUTLINE
-------
Tentative Outline
THE ECOLOGICAL ROLE AND VALUE OF
SUBMERGED MACROPHYTE COMMUNITIES
A Scientific Summary
W. R. Boynton ' v ',
University of Maryland . .
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
. . Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Box 38, Solomons,. MD 20688 .
'1 April 1981
-------
The Ecological Role and Value of Submerged
Macrophyte Communities
I. Introduction
Motivation for study of SAV ~'- . . ; .
Brief history of SAV research ..' ' '..'-. .
State of knowledge in various SAV systems
Purpose of this paper . . . ' -
II. Hypotheses regarding ecological role of SAV communities '
Large source of organic matter to support food webs
Habitat for many species " '. ' -. . ' .
Sediment trapping capabilities .
Nutrient buffering capacity of SAV communities
'> -<"
-------
3. On the temporal nature of SAV production .
a) Seasonal patterns relative to other sources
i. marine systems
- ii. brackish .systems . . .
b) Rates of decomposition .
i. results of litter bag studies . . '
ii. " of lab studies on Oo demand
4. Evidence for food web utilization of SAV
a) Available techniques and problems ".'
b) 'Review of pertinent literature ^fiV'
c) Summary of SAV studies in'Bay . .
. .i.. feeding experiments
: ii. JC12/C13 studies : : ! . "
d) Indirect correlations of fisheries vs SAV .
5. Concluding comments
Habitat values of SAV communities .; ." :.;
1. Review of potential mechanisms related to habitat value of
' SAV . .. -.... - --.
.a) predator/prey interactions . .
b) enhanced growth of organisms . __- :
-.'".. in SAV community . . '''''. . .
2. Heterotrophic components of marine and brackish
water SAV communities (contrasted to non-vegetated
.. . littoral areas)
a) finfish " .- .
b) epifauna
c) infauna
d) mobile invertebrates
-------
a) Nutrient sources . -
. b) Uptake characteristics . ... ':.
c) Nutrient transformations " -..
2. Review of experimental nutrient kinetics studies
. a) Root/shoot uptake . .
b) Factors regulating uptake ;'. -
3. Additional nutrient processes associated with
SAV communities ....... ......
'
a) Nitrification . .
b) Devitrification^ '* **'" .. '*
c) Nitrogen fixation ' .
d) Burial and storage in sediments
A. Short-term responses of SAV and other littoral zone
communities to nutrient additions
a) Net fluxes of nutrients .. . . ' . ;
: b) Relationships to' light and metabolism '
5. On the nutrient recycle characteristics of
estuarine organic matter . . ..
a) Loss rate of carbon
b) Loss rates of N and P ' . .---.
.6. Calculations of-SAV community contributions to
nutrient processes in Chesapeake Bay (past and present)
a) SAV nutrient storage relative to inputs from :
rivers and point sources . .
b) Net changes in Bay nutrient budget due to SAV
7. Concluding comments.
-------
3. Evaluation of experimental habitat studies conducted
in SAV communities ./'
a) predator exclusion
b) refuge studies
A. Concluding comments ...
C) Sediment trapping capabilities
1. Discussion of the mechanism and consequences of
sediment/organic matter trapping by SAV
a) increase in water clarity .
b) .enhanced food "availability t& heterotrophs /*£=.
c) net decrease in depth . ' :'...
2. Evaluation of data concerning sediment/SAV interactions
- a) literature discussion . . . ... . :
b) light extinction measurements . . ':.
i. SAV vs littoral zone -. : ' "'. ''' '
ii. SAV over diel periods . .
c) Resuspension/net deposition estimates
i. indirect calculations -
ii. sediment trap results ; .
3. SAV sediment/light interactions in context of
Chesapeake Bay ' ' . : .
a) Sediment trapping relative to sedimentSources
(past and present) ...;-.;...
i. dredging . ..-..'
Ii. shore erosion .
iii. riverine inputs . . .
b) Stability of new sediments associated with SAV
D) Nutrient buffering capacity of SAV communities
1. Discussion of present knowledge relative to SAV/littoral
zone nutrient dynamics
-------
D
A
r
E
M
n
N
T
H
fc.
