Baltimore
Integrated Environmental Management
Project Reposjtofy
Phase II Report Pema^ Collection
Baltimore Harbor
Regulatory Integration Division
Office of Policy Analysis
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1987
-------
Baltimore
Integrated Environmental Management Project
Phase II Report
Baltimore Harbor
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
Prepared by:
Philip Abell, Versar, Inc.
Michael Alford, Versar, Inc.
Catherine Tunis, Environmental Protection Agency
1987
U.S. Environmental Pro*nctlon Ag0O07
^OlM^^^.W.
f«^jo#eon, DC 30460
-------
Preface
This report was prepared under the auspices of the Baltimore Integrated
Environmental Management Project (IEMP). The Baltimore IEMP is a collaborative effort
of the State of Maryland, Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, the City of Baltimore and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
initiated the project as part of its pursuit of new approaches to environmental management
and policy. The purpose of the IEMP is to use an integrated approach to identify and
assess environmental issues that concern managers, to set priorities for action among these
issues, and to analyze appropriate approaches to manage these problems.
The Baltimore EEMP represents the second of four geographic projects that EPA
initiated across the country. The Baltimore area was chosen, not because it has a
significant toxics problem, but because EPA and local officials wanted to explore better
ways to identify, assess, and manage the human health risks of environmental pollutants in
the area. Other EEMPs include Philadelphia, Santa Clara County, and Denver.
The decision-making structure of the Baltimore IEMP consisted of two committees,
which also served as the means for State and local participation: the Management
Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. The Management Committee, with
members representing Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, and the
State, managed the IEMP and set its overall policy directions. The Technical Advisory
Committee, composed of technical managers from the City of Baltimore, the two counties,
the State, as well as representatives from the Regional Planning Council and the academic
community, recommended issues to study, advised the Management Committee on the
technical and scientific aspects of the project, and oversaw and commented on all EPA and
consultant work. EPA provided administrative, technical, and analytical support.
The Baltimore IEMP examined five environmental issues: air toxics, Baltimore
Harbor, indoor air pollution, lead paint abatement, and potential contamination of
groundwater from underground tanks. For further information on these reports or other
IEMP studies contact the Regulatory Integration Division, the Office of Policy Analysis
(PM-22)) in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Numerous individuals contributed their time and effort to the preparation of this
report. They are:
Members of the Baltimore Harbor Work Group
Thomas Ervin, Environmental Planner, Office of Planning and Zoning, Anne Arundel
County (Chair of Baltimore Harbor Work Group).
William Burgess, Chief, Wetlands Division, Department of Natural Resources, State of
Maryland.
Phillip Clayton, Manager, Cooperative Clean Water Program, Regional Planning Council.
Mary Dolan, Chief, Coastal Resources Planning Section, Department of Planning, City of
Baltimore.
John Foster, Urban Fisheries Specialist, Department of Natural Resources, State of
Maryland.
Mary Jo Garreis, Head, Standards, Regulations, and Certification Section, Department of
the Environment, State of Maryland.
John Hobner, Registered Sanitarian, Water Quality Section, Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management, Baltimore County.
Laurence Leasner, Coastal Zone Coordinator, Regional Planning Council.
Joseph Macknis, Environmental Scientist, Chesapeake Bay Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Janice Outen, Director, Environmental Management Division, Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management, Baltimore County.
Rocky Powell, Supervisor, Water Quality Management Section, Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management, Baltimore County.
William Wolinski, Water Quality Coordinator, Water Quality Management Office, City of
Baltimore.
Members of the Baltimore IEMP Management Committee
J. James Dieter, Special Assistant to the Administrator, Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management, Baltimore County.
— u
-------
Max Eisenberg, Assistant Secretary for Toxics, Environmental Science, and Health,
Department of the Environment, State of Maryland.
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Director, Department of Planning, City of Baltimore.
Claude Vannoy, Assistant to the County Executive for Land Use, Anne Arundel County.
Members of the Baltimore IEMP Technical Advisory Committee
Tared L. Cohon, Vice Provost for Research, and Professor of Geography and
Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University (Chair, Technical Advisory
Committee).
Don Andrew, Administrator, Engineering & Enforcement Programs, Office of
Environmental Programs, Department of the Environment, State of Maryland.
Philip Clayton, Manager, Cooperative Clean Water Program, Regional Planning Council.
Emery Cleaves, Deputy Director, Maryland Geological Survey.
Ralph Cullison, Baltimore City Department of Public Works, City of Baltimore.
N. Singh Dhillon, Director, Environmental Health, Anne Arundel County Health
Department
Thomas Ervin, Environmental Planner, Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and
Zoning.
Katherine Farrell, MD., MPH; Chief, Division of Environmental Disease Control, Office
of Environmental Programs, Department of the Environment, State of Maryland.
David Filbert, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Management, Baltimore County Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management
Frank Hoot, Assistant Commissioner, Environmental Health, Baltimore City Health
Department
Samuel Martin, Consultant, Vice Chair of TAG (represented Regional Planning Council
during Phase I).
Janice Outen, Supervisor of Water Quality, Baltimore County Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management
Colin Thacker, Office of the Director, Baltimore County Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management
—111 —
-------
William Wolinski, Water Quality Coordinator, Baltimore City Water Quality Management
Office.
Staff of the y.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Daniel Beardsley, Director, Regulatory Integration Division
Arthur Koines, Chief, Geographic Studies Branch
John B. Chamberlin, Site Director, Baltimore IEMP
Catherine Tunis, Policy Analyst, IEMP
Ellen Tohn, Policy Analyst, BEMP
The following individuals from consulting firms provided assistance on this specific study
Philip Abell, Versar, Inc.
Michael Alford, Versar, Inc.
•IV-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
List of Tables vii
List of Figures vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Integrated Environmental Management Projects 1
B. The Baltimore ffiMP 2
C. The Results of the Phase I Priority-Setting Process 4
D. Goals of Phase H 8
H. METHODOLOGY—DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATRIX AND BLUEPRINT 10
A. Background on Baltimore Harbor 10
Rock Creek 11
Stony Creek 11
Cox Creek 11
Marley Creek 11
Outer Harbor—Anne Arundel County Shoreline 12
Upper Bear Creek 12
Lower Bear Creek 12
B. Overview of the Matrix and Blueprint Development 13
C. Definition of Uses and Parameters 15
D. Identification of Relationships Between Uses and Parameters 25
E. Analysis of Data 25
F. Evaluation of Uses in Light of Parameter Data 29
G. Development of Blueprint Recommendations 30
H. Description of the Analytical Tables 31
1. Relationships Between Use Categories and Parameters 31
2. Current and Preferred Uses by Subarea 31
3. Summary of Analytical Results for Baltimore Harbor 38
m. BLUEPRINT RECOMMENDATIONS 54
A. Research Recommendations 54
1. Investigate Use and Parameter Relationships 54
2. Conduct Comprehensive Biological Study 55
3. Model Water Quality 55
4. Conduct Water Column Bioassay to Assess Toxics 55
B. Improvement Recommendations 56
1. Improve Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 56
2. Reduce Bacterial Contamination 58
C. Blueprint Implementation 58
-------
1 . Form a Technical and Management Committee and Implement
Strategy [[[ 5^
2. Develop and Implement Local Bay Agreement to Focus on
Improvement of Baltimore Harbor ........................................ 60
D. Recommendations for Individual Subareas ....................................... 60
Annotated Bibliography [[[ 63
Appendix A— Baltimore Harbor Work Group Members ..................................... A-l
Appendix B — Relationships Between Use Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters [[[ B-l
Appendix C — Report on Current and Preferred Uses of Baltimore Harbor ................ C- 1
Appendix D — Planned Improvements for Individual Subareas
1. Upper Middle Branch and Lower Middle Branch (Baltimore City)
2. Northwest Branch (Baltimore City) ................................................ -*
3. Middle Harbor (Baltimore City)
4. Curtis Bay and Curtis Creek (Baltimore City)
5. Lower Bear Creek and Upper Bear Creek (Baltimore County)
6. Old Road Bay (Baltimore County)
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Use Level Descriptions 20
Table 2. Parameter Level Descriptions 21
Table 3. Minimum Parameter Levels Required to Attain Each Use Level 32
Table4. Current and Preferred Uses by Subarea 39
Table 5. Summary of Analytical Results for Baltimore Harbor 52
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Baltimore IEMP Study Area 3
Figure 2. Harbor Matrix and Blueprint 16
Figure3. Baltimore Harbor Subareas 27
Figure 4. Baltimore Harbor: Current Use Levels for Fish Quality 44
Figure 5. Baltimore Harbor Current Use Levels for Fish
Quantity/Diversity 45
Figure 6. Baltimore Harbor: Current Use Levels for Habitat 46
Figure 7. Baltimore Harbor Current Use Levels for Recreational Boating 47
Figure 8. Baltimore Harbor: Current Use Levels for Recreational Crabbing 48
Figure 9. Baltimore Harbor: Current Use Levels for Swimming 49
Figure 10. Harbor Matrix and Blueprint in the Decision-making Process 57
Vll
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Baltimore Integrated Environmental Management Project (IEMP) has
conducted this study of Baltimore Harbor to assess the current conditions of the harbor and
to identify needed research and strategies for developing a harbor management plan. The
Baltimore IEMP is a joint effort involving the governments of the State of Maryland, the
City of Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). EPA is conducting several EEMPs across the country to use risk
assessment and risk management to set priorities among environmental issues.
The Baltimore IEMP chose Baltimore Harbor as one of five issues for study
because of concern for the ecological health of the harbor and the harbor's relationship with
the Chesapeake Bay. The IEMP did not have sufficient time or resources to conduct a
comprehensive study of the harbor. We (the IEMP participants) focused on identifying
strategies to achieve the perceived goals for certain harbor uses. We developed a matrix
that reflects the relationships between harbor uses and the conditions that allow or influence
those uses as measured by biological, chemical, and physical parameters. The purpose of
the matrix is to allow us, and future users, to evaluate the complex multiple relationships
among uses and parameters in an organized and logical manner. This leads to a better
understanding of what is known and what the next steps should be.
We considered six harbor uses—fish quality, fish quantity/diversity, habitat,
recreational boating, recreational crabbing, and swimming. Baltimore Harbor has
preexisting industrial, residential, and urban uses. It is a major world port, and has a large
steel plant, major railroad yards, petroleum and chemical storage facilities, sewage
treatment plants, and downtown Baltimore City along its shores, as well as less intensive
land uses. We evaluated our six target uses in light of these preexisting uses.
We used available data on the harbor to assess the current harbor conditions, and
translated this into parameter quality levels for each of thirteen subareas of the harbor.
These parameter levels, together with the use/parameter relationships reflected in the matrix
and professional judgment, allowed us to state the Current Use quality levels for each
VJll
-------
subarea. When we compared the current parameter levels with those needed to achieve the
perceived goals for our six target uses, we were able to identify where additional data
collection is needed for quantifying parameter levels, and where conditions will need to be
improved to achieve the use goals.
An obvious data collection need exists for water column metals—we did not find
data for any of the subareas and this parameter significantly affects all target uses. This is
followed by the need for data on sediment pollution, enrichment and turbidity. For the
harbor as a whole, it appears that the most improvements will be required to achieve the
stated goals for habitat, while the least will be required for recreational boating. Additional
study is required to determine the level of effort and cost of these improvements.
Our final product is a "Blueprint" that identifies strategies for developing a detailed
management plan for Baltimore Harbor. We identified data collection and improvement
needs, and we make recommendations for comprehensive research, improvement activities,
and implementation of the Blueprint In order to improve understanding of the harbor and
its workings, we recommend:
• study of use/parameter relationships;
• a comprehensive biological survey;
• water quality modeling; and
• bioassay studies of contaminants in fish tissue, including stress protein
analysis.
We suggest methods for improvement of:
• bacterial contamination; and
• dissolved oxygen levels.
We recommend that the planning process we have started continue. To implement
the Blueprint, we strongly recommend:
• formation of a committee, including representatives from federal, state, and
local governments, to refine the matrix relationships, identify factors that
affect conditions, identify research and improvement projects, identify
IX
-------
funding sources, and work with jurisdictions and other groups to further
develop and carry out the Blueprint recommendations and improvement
projects; and
• development and implementation of an inter-jurisdictional agreement similar
to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay agreement, to focus on the improvement of
conditions in Baltimore Harbor.
We recommend data collection where data is unavailable or not good, and we
recommend improvement of parameter levels in subareas where needed to achieve use
goals. The research and improvement projects should be developed and implemented
within a decision framework where costs, schedules, and methods are evaluated and
priorities are set among projects.
X
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Integrated Environmental Management Projects
This report describes a study of Baltimore Harbor. In this report we present a
methodology which helps to clarify thinking about the quality of the harbor environment
and provides a strategy for developing a harbor management plan. The methodology will
help jurisdictions to set priorities among harbor research and improvement activities.
The study was conducted as part of the Baltimore Integrated Environmental
Management Project (IEMP). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the
project as part of its pursuit of new approaches to environmental management and policy.
The purpose of the IEMP is to use an integrated approach to identify and assess
environmental issues that concern managers, to set priorities for action among these issues,
and to analyze appropriate approaches to manage these problems.
EPA adopted the concept of integrated environmental management as a potential
solution to the shortcomings of traditional approaches for pollution control. The traditional
approach of focusing on one pollutant or class of pollutants within each medium at a time
may result in environmental programs and regulations that do not use resources as
efficiently as possible. Grounded in the concepts of risk assessment and risk management,
the IEMP uses estimates of risk—that is, the probability of adverse effects—as a common
measure for comparing and setting priorities among environmental issues that involve
different pollutants, sources, and exposure pathways and that may affect human health,
ecosystems, and resources. The need for setting priorities is prompted by the realization in
the past ten years that hundreds of chemicals present in our environment pose some risk of
causing cancer or other adverse health effects. Comparing the risks to help set priorities
allows environmental managers to focus limited resources in a manner that will achieve the
greatest public benefit—the greatest reduction in risk for a given cost of control. The
projects are also intended to involve all local responsible parties and agencies in managing
and coordinating the projects, ensuring that issues of greatest local concern are adequately
addressed The Baltimore IEMP was particularly successful in this regard.
-------
The IEMP projects are divided into two phases. In the first, project managers
establish the decision-making structure of the project, identify key environmental issues,
and set priorities among them. Risk is but one of the criteria used in ranking issues; the
others include analytical feasibility, relevance to EPA, state and local program objectives,
and the potential for effective response. In the second phase, the IEMP studies the priority
issues in greater detail and analyzes strategies for their control or resolution.
B. The Baltimore IEMP
The Baltimore IEMP is a cooperative effort involving the governments of the State
of Maryland, the City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, and EPA.
The Baltimore area was chosen because EPA and local officials wanted to explore better
ways to identify, assess, and manage the human health risks of environmental pollutants in
the area. It represents the second of four full-scale geographic projects that EPA has
initiated to date across the country.
The Baltimore IEMP study area covers Baltimore City and Anne Arundel and
Baltimore counties (see Rgure 1). It extends from the Pennsylvania border on the north, to
south of Washington, D.C., and borders on the Chesapeake Bay on the southeast.
The decision-making structure of the IEMP consisted of two committees, which
also represented the vehicles for State and local participation: the Management Committee
(MC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAG). The MC, with members representing
Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, and the State, managed the
IEMP and set its overall policy directions. The TAG, composed of technical managers
from the City of Baltimore, the two counties, and the State, as well as representatives from
the Maryland Regional Planning Council and the academic community, recommended
issues to study, advised the MC on the technical and scientific aspects of the project, and
oversaw and commented on all EPA and consultant work. EPA provided administrative,
technical, and analytical support. In phase n, work groups with members from both the
TAG and representatives from industry, public interest groups, government, and academia
were organized around each priority issue. They provided specialized expertise in
-------
Figure 1. Map of Baltimore IEMP study Area
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE CO. \^
Cock«y«vill«
rkvilta
— 3 —
-------
examining the issues. The Harbor Blueprint work group members are listed in
Appendix A.
Five topics were chosen for further examination in phase n of the Baltimore IEMP.
They were:
1) Air toxics. The goal was to estimate ambient air concentrations of selected
air toxics, analyze associated risks, and develop control strategies for
reducing these risks.
2) Multimedia metals. The goal was to develop cost-effective techniques for
lead paint removal and dust abatement in Baltimore homes.
3) ynderground storage tanks. The goal was to develop a strategy for
identifying which groundwater resources are at greatest potential risk if
underground tanks leak.
4) Indoor air pollution. The goal was to. develop the information necessary to
support discussion of possible programs to reduce exposures to indoor air
pollution and to support the expansion of local government capability to
respond to inquiries concerning indoor air pollution.
5) Baltimore Harbor. The goal was to define current and future uses of the
Harbor's waters and identify actions, additional research, and institutional
arrangements necessary to help environmental decision-makers improve
water quality and habitat in the Harbor to achieve the desired uses.
In addition, a risk analysis conducted in Phase I on trihalomethanes, which result
from the disinfection of drinking water through chlorination, was to provide a reference
point for risks identified in the air toxics study.
C. The Results of the Phase I Priority-Setting Process
The major task in phase I was to identify environmental issues of concern in the
study area and to set priorities among them for further study and development of control
strategies in phase H. The Baltimore IEMP set priorities on the basis of available
information, supplemented by data from a brief ambient monitoring effort conducted by
EPA. [Please see Chapter IV of Baltimore Integrated Environmental Management Project:
-------
Phase I Report, May 1987 (hereafter referred to as the Phase I report) for a detailed account
of the priority-setting process in the first phase of the EEMP.]
The TAG members first defined the geographic boundaries of the study. Second,
the TAG identified thirty-two potentially important environmental issues, drawing heavily
upon the members' experience and knowledge of potential problems. Third, the committee
agreed on the use of three separate measures of environmental degradation to evaluate the
severity or significance of the thirty-two issues. These measures — human health risk,
ecological impact, and groundwater resource impact — also would define a set of three
categories into which each of the thirty-two issues would be placed.
Several of the initial thirty-two issues the TAG identified dealt with the ecological
condition of Baltimore Harbor and its tributaries. The selection of Baltimore Harbor as an
issue for Phase n study resulted from an extended decision-making process by the TAG
and MC of the Baltimore IEMP. (See Phase I Report, especially chapters IV, VH, and
VUL) This process is summarized below.
We (IEMP participants) included the Baltimore Harbor in the IEMP study for a
number of reasons. First, there was State and local concern for the ecological health of the
harbor, its viability as a resource for fishing and recreation, and its aesthetic value.
Second, there was concern regarding the adverse effects that pollution in the harbor may
have on the Chesapeake Bay. We thought the study may help further the goals of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, a major inter-government effort to preserve and improve the
Chesapeake Bay as a natural resource. Finally, the TAG and EPA saw the need to develop
and apply priority-setting methods to ecological impacts and, in particular, ecological
impacts on an aquatic environment. The harbor provided the first opportunity for EPA to
address ecological impacts in an IEMP study.
The scope of the study did not include the Chesapeake Bay, since the Bay is too
large and complex for the resources of the IEMP. The study area is therefore restricted to
Baltimore Harbor. Data limitations led to the decision to restrict the study to the aquatic
environment—ambient water quality, sediments, shore type, and biota.
-------
An initial goal of the TAG was to use priority-setting to help identify a cost-effective
way of attaining the ecological health goals of the harbor. The Harbor Subcommittee
established by the TAG first assessed the currently available information on the harbor.
They looked at data related to biota, pollutant sources and loading, fate and transport,
ambient water pollutant concentrations, and the effects of specific pollutants on biota. This
initial assessment showed a need for more data on pollutant concentrations in biota
(bioassay), environmental fate and transport of pollutants, and ambient water quality in the
harbor.
A State bioassay study was already underway, so the IEMP undertook a limited
monitoring effort to improve knowledge on fate and transport and ambient water quality.
Analysis of the monitoring data and the other available data suggested that metals
concentrations in the harbor water column sometimes exceeded EPA's chronic salt water
criteria, while metals concentrations in interstitial waters consistently exceeded EPA's acute
ambient criteria, and that these concentrations are likely to adversely affect aquatic
organisms. The highest metals concentrations in sediments are usually found in the harbor
head and tributaries.
After monitoring and data analysis, the subcommittee still did not know which
pollutants in the ambient water were most likely to adversely affect biota. So it examined
four methods of setting priorities among pollutants:
1. indexing pollutant concentrations to reference values (EPA's National
Saltwater Criteria);
2. applying ecological scoring using estimates of lethal concentrations;
3. comparing ambient conditions to similar reference environments; and
4. bioaccumulation and bioassay tests of biota tissues.
The subcommittee decided to use indexing because it is simple and inexpensive,
uses standard EPA-approved reference values, and is based on readily available
information.
-------
The subcommittee applied indexing to the metals of highest concern: mercury,
nickel, copper, chromium, lead, and zinc. Because no one metal ranked far enough above
the others to justify singling it out for phase II study, and because of uncertainties in the
data, the subcommittee decided that phase n work should study all six metals.
Early in the study, we examined eco-scoring, an experimental technique under
development by EPA, as a second method for ranking pollutants in Baltimore Harbor in
terms of their potential impacts. This method compares the ambient concentration of
specific pollutants found in the water column with the concentration at which 50 percent of
the individuals of a given species or group of related species1 will die (lethal concentration
50, or LCso). Using generic slopes for dose-response relationships in combination with
LCso data enabled us to calculate the relative risks posed to species or groups of species by
existing levels of pollutants in the water column.
The key difference between eco-scoring and indexing is that eco-scoring compares
ambient pollutant concentrations to lethal concentration data specific to the species or
groups of species found in the harbor, while indexing compares the ambient concentrations
to EPA's National Saltwater Criteria, which consider pollutant effects on the most sensitive
species found nationwide.
While there are a number of data and methodological shortcomings both with eco-
scoring and indexing, the eco-scoring results suggest that the species present in the harbor
do not seem to be as sensitive to the metals concentrations found in the harbor water
column as the National Saltwater Criteria would suggest. This is logical, since species
very sensitive to the pollutant concentrations found in the harbor would not be able to exist
there. Still, high eco-scores were found for mercury, nickel, and lead.
1 LCso data was not avaikble for all the species found in the harbor, so we grouped species that
share common characteristics, such as habitat requirements or phylogenetic or food chain relationships, into
"guilds" such as those used by the Habitat Evaluation Program (HEP) developed by the Department of the
Interior.
-------
D. Goals of Phase II
Baltimore Harbor is a complex aquatic ecosystem that has been subjected to many
serious environmental stresses. The TAG and the MC chose the harbor as an issue for
Phase II study because of its importance as a resource and because of the need to
understand the ecological workings of the harbor in order to develop an effective
management plan for protecting and using this resource.
We set the following goals for the harbor study.
A. Assess the current conditions in the harbor for aquatic life and for
recreation. To develop an effective plan for future management of the
harbor, we need to know our starting point. This goal has several
subgoals.
1. Determine what uses we perceive the jurisdictions want to manage the
harbor resources for, and determine the relationship between those uses
and the parameters that influence our ability to achieve the desired
quality use.
2. Review existing studies that describe the ecological status of the harbor
and the effects of current pollutant levels.
3. Develop and apply a methodology to assess the effects of ambient
concentrations of metals and organic contaminants on the aquatic life of
the harbor (eco-scoring). Compare this method with the results of the
indexing conducted in Phase I.
B. Define the goals for the future ecological condition of the harbor in terms of
the uses we wish to achieve. To the extent possible, identify what action
must be taken to accomplish these goals.
C. Develop a Blueprint, or strategy for developing a management plan, to
improve the existing conditions of the harbor in order to achieve the goals
stated in B, above. This should state management strategies and specific
research and improvement activities that should be carried out to achieve the
perceived goals in as much detail as is practical given our level of
knowledge. The strategy should coordinate with the planned or current
improvement projects of environmental agencies having jurisdiction within
the harbor.
D. Present the Blueprint to government agencies and the public and seek its
adoption.
-------
Because of the complexity of Baltimore Harbor and the time and resource
limitations of the IEMP, we focused on developing a methodology and making
recommendations which would help jurisdictions to:
— focus and organize their thinking about the harbor, their goals for using the
harbor, and how to achieve those goals;
— identify research needs and specific harbor quality improvements needed;
— coordinate research and improvement activities between jurisdictions; and
— set priorities among research and improvement projects.
We believe that study and management of a complex system such as the harbor is
an iterative process, and that our methodology can be refined and further developed
through research and through its use in developing a management plan for the harbor.
Throughout this study, we considered the major shipping and industrial uses of the
harbor itself and the surrounding areas to be a given—while not explicitly expressed
throughout our analysis, they are considered in our definitions, current and Preferred Use
levels, and recommendations. Comprehensive study of the impact of preexisting shipping
and industry is beyond the time and financial resources available to the IEMP.
-------
II. METHODOLOGY—DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATRIX AND
BLUEPRINT
Baltimore Harbor is a complex ecosystem that is used for multiple purposes, the
principal ones being recreation and shipping. It is also a part of the Chesapeake Bay, the
largest single estuary in the United States, long considered a unique and valuable ecological
habitat deserving protection in its own right.
The stresses on Baltimore Harbor are also numerous. In addition to the adverse
impacts of toxic substances, the harbor is adversely affected by physical development, such
as bulkheading, shipping traffic, and dredging, and by other types of pollution, such as
nutrient loadings from sewage treatment plants.
A. Background on Baltimore Harbor
The Port of Baltimore's origins date back to 1706, although Baltimore City was not
founded until 1729. Through the years the Port of Baltimore has grown and, today, is one
of the busiest ports in the United States. Each year more than 4,000 ships call on
Baltimore. In addition, three major railroads and about 150 long-haul trucking companies
serve the port Current estimates are that 79,000 jobs are related to the port.
Today, the Port of Baltimore comprises 1,600 acres of water including the lower
Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, Northwest Branch, Middle Branch, Curtis Bay, and several
smaller creeks. (See Figure 3 for map.) Its shoreline, which is approximately 42 miles
long, contains publicly owned terminals and 165 private piers, wharves, and docks which
provide over 32 miles of dockside berthing capacity. There are also 22 miles of publicly
and privately maintained channels within the harbor boundaries, and eight designated
anchorages. Through urban renewal, the Inner Harbor is now a desirable location for
housing, offices, shops and tourism. Over 3,000 recreational boats are berthed in the Inner
Harbor and Middle Branch.
The areas around Northwest Branch and north of the Middle Branch are highly
developed—this is the urban center of the City of Baltimore. The shoreline of the
10
-------
Northwest Branch is almost completely developed with bulkheads and piers. There are
docking facilities for shipping and recreational boats. Major rail yards are located north of
Middle Branch and on both the east and west sides of the mouth of Northwest Branch. A
major petroleum and chemical storage facility and a sewage disposal plant are located on the
peninsula north of the mouth of Curtis Bay.
Rock Creek
Land use along the shoreline is predominantly single family residential (90 percent).
Approximately 10 percent of the shoreline is undeveloped. A few wetlands ranging in size
from less than one acre to four acres are located in coves along the creek. A larger (8 acre)
wetland is located in the headwaters. Approximately 80 percent of the shoreline is
bulkheaded. There are nine marinas located on Rock Creek.
Stony Creek
Land use and wetlands are similar to Rock Creek. Approximately 80 percent of the
shoreline is in single family residential development Natural land is present on about 20
percent of the shoreline. Approximately 67 percent of the shoreline is bulkheaded. Eight
marinas are located on Stony Creek.
Cox Creek
Industrial uses including a sewage treatment plant and electric power plant occupy
about 50 percent of the shoreline of this small creek. Single family residential land is
located along 40 percent of the shoreline. Undeveloped land located at the headwaters and
near the center of the creek total 10 percent of the shoreline. Approximately 30 percent of
the shoreline is bulkheaded. There are no marinas on this creek. Four wetlands 1 to 2
acres in size are located along the shoreline.
Marlev Creek
Residential uses, primarily single-family, occupy about 53 percent of the shoreline.
Undeveloped land totals 40 percent and industrial land 7 percent of the shoreline. The
11
-------
Industrial land is primarily warehouses. A large wetland complex is located at the
headwaters. Sunken ships and barges are located in an area near the Baltimore City line at
the northern end of the creek. Four small marinas are located on Marley Creek.
Outer Harbor—Anne Arundel County Shoreline
Industrial uses including oil storage tanks, two electric power plants, and a copper
refinery occupy 40 percent of this shoreline. Undeveloped shoreline (40 percent) is
dominated by a large dredge spoil disposal site and a wetland-open water complex.
Residential uses occupy 20 percent of the shoreline. Riprap protects 50 percent of the
shoreline. An additional 10 percent is protected with bulkheads.
Upper Bear Creek
The Upper Bear Creek section is essentially residential in nature. Land use impacts
in this area consist of nonpoint source runoff of lawn care chemicals from residences and
large nonresidential properties. Storm drain discharges from several drainage areas in this
section are also significant. At least six marinas exist in this area. Nonpoint source runoff
occurs from several tracts of industrially-zoned property.
Lower Bear Creek
Lower Bear Creek is characterized by nonpoint and point source industrial
discharges on both sides of the creek. However, the amount of land surface that
discharges directly to this portion of Bear Creek is much more limited than that which
contributes to Upper Bear Creek. There is also a small area of residential land use on the
west side of this section of creek which contributes both nonpoint source runoff and
stormdrain discharge.
Land uses on the west side of Old Road Bay are intensely industrial, including a
large steel production facility. At least seven marinas occur in Jones and North Point
Creeks in the upper end of Old Road Bay. Residential nonpoint and point source runoff
constitute the remaining land use impacts to this area.
12
-------
The harbor ecosystem has been seriously degraded by human activities and is just
beginning to respond to clean-up activities, some of which were initiated over a decade and
a half ago. Continuing economic growth and efforts to improve aquatic habitat often clash,
especially when development occurs by filling in waters of the state. Improving the quality
of the Baltimore Harbor is an important and necessary part of the overall Chesapeake Bay
Cleanup effort now underway. Much as been done in this regard, but much more work
needs to be done in order to improve the harbor ecosystem.
B. Overview of the Matrix and Blueprint Development
In attempting to evaluate the stresses on the harbor and to develop recommendations
for future improvements, we faced methodological problems different from those of
concern elsewhere in the IEMP, where human health protection has been the focal point.
In the harbor study, several goals are important—health protection is crucial, but so are
resource enhancement, recreational use, and protection of the natural habitat for its own
sake. Not only do multiple stress factors interact with each other, the same group of
factors may exert different effects on different endpoints. In some cases, factors that
enhance one harbor use may inhibit another. Shore access, for example, is necessary for
recreation but is often detrimental to preserving natural habitat
To construct a model of the harbor that could deal simultaneously with these many
uses and stresses, we would have had to characterize ecological relationships as well as
human economic and physical requirements. This would have been a Herculean task far
beyond the resources available to the IEMP. Instead, we developed a matrix linking levels
of particular uses to quality levels of a variety of "parameters." These parametric data, such
as dissolved oxygen levels, as well as other factors, such as shore type and dredging
frequency that are not parameters in the usual sense, are referred to in this report as
parameters.
The matrix demonstrates our best judgement, given the limitations of the study, of
the linkage between the quality levels of uses and the quality levels of the parameters that
affect each use. For instance, swimming is one potential use of the harbor, and it can occur
at levels of intensity and quality ranging from no swimming at all to swimming at the
13
-------
highest-quality recreational beach. It is also possible to assign levels to parameters that
affect swimming use. For instance, fecal coliform bacteria counts can be assigned levels
from one to five, with one corresponding to concentrations well above accepted public
health standards, and five corresponding to low levels. High bacteria counts limit many
potential uses of the harbor, especially swimming.
With both uses and parameters assigned specific "levels," we then further
developed the matrix to define relationships between the two. For instance, low fecal
coliform counts permit a high quality level of swimming, counts in the range of public
health standards may lead to occasional beach closures, and continuous high fecal coliform
counts mean that swimming must be prohibited.
The matrix does not attempt to provide detailed descriptions of the exact ecological
state of various subareas of the harbor. This would have been impossible with available
data and resources. The purpose of the matrix is to allow us, as well as future users, to
evaluate complex multiple relationships in an organized and logical manner. We assume
that parameters reflecting ecological conditions can be defined for areas such as Baltimore
Harbor. We also assume that these parameters can be quantified and related to observed
conditions in a cause-and-effect relationship. While this cause-and-effect principle is the
core of most modern ecological studies, the exact nature of the relationships it describes is
often limited by the current knowledge and data available. Therefore, the matrix is also
used to identify gaps in the understanding of ecological relationships as well as data on
parameter levels. If properly interpreted, it can serve as a tool for setting future priorities
for research and for activities to improve the quality of the harbor. Thus, we can use it to
outline a "Blueprint" for managing Baltimore Harbor.
The Blueprint is a strategy for developing a management plan for the harbor. By
organizing the complex relationships between uses and the parameters that affect them, the
matrix allows us to identify specific research, data gathering, and parameter improvements
which are needed Together with consideration of costs, available resources, preexisting or
competing uses, and political and organizational factors, this Blueprint will help
jurisdictions to set priorities among goals and develop and implement a management plan
for Baltimore Harbor.
14
-------
A flow chart that depicts in a simplified form the steps we took in developing the
matrix is shown in Figure 2. The final step shown—recommendations—embodies the
Blueprint development. These steps are described in greater detail in the following
sections.
The matrix approach to developing a harbor Blueprint has certain acknowledged
limitations. First of all, it creates a much-simplified image of the many parameters and uses
of concern. It also depends on the expert judgment used to characterize even the simplified
relationships of concern and these relationships may not be precisely known. Finally, even
within its inherent simplifications, it is only as accurate as the data available to describe it.
We made every effort, therefore, to define simple and scientifically reasonable relationships
between uses and parameters and, particularly in defining the parameters, to be as
comprehensive as possible. We reviewed and revised the definitions of use levels and
parameter levels several times, and emphasized the gathering of accurate current data on
actual harbor conditions and then evaluated those data as to their reliability. We believe we
have developed a useful and practical tool for framing discussions about current and future
uses of the harbor and for defining priorities for future research and improvement activities.
This tool should be used within a decision making framework where other important
considerations — costs, major industrial harbor uses, and organizational and political
factors — are included in design and implementation of specific projects.
C. Definition of Uses and Parameters
The harbor information matrix is composed of (1) the definition of harbor uses, (2)
the definition of water quality and use-related parameters that affect those uses, and (3) the
relationships between the uses and the parameters.
We considered six uses:
• Fish Quality: the health of fish living in the harbor and the fitness of those
fish for human consumption, defined as the presence or absence of
contaminants, such as heavy metals and organic toxicants, or lesions in their
flesh.
15
-------
Figure 2.
Flow Chart of the Matrix Development Process
Define 5 quality levels for each of
6 harbor uses and 12 "parameters' affecting those uses
Review available data and compile annotated bibliography
Identify explicit relationships between uses and parameter
levels required to achieve each use level
Determine current
parameter levels
for each subarea
using data and
definitions
Determine current
levels for each
use in each subarea
based on data
and use/parameter
relationships
Determine preferred
use levels for each
use in each subarea
using jurisdictions'
goals and U/P
relationships
I
Compare Determined
current use levels with
use levels observed
infield
T
Determine limitiations to achievement of preferred uses by
comparison of minimum parameter levels required with current
parameter levels as determined by data.
Make recommendations for data collection and
parameter improvement
16
-------
• Fish Quantity/Diversity: the number of species present, especially the
higher level game species, and the abundance of fish in the harbor of any
given species.
• Habitat: the inherent quality of the natural habitat of the harbor and its
ability to support aquatic life. Although it is difficult to define goals for
habitat quality, the matrix emphasized maintenance or revival of conditions
similar to those in less developed areas of the Chesapeake Bay.
• Recreational Boating: the ability of the harbor to support private recreational
boating; it involves health and physical safety as well as aesthetic factors.
• Recreational Crabbing: generally the availability of crabs that can be caught
recreationally; it includes both their quality (safety for consumption) as well
as their quantity.
• Swimming: the ability of the harbor to support recreational water contact; as
for boating, it involves health and physical safety as well as aesthetic
factors.
We considered these uses in light of preexisting industrial uses of the harbor.
The 12 parameters examined include:
• Bacteriological Contamination: this is of particular concern for any use that
involves direct human contact; it can also be a surrogate indicator for
aesthetic factors influencing recreation.
• Boat Traffic: this can influence the quality of the marine habitat and can
lower the quality of recreational uses, especially recreational boating. High
levels of boat traffic and the presence of shipping channels can increase
turbidity, thus affecting both aesthetics and biota and lowering habitat
quality.
• Dissolved Oxvgcn: oxygen is critical to biological quality; in extremely low
ranges, it can also cause aesthetic problems and aquatic animal life will
either avoid the area or be adversely affected.
• Dredging Frequency: dredging influences natural habitat and biota; it can
also affect recreational uses. Dredging will increase turbidity. If carried out
at high frequency, this will affect both aesthetics and biota.
• Enrichment (Nutrients): high nutrient levels can cause eutrophication, which
will lower dissolved oxygen levels and, in turn, adversely affect biological
systems as well as recreation.
17
-------
• Floating Debris: debris can be both a saiety and an aesthetic problem.
• Sediment Quality: this is a broad parameter used to define the presence of
organic and inorganic pollutants in sediments and their potential impact on
biota. Highly polluted sediments can contaminate biota, especially bottom
organisms.
• Shore Type: the quality of the shoreline affects both recreational access and
natural systems. Natural shoreline contributes to high habitat levels, while
the presence of boat ramps and piers will enhance recreational boating,
crabbing, and fishing.
• Substrate Type: this is critical to development of biota, but it may also
influence recreation, especially swimming.
• Turbidity: this has an influence on both recreation and biota. High turbidity
levels will adversely affect aesthetics and biota.
• Vegetative Habitat: the presence of submerged and emergent aquatic
vegetation (SAV) influences biological systems as well as recreation. High
levels will enhance habitat, fish diversity and crabbing, but may be less
desirable for recreational boating and swimming.
• Water Column Metals: metals in the water column may be bioaccumulated in
fish and may therefore affect human health; high levels may also adversely
affect development of ecological systems, thus lowering habitat levels.
Some harbor conditions may lend themselves to being considered as either a use or
a parameter. For instance, we consider boat traffic, measured by the presence of shipping
channels and marinas, to be a parameter and we also consider recreational boating as a use
that is influenced by boat traffic and nine other parameters. The perspective of
consideration (and the definition) of the use is clearly different from the parameter.
Similarly, vegetative habitat is a parameter that influences habitat as a use. The habitat use
is affected not only by the vegetative habitat parameter, but by every other parameter as
well.
Because of problems of measurement, data availability, and uncertainty about their
potential effects, we made no attempt to include consideration of trace organic toxicants,
such as pesticides, in the water column. In addition, the separate nutrient effects of
nitrogen and phosphorus have been combined into a single "enrichment" parameter.
18
-------
Temperature and pH are not included as parameters because we did not think they were a
problem in Baltimore Harbor. We also could not explicitly consider all synergistic effects.
As a first step, we developed definitions for five quality levels for each use and
each parameter, with 1 as the poorest quality and 5 as the best. These quality levels
focused on key components affecting the degree of excellence of a use or parameter and
were intended to present a reasonable range of possible conditions, not limited to the range
of conditions that currently exists in the harbor. The use of levels and a rating scale permits
a relative ranking of uses and parameters that allows us to evaluate general harbor
conditions and develop the Harbor Blueprint despite data gaps and the limited establishment
of cause and effect relationships in certain areas. At the same time, a rating scale permits
incorporation of numeric data where available and provides a framework that can integrate
future improvements in both data and ecological understanding.
