Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources
1998
Chesapeake Bay Program
Living Resources Subcommittee
Annual Report
November 1999
-------
LIVING RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE
"The productivity, diversity and abundance of living resources are the best ultimate measures of the
Chesapeake Bay's condition. These living resources are the main focus of the restoration and
protection effort." —1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
The Living Resources Subcommittee (LRSc) is committed to the restoration, enhancement,
protection and management of the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay. Living resources include
fish, shellfish, birds and waterfowl, as well as the submerged aquatic vegetation (S AV), wetlands, and
other shoreline and riverine systems important to water quality and fish and wildlife habitats. In
cooperation with Bay Program partners, the LRSc supports the restoration of streams, wetlands, Bay
grasses (SAV) and aquatic reefs, and the opening of stream blockages for migratory fish passage.
The subcommittee also guides the development of Chesapeake Bay-specific fish management plans.
LRSc-directed policies and projects have enhanced fish and shellfish populations, helped improve
water quality and increased wildlife habitat in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Ongoing biological
monitoring and ecosystem modeling programs contribute significantly to the understanding of the
Chesapeake Bay's living resources and their relationships with each other, as well as the land and
water.
Eleven workgroups and the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, a joint committee with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), support the LRSc. Workgroups
include the Aquatic Reef Habitat; Ecosystem Indicators; Ecosystem Modeling; Exotic Species; Fish
Passage; Fisheries Management; Habitat Restoration; Living Resources Monitoring (a joint
workgroup with the Monitoring Subcommittee); Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV; also a joint
workgroup with the Monitoring Subcommittee); Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds; and Wetlands.
-------
Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources
1998
Living Resources Subcommittee
Annual Report
Prepared by the Living Resources Subcommittee
Chesapeake Bay Program
November 1999
Printed on recycled paper by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary v
Wetlands 1
1998 Accomplishments 1
Wetlands Initiative 1
State Strategies 1
Status and Trends 2
1999 Wetland Workgroup Priorities 2
Bay Grasses (Submerged Aquatic Vegetation) 3
1998 Accomplishments 3
SAV Monitoring 3
SAV Protection 4
SAV Research 4
SAV Education and Outreach 5
1999 SAV Workgroup Priorities 6
Oyster Reef Restoration 7
1998 Accomplishments 7
Reef Restoration Progress 7
Reef Ecology Studies 7
Oyster Spat Set and Harvest Update 9
1999 Aquatic Reef Habitat Workgroup Priorities 10
Fisheries Management 11
1998 Accomplishments 11
Approved Chesapeake Bay Program Fishery Management Plans 11
1999 FMP Workgroup Priorities 14
Fish Passage ! 15
1998 Accomplishments 15
Fish Passage Update 15
Alosid Restocking 16
1999 Fish Passage Workgroup Priorities 16
Habitat Restoration 18
1998 Accomplishments 18
Habitat Restoration Projects Completed and Funded 18
Habitat Restoration Targeting 19
Better Backyard: A Citizen's Resource Guide 19
1999 Habitat Objectives and Restoration Workgroup Priorities 19
Exotic Species •. 20
1998 Accomplishments 20
Exotic Oyster Species 20
Stocking of Non-Indigenous Subspecies or Stocks of Native Species 21
1999 Exotic Species Workgroup Priorities 21
ii 1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds 22
1998 Accomplishments 22
Waterfowl Concentration Database and Atlas 22
Waterfowl Indicators 22
Gillnet Bycatch of Birds 22
Invasive Species 22
1999 Waterfowl Workgroup Priorities 23
Biological Monitoring and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 24
1998 Accomplishments 24
Databases 24
Zooplankton Monitoring Programs 25
Indicators 25
Trophic Changes Workshop 25
Chesapeake Basinwide Monitoring Strategy 26
1999 Biological Monitoring Workgroup Priorities 26
New GIS Products and Support 26
1999 GIS Priorities 27
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) . 28
1998 Accomplishments 28
Blue Crab Advisory Report 28
Alosid Monitoring Workshop 28
Funded Projects 29
1999 CBSAC Priorities 32
Ecosystem Process Modeling " 33
1998 Accomplishments 33
Benthos/Pelagic Modeling 33
SAV Modeling 33
Bioenergetics Modeling 34
1999 Ecosystem Modeling Workgroup Priorities 34
New Publications 35
New Documents 35
Brochures, Factsheets and Adoption Statements 35
Other Popular Documents 35
Hot Hits on the Chesapeake Bay Program Web Site 35
Living Resources Subcommittee 36
1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report iii
-------
Figures
Photograph, "Bay Grasses in Classes" 5
Acres of Bay Grasses: Changes by Zone 6
Maryland Oyster Spat 9
Virginia Oyster Spat 10
Maps
Chesapeake Bay Program Reef Restoration Sites 8
Completed Fish Passages within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 17
Tables
1998 Status of Fishery Stocks Important to the Chesapeake Bay 30
iv 1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Living Resources Subcommittee (LRSc) of the Chesapeake Bay Program is
committed to the restoration, enhancement, protection and management of the living resources of
the Chesapeake Bay. The LRSc's workgroups include Aquatic Reef Habitat; Ecosystem
Indicators; Ecosystem Modeling; Exotic Species; Fish Passage; Fisheries Management; Habitat
Restoration; Living Resources Monitoring (a joint workgroup with the Monitoring
Subcommittee); Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (also a joint workgroup with the Monitoring
Subcommittee); Waterfowl and other Waterbirds; and Wetlands. This report summarizes each
workgroup's achievements in 1998 and articulates their respective priorities for the coming year.
In 1998 the Wetlands Workgroup completed further action items from Directive 97-2,
Wetlands Protection and Restoration Goals. It selected the Chickahominy watershed in Virginia
as the final pilot test site for the Wetlands Initiative Program and published a draft report of those
results in the fall. The workgroup also developed a template for the states to use in developing
their respective net-gain wetlands restoration strategies, and supported funding the National
Wetlands Inventory to finalize the mapping of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) continued its SAV monitoring survey,
with the help of funding from CBP and other partners, and found about 8 percent less SAV than
was mapped in 1997-a total of approximately 63,500 acres, or 56 percent of the Interim
Restoration Goal. Virginia and Maryland began to implement the regulations and law that each
passed to protect SAV from certain fisheries activities, and CBP partners continued to work on
several SAV planting projects and initiated several new ones. The Chesapeake Bay SA V Water
Quality and Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical
Synthesis, which revises the 1992 technical survey, was drafted and is expected to be completed
and published in 1999.
Oyster reef restoration made significant progress in 1998, with reefs constructed in the
Great Wicomico and Elizabeth rivers. Spat set improvements were particularly noticeable in
Virginia's reconstructed reefs, although spat set in Maryland was one of the lowest ever recorded,
which may be due to significant freshwater flows during spring. However, Maryland deployed
more than 1.7 million hatchery oysters in new reefs near Cambridge, on the Choptank River.
By the end of 1998 the Fisheries Management Workgroup had completed a total of 15
Fishery Management Plans that encompass 20 species and more than 260 commitments. The
workgroup monitored the status and trends of each species and updated fishery statistics;
evaluated several FMPs; completed the 1998 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Tautog FMP,
which the Executive Council approved, and drafted a habitat document, A Guide for Assessing
Human Activities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to Protect Fish and Shellfish Habitat.
The Fish Passage Workgroup reports that since the program began, nearly 70 projects
have been completed throughout Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, opening a total of 523.5
miles of spawning habitat to anadromous fish. The vertical slot ladder at Virginia's largest project,
Bosher's Dam in Richmond, also was finished, which opens 137.6 miles of the mainstem James
River to Lynchburg, and 200 miles of major tributary habitat. The states, along with USFWS and
the Pamunkey Tribal Government, produced and stocked 33.42 million American shad larvae and
1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report v
-------
fingerlings in Chesapeake Bay tributaries.
The Exotic Species Workgroup convened the Ad Hoc Panel on Non-Indigenous Oysters
to review the results of field experiments with non-indigenous oysters that VIMS conducted in
1997, and reviewed VIMS's proposals for continuing its experiments with triploid Pacific oysters.
The workgroup also finalized two position statements, one dealing with Atlantic sturgeon and the
other dealing with subspecies and non-native stocks. The LRSc approved both.
Biologists from the Waterfowl Workgroup continued to collect data on waterfowl
concentrations during the Midwinter Waterfowl Survey, and the CBP provided new funding for
late-winter concentration surveys.
The Monitoring Workgroup provided more biological monitoring data for inclusion in the
Chesapeake Information Management System (CMS), and now has an expanded list of data sets
available on the CMS web site. At a July workshop members identified and discussed the
apparent decline in seasonal abundances and in the diversity of large mesozooplankton in the
brackish waters of the Bay and its tributaries. The workgroup continued to upgrade and enhance a
computer program to calculate zooplankton indicators from CMS and to present them
graphically. Workgroup members continued to develop the Chesapeake Basinwide Monitoring
Strategy. New GIS products and support included aggregating a basinwide data layer of small
watersheds; updating fish passage databases; producing a map of potential tautog habitat;
developing protocols for habitat restoration targeting; and creating a wide variety of maps for
living resources documents and presentations.
The Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) prepared the 1998 Blue
Crab Advisory Report based on updated data through the 1997-98 winter dredge survey, in which
it concluded that the blue crab stock is fully exploited. CBS AC will update the report every May.
