EPA 0016
-J
<
tr
iJS D
^ i
jd -i
^4 <
fi
J?-~ i>
^~v *
K f
LJ /¦' / 11 >*: |
< -' t CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
*^4 Z ' ¦ J .
-O < I-, STUDY OF AN ESTUARY
-O 5
Q ^ * TECHNICAL REPORT NO.
tr ¦
2 \ J104-12r
UJ
^ 1
^ 2 SUBMITTED,T0
> U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^ U ' ¦ ' 401 M. Street, SW WH 586
, Washington, DC 20460
+ ^
3 ^ v>
SUBMITTED BY
Statistical Consultants, Inc.
^ 2083 West Street, Suite 5H
I- Annapolis, Maryland 21401
to
-------
prime contract No. 68-01-6348
Subcontract No. 2-834-03-760
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
STUDY OF AN ESTUARY
Technical Report No.
J104-121
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
STUDY OF AN ESTUARY
Technical Report No.
J104-121
Submitted to
Dr. Gary L. Liberman
JRB Associates
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
Mr. Bob Linett
U. S. Environmental protection Agency
401 M. Street, SW - WH 586
Washington, DC 20460
prepared by
Statistical Consultants, inc.
2083 West Street, Suite 5H
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
January 16, 1984
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 2
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT 3
1.3 MAJOR CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM FACTS AND FINDINGS 4
1.4 CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 21
2.0 EVOLUTION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 23
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS 23
2.2 THE CLEAN WATER ACT 25
2.3 PUBLIC LAW 94-116 27
2.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 31
2.5 LESSONS LEARNED 33
3.0 PHASE I: INITIATION AND PLANNING (1976 TO 1979) 34
3.1 LOCATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM OFFICE 34
3.2 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 37
3.3 STATE PARTICIPATION 42
3.4 PROGRAM FUNDING 43
3.5 PHASED MANAGEMENT APPROACH 45
3.6 HOW RESEARCH WAS SELECTED 46
3.7 LESSONS LEARNED 49
4.0 PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH (1979-1983) 52
4.1 PLANS OF ACTION 52
4.2 ANNUAL MEETINGS 53
4.3 MANAGEMENT TOOLS USED TO DIRECT RESEARCH 59
4.4 CHARACTERIZATION 71
4.5 DATA MANAGEMENT 72
4.6 LESSONS LEARNED 83
5.0 ESTABLISHING FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 86
5.1 OVERVIEW 86
5.2 INVOLVING BAY USERS 90
5.3 DISSEMINATION OF CBP FINDINGS AND MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS 94
5.4 LESSONS LEARNED 95
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report, Marguerite Duffy Harbachewski,
Paul D. Mowery, and Harry W. Wells, Jr., wish to express their
appreciation to the following persons who gave willingly of their
time and talents to make this report possible. Their
contributions took many forms, including personal interviews,
verification of important dates and events, use of personal files,
descriptions of heretofore undocumented Chesapeake Bay program
events, and careful review of drafts of the report. The authors
especially appreciate the enthusiasm and encouragement offered by
all, making the difficult task of documenting the complex
processes of the Chesapeake Bay program an easier and more
enjoyable task.
Mr. Robert Linett, EPA Office of Analysis and
Evaluation, pro3ect Officer
Ms. Elaine Fitzback, EPA Office of Waste program
Enforcement, project Officer
Mr. Thomas DeMoss, EPA Office of Research and
Development, former Deputy Director of the
Chesapeake Bay program
Ms. Virginia Tippie, Director, Chesapeake Bay
Program
Dr. David A. Flemer, EPA Office of Research and
Development, Senior Science Advisor to the
Chesapeake Bay program
Mr. Mark Alderson, EPA Office of Administration,
former Administrative Officer of the Chesapeake
Bay program
Ms. Francis Flannigan, Director of the Citizens
program for the Chesapeake Bay, inc.
-------
Dr. Kent Price, College of Marine Studies,
University of Delaware, Fisheries Scientist,
Chesapeake Bay program
Mr. Joe Macknis, Environmental Scientist,
Chesapeake Bay program
Ms. Bess Gillelan, Environmental Scientist,
Chesapeake Bay program
Mr. James T. Smullen, College of Marine Studies,
University of Delaware, former Environmental
Engineer, Chesapeake Bay program
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On September 30, 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay program (EPA, CBP) in Annapolis, Maryland ended a
remarkable episode in the history of the Bay community. Within a
seven-year period, the CBP united organizations that had once been
divided on Bay issues toward successfully completing research and
agreeing on management recommendations.
The Chesapeake Bay Program was formed at the direction of the
94th Congress, as delineated in Senate Report 94-326. The
legislation required EPA to:
Assess the principal factors having an adverse ii^pact on
the environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay as
perceived by scientists and users.
Establish mechanisms for collecting, storing, analyzing,
and disseminating environmental data.
Analyze available environmental data and implement
methods for improved data collection.
Propose alternative control strategies for long-term
protection of the Bay.
Evaluate Bay management coordination mechanisms to best
assure timely implementation of control strategies.
Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. designed the legislation
authorizing CBP to coordinate the efforts of diversified groups of
scientists, managers, policy makers, and citizens into a single
cooperative effort. EPA was directed to "conduct an in-depth
study of the Chesapeake Bay, which shall also be applicable to
other estuarine zones." The interdisciplinary research approach
- 1-
-------
used in studying the nation's largest estuary may be beneficial to
officials seeking an exemplary program for future studies.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The Office of Water Regulations and Standards within EPA
requested Statistical Consultants, inc. (SCI) to review the CBP in
terras of approaches used in directing an environmental research
study toward management recommendations. This report, "The Study
of an Estuary," addresses the most commonly asked questions about
the CBP:
Why was such an intensive study of the Chesapeake Bay
necessary?
How was research involving more than thirty agencies,
research institutions, citizens organizations, and forty
research projects directed and integrated?
In retrospect, what are the lessons learned from the
processes used?
In the past, emphasis by EPA was placed on the study of
freshwater systems. Only in recent years has that effort been
extended to estuarine ecology. A variety of federally-funded
reports on estuaries have been published including the National
Estuary Study (Department of the Interior, 1970), the Status of
Estuaries (U.S. EPA, 1975), and Coastal Ecological Systems of the
United States (Federal Water pollution Control Administration,
prepared in 1968-69 and published in 1974). Significant efforts
were made on a world-wide basis, such as the Jekyll Island
Conference in 1964 and the environmental conference sponsored by
the NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. While
- 2-
-------
publications and meetings abound on various aspects of estuarine
science, there is still a lack of clear, thorough descriptions of
important processes and resources, both from managerial and
scientific standpoints.
The Chesapeake Bay received intensive study from 1976 to 1982,
substantially increasing our understanding of that estuary, but
the study has by no means answered all the questions. By
successfully integrating scientific research and data collection
regarding the water quality of the Bay, managers now have sound
information upon which to base decisions. This report's
documentation of the processes used may aid EPA and state agencies
in attempts to study other estuaries.