Table 1, Use Level Descriptions, presents a description of each of the five levels of
the six use categories employed in the analysis. In general, use level 1 represents a more or
less complete absence of the particular use being described. The 1 to 5 ratings are an
ordinal scale that indicates differences in some unit or units appropriate to the particular
criterion. We used professional judgment to develop the intervals of the scale. Each of the
intervals is a step along a ladder toward attainment of the maximum use quality. However,
although the intention is to indicate improvement in a particular use, each step does not
necessarily correspond to an identical level of improvement.
Table 2, Parameter Level Descriptions, provides the basic definitions of the five
levels of each of the parameters. As with the use levels, these are ordinal scales, developed
by professional judgment. We feel that they represent reasonably equal steps from the
lowest to the highest level for each parameter.
We developed the parameter level descriptions to make use of data that are readily
available from general data sources; they are not meant to be absolute ratings. They are
intended as a practical tool for readily evaluating a variety of parameters for an area from a
diversity of data sources. They also reflect the fact that some data sources may not be
quantitative, but merely provide general descriptions of an area.
19
-------
Table 1
Use Level Descriptions
UseCaloporv
Fish Quality
Fl»h
Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Use Level Description
1 Contaminated (exceeds FDA Action Level) and sickly (lesions)
2 Slight contamination, occasional lesions
3 Slight contamination (exceeds FDA Advisory) no lesions
4 Slight tainting (flavor impairment but no measurable contaminants)
5 Healthy and dean
1 None
2 Few fish, 1 to 2 species
3 Moderate numbers, 2 to 3 species
4 Moderate numbers, 4+ species
5 Many species, plentiful numbers
1 Water column and sediments contaminated, no shelter
2 Water column acceptable but sediments contaminated and no shelter
3 Water column and sediments of acceptable quality but no shelter
4 Water column and sediments of acceptable quality but limited shelter
5 Water quality and sediments'acceptable and adequate shelter
1 None—no access
2 Boats in transit, no anchorage, no shore contact, no water contact
3 Some recreational boating, little shore contact or anchorage available, no water contact
4 Shore contact and anchorage available, no water contact
5 Optimum conditions with shore contact and anchorage available and water contact permitted
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
1 None, or contaminated and sickly
2 Scarce or plentiful; some contamination
3 Scarce; no more than trace contamination
4 Plentiful; no more than trace contamination
5 Plentiful, healthy, and clean
1 None; serious bacteriological contamination (>400 fecal coliform/100ml) and/or inappropriate landscape
2 None; bacterial contamination (>200 fecal coliform/100 ml) and/or undesirable landscape
3 Some water contact; intermittent bacteriological contamination (>200 fecal coliform/100 ml)
4 Swimming permitted; occasional contamination exceeding 200 fecal coliform/100 ml
5 Swimming permitted; no contamination (fecal coliform levels <200/100 ml), appropriate surroundings
-------
Table 2
Parameter Level Descriptions
Parameter
Bacteriological status
parameter
Level
Description
Boat traffic
DO
Dredging frequency
1 Consistently and significantly >200 fecal coliform/100 ml (e.g., by a factor of 2).
2 Consistently >200 fecal cotHorm /100 ml; however, exceedences are no greater than 250 fecal coliform/100ml.
3 Frequently >200 fecal coliform/100 ml so as to require closing of area for swimming
4 Occasionally >200 fecal coliform/100 ml.
5 Never >200 fecal colUorm/100 ml.
1 Heavy major shipping and/or large marinas present.
2 Minor shipping channels and/or numerous small or large marinas.
3 No more than 1 large marina and no more than 2 small marinas and/or no shipping.
4 No more than one small marina and/or no shipping.
5 One small marina or no marinas present and/or no shipping channels.
1 Occasionally reaches 0 mg/l during part of the year.
2 At or below 2 mg/l more than 50% of the time.
3 2-4mg/l
4 4-5mg/l
5 Above 5 mg/l
1 Yearly
2 Every other year.
3 Regular dredging, but 3-5 years between incidents.
4 Occasional dredging (less than once every five years).
5 Never dredged.
-------
Parameter
Enrichment level
Floating debris
Sediment pollution
Parameter
Level
Description
1 Total nitrogen 100-320 mg/l or total phosphorus 13-44 mg/l.
2 Total nitrogen 10-99 mg/l or total phosphorus 0.4-12 mg/l.
3 Total nitrogen t -9 mg/l or total phosphorus 0.14-.39 mg/l.
4 Total nitrogen 0.1 -0.99 mg/l or total phosphorus 0.014-0.13 mg/l.
5 Total nitrogen 0.003-0.09 mg/l or total phosphorus 0.0004-0.0039 mg/l.
1 Heavy industrial debris present and/or oil sheen.
2 Moderate debris present and/or oil sheen.
3 Some natural debris present (wood, etc.) and/or sometimes slight oil sheen.
4 Occasional wood or other natural debris; no oil sheen.
5 No debris or oil sheen.
1 Highly organic muck, high levels of toxic organics. Contamination Index (Ci)>14 predominant in area.
2 Some highly organic muck, high levels of toxic organics. Ci > 14.
3 Some highly organic muck, moderate levels of toxic organics. Ci4-14.
4 No evidence of organic contamination (natural or toxic). CJ4-14.
5 No evidence of organic contamination (natural or toxic). Ci < 4.
-------
Substrate type
Parameter
Parameter Level Description
Shore type 1 Almost completely developed industrially, with bulkheads and piers.
2 Fairly heavily developed with bulkheads.
3 15 - 30 % natural, with some sand beach, more riprap than bulkhead.
4 31 - 50% natural, with some sand, some fringe marsh, moderately developed.
5 >50% natural with large stretches of sand and marshes; only slightly developed.
1 Unstable substrate in most of subarea. Very soft, almost fluid, mud or silt.
2 Somewhat compacted mud or silt, but readily resuspended by vessel traffic.
3 Relatively stable substrate throughout subarea, but most of substrate of one type (silt, shell, sand) and very little variety.
4 One substrate type (mud, silt, shell, sand) dominant in subarea, but small patches of other types present.
5 Variety of substrate types adjacent to one another, resulting in diversity.
Turbidity 1 >100mg/l
2 60-100mg/l
3 40-60 mg/l
4 20-40 mg/l
5 <20mg/l
-------
Parameter
Vegetative habitat
Water column matala
Parameter
LSXSl Description
1 No SAV or emergent shoreline vegetation in area.
2 Occasional patches of SAV or emergent vegetation or historic occurence of SAV.
3 Occasional patches of SAV and moderate emergent vegetation.
4 Moderate patches of SAV and emergent vegetation.
5 Abundant SAV and emergent vegetation in area
1 Level of any heavy metal occasionally at or exceeding known LC50 level.
2 Level of any heavy metal occasionally at or exceeding EPA's acute criteria.
3 Level of any heavy metal frequently at EPA's chronic criteria.
4 Measurable levels of metals close to. but never equal to, EPA's chronic criteria.
5 No metal exceeding background concentrations for known healthy environment and many metals below detection limit.
-------
D. Identification of Relationships Between Uses and Parameters
The next step was to identify specific relationships between each use level and each
level of each parameter. Our goal was to develop a method that described the use/parameter
relationships as accurately as possible, that was commensurate with data availability and
quality, that was simple enough to be understood and used, and that could be developed
within the time and financial constraints of the IEMP.
After some discussion, we decided to develop the matrix to define reasonable
minimum levels of parameters associated with particular use levels. For instance, we list
the minimum level of dissolved oxygen needed to permit a particular use level of fishing or
crabbing. By focusing on minimum levels required for specific use levels, we could more
easily use the results of the analysis to identify needed improvements.
The scheme we chose i$ simple and easy to use, but does not explicitly reflect
synergistic effects or anomalies. Although we did not come across specific examples, it
may be possible for a specific use level not to be achieved, even if all the associated
minimum parameter levels are met, because of synergistic effects or unmeasured
parameters. In some cases, uses may conflict with each other. For example, a high-quality
level of recreational boating may preclude a high-quality level for habitat. In some cases,
"lower" quality levels for some parameters may actually improve the quality of some uses.
For example, lower SAV levels contribute to better swimming quality. We intend the
matrix to be used as a guide for environmental planners and managers, and not as a
replacement for detailed scientific evaluation.
E. Analysis of Data
After defining the uses, parameters, and use/parameter relationships, we developed
a series of tables that depict the current conditions in each subarea of the harbor. This step
entailed considerable data gathering and review, evaluation of the parameter quality levels
for each subarea based on the data, and an evaluation of the quality of the data available.
25
-------
We divided the harbor into 13 subareas for study (see Figure 3). In rough order
from northwest to southeast, these are:
1. Upper Middle Branch
2. Lower Middle Branch
3. Northwest Branch
4. Middle Harbor
5. Curtis Bay and Creek
6. Marley Creek/Furnace Creek
7. Lower Bear Creek
8. Upper Bear Creek
9. Outer Harbor
10. Stoney Creek
11. Rock Creek
12. Old Road Bay
13. Cox Creek
Next, we gathered data on each of the parameters within each subarea. We initially
reevaluated the data previously gathered for Phase I of the Baltimore IEMP. This included
such reports as the study performed by Villa and Johnson in 1984, which monitored
sediments at over 150 locations throughout the harbor, and the 1975 report by the Center
for Environmental and Estuarine Studies (CEES), which compared the ecological health of
Baltimore Harbor to that of the Chester River. We also used EPA's STORET data base
and the data resources of the Chesapeake Bay Program to obtain the most recent results of
monitoring data for both sediment and water column pollutants in the harbor area. Time
and resource constraints did not allow us to make an exhaustive review of the Bay
Program's data. Knowledgeable officials at the Federal, State, and local levels, who were
26
-------
Figure 3
Baltimore Harbor Subareas
Itetey
Cr««k/
Furnac*
Cr*«k
27
-------
able to identify recent studies not yet incorporated into the automated data base of the
Chesapeake Bay Program or STORET, helped to fill in as many data gaps as possible.
We also assigned a quality rating of good, fair, or poor to each data set used in the
analysis, and, where appropriate, varied that rating by subarea. The ratings were
influenced by such factors as data age, areal coverage of the data set, and methodology
used to acquire the data. We tried to acquire the most recent data available with the most
extensive coverage. Spotty sampling within an area or old data reduced our confidence
rating for a data set. This data review was one of the most important steps in using the
matrix and developing the Blueprint. We present an annotated bibliography of the data
reviewed at the end of this report.
Once we had acquired an extensive summary of data, we determined the quality
level of the parameters for each area by carefully comparing the data to the quality level
definitions for the parameters. Because of the diverse types of data used and their many
different sources, we examined long-term averages, looking for maximum and minimum
values, as well as seasonal patterns. We considered seasonal patterns particularly
important for such parameters as dissolved oxygen and bacteriological contamination,
which are more likely to have pronounced effects during the wanner months of the year.
The parameter quality levels for each subarea are intended to be a conservative average of
the parameter levels found, since parameter levels are not uniform within a subarea—some
portions of a subarea may rate a 5, while others may be a 1.
Many of the automated data resources, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program data
base, routinely present data as average values from a number of sampling observations. In
many cases, resource constraints made it necessary to average a number of these
observations for a period of several years. From a practical standpoint, this approach
permitted the analysis of large amounts of data in a relatively short time. When interpreted
with professional judgment, we fell that this approach yielded descriptions of recent trends
in a particular area that were sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this project.
28
-------
The most obvious product of this exercise is the compilation of information on the
quality level of the various parameters, which, together with the definitions and
relationships tables, can be used to determine the current use quality levels in each area and
to identify the changes needed in parameters to reach the preferred quality level for each
use. Another valuable product of this data gathering activity is the identification of research
needs, particularly where the data on an important parameter for a given area are either poor
or nonexistent. Finally, the documentation of current data resources as well as research
recommendations are important products of this project.
F. Evaluation of Uses in Light of Parameter Data
Using the definitions and relationships tables together with the parameter levels
determined from the data, we determined the current quality levels for each use in each
subarea. In cases where no data were available for a key parameter, we made a reasonable,
conservative estimate of that parameter level, usually by evaluating conditions in that
subarea relative to other subareas. We then performed a quality control check by
comparing our Current Use quality levels with actual observed uses. We made
adjustments, as appropriate, where the two were inconsistent. In some cases, we adjusted
the definitions of the parameters or uses or the minimum parameter levels needed for each
use level. This iterative approach permitted us to develop criteria that were realistic and
met the needs of this project. If necessary, we adjusted Current Use levels in light of
information that was not fully reflected in the parameter data. For example, we
downgraded Recreational Boating in Cox Creek (Subarea 13) because there is a shortage of
shore access and anchorage.-
The actual quality of uses in some parts of a subarea may be better than our
calculated Current Uses, while other parts are worse. We believe that the Current Use
levels are conservative averages across the subareas.
Each of the three local jurisdictions involved in the IEMP (Baltimore City,
Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel County) has some stated or unstated goals for use
quality for the subareas it oversees. We translated these goals as perceived by the work
29
-------
group members working in these local jurisdictions into use quality levels for each of the
six uses in each subarea. These are the "Preferred Use" levels.
We then evaluated the Preferred Uses in light of the parameter data. For each
Preferred Use in each subarea, we developed a list of the minimum parameter levels needed
to achieve that use level. We then compared these parameter levels with the parameter
levels reflected by the data. This comparison allowed us to identify which parameter levels
would need to be improved in each area to achieve the Preferred Use levels.
We also identified key parameters for which data were not available in a subarea, or
where data were available, but our confidence in it was rated less than good.
G. Development of Blueprint Recommendations
In developing, evaluating, and working with the matrix, we identified a number of
recommendations for improving the harbor to move toward the perceived goals. Research
recommendations that we identified are both harbor-wide (e.g., study use and parameter
relationships and refine the matrix), and subarea specific (e.g., collect data for specific
parameters where unavailable or not good). By comparison of the minimum parameter
levels needed to achieve the Preferred Use levels with the data-defined parameter levels, we
identified parameters which will need to be improved in each subarea to achieve the
Preferred Use levels. We also suggest some alternative methods to improve certain
parameters and recommend general institutional arrangements to further refine the matrix
and develop and implement a harbor management plan.
The limited scope of the harbor study did not permit us to make a complete study of
the causative agents that affect parameter quality, and the degree to which certain activities
will improve parameter levels. For example, while we may know of certain methods to
help reduce bacteriological contamination, we cannot be certain of the amount of reduction.
We may know even less about how to control enrichment levels or water column metals.
This may be undertaken as a next step in refinement of the matrix. The improvement
activities already planned by the jurisdictions may yield information that may help to
explain these relationships more fully.
30
-------
H. Description of the Analytical Tables
This section explains several of the various tables that embody the matrix.
1. Relationships Between Use Categories and Parameters
Table 3 is vital to understanding the matrix and Blueprint. For each level of each
use category, it describes what minimum level for each parameter is necessary to achieve
the stated use level. The use levels are in the left-hand column, the parameters across the
top, and in each cell it shows what minimum level of each parameter is required and the
definition of that parameter level. Those parameters that we believe to significantly affect a
use are marked with an asterisk.
Appendix B contains an expanded version of this table. In addition to listing the
factors, those that we believe to significantly affect a particular use are marked with an
asterisk. Those not so marked are believed to have little effect on that particular use. As in
Table 3, the parameter levels are given as the minimum level needed to achieve the
particular use level being described. In addition, Appendix B presents the rationale we
used in defining the relationships summarized on Table 3—a brief description of why a
particular parameter level corresponds to a given use level. In general, we chose the
parameter levels for each use level on the basis of reported effects in the literature and
professional judgment.
2. Current and Preferred Uses bv Subarea
Table 4, Current and Preferred Uses by Subarea, lists the 13 harbor subareas, the
six use categories for each subarea, and the the Current and Preferred Use levels for each
of the six uses. The last column lists the Preferred Uses, which represent goals of the
jurisdictions for use quality in the various harbor subareas as perceived by work group
members representing various local agencies. The use level descriptions are included
beside each Current and Preferred Use level for each subarea so the user can readily
determine exactly what the level is.
Figures 4 through 9 show the Current Uses in map form.
31
-------
Table 3
Minimum Parameter Levels Required To
Attain Each Use Level
Key parameters indicated with an asterisk (')
Fish Quality
Parameters
Use
Levels
1
Contarrtnalad
(exceed* FOA
Action Laval)
andtfcHy
(Mm)
2
Sttgh)
conumkiallon,
occatlonal
la* km*
3
SHghl
oonumhatbn
(auaadiFOA
AcVkory) no
Mont
4
SdghlMnUng
(Haw.
Impairment but
no maamraMa
oontamlnarM)
5
MeaHhyand
dean
Baclerio
Status
* 1
Continently
>2DO
caMornVKX) rnt
(1*.. toy a factor
0(2)
' 2
ContWaMly
>200coHorm
/100m);
howavar.
aicaaoanoat
aranograaMr
than 250
* 3
Frequently
>200
to at lo require
doaktgotarea
tatwbnmtng
* 3
Frequently
>aoo
ooMormrlOOm)
to at lo faqulra
doting of area
tortwtmmlng
' 4
Occaatonaly
>aoo
coMornVtOO mj
Boat
avMUlaW
Traffic
1
Heavy major
large rraMtnat
pratanl.
1
Heavy major
tripping and/or
large martnat
pratanl
1
Heavy major
•rapping and/or
large raarlnai.
praaani.
1
Heavy mfor
thtplng and/or
larga martnaa
praaani.
1
rWaWy ffiaifW
$t»taptnd •rt&Qf
larga marlnaa
pratanl.
Dissolved Dredging Enrichment
Qxygen Frequency Level
* 1 1 ' 1
OocattonatV Yearly Total nlrogan
raachetOmg/ 100-KOmgA
during part of or total
Dayaar. phoaphorua
13-44 nVI.
' 3 1 * 2
2-4mg/l Yaarty Total nlrogan
10-esmolor
Mai
phoaphorua
0.4-12 moA
' 4 1 * 3
4-i mgl Yaarty Total nlrogan
1-9mgAortowl
phoaphotu*
* 5 1 * 4
Above S mgfl Yaarty Total nttogan
0.1 -0.9900/1 or
Mai
phoaphorua
0.014-0.13
mgA
' 5 1 * 4
Above S mg/l Yaarly Total nlrogan
0,1 -0.09 mo/lor
kM
phoaphorua
0.014-0.13
mgA.
Floating
kaHeBMiUaV*
Debris
* 1
Heavy
MualrW
dabrla prawnt
andVoroa
theen.
* 1
Haavy
kidualrlM
dabrtt praaani
ancVoroU
thaan.
* 2.
Moderate
dabrla praaani
andttroN
ahaan.
* 2
Modal ate
dabrtt praaen
ancVoroa
ahaan.
* 3
Some natural
dabrti praaani
(wood, etc.)
and/or
Mmeilmee
tight ol thaan.
Sediment
Pollution
* 1
Highly organic
muck, high
levett at tone
organic*.
Comamlnallon
Index (Cl)>14
predominant In
* 1
Wghly organic
mucKragh
level* ot toxic
organtca.
Comamlnallon
lnda>(CI)>t4
pradomtruM In
* 3
Some highly
organic muck.
rnodafaia1
tarafc of toxic
organic*. Cl
4-14.
* 3
tarn highly
organic muck.
moderate
lava*) of toxic
orgarto*. Cl
4-14.
* 4
No evidence at
organic
contamination
(natural or
kulc). O 4-14
Shore
Type
1
Almott
compMely
developed
fnducuMy,
•Mibulkheadi
and plan.
1
Almott
compMely
davataped
InduatrlaNy,
wkh bulkhaadi
and plan.
1
Almotl
oompMaly
devdcpad
InduatrlaMy,
wfthbuMieadt
and plan.
1
Almoat
oompMary
developed
Induatrlaiy.
wktt buMteadt
and plan.
1
Almoat
compMaly
oavaropad
Industrially.
with bulkheadt
andpieri.
Substrate
lype
* 1
UnHab*
tubeuawln
moalol
tubaiaa. Vwy
ton. aknott
Dukl. mud or
til.
* 2
Somewhat
compaaad
mud or t«l. but
readily
latutpended
by vaaeal tiattt
* 3
Relatively
tlabki tubttraia
Ihrooghool
tubaraa,but
moat of
tutaauaMol
one type (U*.
* 3
HwttlvMy
tlaWatubtlrala
ttmughout
tuba/aa.but
rnxHol
tubtiraeof
one type <»/».
* 3
Ratatlvery
naMetUxtlrala
tfiroughout
turjaraa, out
motlol
tubtuateol
one type (sii.
Turbidity
* 1
> 100 mart
* 2
60-100mg/l
* 3
40-60 mg/l
* 3
40-60 mo/1
• 4
2O 40 mg/l
Vegetative
Habitat
1
NoSAVor
amargant
tnorallne
vaaetailontn
area.
1
NoSAVor
emeroen
thorellne
vageuuion In
area.
1
NoSAVor
amargant
(norarlna
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
amargant
ihoreUna
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
ermrgart
thoralina
vogetcilion m
araa.
Wat Col.
Metals
* 2
Laval of any
heavy metal
occatlonaly a)
or exceeding
E PA t acute
crkarla.
* 3
Frequently at
EPA't chronic
crttarla.
* 4
Meat ur able
levekt of rnataki
dote to. but
never equal to.
EPA't chronic
criteria.
• 4
UeaturaMa
kwe* d nwalt
dot* to. but
navar equal to.
EPA't chronic
crrtarla.
* 5
No metal
exceeding
background
ww luanuatlon*
tor known
haaferqr
environment
-------
Table 3
Minimum Parameter Levels Required To
Attain Each Use Level
Key parameters indicated with an asterisk (')
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Parameters
U)
U)
Use
Levels
1
None
2
Fawllah, tM2
specie*
3
Moderate
number*, 2 to 3
species
4
Moderate
numbers. 4+
specie*
5
Manytpedea,
ptentltul
number*
pacterio
Status
1
Continent ly
>200
coatamviOOml
(1 .a. by a lector
at 2).
VI «f
1
ConaMenlly
>200
coMorm/100 ml
(U.. by a (actor
ot 2).
1
ConaMenlly
>200
coMomVIOOml
(La., by a lector
042).
1
ConaMenlly
>200
coWomVlOO rnl
(l.e., by a lector
1
ConaMenlly
>200
ccatornvioo ml
(l.e,byalactcf
Of2).
Boat
Traffic
* 1
Heavy major
•hoping and/or
large marinaa
present
* 1
Heavy major
ahkiplng and/or
large manna*
present.
* 2
Minor shipping
channels
andror
numerous
•mal or large
marina*.
* 2
channels
•no/Of
numerous
smal or large
'
* 2
Minor shipping
channels
and/or
numerous
smal or Urge
marina*.
Dissolved Dredging
Oxygen Frequency
* 1 * 1
Occa*tona»y Yearly
during part of
twyear.
0 3 * 1
2-4mo/l Vearty
' 4 * 2
4-5mg/l Everyother
* 5 * 2
AboveSmgA Evetyotner
veer.
* 5 * 2
Above & mg/l Every other
year.
Enrichment
Level
* 1
Total ntrogen
100-320 mgrl
or total
phosphor u*
13-44 mgrl.
• 2
Total nlrogan
10- 90 mo/I or
total
phoaphoru*
0.4-12 mgrl
* 3
Total nlrogan
1-»mg/l or total
phosphorus
0.14-.9B mo/I.
* 4
Total ntrogen
0.1 -0.99 mg/l or
total
phosphor vi»
0.014-0.13
ma/I
"V-
* 4
Total nlrogan
01 -0.99 mg/l or
total
phosphorus
0.014-0.13
mg/l.
Floating
Debris
• 1
Heavy
Muatrtel
debriapreaant
and/or ON
sheen.
/ 1
Heavy
Industrial
debri* preeent
and/droll
•heen.
* 1
Heavy
toduoUW
detxto ptvMflt
and/or a«
ahem.
* 2
debrta preeent
and/won
aheen.
* 2
Moderate
dabriapraaani
and/or oil
sheen.
Sediment
Pollution
* 1
Highly organic
muck, high
organic*.
Contamination
Index (Cl)>14
predominant In
4 2
Some highly
organic muck.
high level* ol
knlc organic*
0>14.
* 3
Some highly
organic muck,
moderate
level* ol toxic
organic*. Cl
4-14.
* 3
Some highly
organic muck.
moderate
organic*. Cl
4-14.
* 3
Some highly
organic muck,
moderate
levels ot kulc
organic*. Ci
4-14.
Shore
Type
* 1
Alrrat
completely
Industrially,
with bulkheads
and pier*.
* 1
Almost
oompleiely
developed
Industrially,
wWi bulkhead*
and pier*.
* 2
Fairly heavily
developed with
bulkhead*.
* 3
15-30%
natural, wlh
some sand
beach, more
riprap than
bulkhead.
* 3
15-30%
natural, with
sornesand
beach, more
rprap than
bulkhead.
Substrate
lype
* 1
Unttabla
aubatrataln
moatol
subarea. Very
so*, almost
fluid, mud or
HI.
* 2
Somewhat
compacted
mud or sit. but
readily
resuapended
by vessel irattt
* 2
Somewhat
compacted
mud or lit. bu
readily
reauapended
by vessel traffic
* 3
Relatively
(table substrate
throughout
subarea, but
moat of
*ubetraieot
one type (sit.
* 4
One substrate
type (mud. eM.
shell, sand)
dominant In
subarea, but
small patches
ol other types
lurbidjty
* 1
>100mg/l
* 1
>100mg/l
* 2
60-100 mg/l
* 3
40-60 mg/l
* 4
20-40 rog/t
Vegetative,
Habitat
* 1
NoSAVor
emergent
ahorellne
vegetation In
area.
* 1
NoSAVor
emergent
•horeline
vegetation In
area.
* 1
NoSAVor
emergent
inoreline
vegetation in
area.
* 3
Occasional
patches ot SAV
and moderate
emergent
vegetation.
* 4
Moderate
patches ot SAV
and emergent
vegetation.
Wat Col.
Metals
* 1
Laval ot any
heavy metal
occasionally at
or exceeding
known LCSO
level
* 2
Level ot any
heavy metal
occastonaty at
or exceeding
EPA'* acute
criteria.
* 3
Frequently at
EPA'* chronic
criteria.
* 3
Frequently at
EPA'i chronic
criteria
* 3
Frequently at
EPA'i chronic
criteria.
-------
Table 3
Minimum Parameter Levels Required To
Attain Each Use Level
Key parameters indicated with an asterisk (*)
Habitat
Parameters
UM
Levels
1
Water column
andsedbmne
oontarnlnaled.
nosheaar
2
Water column
acceptable but
wdbTeOTta
oonUMfdraMd
andnothsHar
3
Water column
mmlt KAjiUeU***
•no Mamwnv
of acceptable
quaftybutno
adte^leW
•MMr
4
«•« column
•nd MdltTMnfe
Of acceptable
quaHybut
InAMf •hetor
5
Water quafty
•no ••olfrwntt
aooeptabla and
adequate
thetor
Bactario
Status
* 1
ConsMontly
>aoo
coltomVlOO rrt
(Le..byalaaar
* 2).
* 2
ComManUy
>200ooWorm
/100ml;
however.
aKceadancos
are no greater
•Mfl2SO
* 2
ConsWenrjy
>200ooNorm
/100ml;
howsvsr.
aWa^a^M^M^^M
are no greater
MM 280
* 2
Consistently
>200ooMonn
/ICO ml;
however.
accedences
are no greater
than 250
• 3
Frequent*
>2oo
coatornvtoo ml
soastorequs-o
dosing of MWI
kx MKtmtrtng
Boat
Tfa«ic
* 1
HMvymijor
•h^Xng «n*o.
lng«n«ilMB
pr«Mnt
4 2
Minor *Mppktg
ctunntk
«n«or
numwout
MiHlerhfgi
rmrtnM.
* 3
NomoottMl
(ngcmvlni
•nd no nttf •
«Hn2HmN
M^wfck^A MMl/fM
mmwi •norai
notMpplng.
• 4
No mom than
on**ml
mriMMoVor
notmpkig.
* 5
OMIIMl
mwlnaoino
mrinw
pf«MM«ndAx
no (hoping
channels.
Dissolved
Oxygen
* 1
Occasionally
nwhatOmgA
during part of
twyoai.
* 1
OocMtoMNir
iMchatOniayi
during part at
thoyaor.
• 4
4-6m»1
' 4
4 -Smart
* 5
MwMSmaA
Dredging
Frequency
4 1
Yoariy
* 2
Ewryotiw
(Mr.
* 3
Hagutor
OMdglng.bu
Myoan
•MAMMA
IncktonM.
* 3
Ragutar
dndghQi but
Myaan
banwaan
kiddanH.
* 5
Navw dradgad.
Enrichment
kftiaJ
* 1
Total nitogan
100-320 m>!
or Mai
phoaphotui
1»44m»1.
* 2
TotaJnlrogan
IfrWmalor
tola)
phoaphorui
0.4-12 m»4
* 2
Total nlragan
ICHBnVlor
MM
pnoaphorua
04-12 mgA
* 4
Total nlragan
0.1-0.98 mart*
total
pttoaphotua
0.014-0.13
moA
• 5
Total nlfogan
OJ)0»0.08inall
01 total
phosphorus
0.0004-O.OOU
mgA
EtoflUofl.
Debris
* 1
Haavy
MuatoW
OflpMt pMMnl
anovofol
shasn.
* 2
Modnw
dobriipMaanl
andVtool
shasn.
* 3
Soms natural
daMspiaaanl
taoolate.)
anoVor
tonwkHiM
sight olshsan.
* 4
Occasional
wndofottw
natural dabrls;
no ol shasn.
* 4
Occasional
woodorcKhsr
natural dabnt;
nooHshaan.
Sediment
Pollution
* 1
HgMy organic
muck. Matt
tow* of Me
organic*.
Contarrtnatton
Wo«(CO>14
pradomktant kt
* 1
Highly organic
muoKNgh
towaboftaoc
organtai.
ComamJnaion
Mai(Cl)>i4
pradofflJnant In
* 4
NoovWanoaol
organic
contamination
(natural or
aniiint iM A—\A
ion*). w4-w.
• 4
No avManoa of
organic
contamination
(natural or
Mile). 04-14.
• 4
NoavWancoot
organic
contamtnauon
(natural or
toxic). CI4-U.
Shore
lyjza
• 1
Almost
complataly
davstopad
ktduMrlaJly.
Mrftfi buHinMsde
•nd pitiv.
• i
Mmoat
oofflplMvly
davatopad
btduatrially.
vMibuMioadf
and plan.
* 2
Fakly haavtty
davatapad laWt
buMnsstts.
* 4
31-80%
natural, «kh
somasand,
somalilnga
marsh.
mooatataly
dovatopad.
* 5
>50% natural
wrthujros
stratcnssof
sand and
man ha«, only
ssghtly
developed.
Substrate
IXQfi
' 1
Unstabta
substrata In
moat of
mbaraa. Vary
to*, almoM
hiW.mudor
sW.
* 2
Somewhat
ooinpACMo
mud or sit. but
raadHy
ratuspandad
by vassal traffic
* 3
Fla^MiV*ritf
tlfttrfr t ubtttaM*
throughout
wb.VM,but
IHMll Cat
tnm w
substrata of
one type (M.
• 4
OnesuMMe
typs100mo/t
' 1
>lOOmo/l
* 2
60- 100 mgA
* 4
20-40 mgd
* 5
<20mg/l
Veoetativa
Habitat
* 1
NoSAVor
amsrgent
shoreline
vegetation In
area.
* 2
Occasional
patches of SAV
or emergent
vegetation or
historic
oocuranoaof
SAV.
* 3
Occasional
patches of SAV
and moderate
amargart
vooetatton
* 4
Moderate
patches of SAV
and emergent
vegetation.
* 5
Abundant SAV
and emergent
vegetation In
area.
Wat Col.
Metals
* 1
Level of any
heavy metal
occastonaty at
or exceeding
known LCSO
level.
* 4
MaatiMUa
(wok of mauls
close to. but
never equal to.
ERA'S chronle
criteria.
* 4
Measurable
lave* of metals
dose to. but
never aqua) to.
EPA't rA.li.ll.
cr^AP muniE
crterla.
* 4
Meaiurabla
levek of mstals
dose to. but
never equal to.
EPA's chronic
crtlarla.
* 4
Measurable
levels of metals
dose to, but
never equal to,
CPA's chronic
criteria.
-------
Table 3
Minimum Parameter Levels Required To
Attain Each Use Level
Key parameters indicated with an asterisk (*)
Recreational Boating
Parameters
Use
Levels
1
None-oo
acces*
2
Boat* In transit,
no anchorage,
no show
oontecl.no
3
Some
recreal tonal
boating. Htto
shore contact or
anchorage
available, no
water contact
4
Shore contact
and anchorage
•vaftMo.no
water contact
5
Optimum
condMon* win
shore contact
and anchorage
available and
Mater contact
permitted
Bacteria
Status
* 1
CoraMently
>200
caMomVIOOml
(U.. by* lector
012).
* 1
Conslsiently
>200
coetomVtOOml
(U. by a lector
012).
* 1
Continently
>aoo
coKomVlOOmJ
PJ*.. by* factor
012).
* 1
Consistently
>200
onMomviOO ml
(U.. by a lector
0(2).
* 4
OccaskxuOy
>ax>
coWorm/100 ml
Boat
Traffic
* 1
Heavy major
large marines
present.
* 1
Heavy major
•hoping and/or
large marinas
present.
' 2
Minor (hipping
channe*)
•nd/ot
numerous
smal or large
marina*.
* 3
No more than 1
large marina
and no more
than 2 small
marina* and/or
' 3
No more than!
large marina
and no more
than 2 small
ma/tut and/or
no shipping.
Dissolved
Oxygen
* 1
OccMkwueV
reaches Omg/1
during part of
tteyee/.
* 1
Occasionally
reache»0mg/1
during part of
to* yew.
* 1
Occasionally
reaches Omg/1
during pert ol
•wye*.
* 2
Al or below 2
mg/lmoretuui
SDK of fie Urn*
* 3
2-4 mg/l
Dredoing Enrichment
Frequency L,evel
1 ' 1
Yearty Toulnlrogen
100-320 mo/1
or total
phosphorus
1*44 mgrt.
1 ' 1
Yearly Total nlrogen
100-320 min-
or total
phosphorus
1*44rr*yi.
1 * 2
Yearly Total nlrogen
lO-Mmo/lor
Mtal
phosphorus
0.4-12 ma/I
1 * 3
Yearly Total nitrogen
l-vmg/lortoul
phosphorus
0.14-.W mgfl.
1 * 3
Yearly Toulnlrogen
1-9 mg/l or total
phosphorus
0.14- .M mg/l.
Floating
Debris
* 1
Heavy
MuetrW
debris present
and/or oil
sheen.
* 2
Moderate
debris present
and/or ol
sheen.
* 2
Modem*
and/ore*.
sheen.
* 3
Some natural
debris present
(wood, etc.)
and/or
sometimes
sight ol sheen.
* 4
Occasional
wood or other
natural debris;
no oil sheen.
Sediment
Pollution
• 1
Highly organic
mucKNgh
•wet* of toxic
organic*.
Contamination
Index (Cl)>14
predominant In
' 1
Highly organic
muck, high
levels of tonic
organlcs.
Contarrtnattoft
Index (CJ)> 14
predominant In
' 1
Highly organic
muck, high
organic*.
Ccnurrtnatlon
Index (CI)>M
predominant In
* 1
Highly organic
muck, high
levee) ol tonic
organlcs.
Contamination
Men (Cl)>14
predominant In
* 3
Some highly
organic muck.
moderate
levels ol Ionic
organlcs. Cl
4-14.
Shore
Type
* 1
Almost
completely
developed
Industrially,
wttti bulkheads
and piers.
* 1
Almost
completely
developed
Industrially.
with bulkheads
and pier*.
* 1
Almost
compwtwy
developed
InduttrlaNy.
wKh bulkhead*
andpkm.
. 2
Fairly heavily
developed wWt
bulkhead*.
* 2
Fairly heavily
developed wKh
bulkheads.
Substrate
Type, Turbidity
* 1 * 1
UnstaW* >100 mg/l
eutaetfaleln
most of
subarea. Very
•o*. almost
•uld. mud or
sll.
* 1 * 1
Unstab* >IOO mg/l
substrate In
most of
subarea. Very
sod. almost
HUM. mud or
sll.
* 1 * 1
UnstaW* >100 mg/l
substrate In
modal
iub*v*M*. Very
so*, almost
tuld. mud or
sA.
• 3 * 1
Relatively >100 mgfl
sUbto luburate
thRjughoul
subarea, but
most at
substrate of
one type (sll.
* 3 * 2
Relatively 60-tOOmg/l
stable substrate
throughout
subarea. but
mostol
substrate ol
one type (sin.
Vegetative
Habitat
1
NoSAVor
emergent
shoreline
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
emergent
shoreline
vegetal Ion In
area.
1
NoSAVor
emergent
shoreline
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
emergent
shoreline
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
error gant
ihorettn*
vegetation in
area.
Wat Col.
Metals
* 1
Level of any
heavy metal
occas lonely at
or exceeding
known LC40
level.
* 1
Level of any
heavy metal
occastonety at
or exceeding
known LCSO
level
* 1
Laval of any
fMJfty mdM
occailonaty at
or exceeding
known LCSO
I— ..^1
mfm.
* 1
Level of any
heavy metal
oocaklonaly at
or exceeding
known LCSO
level.
* 3
Frequently at
EPA's chronic
criteria.
-------
Table 3
Minimum Parameter Levels Required To
Attain Each Use Level
Key parameters indicated with an asterisk (*)
Recreational Crabbing
Parameters
Use
Levels
i
Now. or
conlamtiattd
anddcUy
2
Scare* or
ptentiM. torn*
contamination
3
Scare*, no mor*
tun trac*
oonamlnaUon
4
Pier*** no
mor* than trac*
contammaUon
5
Ptonllul.
daan
Bacterio
Status
1
ConaManlly
>aoo
ooHomVIOOml
(U..by«laaor
012).
1
Con*M*mly
>aoo
coHomVIOOml
(L*.. by a lector
012).
1
Comkaanlly
>20D
ooHomVIOOml
(U..byalacwr
1
OmaMerMly
>aw
ooMomVlOO ml
(U.byalaoor
of 2).
1
ContMcnily
>200
ooWomVlOO ml
(U..by*taaor
o!2).
Boat
Traffic
• 1
Heavy major
ahfaplng and/or
larg* marina*
praMnt
' 1
Haavy major
large marina*
praaant.
' 1
Heavy major
ihOptog and/or
Hips) rnafiTMtt
praaant
* 2
Minor *htapkig
channafe
and/or
numarou*
•mal or large
* 2
Minor trapping
and/or
numerou*
tmalor larg*
marinai.
Dissolved Dredging
Oxygen Frequency
• 1 * 1
OooAwofiMy YMtfiy
during part ol
• 3 • 2
2-4mgA Every other
• 3 • 3
2- 4 try* FtoQutw
oVtdgbig. but
tacUM.
• 4 * 3
4-SmgA Regular
dredging, but
3-6y*ar*
Herman
IncMenl*.
• 5 * 3
Above Smo/l H*gular
dradglng. but
3-Sy*an
between
Incktanli.
Enrichment
Level
* 1
Total narogan
100-320 mg4
or total
* 2
Total nkrogan
10-00 mal or
low
prMtphoru*
0.4-12 moA
• 3
Total ntrooan
1-Omgrl or total
l^««^u«twkM^
pnoapnoru*
0.14-.90 mg/l.