N
D
I
,N
G
SOURCE INFORMATION
AND
SAMPLING INFORMATION
1964 01 .OJJAN6S
1961 01 01JAN62
1978 07 . OIAUG78
1938 01 OIJAM57
1966 01 01LEC71
1980 07 01MAK81
1978 05 01JJJN79
1979 04 01APR80
19BQ 06 Q1JUL50
1965 05 01MAY66
1966 04 01JAN6«
1978 01 01JAW73
1980 06 OUULfcO
1979 08 0 1 v. A R 6 0
1979 11. 01MAY60
ALLISON, PATU.XENT RIVER REPORT * 4
20 SITES ONE MONTH EACH SUMMER
ALLISON,1967
33 SITES 2-4 SAMPLES
ANALYSIS OF PATUXENT CURRENTS 1980
24 SITES DAILY AT 30 MIN INTERVALS
BEAV.EN
1 SITE DAILY SOLOMONS PIER
BELLANCA, CRC BASELINE DATA REPORT
APPROX 40 SITES .
BENTHIC MONITORING MORGANTOWN;CCPP 1981
12 SITES
BEfSTHlC RESPIR/SED NUT FLUX CHALK PT
4 SITES 7 TIMES
BENTHICS CP CRANE FINAL REPORT 1980
31 SITES 4 TIMES
BILL BOICOURT 68-01-5125
SINGLE TRANSECT
BIOL AND CHE-M TIDAL JAMES R .
3 SITES MONTHLY
BIOL AMD GEOL RES M000295
3 SITES
BLUE CRAB TAGGING PATUXENT R
3 SITES 'MONTHLY DURING THE SUMMER
BOICOURT 68-01-5125
SINGLE TRANSECT
BOSCO,VIMS S606310 WARE INTENSIVE SURV.
3-HRLY FOR 27H 8-79, 3-80. 17 STN'S
BOSCO,VIMS 8806310 VvARE SLACK WATER SUR
BIWEEKLY 13 STNS
-------
'A
T
E
M
0
N
T
H
D
I
,-J
G
SOURCE INFORMATION
AND
SAMPLING INFORMATION
1966 07 01JUii'67
1969 10 OJDEC61
1970 07 01APR71
1977 07 01SEP77
1978 07 G1SEP78
1965 01 01DEC66
1976 06 01JUN76
1968 01 01DEC68
1971 08 010CT71
1967 01 010h:C71
1971 C7 01AUG71
1969 06 01MJG70
1970 01 01DEC70
1968 05 01St:P72
196-7 01 01JAM67
A B10L. AND CHEM. STUDY OF NANSEMOND R.
10 SITES MONTHLY
ACAD OF NAT SCI
MONITORING PROGRAM
AFO
AUG AND SEPT 1970 APRIL 1971
AFO CLARK 1978
5 STNS .
AFO CLARK 1980
10 STNS
AFO DATA REPT 9 LEAR
5 STNS
AFO JOHN AUSTIN
11 STATIONS SAMPLED FIRST WEEK OF JUNE
AFO MARKS & VILLA
5 STNS
AFO NATIONAL MARINE FISH PHEIFFSR'S RPT
10 STATIONS METALS-BOTTOM OTHER DEPTHS j
AFO WQCOND IN CB SYS PHEIFFER KPT
17 STATIONS 1967 AND 1971
AFO WQCOND IN CB SYS PHKIFFER'S RPT
16 STATIONS MOSTLY AT BUOYS
AFO ' WQCON.DITTONS IN CB SYS PHEIFFER
FALL LINE SAMPLES LOADINGS
AFO WQCONDITIONS IN CB SYS PHEIFFER RPT
BEACON AND 3UOYS 4 SETS OF SAMPLES 9 ST,
A.FO-ON HEINLE-WILSON TAPE & STORET
SUMMERS, 3 STNS
AFC-ON WILSON-HEINLE TAPE
67 STNS
-------
0
A
T
E
1977
1977
1978
1978
lq7B
1978
1978
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1 ,-
19RO
1980
1980
M
0
N
T
H
04
06
01
01
ni
01
11
01
01
00
06
11
01
01
01
E
n
0
I
N
C
'
01MAY7Q
01JUN78 .'.