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
This report is arranged in chronological order of events
leading to the formation of the CBP and of events occurring during
the Program. Accounts leading to the inception of the CBP are
contained in Chapter 2, "Evolution of the Chesapeake Bay program,"
followed by the Program's three major phases. Chapter 3, "Phase
I: Initiation and Planning 11976-1979)," describes the
organizational structure, funding, selection of research, and
reorganization. Chapter 4, "inplementation of Research (1977 to
1982)," highlights key meetings and workshops involving synthesis
of research, characterization of water quality trends and
resources, and nanagement tools used to drive research toward
management recommendations. Chapter 5, "Phase III: Establishing
- 3-
-------
a Framework for Management Recommendations," emphasizes approaches
used in coordinating various Bay organizations into the
decision-making process. Each chapter concludes with a section on
¦lessons learned." The lessons learned are not necessarily the
opinions of any one group involved with the CBP. instead,
numerous state and federal officials were consulted; interviews
took place with former CBP employees; letters were sent to key
scientists for recommendations; and reports prepared by the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, inc. and the congressional Research
Service were considered. This analysis is a critique of the
management and policy aspects of the program, rather than
technical aspects of the CBP.
1.3 MAJOR CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM FACTS AND FINDINGS
Three major areas (toxicants, nutrients, and submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV)) were intensively studied by the Chesapeake Bay
Program. These studies enabled the CBP to relate findings to
impacts on natural resources. The CBP resulted in four major
reports regarding the scientific facts, findings, and management
recommendations:
CHESAPEAKE BAY: INTRODUCTION TO AH ECOSYSTEM
Served as a reference for other reports by explaining the
important ecological relationships within the Bay.
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM TECHNICAL STUDIES: A SYNTHESIS
Summarized and explained the technical knowledge gained
- 4-
-------
from the research projects funded by the CBP in the areas
of toxic substances, nutrients, and SAV.
CHESAPEAKE BAY: A PROFILE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
Assessed trends (i.e., characterized) in water and
sediment quality and living resources over time and
examined the relationship between the two.
CHESAPEAKE BAY: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
Identified control alternatives for agriculture, sewage
treatment plants, industry, urban runoff, and
construction. It gives an estimate of costs and
effectiveness of different approaches to remedy problem
areas.
The CBP built a scientific data base which is probably the
largest in volume for a single estuary. It received excellent
quality control making it a sound data base. The state agencies
in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, as well as Bay research
universities, contributed to and rely on the CBP data base in
formulating state water quality plans and conducting research
programs. Many federal agencies also contributed critical data to
the CBP data base.
An unpublished report prepared by the Chesapeake Bay program
in September 1983 summarizes the major facts and findings of the
CBP as described in Sections 1.3.1 to 1.3.6.
- 5-
-------
1.3.1 Trends in Living Resources
In the upper Bay an increasing number of blue-green algal or
dinoflagellate blooms has been observed in recent years. In fact,
cell counts have increased approximately 250-fold since the
1950's. in contrast, the algal populations in the upper Potomac
River have recently become more diverse, with the massive
blue-green algal blooms generally disappearing since nutrient
controls were iirposed in the 1960's and early 1970's in this
segment of the Bay watershed.
Since the late 1960's, submerged aquatic vegetation has
declined in abundance and diversity throughout the Bay. The
decline is most dramatic in the upper Bay and western shore
tributaries. An analysis over time indicates that the loss has
moved progressively down-stream, and that present populations are
mostly limited to the lower estuary.
Landings of freshwater-spawning fish such as shad and alewife
have decreased. Striped bass landings, after increasing through
the 1930's and 1940's, have also decreased, especially since
1973. Harvests of marine-spawning fish, such as menhaden and
bluefish, have generally remained stable or increased. The
increased yield of narine spawners and decreased yield of
freshwater spawners represent a major shift in the Bay's fishery.
Over the 100-year period from 1880 to 1980, marine spawners
accounted for 75 percent of the fishery; during the interval from
1971 to 1980, they accounted for 96 percent.
Oyster harvests have also decreased Bay-wide. Oyster spat set
has declined significantly in the past 10 years as compared to
- 6-
-------
previous years, particularly in the upper Bay and western shore
tributaries and some Eastern Shore tributaries, such as the
Chester River. The decline in oyster harvest has been somewhat
offset by recent increases in the harvest of blue crabs which nay
be due to increased fishing effort. As a result, the Bay-wide
landings of shellfish have not changed greatly over the last
twenty years. However, overall shellfish harvest for the western
shore has decreased significantly during this period.
Increasing levels of nutrients are entering many parts of the
Bay: the upper reaches of almost all the tributaries are highly
enriched with nutrients; lower portions of the tributaries and
eastern embayments have moderate concentrations of nutrients; and
the lower Bay does not appear to be enriched. (See Figure 1 for a
map of the Bay). Data covering 1950 to 1980 indicate that in most
areas water quality is degrading, partially because increasing
levels of nutrients are entering the waters. Only in the
patapsco, potomac, and James Rivers (and some smaller areas) is
there improvement in water quality; this is evidently largely due
to pollution control efforts in those areas.
The amount of water in the main part of the Bay, which has low
or no dissolved oxygen, has increased about fifteen-fold between
1950 and 1980. Currently, from May through September in an area
reaching from the Annapolis Bay Bridge to the Rappahannock River,
much of the water deeper than 40 feet has no oxygen and,
therefore, is devoid of life. The dissolved oxygen levels in the
Bay have been affected by nutrient enrichment. The excessive
- 7-
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY
SEGMENTATION MAP
Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay Program segments used in
data analysis
- C-
-------
loads of nutrients which enter the Bay stimulate the growth of
undesirable large algal blooms. As the algae die and settle to
the bottom, they decay and consume the oxygen that is crucial for
Bay organisms, such as crabs, oysters, and fin fish. Although
these processes occur naturally in an estuarine system, they
appear to have become far more severe in the Bay in recent years
as nutrient inputs have increased.
High concentrations of toxic organic compounds are in the
bottom sediments of the main Bay near known sources, such as
industrial facilities, river mouths, and areas of maximum
turbidity. Highest concentrations were found in the Patapsco and
Elizabeth Rivers where several sediment samples contained
concentrations exceeding 100 parts per million. These general
patterns suggest that many of these toxic substances adsorb to
suspended sediment and then accumulate in areas dominated by
fine-grained sediments. Benthic organisms located in such areas
tend to accumulate the organic compounds in their tissues.
Many areas of the Bay have metal concentrations in the water
column and sediment that are significantly higher than natural
(background) levels. In fact, many violations of water quality
criterion were noted. Also, Bay sediments in the upper Potomac,
upper James, small sections of the Rappahannock and York Rivers,
and the upper mid-Bay had high levels of metal contamination. The
most contaminated sediments—with concentrations greater than 100
times natural background levels—are in the industrialized
Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers.
- 9-
-------
1.3.2 Relationships between Living Resources and Water
Quality
In summary, valued resources of the Bay are declining. This
trend parallels an increase in nutrients and toxicants throughout
the Bay. A geographic characterization and analysis of segments
of the Bay suggest a relationship between the resources and the
water and sediment quality, in areas of the Bay afflicted by high
concentrations of nutrients and toxicants/ such as Baltimore
Harbor and the Elizabeth River, there is no submerged aquatic
vegetation. In fact, only a few hardy organisms can survive in
this hostile environment. On the other hand, in certain areas of
the Eastern Shore where the nutrient and toxicant concentrations
are still fairly low, submerged aquatic vegetation still grows,
and crabs, oysters, and fin fish are plentiful.
Although the circumstantial evidence appears to be conpelling,
the CBP cannot definitively link the trends seen in the resources
to the Bay's deteriorating water quality. There are other factors
affecting the abundance of the grasses and fish, including
over-fishing, climatic trends, and physical alterations of the Bay
associated with dredging and filling, it is quite probable that
there is no "single bullet," but rather a myriad of ecological
stresses. However, it is clearly established that nutrient
loadings have substantially increased, that massive quantities of
toxicants have entered this system, and that the unchecked
increases of these pollutants threaten inportant resources.