* 4
Total ntrooan
0.1 -0.80 mgA or
total
phoaphoru*
0.014-0.13
mgA
* 4
0.1-O.Mnigrlor
Mai
photpnoru*
0.014-0.13
mgA.
Floating
Debris
* 1
Heavy
InduatrW
andttrat
*h**n.
* 2
Modarala
dsbfiv praMM
andtaro*
ahaan.
* 2
Modarala
andtaro*
than.
• 2
Modarala
dabrla praaant
and/or OK
•haan.
' 3
Soma natural
««ool4
prcdorranam In
• 2
Soma highly
organic muck.
Nghkwakol
lo>lc organka.
Cl>14.
* 2
Som. highly
organic muck.
Nghk*M*>o1
kxlcorganlca.
Cl> 14.
• 2
Som* highly
organic muck.
Nghkwabot
•Mfc organka.
Cl> 14.
• 2
Sam* nighty
organic muck.
hkjh knwfc of
Kntc organic*.
CUM.
Shore
Type
' 1
Alrrai
comptoMly
Oavalopad
IndudrWIy.
•Kh bulkhoad*
andpton.
* 1
Almaat
compWary
d«iralop«i1
NHh bulktwad*
andpam.
* 2
FakryhaavUy
bulkhaada.
* 3
15-30%
natural. wMi
•am* land
baach.mora
rfaraplhan
bulkhaad.
* 3
15-30%
natural. w»h
lomaiand
baach. mora
rfcxao than
bulkhaad.
Substrate
Type
* 1
UnMatato
lubitrataln
moMol
Mibaraa. V*cy
io«. almoii
Ruld.mudor
HI.
* 2
Somawhal
compactad
mud or in. but
matfHy
ratmpandwl
by vaiiol iratflc
* 3
nabl* lubiirata
throughout
*uDaraa.but
modal
mtauaMol
onatypa(ill.
* 3
RaWrrary
etabk) *ub*iral*
throughout
*ubaraa,bul
mono)
mburalaot
on* lypa (til.
* 3
Rctulvaly
MablaiubMial*
throughout
*ubar*a. but
mo*tot
tubslrae ol
one lype (si«.
Turbidity
* 1
>100mg/l
* 2
6O-100mg/l
* 3
40-60 mo/1
* 3
4040 mgA
* 3
40-60 mo/l
Vegetative
Habitat
• 1
NoSAVor
•margart
ihoraUna
vagMaUonln
araa.
* 1
NoSAVor
amargant
ihorallna
vagatatlonln
araa.
* 1
NoSAVor
arrogant
thorckna
vagatatlonin
WML
* 2
Occasional
patch** olSAV
or*marg*nt
vagatatlonor
hailonc
occurancaol
SAV.
* 3
Occasional
patchMotSAV
andmodwata
•mwgw*
vooxaiion
Wat Col.
Metals
' 1
Uvalotany
haavy metal
oocatkmaay at
orwcaadlng
known LCSO
(aval.
• 2
Lavaiofany
haavy matal
occaalonaly at
ora»caadlng
EPA'* acula
crtujfl*.
* 2
Laval ot any
haavy matal
oocailonaly at
or axoaaolng
EPA'* acul*
cmarkL
' 2
level at any
haavy metal
occailonaly at
or an o««dlng
EPA'* acute
crkarla.
' 2
Level ol any
haavy metal
occMionaly at
oreacaedlng
EPA'i acut*
critwia.
-------
Table 3
Minimum Parameter Levels Required To
Attain Each Use Level
Key parameters indicated with an asterisk (*)
Swimming
Parameters
Use
Levels
Mofw eWftom
bacteriological
oonta mlnal ton
(>400
ooatorrrVIOOml)
end/or
^appropriate
None; bacterial
oontamlnallon
(>200
ooaVxm/100 ml)
anoVor
undesirable
fcndscape
Some water
MermMent
bacteriological
conumMlton
l>aoo
ooHomYlOO ml)
permhed;
occasional
contamination
exceeding 200
oostornVlOO ml
Swimming
perrntoed. no
oontamtnatlon
(ooUtorm level*
<200/100 ml).
appropriate
lurroundingi
Bacteria
gtatus
* ^
ConsWentV
>200
coMomVlOO ml
(U.. by* (actor
o(2>.
* 2
afc
Continently
>200oollorm
/tOO rrt;
however.
enceedences
are no greater
IhanZSO
• a
w
Frequently
>200
coMomVtOOml
soaitorequie
closing ot area
• A
•*
>200
ooMormHOO ml
* e
coMornVtOO ml
Boat
Traflic
* 1
large marinas
praaent.
* .4
shipping and/or
large marinas
present.
' 2
4b
charms*
and/or
numerous
ami ot large
marinas.
* 2
eV
Minor shipping
channels
and/or
numerous
•mil or large
marinas.
* 3
•a?
No more than 1
large marina
and no more
than 2 tmall
mervias snovor
no shipping.
pissolved
Qxvgen
* 1
Occasionally
during p*rt of
t>eyear.
* 1
Occasionally
reaches 0 mo/1
dursigpaitol
* 2
mg/l more t\an
60% of tie time.
* 2
At or below 2
mg/l more tian
S0% of tie time
* 3
»»T
Pr edging Enrichment
frequency Lftyjl
1 * 1
Yearly Total nkrogeti
100-3BO mgrt
or total
phosphorus
'
1 ' 1
Yearly Total nkrooan
100-320 n«yl
or total
phosphorus
13-44 mo/1.
1 * 2
Yearly Total nt/ogon
total
phosphorus
0.4-12 mgrt.
1 * 3
Vvarty Total ntrogen
1-8 mg/l or total
phosphorus
0.14-.g8 mgfl.
1 * 3
Yearly Total fltrogen
0.14-.98 mjyi
Floating
Pebria
* 1
He«y*
debris prejeent
and/or oil
sheen.
M
Heavy
Industrial
and/or oH
sheen.
* 3
Some natural
(wood, etc.)
and/or
sometimes
sight ol sheen.
* 4
Occasional
wood or otter
natural debris;
no 0* sheen.
* 5
No debris or a«
sheen.
{Sediment
Pollution
* 1
Highly or gar*
muck, high
levasi o) Me
organlca.
Contamination
mdea (Cl)>14
predorrtnam In
* 1
Wohty organic
muck, high
levels ol tonic
organlcs.
Contamination
MkntaaM ki
ptaoannam
• 4
No evidence ol
organic
oonlamkMUon
(natural or
talc). 014-14.
* 4
No evidence at
organic
QOflCanenatton
(natural or
toxic). CI4-14.
* 4
No evidence ot
organic
(natural or
loxfc) CI4-14.
Shore
Type
* 1
Almost
compMery
developed
Industrially.
with bulkheads
•ndpters.
* 1
Almost
CompkMly
developed
Industrially,
wkhbulUiaads
and piers.
* 2
Fairly heavDy
developed wNh
buKhaadr
* 2
FaMy heavily
developed wkh
bulkhaads.
* 3
15-30%
natural, with
beach, more
riprap than
bulkhead.
Substrate
Type Turbidity
* 1 * 1
Unstable >IOO mg/l
substrate In
rroslot
subarea. Very
soft, almost
fluid, mud or
slk.
* 1 * 1
Unatabtat >100 m0A
•utetraietn
rntwt of
•ubafM. Vary
IMd. mod of
•ifc
. 2 * 2
Somewhat 60-100 mg/l
compacted
mud or sit. but
readily
by vessel (rattle
4 3 * 2
Relatively 00-100 mg/l
stable substrate
throughout
BubanM.but
most of
substrate ot
• 4 * 3
Onesubsvata 40-60 mg/l
type (mud, «H
shell, sand)
Dominant In
subarM.but
small patches
ol olher lypee
Vegetative
tlaiaiai
1
NoSAVor
emergant
shorellrw
vegaudlonln
area.
1
NoSAVor
emergent
shoreline
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
emergent
shoreline
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
emergent
shoreline
vegetation In
area.
1
NoSAVor
•merger*
sho/aUne
vegetation In
area.
Wat Col.
Metals
* 1
Leva! ol any
heavy metal
occasional? at
or exceeding
known LC60
level.
* ^
1
Lave* ol any
heavy metal
occasional at
or exceeding
known LCfiO
level.
4 A
3
Frequently at
EPA't chronic
criteria.
* 4
3
Frequently at
EPA's chronic
criteria.
* 3
Frequently at
EPA's chronic
crtorlL
-------
Appendix C presents an expanded version of Table 4 that includes detailed
parameter information. This table also lists the known parameter levels for each subarca as
evaluated from the data, and the implied minimum parameter levels for each Preferred Use,
allowing us to compare the implied minimum parameters for the Preferred Uses with the
"known" data levels for those parameters.
We used this expanded table to identify research needed to determine quality levels
for parameters in specific subareas and to help to set priorities for parameter data collection.
We based these priorities on the current availability of data and our confidence in that data.
We also used this table to identify which parameters were limiting the attainment of the
Preferred Use levels by comparing the Preferred Use implied minimum parameter levels
with the parameter levels indicated by the data.
The actual parameters in each of the subareas may be higher than the minimums
implied by the Current Use. For instance, most parameters may favor a high level of
swimming use, but if fecal colifonn counts are consistently above public health standards,
no swimming can be allowed. In such a case, that one parameter is the limiting factor to
attaining the Preferred Use level. By improving that parameter, we can achieve the
potential implied by the other parameters.
The "known" data levels are intended to be conservative averages of conditions
within each subarea. If data are not available, we made informed judgements of their
levels. We believe that the data levels are representative of current conditions, and
furthermore, that they are accurate in terms of relative conditions from subarea to subarea.
3f Summary of Analytical Results for Baltimore Harbor
Table 5, Summary of Analytical Results for Baltimore Harbor, represents the final
tabulation of primary research and improvements needed for parameters in order to achieve
the Preferred Uses in Baltimore Harbor.
38
-------
Table 4
Current and Preferred Uses
by Subarea
Area
1 Upper Middle Branch
Lower Middle Branch
Northwest Branch
Activity/Use Status
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Current
4hUU_M
4 Contaminated (exceed* FDA Action Level) and sickly
(totem)
2 Few fish, 1 to 2 speck*
4 Water column and sediments contaminated, no shelter
4 None—no accett
•j Norn, or contamlnaled and sickly
Preferred
A SlIgM tainting (flavor Impairment but no measurable
contaminants)
A Moderate number*. 4+ ipedes
A Water column and wdlmentt o( acceptable quality but
Irnrled shelter
A Shore contact and anchorage available, no water
contact
A Plentiful; no more than trace contamination
I ^
n None; bacterial contamination <>200 lecal eoHtornVlOO ml) o Some waler contact, Internment bacteriological
and/of undatable landscape contamination (>200 lecal oott(omV100 ml)
2 Slight contamination, occasional lesions
4 None
4 Water column and sediments contamlnaled, no shelter
o Some recreational boating. Ittle shore contact or
anchorage available, no water contact
^ None, or contaminated and slddy
« Norn; bacterial contamination (>200 fecal coHfomVlOO ml;
and/or undesirable landscape
4 Contaminated (exceed* FDA Action Level) and sickly
(Mora)
•j None
4 Water column and sediment* contaminated, no shelter
2 Boats In transit, no anchorage, no shore contact, no water
contact
-j None, or contamlnaled and sickly
4 None; serious bacteriological contamination MOO lecal
colrfomVIOOmr) and/or Inappropriate landscape
A Slight tainting (flavor Impairment but no maasuiable
contaminants)
A Moderate number*. 4* spade*
o Water column and sediment* ol acceptable quality but
no shelter
o Some recreational boating, little shore contact or
anchorage available, no water contact
o Scarce; no more than trace contamination
o Some water contact; tntermfttenl bacteriological
contamination (>200 lecal coH1omV100 ml)
o Slight conumlnatlon (exceeds FDA Advisory) no
lesion*
•j Moderate nvimber*. 2 to 3 specie*
2 Water column acceptable but sediment* contaminated
and no shelter
A Shore contact and anchorage available, no water
contact
o Scarce; no more than trace contamination
4 None; serious bacteriological contamination (>4OO
lecal colHomvfOOmO and/or Inappropriate landscape
-------
Table 4 (cont'd)
Current and Preferred Uses
by Subarea
Area
Middle Harbor
5 Curtis Bay and Creek
6 Marley Creek/Furnace
Creek
Activity/Use Status
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Current
2 Slight contamination, occasional lesions
* None
4 Water column and sediments contaminated, no shelter
r> Some recreational boating, lltlto ihore contact or
0 anchorage available, no water contact
None.« oonummaled and sIcUy
Preferred
o Slight contamination (exceeds FDA Advisory) no
0 lesions
n Moderate numbera, 2 to 3 specie*
o Water column acceptable but sediments contaminated
and no shelter
A Shore contact and anchorage available, no water
contact
2 Scarce or plentiful; some contamination
o None- bacterial contamHaOon (>200 fecal coMomVlOO ml; o Norw; bacterial contamination (>200 lecal
f- ___,' ....._i_u.i i.^~~. mtthvnvtoo mt\ «noV« undatlrable landsi
and/or undesirable landscape
2 Slight contamination, occasional lesion*
2 Few fish. 110 2 species
., Waterfdumn and sedlmentsconiamlnated.no shelter
o Some recreational boating. ««* shore contact or
0 anchorage available, no water contact
o Scarce; no more than trace contairtnatton
9 Nc«;baderWax«an*>«ton(>a»lecal(X>llfoniV100(ni;
^ and/or undesirable landscape
2 SUght contamination, occasional Mora
2 Fewflsn, 1to2*psde»
1100 ml) and/oi undesirable landscape
2 Slight contamination, occasional lesions
o Moderate numbers, 2 to 3 species
A Water column and sediments of acceptable quality but
limited shelter
A Shore contact and anchorage available, no water
contact
o Scarce; no more than trace contamination
o Some water contact; Intermittent bacteriological
° contamination (>20Q tecaJ oolHomV100 ml)
c Heathy and dean
A Moderate numbers, 4* species
Water column acapiable but sediments contaminated ane 3 Water column and sediments of acceptable quaMy but
nosnetor no **•»•*
x Shore contact and anchorage available, no water contact
4
3 Scarce; no more than trace comamlnaMon
9 None- bacterial cortamhatlon <>200 lecal oolllomVlOO rnT,
^ and/or undesirable landscape
c Optimum conditions with shore contact and anchorage
available and water contact permuted
5 Plentiful, healthy, and dean
A Swimming permitted; occasional contamination
exceeding 200 fecal cdltomYlOO ml
-------
Table 4 (cont'd)
Current and Preferred Uses
by Subarea
Area
Lower Bear Creek
8 Upper Bear Creek
Outer Harbor
Activitv/Usa Status
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Currant
2 Slight contamination, occasional Mora
None
Preferred
2 Slight contamination, occasional lesion*
2 Fewtteh, 1to 2 species
r Water quality and sediments acceptable and adequate
a shelter
A Shore contact and anchorage available, no water
contact
O Scarce or plentiful: some contamination
A Water column and sediments contaminated, no shefter
o Some recreational boaftifl. Mite shore contact or
anchorage available, no water contact
< Nora, or contamkialed end sickly
n None; bacterial contamktatlon (>200 tecal colNomV100 mi; c Swimming permitted; no contamination (fecal cdltorm
and/or undMir^>le'land&croe lewai* *>otw\nt\ mi\ mvnnrlafA AurrAundlrwu
2 Slight contamination, occasional tesions
4 None
^ Water column and sediments contaminated, no shelter
o Some recreational boating, little shore contact or
anchorage available, no water contact
1 None, or contaminated and sIcHy
n None; bacterial contamhatton (>200 (ecaJ coWomVlOO mi; o Some water contact; Intermittent bacteriological
and/or undesirable landscape contamination (>200 fecal collfomVlOO ml)
3 SllgMoonlaininalton (exceeds FDA Axfctaory) no lesions 5 Healthy and clean
g Moderate numbers. 2 to 3 species 5 Many species, plentiful numbers
o Water column acceptable but sediments contaminated anc A Water column and sediment* ot acceptable quality but
* no shelter Imlted shelter
o Some recreational boatktg. little shore contact or 4 Shore contact and anchorage available, no water
** anchorage available, no water contact contact
o Scarce; no more than trace conta/rtnatton c PtentHul. heahhy, and dean
O "
levels <20
-------
Table 4 (cont'd)
Current and Preferred Uses
by Subarea
10
ftrea
Stoney Creek
11
Rock Creek
12
Old Road Bay
Activitv/Use Status
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Current
2 SttgM; bacteria! contamination (>200 fecal coHformMOO ml)
2 Sttght comamlnaUon. occattonal Iwtont
2 F«wflih. HoZtpacta
/> w«wc*mnacc«publ«but»«lln»nt»oonl«mlnate<)anc
^ nottwtor
o Somt wcraallonal boattnu. Uttto ihom oonlacl or
0 ancnorag* avaUat*. no watw contact
3 Scare*; no mow than MOB contamination
p HOM; baclwtal conlamlnaUon (>20Q lacal colHomVlOO ml;
^ and/or undwWWa landtcapa
2 SHgM contairtoatlon. ocotlonal iMkxw
1 Nona
4 W»w column and »adliT»nt»conUjrinal«), no thaltar
o sorna racraallonal boating. Unto «hor» contad or
4 anchoragaavallabla, no watar contact
^ Nora, woonumkiatad and ilcMy
o Nona; bacMrW contamination (>200 tocal ooMomVlOO at,
and/or undaalrabla landtcap*
o Some recreational boating, little shore contact or
° anchorage avallabto. no water contact
c Plentiful, healthy, and dean
A Swimming permlned; occasional contamination
exceeding ZOO fecal coHfomviOO ml
A Stlflht tainting (llavoc Inpalrnwm but no mMturabto
contaminants)
4 Modarata number*. 4+ tpedei
2 W«lw column »ccept«blebu»«dlrnenlsconlanT(nal<»d
andnothaltaf
o Some recreational boating, IMto shore contact or
anchorage available, no water contact
A PteotHul; no more than trace contamination
X Swimming permitted; occasional contamination
exceeding 200 fecal colHomVlOO ml
A SlgM tainting (Mayor Impairment but no maaauraMe
contamlnamt)
A Moderate numbers. 4+ species
4 Water column and sediments contaminated, no shekel
o Some recreational boating, llnle shore contact or
anchorage avsjlable. no water contact
A Plentiful; no more than trace contamination
A Swimming permitted; occasional contamination
exceeding 200 fecal ooHlomvlOO ml
-------
Table 4 (cont'd)
Current and Preferred Uses
by Subarea
13
Cox Creek
Activity/Use Status
Fish Quality
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Habitat
Recreational Boating
Recreational Crabbing
Swimming
Current
2 SNgM conuminaUon. occasional Mont
2 FewfMi. 1lo2*pede»
2 WaUr column acceptable but tedlmenu contaminated anc
no»heter
o Sam* recreational bowing. MUe *hon contaa w
mchono* malWMB. no «MM contact
o SCKO*. no mar* than van conUunlnaMon
o
Preferred
A Slight tainting (flavor Impairment but no mMeurable
contaminant!)
t Moderate numbara, 4*
o Walw column and udlmwit* o» »cc«pwbto qually but
0 no>h«hor
^ Shore contact and ancnofag* available, no water
contact
A Plentiful; no more than trace conlamlnallon
fecalcoitomvtooml
U)
-------
Figure 4
Baltimore Harbor
Current Use Levels for Rsh
Quality
Upper
Middle
Branch
Northwest
Branch
Itarley
Creek/
Furnace
Creek
Some portions of a Harbor
subarea may have a higher Use
Quality level than the average
values shown.
110
Stony
Creek
NAUTICAL MILES
Uee Quality Levels
] S HMtthy and et«an
• '
• '
I 1 Somu contamination and t««ion« In aom* ap*cl*a
-
-------
Figure 5
Baltimore Harbor
Current Use Levels for
Fish Quantity/Diversity
Mertoy
Cr««k/
Furnace
Creek
Some portions of a Harbor
subarea may have a higher Use
Quality level than the average
values shown.
Us* Quelity Levele
I—I S Many tpcclM, ptontHul numbara
NAUTICAL MILES
1 Very f«w
45
-------
Figure 6
Baltimore Harbor
Current U»« Levels for Habitat
Upper
Middle
Branch
Northwest
Branch
•Marley
Creek/
Furnace
Creek
Some portions of a Harbor
subarea may have a higher Use
Quality level than the average
values shown.
10
Stony
Creek
46
-------
Figure 7
Baltlnore Harbor
Current Use Levels for
Recreational Boating
Upper
Middle
Branch
Northwest
Branch
Warty
Creak/
Furnace
Creak
Some portions of a Harbor
subarea may have a higher Use
Quality level than the average
values shown.
0
1 2 3
I I I
NAUTICAL MILES
Use Quality Levels
J 5 Optimum
l*pl 4
• a
|2
• 1 Minimal
•
-------
Figure 8
Baltimore Harbor
Current Use Levels for
Recreational Crabbing
Upper
Middle
Branch
Northwest
Branch
ttarley
Creek/
Furnace
Creek
Some portions of a Harbor
subarea may have a higher Us
Quality level than the average
values shown.
Use Quality Levels
] 5 Plentiful, healthy, and clean
NAUTICAL MILES
1 Scare*, and torn* contamination
48
-------
Figure 9
Baltimore Harbor
Current Use Levels for
Swimming
Upper
Middle
Branch
Northwest
Branch
•Merley
Creek/
Furnace
Creek
Some portions of a Harbor
subarea may have a higher Use
Quality level than the average
values shown.
NAUTICAL MILES
Use Quality Levels
D5 Swimming permitted; meet* State standards with appropriate
surrounding*
• '
• '
• 1 Swimming prohibited became of contamination or Inapproprlsts
surrounding*
49
-------
We derived this table from the table presented in Appendix C. Appendix C shows
the current and Preferred Uses for each subarea, along with the implied minimum
parameter levels associated with each use level. Appendix C also shows the parameter
levels indicated by the data and notes where parameter data for a particular subarea are not
available.
Using Appendix C, we derived Table 5 using the following rules:
1. Table 5 lists only those parameters that are considered key. for a given use
level.
2. If no data are available for a key parameter, then the parameter and the
subarea are flagged as a potential research priority, "Rl."
3. If no improvement is needed—i.e., if the current known parameter is equal
to or better than the implied minimum level required by the Preferred Use—
Table 5 indicates this by "OK."
4. If the Preferred Use minimum level for a key parameter is higher than the
known data level, then Table 5 indicates the necessary increase to achieve
the Preferred Use levels (e.g., +2 means that the parameter quality needs to
be raised two levels). These numbers do not indicate any precise
relationship in the level of effort required to achieve the preferred uses.
More detailed study is needed to determine this level of effort
Because this table is based on the Preferred Use levels, and because the Preferred
Use levels are the goals of the jurisdictions, the amount of needed improvement as
indicated in the table for each use in each area will vary according to the jurisdiction's
goals.
A review of Table 5 shows that water column metals data is not available for any of
the thirteen harbor subareas. Since water column metals is a significant parameter for all
six uses, this should be considered an important data collection need. The next most
important data needs are enrichment and sediment pollution which are significant for all six
uses, and have no data available in four subareas. These are followed by turbidity, for
which data is missing in three subareas.
50
-------
Where we have data, it appears that habitat will require the most number of
parameter improvements to achieve the stated preferred use levels in all areas (sum of the
number of parameters needing improvement). Recreational boating appears to need the
least number of parameter improvements. More detailed study is needed to determine the
level of effort or cost required to achieve the preferred use levels.
51
-------
Table S
Summary ol Analytical Results For Baltimore Harbor
OK • Parameter level acceptable
11 m Parameter level needs minor upgrade (1 level)
+2. *3, +4 m Parameter needs major upgrade
ft. No dam avaMtle-frirrmyreteardt priority
Summary of Status
Of All Harbor Subaraa*
use
Rih Quality
Flih Quantity/
Diversity
Habitat
1
Upper
Middle
Bacteriological Status
Qssorved Oxygen
Eml»it>Mi*»t 1 «M*a^
nncnrnviH Lvmi
Floating Debris
Sediment Pokition
Substrate Typa
Turbidity
Water Column Metal*
Boat Traffic
Dissolved Oxygen
Dredging Frequency
Enrichment Level
Floating Debris
Sadirrwnt Pofcjtion
Shore Typa
Substrata Typa
Turbidity
Vegetatve Habitat
Walar Column Metal*
Bacteriological Status
Boat Traffic
Ossolved Oxygen
Dredging Frequency
Enrichment Level
Floating Debris
Sediment Pollution
Shore Type
Substrate Type
Turbidity
Vegetative Habitat
Water Column Metals
+ 1
OK
R
+1
OK
R
+2
R
OK
OK
OK
R
4-1
OK
+2
R
+2
+1
R
OK
+1
OK
OK
R
+3
+1
+3
R
»3
+2
R
2
Lower
+1
OK
+1
OK
+2
+ 1
OK
R
OK
OK
OK
+1
OK
+2
OK
+1
OK
4-1
R
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
+1
+3
OK
+1
OK
+1
R
3
North-
west
+2
+3
+2
OK
+2
+2
+2
R
+1
+3
+1
+2
OK
42
+1
+1
+1
OK
R
+1
+ 1
OK
+1
+ 1
OK
OK
OK
+ 1
OK
+ 1
R
4 5 e 7 g g 10 11 12 13 Number Number Number
Middle Curtis Martey Lower Upper Outer Stoney Rock Old Road Cox Number Needing Needing Needing
Harbor Bay and Furnace Bear Bear Harbor Creek Creek Bay Creek of Areas Minor Major. Research
Creek Creek Creek Creek W Upgrade Uporade Effort
*1 OK *2 OK OK OK +2 +1 OK H 5 4 3 1
+10K+20KOKOK+1ROKR 7 2 2 2
OKOKOKOKOK+1R H+2R 5 2 2 4
OKOKROKOKOKOKOKOKOK11 1 0 1
+20KROKOKOKH R+2R 5 0 4 4
+1ROKOKOKOKOKOK+10K7 3 1 2
OKOKOKOKOKOKR ROKR 8 0 2 3
RRRRRRR-RRR00013
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK12 1 0 0
*1 +1 +2 OK OK OK +1 R OK R 6 3 2 2
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK12 1 0 0
OK OK OK OK OK +1 R H+2H 5 2 2 4
OKOKROKOKOKOKOKOKOK11 1 0 1
+2 OK R *1 *1 OK R R +2 R 3 2 4 4
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK11 1 1 0
OKROKOKOK*10KOK+10K7 4 0 2
OKOKOKOKOKOKH HOKR 8 1 1 3
OK OK +1 OK OK +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 5 6 2 0
RRRRRRRRRR00013
OKOKOK*10KOKOKOKOKR102 0 1
OK+lOK*30Kt20KOKOKOKe 3 2 0
OK+1+1*20KOKOKROKR 8 2 1 2
OKOKOK*20KOKOKOKOKOK11 1 1 0
OK +1 OK +2 +1 +1 R R OK R 4 4 1 4
OK +2 R +1 +1 +1 OK OK OK OK 6 4 2 1
OK+1R+3+30KR ROKR 4 2 3 4
OK +1 OK +2 OK +1 OK OK OK OK 9 2 2 0
OKROK+3+2+10KOKOKOK6 3 2 2
OKOKOKOKOKOKR ROKR 9 0 1 3
+1 +2 *1 +3 +2 +2 OK OK OK tl 3 5 5 0
RRRRRRRRRR00013
-------
Table 5
Summary ol Analytical Reeulla For Baltimore Harbor
OK , Parameter level acceptable
+» - Parameter level needs minor upgrade (1 level)
+2.+3,*4- Parameter need* major upgrade
fl- No data available—primary re»earcti priority
Summary of Status
Of All Harbor Subareas
Recreational
Boating
Recreational
Crabbing
Swimming
1
Upper
Middle
Bacteriological Status
Boat Traffic
Dissolved Oxygen
Enrichment Level
Floating Debris
Sediment Pollution
Shore Type
Substrate Type
Turbidity
Water Column Metals
Boat Traffic
Dissolved Oxygen
Dredging Frequency
Enrichment Level
Floating Debris
Sediment PoUuBon
Shore Type
Substrate Type
Turbidity
Vegetative Habitat
Water Column Metals
Bacteriological Status
Boat Traffic
Dssdved Oxygen
Enrichment Level
Floating Debris
Sediment Pollution
Shore Type
Substrate Type
Turbidity
Water Column Metals
OK
OK
OK
R
+2
OK
+1
R
OK
R
OK
OK
OK
R
+1
OK
+2
R
+2
OK
R
+1
OK
OK
R
+2
+1
+1
R
+1
R
2
Lower
Middle
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
R
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
+1
OK
+1
OK
OK
R
+1
OK
OK
OK
+1
+3
OK
OK
OK
R
3
North-
wrest
OK
+2
+1
+2
+1
OK
*1
+2
OK
R
OK
+2
+2
+2
OK
+1
+1
+2
+2
OK
R
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
R
4
Middle
Harbor
OK
OK
OK
OK
+1
OK
OK
+1
OK
R
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
+1
OK
OK
OK
OK
R
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
R
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Number Number Number
Curtis Martoy Lower Upper Outer Stoney Rock Old Road Cox Number Needing Needing Needing
Bay and Furnace Bear Bear Ha/bor Creek Creek Bay Creek of Areas Minor Major. Research
Creek Creek Creek Creek W Uporade Upgrade Effort
OK+20KOKOKOKOKOKR110 1 1
OK OK +1 OK +1 OK OK OK OK 10 2 1 0
OKOKOKOKOKOKROKR 10 1 0 2
OKOKOKOKOKR ROKR 8 0 1 4
+1ROKOKOKOKOKOKOK8 3 1 1
OKHOKOKOKR ROKR 9 0 0 4
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK11 2 0 0
ROK+1+10KOKOKOKOK7 3 1 2
OKOKOKOKOKR ROKR100 0 3
RRRRRRRRR00013
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK13 0 0 0
OK+20KOKOK+1HOKR 8 1 2 2
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK120 1 0
OK OK OK OK +1 R R +2 R 6 1 2 4
OKROKOKOKOKOKOKOK11 1 0 1
OKR+1»10KRR+1R3604
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK11 1 1 0
ROKOKOKOKOKOK+10K8 2 1 2
OKOKOKOKOKR ROKR 8 0 2 3
OK +1 OK OK +1 +1 OK OK OK 10 3 0 0
HRHRRRRHR°0013
OK +2 43 OK OK +2 +2 OK R 6 2 4 1
OK OK +1 OK +1 OK OK OK OK 11 2 0 0
OKOKOKOKOKOKROKR 11 0 0 2
OKOKOKOKOKR R +1 R 8 1 0 4
+1 R +2 OK +2 OK OK +1 OK 6 3 3 1
+1R*3+30K'RR+3R3244
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK12 1 0 0
R OK +2 OK -fi OK OK +1 OK 8 2 1 2
OKOKOKOKOKR ROKR 9 1 0 3
RRRRRRRRR00013
-------
IH. BLUEPRINT RECOMMENDATIONS
In developing, evaluating, and working with the matrix, we identified a number of
recommendations for improving our understanding of the harbor and improving its quality.
These represent the core of the Baltimore Harbor Blueprint and are outlined below. Our
matrix and strategy are intended to help organize thinking about harbor management. They
should, together with consideration of resource, organizational, and political factors, and
important industrial uses, help to guide the development and implementation of harbor
management plans. Thus, these recommendations should be seen as a starting point.
Some jurisdictions are already planning to implement specific activities which are
intended to improve parameter quality. We have listed these improvement activities by
subarea in Appendix D. Our intention is to note that these projects should help the
jurisdictions to move toward their Preferred Uses in the various subareas.
A. Research Recommendations
1. Investigate Use and Parameter Relationships
In developing the matrix and Blueprint, we used our best professional judgment to
identify the relationships between uses and parameters. We identified some relationships
that we believe could be better clarified through research. We recommend the following for
study.
(1) Dissolved Oxygen and Enrichment. Investigate the relationship of
dissolved oxygen levels and enrichment levels. After reviewing these
parameters in light of various use levels, we believe that higher ratings for
the enrichment level parameter than implied may be required to reach the
necessary dissolved oxygen levels.
(2) Boat Traffic. Investigate the relationship of the boat traffic parameter to
uses, particularly to habitat use and recreational boating. We identified the
boat traffic parameter as limiting for habitat and boating uses in several
subareas. This suggests that improvement of these uses is not possible in
these areas because of the number of marinas located there or the presence
of shipping channels. Since improvement of the other significant
parameters seems possible in these areas, it is vital to make sure that boat
traffic is really a limiting factor. Also consider alternative ways of
54
-------
measuring boat traffic. Rather than number of marinas, a more accurate
measure may be the number of boat slips per square mile, or per mile of
shoreline.
In conducting our data gathering for the matrix, we identified many individual data
gaps. We also believe that more comprehensive sampling and research efforts are needed
to yield a more complete and accurate characterization of harbor conditions. We also
believe that the results of this research could be used to refine the definitions and
relationships specified in the matrix. We therefore recommend the following studies:
2. Conduct Comprehensive Biological Study
Design and conduct a comprehensive biological study of current conditions in
Baltimore Harbor. The study should specifically compare current conditions with the
findings of the 1972 biological study done by the University of Maryland. Many pollution
control regulations have been implemented since the 1972 study, and it is extremely
important to know whether these have improved the biotic conditions of the harbor. More
sampling stations for conventional pollutants are needed, and more frequent metals
sampling is needed.
Continue the current water quality modeling effort of the Maryland Department of
the Environment. This effort should help clarify our understanding of what factors or
conditions will affect parameter quality and the extent of their influence. This will help us
to specify effective control options. For example, the Baltimore Harbor Water Quality
Model could be effectively used to develop a nutrient and dissolved oxygen management
plan for the harbor. To support this effort we need to develop more and better located
sampling points. The Maryland Department of the Environment should set up a timetable
for completion of this work.
4 Conduct Water Column Bioqfrg?v to Assess Toxics
Make arrangements with the Maryland Department of the Environment to develop
and implement a water column bioassay testing program to assess the cumulative toxicity in
55
-------
various regions of Baltimore Harbor, and to explore the use of stress protein research.
There is a lack of specific data concerning the toxicity of harbor waters. Although organic
and inorganic toxic contaminants in the water column are often below detection limits, they
have the potential to accumulate in fish tissue. One promising method to pursue indirect
means of analyzing water column contamination is through bioassays; of particular interest
is recent work on analyzing stress proteins in fish.
B. Improvement Recommendations
We present methods for improving two related parameters. We recommend that
these methods be considered along with other parameter improvement projects. These
projects should be considered as part of a harbor management plan developed within the
context of a comprehensive decision-making process, as shown in Figure 10.
1. Improve Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Many of the subareas experience dissolved oxygen (DO) sags in at least some
places during the warmer months of the year. In addition to the recommendations
presented below regarding bacterial contamination (a contributing factor to DO sags, both
of which are affected by nutrient levels), we recommend reducing stormwater runoff and/or
improving its water quality to raise DO levels. One method to achieve this would be to
install stormwater management facilities on major sewer interceptors. Another method
would be to develop an industrial runoff program encouraging best management practices
on industrial properties.
Conditions in the harbor bottom will strongly influence DO levels. Measures to
improve the bottom environment and flushing characteristics should be evaluated. Possible
methods include bottom seating, selective dredging to remove pollution hot spots, and in
situ chemical oxidation of contaminated sediments.
56
-------
Figure 10
Harbor Matrix and Blueprint In the Decision-making Process
UM tntiMHttUoti to Mfln0 nuotv
Wantlfy Jurtadkatooa1 Priontlaa
and Qoalator Subantaa m Tarma
of Uaaa. Conaldar Currant Uaaa of
Harbor That May Aflaot Thaaa Goala.
NMdMl Pwwiwur Lm*
ToAcM«v*UMQo nUn* ma*tr
' Ttia raauta ot paramaa* data oolacllon and raaulta ol Inprovanwnt
praiaela should laad Into raaaarcti of caua«-and-^taet ralationititpt.
Raauto ot al thraa should laad Into Inlomution matrti.
57
-------
2. Reduce Bacterial Contamination
Many of the harbor subareas fail to meet the desired recreational use (Swimming
and Boating) levels because of bacterial contamination. Some methods to improve this
condition include the following:
(1) Reduce sewage spills from pumping stations.
(2) Eliminate failing septic tank systems.
(3) Fix sewage leaks and overflows. This will probably involve repairing the
sewer conveyance system and eliminating the connections of roof drains
and sump pumps to reduce sewage inputs from older conveyance systems.
C. Blueprint Implementation
Our matrix and Blueprint have identified some of the next steps for improving the
harbor. The matrix and Blueprint should be used to develop and implement a management
plan for Baltimore Harbor. The following recommendations are intended to facilitate that
process.
1. Form a Technical and. Management Committee and Implement Strategy
We strongly recommend that an implementation committee, including
representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, be formed to carry out the
other recommendations of this study. This group should further develop the analysis
begun here—refine the matrix and more fully develop the Blueprint. It should:
• refine use and parameter relationships,
• define the causative factors that influence parameter levels, and
• identify actions to be taken to improve parameter conditions.
• identify research needs and design appropriate research projects,
• identify organizations and funding sources to do research,
• set priorities for improvement actions to achieve the greatest improvement
for the effort expended,
58
-------
• urge jurisdictions to take action on the various recommendations made now
and in the future,
• chart progress toward achievement of goals,
• revise goals and objectives in the light of new data and public preferences,
• cooperate with other groups, such as the Living Resources Task Force of
the Chesapeake Bay Program, to coordinate research and improvement
activities, and
• identify and work toward needed legislation for improvement of the harbor.
Our matrix and Blueprint are the starting point for harbor improvement They allow
us, and future users, to evaluate the harbor in an organized and logical manner, and help to
set priorities for research and improvement activities to achieve the most effective use of
available resources. The committee can further increase cost-effectiveness by coordinating
research and improvement activities among jurisdictions.
In working with the matrix, we identified and made a significant number of
refinements in the use and parameter definitions and in the relationships between uses and
parameters. We believe that the matrix can be further refined and improved through its use
in the management of Baltimore Harbor. It may be beneficial to analyze the harbor using
smaller subareas to achieve finer resolution. Although smaller subareas would require
more data, the finer resolution would allow for more focused management. The matrix can
also be further developed by identifying more precisely how specific improvement activities
will affect parameter quality levels. Research and improvement activities may provide
information to refine our understanding of the harbor system—both use/parameter
relationships and the factors that control parameters—which may in turn help us to specify
more focused research and more effective improvement strategies.
We believe that it would be beneficial to work with the Living Resources Task
Force to refine the matrix, especially the relationships tables, since the Task Force is
developing habitat requirements for various aquatic species.
59
-------
2. Develop and Implement Local Bav Agreement to Focus on Improvement of
Baltimore Harbor
In 1983, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which
committed the signatories to work together to protect the waters of the Bay. In May 1984,
the State of Maryland, Baltimore City, the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford,
Howard, and Carroll, the Water Quality Coordinating Committee, and the Regional
Planning Council signed the Chesapeake Bay Local/Regional/State Partnership Agreement,
pledging to work together to restore and maintain the Bay's ecological integrity (see
Appendix D). The 1983 Chesapeake Bay agreement was renewed in 1987, with ambitious
goals proposed cleaning up the Bay.