CBS AC also continued its recreational survey project, designed in 1996, to focus on the results
of recreational harvesting in the Chesapeake Bay and in particular to provide preliminary
estimates of crab populations.
The Ecosystem Process Modeling Workgroup continued to develop simulation models
that conceive the Bay as an ecosystem. They used water quality models to characterize the
responses of Virginia tributaries to nutrient loadings, and integrated these results in the Virginia
Tributaries Technical Synthesis Workshop, held at VMS in March. Workgroup members also
assisted in reviewing and revising SAV habitat requirements; developed fish energetics models for
several key species, including striped bass and menhaden; and developed a bioenergetics model
for blue crabs.
vi Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
WETLANDS
The Chesapeake Bay watershed consists of 64,000 square miles of landscape that drains into
the Bay through a network of freshwater and tidal rivers and streams. The watershed contains nearly
1.5 million acres of wetlands, which link the land and water and perform functions that are vital to
the health of the Bay and its surrounding landscape. Bay wetlands help control flooding and erosion,
provide wildlife habitat and improve water quality.
Population growth and development are degrading the number and efficiency of tidal and
nontidal wetlands throughout the watershed. The Wetlands Workgroup is committed to protecting
and restoring wetlands within the Bay watershed. These commitments are set forth in the 1989
Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy and Implementation Plan and in Directive 97-2, Wetlands
Protection and Restoration Goals. To meet their goals, the workgroup plans to develop and deliver
tools, such as the Wetlands Initiative Program (see below), to Bay Program Partners and local
communities to help protect and restore their resources.
In 1998 the Wetlands Workgroup focused on implementing Directive 97-2, which recommits
not only to a no-net-loss wetlands goal but also to achieving long-term net gains in wetlands acreage
and function. The workgroup focused on three of the five goals in the directive: establishing a status-
and-trends strategy to evaluate wetland loss and gain every five years, completing the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping of the entire watershed and helping states develop jurisdiction-
specific strategies for achieving net gain goals. The workgroup also continued to test and develop
the Wetlands Initiative Program.
1998 Accomplishments
Wetlands Initiative Program
This program began in 1997 and focuses on giving local governments and communities a
planning tool to help them combine wetland protection and restoration with other land use
management strategies. The initiative is based on a three-step protocol that identifies the location of
wetlands in a community and evaluates their functions based on adjacent land use and surrounding
features. This year the Chickahominy watershed in Virginia was selected as the final pilot test site.
Based on the Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Initiative, a draft report completed in November 1997, the
initiative protocol used in the Virginia pilot was refined from previous versions and included
modifications to address restoration targeting. A second report of the results from the Chickahominy
watershed was drafted this fall. The final Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Initiative will be available in
1999.
State Strategies
The workgroup developed a template to assist the states in developing their own net gain
wetlands restoration strategy. The template discussed setting a goal for wetland resources; developing
an assessment program and inventory of wetland resources; evaluating existing and necessary
protection mechanisms; addressing strategy development and implementation plans; and monitoring
strategy progress. The template also included a glossary to ensure the states are using the same
definitions within their plans, and a wetlands acreage tracking form that suggests a minimum data set
1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 1
-------
for accounting wetland losses and gains from programmatic and natural changes. All three states and
the District of Columbia presented their strategies or status reports at the 1998 Executive Council
meeting.
Status and Trends
The purpose of developing a status-and-trends strategy is to track wetland losses and gains
in the landscape with greater efficiency than the NWI currently accomplishes. The workgroup
determined that satellite imagery could best address these needs, balancing cost with accuracy. This
and other options from different workgroups were presented at a workshop, where attendees selected
and forwarded their recommendations to the Implementation Committee (1C) for review. The CBP
also cooperated with the National Institute for Environmental Renewal to prepare a technical analysis
of these recommendations.
The workgroup supported funding for the NWI to finalize mapping of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. This included 21 USGS quadrangle maps in Virginia and 71 in New York. When this
effort is complete, the entire watershed will be mapped under NWI, and the workgroup will have
established the baseline for future status-and-trends analyses.
1999 Wetland Workgroup Priorities
1. Forward a wetlands net gain goal to the 1C.
2. Complete and distribute the Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Initiative to local
communities.
3. Integrate the Wetland Workgroup's efforts with those of other Living Resource
workgroups. Issues include habitat restoration targeting, restoring habitat and
communicating a watershed approach toward resource management.
2 1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
BAY GRASSES OR SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION (SAV)
Bay grasses grow in shallow water regions of the Chesapeake Bay and are ecologically
important to the Bay's living resources. These underwater grasses provide food for waterfowl and
habitat for fish, crabs and invertebrates. They also filter suspended sediments and oxygenate the
surrounding water and substrate. To grow, Bay grasses require that sufficient levels of light reach
their underwater leaves. Sedimentation and algae combine to reduce these levels.
About 13 species of Bay grasses once covered more than 400,000 acres of the Bay. The CBP
is working to restore Bay grasses to historical levels of acreage, abundance and species diversity. In
1993 the Chesapeake Executive Council agreed to an interim goal of restoring 114,000 acres of Bay
grasses Baywide by 2005.
The SAV Workgroup implements the Bay Program's SAV policy by promoting the
monitoring, protection and restoration of the Bay's underwater grasses and related research and
outreach. In 1998 workgroup members continued funding and conducting Baywide aerial surveys of
Bay grass coverage. Workgroup members also took important new steps to protect SAV from the
effects of fisheries harvests; planted SAV and continued refining methods to grow SAV and target
planting sites; continued to refine existing SAV habitat requirements and develop new requirements;
and conducted education and outreach on SAV.
1998 Accomplishments
SAV Monitoring
In 1998 VIMS continued this important survey, using funds from the CBP and several of its
partners. The survey found about 8 percent less SAV than was mapped in 1997, totaling about
63,500 acres, or 56 percent of the interim restoration goal. From 1997 to 1998 SAV area increased
3 percent in the upper Bay, decreased 14 percent in the mid-Bay zone and decreased 5 percent in the
lower Bay zone. The 1998 survey documented SAV in some rivers that had not been surveyed
recently, including the Chickahominy River, which is a tributary of the James River. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (US FWS) continued to coordinate volunteer ground truthing through the SAV
Hunt, with help from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the National Aquarium in Baltimore in
conducting several training workshops (see below). Citizens surveyed SAV on 72 different USGS
quadrangle maps. Maryland DNR documented expanding beds of water chestnut (Trapa natans) in
the Bird and Sassafras rivers, and the SAV Workgroup discussed possible control measures. DNR
had planned to harvest the plants mechanically, but they died back before the harvester was available.
For more information on SAV, see the following web sites:
• VIMS SAV survey results: http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/
• Chesapeake Bay Program SAV page: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/facts/sav.htm
• Maryland DNR SAV page (includes SAV key): http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Bay/sav/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office SAV page:
http:/Avww.fws.gov/r5cbfo/CBSAV.HTM
1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 3
-------
USGS, SAV/wetlands research.
http ://www. rvares. er. usgs. gov/nrp/proj .bib/sav/wethome. htm
SAV Protection
Important new steps were taken toward this CBP goal in 1998. Virginia and Maryland began
to implement the regulations and law that each passed to protect SAV from certain fisheries activities.
Virginia took two actions in 1998. In January 1998 VMRC regulations closed existing SAV beds
in Chincoteague Bay and a 200-meter buffer to clam and crab dredging. House Joint Resolution 283
was passed in April 1998, which requested that the Virginia Delegation to the Chesapeake Bay
Commission develop improved protection guidelines for Virginia SAV. In Maryland, Senate Bill 3 98
was passed, prohibiting the use of a hydraulic clam dredge in SAV beds in Maryland's coastal bays
or its portion of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland DNR appointed a task force of citizens, watermen,
researchers and managers who worked to achieve consensus recommendations on where lines should
be drawn to close SAV beds to clamming. Lines in several areas have been approved and published,
and the others will be published soon.
The following web pages contain relevant information:
MD SB 398: http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/billfile/sbQ398.htm
• VMRC dredging regulations:
http://legl.state.va. us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+4VAC20-1000
VAHJR 283: http://legl.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legpS04.EXE798l+sum+hi283
• VIMS reports on SAV damage: http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html
SAV Restoration
CBP partners continued to work on current SAV planting projects and began several new
ones in 1998. VIMS continued its projects at several Virginia locations, and the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay (ACB) and NOAA's projects progressed in the St. Mary's and Patuxent rivers. New
projects included the "Bay Grasses in Classes" project, begun by Maryland DNR and the CBF, which
shows schools how to grow wild celery in the classroom from seed, then plant it in suitable nearby
sites. They plan to raise about 100,000 plants at 60 schools to plant in May 1999. Through its Bay
Grass Restoration Partnership, Maryland DNR worked with citizens to plant 2,000 SAV shoots in
each of the following locations: Wye River, Harness Creek (South River) and Stoney Creek
(Patapsco River). ACB has a contract with the Department of Defense (DoD) to monitor SAV
habitat requirements and restore SAV at a number of DoD facilities Baywide, and US FWS did pilot
SAV planting projects in the Magothy and South rivers. SAV restoration sites were mapped in GIS,
and Maryland DNR completed a GIS-based targeting tool that will be used to choose sites for SAV
planting.