01SEP81
01JANRO
n 1.1 A MR O
01JAN80
01APR80
01JAN79
0 1 il A N 7 9
: 01MAY79 :i
01JUL79
01NOV79
ni.iANRn
01JAN80
01JAN80
M
F
0
I
A
}
I/.-;;
3
4
A. . ':'
1
5
7
2
0 . "'.
5
6
1
9
8
W
H
E
R
E
JN
OUT
OUT
IN
'' IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
"' IN
IN
IN
IN
.IN
IN
D
F
P
T
H
1
1
1
2
?
2
0
1
?
'.2.';
1
0
1
1
1
s
A
I,
I
?J
T
T
Y
n
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
o
\'
0
0
0
0
0
T
_E_
M
P
o
o:
0
0
0
1
'!"
0
0
;v
0
0
n
0
0
c
u
R
R
E
il
T
0'
p..'
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
;o';;
0
0
0
0
0
T
I)
R
B
I
T
Y
0
0
0
0
o
0
'I -.
0
0
0 :
0
0
0
0
0
s
II
s
s
n
I.
i
D
<^
o
0
0
0
fl
1
1
0
ft
1
0
1
n
0
0
s
F
D
S
T
Z
E
n
0
i
.0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
1
0
W
A
T
K
R
C
0
N
T
n
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
o
i"°'.'.
0
0
0
1
0
D
T
S
n
Y
Y
G
E
M
o
0
0
0
fl
1
1
0
o
1
0
0:
o
0
0
P
H
0
0
0
0
i
0
1
0
ft
1
0
1
o
0
0
N
T
P.
0
ft
K
N
n
0
0
il
ft
0
1
0
n
0
0
0
1
0
0
SEGMENT
P C 0
_H H H
0
S
P
M
0
R
ft
0
0
1
o'
0
i;
0
ft
0
0
Q
1
0
0
L
A
ft
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
ft
1
0
G
A
M
_I_
C
s
ft
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
ft
0
0
1
0
0
1
#
c
n
R
8
0
_N_
ft
0
1
0
ft
0
0
0
o
0
0
1
1
0
0
CB-1
S M
U f
J,
P
u
R
ft
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
I.
s
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
n
0
0
E
H
n
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
ft
0
0
1
ft
0
0
SOURCE INFORMATION
AMD
.SAMPLING INFORMATION
c, HKr,7. Rnsqs-i
APRIU TO MAY 2b E-W TRANSECTS
AFO JOHN AUSTIN
MONTHLY SAMRI.KS Af.T1 STATIONS rtAY Ay IS
KERHJN R(t'd05965 ' seDTMEMTOI,QGY
1KMGRIP BnTGRAB %HUD ORG&INOHGCARb
S Y TYREF. H05966
3 CRUISES FAU, SUMMER SPRING
.1 HIM, RflS9fc3
3 CRUISES FAlJj 7ft, SUMMER 79, SPRING 80
W TAYLOR 805959
15 CKUTSFS
USGS 7H-D-X0420
ONE SITE FMIVIAl. BlrtEEKLY&STORMS
H HUGGPTT «06012
2 CRUISES FALL SPRING 3 CRUISES SUMMER
W TAYLOR 80S959
3 CRUISES APRIL MAY J'.-NE
M NICHOLS 806002
) CRUISES MAJ?CH-APRTI. HAY
H KINGSTON R GREKNBI.'RC NBSEPA79LX0717 .
JUfME JULY 102 SAMPLES IN BAY 1 KM GRID
USGS. 78-0-X0420
ONE SITE FLUVIAL
KEMP F.T At. RftOStn?
4 SAMPLES APR JUN vIUL, SEPT 3 SITES
KEMP ET AL R805932
/I SAMPf.RS ApR .HIM ;llll. SF.PT ? RTTRS
KEMP ET AL Rf)05932
_a_c.A4.;.aij.vc_A u o ,.i.u.,vL^.T44.t, c.c.n.!i:i i_c.T-l' F <; - - -
-------
' s;
CHARACTERIZATION
I Purpose:
A. Develop a framework to evaluate the state-of-the-Bay.
B. To achieve separability of Bay regions to effect a trackable management
of its resources. ' .