We recommend that the local agreement be similarly renewed, and that it focus on
improving conditions in Baltimore Harbor. The Blueprint implementation committee
should develop an agreement for harbor improvement to parallel the Bay agreement. The
committee should meet with key officials in each jurisdiction and specify tasks or goals for
jurisdictions to attain. The committee and the jurisdictions should work together to set
priorities considering costs and expected improvements. This process should formally
establish Preferred Use levels for harbor subareas. The committee should cooperate with
or assist jurisdictions in achieving the agreement's goals.
D. Recommendations for Individual Subareas
Our recommendations for individual subareas are based on our findings for needed
parameter data and improvement of parameter quality levels, as summarized in Table 5.
While we set some very general priorities for data collection, we have not attempted to set
specific priorities or specify individual projects either between or among data collection,
general research, and parameter improvement projects. These priorities should be set
considering not only our matrix and Blueprint, but also the amount and type of resources
available to the jurisdictions, and the political and organizational opportunities or obstacles
present. Our matrix and Blueprint will serve to organize thinking about managing the
harbor and guide jurisdictions in developing and implementing their management plans.
60
-------
Because the matrix depends on parameter data to indicate where improvement in
parameter levels is needed, we identified subarea- and use-specific research priorities for
parameters. Where no data are available in a subarea for parameters that significantly affect
a use, we have identified the gathering of data on these parameters as a first research
priority (listed in Table 5 as "R"). Data collection for water column metals is a first
research priority throughout the harbor. Where data are available for a significant
parameter but have a poor confidence level, this is a second research priority. The third
parameter research priority should be to improve data quality of significant parameters
where the confidence level is only fair. We recommend institution of sampling programs to
provide this data.
A review of Table 5 shows that water column metals data is not available for any of
the thirteen harbor subareas. Since water column metals is a significant parameter for all
six uses, this should be considered an important data collection need. The next most
important data needs are enrichment and sediment pollution which are significant for all six
uses, and have no data available in.four subareas. These are followed by turbidity, for
which data is missing in three subareas.
Where we have data, it appears that habitat will require the most number of
parameter improvements to achieve the stated preferred use levels in all areas (sum of the
number of parameters needing improvement). Recreational boating appears to need the
least number of parameter improvements. More detailed study is needed to determine the
level of effort or cost required to achieve the preferred use levels.
Our identification in Table 5 of the amount of improvement needed in individual
parameters to attain the Preferred Uses is dependent upon the goals specified by the
jurisdictions that govern the subareas and current parameter levels. The level of effort
required to achieve the Preferred Uses will depend upon these current parameter conditions
and the nature of the parameters and the conditions affecting them. While Table 5 does
indicate the number of levels a parameter must be improved to achieve the Preferred Use
levels, these numbers cannot be directly translated into a comparison of the level of effort
needed or cost of achieving the desired improvements. This will vary considerably
depending upon the parameter, the factors that influence that parameter, and the conditions
61
-------
present in the subarea. We have not specified actions that should be taken to make needed
parameter improvements, or considered the costs of achieving these improvements.
Specific improvement projects should be designed, proposed, and implemented in light of
the resources and priorities of the jurisdictions and within an appropriate decision-making
process as shown in Figure 10. Our identification of needed parameter improvements is
presented as a starting point
We urge the jurisdictions to work together with the committee and to use the matrix
and Blueprint to guide their future management activities, and to contribute the knowledge
they gain through research and management in their subareas to the further refinement and
development of the matrix and Blueprint
62
-------
Annotated Bibliography
The following bibliography provides a listing of the many references consulted
during the preparation of the Baltimore Harbor Matrix and Blueprint. Annotations provide
information on the type of data, diurnal or other sampling patterns, sampling dates,
limitations of the data and the relationship between the data and the confidence ratings given
in the Baltimore Harbor matrix tables. Confidence ratings are provided only where actual
data from the reference were incorporated into the study.
Anne Arundel County Health Department Raw bacteriological sampling data from 1978 to
1985.
Used to develop the ratings for the bacteriological status of harbor subareas within Anne Arundel
County. An excellent source of data for those areas covered, since actual raw data were available,
rather than averages. Data cover all months of the year and are on a monthly basis. Principal
limitation results from the fact that one of the harbor subareas was not covered (Cox Creek). For
purposes of the matrix, rated GOOD.
Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning. Anne Arundel County Boating and
Marina Study. 1980
This report was used to develop the boat traffic ratings for the harbor subareas within Anne
Arundel County. The study was undertaken in 1978 to determine the pattern and location of
boating activity on the County's waterways, the environmental impacts of boating and mannas,
and appropriate management techniques. For the purposes of the matrix, it is rated GOOD.
Baltimore City Department of Public Works. Raw bacteriological sampling data from
1985 to 1986.
Used to develop the rating for the bacteriological status of harbor subareas within Baltimore City.
A good source of data for those areas covered, since actual raw data were available, rather than
averages. Data cover all months of the year and are on a monthly basis. For purposes of the
matrix, rated GOOD.
Baltimore City Planning Commission. "Draft Critical Areas Management Plan: Appendix
B - Water Quality Protection and Improvement Plan," 1987.
This report provides an overview of current conditions within the areas under jurisdiction of
Baltimore City. A useful source of references to specific studies. No data were used directly in the
matrix.
Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management.
Raw bacteriological sampling data from 1975 to 1981.
Used to develop the rating for the bacteriological status of harbor subareas within Baltimore
County. A good source of data for those areas covered, since actual raw data were available, rather
63
-------
than averages. Data covers the wanner (i.e., spring through fall) months of the year and are on a
monthly basis. For purposes of the matrix, rated GOOD.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. "Maryland Receiving Water Quality Standards,"
Washington, D.C., 1985.
Source of bacteriological and turbidity standards.
Center for Environmental and Estuaiine Studies (CEES). "A Biological Study of Baltimore
Harbor," February 1975.
The single most exhaustive study of harbor biota. Presents data on fish eggs and larvae, benthic
invertebrates, fish and blue crabs and their distribution within the harbor. Attempts to relate
benthic invertebrate distribution to pollution zones. A very useful study but also very dated, since
the data were gathered in late 1970 and early 1971. Results were compared to samples obtained
during the same period from the relatively unpolluted Chester River. Where used, the data were
rated GOOD, but the age (17 years) must be kept in mind. These data would not show any results
of the recent environmental regulations regarding point and nonpoint discharges.
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force. "Draft Living Resources Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay," 1987.
Provided useful insights in establishing the ratings levels for Sediment Pollution and Enrichment
Reviewed carefully to provide as much compatibility as possible between the harbor study and the
Bay Program. The Living Resources Task Force has performed an extensive critical evaluation of
existing literature. Much useful information exists in this document for any possible future work
in the harbor.
Cronin, L.E., D.W. Pritchard, J.R. Schubel, and J.A. Sherk (Editors). "Metals in
Baltimore Harbor and Upper Chesapeake Bay and Their Accumulation by Oysters:
Phase I," Chesapeake Bay Institute, the Johns Hopkins University and Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland, January 1974.
Cores (mainly from the main stem of the harbor) were taken of the upper three feet of sediment in
May 1970. The cores were analyzed for cadmium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc.
Additionally, laboratory studies were conducted on the copper and zinc uptake of the American
oyster using relatively high and low concentrations of these two metals. This study was used to
some extent to confirm area concentrations developed for the Blueprint from other data sources.
Data from this source were considered FAIR because of the age and the limited number of
sampling stations.
Davies, T.T., and T.B. DeMoss. "Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis," USEPA; September 1982.
A very useful source of information used to develop the Nutrient Enrichment levels parameter.
Provided information on the relationships between various enrichment levels and uses. Also
provided additional references. No specific data for Baltimore Harbor were obtained from this
document In terms of the matrix, rated GOOD.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. "50-Foot Channel Deepening Project
Utility Relocation: Chemical and Physical Analysis of Sediments: A Data Report,"
Prepared for Maryland Port Administration, June 1987.
64
-------
Provided very recent data on a limited portion of the Northwest Branch subarea. Sediment samples
(duplicates) were taken by means of a Benthos Model 2171 gravity corer. Samples were analyzed
for heavy metals and toxic organics. In general, the metals concentrations agreed with the earlier
ones taken by Villa and Johnson (1974). Organics were frequently below detection limits. Data
quality is considered GOOD.
Enviroplan, Inc. "Environmental Assessments of General Permits," prepared for Baltimore
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1979.
A sample of 150 sites where permits had been issued for construction of piers and mooring piles,
bulkheads and riprap were evaluated throughout the upper and middle Chesapeake Bay. Many of
these sites were within the Blueprint area. A limited amount of data is provided regarding
shoreline use. Because of the limited data, this reference is rated FAIR.
Garreis, M.J., and D. Murphy. "Inner Harbor Crab Study; Heavy Metal and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Levels in Callinectes Sapidus in the Chesapeake Bay," Division of
Standards and Certification, Water Management Administration, Office of
Environmental Programs, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, January
1986.
Used to provide estimates of contamination in crabs in various subareas of the harbor. Greatest
limitation is due to the fact that only a very limited number of samples were analyzed from within
the study area, making it risky to draw conclusions about an entire area. Most of the samples were
taken in 1983. The tissue analyses followed standardized testing procedures and are probably
statistically valid. Data are considered GOOD to the extent available.
Garreis, M.J., and D. Murphy. "Intensive Survey for Chlordane Contamination in Finfish
in Lake Roland, Back River and Patapsco River," Office of Environmental
Programs, MD Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, January 1986.
Source of a limited amount of data on fish tissue contamination. Concentrated on white perch,
brown bullhead, channel catfish, and spot, all of which were believed to be resident in waters in
which caught except spot. Tissue analyzed in accordance with the FDA Pesticide Analytical
Manual. Greatest limitation for the Blueprint was the limited number of samples within the study
area. Only two stations were located within the Blueprint boundaries, and both of those were in
the Outer Harbor. For this reason, data were rated FAIR.
Hazardous Materials Response Project, National Atmospheric and Oceanographic
Administration. "Coastal Sensitivity Atlas for Maryland. Sensitivity of Coastal
Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil," Seattle, WA (undated).
Referenced within the Blueprint as ESI Atlas. Provided excellent data for estimating the Boat
Traffic, Shore Type and Vegetative Habitat parameters. Data were provided on color-coded maps.
Data are reasonably up to date and readily interpreted from these maps. Considered GOOD for
purposes of the matrix.
Hakanson, L. "An Ecological Risk Index for Aquatic Pollution Control. A
Sedimentological Approach," Water Research, Vol. 14, pp. 975-1001, 1980.
Describes an approach used by the National Swedish Environmental Protection Board to develop a
diagnostic tool; similar to the Blueprint, for water pollution control purposes. Directly
comparable in that it deals with the effects of contaminated sediments on biota. Limited by the
65
-------
fact that it was developed for freshwater limnic systems. Provided useful background ideas but no
data that could be rated.
Hakanson, L. "Aquatic Contamination and Ecological Risk: An Attempt to a Conceptual
Framework," Water Research, Vol. 18, No. 9: pp. 1107-1118,1984.
Describes a conceptual model of relationships between dose and response of toxic substances in
aquatic environments. Focuses on metals and uses mercury as a specific example. Like the 1980
paper by the same author, this one stresses the effects of contaminated sediments. Good
background material to be used in designing models.
Keefe, C.W. "An Assessment of Environmental Data in the Patapsco and Back Rivers of
Maryland, Final Report to: U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program," April 1982.
Summarizes data from several other sources. Some data on toxic organics in surface sediments and
presence of fish species were used. Most of the data summarized were from the mid-70's and
therefore considered old. Data were also second-hand and presented in a summary form. For these
reasons, data from this source alone were considered FAIR.
Martin, S.R. "Deposition of Atmospheric Metals to Baltimore Harbor: Prepared for
Baltimore ffiMP," January 28,1987.
No data were directly used from this report Provides a potentially useful estimate of atmospheric
deposition of metals to the various harbor subareas. This study is broken down into the same
subareas as the Blueprint and may be easily incorporated into the Blueprint.
Morgan, R.P. ffl, R.F. Fleming, VJ. Rasin, Jr., and D.R. Heinle. "Sublethal Effects of
Baltimore Harbor Water on the White Perch, Marone americana, and the
Hogchoker, Trinectes maculatus," Chesapeake Science, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 17-27,
March 1973.
Static bioassays were run using Patuxent River water as a control and with half-strength and full-
strength harbor water for up to 30 days. Metals and pesticides levels were monitored in both
species. Sublethal and physiological effects were noted for the longer time periods. Harbor water
samples were collected from the Northwest Branch (two stations), Curtis Bay, Bear Creek, and the
Middle Harbor. The water from the five harbor stations was composited before testing. An
interesting study which could be used to design future bioassay studies but of limited utility for the
Blueprint, since results could not be correlated to any specific Blueprint subarea. Also of limited
utility because of the inconclusive results. No data from this study were used directly in the
matrix.
Nichols, MM R. Harris, G. Thompson and B. Nelson. "Significance of Suspended Trace
Metals and Fluid Mud in Chesapeake Bay," prepared for U.S. EPA, Annapolis,
Md, March 1981.
A baywide study which included transects into Baltimore Harbor. Stated goals were "(1) to
determine the state of the bay with respect to the distribution and concentration of selected metals
in suspended material and fluid mud; (2) to establish the temporal variations of sediment and metal
loading; (3) to identify potential zones of metal accumulation and trace their transport routes, and
(4) to provide recommendations for monitoring and control of contaminated sediment" Sampling
was done between March 1979 and April 1980 and included a variety of seasonal conditions.
Samples were collected with either a Smith-Maclntyre grab sampler or a Bouma box corer. While
66
-------
an excellent study, it was of very limited use for the Blueprint, since only two stations were
located within the geographic area considered.
O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Neumann, and J.A. Sherk. "Lethal Effects of Suspended
Sediments on Estuarine Fish," prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Coastal Engineering Research Center, December 1976.
Partial source of information used to establish sediment pollution rating levels. Provides a very
thorough literature review of all published information up to the publication date and presents
laboratory data for 14 species of estuarine fish. All bioassay tests were static. Data are of
excellent quality, but suspended sediment concentrations used are believed to be representative of
only very severe conditions such as in the immediate area dredging.
O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Neumann, and J.A. Sherk. "Sublethal Effects of Suspended
Sediments on Estuarine Fish," prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Coastal Engineering Research Center, February 1977.
Presents a thorough literature review up to the publication date and presents laboratory results for
seven species of estuarine fish common to the Chesapeake Bay area. All bioassay tests were
static. Data are very well presented and were relied upon to establish the turbidity level ratings.
For this reason, rated GOOD in terms of the matrix.
Orth R etal. "Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries - 1985," prepared for U.S. EPA, Md. Department of Natural
Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, 1986.
Provides mapping of SAV from aerial photography, supported by ground verification. A very
comprehensive study of the entire Chesapeake Bay, including Baltimore Harbor. Data indicated no
natural SAV beds in Baltimore Harbor. The harbor area results were based on 1985 color aerial
photographs. This reference was rated GOOD in terms of the requirements of the matrix.
Regional Planning Council, Ecological Analysts, Inc., and Land Design/Research, Inc.
"The Baltimore Harbor Environmental Enhancement Plan," September 1982.
Partial source of data on floating- debris, water quality, and shoreline use. Appendix A, the
Shoreline Inventory, was the most useful section. The major limitation was the very cursory
nature of the study. For this reason data taken only from this source were rated FAIR.
Reinharz, E. "Animal-Sediment Relationships: A Case Study of the Patapsco River,"
USEPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, May 1983.
Fifteen stations were sampled in Baltimore Harbor in the mid-spring of 1981. Most of these were
located in the Inner, Middle, and Outer Harbor subareas of the Blueprint A box corer was used to
obtain the sediment samples which examined (at most) the top 60 cm. The study describes benthic
community distribution patterns and attempted to define sediment deposition rates and mixing
effects for some areas. Stations were chosen to correlate with previous studies such as that of
CEES (1975). Three stations in the Rhode River served as a reference area. Some information
was obtained to support our ideas regarding the Sediment Pollution and Substrate Type parameters
but it is difficult to incorporate much of this data into the present format of the matrix. Data are
generally considered GOOD.
67
-------
Sherk, J.A. Jr., J.M. O'Connor, and D.A. Neumann. "Effects of Suspended Solids on
Selected Estuarine Plankton," prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, January 1976.
Provides a literature review and the results of a laboratory study of the effects of suspended
sediment on planktonic organisms representative of the Chesapeake Bay. Tests were static.
Provided useful input in the establishment of the turbidity parameter levels and rated GOOD.
Sherk, J.A. Jr., and L.E. Cronin. "The Effects of Suspended and Deposited Sediments on
Estuarine Organisms: An Annotated Bibliography of Selected References,"
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, April 1970.
Provides a comprehensive review of published studies in the area of sediment effects through the
publication date. Some brief data on individual species were given. Useful in establishing the
turbidity parameter levels and rated GOOD.
Smith, R.L. Ecology and Field Biology: 3d Ed., New York, Harper and Row, 1966.
A useful general text consulted for information on nutrients and chlorophyll a. Provides a general
background on a number of ecological subjects.
Stroup, E.D., D.W. Pritchard and J.H. Carpenter. "Final Report: Baltimore Harbor
Study," Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, December
1961.
The classical study which described the flushing characteristics of Baltimore Harbor. Data was
obtained between July 1958 and December 1960. Data are probably still valid, but additional data
could be obtained on specific subareas of the harbor. No data from this report used directly in the
matrix.
Tsai, C, J. Welch, K. Chang, J. Shaeffer, and L.E. Cronin. "Bioassay of Baltimore
Harbor Sediments," Estuaries, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 141-153, September 1979.
Gross bioassay analyses were performed on two species of fish, mummichogs (Fundulus
heteroclitus) and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and soft-shell clams (Mya arenarial) using
sediments from nine stations within the Blueprint area in June 1976. The bioassays were static
and were conducted for both 24 and 48 hours. The sediments were analyzed for arsenic, mercury,
cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, lead, zinc, PCBs, and hexane extracts (organic
pollutants in general). Results were compared to the conclusions of the CEES (1975) study and
the results permitted a zoning of the harbor into highly toxic, moderately toxic, low toxic, and
slightly toxic areas. A very useful study, but the data are now ten years old and would be much
more valuable if all the Blueprint areas could be included. The authors frequently mapped the
toxicity zones into an area on the basis of a single sampling station, a very dubious procedure.
Data rated FAIR because of age, limited sampling stations, and the questionable procedure of
characterizing an area based only one or two samples.
Versar Inc. "Sediment Sampling and Analysis—Craighill Angle, Cutoff Angle, Patapsco
River Disposal Area, and Pooles Island Deep Disposal Area," prepared for
Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1980.
Provides a small amount of sediment data for the Outer Harbor area. Samples collected with a
benthos gravity corer and analyzed for heavy metals and toxic organics. Rated GOOD but provides
a very limited amount of data.
68
-------
Versar Inc. "Baltimore Harbor Final Report Draft Appendix," prepared for Baltimore
Integrated Environmental Management Project, U.S. EPA, 1987.
Presents results of water column sampling effort conducted by Versar in September and October
1984 and summarized results of the Trident Engineering Associates, Inc. sampling program of
June 1976. This study is of very limited use for the Blueprint, since the number of samples was
very limited and in many cases, the pollutant concentrations were below the detection limits of the
analytical procedure used. For these reasons the study is rated FAIR.
Villa O Jr, and P.O. Johnson. "Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments,"
Annapolis Field Office, Region m, EPA. 1974.
Sediment samples were taken from 176 stations (primarily in main body of harbor) between
January and March of 1973 and were analyzed for lead, cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese,
mercury, nickel, and zinc. This is the most exhaustive single study of sediment metal
concentrations ever conducted in the harbor. The principal limitations are the age (14 years) and
the fact that very few samples were taken in any of the creeks. Most samples were taken from
only the top 15 cm of sediment (24 cores were sampled for 30-40 cm sediments as well). The
samples were taken with a Phleger Corer.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. ESI (Environmental Sensitivity Index) Alias of
Maryland. (Sponsored by NOAA. Approximate date of publication: 1983.)
Used to develop parameter ratings for boat traffic, shore type, and vegetative habitat Presents
information on species types and periods of residence for shellfish, finfish, waterfowl and other
birds. Also presents shore types including substantial features such as parks, archaeological sites,
game refuges, and boat ramps. Data are mapped by quadrangles and have been field checked to
verify accuracy. For purposes of the matrix, rated GOOD.
Voll, M.J., J.D. Isbister, L.I. Isaki, and M.D. McCommas. "Mutagenic Potential of
Petroleum Byproducts in Chesapeake Bay Waters: Completion Report," Water
Resources Research Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. March
1977.
Provides a limited amount of data regarding bioassay of toxic organics for Colgate Creek. Water
and sediment samples were both tested by means of the Ames bacterial system for the presence of
mutagenic substances. Very limited evidence was obtained for the mutagenicity of water and
sediments. Data were considered FAIR because of its limited coverage and the slight response
shown.
69
-------
Appendix A—Baltimore Harbor Work Group Members
Thomas Ervin, Environmental Planner (Chair)
Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning
Annapolis, MD
William Burgess, Chief
Wetlands Division
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Annapolis, MD
Philip Clayton
Regional Planning Council
Baltimore, MD
Mary Dolan, Chief
Coastal Resources Planning Section
Baltimore City Department of Planning
Baltimore, MD
John Foster, Urban Fisheries Specialist
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Annapolis, MD
Mary Jo Garreis, Head
Standards, Regulations, and Certification Section
Maryland Department of the Environment
Baltimore, MD
John Hobner, Registered Sanitarian
Water Quality Section
Baltimore County Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management
Towson, MD
Larry Leasner, Coastal Zone Coordinator
Regional Planning Council
Baltimore, MD
Joe Macknis, Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Annapolis, MD
A-l
-------
Janice B. Outen, Director
Environmental Management Division
Baltimore County Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management
Towson, MD
Rocky O. Powell, Supervisor
Water Quality Management Section
Baltimore County Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management
Towson, MD
William Wolinski, Water Quality Coordinator
Baltimore City Water Quality Management Office
Baltimore, MD
Ellen Tohn, Analyst
Office of Policy Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Catherine Tunis, Policy Analyst
Office of Policy Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
A-2
-------
Appendix B
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Fish Quality
Use Level
1
Conumlnaiw) (ncMd* FDA
Action L«wf> and ifcMy (Mora)
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
CmMM«K *nd*fgnMcanlf)f >200
Minimum
level
1
Boat traffic 1
H*tvy major tapping an&or tuge mtriott fttttnt.
* DO 1
OctmtonaHf tuchtt 0 mg/l during put of tht ftm.
Dredging frequency
1
ffatJona/e
Few if any fish— bacteriological status not important at this level.
Few H any fish— boat traffic not important at this level.
Few if any fish.
Few if any fish— dredging frequency not important at this level.
* Enrichment level 1 Few if any fish— enrichment not important at this level.
Tot* nfeqgm 100-320 mgfl or iDMfpteupftarut 13-44 tng/l
* Floating debris 1 Few if any fish— floating debris not important at this level.
NMty Mu&H Otbrt* (xfffM infer ol ifittn.
* Sediment pollution
1
GaattmtMttM Mwr (O> '4 prMkvntM/tf *» ««
Shore type 1
•nl pita.
* Substrate type
* Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
Direct effects on benthic species, indirect effect on other species
through food chain.
No effect.
Few if any fish—substrate type not important a) this level.
1 Few it any fish—turbidity not important at this level.
1 No effect.
* Water column metals 2
Level at any heavy metal occasionaly at of ttceeding
EPAi acufs crtwna.
No outright lethal effects, but limiting
Appendix B: 1
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Fish Quality
Use Level
SUgM conWrtMflon. oocMlonil
Mora
Parameter Level
* Bacteriological status 2 Continuous high count might cause lesions in fish.
Boat traffic 1 No effect.
HMHY m^or iNfping *nO/of l^gnntrinti pntunt
* DO
Slight improvement in health of rough fish.
No effect on Itsh quality.
* Enrichment level 2 No effect on rough fish quality.
10-08mpt or totalpfo»pn»0.4-t2(n0A
Dredging frequency
* Floating debris
* Sediment pollution
1
roliltttn.
1
CanumlntHan tndtx (Ct)> 14 pmkxnhiitf In
Shore type 1
tntpita.
* Substrate type 2
ScmnrfMf camptctta mud or • * but ntdtf nt
Turbidity
00-100 try*
Vegetative habitat
No SA V or tnrnrgml thonlnt MgMfton *)
* Water column metals 3
Level ol any heavy mual lr«qumltf M EPA* chronic atom
Debris has no effect at this use level.
Direct effects on benthic species, indirect effects on other species
through food chain.
No effect.
Adequate to maintain quality of many fish.
Adequate to support this level.
No effect.
Consistent with slight contamination.
Appendix B: 2
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Fish Quality
(/se Level
3
Slight conUmkwIton (mew*
Minimum
parameter Level
* Bacteriological status 3
Fmqutrtty *2O> tualctiHvMIOOmltomtoHanl
doling ol»fti tor mrlmntng
Boat traffic 1
toft mvtra* pmm.
* DO
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
flatipnafe
Adequate to protect quality of fish.
No effect.
Provides for reasonably healthy fish.
No effect on fish quality.
Slight improvement in quality of resources.
Some contamination might occur at this level.
Lowest level where contamination might be picked up from
sediments
No effect.
* Substrate type 3 Adequate to maintain quality of most fish.
toMwfy fttbto cuMnM throughout *ubM«. M an* al
Adequate to support this level.
* Floating debris
* Sediment pollution 3
Sam fifcftfr op** mm* nwftn* few* or to*
apttifc*. C/4-M.
Shore type 1
* Turbidity
Vegetative habitat 1
A*j »y Of •mug** itantnt vtgtuUon In MM.
* Water column metals 4
MMKuraMe fevefe rf mwak ctaa to, but timer aqua/ lo.
£PA'» chronic criteria.
No effect.
If levels above criteria, assume no contamination
Appendix B: 3
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Fish Qualtty
Ua* Level
4
bm no
oonnmtunli)
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
3
Boat traffic
* DO
Dredging frequency
5
1
* Enrichment level 4
7M flftqgM a 1-O.tf 09* or MrtpAM0Mn* 0.0144. IS
Oft
* Floating debris 2
Rationale
Adequate to protect quality of fish.
No effect.
Healthy environment for most fish.
No effect on fish quality.
Slight improvement.
Some contamination might occur at this level.
* Sediment pollution
apnt*. CI4-I4.
Shore type
3 Lowest level where contamination might be picked up from
*«* otto* sediments
1
No effect.
* Substrate type 3 Adequate to maintain quality of most fish.
tiltoi* throughout tub*»*t>ul mo**
.
Adequate to support this level.
* Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
* Water column metals
No effect.
Highest level where tainting expected
fP/('5 cftnwfc cfMwk.
vato rf /mtak ctw« to, £M nm*r •qud Mi
Appendix B: 4
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Fish Quality
Use Leva!
5
HMMty «nd ctow
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
Boat traffic
* DO
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
Floating debris
Minimum
&S
4
1
fltynf Of 0/tMft.
* Sediment pollution
MB •MUwn*
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Fifth
Quantity/Diversity
Use Level
1
/Minimum
Parameter Level
Bacteriological status 1 No effect.
Con**na)'»n2OO hctl ooHomtftOO m
* Boat traffic
Hftvf rn^or thlpptny mOfor
* DO
Few if any fish—boat traffic not important at this level.
Few if any fish—DO largely unmportant at this level.
* Dredging frequency ' 1 Few if any fish—dredging frequency not important at this level.
Few if any fish—enrichment not important at this level.
i
Few if any fish—floating debris not important at this level.
* Enrichment level
* Floating debris 1
Him? MuMW aWnk praMM write of •hftn.
* Sediment pollution 1
Highly otgfrtc muck, high tawfc oitulcag***.
CDntKNhMbn Mm (q>»« prMkxnhv* *> MM
* Shore type 1
Not sensitive at this leva!
Few if any fish— shore type not important at this level.
* Substrate type 1 Few H any fish— substrate not important at this level.
l>fl>MM»M6ifr«»*>nnW
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Fish
Quantity/Diversity
Use Level
2
Minimum
Parameter Level Rationale
Bacteriological status 1 No effect.
ConHMtt*lyin200 *c*l coHermflOO ml
(•.g..tv*l*aaial2).
* Boat traffic 1 Only few rough fish—boat traffic largely unimportant at this level.
Httvy imlar ihjpplng unO/ar lurgt mertntt pmtnL
* DO
Dredging frequency
Supports rough fish such as catfish.
Quantity of rough fish not likely to be influenced by annual dredging.
* Enrichment level 2 No significant impairment for rough fish.
TtM ntrogtn 1O-8S mgH otutul pha»fhon» 0.4-tZ mg/l
* Floating debris
1
* Sediment pollution 2
Som» highly oiytnlcmuclt. high ItvtltallOflc organic*. Q
> 14.
* Shore type 1
Mmatl confMffy atvttapta MuMnWfc MM txiWwMk
mdpton.
* Substrate type 2
Somnmhti amptdtd mat or tU. tiutntdtf immptnOtd
1
* Vegetative habitat 1
Wo SA V or •mtrgtnt (Aomin* MMMtton In MM.
* Water column metals 2
* Turbidity
Debris does not interfere with rough fish.
Will not affect insensitive fish
Quantity and diversity of rough fish insensitive to shore type.
Adequate for rough fish such as catfish.
Many species unaffected by turbidity at this level anyway.
Absence of vegetative habitat will not affect rough fish.
Will not affect insensitive fish
Lavtl of my htavy mtM a
EPA't acute criteria.
Appendix B: 7
-------
Use Categories
Fish
Quantity/Diversity
Use Level
3
a* 3 •«>«*•
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Minimum
Parameter Level
Bacteriological status 1 No effect.
Can***\»ftndtlgnHcmi*ly>100 he* comomftOO ml
Rationale
* Boat traffic 2 Disturbance may influence fish density.
Minor «/»fcp*v «*•"•* tnHor numnout unl or top*
* DO
4-Smgt
* Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
4
2
* Floating debris
H*«iy MuMNW dMrii pi
Supports rough fish (catfish) and panfish (perch, spot).
Minor disturbance only during active dredging and then only within
100 yards of so of dredge site.
Any greater enrichment would impair resource levels.
1 No significant effect on quantity or diversity.
ralihtfn.
* Sediment pollution 3 Increased sediment quality necessary to protect bottom-dwelling
Somt high* <*!>** n*K*.mxitnlfl**lt antic fjsh.
orpwubr CI4-I4.
* Shore type 2
fHltf l»nty dtmloptil DM bUttiMdfe.
Availability of some nonbulkhead areas aids development of panfish
populations.
* Substrate type 2 Adequate for rough fish and panfish.
SommthH oompteM mat a •*. tw ntdtf n**p**t*>
Turbidity
00-100 nyi
Some avoidance but no real problem for panfish in general.
* Vegetative habitat 1 No adverse effect on low levels of panfish.
Mo SA V or wnwpwtf thontnf vtgniOon In tn*.
* Water column metals 3 Increase in water quality necessary to provide protection for wider
L»va< d *ny heavy mxtl Imquertlf at EPA'i chmnk a*** range Of SpeCJOS.
Appendix B: 8
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
USB Categories Use Level
Fish 4
Quantity/Diversity •**•«• nu«*«».4»w«ciw
Parameter
Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
1
Rationale
No effect.
* Boat traffic 2 Disturbance may influence fish density.
AMwr >/ltap*V ctanM* mnoVor aumtmm ami or lugf
nrnrtrm.
* DO 5 Good pan fishery and some occasional sport fish (striped bass,
bluefish).
Dredging frequency
5
2
Good panf ishery requires less intensive dredging.
* Enrichment level 4 Good improvement in resources, no real avoidance behavior.
Total nUmgtn 0.1-O.M nglt a total pfutphonM O.OU-0.13
up*
* Floating debris 2 Heavy debris may have some influence on occasional gamefish.
MMtott* dtbrit prater* mnlfor oi thatn.
* Sediment pollution 3 Sediment quality sufficient to support this use level.
Sam* highly organic muck, moeerale fcvufc d tonic
organic*. CI4-I4.
* Shore type 3 Availability of nonbulkheaded area supports quantity and diversity.
15-30 %naturaJ, wUiaomtandbaach,man riprap than
oulkhtad.
* Substrate type 3 Acceptable to most species, but effects on overall habitat diversity
Reiaiw ttauetitiitra»thmughoutiut>araa.M matt at may limit productivity.
tuMntt ol on* type (M. «ft«l fund) mod irtiy Ml* vtrhty.
* Turbidity 3 Some avoidance possible but no real problem for panfish in general
4o-eo mga and occasional gamefish.
* Vegetative habitat 3 Good variety of panfish requires at least occasional SAV patches.
Occmlontl ptlctm afSAVtnOmaierWtnmgtnt
vegetation.
* Water column metals 3 Water column quality sufficient to support this use level.
Lmnl ol any hoavy metal frequent* at EPA't chronic crtterk
Appendix B: 9
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories Use Level
Fish 5
Quantity/Diversity M**.***.. !***««»•«
Parameter
Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
1
Rationale
No •fleet.
* DO
* Boat traffic 2 Disturbance may influence fish density.
Mtar •Afcpty chtnnalt anoVor numemm *mat or large
5 Excellent pan fishery and fair to good sport fishing.
Minor disturbance only during active dreding and then only within 100
yards or so of dredge site.
* Dredging frequency
£w«y otter >wr.
* Enrichment level 4 Optimum condition for fishery achieved.
Tottl ntqpM 0. l-O.te /TV* or total phofphon* 0.014-0. 13
* Floating debris
Voder** dtMipnei
* Sediment pollution
Sorrm tight, organic muck, mod*
3
i or tout
organic*. CI4-14
* Shore type 3
IS - X K itflunl. wth ton* und DMCA, iron rtpnp thtn
Heavy debris may be associated with avoidance behavior of
gamefish.
Water column quality sufficient to support this use level.
Availability of nonbulkhead shore improves quantity and diversity.
* Substrate type 4 Most species will be present on occasions with a diversity of
Or» $ubitrite type (mud. *l^ thai. lan^OomtitMIn substrate type.
mtarea, but amalpatcha* ot otter type*prefer*
* Turbidity 4 No significant effect on fishery at or below this level.
* Vegetative habitat
Optimum diversity requires abundant SAV and/or emergent
vegetation.
* Water column metals 3 Sediment quality sufficient to support this use level.
Level ot any heavy metal frequently at EPA'* chronic crilerli
Appendix B: 10
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Habitat
Use Level
1
Minimum
Parameter Level Rationale
* Bacteriological status 1 Area is defined as contaminated.
ComM«nC(KMd«bnlkwN^>200 hal coHmrtlOO trt
* Boat traffic 1 Disturbance will reduce species present—wave action may damage
ramttr tog»m**Mf pMMt aquatic vegetation and increase turbidity.
* DO
1
tmtchttomg/iduring ptaoiihtf»tr. have far less effects.
* Dredging frequency 1
Deep water habitat will be adversly affected. Shoreline habitat will
* Enrichment level
1
Benthic habitat will not have time to recover. Open water habitat will
be relatively unaffected.
Very limited natural resources.
13-44 IT0I
* Floating debris 1
HM»T MMnW dtbrtt pmtM tndfor at thftn.
* Sediment pollution 1
Highly «pMfc mat*, high IrvWk al M»fc ogMto.
ContuataMaa MM (Ot>U pndomln»nl In tnt.
* Shore type 1
•ttfptan.
* Substrate type 1
tUHmudortlL
* Turbidity
* Vegetative habitat 1
NoSAVartmfrgtalthortlntvigtttHonlntfN
* Water column metals
1
Heavy industrial debris present to contaminate water column and
bottom.
Insensitive at this level
Low habitat variety.
Very poor habitat.
No effects on most fish but possible effects on SAV.
Acceptable to fish and benthos but lack of variety.
Insensitive at this level
Ltvtl at my fmny mtui oocmtontl)
kntxm LC50 Ifvet.
Appendix B: 11
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
(Jag Categories
Habitat
Use Level
2
W«« column wopUM* but
MdknmM oanumlraMd tot no
Parameter Level Rationale
* Bacteriological status 2 Bacteriological condition is near standard for human health.
Progressively Improving conditions as traffic decreases.
* Boat traffic
00
* Dredging frequency
1 Deep water habitat will be adversely affected. Shoreline habitat will
have far less effects.
Berrthic habitat will barely recover before being disturbed again.
* Enrichment level 2 Very limited natural resources.
110-88 ag/l Of to&pHHphan* 0.4- llaig/1
* Floating debris 2
MM*tt»Mn.
* Sediment pollution 1
Moderate debris level indicates some improvement.
Insensitive by definition
* Shore type 1 Low habitat variety.
MmtM OOfnphMy
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Habitat
Use Level
Wctor column «nd Mriknwitt d
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
>300
Minimum
Levof
2
* Boat traffic 3
Mo man thun T top* murint tnd no maw Mm 2 unul
nwtu* ancMx
* DO
* Dredging frequency
Rationale
Near human health standards—acceptable for habitat.
Progressively improving conditions as traffic decreases.
Not prime habitat, but certainly acceptable.
Much of the time even benthic habitat will be relatively good.
* Enrichment level 2 Seriously reduced diversity but many species will tolerate.
Tct*n»ogtn tO-Urnpl or lam phatphan» 0.4-12 mg/1
* Floating debris 3 Some natural debris present along with occasional sheen.
Son* nUvnl ddvk prwMf (moot. He.) tnfor •oimttnM
itghtolfhttn.
* Sediment pollution 4 Lowest level acceptable
Ho*rttin»<*oi^coHmln*lon(n*unlataiac). a
4-14.
* Shore type 2 Increased habitat variety.
Moderately good for fish and invertebrates but SAV may not
establish because of shifting bottom and possible turbidity.
.
Still possible effects on SAV.
Acceptable to fish and benthos but lack of variety.
Lowest level acceptable
* Substrate type
* Turbidity
* Vegetative habitat
mgctalfen.
* Water column metals
MMf umbh tow* of m»w* cte* IB, but MMV
EPA* chnnfc crtttrit
Appendix B: 13
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Categories
Habitat
Usa Level
4
WMr column and Mdkmntt rt
Minimum
Parameter Level flfltfcflflfc
* Bacteriological status 2 Near human health standards is acceptable for habitat.
* Boat traffic 4 Progressively improving conditions as boat traffic decreases.
Mo mow AM ono 9imH imrfM mitot no thfppinQ*
* DO
Good summer habitat
* Dredging frequency 3 Good benthic habitat most of the time, but not completely stable
ft^««**»te>M,~.taM«.Mkta». because of occasional disturbance.
* Enrichment level 4 Higher levels of nutrients in this range, particularly phosphorus, will
Tot^nllaatnO.I-OMir^oitaltlphotfhonJiO.014-0.13 limit SAV growth.
* Floating debris 4 Only natural debris present.
OeamtanH motf or olhtr ntlur* dtorit; no at thtin.
* Sediment pollution
Nk> •»**«• of c«p*ifca«*rtn«ltofi<»i*ura< or Indq). Ci
4-14.
* Shore type
4 Lowest level acceptable
•orWdq). CI
4 Fair to good variety.
* Substrate type 4 Generally good-limited only by lack of diversity.
Or»t\t»ottttfi»(mx).!«, thtt. und) oarrtitM In
tutmnf. Mvntiptlcht»atoamtypttpnitnt
* Turbidity 4 Somewhat limiting to SAV but regrowth possible at tower levels.
* Vegetative habitat 4 increases possible variety of species available.
Lowest level acceptable
* Water column metals
Ut^uiMtmttictm
EPXi duontc criteria.