SAV Research
A group of SAV researchers and managers completed a draft in 1998 of the new document,
Chesapeake Bay SA V Water Quality and Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A
Second Technical Synthesis. This is a revision of the document with a similar title published in 1992
that laid out water quality habitat requirements and restoration targets for SAV growth in the
4 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
Chesapeake Bay. The revision develops a new integrated light requirement and accounts for
variations in tidal range, which affect where plants can grow. The draft was sent out for peer review,
and should be completed and published in 1999. Research was begun on the effects of wave
exposure on SAV, and on using laboratory-reared plants for SAV planting to minimize field
harvesting. Research on relationships between environmental variables and species of SAV found
in tidal fresh to oligohaline waters also began in 1998.
SAV Education and Outreach
Working with CBP communications staff, the SAV Workgroup drafted a new brochure,
Underwater Bay Grasses Are Good for Wildlife and People, which the CBP published and
distributed in March 1998, with 10,000 copies printed. Several SAV items were added to the web
pages of CBP partners, including an innovative SAV identification key on the Maryland DNR web
page (see address above), reports on SAV scarring caused by fisheries activities, and a compendium
of the latest SAV field observations on the VIMS web page. About 130 adults and 120 middle
school students participated in the "SAV Hunt," coordinated by US FWS. Two groups gave SAV
Hunt training workshops with US FWS assistance: 103 citizens participated in six workshops offered
by CBF, and 30 NAffi staff and citizens attended two NAffi workshops (see above, under
monitoring). The Bay Grasses in Classes program will train 60 teachers and teach approximately
2,400 students about Bay grass issues in the Chesapeake Bay.
Bay Grasses in Classes: Students grow wild celery in the classroom and transplant seedlings to Bay waters
1998 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 5
-------
1999 SAV Workgroup Priorities
1. Continue annual surveys of SAV distribution and abundance and using the results to
promote SAV protection.
2. Continue SAV restoration and related targeting projects.
3. Continue research on SAV/water quality/living resource linkages and SAV protection
issues.
4. Continue outreach and education efforts about SAV.
5. Finish and distribute products of several other ongoing workgroup projects, including an
SAV planting guidance document; guidance for SAV ground truthing (to be posted on US
FWS CBFO web page in 1999); and a white paper on possible causes of the SAV declines
in Tangier Sound.
Acres of Bay Grasses: Changes by Zone
V40-
§30-
S
§20-
1
1*10-
0.
E3 Ujpper Bay -Goat 10,000 acres
H MkldteBay-Goal:63.000acres
U Lower Bay - Goal: 33.000 acres
i
ffl»No Sirveysfr-
i
1
1 1
i
I
]
j
li
1
ii
i
i
I \ :
1 i
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 8188 8S 90 91 92 93 94 95 9G 97 99
GOAL: The interim goal is to restore Bay grasses to all areas where
they were mapped from 1971 to 1990.
STATUS: Total acreage in the upper zone of the Bay increased in
1996, 1997 and 1998. Total acreage in the lower and middle Bay
increased in 1996 and 1997, then decreased in 1998.
6 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
OYSTER REEF RESTORATION
Oyster reefs play an important ecological role in the Chesapeake Bay by providing
essential habitat for the Bay's oysters, as well as for finfish and crabs. Historically, reefs of densely
packed individual oysters created a hard surface over many acres of Bay bottom and formed a
three-dimensional habitat for Bay creatures. In recent years reef acreage has been lost to harvest
pressure, oyster diseases and pollution. Harvesting techniques have reduced many
three-dimensional reefs to flat surfaces.
The Aquatic Reef Habitat Plan establishes specific goals to rebuild and restore reefs as
habitat for the oyster and other reef community species. The plan commits Bay Program
signatories "to enhancing, protecting and restoring benthic reefs as ecological systems to benefit
the oyster resource and the diverse ecological community associated with Chesapeake Bay
structured reefs." Approximately 5,000 acres each in Maryland and Virginia, and 1,000 acres in
the Potomac River, must be designated as oyster reef habitat by the year 2000. Oyster reef habitat
will be created within these designated areas.
The Aquatic Reef Habitat Workgroup directs the enhancement, protection and restoration
of oyster reefs. The workgroup continues to grapple with questions concerning the designation of
oyster reef habitat in the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River and is making significant progress
toward the year 2000 goal. Funded projects focus on reef restoration and creation, as well as the
ecological evaluation of created reefs.
1998 Accomplishments
Reef Restoration Progress
Reef restoration progressed significantly in 1998. In Virginia, a second reef was
constructed in the Great Wicomico River, and a reef was constructed in the Western Branch of
the Elizabeth River. Considerable improvements in the status of the oyster resource, especially
spat set, were observed in association with most of Virginia's reconstructed reefs. More large,
presumably disease-tolerant oysters were transplanted from Tangier Sound to reefs in the
Piankatank and Great Wicomico rivers. Spat set improved substantially in these rivers after large
oysters were placed on the constructed reefs. Citizen volunteers continued to make impressive
efforts in the lower Chesapeake Bay area to grow hatchery produced, disease-tolerant oysters and
to place them on reefs in the Lynnhaven and Elizabeth rivers. Spat set improved more than 20-
fold in both of these rivers after these broodstock oysters were placed on the reefs. Maryland
constructed reefs in 1998 in an area near Cambridge on the Choptank River and deployed more
than 1.7 million hatchery oysters.
Reef Ecology Studies
Ecological studies of Virginia's constructed reefs show that other animals, including crabs,
recreational finfish and clams, also are benefiting from three-dimensional oyster reef creation.
Three-dimensional reefs provide substantial benefits for oysters compared with hard substrate.
Monitoring efforts associated with the Virginia reef projects have suggested three important
ecological functions
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 7
-------
of the three-dimensional reef structure for the oyster. First, they provide the best configuration for
positioning oysters to maximize fertilization success in the Bay's tidal system. Second, the three-
dimensional structure provides juvenile protection from predation, which results in higher survival
than occurs when oyster live on the bottom. Third, oysters appear to grow faster on the reef
structure than on the bottom.
Oyster Spat Set and Harvest Update
Spat set in Maryland in 1998 was one of the lowest on record (declining from 277 to 4). Spat set
in Virginia improved in the James River and was very good in the vicinity of several of the reef
restoration sites. Significant freshwater flows during the spring contributed to the low spat sets
observed in Maryland and in the lower salinity areas of Virginia. A late summer and fall drought
resulted in higher salinities, which could increase the likelihood of significant disease mortality in
1999. Oyster harvests in the Chesapeake Bay remained low in 1997-98, with Virginia harvesting
less than 20,000 bushels, down slightly from last year, and Maryland harvesting more than
250,000 bushels, a substantial increase over last year's 140,000 bushels.
Maryland Oyster Spat
3 350
e
3 300-1
0
W250-
i
Q 200
i
150-
100-
PrrU,
39 43 47 51 55 59 63
67 71 75 78 83 87 91 95 98
Year
8 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Reef Restoration Sites
if Oyster reef site
A Aquatic reef site
•A
N
Nfap shows reef construction through 1998
-------
Virginia Oyster Spat
3000-
2500-
2000-
i
» 1000-
eo
500-
1
CO
1047 50 S3 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 71 80 83 8G 89 92 95 98
Year
1999 Aquatic Reef Habitat Workgroup Priorities
1. Construct two reefs in the Mobjack Bay, one reef in the York River and two reefs in the
Lafayette River in Virginia.
2. Continue reef restoration efforts in the Severn and Choptank rivers in Maryland.
10 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Chesapeake Bay Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) are developed to provide compatible,
coordinated management for the conservation and wise use of the Bay's fishery resources. To be
effective, Chesapeake Bay FMPs must consider the biological, economic and sociological factors of
each resource.
1998 Accomplishments
The Fisheries Management Workgroup continued to develop, implement and revise Baywide
FMPs. To date, the workgroup has completed 15 FMPs, encompassing 20 species and more than 260
commitments. In 1998 the workgroup monitored the status and trends of each species under its
direction; updated fishery statistics; coordinated management actions among the Bay jurisdictions, the
coastal commission and the council; and tracked progress toward implementing management
recommendations. In accordance with the FMP Review Schedule, the workgroup reevaluated the
1990 Bluefish FMP, the 1991 Atlantic Croaker and Spot FMP, and the 1994 Chesapeake Bay and
Atlantic Coast King and Spanish Mackerel FMP and made recommendations for improved
implementation. The workgroup also completed a draft habitat document, A Guide for Assessing
Human Activities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to Protect Fish and Shellfish Habitat, and
finished the 1998 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast TautogFMP.
Because fishery management is a dynamic process, new information must be incorporated into
FMPs and management measures should be adjusted to reflect the current status of a particular fish
stock. Some changes to the plans can be made by developing amendments. An amendment to the 1989
AlosidFMP was adopted in 1998. The Principals' StaffCommittee of the CBP was given the authority
to sign "minor" amendments in order to facilitate their implementation. The FMP Workgroup
developed criteria outlining what constitutes a major and minor amendment.