-10-
-------
The increase in nutrients and the corresponding decrease in
dissolved oxygen are affecting the living resources of the Bay.
Conceptually, one would expect to see a positive relationship
between nutrients and Bay productivity. As these nutrients (which
are essentially fertilizer) increase, one would expect to see an
increase in plant production and, as a result, fish harvest.
However, if too many nutrients are added, the excessive growth of
undesirable weed-like plants, such as blue-green algae, is
encouraged. This prevents the growth of desirable plants such as
submerged aquatic vegetation. Chesapeake Bay program findings
suggest that this situation is occurring in the Bay. Areas of the
Bay that have relatively low nutrient concentrations, such as the
eastern embaynents, have abundant submerged aquatic vegetation;
however, areas of the Bay that have high nutrient concentrations,
such as the upper Bay, have very little vegetation.
There is also a similar, but not as precise, relationship
between nutrients and Bay fisheries. Fish that spawn in the
freshwater, nutrient-enriched upper sections of the tributaries
are decreasing. Also, oysters and other commercial shellfish that
live all their life on the Bay bottom are reduced in abundance,
possibly in part due to the elimination of their habitat by low
dissolved oxygen. Although the decline in desirable resources
cannot be definitively linked to the increase in nutrients, there
is sufficient evidence to recommend corrective actions in
controlling nutrient discharges to the Bay.
-11-
-------
1.3.3 Sources of Nutrients
The Bay program examined in detail the sources of nutrients
entering the Bay and the relative contributions of different types
of sources. In addition# an assessment was made of changing
land-use activities, such as the intensification of agricultural
activities and urbanization, which have strong implications for
the levels of pollutants going into the Bay. For example, as the
population continues to increase in and around the metropolitan
areas of the Bay, the volume of municipal effluent will also
increase proportionately. If current projections prove true and
if present treatment practices continue, the volume of municipal
effluent generated and discharged is expected to increase 36
percent by the year 2000.
Special attention was also given to assessing the relative
inportance of point versus nonpoint sources in various sections of
the Bay watershed as a basis for targeting management and control
strategies. For exanple, the nutrient input from the Susquehanna
River basin is principally from nonpoint sources, particularly
from agricultural lands; in contrast, the input into the West
Chesapeake Bay basin (which is composed of several rivers,
including the patapsco, Back, and Gunpowder basins) is dominated
by point sources, particularly municipal sewage treatment plants.
A strategy for nutrient reduction in each of these basins would
logically focus on controlling the dominant sources. Below is a
more detailed summary of the variations in the sources of
nutrients entering the Bay.
-12-
-------
Point sources are concentrated waste streams discharged to a
water-body through a discrete pipe or ditch. Although there may
be daily or seasonal fluctuations in flow, they are essentially
continuous daily discharges which occur throughout the year. The
significance of point sources increases during the summer and
other periods of low rainfall because the dilution of effluent by
receiving water is reduced. Conversely, their relative
significance decreases during periods of wet weather when
rainfall, runoff, and nonpoint loadings increase. Examples of
point sources include discharges froni industrial production
facilities and discharges from publicly owned treatment works
(POTW's). The CBP data base contains an inventory of over 5,000
industrial and municipal point sources located within the
Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
Nonpoint sources of nutrients include runoff from forests,
farmland, residential and cormercially developed lands,
groundwater flow, and atmospheric deposition on land and water.
Within the major river basins discharging to Chesapeake Bay,
changes in population, land use, and land management are occurring
which alter stormwater runoff quality and the rate of discharge.
These changes affect the size and nature of nonpoint source
loadings to the Bay. The diffuse nature of nonpoint sources
render them difficult both to quantify and control. In addition,
nonpoint source loads are largely determined by unpredictable
rainfall patterns. in wet years nonpoint source loads are
generally very high and in dry years are low. The nonpoint source
-13-
-------
runoff from cropland contributes the largest share of the nonpoint
source nutrient load to the Bay. Although a minor contributor to
the Bay-wide nutrient load, urban runoff causes localized water
quality problems.
1.3.4 Nutrient Loadings
The Chesapeake Bay Program estimated present (1980) and future
(2000) nutrient loadings delivered to the Bay from throughout its
drainage basin. The fractions of nutrient loadings originating
from point sources and nonpoint sources (agricultural and urban
runoff) were also determined, in general, the nitrogen entering
Bay waters is contributed primarily by nonpoint sources which are
dominated by cropland runoff loadings, point sources, on the
other hand, and especially sewage treatment plants are the major
source of phosphorus to Chesapeake Bay. it is important to note
again that point source nutrient discharges tend to be more
dominant in dry years than in wet years. In contrast, nonpoint
sources which enter waterways primarily in stormwater runoff
contribute a greater share of total nutrient loadings during wet
years.
Basin-wide point sources contribute about 33 percent of the
total nitrogen load to the Bay. However, point sources contribute
a larger share of the phosphorus load, averaging 61 percent.
Nonpoint sources contribute the difference in the nitrogen and
phosphorus loads, making up 67 and 39 percent of the total loads,
respectively. Most of the nitrogen entering Chesapeake Bay waters
-14-
-------
has been transported from watersheds throughout the Bay basin;
phosphorus loadings originate mostly from sources adjacent to the
Bay (below the fall line).
The three largest tributaries of the Bay, the Susquehanna,
Potomac, and James Rivers, carry most of the nitrogen (78 percent)
and phosphorus (70 percent) loads that enter the tidal waters of
Chesapeake Bay. Although the West Chesapeake basin centered near
Baltimore is not a large land area compared to other basins, it
contributes significant amounts of nutrients to the Bay. The
Eastern Shore and the patuxent, Rappahannock, and York River
basins contribute the smallest portion of the Bay-wide nutrient
loads.
To link loadings of nutrients with specific areas where
nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations potentially limit
aquatic resources, it is necessary to understand the relative
contributions of point and nonpoint sources by major river basin.
It is also necessary to determine inputs in dry, average, and wet
years. Only then can decisions be made on the best course of
action to reduce nutrients contributing to a certain problem.
Analysis by a conputerized model demonstrates that point
source loads of phosphorus exceed the nonpoint source loads from
the Potomac and James River basins in almost all rainfall
conditions. in contrast, the nonpoint sources contribute most of
the phosphorus from the Susquehanna River basin under all
conditions. This finding reflects the fact that the James and
Potomac River basins contain major population centers which
-15-
-------
contribute large point source loadings to tidal waters, unlike the
more rural Susquehanna basin. It is not surprising that, in the
urbanized patuxent and West Chesapeake basins, the phosphorus
loadings from point sources exceed those from nonpoint sources;
and in the largely rural Eastern Shore and Rappahannock and York
River basins, nonpoint contributions are always the dominant
source of phosphorus.
Nitrogen loadings from the major river basins are more often
dominated by nonpoint sources than are phosphorus loadings. In
the Susquehanna, nonpoint sources provide most of the nitrogen
under all conditions. In the Potomac River basin the nonpoint
sources of nitrogen dominate under all hydrologic conditions.
Most of the nitrogen load in the james River comes from point
sources; however, nonpoint sources become important in a wet
year. point source loads of nitrogen always exceed nonpoint
sources in the West Chesapeake; however, in the patuxent River
basin, point sources of nitrogen are only dominant under dry
conditions. Loadings of nitrogen from the Eastern Shore and the
Rappahannock and York River basins originate primarily from
nonpoint sources, as do those of phosphorus.