Appendix B: 14
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
IJse Categories
Habitat
Use Level
5
WMr qiMMy Mid Mdkrartt
MXapUbto «nd tdcqiMM iMIw
Minimum
Parameter LSXSl
* Bacteriological status 3
FmqutnUy >HOO IK* coHonnHOD i* to m
* Boat traffic
Ot**mtmirintornoi
* DO
* Dredging frequency
Rationale
Exceedences of human health standards will not affect habitat.
Minimal disturbance of sediments.
i
Excellent habitat year round.
Benthic habitat will remain stable and evolve naturally.
* Enrichment level 5 Provides opportunity for SAV regrowth.
TWtfMtapin aWMLM mfl <****! phHfhen*
* Floating debris 4 Only natural debris present.
OcoHon* Mwtf or oh* Mtunl *M»; /» a* *»«•».
* Sediment pollution
4 Lowest level acceptable
). a
4~\*.
* Shore type 5 Excellent variety.
>SO% a»u* «th toy* dutch* al Mfltf w* mnftM ;
* Substrate type
5 Diversity is the key to good habitat.
MT to
* Turbidity
5 Provides opportunity for SAV regrowth.
* Vegetative habitat 5
MtunUM SAVtnd tmfigtnl wprtMton *) fnu.
* Water column metals 4
WMMwaWt tow* «f n»(»* ctaM », 61* ntv* tquil to,
EPA't chronic ctUfftiL
Need maximum SAV to support widest variety.
Lowest level acceptable
Appendix B: 15
-------
Use Categories
Recreational Boating
Use Level
1
Non* no
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Minimum
Parameter Level
* Bacteriological status 1
ConH***)' *tdtlgnllc**y >XO
1
* Boat traffic
MtBiflf mftf ittypfoff tn&9f
* DO 1
OooMtamty iMchM 0 ng/l during fut al ttt j»».
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
rotrtflftcpmKKMIO
* Floating debris
Rationale
No recreational boating—bacteriological status not important at this
level.
No recreational boating—boat traffic not important at this level.
No recreational boating—DO not important at this level.
No recreational boating—dredging frequency not important at this
level.
No recreational boating—enrichment level not important at this level.
* Sediment pollution 1
MfcMy oqpnfc muek. AfeA few* of ttrfc op**».
GonMMMfan MM (O)> M pndamtmM In WML
* Shore type 1
l*MflV*
1 No recreational boating—floating debris not important at this level.
Insensitive at this level
No recreational boating—shore type not important at this level.
* Substrate type
UnttfcMta
luHmudort
* Turbidity
1 No recreational boating— substrate type not important at this level.
V*y to*. ilmo*
1
No recreational boating— turbidity not important at this level.
Vegetative habitat
Mo SAV or •nrngtM than**
* Water column metals 1
Ltnl at my A«ny imUoccMlormlr H or «OM<*V
1 No small scale recreational boating—SAV not important at this level.
IM.
Insensitive at this level
Appendix B: 16
-------
Appendix B (eont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Recreational Boating
Use Level
BoM In trantk, no anchorage, no
•hm contact, no wMor oonud
Minimum
Parameter Level Rationale
* Bacteriological status 1 No effect.
eg****!' tot tlgnHotnUy >200 hctl coHomnOO ml
(*.g..t>rtf»aorof2).
* Boat traffic 1 No effect for occasional transit.
* DO 1 No effect.
OoomlontHy much* 0 mg/l during pun of th» ywr.
Dredging frequency
1
No effect.
* Enrichment level 1 No effect.
ToMnt/Oftn 10O-3X mo/I or tool prxmphon* 1344 mgA
* Floating debris 2
MnfcnM* dWMh pmtat tnVor of thtm.
* Sediment pollution
1
Moderate effect due to aesthetic impairment.
No effect
* Shore type
Abnotf cofifDMMy itoM04pp0d InovMnMy. w
mtipttm.
* Substrate type
Mkt mm»m*t* •ftnn^fia HM^^rm tr.
1
thtulthn
1
,mt^t «fc*H
' 9Un, OTfK
1
1
•
No effect.
K*
No effect.
•f
No effect.
No effect.
* Water column metals 1
Lfftl ot *>y htmy rntUI ocewtoo«iy
-------
Use Cataaofio*
Recreational Boating
thorn eonUM
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Mnimum
Parameter /.eve/
* Bacteriological status 1 No effect.
Rationale
* Boat traffic
Utoor «Afe*V <*
* DO
1
10/rpf Oaring put af»»rftf-
Dredging frequency 1
* Enrichment level
* Floating debris
* Sediment pollution
1
CaMtmir>illonlnan(CI)>t4pndoirtn*fillntr*
* Shore type 1
•ntfptoi.
* Substrate type
1
Traffic from commercial vessels should be minimized for the safety
of saiboaters
Minimum levels are needed to avoid odor problems that could reduce
recreational values.
No effect.
Nuisance algal blooms, low DO. eutrophic waters will reduce
aesthetic value for boating.
Moderate effect.
No effect
No effect.
No effect.
* Turbidity
Vtry**.*n*
1 No effect.
Vegetative habitat
NoSAVortnmgtnlthont
* Water column metals
1
anlntn*.
1
No effect.
No effect
Ltvtt ot tny h»»vy mtttl oocHtontly tt or txomMnt
Anon) 1C50 tow/.
Appendix B: 18
-------
Use Categories
Recreational Boating
Use Level
4
Shore contact ind unchoraQV
•vafabl*. no w«Mr contact
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
1 No effect.
ttatcoHomnoOml
Rationale
Dredging frequency
* Boat traffic 3 Sail boating requires more restricted commercial boat traffic.
No man Una 11*v»tmrin»fndnomor»ltifn2*nml
amrinm motor noiNpping.
* DO 2 Improved levels associated with better recreational experience.
No effect.
* Enrichment level 3 Nuisance algal blooms and low DO, eutrophic waters will have
Tauntmgta i4mgaotiot*phaiphon»a.i4-.»ino/i reduced aesthetic value for boating.
* Floating debris 3 Should be minimal or absent to enhance the aesthetic experience of
som»n*unia*xitpr»t**(woo(i.*c.)»niHx»ofmtow* the higher use levels.
No effect
* Sediment pollution 1
Hfety aytnlc muck. Hgh ta«* al toxic ugtnk*.
Conamhtftoi MM MM.
* Shore type 2
Shore development important for sailboating.
* Substrate type 3 Smaller boats may involve body contact with bottom.
RtWMy rfaM* MMrato throughout «**•* but mo**
tubmn at ant MM (tit. ihtH unit tnd MM? M» twiWy.
* Turbidity 1 No effect.
No effect, but low levels of SAV favorable to boating.
No effect
Vegetative habitat 1
No SA V Of fnrnynn *Aoralrw vugttfOan In MM.
* Water column metals
1
Icvtf at any hemy meul oocttlmmly H at nct*Hng
toamLCSO level.
Appendix B: 19
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Recreational Boating
Use Level
5
Opknum conMam «tt them
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
* Boat traffic
Nomowlhin
* DO
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level 3
Tculntrog*> l-eflyfarittfptaiptaw0.M-.
Minimum
Lw»l
4 Human contact occurs regularly, so bacteriological standards
should be high.
3 Sail boating requires more restricted commercial boat traffic.
improved values associated with better recreational experience.
No effect.
Body contact boating requires high water quality than non-body
contact boating.
* Floating debris 4 Should be absent or minimal to enhance the aesthetic experience of
OocmtanH mot) or ah* n*unl *Mk; no ot ifmn. the higher Use levels.
* Sediment pollution 3
9eo» high} apinto mudk, /nodrato toM* «/ «a«fc
* Shore type
f«*» >>••»» d
* Substrate type
•UMM* o/ on* MM M
* Turbidity 2
an to
Vegetative habitat
No SAV or«7wp«*jAon*
* Water column metals 3
Lf»tl ol any tarn? imM tnqutntty m EPA1 ctemfc crtw*
Absence of muck desirable for contact.
Highest boating level (with body contact) requires non-industrial
shore type.
Boating requires firmer bottom type.
Lower turbidity improves aesthetic experience, especially where
body contact involved.
Low levels of SAV favorable to boating
Minimum level for health purposes
Appendix B: 20
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Recreational Crabbing
Use Level
1
NOIM. or oonumlnMd mi ifcMy
Parameter
Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
1
Rationale
No effect.
* Boat traffic 1 No crabbing— boat traffic not important at this level.
mfor ihlpping vttt/or l»rg» mrinm pnttnL
* DO 1 No crabbing—DO not important at this level.
' »irf btiJi^ttimMv ^^tt /Ui>/ia»ifa
MHmMI CDrVfMMQr OPMwyWv aflOuViTWqr, WWT OlMvlViOT
•ndplfn.
* Substrate type 1 No crabbing—substrate not important at this level.
IvU, motor**.
* Turbidity
* Vegetative habitat
1 No crabbing — turbidity not important at this level.
No effect.
Water column metals 1
Ltml ol try htmy metal occmtoralf «f or «jo»«ul> y
known LC5O level.
No crabbing — not important at this level.
Appendix 8: 21
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Recreational Crabbing
Use Level
2
Minimum
Level
1 No effect.
ContMfrtUy md Hgntkmnlty >200 he* caHoim/100 irt
Parameter
Bacteriological status
Rationale
* Boat traffic
* Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level 2
TottlnHiogtn 10-00 npf a tout photon* 0.4-
* Floating debris 2
* Sediment pollution
1 Not enough crabbing done for influence of boat traffic to be a factor.
* DO 3 During season of DO sag crabs will avoid the area
Dredging every other year may be tolerated by scarce crab
population.
Not optimum in terms of habitat, but no real problems.
Not advised to eat crabs, even occasionally, from areas with heavy
industrial debris.
Minimum level required to support some crabbing.
* Shore type 1 No effect except limitation on access.
Mmau oonphUfy dnukftit InduHri*?. **hbuld»**
•ndpfen.
* Substrate type 2 Crabs generally present but may not be abundant.
Sarmth* ampfOtd mutt or *t, but /»*% imutptnOta
* Turbidity 2 High turbidity could cause some avoidance of area.
No effect.
Minimum level required to support some crabbing.
* Vegetative habitat 1
No SAV or •nwgmf thorain* ngtutton In WML
* Water column metals 2
Ltvtl of my heavy .Total occitlontly n or •xofftMng
EPA'tKUte criteria.
Appendix B: 22
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Recreational Crabbing
Level
Scvov.-nomontttMfi (net
contamination
Minimum
Level
1 No affect.
ComMtnttymltlgnHanOy>XO he* coBorm>lOO ml
Parameter
Bacteriological status
Rationale
* Boat traffic 1 Not enough crabbing done for boat traffic to be a factor.
Htfvy mtfar thlpplng tnl/or kvp* marina* pnwww.
* DO
Supports fair to good crabbing.
* Dredging frequency 3 Healthy crabs should not be subjected to regular dredging.
A*0ukv Ondging, but 3-5 /*•> buMMn InaUtMt.
* Enrichment level 3 Improved habitat for crabs.
ToWnircpM l-S mo* onoUphouJtun* 0.14-.39 mpl
* Floating debris
2 Not advised to eat crabs, even occasionally, from areas with heavy
industrial debris.
* Sediment pollution 2 Minimum level required to support some crabbing.
Sam h^otgunlcinuc*. high I*** allude ay***, ft
* Shore type 2 Some limitations on access.
F«*fr AMV* *Mfep*4 MM MWMMb.
* Substrate type
3 Some increase in availability requires increase in substrate variety.
wr MOWM. but moat al
* Turbidity
4040 It?!
* Vegetative habitat
No SAV or tnmgtnt ihanlnt MRjMaflbn *i MM.
* Water column metals 2
l««f al my Aaavy mtul occwtamiy at or mottdtng
EP/Cs»cul»crt<»rt*.
3 This level should not cause any avoidance of area.
1 No effect.
MM.
2 Minimum level required to support some crabbing.
Appendix B: 23
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Recreational Crabbing
Use Level
4
P1M1M; no mon ttun trm
Parameter
Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
1
Rationale
No •fleet.
* Boat traffic 2 Minor shipping does not produce enough wave action to reduce crab
*MM* rater wmrauiMMf or top* population.
4 Good crabbing potential.
AMtlML
* DO
* Dredging frequency
Rtputo dndfrg. M 3-6 fftn b
3
aUmm.
* Enrichment level 4
Taul aUngtn 0. t-OM mylar U&phatphon* 0.014-0. 13
Healthy crabs should not be subjected to regular dredging.
No adverse effect on crabbing at this level.
* Floating debris
ModMM OMnk pmt
r at thttn.
Not advised to eat crabs, even occasionally, from areas with heavy
industrial debris.
* Sediment pollution 2 Minimum level required to support crabbing.
Sarnt Natty offfnto muck, high l**lt at tote erg***. O
Shore type
Improved shoreline necessary for exploitation of plentiful resource.
* Substrate type 3 Minimum level needed to assure plentiful crabbing.
ftahttwy «MM* wtetrM* ttmughom tuburtf. but matt al
This level should not cause any avoidance of area.
Moderate effect; juvenile crabs require some shelter to be available.
Minimum level required to support crabbing.
* Turbidity
4«0 mgil
* Vegetative habitat
3
2
Occmlantl putchtt al SAVarwnwpM
HiloricoccmnotofSAV.
* Water column metals 2
LfVfi ol any /wcvy mdi/ occatlontly H or wowdty
fP/ti acute crttorii.
Appendix B: 24
-------
Use Categories
Recreational Crabbing
Use Level
5
PMnltul. hMttiy, and O*MI
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Parameter
Minimum
Lsxei
Bacteriological status 1 No effect.
Con+mfy ml tlgnttanHy >aoo ItaltoMoimHOOirl
Rationale
* Boat traffic 2 Minor boat traffic will not tend to influence even the most heathy and
JWnor«Afep*vdmnMktndfanuamauf «m*f or top* plentiful Crab populations.
5 Excellent crabbing potential.
* DO
* Dredging frequency
Rtgutu lodging. M 3-Sfttn t
Occasional dredging can be tolerated by plentiful crab populations.
* Enrichment level 4 No adverse effect on crabbing at this level.
ToVntmgtn a t-0.06 mjl or toMptutphoa* 0.014-0.13
* Floating debris
samnatuaia^xitp
^ghlaia»»n.
* Sediment pollution
3 Heaviest recreational crabbing areas should not have significant
is or occasional sheen.
2 Minimum level required to support crabbing.
Q
* Shore type 3 Improved shoreline necessary for exploitation of plentiful resource.
f 5 - 30 % mftnf. nth nrm uni bttch, man itpnp *«n
* Substrate type 3 Minimum level needed to assure plentiful crabbing.
MttlM^Mbfe «Mrtt» Unoughoa wbvM. but mat d
* Turbidity
4Menvf
* Vegetative habitat
3 Highest level of recreational crabbing may require tower turbidity only
for aesthetic value.
3 Moderate effect; juvenile crabs require some shelter to be available.
* Water column metals 2 Minimum level required to support crabbing.
L**l of Hif htevy imul oocaefcruiy •( or tmtuOIng
Appendix B: 25
-------
Use Categories
Swimming
Use Level
1
NOM; Mrtou* (MCMWogM
oanumkiulon (>400 toori
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
* Boat traffic
Minimum
Level Rationale
1 Serious bacteriological contamination prohibits swimming.
No swimming—boat traffic not important at this level.
* DO 1 Swimming not allowed anyway. DO standard not important at this
1 mttm Om& during p*l at *»t^. tovel.
Dredging frequency
1
No swimming—dredging not important at this level.
* Enrichment level
* Floating debris
* Sediment pollution 1
H*+a*** mu*. high ***<**** ay***.
1
* Shore type
* Substrate type
JUktmufor**.
* Turbidity
Vegetative habitat 1
Mo SM V or tmtrgml ttarMftw vtgtuOon In ww
* Water column metals
1 No swimming—enrichment not important at this level.
i
No swimming—floating debris not important at this level.
No effect
Inappropriate landscape prohibits swimming.
No swimming—substrate type not important at this level.
No swimming—turbidity not important at this level.
No swimming—vegetative habitat not important at this level.
No swimming — not important at this level.
1
Lfv»l al mf t>»fvy mtttl ooaulonflY ft of netting
toxwn ICSO torn/.
Aooendix B: 26
-------
Use Categories
Swimming
Use Level
2
(>200 tecrf ooWomVKX) ml) «ndtor
undwktbl* lnxfccip*
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Minimum
Parameter Level
* Bacteriological status 2
' >200 to) oHom/tOO ml; homvu.
Rationale
Close to margin of acceptability, but swimming still banned.
I
No swimming—boat traffic not important at this level.
Swimming not allowed—DO standard not important at this level.
No swimming—dredging frequency not important at this level.
* Enrichment level 1 No swimming—enrichment level not important at this level.
To*ln»rogtn KXMBDnvrarMWptoipAan* 13-44 n#l
* Boat traffic 1
amlar thtpplng tnOfar lug» mulnm pnttnL
1
* DO
Occ**ntly<9»ct>t
Dredging frequency
* Floating debris
* Sediment pollution 1
Wghtfut*>tcm><*. high I*** a ionic ay***.
GonttvntMf Ion Indtf fCty> 14 pradbtntiMf tn AMI.
* Shore type 1
* Substrate type
* Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
MB SM V or tnrngtm thonto*
* Water column metals
1 No swimming—floating debris not important at this level.
No effect
Inappropriate landscape may prohibit swimming.
No swimming— substrate type not important at this level.
No swimming— turbidity not important at this level.
No swimming— vegetative habitat not important at this level.
No effect
Appendix B: 27
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Swimming
Use Level
3
bMMriotogtori cofllMi*Mlon
(>200 tori eoHonrmOO rt)
Parameter Level
* Bacteriological status 3
>m hot ooHomvioo nttom
* Boat traffic 2
ttttnof th^piny CMOMAI dnflMw nunwoui fitttf of Itiyt
* DO 2
M orbUmti rngtmon tun SO* ol «w ttm.
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
Floating debris
* Sediment pollution
4-14.
Shore type
* Substrate type
* Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
* Water column metals
1
2
0.4-nmgn.
\*c.>fHH*um*mtt
4
a
Rationale
Only occasional swimming because of intermittent bacteriological
contamination.
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—boat traffic not
very important
Swimming not altowed. but happens occasionally—DO not very
important.
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—dredging
frequency not important at this level.
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—enrichment level
not very important.
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—floating debris
not very 'important, but industrial debris should be absent.
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—complete
absence of muck desirable
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—shore type not
very important
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—substrate type
not very important.
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—turbidity not very
important.
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—absence of
vegetative habitat actually an advantage, however..
Swimming not altowed, but happens occasionally—minimum level for
i reducing health effects
Appendix B: 28
-------
Use Categories
Swimming
Use Level
4
Swimming pwmKMd; occntonal
contamination moMdlng 200
lac«l qolltomVlOO frt
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
4
>200 lectl ooHonn/100 ml
* Boat traffic 2
Minor fhlpptng dunmfc anoVor ntmttout tmal or top*
marinaf.
* DO 2
At or twtow 2 m>» mow tfian S0% of »>• Um».
Rationale
Swimming permitted but there are still occasional exceedences of
bacteriological standard.
Swimming allowed; heavy boat traffic undesirable.
Limited effects but may not deter swimming under marginal
conditions; low DO may result in dead fish along shoreline.
No effect on limited swimming except minor aesthetic disturbance in
area of dredging.
Marginal swimming can probably accept occasional algal bloom.
* Floating debris 4 Swimming under marginal conditions may tolerate some occasional
occ»ionti»oo(toro. wood or natural debris, even occasional sheen.
Dredging frequency
1
* Enrichment level
* Sediment pollution
4 Complete absence of muck desirable
i. ct
4-M.
* Shore type
Kl MM) (MftftMMb.
Industrial development not desirable even for marginal swimming.
Nonindustrial bukheading is adequate, however.
* Substrate type 3 Need relatively stable bottom even for marginal swimming.
/tahttwy «(aM> tubOn* throughout tuttm. tut matt of
mtOr^»olon»t)p»lill.thtHuna)tm
-------
Appendix B (cont'd)
Relationships Between Use
Categories and Supporting
Chemical/Biological Parameters
Use Categories
Swimming
Use Laval
5
9HrinviinQ ptftnMMi no
(tool ooMonn
tunoundlng*
Parameter
* Bacteriological status
Minimum
Level
5
Rationale
Never exceeds bacteriological standards.
* Boat traffic 3 Highest swimming level suggests need for relatively low boat traffic.
NoiMMftw I top*iMrimandnonimllMn2MMl
omriom *&<*
* DO
Enough DO available to avoid any negative effects.
Dredging frequency
Dredging frequency not relevant.
Enrichment level 3 Only occasional adverse effects.
FaW mmgtn 1 -0 ngfi or MM photphon* ft M-.M nyl
* Floating debris
Highest level of swimming requires no floating debris at all.
Sediment pollution
4 Complete absence of muck desirable
i. Cl
4-14.
* Shore type
3 Highest level of swimming requires at least some sand beach and
adequate level of natural surroundings.
* Substrate type 4 Highest level of swimming requires relatively natural and stable
On»mMn*tyi»(mu»l.unt)
-------
Appendix C—Report on Current and Preferred Uses of Baltimore Harbor
The expanded version of the Current and Preferred Uses table, presented here
contains all of the information presented in Table 4, and also includes detailed parameter
information. For each use within each subarea, we present the Current Use level, and for
each parameter, the Implied Minimum Parameter Level for each Current Use (the minimum
parameter level required to attain the Current Use), the Data level (parameter level indicated
by the data available for that parameter in that subarea), our confidence in the parameter
data (G= good, F= fair, and P = poor), and the data source.
If data are not available, the data column lists "NA." The "known" data levels are
intended to be conservative averages of conditions within each subarea. For instance,
dissolved oxygen levels vary with depth, temperature, enrichment levels, and other factors,
all of which will vary from one part of a subarea to another. We believe, however, that the
data levels shown are representative of current conditions, and furthermore, that they are
accurate in terms of relative conditions from subarea to subarea.
The Current Use levels are derived by comparing the current parameter levels as
determined by the data with the use/parameter relationships shown in Table 3 and Appendix
B.
On the right side of the page in Appendix C, we present the Preferred Use level,
and for each parameter, the Implied Parameter Level, or the the minimum parameter level
required to attain the Preferred Use level. Parameters that we believe significantly affect a
particular use marked with an asterisk. Descriptions of the use and parameter level
definitions are included for convenience.
It is important to note that actual parameters in each of the subareas may be higher
than the minimums listed as implied by the Current Use. For instance, most parameters
may favor a high level of swimming use, but if fecal coliform counts are consistently above
public health standards, no swimming can be allowed. In such a case, that one parameter
is the weak link in a chain—by strengthening that link (i.e., by improving that parameter)
we can achieve the potential implied by the other parameters.
C-l
-------
We used this expanded table to identify research needed to determine quality levels
for parameters in specific subareas and to help to set priorities for parameter research. We
also used this table to identify which parameters were limiting the attainment of the
Preferred Use levels by comparing the Preferred Use implied minimum parameter levels
with the parameter levels indicated by the data.
C-2
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current
Use.
Sj&aaa Use Category icttf
1 Flah Quality 1
Upper Middle ^^ «"""•* F0*'
Branch
Param Data
Parameter LttXSl Level Coot pata Source
2 P
i/so.
Bacteriological atalua 1
Fish Quality
Boat traffic
•»"*
DO
Dredging frequency
*r
Enrichment level
i ignap«y>«r i
• Floating debris
• Sediment pollution
UnMMnMon Mfe £*>
Shore type
* Substrate type
UiWM>««MM»tli
k«flU>O>«V*
Vegetative habitat
M> »V v OTwp«K •tan** MVMMtin ti
• Water column metals
t«m<
fffi
3 Q
BMTn*
5 F "•*
OO
4
Drad)
Fra*
NA P
Ei
UMl
1 F
FkMta,
3 P
M
on
Q
TW*
NA P
a>
Q Clltuxllrninnno^
2 Q
NA P »°»T*
WMT
Column
Appendix C
C-3
Param
Parameter
4 ' Bacteriological ststus 3
Boat traffic
DO
Dredging frequency
• Enrichment level
KOMI nMyn a I-OM mfl u
aoM-aiinpt
• Floating debris 2
' Sediment pollution 3
. CI4-I4
Shore type 1
• Substrste type 3
urwtvw te
MMpWlrfMn/
3
1
• Turbidity
On»f
Vegetative habitat
• Water column metals 4
EPAtrtmfcc
-------
t/«»Cateoo/y
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
toyiJH fOfeOKf
pjom. an.
Pmrmntftor
Con/ DMfSourc*
Ltxsl
Patam
Parameter
1 Flah Ouantlly/Dlvaralty 2 Baclartotoglea! atatua
Uppftf pWoflw . ^ .^ .-^
Branch • Boat traffic
1
im*
1
2 p tefMMriPtttomrt. Ftah Quantiry/0lvar»lry
*"^;^"*' U»«n«inuiitnri,4.»«lu
3 a l**ll»
4 Bactarlologlcal alalua
S>7.yf %^S*"* ' i""K*> ****
• Boat traffic
1
mrioo
2
MaNNVIlBBjB/tMMiMMBMV iVf* *W9M» MaW* t^Ta^BB iatla¥ ilat |»fy tfUfaMU BtlrtlDr nmUVQUi iff Baf Of
• DO
*-««»»
* Dradglng Iraquancy
Y**l
• Enrlchmant toval
3
1
2
la* n>mi»i HHH*0>aita*lil**tl»»M«l>i»»r««tlil*» «•«»•>
• Sadlmant pollution
1
2
9 •
DO
.4 Q *MiOm»
»«*-»
rif^Mnv
HA r.
EvfehnM
UMl
^ p liamnn Hutu
FtMtaf p,^,
0>Mi
J p VMMJoMMll
tapnvtw.
• DO
«m»««vl
* Dradglng traquancy
CMorMtarrMT.
' Enrlchmant lava)
f0MMhn0ft fl 1 4M jitttflf lofW/^HMuAovw
OOM-OI]ffV<
• Floating dabrla
Moofrnu ditifc nnnni iota ol «t»«o.
* Sadlmant pollution
5
2
4
I
2
3
IjiniifiyH mjiit fi-nt fH>1lr-rTifliM> i»|i>i>» tMmi aaMtl™*oltuJc
Or M.
" Shora typa
* Subttrttt) typ*
• Turbidity
• Vagalallva habitat
* Watar column matala
Lt**a tnr »««»yiimKi««i«i mttr* or turn
EMk«U»OM«
1
aWkMCBj
2
1
1
L
2
«•>•
PgMon
1 Q »*•»
MMV* TMM
•!•"• 'IP*
NA P w»T*
^ ihn i>r/>Mt7iMuf»«|ui>My«EAi'td>
o«Ma
3
"*»*>
3
ftumoi
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current
Use Category
Param Data
Parameter Jjxal Level Cord Data Source
1 Habitat 1 * Bacteriological status
PP PdlOQH . fc ^n irflri
Brsnch .
• Boat traffic
• DO
* Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
up* ««•* nwt, «**i tow* or Mfc ««Mte
• Shore type
«•«*•.
• Subetrate type
* Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
' Water column metals
blMiUCSDkwt
1
100 (rt
1
nt
1
1
1
t-44
1
1
1
MM*
1
MnoM
1
1
1
«v
toMMWoolc
H8WW
3 Q E»"M»
K C OPW
00
4 Q <**<>,«».
Dndgtic
Fra^wncy
NA P N00*1*
EnfcMmM
1 f nuinnin mac.
EiwlPDnflMnMl Enhmowmii
sr -1-
3 p VUtt Md JOlWMMII
PoNutfon
t Q HUM-
MA p NOOATA
1 Q iutnM>lr• >JOO halallim/ttUiH.tomMt.
•roMriinnM ta tw gmuc tfian nft teotf
• Boat traffic 4
• Floating debris 4
* or atar MM< -O.M nv< or
* Sediment pollution 4
MB «*m» or «B«fc oMMbittn (oMnl or MrkJ
• Shore type 4
11 - 50* MM* MM «on» MI* raw Magi imnft.
• Substrata type
. hi< umliulrtm rf nffi»
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
* Water column metal* 4
Itownbh In** a muk dbM tt M /»w «iu«/ »
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cumat
Uee
Ptnm
Branch
Recreational Boating 1 * Bacteriological etatua 1
MM*«*t**M|r>JM liiihie* tOlm
lMlB*r««
Boat traffic 1
DO 1
nlnm*, Ml* n »«»»««•»fnmti»py.
• Floating dabrla
Dradglng fraquancy 1
*•*
* Enrichment lava) 1
Sediment pollution
Short typa
Substrata typa
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
Watar column matala
IMMJ Coat
2 P
30***
•MTU*
B p OP*
00
4 Q «•*
NA P
1 P
Ml*
3 p
1 O
Won TW>
NA P
2
*•«
httbli
NA P
Appendix C
C-6
Pntuntd
UK
Leva/
Recreational Boating
Panrn
itt
4 ' Bacteriological atatua 1
Boat traffic
DO
Dradglng frequency
MM*
• Enrichment level
hwi*i«« K/nrtarB^piMwdBMaM
•»«
• Floating debrla
IBM »»•( *tili y»»»« l»o
C»i>
• Shore typa
* Subatrate typa
• Turbidity
>Nn«*>
Vegetative habitat
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current Implied
Usa Pa/am
Subarea Use Category LiUtl Parameter L&eJ
1 Recreational Crabbing 1 Bacteriological atatua 1
Upper Middle "«• «—"•*-•' — *** J^ITt^*?*'"""''"0 '**«**"«»"'
Braneh • Boat traffic 1
* DO 1
' Dredging frequency 1
• Enrichment level 1
Ttat+nftn KV-tatltplarlUrtpAawAOM IJ-M
• Floating debrla 1
HM»y>i»»M«l»«tti««rl
• Sediment pollution 1
CMMMta Mta !c£ M^MMMt^
• Shore lypa 1
4MBII tOtfpHtlQf MMIQpM IBMflMi^, MA OMMMI
•^0ta*.
• Subatrate type 1
ItmtMt nrf»>ifc *i n*pff ff fi^Tfii VrrrtH ttmrff
Mtmtfvf
• Turbidity 1
>Wfl»f
* Vegetative habitat 1
* Watar column matala 1
l«i«wm«fr«ir»»rMi»xT
tomm IC50 fen!
Preferred
Data Use
Level Conl Data Source Level
2 p DmawwdPAfc^rti Recreational Crabbing
Bfldsftaloijlc Phrtfcl; no nora ttun Wo* oonuwrtni
3 Q Ml—*
ItaAt Titian
DOeB IIOT
S F OPW
oo
4 Q WMtaraupt
DrMgkig
FiMIMny
u A D NO DATA
NA r "**""•"
EnttmM
LtMl
| p Uftm HHtar
SSS* ""
3 p WkntMmai
StdbnMI
PotUkM
1 Q «•*•-
8km THM
fU A B NO CUTA
NA 1* •»« •*»!•»
SutNtfM*
TMP>
•tt^jfeB^M bl EfrthmMMM
^.^^ i^amajBMpn n cmaam^naMH
TuktMaV p^,
2 G u,^-^^
VCptMIM
H-MM
MAD NO DATA
nM r
««M
Cokimi
Appendix C
C-7
In
£
Parameter 1
4 Bacteriological atatua
*" rt«*x* <«rs2r^>a" "K-™"tom'i
• Boat traffic
• DO
' Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
ToulMtofftn 0. 1-0.M nylar loU ptutfUout
• Floating debrla
ttodttut <*** pnMM «Kttr o< MMn
• Sediment pollution
O>M.
* Shore type
It - 30 * imunt ««l wm* *»«( AMC/H mow 41
ftin lii Bnnif
* Subatrate type
llMftwyjj^fefiAMnrivftuyAMt •***»•, but
tf Mtano o« ont lw« M iMI MM; «tf nqr 1
• Turbidity
***"•»'
* Vegetative habitat
MUKfc «cwim» 01 SAV.
' Watar column metala
!«M««cU> extort*
ie£
ia
£10
1
100
2
4
3
4
2
2
n*c*
3
"p
3
fflOf
•>
3
2
or
2
*v
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Sufaa/M
Cumnf knpHad
Ult_ PjUID. Data
Dae (Megan LtHfJ Parameter LtUtl Level Cont p** Source
Swimming 2 • Bactarlologlcal atatua 2 2 P o--*-n •**"«»• Swimming
MMcMiflMMt»aoOligil«aiM«MO Ouni»l««t fMO Iiala»arm/I00iit;>iam\m,
Preferred Implied
Use PjOOL
Level Parameter Ltyjl
3 * Baclarlologlcal atatua 3
fmu«rM» >M0 lM«fcp«gniyr(»M»ti>i>i>ra«ut«
Branch
... «
Boat traltle
1
DO
omtmel e**t*n>l »»t*t.
Dradglng fraquancy 1
• Enrichment (aval
• Floating dabrla
1
1*44
• Sediment pollution 1
i
• hi
* Shore typa
.»!.!• MU.I,*<**lSAVa*n*g*til*i*tm mill tn
• Water column metala
tlMMI 1C1P fcMt
t»aao Itnl omonHlOt irt)
3 Q
' 4 Q «*"''«*-*
NA P »°»TA
EnUnom
1 F
Ftotfn,
3 P
NA P »0»I*
IllMMH
< Q
Ironignvll
2 Q ESI MUM* Wo* 0m*
NA P
VftMf
Cckifm
Boat tralllc
* DO
Dradglng frequency 1
' Enrichment level 2
* Floating dabrla 3
»f»mt«c)Mrtty
a 4-14
• Shore typa
* Sediment pollution 4
• * opine anUmfMfen fnxunf or «•*}.
Vegetative habitat 1
M> Mf or m*tta ttmtint MfHtHan In MM
' Water column metala 3
* Subatrale type
aantwlma*fpfatamaaim.lMtmtdtf
• Turbidity
Appendix C
C-8
-------
Subarea
Use Category
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Quaaat Aafi&tf. Preferred
PjOOL Data Use
Parameter
2 Fish Quality 2 * Bacteriological atatua 2
Lower Middle "*'* ""•""""•ton, ""*•* i~*»» °™"**"* **" i"*"*™""***;*»•»«
Branch _ . . ...
Boat traffic
MMnrmJorMfeptvM*
• DO
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment (aval
rauimnfmt lO-M/iyf
• Floating dabrla
• Sediment pollution
Hp* agmfc mm*, kfcn fcMk 4 Bife onjMta
CcmM«>»lHcl»«|C(l>l<l«»«.
Shore type 1
* Subatrate type
Sl»m*H*eo*r.MImM»M>o>
5 Q STOHET/OPW
DO
3 Q
Dmlglng
3 Q •nwET
2 F J*""*^... ..,____,
t Q ONflR.
DMB*M. I
Jghmon. 1974 CU-»
3 Q
SM,.Tn>.
2 F
..-.
)CEES).l>n
p tTOHET
Weter column metals 3 NA P
WM
Cdum
fcnpferf
Pawn
Parameter
Bacteriological atatua 3
Boat traffic
DO
Dredging frequency
Enrichment level
• Floating debris
Uodtnl* tltMi ptmunt und/of of C/IMA.
• Sediment pollution
tarn f*nfr «*Mfe met. moot,
argfn**. CH-H
Shore type
• Subatrate typa
« lUMTMt a> on. !„>• (•*
• Turbidity 3
Vegetative habitat
* Water column metals 4
MMunbto *~*a mult obM Mi tw MW ««utf u
EmtdMnfccttMi.
Appendix C
C-9
-------
Loot
Fish Quantity/Diversity 1
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cumrt ImpUad Pntatrad
Etna. Qau USIL
Pmnmttfr LtXft lave/ Cart DM* SOUK* Lt&l
""•"• Ftoh Quantlty/Diveraity
Lower Middle
Branch
Bacteriological status 1
i.lTlkMrtfft
• Boat traffic 1
• DO 1
OttMttru* ittOm 0 mt» *u*ip*l * «• IMT.
* Dredging frequency 1
fen*
• Enrichment level
«v«
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
• Shore type
Mtf0M.
* Substrate type
•*«*<'•*
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
M»a»y«r«m»H«r»»lli»»»«iH)intii
• Water column metala
IrMlUmfhtfiyrn
InmnLCSOItMl.
2 F o*""""'
«»«inmn
• tUka
3 O
EMM
5 Q •tOWTOPW
00
3 Q WrtOM*
3 Q STONET
Uwl
2 F
t Q
3 Q EWMM. MftmHMn
2 E
»TOBET
2 Q EWMM. RjdmMl-
ElNMmMUIEnlunowim
NA P
WMf
Cokmn
Paiam
Lax
Bacteriological statue 1
• Boat traffic
*nu,lH»t
-------
Subarea
2
Lower Middle
Branch
Currant
iftt
l/*> Ca/apo/y LtXtl
Habitat 1
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Preferred
Panm
Parameter LsXtl Level Conl Data Source
Bacteriological status 1
Boat traffic
r«*
DO
•MM
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level 1
TIM* Hffm im-jeo Htftm umntoittmM 11-44
«vt
• Floating debris 1
2 p o»«m«c.fM*»«.i. YiaMat
Q EM AMI UHia
5 Q «TOBET«P«»
DO
3 Q
Fraqwncy
3 Q ITOBEI
• Sediment pollution
AftMfcMftrfUrfc
1 Q ONRI»«o«»M«*»t.
DmBm. VSiaM
Mnrnv It74. OM
• Shore type
* Substrate type 1
UMt»M*m»ixnii)rfM*m* V«y«o* atnou
1 3 Q ^
My. MMMAftM* «hOrtTyp»
2 F BWoglal 8b« K Bdltnon
" ' • (CEES). W7»
• Turbidity
,5 p STOBET
• Vegetstlve habitat 1
Ho s*v or •mtiftattitminf \*gfHHaititt**-
' Water column metals 1
LfnlolfifhttffmfMoctmttntiYtlv
a Q EStAdM. BdHnraHMtar
EmlnmnUI ErtuncMwn
PlM, 196! KM Wbck QlM4>.
NA P
WMI
CkXumr
Pawn
Parameter
3 * Bacteriological ststus 2
• Boat traffic
trnut
DO
* Dredging frequency
fhp*> AMP* ftrt 3-5 «wn MMM iKttM.
* Enrichment level
W-Uog/l v
• Floating d«brl»
• Sediment pollution
CI4-M
* Shore type
* Substrate type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
«« S4y«lX mMIWIN M
Water column metals 4
im* B
WlOmnlccrttri*.
Appendix C
C-ll
-------
Subfftt
!/*» CHepo/y
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
taalitsL Eaitutst
PJODL Dam i/at.
2 Recreational Boating 9 * Bacteriological statue
Branch ""*""*' •"•*•'•• "••""•«"'«• »#.%•*-»*»
• Boat traffic
1
tOHt
2
• DO 1
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
M <*•»•> fMillvfarlMt^Mptan.iM-U
• Floating debris
MMMM •Mra 0MMNf MMaT 9t eAMA.