Approved Chesapeake Bay Program
Fishery Management Plans
Alosids (Shad and Herring) Oysters
American Eel Red Drum
Atlantic Croaker and Spot Spanish and King Mackerel
Black Drum Striped Bass
Black Sea Bass Summer Flounder
Blue Crab Weakfish and Spotted Seatrout
Bluefish Tautog
Horseshoe Crab
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 11
-------
Tautog
Although the largest proportion of the tautog fishery takes place in the Exclusive Economic
Zone (or EEZ-3 miles to 200 miles offshore), the Chesapeake Bay serves as an important nursery and
feeding ground for young tautog. Concerns about localized over-fishing, especially in the New
England area, led to the development of a federal FMP and state compliance issues. As a result, the
Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions developed the 1998 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Tautog FMP,
which the Executive Council approved. In conjunction with the coastal management measures, the Bay
plan will begin to reduce exploitation levels, rebuild the spawning stock and promote uniform
management recommendations between state and federal agencies. The CBP will continue its
commitments to restore water quality and consider the specific habitat needs of tautog. Habitat needs
include the restoration of SAV, oyster reefs and wetlands.
Atlantic Croaker/Spot
The workgroup reviewed the 1991 Atlantic Croaker and Spot FMP and decided that its goals
and objectives continue to be appropriate for managing the resource. The plan protects young croaker
up to age one, encourages more research, promotes the use of bycatch reduction devices and continues
monitoring efforts. Currently, there are no coastal requirements for managing the stocks. A
quantitative assessment of the croaker stock along the Atlantic coast is scheduled to begin in 1999,
which may result in an amendment to the 1991 plan in the year 2000.
American Shad
The CBP's Executive Council adopted Amendment #1 to the 1989 Chesapeake Bay Alosid
FMP. The amendment continues the moratorium on harvesting shad and confirms the incorporation
of shad restoration targets into the revised FMP. The revised plan is scheduled to be completed in
1999. To date, the goal and objectives of the 1989 plan have been revised. Management strategies,
actions to address restoration efforts and habitat recommendations also will be developed. The revised
FMP also will include actions that address the compliance issues defined by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). One of the ASMFC's major recommendations is to close the ocean-
intercept fishery over the next five years.
Atlantic Sturgeon
A restoration plan for Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay is scheduled to be developed.
A biological background section already has been drafted. The process was interrupted when the
National Marine Fisheries Service proposed that sturgeon be added to the list of the Endangered
Species Act, which would have affected the ability to implement a restoration plan. Ultimately
sturgeon was not added to the list and is currently protected by state laws under the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission FMP. There is a prohibition on the harvest of sturgeon from all Atlantic
coast jurisdictions.
Blue Crabs
The blue crab fishery is the most valuable commercial fishery and an important recreational
fishery in the Chesapeake Bay. The blue crab also plays important ecological roles as a benthic
predator and prey for many finfish species. The 1998 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report,
completed by the Technical Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee,
12 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
determined that the blue crab stock is fully exploited and that the spawning stock biomass is below the
average (1968-1997). This indicates that the portion of the spawning stock that is harvested has
increased in recent years. New legislative activities concerning blue crabs include a recreational
crabbing license (beginning in 1999), coastal bay crabbing limits, limited entry for all commercial
fisheries and an apprenticeship program for people who wish to enter the fishery. The limited entry
bill will cap crabbing effort at the 1996 level. The Blue Crab Target Setting Task Force completed a
final report that developed a hierarchy of target levels to address sustainability, efficiency and recovery
scenarios. These recommendations concerning the appropriate levels of abundance and fishing
mortality will be considered for incorporation into the management plan. Estimating the status of the
blue crab stock continues to be difficult because a crab's age cannot be determined, and because of
their complex life cycle and variations in their availability to the survey gears.
Bluefish
The workgroup thoroughly reviewed the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Bluefish FMP and decided
that its goals and objectives remain appropriate for managing the bluefish resource. However,
significant changes have occurred in the status of the stock and what is necessary for appropriate
target levels. The most recent coastal stock assessment has determined that bluefish are overfished and
at a low level of abundance (based on 1977-97 data). The assessment indicates that fishing mortality
rates were high in 1987 and 1991 and have steadily decreased since then. Some adjustments to the
current management measures are necessary to continue to lower fishing mortality and rebuild the
stock. As a result, an amendment will be developed for the bluefish FMP in 1999.
Horseshoe Crabs
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission adopted an interstate horseshoe crab
management plan in October 1998. The plan was developed to respond to a significant increase in
horseshoe crab harvest and the potential effects this harvest would have on migratory shorebirds,
which use the crab's eggs as an important food source. The monitoring components provide an
ambitious 1999 work schedule, which will begin to yield the necessary information to make more
effective management decisions. As a result of increased harvest, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey
implemented additional regulations to reduce fishing effort. Maryland implemented a commercial
quota, seasonal restrictions and gear restrictions. A regional workshop is planned in early 1999 to
evaluate and review each state's spawning survey and recommend a standard methodology that is
statistically robust and comparable from state to state. Maryland will be reviewing the 7994
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Horseshoe Crab FMP in 1999.
Spanish and King Mackerel
King and Spanish mackerel are found in large numbers primarily along the southern part of the
Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico. Management efforts in the southern region have been successful
in rebuilding the Atlantic migratory stocks of both king and Spanish mackerel and have resulted in an
increase in both species in the Chesapeake Bay region. In order to continue the efforts by the south
Atlantic states, the jurisdictions of the Chesapeake Bay adopted a king and Spanish mackerel
management plan in 1994. During the fall of 1998 the plan was reviewed to determine the effectiveness
of current management strategies. The goals and objectives of the plan continue to be appropriate for
managing the resource. The plan will be updated and a habitat section completed in 1999.
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 13
-------
Striped Bass
The striped bass stock remained at high levels of abundance, and the fish are being exploited
at a sustainable level. Management measures have been successful in maintaining fishing mortality at
or below target levels since the fishery reopened in 1990. Spawning stock biomass should continue
to remain stable under the current levels of exploitation. Record high recruitment from the 1993 and
1996 year classes are contributing to the adult stock. Results of the 1998 Maryland juvenile survey
indicated that recruitment was slightly above the target period (1959-1972) average of 12.
A draft amendment has been developed for the 1989 Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass FMP. The
amendment updates the current status of the stock, adopts the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Amendment #5, which sets guidelines for establishing management measures, and provides an
expanded habitat section that is specific to the Chesapeake Bay. The recent concern about striped bass
health and its trophic implications will be included in the habitat update. The amendment is scheduled
for adoption in 1999.
1999 FMP Workgroup Priorities
1. Continue to implement adopted FMPs. Conduct complete reviews of the 1991
American Eel FMP, the 1994 Horseshoe Crab FMP, the 1994 Oyster FMP and the 7997
Blue Crab FMP.
2. Integrate fishery management into Bay processes, especially for American shad.
3. Begin to consider multispecies management.
14 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
FISH PASSAGE
Anadromous fish, such as American and hickory shad, blueback herring and alewives, spend
most of their lives at sea but must migrate to spawn in freshwater tributaries. More than 2,500
blockages, such as dams, culverts and weirs in the large rivers and small streams of the Chesapeake
Bay watershed, prevent migratory fish from reaching historic spawning grounds. As a result, the
natural reproduction of these valuable species remains low. Currently, stocking programs conducted
by basin states, the US FWS and the Pamunkey Indians help resupply the shad population of the
Chesapeake Bay. The Bay Program is committed to opening blockages in tributaries so that
anadromous fish can reach freshwater spawning grounds. Fish passage goals established in 1993
directed Bay Program signatories to open 725 stream miles by 1998 and 1,356 miles by 2003.
The Fish Passage Workgroup oversees the implementation offish passage development at
blockages throughout the watershed. This includes construction, reconfiguration and/or demolition,
whenever necessary, to help restore migratory fish access to historic spawning habitat upstream. In
1998 there was significant progress in opening stream miles, but when added to the previous year's
accomplishments, it still fell about 210 miles short of the five-year mileage goal set by the Executive
Council. Some of this shortfall is made up in stream miles that were reopened but are not yet
accessible to migratory fish because of downstream blockages. These miles eventually will convert
to anadromous fish usage and contribute toward Bay Program goals.
1998 Accomplishments
Fish Passage Update
Since the beginning of this program nearly 70 fish passage projects have been completed,
opening a total of 523.5 miles of spawning habitat to anadromous fish. An additional 121.5 miles were
reopened but are not yet accessible due to downstream blockages. In 1998 Bay jurisdictions
completed two fish ladders, two highway culvert replacements and eight dam removals. Also, seven
prior blockages, some of which were targeted for passage or removal, were destroyed by natural
forces.
In Virginia, a Denil fish ladder was completed at Harvel Dam, which opened 5.7 miles of the
Appomattox River up to the city of Petersburg. Virginia's largest project, a vertical slot ladder at
Bosher Dam in Richmond, also was completed, opening 137.6 miles of the mainstem James River to
Lynchburg, as well as about 200 miles of major tributary habitat, including the lower Rivanna.
Maryland reported four weir collapses and a culvert replacement in the Patuxent watershed (25.6
miles, including 1.2 miles for resident fish only); a destroyed weir and another culvert project in the
Potomac watershed (19.3 miles); deterioration of an overflow section of the Cypress Branch Dam on
the Chester River (10 miles); and a collapsed dam on Octoraro Creek in the lower Susquehanna
watershed (2.3 miles for resident fish). The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission actively
promotes dam removals and completed eight such projects in 1998. All were in historic herring habitat
of the Susquehanna watershed (for example, the Conestoga River, the Little Conestoga and Lititz
Run), but because downstream blockages remain in place, the 34.8 miles gained are currently available
only for resident fish movements.