1.3.5 Toxic Compounds
Toxic compounds are affecting the Bay's resources especially
in urbanized areas. These compounds include metals, such as
cadmium, copper, and lead; organic chemicals, such as PCB's,
Kepone, and DDT; and other chemicals, such as chlorine. Low
-16-
-------
concentrations of these toxic compounds have little effect on
organisms. However, increasingly higher concentrations of toxic
compounds can cause reduced hatching and survival, gross effects,
such as lesions or fin erosion in fish, and eventually the
mortality of an entire population. Toxicants can affect the
ecosystem by eliminating sensitive species and producing
communities dominated by a few pollution-tolerant forms. In
localized areas of the Bay, the CBP has found evidence of such
toxic stress.
Chesapeake Bay program research has shown a relationship
between the levels of toxic corpounds found in the sediments in
certain areas and the survival of individual organisms and the
resulting health of the ecosystem. Bioassay studies of a small
amphipod that lives in the bottom sediments of the Bay indicate
that its chance of survival significantly decreases when it is
exposed to polluted Bay sediments. When the arphipods were
exposed to "uncontaminated" Bay sediment that had natural levels
of metals and organic substances, they all survived. However,
when the amphipods were exposed to highly contaminated sediments
from the inner harbors of the patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers, they
all died. Moderately contaminated sediments produced intermediate
levels of mortality.
The fact that this particular organism could not live in these
highly contaminated sediments suggests that other organisms cannot
live in such conditions. Studies of these areas confirm this
theory. Those areas of the patapsco River that have highly toxic
-17-
-------
sediments support only a few types of organisms—primarily worms
(low diversity); areas that are not as contaminated have many
different organisms, including crabs, clams, oysters, and
amphipods. These findings reinforce the need for careful control
of toxic conpounds.
Toxic materials enter the Bay from a variety of sources,
including industrial effluents and other point sources, runoff
from urban areas and agricultural lands, atmospheric inputs, and
disposal of contaminated dredge spoil. Except for long-range
atmospheric deposition, the primary sources are located within the
basin.
Industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants discharge a
variety of metals and synthetic organic conpounds. chlorine and
chlorinated organics are also common constituents of effluent from
industries, POTW's, and power plants. The CBP analyzed the
effluent from 20 industries and eight POTW's; over 75 percent of
the facilities had toxic substances in the effluent. point
sources of toxics appear to be most significant in industralized
areas, such as Baltimore and Norfolk.
The three major tributaries to Chesapeake Bay, the
Susquehanna, Potomac, and James Rivers, deliver metals and organic
conpounds from urban and agricultural lands. in addition,
deposits of air pollution are delivered directly to Bay waters and
also indirectly through urban runoff. One example is automobiles
which contribute large amounts of lead from gasoline. Another
important nonpoint source is shore erosion which contributes
-18-
-------
significant amounts of iron and other metals to the Bay. Also,
maritime ships and leisure and work boats occasionally leak or
spill petroleum and are regularly treated with copper-based
anti-fouling paints. The toxicants associated with maritime
activities reach their highest levels in harbors and narinas where
these activities are most concentrated and natural flushing is
low.
1.3.6 Loadings of Toxic Compounds
The Chesapeake Bay program estimated metal loadings delivered
to the Bay from the entire drainage basin. Although the CBP was
unable to quantify the loadings of organic compounds to the Bay,
it is probable that the relative contribution of different sources
would be similar to that estimated for metals, in general, the
Susquehanna, Potomac, and James Rivers are ma^or sources of
toxicants entering the tidal Bay. Effluent from industries and
sewage treatment plants located directly on the Bay are also
important. In urbanized areas, such as Baltimore, Washington, DC,
and Hampton Roads, urban runoff can contribute significant
loadings of toxicants.
The CBP detected over 300 organic compounds in the water and
sediments of the Bay; up to 480 organic conpounds were detected in
Baltimore Harbor. Most of the compounds identified were toxic.
The mean concentrations of all organic compounds detected were
typically in hundreds of parts per million. Priority pollutants
were detected in all areas sampled and about half were found in
-19-
-------
concentrations greater than 50 parts per billion, in general, the
compounds observed showed a trend of high concentrations adjacent
to urbanized areas, such as Baltimore and Hampton Roads. High
concentrations are also found in the Susquehanna Flats, in the
southern Bay, high concentrations exist near river mouths.
Although the CBP is unable to quantify the loadings of organic
compounds, the fact that high concentrations of many of these
conpounds were detected in analyses of effluents from industries
and sewage treatment plants suggests that the major source of
toxic loadings is point sources. Furthermore, in several
instances the CBP was able to link the conpounds with specific
industrial sources. It is essential that the release of such
conpounds be substantially reduced and that Bay sediments and
point source effluents be thoroughly monitored.
The James, Potomac, and Susquehanna River systems are by far
the major transport mechanisms for each metal examined by the
CBP. Collectively, they account for 69 percent of the cadmium, 72
percent of the chromium, 69 percent of the copper, 80 percent of
the iron, 51 percent of the lead, and 54 percent of the zinc
discharged to the Bay system. The other principal source of each
metal is: for cadmium—industry (13 percent); for chromium and
iron—shore erosion (13 percent and 18 percent, respectively); for
copper—industrial and municipal point sources (21 percent); for
lead—urban runoff (19 percent); and for zinc—atmospheric
deposition (31 percent).
-20-
-------
The Chesapeake Bay program's research has documented the
serious inpact of the nutrients and toxic chemicals released from
point and nonpoint sources on the Bay's water and sediment quality
and on the vitality and abundance of its living resources.
Moreover, forecasts indicate that the sources of these pollutants
will continue to grow in number and change in nature, resulting in
corresponding increases in the levels of the pollutants entering
the Bay. The present state of the Bay and the forecast for the
future provide the basis for the recommendations set forth in the
following chapter. It is essential that we act now to control and
alter human activities and practices on land if we are to halt the
deterioration of the Bay and the subsequent losses of animal and
plant life they produce.
1.4 CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The Chesapeake Bay Program spanned seven years of continuous
planning, research, workshops, and meetings geared toward
management solutions. The following chronology is included as an
overview to subsequent sections of this report.
-21-
-------
1960-1970
October 1975
May 1976
January 1977
October, 1977
1978
November 1978
January 1979
November 1979
January 1980
October 1980
December 1980
1978 - 1980
March 1981
1980 - 1982
1981 - 1983
1982 - 1983
1983 - Future
Public expresses environmental concern.
P.L. 94-116 authorizes the CBP.
EPA Administrator Train announces "The
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality program.'
Policy Advisory committee agrees to "phased
Management Approach" and announces
organizational structure.
Research study areas are selected: SAV, toxic
substances, nutrient enrichment.
Ten million dollars in research money released.
Citizens program for the Chesapeake Bay
receives EPA grant.
Research is initiated.
Hearing before the subcommittee on Governmental
Efficiency and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Governmental Affairs, United
States Senate. Reorganization of CBP. Office
is moved to Annapolis under the directorship of
ORD/EPA.
Annual meeting in Hampton Roads—First
gathering of technical community. Research
progress is reported and a need to integrate
research is established.
Decision nade to do mathematical models of
Chesapeake Bay to link with management options.
Ocean City Peer Review Meeting—A need to
characterize Bay water quality is recognized.
Cross Keys Meeting—Shift from research to
management solutions.
Individual Reports—40 projects are completed,
peer reviewed, and published.
Donaldson Brown Workshop—Held to synthesize
research findings and respond to management
questions.
Synthesis Report compiled and published.