* Sediment pollution
• Shore type
• Subatrate type
UtoMMVMAttMtAiffiMfctMftiiM. ItoyMltft
M(M*««t
• Turbidity
>.«>•»«
Vegetative habitat
• Water column metal*
1 «•* of KIT taw? mtut oamna^f * or •«»•*
bnmlCMto*
1
2
•W
2
1
1
•^hA
•awB)
1
MM
1
1
1
V
2 p o*MM*AMcMMr R*creational Boating
iidnMifk «*,^«-*inriL,o««J
3 Q ^^JJJJJJ^""1^
•" tn* nin.i«i
DO
3 Q iTOHET
EMDhnM
2 p immnii mmor
FkMkq p...
tMrii
3 a f»^- ^f"-*"'*"'
2 E llii>i|)liainiiiri n'fr"rn i
StAMrMt
TIM
5 f ITOWT
TlMdly
2 Q E1IMM ttflmmHMlOf
NA P •00"A
MM
Colu™
Appendix C
C-12
3 ' Bacteriological slalua
i™1*"" «*!»#. triiUl^S*1**"0 'ta>lMlu"
' Boat traffic
MKA
1
f'lCD
2
Ubar ylarlaW«yiu«Vi
' Sediment pollution
CMMtuttn Mw (C«> 14 pifdomninl In «M
* Shore type
* Subatrate type
Uvlrtfe MtelraM to matf af«4wwL VwywAi
IbM awtforOI.
• Turbidity
>'«"•»<
Vegetative habitat
* Water column metals
IjfMt ol my /MM? m»tt/ occmiottiiy u or MCMI
toOMlCiOtoMf.
2
>2
2
1
L
1
1
•tnai
1
1
1
*W
Param
Laval
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subana
2
lower Middle
Branch
Currant
Uas.
Use Category Luol
Recreational Crabbing 1
ImeliSlL Preferred
Param Data Use
Parameter LfJOl Level Conf Data Source Level
Bacteriological atatua 1 2 F O*M>««I •"•**> M-* Recreational Crabbing
Boat traffic
»r«*r
DO
Mhm* I«*M 0 nvKMv p«l * «. )«v.
Dredging frequency 1
<*
Enrichment level 1
• Floating debrle 1
HMty MMM *Ml PMM tntn el *•«>
• Shore type
•*«*•.
• Subatrate type
• Sediment pollution 1
Hp* op** mok, *«* km* << nut apv**.
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
Mf&ty«r«
* Water column metala
/uionn tCS) kMl
5 Q 810HETIOPYY
DO
3 Q WbttOram,
3 Q 1TOHET
Lnd
2 p MI.
M>rl>
1 Q ?«?-~"-"-*«
duhm. v*>wd
1(74. CU-4
3 Q ESI
2 F awo«WMu* Bit mpjnfci
O>I4.
• Shore type 2
3
M M* «M« «x( «
• Turbidity 3
• Vegetative habitat 1
* Subetrate type
* Water column metala
Appendix C
C-13
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subana
2
lower Middle
Branch
1/UL
Use Category ittftf
Swimming 2
PjtKZL Delm
Parameter LjyeJ Level Cant Datm Source
Bacteriological status 2 2 F
Pnlerrad
Uat.
ii (i im lux mnimnrm
Boat Irallle
Wf MajB
DO
iitoiii
Dredging frequency
r**)'
* Enrichment level
• Floating debrl*
• Sediment pollution
MD*f •»•* •«*. **»> **•»
* Shore type
Una* caaytittt, jlin*»
«dA 100*91
Vegetative habitat
' Water column metal*
»t>10O I
EM*
3 Q
*>•'«•» MM. ten
J Q •lUMklWW
DO
3 O
DrMgtag
Fnwmy
3 Q tTWCT
2 F
Drtvk
1 Q ONRflMaMlfcntttnf
Out»M* Vttml
3 Q
PIW.1M2
^J Hrtx»
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Currant
Use Pararn Data
Use Category Level Parameter LtXtl /.eye/ Cont Data Source
Preferred
Uat_
Level Parameter LoyeJ
Flah Quality 1 ' Bacteriological etetue
Branch •— ' ^loTlrlflc
HMvrn** ***••*» fcvtnrtwjMMM
' DO
Dr«dglng fr«qu«ncy
* Enrichment tov«l
loooVl
"V
• Floating debrle
Ht*tMuU*t*bl*pnH*ineoial*mn.
• Sediment pollution
^B^I^W^****!!***
Shore type
• Subitrat* type
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
tip SAV or tmngttlt thonint nffffUhon *»*•*.
• Water column metala
IM( of *v hn*r omul oopwbnoty X or WCMO
fPMMMoMrk
1
1
1
1
1
M
1
1
1
•eVb
i
MM
1
1
2
V
j Q Dipoi*MMm
4 A E*IM|M. §4hnvniHHtaf
IMTnek p,,.
1 Q rrOHFMJowrtmrtol
00 PMtieWP*.
< Q WHkOraio
Fnajyoney
1 Q »TOflET.
CnrkhnM
LM«|
MM!" "*
1 ° a^OWMimiigi'
^ Q EwMil.
1 p OiUmoii Hubot
1 F »TO«T
TuMMy
1 Q EaiAOM.
NA P H"""*
HMoi
Column
Appendix C
C-15
3 * Bacteriological etatua
OMdB FOA Atfvfcofy) no AvajMnaV >AV0 ttfrta&an&ttffitlt&M to
Boat traffic
Htuvy mfof ttt^iptoQ aWsVoc lifytPntrtnt§pft
• DO
4-6 HWf
Dredging frequency
• Enrtehment level
rottntragM r« iivf or WKpnotDtaM 0. M-
• Floating debrle
IMraw y •*•* MC*. mMkaM 1m* <* K
Shore type
* Subetrete type
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
' Water column metal*
MMMMofc kMH Of /IWOk CtM lo. OU/MMT •
**"'*' Cft™*°**rtl
3
raqutv
1
MM.
4
1
3
»
2
3
••;
1
3
•vffnof
3
1
4
gutfn
-------
Subtnt
UtuCMtoorv
Flah Ouantriy/Dlveralty 1
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Currmnt Jmtftf. Pnlmmd
Ptam rtmim
PmtmmMM
Bacteriological atatua
jfvtl Cod DM* SOUK*
1 O
Fiah Quantty/Divertlty
Northweat
Branch
«•*•*•*>•»'«
• Boat traffic
DO 1
HHKm»Ht»tl*HtfM€lt>llllt.
Dredging frequency 1
*
Enrichment (aval 1
Floating dabrla 1
Sediment pollution 1
• Shora typa
* Subatrata typa
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
1 O
4 Q tlOWTl
00 ~«
rwn.
UMl
Q V«i
nt
, F «>"T-
t Q
• Water column metala 1 NA P
I*** tar liffff nmltl r^imMUr n a *mtdHg W
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
Current
Use Param Data
Use Category LfJOl Parameter LtXSl Level Conf Data Source
Habitat 1 * Bacteriological status 1 1 Q <***** «******. Habitat
Northwest
Branch
all).
• Boat traffic
• DO
' Dredging frequency
KM*
• Enrichment (aval
• Floating dabrla
1
* Sediment pollution 1
IVMte
• tlMt
1
M*
1
IM
1
• Uf
• Shore type
Mm* nimfciH' m.'iiT'rf *nx«m».
«n*0M.
• Substrate type
•*<•*«•*
• Turbidity
' Vagatallva habitat 1
M> SAVamxgtnl Out*** ntgmum la int.
' Watsr column matals 1
iMtlH far KHxfimol aamimtff u a
ImmnLCSO**!.
Q EMMM.
I J Q «TOKT«*MIMgn**t*i\ltO buf
Boat traffic 2
nMfe mttv nwmnw wnlor
DO
* Dredging frequency 2
t»»i>«»«(>m>.
• Enrichment level 2
Floating debris
*n» ihMi PMMM oidttr o* «AM«.
Sediment pollution
ltt>apMfe«ul*./«lll
•H«iiltoiMk«l
* Shore type
Substrate type
4 nut a t*. but n*»,
tftf.
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
»<*SJtV
• Water column metals 4
MM«nM> Imk * imMfe cfaM B. CM now ««M« 0
Appendix C
C-17
-------
Subana
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cuneat Implied
Utt_ Param n*im Use
Uie Category Ltiot Parameter LtXtl Level Cod Data Source Level
Recreational Boating 2 * Bacteriological atatua 1 1 a *"*•" i "«*•*«**•• Recreational Bonllng
Northwest
Branch
Beat trafflfl
1
• DO
Dredging frequency
*•«•»
' Enrichment level
• Floating dabrla
* Sediment pollution 1
i
ttn
on im«iuiii« Mm (C»M»
• Shore type
MM OMIf** *!«»«>MUM*.
• Subatrate typa 1
lima* li trim timat<<«>«•»* «•?«*. *MM
*Mm**lf.
' Turbidity 1
Vegetative habitat 1
• Watar column matala 1
1 0
1 1 O
• )•». 00
a
«•
my
| Q iTOKT.
2 O
t Q
MrnTw*
1 F
1 F ******
1 O
^••n
HBJMM
NA P
PJOOL
Parameter
' Bacteriological atatua 1
Boat traffic
DO
Dredging fraquancy
* Enrichment level 3
TMKMIH0M l-t/ivtcrultfptewAarwO M M
• Floating debrla
• Sadlmant pollution
• Subatrate type
Mil It*. M pn«MitiM to «M
• Shore typa 2
Vegetative habitat 1
M> M V
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current
Use Cateaon
Implied
Param Data
Parameter LfJOl Level Cont Data Source
Preferred
Use.
Laxtl
Param
Parameter
Racraatlonal Crabbing 1 Bactarlologlcal atatua
Northwaat Non». »r connmn««< «nd iMily ConiaXUfr mi XgMantf *m Itolecfcit
Branch .*'„* . . ...
* Boat traffic
• DO
OacMtoM* nwftii 0 nyf duty pm d f» p
* Dradglng fraquancy
• Enrlchmant laval
roWflM«« IW-ja^orllMptavtaM
• Floating dabrla
M^rMMMtf *<*,»«, «*»...*«
• Sadimant pollution
Hgt+ a*wfc /rue*, ftfeft to* at •»* «pviki
CMtmlMllail Mo *
tMMll
NA P *">"»
WMI
Cakimn
Appendix C
C-19
3 Bactarlologlcal atatua
•ton amli^t.ii* •*»*«* »a» teal oott»
• Boat traffic
HMirm^grjfifcptVMavar MigtnttrlnMftt
• DO
i-4091
' Dradglng fraquancy
*in*-*MjMa, r~™
• Enrlchmanl laval
raWiKravin !-• nv <«•* «* ««rfc a
o>u
* Shora typa
• Subatrata typa
MMMiMy IUH> Mam* nmgrnx •*•»•» at on IM» (A «»>•* MMJ •»< «•]
• Turbidity
• Vagatatlva habitat
* Watar column matala
^i-j2r:'"-ora^"-
1
rWIOD
1
MM
3
3
3
X
2
2
I0MU
2
3
U
3
1
2
»*v
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarta
Northwest
Branch
Cumm
Ute Ptmrn
UtiCalapory LtXfJ Paramtttr LfXft Laval Cool DataSoua»
Swimming 1 ' Bacteriological status 1 1 O P«I««H «"**•"*"* Swimming
H iMplBltjiBfJBlJ otMMBBJItslM (>40Q BMBi CtWtMBJBBV 4Mfl 4t.MtttBMBV *J09 *ffV MtMHH/fCP 4tf BsVIJltalBBlB MlM; BMIBMI
* Boat traffic 1 1 Q »
Pnttrrtd
i/BL
/.•»•/
DO
• ••VlMw^MtfAdMr.
Dredging frequency
VM*
• Enrichment level
MtfAMfM MMM«*l«M*
•vt
• Floating debris
• Sediment pollution
Hi* «*M: w* «*•
Ci»««m>M«>»i m>» (O>
• Short typa
My. i
* Substrata type
•u«. mutforMl
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
No S4V or MWDM fAoraOM MfMMIpn ti i
• Water column metals 1
l*m & m f**v imul txxmUBly « or «MM*I(
00 "•"••"-—•
1« O *•**"»
g I1OMET.
Ml
2 O
I
O
M
n
1 O
1 B ••Hmnci
*J^"»
1 F
NA P
MM
Cdumn
Parameter
1 * Bactarlologlcal status 1
• Boat traffic
DO 1
•MnflfrMdMOfty'outvpMrffMrwv
Dradglng fraquancy
f
Enrichment laval
• Floating dabrla
* Sediment pollution 1
HP* ova* nu*. ft*A kMk o» ttrlc nvvifai.
CgMMtMM twk> |C«>. M prMtontaM ta me
* Shore type 1
4tmr m^MM^ S4^ or MKfpMI rAMvrMoccU<»u«r«a
Appendix C
C.-20
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Quaeat Anefctf. Preferred
Use Ptuam Data Use
Subarea Use Category ifiKfif Parameter Laxat Level Con/ Data Source Level
4 Flah Quality 2 * Bacteriological atatua 2 2 Q o*~mn* <*****»<• Fish Quality 3
Ulititlm Mirhnr 8*M conwrtnulon, oonitoMl Mm ComUta^f >&O *cMa>Uamna>ii>im\m, 0«niilnlaglr SlgMooMMbMtaii|«uMdiFMAdvlMfy) no
•iraaiv nmtwt ~ mettd&^*HtM0i&iiW&i8n i~~i ^SIMM
Boat traffic 1 3 Q !""••
Param
Parameter
Bacteriological atatua 3
• DO
2- M pwkunhM *)
Shora typa
Substrate typa
• Turbidity
•MOOnyl
Vagatatlva habitat
* Water column metale 3
LtMl 4 ny /MMT omul ****** * fPAl than*
3 3 Q
oo
2 Q
On**
fHHUKCt
3 Q STORET
1 Q
ONRRd
3 Q ESIMM. IHIriMi
~— »_, EmlwiiiiB
**™ '"* Km. ie»
2 p EMMrtl
Em. Entamnni Pin. 19K
TIP.
S F
1 Q
NA P
VUur
Cokirni
Boat traffic
iyin^lrKlt«»V*nl'«
DO 4
««v«
Dradglng frequency 1
«
Enrlchmant lavel 3
' Floating debrla
' Sediment pollution 3
3om Afeft^ ay** mu* /mtonM kmfe or uric
. C/4-M
Shore type 1
* Subatrata type
n^nn) icin* nfm
4m*n* a on* IH
• Turbidity
Vagatatlve habitat 1
Ml M ¥ or m>t*1 Quaint ifgMHaa In «M
* Water column metals 4
* Itnfe «* muk ctoM M t« MMr •«Ml u
Appendix C
C-21
-------
Subtn*
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
CjUtOKm uOOftSL
Um Ptnm £Hi. KM
I/It ffttNOn inal Pmmutor LtXtl /.•»•/ Cant DMtSntf iavaf
Flah Ouantlty/Dlvaralty 1 Baetarlologleal atatua 1 2 O "'*"•""'"*•"**• Ftoh Quantity/OivanNy
Ittddla Harbor "••
0*. *•***•«»
• Beat Iralflo
DO
' Or*dglng lr«qu«ney
***
• Enrlchmanl
mn
• Floating dabrla
• Sadlmant pollution
• Shora lypa
IJ-44
1
1
1
* Subatrata typa
• Turbidity
• Vagatatlva habitat
• Watar column matala
ItMt tl m *Mlf mUl OODHfenvX * 1
famnlCSOImt
30
"
3 Q troanww
oo
2 Q «MiQm»
OMUtW
riannannl
n^mcf
3 Q *TO«ET
EMUmn
LMd
2 F
« Q ONRHMU
' MalM.KMto.1Mt.
so!*/;
Hum TIP* p££
2 F
TIP*
S F
TuMMf
1 Q
NA P """"
WMI
Column
Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
<***. *•*•»««.
• Boat trafllo
Mwr ***« ntMi*B>itu
•iupMlMly HMM« M
* Turbidity
«ia»mpi
• Vagatatlva habitat
' Watar column matala 3
!««•/<( oy (MMjr mMI tagudny X £P4H dinnfc
Appendix C
C-22
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
Middle Harbor
cjiaaot imoM.
UM Param Data.
Level parameter Levjgj LexgJ Qsnt Qata Source
Habitat 1 ' Bacteriological atatua 1 2 Q
Preferred
UZL
LtXSl
Habitat
wu ntmi «oa(iuM> bx wdkrano
• Boat traffic
w«*
• DO
• Dredging frequency
• Enrichment level
Floating debrla
MkMW «*•» pmM Mtar oi *
Shore type
• Subatrate type
UflfflMtMAMMM arl MM
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
Water column metal*
3 Q ESIAtfM. BrtkHMHutair
3 Q
oo
2 G
Ontfgtot
3 Q STOHET
EnUmn
Lwtf
2 F
Q ONRRMimMonto
bulM* XM^MI
3 Q mmm_
•**•T"" I*B. 19«
.LJ fc *•---•"»««
} p ITONET
NA
Parameter
2 ' Bacteriological atatu* 2
lhw290 Mot
Boat traffic 2
DO 1
wlmlf /MK M urMtoihM to am.
• Shore type 1
• V*eetallve habitat 2
«ltmJ». rts^y ammgta i nimOin or
• Subatrate type
•MtwMWtr wm'M
• Turbidity
• Water column metala 4
Appendix C
C-23
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Currert
Subarta
U*« Category LtXlt
Racraattonal Boating 9
knpted
Emm.
Pvmmttut LtXtl lava/ Cad
Bacteriological atatua 1 2 Q
Implied
Beat Halite
00
Md«<*f200
2
*f>
1 3 Q
oo
1 2 0
3 O
2 F
3 O
2 F
*_ EM. EnhmnM PUn. IMS
9 F •«*"
1 a
1 NA P
Column
• Boat traffic 3
MaVSMC aVldter H0 jAf^fpaVy.
' DO 2
Dradglng fraquancy 1
y«My
' Enrichment laval 3
• Floating dabrla 3
toot otuol (MtU PMMM (Woo*. «e.; «Mr
• Sadlmanl pollution 1
HfeAy oVMfc mcfc Aft *M* «/ MrJc a«Mik«
CMmhMM tMki M pnMbmtMM *i «M
* Shora typa 2
f«ny httvt, »»«*»»<< •«> l
* Subatrata typa
• Turbidity
Vagatallva habitat 1
Mb MV or «m«M Hior«M
* Watar column matala
Uwf o/ wy htrrr mtfl occMtouly K or
Appendix C
C-24
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Preferred
Use
Current
Use Param Data
Use Category ifiXfi/ Parameter LsXgJ Level Cont Data Source
4 Recreational Crabbing 1 Bacteriological status 1 2 Q o***********. Recreational Crabbing 2
Middle Harbor •*»•«"««——-«» „,„.„..„^.
• Boat traffic
• DO 1
CttMtoMft IM0IM 0 n«t SAVam*i**itian**i*tu*kintii
' Water column metals
3 Q ESIAfcr Bmmun Huba
BiMlTrafti Dk»a
3 Q STOAETfDPW
00
2 Q WtaKkoun
Dr«*lng
Fraqiwicy
3 Q BTONET
Eiridmn
2 p
, Q WMH.
VtbdidMnon. t»4.
3 Q E8IMM. MfcnmHMw
n«n.19R
2 p EulmMlnmM. H«to
Em. EnhvunM Ptao, )M!
5 p STOflET
»»
Q EWMeVB.
NA P MOO»T»
Colunn
EflCBOL
Parameter
Baclarlologlcal status 1
• Boat traffic
H~*r mf* inept? infa iBg
' DO
2-4m&
* Dradglng frequency
fmruUmttu.
' Enrichment level
MrtlriMVin le-MnvtwUt/
«yt
• Floating dabrla
• Sediment pollution 2
Am %ft* <•»** «•* *** *•»* «* *** "»«*»
* Short type
Oimi o»nmm> *xfc
tt«*Mdim(/ili».
' Substrate type
• Turbidity
•MOOnyf
• Vegetative habitat
MbMVw
• Water column metals
Appendix C
C-25
-------
Subaraa
Mlddla Harbor
0«a Category
Swimming 2
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
&UU& iZBfUL Pnt^fffd
Ptnm rtftm
Patamataf itifj Leva) Co/rf DataSomca
Bactarlologlcal atatua 2 2 Q
I4*I«HU
Boat traffic
DO
Dradglng fraquancy
' Enrkhmant (aval
It*
Hg* «*•* out.
CMMMhlttM tMta (0> M ^IMkmtlM A MM
• Floating dabrla 1
MM»rtM>«MK*t*»r«l tHH>Htn» i*««n.
• Sadlmant pollution 1
/**a9«*fm«*.«0i<
CM«MMttnMM|IQ>l
* Shora typa
• Subatrata typa 1
• Turbidity i
Vagatatlva habitat 1
Watar column matala 1
3 Q
3 Q IKMEMPW
00
2 0
3 Q STtMCT
2 B
•I Q ONMRlMunMIllI
,(||ro|, OB.HM.KMIMI
MhjgQu "****'
3 Q U»M».
Q iW/Wn
«•
I
NA P
Lava<
Parameter it^g/
• Bactarlologlcal atatua 2
•NBMMOM Ml MfBflaWMaVI 260 AaXVf
• Boat traffic
DO i
•taM* f«r.
Dradglng fraquancy
•»
Enrkhmant (aval
• Floating dabrla 1
MM* MkMrM dWrt pmnl MMr of (C»> « pMtMltlMt *1 M*
* Shora typa 1
• Subatrata typa
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
ND 3AV or «IWD«II itanlM WOMMIM M •
* Watar column matala 1
u»* * «r i*~t ™w «
Appendix C
C-26
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subayaa
S
Curtis Bay and •*"«««
Creak
Current IfleJjgsL
Ust. PJOOL
Use Category LtJUl Parameter itttf
Fish Quality 2 * Bacteriological statua 2
•.nXbuMI-liMfrMHrfrHj-IT to*
Boat traffic 1
• DO 3
»-4IVl
Dredging fraquancy 1
VM*
• Enrichment leval 2
KM «•*«•> IMIIlVf.rMXptoWtaruKU-ttllVl
• Floating dabrls 1
• Sadlmant pollution 1
MWa^ifcmuAAtftfeMkrfMrafpMta
CMM«li>Mltti «i*« fd>>t4p**m*ml to urn.
Shore typa 1
•rtptat
• Subatrata typa 2
£^£i!i*»£^M!k*"^
• Turbidity 2
Vegetative habitat 1
• Water column metals 3
L4Mf tf Mr AMIV mtaf Jtaoufniy tf f mv tfmmb
ottr*
Prefi
tola. Ui
Level Con! Data Source Lj\
3 f c««r»«». Hmbor
*«T"- ^Btob^Sud,^
MA P NOQ*TA
TIM .
5 p STOHET
^2 0 ™»~.
NA p NOO*T»
WMf
CUwm
Appendix C
C-27
zosri J
Ef. J
ya/ Parameter
2 ' Bacteriological atatua
Boat traffic
• DO
»-«•»•
Dredging frequency
Kwf
* Enrichment level
roW«M0M \0-tt o^loHalllfliatfhaiM 0.4
• Floating dabrla
Hatty IndkiMrW dhaMi pnttnt aVHMBf w cnMn,
* Sediment pollution
HtM^ofMfcmuot. fteftimfetf kufcoipinfei.
CtowntaUm Mk» (C(l> M pMdomhMI *i «M
Shore typa
• Substrata typa
• Turbidity
Vagatatlve habitat
* Watar column metals
LfaftaJ of My IkMVy IMtaV Aw^ttMiy M £PA'« CtaM
otafe
bu
Bac
iai
2
1
M
3
1
2
/;
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
He
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cuneri
Subant
5
Curtla Bay and
Creek
Fish Quantity/Diversity 2
IfJOl Lfvol Cart D*mSoun»
Bacteriological status 1 3 F <*••»<>•*
Level
Fish QuantMy/Divaralty
• Boat Irallle
• DO
' Dredging frequency
• Enrichment level
• Floating debris
I0MMWJH
pollution
• Shore type
•**•.
• Substrate type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
• Water column metals
• MM
3 O ««•»•
1
«
3 3 Q
00
t 3 Q «•»<>•"»
2 SO HONET
UMt
2 F
2S» «-u
2 NA P ">c*u
TV*
1 S F
2 Q
2 NA P ""*T*
Cokm
Appendix C
C-28
Parameter
Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
' > 100 tart
• Boat traffic
DO
' Dredging frequency 2
' Enrichment level 3
ii HmgHtr uHitiMiilHm 0. 14 It
• Floating debris 1
Htmtl MMfW AMI pnMM «x»Br of «IMn
• Sediment pollution 3
^m^ M^H* jMwrt1 (mfrtt MAMvtoM^tfftMfe
•«Mto. C/4-M.
* Shore type 2
fM»«M»» «•«»»< «•> IllOlllK,
* Substrate type 2
>»M«»iim»nj«rt»«( mi< an* »K ••««>•
MU«MMM^M>M
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current iaefed. Preferred
Subarea
Implied
EaaaL Data Una Param
Use Category Ltttit Parameter LflOl Level Cant Data Source Level Parameter LSX&I
S Habitat 1 ' Bactarlologlcal atatua 1 3 F COUMTOU. Habitat 4 * Bacteriological atatua 2
Curtla Bay and ***** **"" *"* "*'•"• •""•"•a."»<*<** »»>»»•/a**))****/*** tKHauam/iooin ata***** w«»>g*«m«nrrfa
• Boat traffic
3 Q ESI A*. BOKOMlIM*!
• DO 1
OccMfenw/rMtfiMOnvttMvMflrfMfMr
* Dredging frequency 1
• Enrichment leva! 1
raMfltaVM MMa>ffv)»IBM0MMta« IM<
• Floating dabrla
Hi*rHJtf***t,»tnM*m
• Sadlmant pollution
Higher flfpMfc flaVCft, AfpA
• Shora typa
• Subatrata typa 1
• kmMtfMUMft Ifrquat itmn
• Turbidity
' Vegetative habitat
NoSAVori
' Water column matala
mnmlCWMol
-• "— PIM. IM2
3 Q 8TOHEIWW
00
HM. tMK
3 Q
3 Q aioncr
EM
lM
2
Hu
CM>
3IP
Pwuwn
3 a
tw»T«pi
NA P
5 F n"*1,
2 Q £«««•.
NA P
• Boat traffic
' DO
* Dredging frequency
lb*l-5jwnMM!Mti
' Enrlchmant (aval
• Floating dabrla 4
OmtaM/ «oo< or oKMr mttnf ***. no at HMM
• Sadlmant pollution
»«» «^»B««enM»i«mt»^ rtl.llFlK
• Subatrala typa 4
CM wfeMM «M (mu* «a. »M MM) domtMM ti
• Turbidity
• Vagetatlva habitat 4
i «• T1V iinr imimint mn«Mhn
Watar column matala 4
ik «iMik dDM A OK mwr OTUK "
Appendix C
C-29
-------
Submn*
8
Curtle Bey end
Creek
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
CttfranT Imoaarf
UH. Bean? Date Ut»
Luat faramataf ittaV lava/ Cod Qft*SouK» LtXd
Recreational Boating 3 ' Bacteriological status 1 3 F c*"*0"' Reaeational Boating
Boat Uaffto
• DO
Dredging frequency
• Enrichment level
• Floating dabrla
* Sediment pollution 1
• Shore type 1
M nin»"H*ii»ii'«">i««*. i
• Subetrete type 1
• Turbidity 1
Vegetative habitat 1
M>54Vor««VM«M*»MpMkMlim
* Water column metala 1
tnMntCfOkMt
3 Q
3 Q •lUNMJOPW
00
3 Q HMKta*
2 F
Mtot
•Ml
3 P
3 O "V
MmTw M-
NA P
MM
s
2 Q
NA P WQ»T*
WMl
Cokm
Puamatui Lava/
4 * Bacteriological status 1
>»0lta*
• Boat traffic 3
• DO
Dredging frequency 1
MM*
* Enrichment level 3
• Floating dabrla
(mat. •*•>
• Sediment pollution 1
>y» «»•«> «««*. «»» >»»> _•» •»»
GOMMIMlBifl aIMM ff«^ M pWOTPMIMf M
• Shore type
* Subatrale typa
Vegetative habitat 1
Mi IM* mnHfml *m*» HJIIMM fc «»»
* Water column metala 1
• Turbidity
Appendix C
C-30
-------
Current
Usa.
Subarea
5
Curtis Bay and
Creek
Use Category
Recreational Crabbing 3
Scvot; no mw» Dun ten conundMton
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Implied Preferred
Param Data
Parameter
Bactarlologlcal atatua
Boat traffic
feipt imrtm pntML
DO
' Dredging frequency
NlfUkr *«4tV. M M >IMI» MWM ti
* Enrichment level
Jauinuaftn 1-tm^atMfhoiftaMO.H
• Floating debrla
Uatmu itt* fmta mm at •ten
• Sediment pollution
Son. (10* orpw* met, h&> KM* M.
* Shore type
Subatrate type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
M> My rit.
' Boat traffic 1
Httrr m^oi thtftng Kdf» hrf* nwtm pr«M
* DO 3
* Dredging frequency 3
fliyufer Judging, ftuf 3 5 )wn MMrtn ImOtnli.
' Enrichment level 3
Taunt/of*, lin^l
' Floating debrla 2
Uodtmt OtUt pnttH vid«r olittfm
' Sediment pollution 2
Som. high* opint mot. top JMfe M.
' Shore type 2
«•** «MHl)r <»Mlt|Mtf ««1
Subatrale type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat 1
MB S4V or tnrnytn nmtm* wpMfltn to •••
• Water column metala 2
Appendix C
C-31
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cununt Implied
Ifa. Panm
Subarta UtaCMttooff LiXtl Ptnmtttr LtXtt
S Swimming 2 * Bacteriological alatua 2
Curtla Bay and ^ ^ ^^^ ^^^ .,...<.,nii4» •»,».»•».«» to*
• Boat traffic i
'*"!•*• •*•»*» •"** •»!••*••••• »«4*
* DO 1
nm*nttli<*i*\mQi*rHutitt*lolli,&*
Dredging frequency 1
roo*
* Enrichment level 1
"V*
• Floating debrla 1
I ami ii iijiaiajaf <•<••) ^••urt uuHu uf Jtuji
• Sediment pollution 1
MMalV ttMMhfc flakvA. Maft •toaBfc ^ aaviB IM^H^M
rayap a*|*«**f ***>ci\ N>IW •»^«» m law* VpiWMalL
• Shore type i
•Up**.
' Subatrata typa 1
**%*'"•**''"** *"*"~ i*r«»««p«i
• Turbidity 1
Vegetative habitat 1
• Water column matala 1
t^.lS.T"^0™'111"*""""^'
D*ll
Lfv»l Cpn/ DjMSoufc*
3 F *-»•-
UtUaU
J Q CM MM. SfallMW HaathV
•MTnMi ca-JVL_nnejiniMi-u/i
3 Q STOFflAPW
DO
3. Q MAO**
DrMglr,
3 Q ITOflTT
CnfeMm
2 F .^T"*1* ^T? i
0<|rt •fen.H»:_J-i«i«Hiiif
3 p V^«XJplimpii. 1*74
p«»*r
3 Q EOMkB. iHt^lllKini
UA B HO DATA
NA r •»"•"••
•tfblHMt
5 F (TOWT
2 Q ««*^
HAM
NA P «>o*T»
WMW
Cotm
Appendix C
C-32
Ptderrod
Uat.
/.aye/ Parameter
Swimming 3 * Bacteriological atatua
oxMMntfvi |>m kMtooaonwlMlrt) I«»J*K of MX to »»»»l»i>
• Boat traffic
Mtaor cntaMitt a'amaHai amthr rmm.»oiai ina»
• DO
/» or totar J ,
' Enrichment level
'"f"***1 «>-»«V<<>'"4((*OWtoU.O
• Floating debrla
Sam iM*n( dob* PWMM 1*00* OK ; MM>
•nMtno ntftoitl^tn.
' Sediment pollution
O4-M.
* Shore type
' Subetrete type
iMMooaaMgr WMOI InMc.
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
* Wafer column metal*
iewW of any hftnty mtlut ArMjuwioy af EPA"t fht
crlavMi
iOlQ
Cac
LB
3
nouh
2
lor
2
1
2
o-»
3
4
f *>»•!•
r H*a^
2
2
2
1
3
aadc
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subafea
6
Marlay "V
Craak/Furnaca
Craak
Current iffle&fid.
Use Param
Use Category L&tt Parameter Ltiol
Flab Quality 2 • Bacteriological atatua 2
Boat traffic 1
• DO 3
1-4*11
Dradglng fraquancy 1
*•«•*
• Enrlchmant lava! 2
• Floating dabrla 1
MM* MUMW *M PWM «Mv 0* *Mft
• Sadlmant pollution 1
nSirtS^zs y iTM^iMy»rai
Shora typa 1
xtfpM.
• Subalrata typa 2
• Turbidity 2
•D-IWayf
Vagatatlva habitat 1
* Watar column matala 3
tMf d m ht*»f omul iH^HOti * fPAtdmnlc
crittrlm.
Prefy
Data Ui
Level Con/ Data Source L&
2 o c«t,o«. Fish Quality
BjafltfMtotoijto HMWiy M0 ctetM
3 Q *nM*n«WCwrq)
3 Q STONET
DO
4 Q WmkOioup.
Ondglne
FnqMnqr
4 Q »K«ET
EnrtctMncni
NA P *JJj"™*J|V)iimi(
D*** Pto'
NA P N00*™
P«Hu«on
3 Q E«MK
^^Hta^M^ WMkn^^
SwbikM* Z~T^|*~^ ^^
T«P«
5 p »TO«ET
TutMw
HAW
NA P NO DAT*'.
WWr
Appendix C
C-33
mast It
V. t
tal Parameter I
S * Bactarlologlcal atatua
OpCaWkMaV*y>^Ol7 ttCtl COttOfWtQO ttil
Boat traffic
• DO
Ata.tflyf
Dradglng fraquancy
y«My
' Enrlchmant (aval
• Floating dabrla
Sow MUtf
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current
Ulf.
Ute Category
Implied
dam. Qaa_
Parameter L&eJ Level Conl Data Source
• Fish Quantity/Diversity 2 Bacteriological status
Marley F«. •*,!«> a »«<•• cmium* i«M
• Shore typa
* Substrate typs
• Turbidity
* Vagatatlva habitat
• Water column metals
1
1
M
3
1
2
a nun
1
2
pnt».
1
MMMb
2
1
1
2
*v
2 0 e~-»o»
3 Q ITONCT
00
4 Q WMOm*.
4 Q CtOflfT
EnttmM
LMll
NA P J"*!*** '.Ijll'r'jj.
CMrii "**
NA P »°»T*
3 Q »*^
4 f ssuim.r*
TMttay
Y;.^ gr***1— '
HBlhlll
NA P »°»T*
MM
CekMM
Appendix C
C-34
Preferred
USf.
Level
Fish QuanUty/Dtventty 4
Param
Parameter L&tJ
Bacteriological status 1
• Boat traffic
Mtari«*|«v «m> Mfl« tMA mn> iftp
emtoHmd,
* Substrata typa 3
DO
* Dredging frequency
• Enrichment laval
Mrt/MiqpMaf-awiivforU
a»M«ii«v<
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
rfnlMMtfm
• Turbidity 3
• Vsgetatlvs habitat 3
Mkn.
Water column metals 3
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Qurrent
Uss.
Sljbaaa Usa CalaoofV LSXSl gaffllTHtof
6 Habitat 2 * Bactartologlcal atatua
• • | Wj*i iul.111111 mjjiitMili bm w.tiw" f^*««i*t«*l Qn»w«fl% >200 toMlooibnil/lflO flit Aon
Cr"*CrFeUerk"C" """""^ "'^"uaftlT
tUnof tti&plnf thtfintit dMMw MJMkVMt an
JMftoaV.
• DO
* Dredging fraquancy
' Enrlchmanl (aval
• Floating dabrla
MoAaW *M> /mM MH>r 100 (TV1
• Vagatallva habitat
flfrlufr octwtnrt Qt SAV.
• Watar column matala
IttttarlUt fen* a mult okM ft M MW
EPA'icAmfccriwk.
trnpUpd
Param
2
•Mr.
2
Mltf IWaH
1
2
2
s< limp1
2
1
*•-
MM
1
lUtOfMBfi
2
1
2
4
Data
Level Cont Qata Source
2 Q CounyCMU.
•ISWW
j Q Ann Anndd Cony
3 0 STOHET
DO
4 Q Woik(kol4l
4 Q STONET
Enrtdwnni
L#v*t
NA P WftnmHHtoi
D*** """'
NA P NOO»TA
S««mM
PdMlon
3 Q ESI ASM.
4 p CMrawMMO On ptflMM
^**-t EnhMMniMPIill.
,5 p STORET
TuUdly
'fillilrt i "**
HlbM
MA P NOCMM
nM r
WM
Column
Appendix C
C-35
Preferred '
Use t
Level Parameter
Habitat 3 * Bacteriological atatua
WOMOkimMrfMdlmnttolwapubtoquilli: CmMM* >JOO tea/co«xm/FOO(n(. no««-
tuM na ai^^aw MCMdMfMf aM /H OfMMV tfMHI 290 IfCaV
• Boat traffic
NtimiMM ikigiiMnyu«i(iwiiiiMMni
• DO
• Dradglng fraquancy
* Enrichment level
ToU/ntiog*! lO-Umf^aloUlplxxphanM 04
• Floating dabrla
•mow iMgHotil**!.
' Sadlmant pollution
C/*-H
* Shore typa
• Subatrata type
At^^Mfy itoUV nfatfitt Ihtnghoul -cubaVMi t*
• Turbidity
• u^flv^«.K|..— kAKIIttt
vagetatwe. naoiiai
Oa*Uon*l*tcnma*»i«n*f
MoMkn.
• Water column matala
rfrn "- ' — •• " ~—" ***" " *"* ~~~ ~
'am
em
L&
2
3
'«M
4
3
2
11
3
4
2
3
it mo
2
•W
4
}Ua4*
-------
pubana
6
Itartoy
Creek/Furnace
Creek
U*» Category
Recreational Boating 4
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current knotted Preferred
the Param nafr tlaa
LttM Parameter LtXfl Level Cont On* Source LtXtl
Bacteriological atatue 1 20 C""*°~ Recreational Boating
Boat traffic
trntn*
DO
Dredging frequency
«>
* Enrichment (aval
• Floating tfabrla
• Sadlmant pollution
«(O>.><
• Shora typa
* Substrata typa
«< 1 1 tmHtt* «o»
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
M> SUV mMn no moi* MM » xm»
• Floating dabrla 4
f mot at ahtratmnt diMk, no o* i
' DO
2-«l*<
Oradglng frequency
r««V
* Enrichment laval
• Sediment pollution 3
Sam Nph+ OfUHc muc*. rnadM* m«* of ttfc
* Shore type
* Substrate typa
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat 1
Mb 44 V or OTWpM «v««tt»i *i WM
• Water column matala 3
iMf or MT AM* mW »«guMi)f u f fKi am*
Appendix C
C-36
-------
Subarea
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current Implied
Use Param Data
Use Category Lexat Parameter iflifi/ Level Cora Data Source Level
Recreational Crabbing
PmM. Ma>>y. and dun
Preferred
6 Recreational Crabbing 3 Bacteriological atatua
ftJairlAw 8c«vc§; no HUM tnM Mot oonuWaneHon CoAHUMBy tno tbntlotflty >30Q Mot/ dpNtam'h
" (•* trofcarafa
Craek/Furnaca . ." . „.
Crt,(, Boat traffic
HBaWy MafBf •A^pfy eVMKlf aW^f flWe*Mf fWMfM
* DO
»-<«»*
' Dredging frequency
/«Vi*r4««*w«KM>M«*MiMntaMm
• Enrichment level
MXnftqpn (•»•»« Of w«((Aowtoi»OM.J»
• Floating debrla
MoriMM M.
* Shore type
Mtr/M^driMpnf *Mb*n«*.