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 15
-------
Alosid Restocking
Stocking efforts and a moratorium on shad fishing in the Chesapeake Bay have helped to
increase the number of shad returning to spawning waters. In spite of an unusually high flow spring
season, which reduced fish-passage effectiveness, shad returns to the Susquehanna River amounted
to more than 46,000 fish passed at Conowingo Dam, of which more than 6,000 passed into spawning
water above Safe Harbor Dam. The wild component of the shad population at Conowingo was 71
percent, continuing a four-year increasing trend in natural production.
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the US FWS and the Pamunkey Tribal Government worked
together to produce and stock 33.42 million American shad larvae and fingerlings in Bay tributaries-a
modern record. This included 11.76 million stocked in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania; a total
of 1.82 million stocked in the Patuxent, Choptank and Potomac rivers in Maryland; and a total of
19.84 million stocked in the James and York river systems in Virginia. Maryland DNR also stocked
11.5 million cultured hickory shad in the Patuxent, Choptank and Tuckahoe rivers. All fish were
distinctively marked with tetracycline, and Maryland fingerlings also received coded wire tags.
In the Susquehanna River, more than 4,600 adult shad and 1,100 adult blueback herring
collected at the Conowingo West fish lift were stocked above the fourth mainstem blockage at York
Haven. An additional 3,600 bluebacks were stocked in Conestoga Creek. Virginia stocked more than
5,000 adult blueback herring from the Chickahominy River to the James River above Richmond.
1999 Fish Passage Workgroup Priorities
1. The single largest gain in reopened stream miles counting toward Bay Program goals
will occur in 1999. A 500,000 shad vertical slot fish ladder at York Haven Dam on the
Susquehanna River will open more than 400 miles of mainstem and major tributaries to
migratory fish. When this is complete, numerous stream miles previously classified as
inaccessible to anadromous fish in PA will become fully accessible.
2. The long-awaited labyrinth weir fishway at Little Falls Dam on the Potomac River (10
miles) also is scheduled for construction, as are numerous fishway, notch and removal
projects in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Cumulative Bay watershed tributary miles
reopened to migratory fish toward the 2003 goal will exceed 1,000 by the end of 1999.
3. Fish passage design should be completed for the Abutment Dam at Petersburg, VA.
Construction likely will be scheduled for 2000. This project will open 121 miles of the
Appomattox River.
4. A Corps of Engineers feasibility study for removal of the Embrey Dam on the
Rappahannock River (71 miles) is under way, as are smaller fish passage negotiations such
as those for Wilsons Mill Dam on Deer Creek (MD), and the Pierce Mill Dam in the
District of Columbia.
For more information on fish passage, see the Bay Program web site
(www.chesapeakebay.net). An image of an animated map of streams opened to anadromous fish
and projected openings can be viewed at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.ne^ayprogram/data/gis/gallery/fishpass.gif.
16 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
Completed Fish Passages
Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
E Fish passage completed in 1998
A Fish passage completed prior to 1998
/\/ Stream or shoreline
A/ State boundary
|~^ Chesapeake Bay watershed
ijjjijjjjj Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries
Passage data provided by:
PA Fish and Boat Commission
MD Dept of Natural Resources
VA Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
N
-------
HABITAT RESTORATION
The Habitat Objectives and Restoration Workgroup (HORW) develops and maintains
guidelines for the protection of water quality and habitat conditions necessary to support the living
resources found in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The workgroup accomplished several important
tasks in 1998 that contributed to the fulfillment of the Bay Program's Chesapeake Bay Habitat
Restoration: A Framework for Action. Most important, it completed another year of implementing
projects within each of the CBP's jurisdictions that are specifically designed to restore habitat within
the watershed.
Chesapeake Bay restoration has begun to address nonpoint sources of excess nutrients and
sediments. The diffuse nature of these contributions highlights the difficult task at hand. Nonpoint
source contributions do not travel through pipes to our waterways but circulate through the thousands
of miles of streams, creeks and rivers to the Chesapeake Bay. We must manage these pathways
effectively in order to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs and to improve habitat for living resources.
Effective management requires that we assess watershed conditions at the small scale. It also means
that we must target areas where the implementation of stream, wetland and riparian forest restoration
projects, agricultural best management practices and stormwater retrofits can provide the greatest
reduction in nutrient and sediment input and at the same time improve habitat for living resources.
The CBP's Chesapeake Bay Habitat Restoration lists freshwater tributaries as one of four
habitat areas targeted for restoration efforts. In addition to opening migratory fish blockages and
restoring nontidal wetlands, preservation and restoration of upstream habitat are Bay Program
priorities. The 1996 Chesapeake Executive Council's Adoption Statement on Riparian Forest Buffers
reinforces the Bay Program's commitment to stream restoration. The goal of this statement is to
restore forest buffers on 2,010 miles of stream and shoreline in the watershed by the year 2010.
Restoration projects are good examples oflocal, state and federal government agencies partnering with
local nonprofit organizations.
1998 Accomplishments
Habitat Restoration Projects Completed and Funded
In 1998 six previously funded implementation projects were completed and six new habitat
restoration proposals were selected for funding. The six completed projects resulted in the restoration
of 206 acres of wetlands; 50 acres of riparian forest; 200 linear feet of streams; the expansion of a fish
hatchery for American shad; and the restoration of 10 acres of neotropical songbird habitat. The six
projects selected for funding will result in the restoration of more than 550 acres of wetlands and 12
miles of riparian forest buffers.
Seventy signs were distributed to previous grant recipients for posting on completed project
sites. Grant recipients are required by grant condition to post these signs in a publicly visible location
whenever possible.
The workgroup also has been working with CBP staff to develop a tracking data base for all
the habitat restoration projects that the workgroup funds. The development of this data base has been
completed (through what years?), and projects continue to be updated as grant recipients submit
information.
18 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
Habitat Restoration Targeting
The workgroup developed the Broadscale Ecological Strategy for Targeting (BEST). BEST
is a GIS-based system for mapping Baywide habitat conditions, which will allow for:
• Gross-scale designation of priority areas for habitat restoration and protection across
the entire Bay watershed;
• Evaluation of proposed habitat restoration projects in terms of their potential benefits
for multiple living resources targeted by the CBP;
• Identification of data gaps most critical to the assessment of habitat quality;
• Integration of conservation and restoration initiatives throughout the Bay watershed,
including CBP independent projects; and
• Compilation of available Baywide habitat data and best professional judgment in a
comprehensive, consistent, accessible and spatially explicit format.
BEST was developed to fulfill the requirements of Executive Council Directive 94-3,
Framework for Habitat Restoration, which charges the HORW with targeting expenditures of Bay
Program funds for habitat restoration to maximize the benefits of available funding, and to progress
toward meeting existing habitat goals. Mapping based on the BEST methodology has been completed
in several select Bay areas. It is hoped that this approach can be used to target the FFY 2001
Chesapeake Bay Program Habitat Restoration Projects Challenge Grants.
In order to begin immediately targeting habitat restoration projects in FFY 2000, the HORW
is using the Clean Water Action Plan Unified Watershed Assessment priority watersheds identified by
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Proposed restoration projects
occurring in priority watersheds will be rated higher than those proposed elsewhere in the watershed.
Citizen's Resources Guide to Habitat Restoration
The workgroup completed Better Backyard. A Citizen's Resource Guide to Beneficial
Landscaping and Habitat Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This document will be
made available to the public by March 1999.
1999 Habitat Objectives and Restoration Workgroup Priorities
. 1. Release another request for proposals soliciting projects from all CBP jurisdictions for
advancing the Framework and conduct meetings in each jurisdiction to discuss the RFP
with prospective applicants.
2. Complete the mapping of targeted habitat restoration sites and use these maps for
allocating habitat restoration funding.
3. Reconvene the special ad hoc team to write an implementation plan for the beneficial use
of dredge material in the Chesapeake Bay and begin to implement demonstration projects
in Maryland and Virginia.
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 19
-------
EXOTIC SPECIES
Exotic aquatic species, or non-indigenous species, are so-called because they are not native
to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Exotic species may be introduced intentionally to the Bay
watershed, as in the case of certain sportfish, or they may be introduced unintentionally, through the
discharge of ballast water or by escaping from aquaculture facilities. Exotics may threaten the Bay's
ecosystem by transmitting disease, competing with native species, or through other ecological
pathways. The Chesapeake Bay Policy for the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species,
adopted in 1993, aims to minimize the economic and ecological risks associated with the first-time
introduction of exotic aquatic species to the Bay watershed. A1996 implementation plan recommends
identifying and monitoring exotic aquatic species in the watershed. Few regulatory controls currently
exist to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous species, making education the best method for
controlling the introduction of new exotics.
The Exotic Species Workgroup (ESWG) implements the Chesapeake Bay regional policy that
guides the intentional introduction of exotic species. The workgroup also addresses strategies for
preventing and controlling accidental introductions.
1998 Accomplishments
Exotic Oyster Species
The Ad Hoc Panel on Non-Indigenous Oysters met to review the results of field experiments
with non-indigenous oysters that VIMS conducted in 1997. The panel also reviewed VIMS's
proposals for continuing its experiments with triploid Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and initiating
experiments with triploids of C. ariakensis, an Asian species (formerly C. rivularis). The panel's final
charge was to consider how to determine what constitutes acceptable risk in conducting field
experiments with non-native species.