Characterization Report compiled and published.
Management Report compiled and published,
implementation of Management strategies.
-22-
-------
2.0 EVOLUTION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The question often arises as to why a study of the Chesapeake
Bay was necessary. The answer rests largely in the public
sensitivity regarding the fate of the Bay as the views of the
public were expressed through newspapers and public forums. The
Chesapeake Bay Program can be described as a combined government
and citizen program to document the health of the Bay through
careful research and to provide the scientific information needed
to inform Bay citizens about the complex Bay ecosystem and the
options available for improving its environmental quality.
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS
The environmental consciousness which existed in the United
States during the 1960's and 1970's focused attention on the
health of the Chesapeake Bay. As might be expected, special
interest groups blamed each other for such conditions as declines
in some commercial fish species, the emergence of red tides and
other eutrophic indicators, and the loss of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV), a migratory waterfowl food source and a nursery
haven for fish.
Causes for deteriorating conditions in the Bay were
speculative. Technology was viewed as one threatening factor.
For example, citizens in Maryland questioned the effects on biota
of increased water temperatures caused by power plant cooling
-23-
-------
systems. Scientists could not reach agreement among themselves
regarding such effects. Toxic chemicals added additional fears
regarding the health of the Bay. The chlorinated hydrocarbon,
Kepone, discharged into the James River in 1973, stirred Bay-wide
alarm regarding the transport of the pollutant throughout the food
chain. The effects of these factors on the health of the Bay were
uncertain.
Population growth was still another concern to the Chesapeake
Bay community. The population of the Chesapeake Bay region, as
projected by the Corps of Engineers "Chesapeake Bay Future
Conditions Report," was expected to increase from 8,000,000 in
1980 to over 16,000,000 by 2020. Typical was this statement by
the Virginia Fisheries Commission in 1971: "Contamination of our
natural waters by primary and secondary pollution is one of the
most major problems confronting the seafood industry . . . Our
paramount concern at the present is the problems of municipal
sewage."
The press played a critical role in raising public awareness
regarding the health of the Bay. Local news articles during the
1960's and 1970's recorded the uncertainty about the condition of
the Bay. Boldprint headlines such as these told the story: "Are
They Killing Our Bay?", "Changes Imperil Bay Resources," and "Our
Beleagured Bay." Government responded to pressure from the press
by implementing short-term programs to address isolated
incidents. The need for a coordinating group responsible for the
long-term water quality of the entire Bay became increasingly
apparent.
-24-
-------
Senator Mathias realized the need for an in-depth study of the
Bay and for effective Bay management. in the summer of 1973,
Senator Mathias took a Bay-wide cruise to confirm first-hand the
public's perception that the Bay was dying. He authored the
legislation governing the Chesapeake Bay program and spoke
fervently about Bay management:
The Bay is an organic whole. If one part is damaged, all
parts are affected, it is of little use to stud|y one
link in an environmental chain without relating it to the
whole. If the Chesapeake Bay is to survive, it must be
addressed as an entity, as a total system, without
duplication and without omission. We sorely need a
mechanism that can coordinate the activities and
organizations involved in the Bay—that can offer some
promise that the hopes and aspirations we all have for
the Bay can be realized.
Hie need for a comprehensive look at the Bay did not develop
overnight. As seen from the above accounts, concern for the Bay
evolved over time, culminating with Senator Mathias' personal
involvement.
2.2 THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The Federal Water pollution Control Act (PL-50D), also known
as the Clean Water Act, sets the overall framework for the
Nation's goal of attaining and maintaining "fishable/swimmable"
waters. Within this overriding goal, the Act sets forth EPA and
state responsibilities for developing control actions and
strategies to abate pollutant sources. The Chesapeake Bay has
received a special emphasis by EPA due to its size and
productivity, and its overall importance to the Nation, and more
specifically, the Bay states.
-25-
-------
Although it was seen fit to provide a special research
appropriation to study the Bay, it should be recognized that other
research studies could and have been carried out within the
context of the Act. Many research studies conducted by EPA
outside of this special appropriation are directly or indirectly
of use to the Bay system as well. Similarly, the control actions
that are necessary to resolve the Bay's problems can be addressed
through the Act. These control actions fall into the two distinct
phases anticipated by the Act: (1) technology based, and (2)
water quality based.
Technology based controls are issed by EPA on a national
basis. All dischargers within a certain category, e.g., iron and
steel industry and publicly owned treatment works, are required to
meet common effluent standards. Should these effluent standards
fail to achieve the ambient water quality standards of a given
waterbody, the state is to inpose additional control actions to
ensure that ambient standards are attained. These additional
controls are known as water quality based controls. These ambient
standards are adopted by the state and comprise a use, e.g.,
shellfishing, and criteria protective of that use. All state
standards are subject to EPA review to ensure, among other things,
that downstate uses are not inpaired.
Additional water quality based control actions can include
point and nonpoint source controls. The procedures for adopting
water quality based controls are described in the Act and in EPA
regulations and policy, indeed, much of the information necessary
-26-
-------
to make water quality based control actions should be available
through basin and areawide plans conducted under sections 208 and
303 of the Act.
2.3 PUBLIC LAW 94-116
Little coordination existed among legislators, managers,
scientists, and the public regarding management of the Chesapeake
Bay until Congressional action on October 17, 1975 (P. L.
94-116). This legislation was a result of environmental concerns
described in Section 2.1 of this report. Scientists were hampered
by lack of funding and by vague knowledge of related Bay
research. Conferences on Bay issues helped clarify areas of
research but did not result in leadership for the management of
the Bay. This statement by Senator Mathias in 1979 describes
ongoing confusion regarding Bay management:
It takes three pages of very small print just to list the
names and addresses of organizations concerned with the
Bay; it takes 14 pages to describe what they do; there
are ten federal agencies with some jurisdiction over the
Bay; there are five interstate agencies and commissions;
Maryland and Virginia together have 31 state agencies
dealing with the Bay; and there are seven Maryland and
Virginia colleges and universities studying the Bay.
One step toward coordination and management of the Bay was
passage of p. L. 94-116 which directed the Environmental
Protection Agency to reprogram $25 million to conduct a five-year
study of the environmental quality and management of Chesapeake
Bay resources. The directives of Congress were outlined in the
-27-
-------
accompanying Senate Report No. 94-326. CBP's response to the
specific mandates of Congress was assessed by The Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (CBF), a non-profit organization, at a Congressional
Hearing in March 1983.
The following excerpts taken from the CBF's preliminary
assessment indicate that the mandates were met.
A. MANDATE: CONDUCT AN IN-DEPTH STUDY OF THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY, APPLICABLE TO OTHER ESTUARIES.
EPA, through the Chesapeake Bay program, has
conducted an in-depth study of the Chesapeake Bay.
As directed by Congress the study is applicable to
other estuarine zones. This study had two primary
components. First, the Program has amassed a very
large data base on the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the Bay. These files
comprise the first comprehensive historical data
base for the Chesapeake. Second, the Program funded
more than 40 technical studies dealing with a
variety of topics germane to the estuary. in turn,
these studies resulted in the conpilation of 59
technical reports, adding greatly to our
understanding of estuarine processes.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation believes that the
results of this study are applicable to the nation's
other estuaries. Although the relative magnitude of
the various processes will vary between individual
estuaries, the same basic processes will
nevertheless be present and important. Three CBP
scientific findings have important implications:
1. The accumulation by "natural" processes of
nutrients and toxicants in the Chesapeake
Bay.
2. The identification of nitrogen as the
potential limiting nutrient.