* Subatrate type
• Turbidity
* Vegetative habitat
N> MV or tm*ign» MoniM MfMlton to ma
• Water column metala
loWttf C/ aVV Aa1a»W AMlaV OCCIBiDn&f It If MCMaWH
EMtaoMotorai
1
Mm
1
i
3
3
3
"V*
2
2
«*».
2
3
MM
i>
3
1
2
V
2 Q CounytMa.
BMnWogle
altUM
amTirifc Bo-h* ""* "**'* *"-r
3 Q noflrr
00
4 Q WUkOmo
EMM
FffUUfHlCV
1 IM|llOTNi|
4 Q »TOfltT
Eivlclifnini
NA P SJ^2t*»c«n«
rto**1^ ptMi
IM>k
NA P N00*1*
«»«n»n
PdMlM
3 Q "•**»
MonTn»
4 c EallrMtbatXongMaial
«a«(i«»o<«.l.
°*«*'"1» EnhanovMMPm
5 F nowr
Ty*Wy
VapulM "*"
Hablal
||^ p NO DATA
MMr
Cobmn
Appendix C
C-37
tomfierf
Parameter
Bacteriological atatua 1
' Boat traffic
Minor i
DO
wJnyt
* Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
Tail iHrogtn 0. 1 -0. » nv' « W*
• Floating dabrla
Ham MUM MMk p»MM (Wood. «cj mMr
• Sediment pollution
O>M
• Shore type
li - X * nawat •*> wm *M< teaiA«
•HnouMMtf.
• Subalrate type
2
UAU
3
m»
3
• Turbidity 3
* Vegetative habitat 3
mutm.
Water column metala 2
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cunmnt
Utf
Subaiea
•
Marlay
Creek/Furnace
Creek
Swimming a
3 0
3
DO
noesr
ftaat
Parameter LUOl ievef Corf DataSompe
Bacteriological •talus 2 2 Q
1
IH4
1
1
Pnfftnd
Hit.
Swimming
Boat traffic
*,*+
DO
Dredging frequency
• Enrichment level
MtfuMfM MMBlVfVM
«*(
• Floating debrle
NBBVy ffHWBVV dlBMI) fMBMt •
• Sediment pollution
4 O "•*»•»
»fC»>M
• Shore type
• Substrate typo
MM*) ml*.
NA P
AM*
CMfk
NA P
ElMu
3 Q
4 F
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
M> Mir «r «•«•« MM** H*MDon »i
* Water column metala
laWBf tVaVy AM*y MfaV i
bmntC5gfeM(
NA P
WMf
Cdumn
Appendix C
C-38
4 * Bacteriological atatus 4
2
2
• Boat traffic
• DO
Dredging frequency
MM*
• Enrichment level
«V4
• Floating dobrla 4
• Sediment pollution 4
2
O4-M
• Shore type
fUHl »MH> JtiOyxl lUH
• Substrate type
M> IMP* Ml •*•! ••"•» •>* «•!' •»
• Turbidity 2
Vegetative habitat
• Water column metals
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current Implied
EaOOL Data Use
Level
Flah Quality 2 * Bacteriological atatua
• —. — « StaM ooniavnfeuilon. oocMlMMl eMlon CQMMtvfciV >£00 r%paV frtfcfHt/Mffl int Aonvw
LOW*! !!••• ^* ^MMalaliMCaM AW JtsT AMaalaT iiatl JBP ihflatf
CrMk Boat traffic
HM>m*r •«**»••«» »r».«w*i«p««i
' DO
*-<"W
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
ratffltop. KMV/^omMote^Kruia^ i;
• Floating debrla
MMrMkMM*MpMMr.Mr«MM
• Sediment pollution
CMiartiaXi lilHi fT|i K)imli«*ni« li ».i
Shore type
* Subatrate type
SBmMtktfcMpKMrfMiutf ortfii tutntMf
riiiiirrTiriii trrr'-TTfr
• Turbidity
•MOOnyf
Vegetative habitat
Water column metals
i.--*,/^--.^-*-^^
2
1
t
3
1
2
r*pt
1
1
1
tM*
2
2
1
3
C
2 Q c«MyD.tt. FtehQoaWy
9 A ^V AHBBf BfApfflDsV Mutoor
KMToMc JjjJJ^jJj^SrtUU^JJ
3 Q SIDRETMOCGP
DO
3 Q WMilkajp
FnQINKy
3 Q SIORETMOOEP
EnrtdimM
iMl
3 f MMMtMoi
(Mrk Pl"1
1 Q NMb, IMZ. VBlM
MMMn. 1*74. Pto»
SidbMfli
PallKaii
_ -_ ceu A*BA fl^ak^l^ Haehiw
J| Q C9I AelB*, •••••B^V rMHMPI
mfi v EMtoMMfltt PIsVV 1M2
•Mtft T^V
2 f EMtntt*lram|iMHl
(y^lMy ^^MMMtfJPtal'
T*W '
5 p STOKTMOOGP
THAU*
2 a »««»
MAP NO DATA
n w r
WMBf
Column
Appendix C
C-39
implied
Param
Parameter L&Sl
2 * Bacteriological status 2
ConuUM* WW> iKtlaUamnOOitt.homH*.
iRCMdtnott ui9 no omttr thtn i$0 ttctf
Boat traffic
DO
Dredging frequency
KM*
Enrichment level 2
i I0-»nv1oiuulptioiptmiZ
• Floating debris
• Sediment pollution 1
HgHr apMfcinu*. h#i *Mk of Mife apulci
CMUnhukn M pradnntuM *i urn.
Shore type 1
Aha* mqgbfcf *Mk«M« MuttM^.««
* Subatrate type
* Turbidity
Vegetative habitat 1
Ml *IV or towlyfM (tarato* M^Milkn *i KM.
* Water column metals 3
-------
Suba/aa
T
Lowar Baar
Craak
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
JmdHl Pnffmd
Ptmm p«rfa L/jff
Ltvul JMffl Coal QMtSoUTC* Lava/
Flah Ouantlty/Dlvaralty 1 Bactarlologlcal atatua 1 2 O <=•"•» °~ Ftoh Ouanltry/DlvareHy
CutTfM
Uu.
*+. *•*«•*«*
• Boat traffic
DO 1
uttiiti iiifin iny nrinflfirr if rii i»ir
• Dradglng fraquancy
• Enrlchmant (aval 1
«n
• Floating dabrla 1
3 Q IKMtTMOOtP
DO
3, Q tt*a~P
3 Q dOKTMOOiP
UMl
3
« Q KMto. IH2. VfeM*
•- M74. P-~
Short
• Sadlmant pollution
.«*>M|»*»l*IMtlt
*»• 130 p^J^r:
^IliiiamiUtmom. «Olia»ftMali Mien TIP*
•tfpto.
• Subatrata typa 1 2 F
TIP*
5
Tl
• Turbidity
>IWl>V<
• V«g«iallv« habitat
Myanmn^ante^iKinilrtiiiH
Watar column matala
NA P
COM™
Paam
Laya/
Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
• Boat traffic
• DO
* Dradglng fraquancy
* Enrlchmant (aval
• Floating dabrla
MM* MMW AMI (MMrt MMr o* WIMn
• Sadlmant pollution
* Subatrata typa 2
rfmutfvMtu/Mity
Ct>M
' Shora typa
• Turbidity
• Vagaiallva habitat 1
M> My or MwpiM itardw MO»Mtt» to WH.
' Watar column matala 2
Uw<««mflHtrr mul ocut&mtf H gr WOMI*V
Appendix C
C-40
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current
Us*
Subarea Use Category loaf Parameter
Implied
Ptram
Level
Habitat 1 ' Bacteriological atatua 1
tm.m tuiMtoctox rf3t
C"*k • Boat traffic
HMO"-*""****"' ^nmtm
• DO
OcMtor^MMfMOilvf.*** «•><*«
' Dredging frequency
rM*
• Enrichment level
1
"•"*
1
• MW.
1
1
Preferred
Data Use
Level Conf Data Source Level
2 G c«*»«^ Habitat S
4 Q ESIMM. OlJamonHMbBf
Cmlronnnniai EnhMtownMii
fr*7""0 PIM.1M1
3 Q STOHET/UOOEP
00
3 Q WMOraup
Dredging
FiKMMcy
3 Q STOWTMOOEP
r«W«Kv» HW-SOiV/arlottlphiMpnana rj-« Errtcftimn
flV<
• Floating dabrla
Hurt MMMtf AMI (MM* M*or o* in
1
MA
• Sediment pollution 1
HtontranjmfcmvatnfeAJlMftaF'IMfcara
CMrtMriMMan MM|O9>MpMrfaMkHM t
• Shora typa
Mnocf (MnpMMy 4nvtopMf todwMWy, M
• Subatrata typa
UMMfeMAMnwfttfflMfor'MMyM V*K
MtiMrftrtft
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
• Water column metal*
l«Mf Ot M? fkMW JIMlaV MXaWkMttfr *W ff i
topics. *«.
mm*.
reWM.
1
1
•atatnal
1
1
aVML
1
MOBM^I
Lwd
3 c OiUnian Hater
EmHmmnul EnhiraniM
FkMMng p,.^
CM>k
1 Q KMh.IK2.VMMd
."-^ Jormwn. 1974. Pto»
PdUtan
3 Q £81 AUK. B*HK«H
5
5
5
• Floating debrla 4
OccMOMl mod « oKMr nMiraf *0nli. oo ol «Mn.
' Sediment pollution
O4-M.
4
•rJky.
• Shora typa 5
>40K Mtunt wttt lngf timchtt at ttmt tno muttm.
' Subatrate type
N»W> Of «0«M> «pM aOjiOMI 0 OM MtfRK
MuM||k•>« •«"
EP4*cnnnfccnk>b
5
5
5
4
•/»
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cunuft '"ftifn*
PJOOL Dau Uu.
Paamatar LtXtl L»v»l Cool PdiftnVrt* Lavaf
LtXtl
Lowar Bear
Craak
**.*•••***»
• Boat traffic
• DO
Racraallonal Boating 3 * Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
o«
2
•*•
1
1
2
"*
2
1
Dradglng fraquancy
* Enrlchmant (aval
• Floating dabrla
IMMMAMfHMnfMMr*
• Sadlmant pollution
CMM*ttftMM*lfC*>
• Shora typa
Subatrata typa
MM M «••<*«*•
Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
M> SAY a •amttM tAarMta Mpwhn ti
• Walar column matala
K «* mi »«Hy
bmnlCWImi
20 CM*
Racraattanal Boating
2 O
3 Q ITOflETMDOEP
00
3 O
M*h9
n4MM(
3 Q STOICTiMOOe1
Hj^gll^g
•Ml
3 F
Mta«
•Mi
1 Q KMte. IIK. Vfc ml
•Aram
dUton
3 Q
9
r*
2 Q »"«"••
NA P »Q»I*
Cdum
Appendix C
C-42
Param
Partm&ar
4 • Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
t«»*n*»i«>»V ta*e
• Boat traffic
Mftnim
• DO
Dradglng traquancy 1
* Enrlchmant lava) 3
' Floating dabrla 3
*w «Mn« (ttv* PMMM (Wood; «cj Md«gr
* Sadlmant pollution 1
• Shora typa
* Subatrata typa
• Turbidity
• MOnVf
Vagatallva habitat
&IVor«mrp«»tficr<*wi«9««lnn*i
Watar column matala
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Currant
Subarea
1
Lower Bear
Creak
Use Category
Recreational Cribbing 1
lOJOtiSSL Preferred
EaaOL Data Use
Parameter LtXil Level Conl Data Source Level
2 Q c«MviMa Reaeational Crabbing
Bacteriological statue 1
•MMtrM*>«tffcM
• Boat traffic 1
*,*+
DO
* Dredging frequency
r««»
* Enrichment level
• Floating debrle
Htttvy Imtuttlfl AMipnMnt tnttoi
• Sediment pollution
H&+ a*Mfe muA Ayfi
Conmillimari *»fc« (Cj>
* Shore type
•ml pi**.
' Substrate type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
M V or 4nwpM tft»
3 Q ESIMki. BMknmHMbor
2 p EMInMlnmgimfil
SutakaM EfwtMMWMnW Ptak
5 p STORiTMOOEP
2 Q ESI Alto
NA P »°"A.
Cokm
Appendix C
C-43
Anpfed
Parameter
Bacteriological atatua 1
• Boat traffic
Httvy mfot shaping todfor iwp* mwlnaV
• 00
?-4«»l
' Dredging frequency
EMqrMtor/iMr.
• Enrichment level
MMflMqpM )0-W«v)arHW
«»»
• Floating debrla
MMhn» OWm» /MMM «MUr (KM
* Shore type
*I«fa»Tf>M<»'OlMt«
teMM* m>pt*i.
' Substrate type
• Turbidity
•MOOmpf
• Vegetative habitat
Mi S4Vor«m«j«n«nor»*i. Mptuttn h J
* Water column metals
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarta
1
Lower Baar
Creak
Pa/am
UnCattpoiY LBal Pftmmatmr Luvmi
Swimming 2 ' Bacteriological status 2
• ItMlialaaMUO r»«i>iM« »JDB>iiilnia»iiii/MB««Hil»»n
MMMMWtWfM1* ••><•> to*
Boat traffic
DO
»m*«i»i
• «•«« *•»«*» KIwiHr.
Dredging frequency
KM*
• Enrichment level
• Floating debris
•>«*»!'
• Shore type
*».•
•MplM.
• Substrate type
• Sediment pollution 1
•*Mta
ltl*M
1
M«
1
a)
1
Vegetstlve hsbltst 1
«te«W«r«iiH»nH)i»«i*iiiii|ililfcii >!•••.
* Water column metala 1
* Turbidity
Pntemd
U*.
Ltvui
2 0
T*.. J..lt.il.Mi
owviwniny
Ptam
Parameter
Bactarlologlcal atatua S
3 O
DO
3 Q NBtOO*
3 Q fTCMtTMOOEP
< Q
30!*,
•tan Tff*
tCOflMI^
ClMItl
noncTMoo?
2 Q
NA P »<>»«
kM«MOTMI«im«l MtavMiW halcOfonwlOOiit.
• Boat traffic
• DO
Dradglng Irtquancy 1
• Enrichment level
TtUltttgHi l-tm&ixloulfha
m*
• Floating debris
* Sediment pollution 4
Hi ll tKiM o>«n»nfc canttmtumn (ntutla laik)
O4-H.
' Shore type 3
If - JO K oMwl •» iom w» to**. m» itnp
• Substrsts typs 4
On. Mttno lyp* (MM. >A •** una) gbmtwof M
n«n»n tin umpuclifi a atm lypm font.
• Turbidity 3
Vegetative habitat
' Water column metele 3
Iwnf d HIT Awy mat itnfnatf u fpAi atonic
altri*
Appendix C
C-44
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current Implied Preferred
List. PjaOL Data Use
Use Category Laxtl Parameter LtXSl Level Conl Data Source Level Paramefff
2 * Bacteriological atatua 2
Boat traffic 1
Implied
Param
Flah Quality 2 * Bacteriological atatua 2
vppwi •»«•! mo~*ne**iMi**tt*m2aO toot
CrMk Boat traffic 1
' DO 3
Dradglng fraquancy 1
VM*
* Enrichment laval 2
• Floating dabrla 1
HMWT MtoMtf AM pnMM mMr ct MMA
• Sadlmant pollution 1
/V* •»•* •«*. •*» •** «* •»* •»•*»
Shora typa 1
* Subatrata typa 2
• Turbidity 2
Vagatatlva habitat 1
• Watar column matala 3
crtwk
3 f CMMIIDM. Fish Quality
4 Q EMMM. •iHlllon !!•>.<
4 Q alORETMDCEP
DO
4 Q wortQrom
3 Q 8TORETMOOEP
Enrtctvnunl
Lwd
3 F r*^0* ??•*•
4 p MkMtfJolnHn,M74.
sJimM *****
PMuMM
4 Q E*IMfe». SdknoniHMbot
UHWA Tw^ ftfUrwOnWailMi EMMnOMntani
**"• T|1" Pta. ten
2 F STEtI±ntr
*'*•••'• flttHMOm* PIW. 1M2.
5 p STOHETMOGEP
2 Q 681 Adi. ErtrnMHram
Vv9>Mk* EnvtamiMnul EntunoMmrt
H*U
NA P "o^*
WfMv
Cabmn
Appendix C
C-45
DO
<»»i
Oradglng fraquancy
*
Enrichment laval
«P*
• Floating dabrla
* Subatrata typa
t mutf or
• Sadlmant pollution
up* apnfc muc*. ftfrf) Im* <
CMWitwtti *«*• (C!l> M prMbntMol *i ••!
Shora typa 1
Jltm* 0000*1* ***** MuMM* MM
' Watar column matala 3
k^MMiy ar £ftl» cftnx*
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
MoSAVat
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cmrant
Uu.
L/M Category LtXll
Flah Ouanllty/Dlvaralty 1
Uppar Baar
Craak
Boat traffic
T"*
DO
DPMI
Dredging frequency
f
Enrichment laval
Mrt
«•<
• Floating dabrla
• S«dlm»nt pollution
n Jhrtw fC^> M
• Shor* typo
• Substrata typa
UM*»Mttn»itm
MTlMriwiM.
• Turbidity
>MPnvf
• Vagatatlv* habitat
' Watar column matala
Ltr* d m> ItHHf IMUI oowtmMy * or
4 a
PjOOL Qatt
Ptrmmrtor ifluf tavaf ponf
Bacteriological atatua 1
Mu.
Ltvtl
Fteh OuanMy/tHvenity
4 Q fHORETMOOS'
oo
4 Q •""»»•»
»•*<
Frawner
3 Q HORETMOW
EnWmM
LM«
3 F ?*"
4 p V*««ndJe*M«M»»
Pt»M
4 Q
2 f
STOAETMOOEF
1 NA P "°o»T«
WMf
Cotultm
2 Q
""•"•*• ElMkonmrul EiUwmMnl
Appendix C
C-46
Panmutor
B*ct«rlok>glc«l
Ptnm
'H»
• Boat traffic 1
l*m, m+ nnpnttunfm !*»,****?***
• DO 3
* Dredging frequency 1
' Enrichment level 2
• Floating dabrla
' Sadlman! pollution 2
• Shora typa
' Subatrata typa 2
SwimA* cmpvM mul or A tu m<%
•MugpOMMly W»Ml mk.
• Turbidity 1
• Vagatatlva habitat
' Watar column matala
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Currant
Uas.
Subarea
Us* Category
Upper Bear w«*cdunmnd»
Creek
Habitat 1
untwM. no iMM>
Pa/am Data
Parameter LtXil Level Cont Data Source
Bacteriological atatua 1
• Boat traffic
«r. ituforl*
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
rai9ii« •*»•*>• MyMMtan *i <
• Water column metala
LtMl tt KI /»i«y mul
3 p
4 Q ESI MM.
,__ Emtam
•°"Tl-fc nnina
4 Q STOnETMOOEP
DO
4 Q
3 Q STOWTMOOEP
' __ EmtanmrulEiilHncOTM
sr "-
1 p MfeMMmon. MM.
4 Q
Star* TH>»
2 F
***"'• fftaacnmit Ptan. 1M2.
5 p ITONETiMOOEP
2 O
VlgMtfw
H«bU
NA P
Preferred
Use Param
Lsxsl Parameter L&XSl
Habitat 4 * Bacteriological atatua 2
*M«a>fcn»i«riM4nMM«l>GMpul>to4iii* Camtunfr >8te <««
* Sediment pollution 4
04-14
' Shore type 4
SI - SO* oMn( mid lonm ant. tuam littgf ttmm
• Substrate type
• Turbidity
»-«nV'
• Vegetative habitat
* Water column metala 4
* rf rank Oat* ». M »•«» (guX B
Appendix C
C-47
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
I
Upper Bear
Creek
Current Implied
UtL EtOUL Data
Ute Category itttf Parameter Lrn^eJ Level Cool DataSouice
Recreational Boating 9 * Bacteriological atatua 1
mMflBMl tatfhf. Mi iMrt tMM *
Pntened
Us*
Laval
• Boat tralllo
• DO
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level 2
Tonoatum »t»»elau»IHmtmml*-ame*
• Floating dabrla 2
• Sadlmant pollution 1
• Shore type
• Substrate type 1
b JMBf flr MMBVaX IriMJF MP! teVWtl
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
* Water column metala
tranlCSOIMl
9 F c"*>0*
48MM
.40 P"**-!*
Recreational Boating
4 Q ITOMTMOOEP
00
4 O "»»»•»
****
Fw,«ncv
3 Q iro«ET»»ew>
UMl
3 F
I
p
I*
n
4 Q
f ITOWTINOOEP
>r
20!"*
NA P
WMi
Ctfuirn
Paran}
Parameter
4 ' Bacteriological atatua 1
• Boat traffic 3
Mk mo «M I lug* «MM tM no man tun * «nf
• Floating debrle 3
Sim M*Mf*Ml AMHM (WOO* Me./ MtfW
•WIMHIIM flfghloi thttn.
' Sediment pollution 1
Hp* «pnfc me*. /V *w» rf Wrfc avxtta.
ConuntMUn tutor |O>> M prMkmtiM In MM
* Shore type 2
fM* kMi>4r tr*taf*>
* DO
Dredging frequency
KM*
* Enrichment level
* Subatrate type
wtiMnM>lhit>t(|An«i«i
it MbnaH 01 an ftp* <•* jftM MM|| tat MIX Mk
• Turbidity 1
Vegetative habitat 1
M> SA V a mmgml ilmint Mg*man K MM
* Water column metala 1
Appendix C
C-48
-------
Subarea
t
Upper Bear
Creek
Use Category
Recreational Crabbing 1
Not*.« oonumlMMd md HcMy
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cjiaaat JQCfetf. Preferred
PjOOL Bali Use
Parameter
Bacteriological *l«tu* 1
• Boat traffic
t?ffl*>r
DO
* Dredging frequency
»••**
* Enrichment level
foutnmpM tOO-SXirg/loiu
met
• Floating debrla
*fa»rMk*Mi/ 14
* Shore type
• Substrate type
UMMtfeubUnwMi
M(ilu/ar«C
* Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
Mb Mir w m*t** Ma«»M MpMttx ti
* Water column metala
tm*t at any A«M^ A
known tCSO to*.
Con/ Pa/a Source
Level
Recreational Crabbing 2
Sara of pfenM; torn conUMMbn
4 Q »'*"-
Enrtonm
«•"• PIM.IM2
4 Q STODETAIDOEP
DO
4 Q WortOfOup.
Fi*)u«icy
3 Q STOflETMOOEP
3 F •"""•'•'•
Envtramwiul Enhmotnuni
Otmb
1 p VHiMtfJolnMn. I»74.
Ph.8»
Q EMMk>.
8Kx.T»»
2 p EMmMhanBiMm
J4*""" EnkMCMM l*n, 1M2.
5 f tTOHETMOCEP
2 Q E*IAM>. EHHMlillron
9Htn— "-"
«»*•*• IZ
H*f« ^^
NA P
•nplfad
Param
Parameter
Bacteriological atatue 1
• Boat traffic
Hwrm^»*vani>'
* DO 3
2-4ff«f
• Dredging frequency 2
Ewrotfxrfw
* Enrichment level 2
Jo&Mog*, 10-iga^loiKltl
«Vt
• Floating debrle
04 I!
2
Sediment pollution
• Shore type
OnM conyMtt,' d*n>qp*l MiMUilr.
Subetrate type
oxnpictttf mw» or Ut
MM«»nMty i«M« Mffit
• Turbidity
•MOO apt
• Vegetative habitat
• Water column metala 2
to* of «y tanr mtuloccmUnilr nor
Appendix C
C-49
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Suban*
t
Upper Bear
Creek
Current
J/tt
Swimming 2
Implied
fJOOL Data
Parameter LtXtl LeveJ Con/ pata Source
Bacteriological statue 2 3 F <*"«°~ Swimming
• t»aOO I
Boat traffic
ttv a^taW
BJ *^B^V
DO
4 Q "•**»•
Dredging Iraquancy
CM*
• Enrichment (aval
• Floating dabrla
• Sediment pollution
Mb* «»Mt *u* *«* fcntrf to* opnte
CMM*M«M Mil (C*. M (MdornhM «i MM
• Shore type
«rilil|. i
mtfttn.
* Subatrata type
4 Q (TMETMMXr
DO
4 Q WMOrai*
[Mgtaf
Cll n •mm
rnQiwicy
3 Q (TOIKTMOCEP
3 F
(Mck
1 p Whw4.MiMi.W74.
Pt.»
4 Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
Mb MV vompMttawto* N««MM k
' Water column metala
(•vWtJMrAwr
Jbmm IC» WW
4 Q CMAtt.
MmTn.
2 F
T»«
5 p STOAETMOOEP
PIM.IMI.
2 Q "IT*
NA P N00*1*
\NMr
Column
Param
iCK
3 ' Bacteriological atatua 3
• Boat traffic
• DO
Dredging frequency 1
KM*
' Enrichment level 2
loHntngtn lO-Mnyfo •gWpMp'Uw 04- U
"•«
• Floating debrla 3
* Sediment pollution 4
»te»«»nMafo/v«itn»il»i*i«HiiiM>o>njrt>.
O«-M.
* Shore type
' Substrate type
' Turbidity
Vegetative habitat 1
Ml IA V or «TwpM Mmm* NB«MtM tl «K
' Water column metals 3
orHoi
Appendix C
C-50
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current ItOf&asi.
Use COBOL Data
Subarea Use Category ittffj Parameter LtlUl LBXtl Gad Pafa Source
• Fish Quality 3 ' Bacteriological status 3 5 Q cwMrOnt Fish Quality
Outsr Hsrbor M'1" «"••»»•»» HUM* «*«**•» WHIM
Boat traffic
HM) nqfrr Oiftpty nKBf *ft mt*t
' DO
«-*»»i
Dredging trequency
r«*
• Enrichment (aval
2 Q p'*"»
BcMtToafc _
4 5 O IIOHET
00
• Floating debris
• Sediment pollution
Saw /»*>• tqmfc •««*, «mkn» MM* << •»*:
—--. cr*-r*
Shore type
• Substrate type
• Turbidity
rffrOnV*
Vagatatlva habitat
3 Q
Drad(lng
3 Q STORET
3 F
4 p VHxndJoliiiMn.1974.
MMen
3 . Q ESIAlk*. -^.—.——
EiwIfprMiMUl Enlonnmnl
EnluncOTiM
S F »™*r
2 Q ESIMta*. MknoMHMxv
HIDMi
* Water column metals 4 NA P "°°*IA
"1llmt()f)MlllCt>WIDllMllfW««IMlM WM(
-"- -•—*• Cokmn
Parameter
5 * Bacteriological status 4
Boat traffic
DO
Dradglng fraquancy 1
»•*
' Enrichment (aval 4
few flfkqpm a 1-0 M maf M«Mkv McVountf egmmrxbni fcr
Jtnnm AM«V •mntowwK wtf
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Sutant
Oular Harbor
Cutrtnt
Uu.
LtXlt
Fish Ouantlly/Dlvaralty 3
•*-••.«-*-..* »»«*••
knotod
PjOOL OaU
Local LfVfl Cool DMmSourcf
Bacteriological atatua 1 SO
Preferred
Ua.
Ltvtl
Fish Quantity/Diversity
M«ri|Mdii.plMMMitan
Boat traffic
DO 4
Dredging frequency 2
OxMvpMr.
Enrichment (aval 3
Floating dabrla 1
*t MMtt «Mi fraMM Mdttr <* ttaML
' Sediment pollution 3
tarnHf*rofgtnf mx*. nodMKbM* JIB.*
O4-M.
' Shore typa
W» (IMK» l«il»tp»<
• Subalrata typa
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat 1
«fc &iy or omyM »
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
Outer Harbor
Current Implied
Use EiWL
Use Category LaXOl Parameter LfJOl
Habitat 2 ' Bacteriological atatua 2
•Od no llMtof 4MM01ffl0MMl)M0nMlfcVMaVl28D AKaV
* Boat traffic 2
imrtnm.
' DO 1
• Dredging frequency 2
EMryMtertMr.
• Enrichment level 2
rotf itfiqpn lOMnvtarmfpftaptanilU-Uiiipl
* Floating debrla 2
Ifodmto dtaftffc pdMMf aWtttf flat eVtMA
• Sediment pollution 1
MU^ Mftamfe MaiA AMl BM^a! Jaf AtefcfMOaY^M.
?W •BBnar ("MM, nayi ajyaaaj « «•«,- t^^»i\
• Shore type 1
At™* a»n*»^ tfHkftt MM**,: *thl*mtidt
•^rffllam
Iti clt f "null rtrirri hT rrr-r T'l1 fn
£P/|-i cfmnlc a<^k
Dafa
Lav»/ Con/ Para Source
5 Q co-wo-* Habitat
a»'*a.frfffji« WA«r oofejim «lrf Mdl
2 Q ESIAIta. DH>I»JII Hatct
^ _ _ EnvMnmiMi Efltia¥iosfn§ni
5 Q »TOBET
00
3 Q 1MoAQf(M4'L
Fr«qu«ncy
3 Q «T««T
EnrictanM
L*nl
3 c ni»i«ii» Unto
^^ Eml»n»UIEnh«»iiM
rS_L7 Hio-
Mult
4 P VH> Md Johnwn, W7«.
sU «*•
PMutan
3 Q ESI Alto MkmHutw
•••"•• iffM MfMv 10(2: Note tfktf Bl tOTIM
3 F S^S&li««n«.
T»»
S p •TOHET
TuM%
2 Q EMAIta. «4*mo<«H^x»
Sgf^ PtoTl"!
NA P N00*™
(MM
C<*mn
Appendix C
C-53
Pretened
Usa.
Level Parameter
4 ' Bacteriological atatui
(ranto of aWMpt*M* oua4h CkwMhwttiy >JB0 frf^ fojtoni .'f Off mf, JkM
• Boat traffic
Mp nM alMA OM tMtM IMffM aVNftVflfffA
• DO
* Dredging frequency
flip* *•*»* " J-5 )•» **««" *K*
• Enrichment level
Tool nftqpn a !•« » /n»* or Halpfuvtoi
• Floating debrla
* Sediment pollution
a 4-14
• Shore type
Jl - 4M Mlurd n«i xnv unt. jam »t«i
* Subatrate type
a»wMMWM»(mu« •* fMl Mx()*«ii
• Turbidity
W-40«»f
• Vegetative habitat
Uodtnlt pitchtt ft SAw Htt 4MM*(Wnf MBJMI
* WaUr column m«UI«
tff^tatrtf livtli ft tmtalt dotf in. IIU/MIW
imd
£aa
ia
1 2
4
MM*V
4
3
tentt.
4
«
4
4
4
IfflMA.
4
*IM»
Ml
4
4
•Brt
4
'"*-*
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subumi
Outer Harbor
Un fltftgpff
Recreational Boating 3
Ptnm
Parameter LtXll £eye/ Cfrrf OataStouice
Bacteriological atatue 1 S Q OM^iMa RecreettoneJ Boating
Boat traffic
»r!««»«« PIHMX.
• DO
Dredging frequency
' Enrichment level
• Floating debris
• Mh.|C*.M«M
• Shore type
Mnimu minn »i«*i*iii«M,«
• Substrate type
• Turbidity
ScolnMnt pollution 1
•*«<•
>*•»*
1
MM
1
•M
1
Vegetative habitat 1
HilMf Hatful i>»»Oii i^mfcn • «ML
• Water column metals i
2 Q
f*
Q STWCT
DO
3 Q
3 Q «10RET
3 F
4 p WhM«MwMii.W74.
A BBl A
3 F
TN»
8 F
2 Q fWMU. Mlnm
NA P »«»T*
WMI
Cdunw
Paam
Parameter
4 * Bacterlologteal atatua 1
• Boat traffic
Mtf****
• DO
* MM Am <«M> Urn.
Dredging frequency 1
* Enrichment level
3
• Floating debrle 3
tvmittui* Mb* pnunfm**c.) mm
• Sediment pollution 1
2
3
Vegetative habitat 1
rti itll'x •i»iuiiinfii»i«n HIIIIMIII >i »»•
• Water column metals 1
• Shore type
• Substrate type
01 «Mn» * on*
• Turbidity
Appendix C
C-54
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
Outer Harbor
Currant
Ha*.
UsaCaleoon LtXOt
Recreational Crabbing 3
Param
Parameter Leyjl Level Conf Data Source
Bacteriological atatua 1 SO CMTOM.
Preferred
Utf.
Level
Recreational Crabbing 5
* Boat traffic
• DO
f-4**
* Dredging frequency
MMlateatWbftMi but 3 J M^> tMM
* Enrichment level
• Floating debrla
* Sadlmant pollution
O>M.
* Shoro typo
* Substrata typa
* Turbidity
• Vagatatlva habitat
M» SAV or MupMitaM*!* N««Hkn *i
* Water column matala
2O?*
3 SO ""^
oo
3 Q HMO**
OMght
FMqtiMcy
3 Q STORET
3 F
4 P
W4.
2 3 Q e
Mm TH»
3 3 F
S F
2 Q ESI MM
"•"•'**
NA P WOQ»™
IMiC
Cdumn
Parmm
Parameter
Bacteriological atatua 1
Boat traffic
DO S
Dredging frequency 3
n*r «M>>» *»» »•» r**> t*»»«n *ii*>»i».
Enrichment level 4
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution 2
• «« «»* opvita
O.K.
• Shore type 3
U - » « MUM «n wm MX) tMA no* Hfo/f
tm tiStint
• Substrate type 3
• Turbidity 3
• Vegetative habitat 3
ClxMfentfp«aM»ofS«wpM
MfiMW.
• Water column me Is Is 2
Appendix C
C-55
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Cumr* tiyfarf Pntmtnd
the Ptnm rtmim Uit.
L/MCateppft' LtiOl Parameter ittt/ leva* Carl para Source Lgjat
Swimming 3 * Bacteriological atatua 3 SO CM*0"* Swknmlng 8 * Bacteriological atatua S
Panm
Outer Harbor
Boat traffic
r«**f*MMk«i
• DO
««Mfcrf
• MKIM^MM
Dredging frequency
• Enrtehm«nl
• Floating dobrla
It ..... a** mi* ?,mul Mf «r «n«MI MoralM MpMMtm
* Water column metala 3
Imfrfi
crltrti
Appendix C
C-56
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
10
Current JEQgfigtf.
Uat.
Use Category LaxtJ Parameter
Flah Quality 2 ' Bactarktloglcal atatua 2
OraMM* >a» tafo*
tavaf Con/ Oafa Source
2 O
Boat traffic 1 2 O JSj^STL^
• DO
Dradglng fraquancy
*
Enrlchmant laval
• Floating dabrla
• Sadlmant pollution
CMaWMtaflfM MtW |C«V M
Shora typa
* Subatrata typa
<*r
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
• Watar column matala
^ Mtaf «CK*|. Itn
4 O «**°~»
NA P HOO»T»
4 F
1 NA P »°»T*
1
Md
2
4 Q
McmTnw
Preferred
Uat.
Level
Fish Quality S
PlM.IM2.BtalgglGd Study
HA P
2 Q
3 NA P
WM
Cobm
Param
Parameter
' Bacteriological atatua 4
Boat traffic
• DO S
AtMfUVl
Dradglng fraquancy 1
KM*
• Enrlchmant laval 4
• Floating dabrla
• Sadlmant pollution
M> «0«» of opMt «MMtMt» (M
O4-U.
Shora typa
* Subatrata typa
of MtttM. 4 on IH» M (Ml MM) m> mr •»
• Turbidity 4
Vagatatlva habitat 1
M> S4V or «n»pM jtaralM M^attm it «w
• Watar column matala S
liv t«cVinlrMbn< tor
wlnnnM intf nwir /nuk Mnr
Appendix C
C-57
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
10
Stonay Crack
fl/gf/K
i/u.
Lt3Ol
Fish Quantity/Diversity 3
!»)•
Pmmutmr
Bactartologlcal atatua 1
Laval Corf
2 Q o-*
*».****»'»
• Boat traffic
• DO
4-lm*
' Dradglng fraquancy
' Enrlchmanl laval
• Floating dabrla
• Substrata typa
• Turbidity
•g-MDnyt
* Vagatatlva habitat
* Watar column matala
4 4 P
00
4 O «"•**•»
NA P «"*'*
4 F
• Sadlmant pollution 3 NA P NOMU
ffffnf f^fif ttfgBitr tnvtli ^r^ftiff tmtttt tntr aidtaHM
•IMte O4-M fHi«in
• Shora typa 2 4 O *****
2 S F
MMM
T«»
NA P "»»».
2 O
NA P
•PfaflTmTafftf
J/Bt.
Lava/
Fish QuanMy/Divarelty S
Pvamettt
Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
»K •»*•<> >JOO toK
• Boat traffic
DO
* Dradglng fraquancy
* Enrlchmant laval
• Floating dabrla
r
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current Ian
Ust. £•
Subarea Use Category LXUl PjutDSlSl i«
10 Habitat 2 * Bacteriological alatua
bioney breeit MdnllMH( mautKKmmmrmtrfm-rr •— •
• Boat traffic
MMM
' DO
* Dredging frequency
• Enrichment level
rotfitfnvn <04t*0l<*toulfl*»l»>onjt04r.
• Floating debrla
MoglfMM eMvIl pMMflf tMfQt Of IrlMrlL
• Sediment pollution
Hp* ogv* mu*. Afcft Knk o« IHfe orpnte
QMntiMbn MK M ^•ttmtaM *i Met
' Shore type
• Subalrate type
WtXMMMtyMUtfMlfc
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
HHort ooanm <* SAV.
• Water column matala
^£srrir**"*'<'"w'*'
ijejL
3UZL
KB/
2
2
1
2
2
i*t»
2
1
1
taMb
2
1
2
or
4
Dot.
Level Com Data Source
2 Q C««»»0«»
BlKttfMBtfO
«SUM>
2 Q *»»An«MCoiM>
* HMgi (GEES). 1*71
o!J ^^
Fnsuncr
NA P «°*T*
EnridmM
Unl
4 p BiMnm HMXir
MM? PU"1
u A B NO DATA
NA r """"•"
tatkmn
PolUlan
4 Q E8IAM..
Stiof • Type>
9 p iMirw.HMxx
^^ EiKtannMI EnhMMimnl
TIP* Plm.uiB.IPiiW'rtSiMif
NA P N00*1*
Vignat. "*
MAIM
MAD NO DATA
nM r
WMtr
Cdumn
Appendix C
C-59
Preferred
Uaa.
Level
Habitat 2
WMoofarm Kaput* but
Param
Parameter
' Bacteriological atatua 2
mtnimrm u» no gn*Hr Ihtn ISO tool
• Boat traffic
• DO 1
ftmtaidt ittftM It ny1 rfiirtifl rift it ifrr ytr
• Dredging frequency 2
• Enrichment level 2
rtWMWVM t»Mll9ti>rlM)pAa«ftmi 04 I?
*«t
• Floating dabrla 2
(fe4m» *<•» pnwtir andlr OK/MM.
• Sediment pollution
Hp* op** m«*./«A
CmumMlan hota (C«b
• Shore type
N|)My apnt nwai. HfeA kM* o
CmUmhMlpn Mh> (O> M pmkmtuM In <
• Substrate typa
*«••«« onqncMtf out or
• Turbidity
* Vagatatlva habitat
> X M V or
• Water column metala
MMNOMI kn* * iniuk COM A OK MMT
BVtt chine
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
SufcSBM
10
Sloney Creek
Curtffil
UK. PJUOL __
Ui« Category LUUl Parameter lava/ Laval port pmt*Souice
Recreational Boating 3 * Bacteriological atalua i I O
Pntfrmt
• Boat traffte
DO
Dredging frequency
*•**
' Floating dabrla
• Sediment pollution
• rfttrtorpMk*
• Shore type
Oinm IUII»»M) OiiMiKMM*,.