Genetic testing of the triploid C. gigas during field experiments revealed increasing rates of
reversion to a mosaic state (a mixture of diploid and triploid cells) over time. Shortly before the Ad
Hoc Panel meeting, one C. gigas was found with haploid gametes, which indicated possible
reproductive viability. Given the unexpected reversions and the appearance of haploid cells, the panel
recommended immediate termination of field trials with C. gigas. VIMS had already undertaken this
action. The experiments yielded sufficient information to show that C. gigas did not perform favorably
in the Chesapeake Bay environment relative to the native oyster. The panel approved VIMS's
proposal for field testing C. ariakensis during 1998 and 1999, with increased frequency of ploidy
testing, given the unexpected reversion rates seen in C. gigas.
Rather than attempt to develop a quantitative measure of acceptable risk, the panel approved
a plan of action to be followed if haploid gametes are found in any non-native species being tested.
This involves immediately notifying the chair of the Ad-Hoc Panel and appropriate officials within the
state, who will then meet to review the evidence and determine the appropriate management response.
20 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
Stocking of Non-Indigenous Subspecies or Stocks of Native Species
The Policy and Implementation Plan for Non-Indigenous Species only addresses the
introduction of species that are not native to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The issue of how to deal
with potential introductions of subspecies or stocks from outside the watershed arose because of a
proposal to stock hatchery-raised Atlantic sturgeon of Hudson River origin into the Chesapeake Bay.
The Exotic Species Workgroup finalized two position statements in 1998, one dealing specifically with
Atlantic sturgeon and the other addressing the general issue of subspecies and non-native stocks. The
LRSc approved these position statements.
The workgroup approved the introduction ofHudson River-origin Atlantic sturgeon for several
reasons: the abundance of the native Chesapeake Bay sturgeon stock is extremely low, genetic
differences between the two stocks are thought to be minor and juveniles of the Hudson River stock
already occur naturally in the Bay. The workgroup recommended that any future stocking proceed
according to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Atlantic Sturgeon Stocking Protocol.
Regarding the question of when a subspecies or stock should be considered an exotic species
for first-time introduction to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the position statement indicates that
recognized subspecies that are non-indigenous should be subject to the ESWG's review, and
introduction of non-indigenous stocks should not require routine review by the ESWG, with the
possible exception of threatened or endangered species or species that have been extirpated from the
watershed.
1999 Exotic Species Workgroup Priorities
1. Focus on control strategies. A Controls Task Group has been established, which will
identify existing control programs and needs, and coordinate and develop regional
control plans. One of their priorities is to coordinate development of a Baywide strategy
for zebra mussel control.
2. Investigate the benefits to the Chesapeake Bay region of developing a federal Aquatic
Nuisance Species Management Plan. The purpose of the federal plans is to identify
management practices that reduce threats from aquatic nuisance species. Federal funds
are provided to implement the plans.
3. Increase outreach and educational activities. Identify needs, prioritize and develop
informational materials such as flyers and web pages.
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 21
-------
WATERFOWL AND OTHER WATERBIRDS
The Chesapeake Bay is home to more than 50 species of migratory waterbirds, including
two raptor species, bald eagles and osprey. More than half of these birds are present only during
the winter months. After the wintering populations depart for northern breeding grounds,
populations of native waterfowl, such as wood ducks and black ducks, in addition to large
populations of exotic or non-native waterfowl, such as mute swans, resident Canada geese and
mallards, breed in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The raptor species and many thousands of
colonial waterbirds, including herons, egrets, cormorants, gulls and terns, also depend on the rich
fishery and predator-free nest sites to raise their young.
The Waterfowl and Other Waterbirds Workgroup is a loose confederation of biologists
from state and federal agencies involved in the waterfowl management of the Chesapeake Bay
region, working toward implementing the Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl Policy and Management
Plan. Their last meeting took place in October 1997, when members met to discuss research needs
in the mid-Atlantic region and to familiarize researchers from Ducks Unlimited with those needs.
1998 Accomplishments
Waterfowl Concentration Database and Atlas
Biologists from all three states continue to collect data on the location and numbers of
waterfowl concentrations during the Midwinter Waterfowl Survey. In 1998 the CBP provided
$22,000 for late-winter concentration surveys, where information has been lacking. Only a small
part of the survey was flown in 1998. The mild winter resulted in an early spring migration, and the
workgroup thought the survey would not be productive. The survey is planned for March 1999.
The data will help protect habitats used by waterbirds in late winter, which may differ from early
winter distribution.
Waterfowl Indicators
The subcommittee developed and reviewed a new, simplified indicator that includes 20
species or species groups. Final review has not been scheduled.
Gillnet Bycatch of Birds
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun a new project to assess the mortality of birds
caught in anchored gillnets from the coast of Virginia through New Jersey. The project is relevant
to Chesapeake Bay waterbirds, which leave the Bay and pass through gillnetted areas as they
migrate up the coast. Fishermen also have proposed that monofilament gillnets be allowed in the
Bay.
Invasive Species
Several workgroup members are working on a variety of projects related to invasive
species. Mute swans, resident Canada geese, phragmites and nutria are invasive species that
severely degrade waterfowl habitat in the Bay.
22 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
1999 Waterfowl Workgroup Priorities
1, Expand the workgroup and begin to implement the recommendations of the
Reevaluation Team, which completed its review in October 1997.
2. Maintain concentrations and trends databases and continue to collect geo-referenced
data on waterbird distributions.
3. Expand understanding of breeding waterfowl distribution and determine habitat use by
mallards and black ducks.
4. Identify habitat restoration sites important for waterfowl.
5. Reduce degradation of coastal wetlands from exotic species such as phragmites, nutria,
resident Canada geese, and mute swans.
6. Determine the impact of fisheries bycatch on waterbirds.
7. Seek to better integrate water bird needs with fisheries management.
8. Publish the waterfowl status and trends report on the Internet.
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 23
-------
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING AND
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (CIS)
The Living Resources Monitoring Workgroup is a joint workgroup of the Living Resources
and Monitoring subcommittees that focuses on creating, maintaining and updating biological and
living resources monitoring databases, reporting monitoring results and maintaining the CBP
zooplankton monitoring program. The workgroup is currently assisting CBP efforts to implement
a Basinwide Monitoring Strategy and also has assisted several efforts to develop biological indicators
of Bay health.
More than 3,000 species of plants and animals inhabit the Chesapeake Bay region. To better
assess the status of Bay resources, the CBP has integrated and enhanced state biological monitoring
programs since 1984. Aerial surveys track Bay grass coverage. Phytoplankton and zooplankton
monitoring programs are piggy-backed onto the CBP water-quality monitoring program. The states
have monitored benthos, bacteria, shellfish and finfish and commercial landings for decades. Other
state surveys also monitor habitat coverages, such as oyster bars and wetlands. Numerous waterfowl
and songbird surveys are conducted throughout the United States, and the Bay Program uses some
of these data.
The Living Resources Monitoring Plan directs the development of a Baywide monitoring
program for species that are important to the commercial, recreational and ecological health of the
Chesapeake Bay. The Monitoring Plan recommends establishing long-term, Baywide monitoring of
the Bay's plant and animal resources. Analysis of these data sets is essential to understand fully how
humans are affecting the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. It is crucial to the Bay Program's protection
and restoration efforts.
1998 Accomplishments
Databases
In 1998 the database manager continued to upload a variety of biological monitoring data into
relational database structures and load them on an Internet server linked to the Chesapeake
Information Management System (CIMS). Computer programs were written that allow Internet
users to query the benthos, zooplankton and phytoplankton databases on-line, and selectively
downloaded parts of these huge databases. The following data sets are now available from the CIMS
web site (http://wwAv.chesapeakebay.net/bayprogram/infobase/lr/lrsctop.htm) in uniform databases,
with documentation:
• Phytoplankton taxonomic counts
• Picoplankton taxonomic counts
• Primary productivity (C14)
• Vertical and horizontal in situ fluorescence
• Microzooplankton taxonomic counts
• Mesozooplankton taxonomic counts
• Mesozooplankton measured and estimated biomass
• Gelatinous zooplankton (jellyfish) measured biovolume
24 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
• Benthos taxonomic counts
Benthos measured biomass
Other data are available through links to the CIMS server, including:
• CBP SAV aerial surveys
• Virginia fish surveys
• Chesapeake Bay Ocean Data Acquisition System (ODAS) project
• National Marine Fisheries Statistics
Zooplankton Monitoring Programs
In 1998 the principal investigators and state program managers implemented changes in the
Maryland and Virginia zooplankton monitoring programs to improve the compatibility of data among
states and to strengthen the overall utility of the monitoring data. The importance of the zooplankton
monitoring results in assessing the health of the Bay food web became increasingly apparent this year
during a July workshop and at other public forums. Seasonal abundances and the diversity of the
large mesozooplankton-which serve as food for many forage species in the Bay-continued to decline
for unclear reasons in the brackish waters of the Bay and its tributaries. Meanwhile, the smaller
microzooplankton continued to flourish, indicating the continued dominance of bacteria and
microorganisms as consumers of the Bay's productivity. Comb jellyfish, predators of zooplankton
and larval fish, also remained exceptionally abundant in the middle Bay. By contrast, freshwater
mesozooplankton increased in some tributaries in response to high spring flows, which have greatly
expanded their habitat. These increases supply larvae of anadromous fish (striped bass, white perch,
herring and shad) with sufficient food levels in spring and summer.