3. The coupling of land-use practices to
nonpoint sources (NPS) pollution and the
quantification of NPS pollution as a
significant factor in the over-enrichment of
an estuary.
-28-
-------
B. MANDATE: ASSESS THE PRINCIPAL FACTORS ADVERSELY
AFFECTING THE BAY.
The task of assessing the principal
environmental factors affecting the Chesapeake Bay
as set forth in the mandate to the Agency has been a
difficult one. initially, ten potential factors
were identified as worthy of investigation by the
Program based on responses from the Bay users and
the region's scientific community. Given the
limited fiscal resources made available to the
Program, this list was narrowed to three factors as
a result of a consensus reached by the program and
area scientists. We believe that the approach taken
by the program, targeting these three specific
factors (nutrients, toxics, and submerged aquatic
vegetation) of the many possible, was justified on
the basis of available technical and fiscal
resources. This approach, while not supplying all
the answers to all the questions, did add
considerably to our understanding of the estuary.
This is not to imply that other factors do not
play an important role in modifying the estuary.
Nor should we take the findings of the program as
the final word in the areas investigated. This is
especially true with toxic contaminants. CBP
research has shown that a number of areas have
dangerously elevated levels of toxicants present.
However, present scientific understanding does not
permit us to draw correlations between the levels of
toxicants present and the effects upon the
biological resources of the Bay. For instance, too
little is known on subjects such as the long-term
effects of chronic exposure to particular compounds
in estuaries or the synergistic effects that a
combination of substances may exhibit. For this
reason expanded monitoring and continued research is
necessary.
C. MANDATE: REVIEW OF EXISTING RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
OF EXISTING DATA.
EPA's review of existing research programs
appears to have been adequate. The relative success
of this effort was due in large measure to the
Program's extensive use of the region's major
research institutions as cooperative partners in the
technical studies. To our knowledge, no significant
research programs were overlooked, in addition to
the program's review of the then ongoing research,
-29-
-------
historical data were conpiled, edited, and stored by
the program. Literature, published and unpublished,
and monitoring data from state and local
governments, as well as private industry, are
presently in the Program's computer files, in some
areas, this information is difficult to interpret
(e.g., historical fisheries data); in others it is
presently incomplete (i.e., data from USGS Potomac
Estuary Study, etc.). This does not, however,
detract from the value of the data base as a whole.
As it is upgraded and refined, it will be an
extremely valuable tool in any attenpt to monitor
long-term trends in the estuary and its biological
resources.
D. MANDATE: IDENTIFY THE UNITS OF GOVERNMENT
RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY.
As set forth in the mandate, the Agency has
identified the units of government that have
management responsibilities for the Chesapeake Bay.
This information, contained in a report entitled
¦Environmental Quality Management Study: Agency and
Legal Authorities Survey," appears to be
comprehensive. Prepared for the Program by the
Environmental Law institute (ELI), the document
examines the federal, state, interstate, and
regional management agencies, representative bodies
of local government, research institutions, and
legislative bodies with interests on the Bay.
Although the document is dated (completed in
December of 1980), it will serve as a resource for
Bay managers and interested citizens, if made
available.
-30-
-------
Senate Report no. 94-326 also directed EPA to develop a
program for coordination of research efforts, sampling, and data
collection. EPA was further directed to define the management and
institutional structure for improving conmunication and
coordination necessary for Bay management. The CBF testified that
the following questions remain unanswered relative to these
directives:
1. Has the Agency (EPA) established a continuing
capability for collecting, storing, analyzing and
disseminating data related to the Bay and its
management?
2. Has the Agency adequately reviewed ways to improve
existing management mechanisms?
3. Will the Agency direct and coordinate an abatement
program that will address the factors affecting the
Chesapeake Bay?
Since the CBF testimony in March 1983, the Chesapeake Bay
Program has completed a report entitled "Chesapeake Bay: A
Framework for Action." This report identifies control
alternatives for agriculture, sewage treatment plants, industry,
urban runoff, and construction. It gives an estimate of costs and
effectiveness of different approaches to remedy problem areas.
This report is described in more detail in Section 5.
2.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
Organizing the many groups concerned with the Bay vas a huge
task. EPA sought to do this through a combined research and
abatement program. On May 25, 1976, EPA Administrator Russell C.
-31-
-------
Train espoused conservation of the Chesapeake Bay with the
following statement:
The Bay is involved in—or affected by—the everyday
lives of more than 8 million people who live and work and
enjoy the good life in this region. As our nation's
largest estuary, it is an economic, recreational and
natural resource of priceless value. Even if one
considers nothing else, the importance of maintaining the
vitality of this great body of water becomes apparent
just by looking at the role of estuaries as a fishery
resource. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the
commercial and recreational fish and shellfish of the
United States spend significant portions of their lives,
or even their entire lives, in estuaries such as the
Chesapeake Bay. Some 200 species of fish have been
identified in the Chesapeake alone.
Train's statement formally initiated a "Chesapeake Bay Water
Quality Study,* which proceeded under the auspices of the
Chesapeake Bay program. The Administrator divided the Bay study
into three distinct management phases. The first phase involved
organizational initiation and planning; the second phase
concentrated on implementation of research; and the third phase
included monitoring and Bay management. Committees guided the
Program, co/^rised of members from the Maryland Office of
Environmental programs (OEP), the Maryland Tidewater
Administration, Department of Natural Hesources (DNHJ, the
Virginia State Water Control Board (SVJCB); the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (DER); representatives from
local governments; citizens; industry officials and EPA officials.
While the Chesapeake Bay Program was an intergovernmental
effort from the Program's inception, efforts were made to identify
all entities with regulatory responsibility for the Bay. In
specific areas the C8P coordinated programs of the U.S. Geological
-32-
-------
Survey (Potomac River Study), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Chesapeake Bay Study), the Department of Commerce through the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine
Fisheries Service, and work by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2.5 LESSONS LEARNED
The formation of the Chesapeake Bay program and its successful
completion with the formulation of management alternatives
indicates that a coordinating unit was needed for the Chesapeake
Bay. An organization tasked with gathering data, sponsoring
research, and testing management alternatives can be realized only
through a cooperative effort with adequate resources, both in
funding and personnel.
Public records, such as newspapers, speeches, and Senate
Report 94-325, indicated shortcomings in the water quality
monitoring of the Chesapeake Bay. prior to 1977 a lead
organization responsible for identifying research and assessing
the state of the Bay was nonexistent. in an area experiencing
steady population growth and land-use changes, such as the
Chesapeake, perception of management needs also change. While
individual states and institutions made significant efforts to
address Bay problems, each program had its limitations. The
federally mandated program, unlike state and private institutions,
had the resources to make a comprehensive study of the Chesapeake
Bay possible. Studying a system as complex as the Chesapeake Bay
as a complete ecosystem should be considered when attempting
similar programs.
-33-
-------
3.0 PHASE I: INITIATION AND PLANNING
(1976 to 1979)
The chief concern during the first year of the program was
establishment of an organization uniting the Bay community in
decisions concerning water quality. Unfortunately, the process of
unification lasted nearly three years. Lengthy reports were
printed describing the organizations involved in Chesapeake Bay
issues, but little was acconplished towards uniting them in a
common goal—management of the Bay. Research areas were selected
and program monies allocated without establishing how the research
would be integrated and linked with trends and management
solutions. Long before research was underway a citizens' program
was awarded a grant to involve the public in CBP activities.
While a prestigious organization was formulated on paper, the CBP
Management Committee did not become a strong decision-making unit
until 1979.