II Segmentation of the Chesapeake Bay
A. Rationale for using physical processes to segment the Bay.
B. Discussion of circulation processes (Appendix A).
.C. Establishment of segment boundaries.
D. Discussion of major categories and criteria used.
E. Discussion of how physical, chemical, and biological processes track
one another (examples).
F. Utility of circulation processes for establishing segmentation criteria
for specific management problems.
1. Transport and dispersion of point and nonpoint sources. ~"-~
2. Expected pathways and fates for given sources and sinks.
3. Transport processes affecting nutrient and phytoplankton distributions.
Ill Conceptual Ecological Model for the Chesapeake Bay
A. Discussion of ecosystem components and interrelationships (Appendix B).
B. Application to the various segments of the Bay. .
C. Discussion of anthropogenic impacts on ecosystem.
D. Utility of ecological model. . . .. . , .. . ....
1. Establish possible cause and effect relationships. :
2. Establish principle biological processes.
IV Correlations Between Water Quality Parameters and Resources
A. Identification of key parameters and resources. . ;
B. Establishment of possible correlations based upon physical segmentation
and ecological model. . .
C. Data characterization (Appendix C).
D. Identification of appropriate temporal and spatial scales.
E. Results of correlations.
F, Significance of correlations for management options.
-------
APPENDIX A
CIRCULATION PROCESSES
I . Transport and Flushing Mechanisms
A. Gravitational circulations.
1. Two layer
2. Three layer
3. Shallow tributary flushing
B. Wind-driven circulation.
.1. Local forcing
2. Non-local forcing
C. Topographically induced circulation.
1. Tidal rectifications
2. Secondary flows
II Retention Mechanisms
A. Trapping by gravitational circulations.
1. Turbidity maxima
2. Tributary - mainstem interactions
B. Frontal convergence zones.
C. Deep basin trapping.
Ill Vertical Transport Processes
.A. Vertical mixing.
B. Upwelling. .
1. Wind-driven . ' .
2. Topographically induced
C. Fronts.
IV Lateral Transport Processes
-------
APPENDIX B
ECOLOGICAL MODEL
I Model Compartments
A. Trophic aggregation.
1. Phytoplankton
2. Zooplankton
3. Fisheries
B. Resources .
1. Fisheries
2. Baygrasses
3. Wetlands
A. Etc.
II Model Interrelationships
A. Growth and decay rates.
B.. Grazing habits.
Ill Environmental Constraints
A. Nutrients
B. Toxics .
C. Light
D. Turbidity
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION MATRICES
I Database Inventory
A. Physical variables
B. Chemical variables .
C. Biological variables
II State-of-the-Bay
A. Physical variables
B. Chemical variables
C. Biological variables
III Summary Trends
A. Physical variables
B. Chemical variables
C. Biological variables
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
.MANAGEMENT STUDY OUTLINE
I- Introduction .'.
A. Area of Study (description of Bay)
'. B. Statement of the Problem (SAV decline, nutrient enrichment, etc.)
C. Description of the Program (history, research areas, etc.)
D. Management Approach (Synthesis process, water quality objectives, etc.)
II.. State of the Bay (Discussion of CBP research results and Bay characterization)
A. Segmentation of the Bay (physical, chemical, biological characteristics)
B. Conceptual Ecological Model (processes, interactions, etc.)
C. Correlations between water quality and resources.
Ill Sources of Pollutants (General description of sources and characterization of effluent]
A. Nonpoint sources (agricultural and urban runoff)
B. Point sources (industrial and municipal) -, ' -
IV Loadings to the Bay (estimates of existing loadings to the Bay and future
loadings to the Bay in the year 2000 by segment)
A. Nutrients (nonpoint and point sources)
B. Toxics (nonpoint and point sources) .
V Current Control Programs. (General description of existing State, regional and
Federal control programs)
A. Nonpoint source controls (208, sediment controls, etc.)
B. Point Source Controls (NPDES permits, enforcement, monitoring, etc.)
VI ' Future Control Options (Projected impact of implementing specific control options -
pros and cons)
. A. Point Source Control Options (phosphate ban, advanced wastewater treatment, etc.)