Indicators
Significant steps were taken this year in assessing the quality of the zooplankton and
phytoplankton data and their usefulness in generating indicators of Bay health. Monitoring program
staffs in Maryland and Virginia performed counts on a set of "split" samples, to determine if species
identifications and sorting methods in different laboratories produced comparable results. Long-
vested method differences were quantified and resolved where possible, and irreconcilable differences
were documented. Analysts can now confidently generate Baywide plankton indicators from the
data.
Work continued on upgrading and enhancing a computer program to calculate zooplankton
indicators from the CIMS databases and to present the indicators graphically. Another computer
program, which calculates benthic metrics and the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity and classifies
benthic habitat conditions, is nearly complete. Tables of the indicators that these computer programs
produce will soon be available on the CIMS web site.
Trophic Changes Workshop
The CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) sponsored a workshop in July
1998 to evaluate and interpret recent trends in living resources monitoring results from Chesapeake
Bay open water habitats. The workshop provided a forum for a diverse group of scientists and
managers to synthesize the monitoring information and brainstorm about why the trends are
occurring, whether they can be related to each other and whether they are adversely affecting
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 25
-------
productivity in open water habitats. A workshop report is currently being reviewed. Although not
anticipated in the Monitoring Workgroup's 1998 workplan, the Trophic Changes workshop helped
initiate a major priority for 1999: more analysis and interpretation of living resources monitoring
results.
Chesapeake Basinwide Monitoring Strategy
Members of the workgroup were involved this year in developing a programwide monitoring
strategy to better support CBP subcommittee and workgroup activities. The strategy is nearly
complete. LRSc workgroups and teams have identified data gaps and recommend changes to
improve and optimize the current monitoring systems. They have explored potential ways to link or
integrate different monitoring program results to enhance the data's usefulness and to better answer
management questions.
1999 Living Resources Monitoring Workgroup Priorities
1. Continue to create, maintain and update biological databases and enhance their
accessibility and usefulness.
2. Maintain and enhance the Zooplankton Monitoring Program.
3. Encourage analysis, integration and interpretation of biological monitoring results.
New GIS Products and Support
Base Data
A basinwide data layer of small (11-digit) watersheds was aggregated from data provided by
each state. Through this effort a high-resolution Chesapeake Bay watershed boundary data layer was
created. Onsite help was provided to Maryland DNR's Oxford Lab to complete a Maryland Bay
Bottom Survey data layer.
Fish Passage
Fish passage databases were updated to reflect changes due to opening or onsite inspection
of blockages. The historic (1970s) ranges of alosids in Maryland were digitized from maps and
reports. Working with the Fish Passage Workgroup chairman, correct fish passage mileage was
established.
Fishery Management Plans
A map of potential tautog habitat was produced for the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic
Coast TautogFMP.
Habitat Restoration
Protocols for habitat restoration targeting were developed, and prototype analyses were
begun. Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) Unified Watershed Assessment priority watersheds were
digitized for use with the habitat restoration targeting effort. In conjunction with the new project
26 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
tracking database, a data layer of CBP-funded habitat restoration sites was created. Breeding Bird
Atlas data were digitized from the Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia state atlases.
Living Resources
A large variety of maps were created for Living Resources documents and presentations.
Technical support was given to Bay Program subcommittees and partners that included analysis and
maps for the Nutrient Areas of Concern Workshop and Virginia Tributary Strategy meetings. A GIS
program was written to allow CBP data managers to add geographic attributes required for CIMS
compliance to existing data tables
Reefs
Locations of new reef sites in the Bay were added to the database, and maps showing these
locations were updated. A more complete data layer of historic oyster grounds in Maryland was
obtained.
SAV
SAV bed delineation data for 1997 was obtained from the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science. An SAV restoration site data layer was created. Working with the monitoring staff, SAV
light attenuation habitat requirement maps were produced.
Web Site Additions
Maps used for the Virginia Tributary Strategies were placed on the CBP GIS web site for
viewing and downloading. An animated map offish passage progress showing streams opened and
expected to be opened was added to the CBP web site.
Wetlands
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data for 13 quads in Virginia were funded and
processed.
1999 GIS Priorities
1. Acquire 33 more NWI quads in Virginia.
2. Map potential habitat for six fish species in conjunction with data from Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources and other sources to define and
map Priority Living Resource Areas within the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
3. Use the habitat restoration targeting protocols to prototype analysis and mapping of
selected Unified Watershed Assessment priority watersheds. Further refine the habitat
restoration protocols based on results and comments from workgroups.
4. Add living resources data to the interactive mapping program Bay Atlas on the
Chesapeake Bay Program's GIS web site so that Bay Program partners and the public
can map and download living resources and other data online.
5. Provide LRSc and its workgroups with data analysis and mapping as needed.
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 27
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
STOCK ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
The Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBS AC) was established in 1985 by the
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. Its purpose was to develop a Baywide cooperative
program for assessing the fishery resources of the Chesapeake Bay. Each year the committee funds
Bay-area fisheries research to improve the regional information required for stock assessments.
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement called for the development of a compatible Baywide
stock assessment program and pledged "to develop, adopt and begin to implement a Baywide plan
for the assessment of commercially, recreationally and ecologically selected valuable species."
Accordingly, CBSAC developed the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Plan and now assesses
Baywide fishery resources and identifies data needs for stock assessment models. The CBSAC's
recommendations include ways to collect catch, effort and biological data from commercial and
recreational landings, in addition to long-term surveys for estimating the relative abundance of
important species in all regions of the Bay and its tributaries. CBSAC supports studies that are
designed to estimate the relative influence of fishing mortality, natural mortality and habitat
modification on patterns of trends in abundance.
CBSAC's Technical Subcommittee addresses issues related to specific stock assessment needs
and provides the committee with scientific advice.
1998 Accomplishments
Blue Crab Advisory Report
The CBSAC Technical Subcommittee prepared an advisory report based on updated data
through the end of the 1997-98 winter dredge survey. The report was patterned after the National
Marine Fisheries Services/Northeast Fisheries Science Center's advisory reports. In it, CBSAC
concluded that the Baywide blue crab stock is fully exploited. Over the past three years the
abundance of juvenile crabs has been average; harvestable biomass and spawning stock biomass are
below the 1968-97 time series average; and the average annual fishing mortality rate, calculated from
four different surveys, did not exceed the threshold fishing mortality rate. CBSAC developed the
threshold fishing mortality rate in the 1997 crab stock assessment, based on life history characteristics.
With its assumption that crabs can live for as long as eight years, the report is considered risk-averse
(preventive of a crisis instead of reactive to one). The report also found that annual fishing mortality
rates generally have risen since 1991. The report advised that the crab regulations Maryland and
Virginia put into place in the past few years be maintained, emphasizing that fishing mortality rates
should not be allowed to increase.
The advisory report will be updated each May, with the latest fishery-independent survey data
and harvest statistics. Four fishery-independent surveys were used in the 1998 report, including the
only Baywide blue crab survey-the winter dredge survey-which was developed through CBSAC and
has been funded by NCBO since 1990.
Alosid Monitoring Workshop
In recent years there has been evidence that American shad may be increasing in the
28 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
Chesapeake Bay. However, in the absence of a shad fishery, it is difficult to monitor the recovery of
shad within Bay tributaries. Despite the efforts to restore blocked anadromous fish runs and to
replenish depleted stocks, no coordinated monitoring strategy exists to evaluate the results of these
efforts. CBS AC sponsored two workshops, in November 1997 and June 1998, to determine if
current monitoring efforts are adequate to provide long-term data on alosids for stock assessment,
fishery management and evaluation of Baywide restoration efforts.
The workshops provided a forum for:
• the presentation of monitoring efforts from each of the Bay's jurisdictions;
• interactions among Bay jurisdictions to foster collaborative methods;
dialogue among researchers and managers regarding information needs and research
directions for alosid monitoring; and
• the evaluation of current alosid monitoring efforts.
The workshop participants made several commitments. They agreed to develop a Baywide
data exchange web site within two years, to validate the juvenile surveys, and to hold a Baywide
meeting every other year, beginning in 1999, to continue the dialogue among Bay jurisdictions.
Funded Projects
The blue crab winter dredge survey has been funded by NCBO through CBSAC since 1989
to provide a consistent Baywide survey of blue crabs. It yields indices of abundance, size
composition and other important biological data for assessments of this important resource. These
data are the most important time series available for the blue crab stock. They are essential for
assessing the stock and for providing managers with an early forecast of the upcoming crab fishing
season. The survey results were used in preparing the 1998 Blue Crab Advisory Report.
Current blue crab stock analyses are hampered by a lack of knowledge about the magnitude
of the recreational fishery within the Bay. In 1996 CBSAC funded the design of a recreational survey
to provide a sound statistical framework for estimating catch, effort and biological characteristics of
blue crabs taken by recreational harvesters in the Chesapeake Bay. The recreational survey project
was continued through 1998 to evaluate the design and to provide preliminary estimates of crab
populations.
Knowing the age structure of an exploited population is an essential component of fisheries
management. The inability to determine the age of blue crabs accurately has curtailed management
decisions and hampered justification of management actions. Using biochemical techniques, scientists
are isolating a lipoprotein complex called lipofuscin, a fluorescence pigment obtained from crab eye
stalks or brain tissue, which provides a method of determining the age of blue crabs.