3.1 LOCATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM OFFICE
Since the Chesapeake Bay falls within the jurisdiction of
EPA's Region III (Philadelphia) office, this office was initially
given responsibility for program management, program funding was
divided between EPA Region III and EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) because it was a combined research and control
program. Until January 1979 the Regional office had managed the
program from Philadelphia. Subsequent to January 1979 the program
-34-
-------
was given its own office located in Annapolis, Maryland, the
center of the Chesapeake Bay region. This action was taken to
improve efficiency and coordination among participating
organizations. It was announced at a January 29, 1979 Senate
hearing conducted by Senator Mathias, "The Coordination of Federal
and State Programs Affecting Chesapeake Bay," before the
Subcommittee on Governmental Efficiency and the District of
Columbia. Establishment of the Annapolis CBP office fulfilled a
conmitment made by the Assistant Administrator for ORD and the
Deputy Regional Administrator for Region III in testimony at this
hearing. Contrary to their testimony, however, the CBP Office was
never co-locate!d with the Region ' III surveillance and analysis
staff in their Annapolis Field Office (later renamed the Central
Regional Laboratory) facilities.
Until January 1979 the Regional office had the responsibility
for contracts, personnel, grants, and other functions which were
critical to the early stages of the Program. Beginning in January
1979 ORD assumed joint responsibility with Region III for program
Management. The Deputy Director of the ORD Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory, Dr. Tudor Davies, assumed the
role of Director of the Chesapeake Bay program. An Annapolis
Field Study Office reporting to the Office of the Director of the
Gulf Breeze Laboratory was established in April 1979. Subsequent
management changes occurred which transferred the CBP directorship
to the ORD Narragansett Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) in
November 1979. In addition to reporting to Narragansett, Dr.
Davies also reported to the Philadelphia Regional Administrator.
-35-
-------
Because of ORD's past experience in directing similar research
activities, this transfer was seen as an important change. The
Narragansett ERL conducted research aimed at improving knowledge
of the effects of pollutants on marine organisms and ecosystems
and of the movement and alteration of pollutants within such
systems. Information generated by the laboratory is applied in
permitting decisions and enforcement actions and is used as a
basis for developing more useful and defensible regulations. The
CBP research program was placed in direct contact with the
management agencies that were the basic users of the technical
information derived from the research studies.
The program was initially criticized for changing management
mid-point in the study; however, improvements occurred in program
supervision, in interaction with regional, state, and public
interest groups, in program research and integration, and in
meeting Congressional directives.
The success of the new location and new management was voiced
by Merilyn Reeves, Director of Maryland's League of Women Voters,
at the CBP's Third Annual Meeting (December, 1980):
Citizens wanted EPA management of the Bay Program to
be located on the Bay. They wanted continued high-level
involvement with state governments. They wanted EPA to
assign highly qualified professionals to the program.
And they wanted the congressional mandate to be carried
out for a full 5-year program. The best part of the
citizen demand was that they vigorously expressed them.
There was a great outpouring of letters to Congress,
governors, and EPA. Delegations of citizen groups went
to Philadelphia to express their continued support for
the program. They did not want just a research program,
but a plan of action which would assist in environmental
decision making and ensure the future productivity of the
-36-
-------
Bay. That December 1978 battle yielded good results. An
office was established here on the Bay. Dr. Tudor Davies
was transferred to head the program. State jealousies
and past mistakes were laid aside, and there seemed to be
a strong commitment for meeting Senator Mathias's
original goal in the most cost-effective, environmentally
sound manner. We are now in this period of euphoria,
proud of survival and with hope for the future.
3.2 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
Committees designed to coordinate prospective managers, policy
makers, and scientists from many disciplines were developed during
the first phase of the program. These committees made up the
organization of the Program, offering guidance to CBP staff and
researchers. Appointing persons with decision making authority to
these committees was the key to their effectiveness.
A Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) coordinated Program
activities with federal, state, and interstate agencies. The PAC
had final responsibility for the direction of the CBP. The PAC
included the EPA Regional Administrator, Director of the
Chesapeake Bay program, Chairman of the Technical Advisory
Committee, Chairman of the Citizens Steering Committee, and
Governor designees from the States. Subcommittees supported the
PAC, allowing for an integration of various groups and an
interdisciplinary research approach. The subcommittees consisted
of a Management Committee, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
and a Citizens Steering Committee (CSC). In order to complement
CBP efforts, a representative from the Department of Army, corps
of Engineers, was designated as a member of the PAC.
-37-
-------
The Management committee was the next major unit beneath the
PAC responsible for directing research upon which the PAC could
base decisions. It was essential that Committee members be
knowledgable of Bay issues, be able to make decisions, and be able
to appropriately advise and guide the policy makers. The
Management committee initiated staffing plans for the CBP,
established program goals, objectives and priorities, reviewed
budget proposals, and initiated grant and research projects. The
Chairman of this committee served in a dual capacity as Director
of the program, guiding day-to-day operations. The Committee
consisted of representatives from water programs in Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, EPA, and the Citizens program for the
Chesapeake Bay, inc. This cross section of Bay managers
complemented CBP efforts by establishing a communication network
essential for a cooperative atmosphere. Dr. Tudor T. Davies,
Director of the CBP from 1979 to 1982, described the structure of
the Management Committee in his presentation at the CBP's Third
Annual Meeting {December 1980):
He made a number of basic decisions or assumptions
at the initiation of the Program. The first guiding
principle for the study is the concept that the Bay
itself is an entity. The water quality in the Bay
responds to activities and stresses that originate in the
drainage basin. Any change that occurs in the Bay is a
response to changes in the drainage basin. Although
there are major environmental and ecological fluctuations
within the Bay system, the major, long-term trends are
related to changes induced by man in the drainage basin.
An obvious resulting decision was to treat the Bay and
its drainage basin as a single system for study.
Consequently, it was inportant to have a management
organization that represented a basin wide perspective.
-38-
-------
We established a management structure that represented
some of the major decision-making agencies for water
quality in the drainage basin.
The Technical Advisory conmittee, which provided direction to
the research portion of the study, reviewed and approved all
research planning processes, designed an integration scheme for
completed research, and initiated a quality assurance plan for
research. The TAC utilized scientific work groups to integrate
communications among research contractors. Members of the TAC
consisted of senior EPA scientists from the Office of Research and
Development.
Hie Technical Advisory Committee was the most crucial group
during the first years of the program. Because CBP was a newly
conceived organization, in-house scientific experience did not
exist. The CBP relied on top ORD/EPA scientists to guide
research. These key scientists provided technical supervision,
guidance, and training as the in-house staff evolved. Without
this unique gathering of experts, CBP could not have accomplished
its objectives. As reports from research organizations neared
completion, it became necessary to hire in-house personnel for the
daily tasks of integrating the research. During 1978-1979, the
Technical Advisory Committee carried CBP through a major
transition by providing CBP staff with much needed guidance.
Since operating budgets were not sufficient to pay both in-house
scientists and the travel required for TAC members, a senior ORD
scientist (Dr. David Flemer, who had also served on the TAC) was
assigned to Annapolis as Senior Science Advisor of the Chesapeake
-39-
-------
Bay program. This decision was extremely . beneficial to the CBP.
Dr. Flemer would become the only on-site EPA employee (scientific
or administrative) to see the program through to its completion.
It was only through Dr. Flemer1s continued presence in the Program
that much of the integration of scientific results, Bay
characterization efforts, and Bay-wide monitoring plans would be
documented in the program's final reports.