' Subatrata type
Umuut ntjtnt tiniMt a tubmt. Vt
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
N» SA V a MIMMM UoHtnt MgtMta to VM.
• Water column metals
bmntC»bv*t
RacreaUonal Boating
oo
• Enrichment level 2 NA P
I KM» «»t«r >«KMdM>OiTvf-Mily1<»lcm(jfri«plion«im?
• Floating dabrla 2
MootoMi ihMl praMM mf«r o< »*•«.
* Sediment pollution 1
up* vpnfc •«<*, Afcft Im* of utfc opnks.
CoMMtHUn MH |CO>> M pnttmtttm In MM
• Shore type 1
Atmai a»nam» i»n»t>iiii tMUM«iy. »m
MMM«kM>(ibn.
* Substrate type 1
(taunt MMrM>tinKW<*K«wM. V«y «rtl «*>«•
M(mu(or<«.
• Turbidity 1
Vegetative habitat 1
M> M¥ a tarngtH anoint mgtuUan In MM.
Water column metals
•fafaryhMV]
li»Mil.C»lnW
Appendix C
C-60
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
10
Sloney Creek
Current
Use.
Use Catoyorv LsXSl
Recreational Crabbing 4
l, no mon Ihm mm conun*ullon
Implied
Param
Parameter La
Bactsrlologlcal status
amamttmi^nHcmnllffiai HctlaatamU
ii».£. o/«frc*» a1 jj-
• Boat traffic
mm ihtftlg cAwmk «*w numraui MM* of
AWtm
* DO
4-(ftV<
' Dredging frequency
Hi** **•>!« MMjmfcMMfitaUMfc
* Enrichment level
Tan ntrqpul a l-a «• a&l or MMpMpnefui
OOKOD/iV*
• Floating debris
MoitonM dMMk pMMflt ewfty ofthtm
• Sediment pollution
ve/
1
OJrt
2
ferot
4
3
4
2
2
Preferred
Data Use
Level Cont Data Source Level
2 Q coMyM*. Recreational Crabbing 5
BKMnDtoglc PKnKul. hitHtiy, ma cUtn
•ISUM
2 Q Am AiumM County
^Tnfc SM*,«(»ta»t«8lu,i,
4 p BUoolcil Suty ol BMmw
HMw (CEES). 1B76
DO
4 Q WmkQroua.
[>«dglng
Fraqumcy
NA P NOQATA
EnrfchmM
Lmd
4 p BtHmonHMMf
0*** "*
MAD NO DATA
nH r
&m>M^«9»*m«*k|p*lMfeafMi*:orB«itoi. SolknM
Cl> M.
• Shore type
15 - M » Mkn( •» HmMMdaMiA mor»
ftan huHfuarf
' Substrata type
of ««•*•»*«» «»#««>•« MM***)*)'*
• Turbidity
•amH
* Vegetative habitat
ftfrlojj- flCTiffgnty gi SAV
' Water column metals
{~^2£— —•*«--—
3
'»
3
tnotl
a.
3
2
2
*w
Pottudon
4 Q ESI AM..
Sho»Typ>
5 F **"»»HMw
^^^^ Envlconmnm EnMnonurt
T»«
NA P NOQATA
TurbUly
2 Q NjtkMi VMiMKH mvmxy
NA P N00*™
WMtr
Coknn
Appendix C
C-61
Param
Parameter Laxsl
Bacteriological statue 1
ConOMHIi tra Up***** >&° IK* 0*00*100
nttf^.tvt ttooi da
' Boat traffic 2
Minor «ntop*v cn«ww*
DO
* Dredging frequency 3
Mp* dnapv. (M 3 s >Mn OMMMI tt*fen»
* Enrichment level 4
. 1-0 W nyltn
Floating debris 3
muni ittutt ftmtn (mat. Me .} tnUai
Sediment pollution
mhlgHr aytnt muok. htglt *
* Shore type 3
M - 30 * MlurX •*> Hnv and DMQ\ mm n)r«p
Substrate type
t •ubttn* ef aw IHM It*. •/>•» uno) «ntf nn/ Mk
• Turbidity 3
• Vegetative habitat
Water column metals
t of
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Submn*
10
Stoney Creek ""^
Cunmrt
Uu) Pmram
Wf Category Lflttl Parameter Ltxfl Laval Cod Dttm Source
Swimming 2 * Bacteriological status 2 2 O
tMOxM twUUHOtin bJOOIlH mmtmntt
• Boat tralllc
DO
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level 1
ilarnttfftgipAaM 11-44
• Floating debris
• Sediment pollution
• Shore type
mntfiM.
* Substrste type
• Turbidity 1
>»»*«*
Vegststlve habitat 1
MB SAV or «MVM •»•«•>• <*t**ton *> •»§.
* Wstsr column metels 1
l«Mt * nt huHt mUl ooMbnMy * a •nxMtog
• Q
4 Q
M«b<»(CtEH. Hit
NA P
EnUrnm
4 F
NA P HOO»T*
4 Q «»»
StanTm.
S«
r
T«»
NA P NOO»M
2 Q •*
NA P NOQ«T*
WMl
Column
Pifftmd
Us*.
Lavtl
Panm
Parameter
4 * Bacteriological atatus 4
Boat tralflc
• DO 2
M v Mto* 1 at/1 mat* fun 50% al f» Urn.
Dredging frequency 1
' Enrichment level 3
raulimagtn l-t n& a uul (t**tnon* 0 14 M
' Floating debris 4
Octmttntl mot grotar MM* dmri§,no at itntn
' Sediment pollution 4
No MUma a agmtc canummuon lunml a (art)
CI4-I4
* Shore type 2
* Substrate type
• Turbidity
•MOOnyf
Vegetative habitat
* Water column metale 3
I*** mnr l»nr IMUI Ar^MMiy *CP#t am*
crlota
Appendix C
C-62
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
CtmM tofiM. Preferred
PjOfjL Data
Subarea Use Category Lsxsl Parameter LftKSl Level Co.nl Data Source
11
Fish Quality 2 ' Bacteriological status 2
' -"^"*".TJ ^^ _»--/
Boat traffic 1
Hi**r ajar iNff/Of *&or top *Mh« PIMM*
' DO 3
1-4**
Dredging frequency 1
* Enrichment level 2
rowitfrapn «M»mt<<»**l****<»>. HMMUIM*
* Substrsta typa 2
9MMHfMf OOffplCMtf fflUvdf Mt DUfMMH)'
fVUROMdW ly MMMrf nMCL
• Turbidity 2
Vegetative habitat 1
* Water column matala 3
2 G c««»tt» Fish Quality
ItelMtofaglc Main laMfe^ (Nwor bipa
« Q Aim* Arundd Courty
BoMig «iw M«h> SMy
NA P x00*1*
00
4 G WMQraup
Ondgmg
NA P "oo*'*
EnftctaTmtt
UMl
4 p bUmoMHMiQi
^* EnvtanmnulEiiMKwnni
Ortrk "*
NA p NOOATA
teKKM
PglMlon
3 Q ESI MM DMtmoraHxtxn
SnOfC • JP* Pin. 1902
>^^^ dMCripltafi ta EnhHiowiMni
SlMMM f^
NA P "O"*7*
r«u%
2 Q N,tt»
Cotrni
Appendix C
C-63
Level
Param
Parameter
4 ' Bacteriological atatus 3
dety a M> *» tmtartn,
Boat traffic 1
I ttfty mtfot thtpptog tndfpf Itrgm AMrfnM pr«Mflt
* DO S
«mw5n«f
Dradglng frequency 1
r««r
' Enrichment leva! 4
raufntapm 0. 1-0. W n»t or «MlpHoi«ina(Ui
• Floating dabrla
• Sediment pollution 3
ten* A?* opMc mucA ™* S*V a •amgm that** Mgrtittn H MM.
* Water column matala 4
MW •*•/•»
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
1 1
Current
Ux.
Use Category L»Xtl
Fish Quantity/Diversity 2
Jmofed
Pa/any
Parameter Level
Bacteriological stilus 1
Rock Craak
Boat traffic
•Tinftvt/WplvMffi
DO
Dradglng fraquancy
•»
Enrlchmant laval
Floating dabrla
SsdlfiMiit pollution
O> M
• Shors typa
Mptai.
• Subatrata typa
• Turbidity
• Vagatatlva habitat
m»pMi*iH«M v^MMkn *i
• Watar column mstals
1 •«( Cf IKf »M^f Until
Conl Data Source
2 Q
Preferred
Use.
Laxsl
Fi»h Qu«mrty/Div8r»rty 4
IMA
NA P ""»"
2 G
•HiTnMs
NA P «»"*
oo
DndgtV
Fnquray
NA P W°«T*
LMI
1 4 F
2
tor
1
Md
2
1
1
2 NA P ""a*1*
VUMt
CtMrai
3 Q
9 F
SaMtmt
T«»
NA P
To
20*
Parameter
Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
• Boat traffic 2
» numnw tml or
DO
w5nv<
' Dredging fraquancy
EmyoDwjMi.
' Enrlchmant (aval
rcttnkqpvi O WMofla
• Floating dsbrls
mli pntttn tndtoi oi cAaMn.
* Sadlmant pollution 3
torn (V* oij** nwcd mxtanlt ln»k o* ««*
C/4-M
* Shora typa 3
It - X «inuol. not Km urn! bftdi. mo* **•?
* Substrata typa 3
bto >I«WM> nougKaa tub***, but m»
• Turbidity
4MOIIV4
' Vagatatlva habitat
* Watar column mala Is 3
Initial mfl»mtmUllnritEP#iaimlc
aitrtm.
Appendix C
C-64
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
11
Current
Lisa.
Subarea Use Category LfUSl
Habitat 2 ' Bacteriological atatua 2 2 Q e«*»i>«a
Implied
PJBOL Data
Parameter LSXffJ Lsyjtf Coni Data Source
Preferred
Use,
Lsxel
Habitat
Rock Creek w—«iu™««pub(i««t
•ndnoiMui
CmMn* >SOJ fee* aXferm/IOOmt tamo.
• Boat traffic
MwtfiftitvctanMtm
• DO 1
Ora«bM*M
• Shore type
^tncx m»nr*«iy m»i»t
tn/flnt.
' Subatrata type
SaiMKtafMiqMtM
nuwMMty «MM
• Turbidity
2 Q Am* MunM CouMf
*.T,~ •"*•«—«-*-»
NA P
00
4 Q WtakOraup
Ond^ii,
2 NA P
4 F
EnfeMMfflM
NA P
3 Q E»ln*r ittdm Omgt during PM of «v r«r.
* Dredging frequency 2
fwrrofor/WK
* Enrichment level 2
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
CMmhwbn Mhi (O>> M piwbmhMK *i KM
• Shore type 1
• Subatrata type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat 2
OBMtoMriiMM * M Par *n*VM NpMM or
* Water column metala
«M<
EMk
Appendix C
C-65
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subant
11
Currant
Ulf. Pmm Dou
itttf Punmatmr ifutf Ltvtl Coal
Recreational Boating 3 * Bacteriological atatua 1 2 O
Rock Creek *•"•
Boat traffic
vM*MV<*MMk«
DO
Dredging frequency
* Enrichment level
• Floating debrla
MMMM *M »I
• Water column metals
Pntarred
Uat.
Level
Recreational Boating
NA P
oo
4 Q WMiO**
0«*n.
F^hMC,
NA P x"0*1*
LM)
4 F
Mrt "
NA P »°»TA
TH»
NA P »°»T*
2 Q
NA P w°*T*
Paam
Patameter
3 ' Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
• Boat traffic
!**,***,<»****•*
OO
Dredging frequency 1
MM*
* Enrichment level 2
Mrt AMVM I*. W oel tr ulphoftmi 04- >7
•Vt
• Floating dabrla 2
MMMK *M praMW *n«gr ol Mwn
• Sediment pollution 1
HP* •»•* mu* kfcft *M» <« wfc ayoite.
Caomtunan MM |C«> f< pmtaMiM ti MM
• Shore type 1
• Subetrete type
n m
• Turbidity
>n»(i«(
Vegetative habitat
* Water column mala la
iMtf of «y Amy
Appendix C
C-66
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current
Uaa.
Subarea Use Category Level
11 Racraatlonal Crabbing 3
Rock Craak *«"»: «•"«•*•" •*•«
PJOOL Data
Parameter Loot Le^el Cool Data Source
Bacteriological atatua 1
m
1
3
2 Q Court, D«.
PmltHTod
Uaa.
LexfJ
Raaaational Crabbing
• Boat traffic
»**,*+* utfti
2 Q *)«l.Anin*IC««BI»
^gmlUHXttluit
• DO
i-4001
' Dredging frequency
«yulvd'MpV&rJ4f«MM
' Enrichment level
NA P "O"*1*
00
• Floating debrle
MatMM *tr» pw« MNr * «M«l
• S«dlm«nt pollution
tarn D^My op** iwA «(^l *nk<« M*
O> M
• Short typo
f^» (m»fr »»»»»«< »
' Substrata typa
3 40
Dm**
FnqMncy
3 NA P
KjjMlMrt
•Ml
2 4 F
2
*»
2
OUrt
NA P
3
3 G
StanT**
S F
rf««iMi>cf'w«l»M«MMri««nrM> T»>
• Turbidity 3 NA P "o0*1*
• Vagatatlv* habitat
' Water column nwtala
0 or
NA P "o0*"
HUM
COum
tnoferi
Param
Parameter
BacUrlologlcal atatua 1
• Boat traffic
Hno,********,**
* DO
«-*•»»
• Dradglng fraquancy
ABuhrdwpm M>5jMntaMMfii
* Enrichment laval
0.014-0 lln^l
• Floating dabrla
MMMt itkMl |MMM «H»W «
* Sadlmant pollution
' Shore typa 3
15 - » » MkMil MM Mm «nrf tenA •»»• /*»*>
MniMMMtf
• Subatrata typa 3
t al on* tarn 101. *•( MM7 «< w
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
GwSOt
Uu.
Suba/aa
11
Rock Creek *•"••*
Swimming 2
• fxatfonff^ntua
• DO
Dredging frequency 1
• Enrichment level 1
11*44
• Floating dabrla
• Sediment pollution 1
i
ttn
CMMMtoM*|0»»M«
• Shore typa
1
• Substrate typa 1
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
HtW*•**•*•*,**» iMiMnnfc
• Watar column matala 1
Implied
Ptrpn
Parameter jLtyjf
Bacteriological atalua 2 2 Q
n>m«)' »JW tttHaUum/HOiHliimnm. l«MMq
Boat traffic 1 20
Preferred
Use
Level
Swimming
NA P •"«*'*
RP
4 O «•"»»•*
NA P »°»T*
UMl
4
NA P »OM»
3 Q f^*""-*
*"*T|IP> MM. Mai
NA P »°»T*
1 2 O 2J
NA P »«T»
Column
AryiftK/
EOOOL
Parameter Level
' Bacteriological atatua 4
KoHtomvlOOirt
Boat traffic
prMM*«<*«M*M
DO
Dredging frequency 1
tlMtr
• Enrichment level 3
roMMrapM HHfUH < or Mtar MM* *Mk.w X Mm.
• Sediment pollution 4
M>««imrfiiffinfc MV 0 MWfM itaralm n^MMkn to Mt
* Water column metal* 3
UMl tl my *•••? «Mil ImfMnOf u fe/tt cnmfc
Appendix C
C-68
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Currant
Subana
Preferred
PjaOL Data Use
Use Category LSXSt Parameter Lsxat Level Conf Data Source Level Parameter
12 Flah Quality 2 ' Bacteriological atatua 2 4 F <*•*<>*•. Fish Quality 4 ' Bactarlologlcal atatua 3
Old Road Bay S*NanUfl*ulkn. <>«•*»* l«lo« OQMUM* >a» HioKoMfami/iaii*/»•»•». »ia*Ma& SVivMtiglMMilmp^mMluni f*+*M, >Xtt iKHaMrMlOOmlKm
3 Q EMMK
Implied
Param
Boat traffic
' DO
2-41191
3 5 Q HOflETMOOEP
DO
Dradglng fraquancy 1 40 *•*<*•»
2 2Q *KMETMOOB>
f«^
* Enrlchmant (aval
• Floating dabrls
• Sadlmant pollution
Shora typa
• Subatrata typo
9OHe9Htt&tOtHfeVtt4lHUt9t9tL bVfffMMaV
NMMpttMWftp MMfB* Mte
• Turbidity
3 F
1 P JJ^***~*
5 Q UU*». M»no
2 2 F
2 g F tlDMEDMOOEP
Vagatatlva habitat
Ml MCWMW^M•*«•»» M«MMM * a
' Watar column matala
2 A EMAML
3 NA P »»»
IMW
dtom
Boat traffic
DO
Dradglng fraquancy 1
KM*
• Enrlchmant (aval 4
n a I«W nwf or uullihatfham
• Floating dabrla
tm#aaltlm*i
Shora typa
• Sadlmant pollution 3
»am* «»l» oif** **c*. IHII>I»M Hi I* «« »
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Sut>an*
12
OM Road Bay
Currtnl
UiOL
Uif Catepay iflOtf
Flah Ouantlty/Dlveralty 1
DO
•«*••
Dredging frequency
¥
Enrichment level
MlMj
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
• Shore type
• Subetrete type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
Ik IM « OMfM MM*K MMtMbl *1
• Water column metala
tMfrfiiir'MiiyiMMmMfeMft'Mir
CflGML
Pmnmutur itttaV Lovfl
Bacteriological etatua 1
19-
3
n»
3
M>
3
3
•
3
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
12
Old Road Bay
Use Category
W«Mc ookm\ mi
Current
Uss.
Lsxsj
Habitat 1
MnlMlsd no ttwtaf
Parameter
ImplHrf
Param
Level
' Bacteriological atatua 1
ConveNwuy ewt •fanNtoaWaV >3OO teaV cn*fc""*"°° «^
• Boat traffic
MM?
3 Q £3! /UK UMmonHutxx
BMTiidc p,.,, 14M
5 Q STOWTMOOEP
oo
4 Q WoAOrfMi
Or«d0fng
Fitqutncy
2 Q STORETMOOEP
tntctmm
L*Ml
3 p BtfUnon HMtaf
Ftattig pg,,
4 p VMl Md Mmon. 1(74.
V7 PI040
PUMtan
5 Q ESIMh>. OOlmonlnrbo.
2 p D«miml Irennmtiil
T)p»
5 F 8TO«£T/VOO£P
TurM%
2 Q EMMW. BrilmmHMw
u^^^^ rtan. 1M2
NA P "o*1*
WMT
Cokm
Appendix C
C-71
J
t
Parameter
' Bacteriological atatua
«rt^.t».too»oO
• Boat traffic
!oie
Ea£
lei
1
i/fCO
1
HMiyjn0rityqri'yMil'ar k0«m**u» >»«•»«
* DO
f>r^tvi^^ (••n'lM f rr¥iT nVirhir nit n* ffrr rn
1
' Dredging frequency 1
no*
' Enrichment level
1
Touli*tot*i IOO-3Xm&aualpfiovtxirui 13-44
mgA
' Floating debrla
MWX MMM diMiprmnr mttr tf MMA
* Sediment pollution
MlptyaipMfc'nuoX A^fe*wfio/lvfcofp«Mbi.
CgntmlMMn txto |C«> M pnOkmtiM to «M
' Shore type
MtfMHh «***«.
' Subatrate typa
iStl'ini"""1™"'"*1^ l*°"0*1
• Turbidity
> 100/1^1
• Vegetative habitat
• Water column metala
iMf o< m hmir mat ocattoatfi « or «
hnmtcailMt
1
1
1
1
MknM
i
1
i
*w
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Suaarea
12
Old Road Bay
Current
Us*.
LtXtt
Recreational Boating 3
Implied
Pftam
Parameter LjUOt Lave/ Conl Oata Source
4 F
Bacteriological atatua 1
Boat tralllc 2
Preferred
Uas.
Levtl
Recreational Boating
DO
Oradglng frequency
My
Enrlchmant laval
Floating dabrla
* Sediment pollution
ConMtM*»MtafC*>
• Shore type
• Subatrate type
•M»*tino«««*a
Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
Mo SO* or mmtM Huntm i i)m«iiii ti
* Watar column matala
I** d my htiMt "a* «x"*M*l **
.3 O
BMTnlk
S O
oo
4 O
"•Wt
MV*ro,
2 Q ITCMCTMOOEP
JM*IM
*Ml
3 f iiarmn mrte.
S? ST""*""""
4 p V»» or
* DO 1
Oradglng fraquancy
CM*
* Enrlchmant laval
' Floating dabrla
Mo*r
CaMMllMMHI *iote |C(>
* Shora typa
Hm» anfUnlt OKOk
Mtfmdi mtplM.
• Substrata typa
UMittk >U«m> tii
UK (»>«<•.
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
MB t*V or tmagtM
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Current
Use
Use Category
Parameter
Implied
Parani Data
Level Conf Data Source
12 Recreational Crabbing 1 Bactarlologlcal status
Old Road Bay Now. «o»il«ii»«t«d awl ik*l» OmMin*y«M<«MfeM»y>2W halcamoimu
• Boat traffic
lfc»l «Mnr«/ifr)*V»xHjr •vpmvtaMpwM
• DO
OoCMbM*/ MriMi 0 nv* ««*« pot of «• |«v.
• Dredging frequency
V**,
' Enrichment level
MVt
"IT*
• Floating dabrla
Htavy MbvMry tfMMlt fVWtM aWMr oat MWA
• Sediment pollution
OnuillMIlM MM fC0» M pWkMhM to MM
* Shore typa
' Subatrata typa
Mtmtfor**
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
* Water column metal*
fcmnlCSOknt
1
WM
1
I
1
1
1
44
1
1
1
IMOb
1
nan
1
1
1
1
^ p County Ou
4 Sum
riwtimnMnld CrtwioffMrt
BMTnllc p,.,, 1MZ
5 Q STORETMOOEP
DO
4 Q WMkOoup.
Dndgtag
2 G STOKTMOOEP
EnrielmM
ri i • •-
""*• PWi
CMMi P"n'
1 p V«i and Jchn«on. 1874.
PdMtoi
5 Q ESI A*.. BattnmHirtoc
g|)gr|T EfiylroinnnmErtunMnnH
2 r 2IZ-.,--
SUMM BMojlMlgiudyoloyanoi,
S p nOKTMDOCP
TurtWy
2 Q ESIAM DOniil m«x»
w_,._t, Cwfcowiartil EfihinoanM
J2J™*" PHama
HA p NO DATA
WaMf
Cohmn
Appendix C
C-73
Preferred
Usa.
Level
Raaaational Crabbing 4
Ptaufcl; no mm ttun M» oonu«*Mttxi
Param
Parameter
Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
Boat traffic 2
rtwn* »*» iwmraut «n» or
' DO
Dradglng frequency
Enrichment level
• Floating dabrla 2
i drink «mwnr MMr of MkMn
* Sediment pollution 2
AM* Aft* aynfc nuA Afrft
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subant
UteCtteqon
Current
Uat.
Level
Import
Pmram n*i*
Parameter Ltvjtl Ljxej Con/ Data Some*
Preferred
Uat.
Ltvtl
12
Old Road Bay »*
Wl
Non»;b«
Swimming 2 * Bacteriological atatua 2
Mf>aoofec*adlgrMtoO CimHu*' ttOO l**alimrta>at» m.
• Boat traffic
•T«*
DO
MkMl
Dredging frequency
' Enrichment level
>v<
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
Mb* •*•* MA *»> MM* *f MB HfMK
• Shore type
* Subatrata typa
• Turbidity
Vagatatlva habitat
M»MV «•••»•• MOTftV •*»••*» tl<
• Water column metala
4 f
Swimming
<|Mn
• ZOO
> Q 2L
5 Q ITOMT/UOOEf
DO
4 Q m-.o™*
2 Q ITOMCTMOOEP
imi
F
V
I
1 P
5 O »
(kMTyp
2 F
g p nOfCTMOOE^
a o ?^
VVMM
N*M
NA P
feiptod
Parameter Level
4 ' Bacteriological alatua 4
• Boat traffic
• DO 2
« or MM ; nv* mm MM «0« if «• HIM
Dredging frequency 1
• Enrichment level 3
rMtfnkqpM ttnvait*on*in X
an
• Floating debrla 4
• Subatrale type
• Sediment pollution 4
Ml MUm» at «vMt oMvntrmfcn (MM* or KM)
O4-M
• Shore type 2
Vagatatlva habitat 1
ffn 111'n inn inrnlinilii upifia»i li mi
• Water column matala 3
IM» Of Kir IMqr MM to«MMt> M CM* O
• Turbidity
Append IxC
C-74
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Subarea
13
Cox Creek »«"«•
Current
Use.
Use Category L&X&l Parameter
Flah Quality 2 * Bacteriological statue
•MMfcncttMiioaiMirftMaD IK*
Boat traffic
HMtynJvrfitoitvmtor «rp. nwha. p.
• DO
1-400
Dredging frequency
Ytfitf
' Enrichment level
*»*,**« nHW^ortttfAtavftn.!
' Floating debrle
Mtwiy ttduttritl ittMf pMMnf tntVof ot »4kM
• Sediment pollution
HP* opart mM*.A0> ton* of k»t organ
Onw*MM Mar (Ct> M pMbntiM h a
Shore type
/UnMompM^itoMfcprtMulM**. •*>
* Substrate type
nwwMM S4V or «imipM 3» lacalaiMirWK»/n(«>aito/«7i4«
do>vi0 off aWM Jbf awbimifip
Boat traffic 1
' DO
jMOM«fly<
Dredging frequency
y««y
• Enrichment level
laUlnHafK 0.1-O.tt mylar Uulpfion>t
0.0144 13 mgl
• Floating debris
* Sediment pollution
C/*-M.
Shore type
AtnMf ODnfMMv^ dtvttoptd inttusttitty, i
ouktaa* aotf f*a.
' Substrate type
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
Mb S4V or
' Water column metals 4
u* to
-------
Subanm
13
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Curroal MnOhtSL Pnltrrad
Ut» Ptam naif Use
Leal Pa/aipataf ittflf Lava/ Cord OataSotaca Lave/
Flah Quantlty/Dlveralty 2 Bacteriological atatua 1 NA "•** Fiah QuanMy/Oiverslty 4
Cox Craak *"•*•'"»
»«.*•*»*»<*«.
• Boat traffic
• DO
I-***
' Dredging frequency
VM*
• Enrichment level
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
a> M
• Shore typa
M0M.
• Substrate typa
t mid <*•*. tut Mtt%
• Turbidity
• Vagatatlva habitat
Mi 3AV a taut** tlMMlnt MffUHan n
' Watar column matala
lt*tm mi AMI? mUaixmlonttf m a
8 0
3 NA P ""O*'*
DO
4 Q
NA P
4 F
££• '^"i'«
NA P »D»T»
4 0
Hm 19B
NA P NOO«T*
20*
NA P
Paramfttr
Bactarlologlcal atatua 1
• Boat traltlc
tftnoi tipping cAawwfe aVMMpr nunMfOMi t
DO
' Dradglng fraquancy
Enrichment laval
1014-0.13 nyl
• Floating dabrla
2
V
5
2
4
2
' Sadlmant pollution
. CI4-M.
* Shore typa
a - 30 « MMM M«I torn
3
man Kfnf
' Subatrata typa 3
y tuttt uMnto mughau wttvMi bo( AIM
• Turbidity
• Vagatatlva habitat 3
Ocotlml (MUM at SAVmi mot*** «n«pM
Watar column matala
< a
ortwta.
Appendix C
C-76
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
13
Cox Creek
Current
Use Param Data
Use Category Laxsl Parameter ififcfi/ Level Conl Data Source
Habitat 2 ' Bacteriological etatue 2 NA ">** Habitat
mniaaiJUbfcbulManiMianwrinMd Conu**, >KX> IK*annum/tooi*. Imatm. BicMotogte
Preferred
Use
Level
MdnoiMut
• Boat traffic 2 SO !!""! *n"*-Co""'»
Minor tAfcptip cAawmli awltor numraui MM! or !vp* BOM TnMc
DO 1 NA P
M>»i»f) intfin r rr\|T ifirtyj»irt nf ftr )i« DO
' Dredging frequency 2 4 Q «**<*«(*
* Enrichment level 2 NA P
Floating debrle
Sediment pollution
yognknudlnVilM
tafCJ»«
Shore type
4 F
CMik
NA P "O"*™
' Subetrate type
• Turbidity
• Vegetative habitat
OoaitatfpatfiMrf<'womipMi
»«(MK
* Water column metala
MMHMM fcMt «< ntt* dim M ta im*
£/>>«•« mom MM I top* iMrtM «ri no mm nin 2 «ral
•WftMKXttr MXAfepty.
• DO 4
* Dredging frequency 3
Enrichment level 2
forUitpnapnwui O4 IJ
Floating debrla
Sediment pollution 4
nl or (»«.
2
Shore type
Subatrale type
• d am
Turbidity
MOOiqpf
Vegetative habitat
Water column metals 4
* o* iMtt* Out a. ba an* «
Appendix C
C-77
-------
13
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Jffytoff PfWGfMO
Ptnm pffimf Use
Parameter ittfj Ifvtl Quit MiStMffC* Level
Recreational Boating 3 * Bacteriological atatua 1 NA "»<~ Recreational Boating 4 * Bacteriological atatua 1
Current
LtS*.
Cox Cr««k
Boat traffic
2 5 Q tm,liMt*rt»*l
• •«*«•*. iMTlrfb a**"! •""••»"*"*
t iff t tutu r*\4t» n*.
• DO
•tail
Dredging frequency
+
• Enrichment level
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution
H|l*«*MfciiM*,**l>
• Shore type
•*«*•.
• Subatrate type
•Mmrfcrtft
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
f«l 111' H HHMpM IfllMtll I^XMtn ll
* Water column metala
L««<*«irM*trmM»
NA P «°»T*
DO
4 Q WMOm«i
M*|
FfB^utnqf
NA P »»»
NA P N00"*
4 Q
3 F
NA P »«>»»
NA P
«*<**»* >JM k
Boat traffic 3
•»*•* ltop>«lMM«n<«»TO*«M/MM
MMMr no M
• Shore type
• Sediment pollution 1
•MM*
2
3
, but mat
i
• Subatrate type
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat 1
M> Mf « OMTfM JAM«W M^MMbn tl M*
• Water column metala 1
Appendix C
C-78
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Currant
13
Subarea Use Category
Recreational Crabbing 3
Parameter
Bacteriological atatua 1
Implied
PjOOL Data
Level Com Data Source
NA N»*O.
COX Craek »tm»; nemo™ •unmet
Preferred
lisa.
Level
Recreational Crabbing 4
PtMriMj no nwv tfm tnot oontavntMilon
**. *•**"«
• Boat traffic
• DO
* Dredging frequency
I HUM*
j Q AmMunMCoumr
NA P »n»TA
DO
4 Q WtakOm*
' Enrichment level
• Floating dabrla
NA P MOO»T*
UK*
< F ^.
piMieB
• Sediment pollution 2 NA P ">MTA
turn »t«t milt axe*. >»» >>»* «»«•*•»•*». »i«ri»«il
' Shora typa
* Subatrata typa
Q E*A«M. BlMmmHMigr
• Turbidity
* Vagatatlva habitat
M» SAV a tfH^ut ManlM N*MMbn to •
• Water column metala
2
3 3 F ?f^!"^!
3 NA P
1
2 NA P
mm
Cotum
Param
Parameter L&sl
Bacteriological atatua 1
Boat traffic
toytnwtui.
• DO
* Dradglng frequency
but 3-5 t*tn MHMH Mkknk.
* Enrichment level
• Floating debrla
vxttr ol«i
• Sadlmant pollution
' Shora typa
If - X » IMM( ««l urn
* Subatrala type
*6»».»wi^>,
• Turbidity
«HOn0l
• Vegetative habitat
Water column mate la
Appendix C
C-79
-------
Appendix C
Report on Current and Preferred Uses Of Baltimore Harbor
Suoai»a
13
Cox Creek "•""*
purrtnl
Uu.
Lmvfl
vwlroiiiNig 2
Parmm
Parameter Luvaf
Bacterlologloal atalua 2
>/M»«(»
Boat traffic
»<•#
DO
Dredging frequency
*•*
* Enrichment level
iMMMnVtlrUrt,
• Floating debrla
• Sediment pollution 1
tM«*.fty>to«Mrfutarp»it»
• Shore type
' Subatrate type
• Turbidity
NoSAVai
Water column metala
UttUVtlffll
mum tCSO Itnl
Cotrf
NA
8 0
tMTrtfk
NA P
oo
4 O
On**
NA P »«*'*
NA P »<*'*
IMk
MM
4
3 p EMMM
TN»
NA P
2 Q J
NA P
Pnferrod
Ua» Param
Laval Ptrtmotur
Swimming 4 ' Bacteriological atatua 4
l»ni*^ iiinHMt of» at <*Mn.
* Sediment pollution 4
M> rMHnc* tl agtHc aMvHnxlai inmnt or lot)
O4-M.
' Shore type
M* *MHy OnMqpx/ KM IMWIMlk.
* Subatrate type
H»fcili»^' n«Mi iifa
<< Mtwraotfon* typ
• Turbidity
Vegetative habitat
M> S»V « tmtigtai
-------
Appendix D—Planned Improvements for Individual Subareas
Local jurisdictions are planning improvements for specific subareas of Baltimore
Harbor. These activities will be implemented by the local jurisdictions managing the
specific subareas. We believe that these activities will help the jurisdictions to achieve their
Preferred Use goals by improving conditions, and we urge further study to determine cost
effectiveness of proposed projects. We further urge jurisdictions to set priorities between
projects and to choose those which will bring them closest to their Preferred Use goals in
the most efficient manner.
1. Upper Middle Branch and Lower Middle Branch (Baltimore City)
Planned improvements for these two subareas are the same because of their similar
conditions.
(1) Retrofit selected sub-basins for stormwater pollution reduction.
(2) Reduce trash and debris contribution by using booms at stormwater outfalls
and retrofit storm drains with screens to keep trash where it can be picked
up by regular sanitation services.
(3) Focus most of the Critical Areas Offset Funds for Baltimore City in these
two areas.
(4) Fund Gwynns Falls Restoration Campaign feasibility for retrofitting Best
Management Practices to improve urban runoff quality.
2. Northwest Branch (Baltimore City)
(1) Reduce streambank erosion and resulting sediment input by streambank
stabilization in Jones Falls.
(2) Reduce trash and debris by using booms at stormwater outfalls and retrofit
storm drains with screens to keep trash where it can be picked up by regular
sanitation services.
(3) Dredge contaminated sediments and install aeration at the mouth of Jones
Falls to increase dissolved oxygen in the Inner Harbor. This
recommendation is already scheduled, and the project should be completed
by the summer of 1988.
D-l
-------
(4) Install artificial fish reefs to increase substrate for benthic organisms and
provide cover for fish.
(5) Reduce contributions of heavy metals to the water column and sediments by
cleaning up the Allied Chemical site.
3. Middle Harbor (Baltimore City)
(1) Reduce pollutant inputs to this area by aggressively enforcing point source
permits.
(2) Reduce nutrient and metals input by upgrading the Patapsco Sewage
Treatment plant
(3) Continue industrial pretreatment program to further reduce contributions
from the Patapsco Sewage Treatment Plant
4. Curtis Bay and Curtis Creek (Baltimore City)
(1) Continue to vigorously enforce industrial point source regulations.
(2) Upgrade treatment of sewage from the Coast Guard base.
5. Lower Bear Creek and Upper Bear Creek (Baltimore County)
The planned activities for both of these subareas are the same.
(1) Improve bacterial quality by minimizing pumping station failures (Lower
Bear Creek).
(2) Install stormwater management facilities on all major interceptors.
(3) Ensure that all sewage treatment facilities and industrial discharges meet
water quality criteria.
(4) Remove grossly contaminated sediments, and dispose of them in a secure
upland site.
(5) Enhance the area shoreline by:
(a) creating habitat consisting of both shallow water areas and wetlands;
(b) installing shoreline stabilization structures; and
(c) providing recreational facilities (Lower Bear Creek).
D-2
-------
6. Old Road Bay (Baltimore County)
(1) Improve bacterial quality by minimizing pumping station failures.
(2) Install stormwater management facilities on all major interceptors.
(3) Ensure that all industrial discharges meet water quality criteria.
(4) Enhance the area shoreline by:
(a) creating habitat consisting of both shallow water areas and wetlands;
(b) installing shoreline stabilization structures; and
(c) providing recreational boating facilities.
(5) Remove grossly contaminated sediments and dispose of them in a secure
upland site.
(6) Apply best management practices to cultivated lands within the drainage
basin.
(7) Stricdy enforce the current land use regulations for
(a) Critical Areas;
(b) wetlands and streams; and
(c) zoning ordinances.
D-3
-------
Appendix £—The Chesapeake Bay Local/Regional/State Partnership
Agreement of 1984
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY LXAL/REGI DUAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT OF
THIS AGREEMENT, MADE THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 1984, BY AND AMONG THE GOVERNOR
OF MARYLAND, THE MAYOR OF BALTIMORE CITY, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVES OF ANNE ARUNDEL,
BALTIMORE, HARFORD, AND HOWARD COUNTIES, THE CARROLL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE
WATER QUALITY COORDINATING COMMITTEE, AND THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, HITNESSETH
THAT:
WHEREAS, THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM HAS SHOWN AN HISTORICAL DECLINE IN THE
LIVING RESOURCES OF THF CHESAPEAKE BAY, RECOMMENDED THE GOAL OF RESTORING AND MAIN-
TAINING THE BAY'S ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, AND RECOMMENDED COOPERATIVE ACTION TO
ACHIEVE THE GOAL; AND
WHEREAS, THE STATES OF MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA, THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, AND THE U* S« ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON DECEMBER 9, 1983
SIGNED THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT OF 1983 WHICH COMMITTED THE SIGNATORIES TO WORK
TOGETHER TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE WATERS OF THE BAY; AND THE GOVERNOR AND
MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY THIS YEAR, ENACTED A PACE-SETTING PACKAGE OF CHESAPEAKE
BAY INITIATIVE LEGISLATION AIMED AT PROTECTING THE BAY; AND
WHEREAS, THE SIGNATORIES DESIRE TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE BAY PROBLEMS-
NUW, THEREFORE B£ IT RESOLVED THAT IT is MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1' THE SIGNATORIES AGREE TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE KEY PROBLEMS QUICKLY
IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THE GOAL OF RESTORING AND MAINTAINING THE HAY'S
FCOLftGICAL INTEGRITY; AND
2« THE KEGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, INCLUDING ITS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERN-
MENT REPRESENTATIVES, WILL ANNUALLY REVIEW PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING THE
BAY GOAL IN AND NEAR THE BALTIMORE REGION AND WILL REPORT ITS FINDINGS
TO THE SIGNATORIES TO THIS AGREEMENT-
STATE OF MARYLAND
GOVERNOR
COUNTY
-*-,..-^*/f^ftr).£>
SECRETARY OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10MARD COUNTY
&JL
r COUNTY EXECUTIVE
MATER QUALITY COORDINATING
IITTE
IRKAN
«U. S. COweRNKNT PRINTING OFF ICE :19B3- 51 6-002 :aOQ2B
E-l
------- |