B. Nonpoint Source Control Options (tillage practices, BMP's, etc.)
VII Solution Alternatives (Recommended target loads and costs/feasibility of combination
nonpoint/point source controls for each segment)
:. \
A. Upper Bay . ' .';""''
B. Lower Bay . .. _''.
C. Eastern Shore
D. Western Tributaries ' .. " .
VIII Monitoring and Research (Recommendations for research and monitoring strategies)
A. Point source assessment
B. Field monitoring program
C. Baywide data management
D. Future research
IX Institutional Arrangements and Policy Issues (Discussion of State and regional
policy issues that must be addressed
in order to implement management strategic
A. State Issues
B. Regional coordination (CBP, Bi-State Commission)
C. Public Education/Participation
-------
MANAGEMENT STUDY:
TASK STRATEGY
I. Existing Loadings to the Bay . .
A. Point Sources of Nutrients and Toxic Chemicals
Task 1 inventory all permitted dischargers to the Chesapeake Bay
drainage system (all municipal and non-municipal sewage treatment
plants and industrial dischargers)
Information Source: ' .
EPA data bases 1980 Needs Survey . " ' '
Industrial Facilities Dischargers File (IFD)
Management Information Control System (MICS)
Permit Compliance System (PCS)
Issue/Problem: EPA data bases are not as complete or up-to-date
as State data bases, but are more accessible. .
----- ~.~ ..-,- .-.. .' . . ".«.-;- . ( . ***;'«
Assumption/Decision: inventory will be-primarily compiled"from EPA
data bases; however, for the larger sewage treatment plants and for
significant industries, detailed information will be collected from
the State data bases. . ., :
Task 2 develop total existing nutrient loadings from .all permitted
dischargers : ...
Information Source: . ';
EPA data bases (noted above) and state data bases for (1) the larger
(5 mgd and greater) sewage treatment plants} (2) industrial nutrient
dischargers, and (3) non-municipal dischargers (institutions, car
.washes, laundries, etc.) -
r. \ . . ' '
Issue/Problem: In many cases there is no real nutrient loading data
for these dischargers. .
Assumption/Decision: / '
1. Sewage treatment plants greater than 5 mgd represent about 80% of
the total flow and nutrient loadings to the Bay. Therefore,.
accurately depicting the nutrient lo_ad from these relatively few
dischargers (47) will allow us to make the best loading estimates.
; For the smaller plants, a default value, based on level of treatment
" will be used to*estimate the loadings from these dischargers.
2. The nutrient loading from industrial dischargers is relatively minor.
We will estimate this portion of the total nutrient load from indus-
trial nutrient loading data from the literature and from State
monitoring data. .
3. Non-municipal domestic wastewater dischargers, such as schools,
hospitals, trailer parks, etc. will be assigned a nutrient load
base on State data regarding flows and effluent concentrations.
-------
Task 3 develop total toxic loadings to the Bay . -
Information Sources: National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC)
National Wildlife Federation James/Elizabeth River Study
Maryland Water Quality Management Office
Development Documents
Treatability Manual
Effluent Guidelines Division
NPDES permit files ,
Issue/Problem: Industrial effluent is complex and unique. It is
impossible to characterize the toxic loading from each discharger.
Assumption/Decision: Although we cannot develop a toxic loading to
the Bay, we will generate an inventory of the permitted industrial
dischargers and based primarily on an EPA-developed 'toxic potential
ranking, a list of the significant toxic dischargers. This ranking
will help us identify a number of toxic chemicals that may be dis-
charged that may cause adverse impact. These toxics will be checked
against those toxics found in the Bay through CBP research..
Due to the efficienty of secondary biological treatment, the toxic
load from industries discharging to P-OTW's is assumed to be minor.
We will generate a list of these indirect dischargers to the Bay.
B. Nonpoint Sources of Nutrients and Toxic Chemicals , " '"~
Task 1 Develop the existing nutrient loadings from nonpoint sources
Information Source: . . . :
Hydrologic Simulation Program in Fortran (HSPF) Runoff Model
Issue/Problem: This model will produce the relative loadings from
forested, agricultural, and urban sources and compare these to point
source nutrient loadings.' . .
Assumption/Decision: We assume that silvicultural and mining activities
are not significant nonpoint sources of nutrients. ' . ...
------- |