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 29
-------
1998 STATUS OF FISHERY STOCKS IMPORTANT TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Species
1. Striped Bass
2. Atlantic Croaker*
3. Spot
4. Catfish* (r)
5. White Perch* (r)
6. Black Drum*
7. Weakfish
8. Yellow Perch* (r)
9. Blue Crab (r)
10. Softshell Clam* (r)
1 1 . Atlantic Menhaden
12. Spotted Seatrout*
13. Summer Flounder
14. American Eel*
Trend
Stable/Improving
Improving
Stable
Stable
Stable
Unknown
Improving
Improving
Declining
Stable
Declining
Unknown
Improving
Declining
Description Phase
Restored
Historically high levels
Appear healthy, moderate abundance
Appear healthy
Recent indices above average
Appear healthy, abundance variable
Moderate abundance, recovery underway
Indices above previous lows since 1993
Slightly below long-term average
abundance
Depleted, abundance dependent on water
temperature
Concern over recent poor recruitment
Recent indications of reduced abundance
Overfished, medium abundance, recovery
underway
Recent indications of low abundance
30 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
* No formal stock assessment exists
r: resident to Chesapeake Bay
-------
15. Hard Clam
16. Horseshoe Crab*
17. Hickory Shad
18. Red Drum
19. Bluefish
20. Black Sea Bass
21. Tautog
22. Alewife and Blueback Herring
23. American Oyster (r)
24. American Shad
25. Atlantic Sturgeon
26. Shortnose Sturgeon
Declining
Declining
Improving
Declining
Improving
Stable
Stable
Unknown
Improving
Improving
Unknown
Unknown
Recent signs of decreased abundance
Recent indications of low abundance
Moderate abundance, approaching historic
numbers in some rivers
Overfished, recovery plan adopted
Overfished, low abundance
Overfished, low abundance, recovery plan
adopted
Overfished, recovery plan adopted
Low abundance
Severely depleted, recovery underway
Very depressed abundance (Bay
moratorium)
40-year moratorium in place
Endangered
No formal stock assessment exists
r: resident to Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 31
-------
1999 CBSAC Priorities
In 1997 CBSAC began to review the plans and priorities of its research program. Through
1998 it continued to develop a five-year plan to set research priorities by reviewing specific species
research recommendations. Although the blue crab stock is still considered the committee's highest
priority, committee members also have discussed developing a multispecies program that could
include a Baywide monitoring plan.
CBSAC recommends the following specific projects, in addition to the multispecies program:
1. Continue the blue crab aging studies.
2. Continue the winter dredge survey.
3 Initiate the next blue crab stock assessment.
4. Initiate a pilot recreational fishing survey.
32 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
ECOSYSTEM PROCESS MODELING
Modeling has become an integral part of the Chesapeake Bay Program's management efforts,
particularly since the 1993 Chesapeake Bay Agreement adopted the Strategy for the Restoration and
Protection of Ecologically Valuable Species. One of its seven recommendations was that the CBP
pursue "a program to develop simulation models of the Chesapeake ecosystem." .Under Directive
97-1, the Chesapeake Executive Council reinforced their commitment "to continue efforts to refine
our monitoring and modeling of the Bay and its watershed, to assure the most accurate measures of
progress." A wide range of modeling approaches is being used to simulate various processes,
populations and communities in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Bottom-up control in the Bay
is represented principally by nutrient management, which is one of the Modeling Subcommittee's
central focuses. However, linking management actions to living resources has been problematic.
Recently the CBP has emphasized recognizing the importance of the complex interactions and
synergistic responses of human activities to estuarine resources. One of the program's major
objectives is to understand the linkages among the trophic levels. This has begun with links between
water quality and lower ecosystem processes. To achieve this goal, the CBP is reviewing a suite of
models for higher trophic levels, coupled directly or indirectly.
In 1998 the ecosystem process modelers continued to develop simulation models that
conceive the Bay as an ecosystem. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee's review last
year concluded that, "the project is highly relevant to the CBP and LRSc goals and objectives." The
project currently involves a coordinated effort that begins to link water quality conditions to living
resource responses on an objective, quantitative basis.
1998 Accomplishments
Benthos/Pelagic Modeling
The CBP used models in support of Virginia's Tributary Strategy Process. In particular, they
used water quality models to characterize the Virginia tributaries' responses to nutrient loadings.
Results of this targeted effort were integrated into the Virginia Tributaries Technical Synthesis
Workshop, which was held in March at VIMS. Other studies included investigating responses of
various biological communities to direct and indirect effects of low dissolved oxygen conditions. Box
models continue to better explain the complex physical, chemical and biological processes in the
Patuxent River. Investigators used their models to characterize water quality.
SAV Modeling
Several members of the modeling team were instrumental in reviewing and revising the SAV
habitat requirements. They also worked closely with the Modeling Subcommittee to ensure that SAV
components were successfully included in the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Model Package. A
chapter of the Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Quality and Habitat-Based
Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis Report is devoted to their
work, "Water Quality Effects on Light Available for Submersed Plants in Chesapeake Bay: Epiphyte
Contribution to PAR Attenuation."
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 33
-------
Bioenergetics Modeling
Fish energetics models were developed this year for striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, Bay
anchovy, menhaden, spot and white perch. These models use food and habitat information to predict
the potential production of single fish. Investigators continue to work on multiple species. The
models are being combined to incorporate ecological feedbacks associated with top-down control by
fish of their prey. A bioenergetics model for blue crabs also was developed.
1999 Ecosystem Process Modeling Workgroup Priorities
Unfortunately, funding within the Living Resources and Modeling Subcommittee budgets was
not approved for this fiscal year. As a result, investigators will complete their assigned tasks as
outlined in their long-term workplan, with completion scheduled for the spring. In the meantime, the
Ecosystem Modeling Workgroup will reorganize its members and develop a list of management and
scientific questions relating to linkages between nutrient controls and higher trophic levels, which
models could be used to answer in the future. This effort supports the LRSc's theme for fiscal year
2000 concerning Ecosystem Management and Fisheries Management.
34 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
NEW PUBLICATIONS
New Documents
1998 Catfish Populations in Chesapeake Bay
1998 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Tautog Fishery Management Plan
Guidelines for Developing and Revising Fishery Management Plans
The 1998 Chesapeake Bay Basin Species List
Recent Bay Program Initiatives
Directive 98-1, Chesapeake Bay Program Education Initiative
Directive 98-2, Chesapeake 2000
Directive 98-3, Accelerating Bay Restoration through Implementation of Innovative Technologies
Directive 98-4, Interstate Animal Waste Distribution and Use Technology
Brochures, Fact Sheets and Adoption Statements
1998 Community Watershed Initiative
Federal Agencies' Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan
A Snapshot of the Chesapeake Bay: Haw Is It Doing?
June 1998 Fact Sheet on Bay Grasses
Other Popular Documents
Better Backyard: A Citizens' Resource Guide to Beneficial Landscaping and Habitat Restoration
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (also on the web at www.chesapeakebav.net/facts/better.htm)
Hot Hits on the Chesapeake Bay Program Web Site
Bay Journal by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, monthly editions and back issues
New Chesapeake Bay Program web site, site map
New Chesapeake Executive Council web page
Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report 35
-------
LIVING RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE
1998
Chair: Carolyn V. Watson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Coordinator: Mike Fritz, US Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office
Workgroup Chairs
Aquatic Reef: James Wesson, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment: Derek Orner, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Ecosystem Modeling: Arthur Butt, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Ecosystem Indicators: Steve Jordan, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Exotic Species: Anne Richards, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory
Fisheries Management Plans: Eric Schwab, Co-chair, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources; Jack Travelstead, Co-chair, Maryland DNR; Nancy Butowski,
Assistant Chair, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Fish Passage: Richard St. Pierre, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Habitat Restoration: Frank Dawson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Living Resources Monitoring: Claire Buchanan, Interstate Commission for the
Potomac River Basin
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: Peter Bergstrom, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Waterfowl and Waterbirds: DougForsell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wetlands: Carl Hershner, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
36 Living Resources Subcommittee Annual Report
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a regional partnership that has led and directed the restoration of
the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The Chesapeake Bay Program partners include the states of
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a
tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which represents the
federal government; and participating citizen advisory groups.
Since its inception, the Chesapeake Bay Program's highest priority has been to restore the Bay's
living resources-its finfish, shellfish, Bay grasses, and other aquatic life and wildlife. Because water
quality improvements are essential to living resource restoration, the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement set a goal to reduce the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay by 40 percent
by the year 2000. In the 1992 Amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, partners agreed to
maintain the 40 percent goal beyond the year 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source-upstream
in the tributaries. The Chesapeake Executive Council, comprised of the governors of Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia; the mayor of Washington, D.C.; the EPA administrator; and the chair of
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, continues to guide the restoration with directives and policies that
address habitat restoration; toxic pollution prevention and point source and agricultural nonpoint
source nutrient pollution reductions. Bay Program initiatives encourage the watershed's 1,650 local
governments to address land use management, growth and development, stream corridor protection
and infrastructure improvements.
Nutrient pollution reductions are achieved through voluntary agricultural management practices,
urban nutrient management strategies and nitrogen-reducing technologies for wastewater treatment
plants. Habitat restoration efforts focus on reestablishing Bay grasses, protecting and planting
riparian forest buffers, opening fish passages, creating and restoring aquatic reefs and Baywide
management offish stocks. Toxic contaminants are declining in many parts of the Bay since regional
action plans have been established and a voluntary industrial pollution prevention program was
implemented. Other improvements include fisheries and habitat restoration, recovery of Bay grasses,
nutrient and toxics reductions and significant advances in estuarine science.
------- |