The EPA Administrator designed the "Chesapeake Bay Water
Quality Study" to allow changes in Program administration during
the three phases of the program. After the Management committee
completed organizational aspects of the program, an important
shift in program responsibility took place. The TAC Chairman
became chairman of the Management Committee, merging strong
technical and managerial expertise during the research phase of
the Program. When research and final products were coupleted, TAC
relinquished responsibilities to the original Management committee
tasked with implementation of the program's monitoring and future
Bay management recommendations.
A Citizens Steering Committee (CSC) conducted regular meetings
informing interested citizens of the CBP, reviewed program
initiatives and reports, and provided guidance to the PAC. The
CSC coordinated activities with other Bay citizen programs such as
208 Water planning programs, coastal zone Programs, and the Corps
of Engineers. Membership for the CSC included eighteen citizens
from Maryland and Virginia who represented the users of the Bay.
Approximately four to five members rotated annually and were
-40-
-------
replaced with new members to ensure accurate and up-to-date views
on Bay issues.
Much of the program's early efforts were centered around
public involvement. A Federal regulation required that CBP
allocate five percent funding toward public participation (five
percent was 250,000 dollars). Many organizations were encouraged
to submit proposals, and the Citizens program for the Chesapeake
Bay, inc. (CPCB) was chosen as the best qualified. The Citizens
Program is an association of 83 Bay-related organizations formed
in 1971. The organization includes a broad range of
environmental, civic, and business groups. The widely known
Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), established in 1966, was also
considered but was not selected because CBF was a member of the
Citizens Program which represented it as well as other interests.
The goals and objectives of the Citizens program included the
development of a Bay-wide constituency and the means to solicit,
receive, and consider citizen input in the CBP decision-making
process. The CSC relied heavily upon the guidance of the CPCB
when making decisions, and a member of the CPCB served on the
Management committee, thereby ensuring public involvement in the
direction of the Program.
The CBP Director also served as Chairman of the Management
Committee guiding day-to-day activities and ensuring that
committee directives were carried out. When the Program was
reorganized in 1979, in-house CBP management was assigned to the
Deputy Director, Mr. Thomas B. DeMoss. The CBP Director and
-41-
-------
Deputy Director established work groups for research study areas.
Two distinct mixtures of personnel evolved over the course of the
Program. During the first three years (1976-1979), Region III
assigned program planners and managers to organize the program
structure. Technical support was provided through ORD staff
serving on the TAC. With organizational arrangements completed
and the office established in Annapolis, ORD assigned a staff of
six program planners to Annapolis in 1979 to monitor research on a
daily basis. in the capacity of project Officers, these ORD
personnel developed time lines, established accountability
mechanisms and served as work group coordinators in specific topic
areas. A few of the more aggressive program planners who
demonstrated strong leadership and technical skills moved into
research areas, demonstrating that upward mobility was possible in
the Program.
3.3 STATE PARTICIPATION
The States participated in the Program through management
grants funded by the CBP. participating state agencies identified
an office responsible for interacting with CBP staff, serving on
work groups, managing Bay program projects, and coordinating with
other state agencies and offices. in addition, state officials
served as members of policy committees.
Nearly 64,000 square miles of territory drain into the
Chesapeake from the States of Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia. Maryland's and Virginia's contiguous
-42-
-------
land locations within the Chesapeake Bay estuary made its active
involvement with the CBP essential from the program's inception.
Because the Susquehanna River is the largest single contributor of
freshwater into the Bay, and because most of the Susquehanna
drainage basin is contained in Pennsylvania, a need for
Pennsylvania's involvement became inperative. as early as 1979,
the CBP staff began negotiations with the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources and the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission. Proceedings of the December 1980 CBP Second Annual
Workshop indicated an increasing need to update Pennsylvania
officials on recent Program facts and findings. The state
realized its significant role in managing and irrproving the water
quality of the Bay and became an active participant.
EPA promoted state involvement in every step of the CBP
decision-making process. State participation was only possible
through EPA grants which enabled funding for Chesapeake Bay
offices within state agencies. For the first time research was
coordinated between organizations and states which were once
divided on issues requiring study. Funding enabled officials and
staff within State agencies to participate in meetings and to
serve as members of committees guiding CBP research.
3.4 PROGRAM FUNDING
Congress initially requested EPA to reprogram $25 million and
fifty positions for the Bay program. However, changes in
Administrators and rearrangement of EPA priorities created
-43-
-------
problems for the Program. While Russell C. Train viewed the CEP
as a regional program with national significance, the succeeding
Administrator did not view the Chesapeake Bay as a high priority
national problem.
The significance of the Bay as a national resource can be seen
from looking at statements such as this by George Alexander, the
former Director of Great Lakes Studies and a Texas lawyer.
As far as the Chesapeake Bay is concerned, I would
have to say that we in Texas, even though we have fairly
adequate sources of good seafood, still rely on the
Chesapeake Bay for many of the seafoods which we
partake. So we do have an interest in your Chesapeake
Bay.
As previously mentioned, the program was originally conceived
as a five-year study concluding at the end of fiscal year 1981.
The Program was supported by two separate appropriations:
abatement and control, administered by Region III; and research
and development, administered by ORD. In addition to problems
caused by changes in administration, zero base budgeting was
implemented in 1980 and budgetary difficulties ensued from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and EPA policies. Instead
of the five-year authorization, the Program was continued on a
year-to-year basis. Unfortunately, this created an unstable
environment at CBP causing excessively high turnover of CBP
staff. High turnover coupled with understaffing problems from the
outset (CBP received ten positions instead of fifty) caused
administrative delays and missed deadlines. The program required
three one-year extensions in order to finish products. Debates
-44-
-------
involving funding levels for CBP created uncertainty about budget
ceilings and made CBP decisions in awarding research grants
difficult. The CBP was forced to rearrange research priorities
and schedules. CBP personnel administered funding on the theory
that next year's budget might be diminished. Without question,
some decisions regarding funding of research projects and levels
of funding would have been different, if the operating money was
guaranteed.
3.5 PHASED MANAGEMENT APPROACH
in 19761 a phased management approach was adopted in
administering Program goals. Initially, a five-year plan was
prepared but was vetoed by committee members due to the uncertain
outcome of the research. While program objectives as outlined by
Congress remained the same, the phased approach allowed
flexibility in changing priorities, setting new directives and
phasing in additional research as the Program developed new
information regarding the Bay. This approach proved especially
useful in 1980 as research began to peak. Integration of the
research involved several steps that were not realized until work
groups analyzed projects and preliminary findings. For instance,
a need to segment the Bay into similar physical and hydrologic
characteristics was determined late in 1980. (Segmentation is
described in detail in Section 4.3.4 of this report.) The ability
to phase-in this necessary step helped to acconplish a water
quality classification scheme for the Bay based upon segments.
-45-
-------
One consequence of the phased management approach was that program
results were developed as four major reports.
3.6 HOW RESEARCH WAS SELECTED
There was much concern early in the program that the
Chesapeake Bay Study would be "just another study." Letters were
plentiful protesting the lack of action regarding Bay management.
Typical are these statements by the CPCB:
We just do not need another base study of the Bay at this
time. . . We need a comprehensive management program,
including both maxi-(government) and mini-(citizen)
phases of problem-solving. In the former we have seen
mostly self-perpetuating activities; in the latter,
oversight by citizens have given direction and
practicality to many programs.
We hope that you will nudge the EPA Chesapeake Bay
program in the direction that you and Congress intended
without the waste, delay and public irritation of
duplicating work well under way. (5/10/77 letter from
CPCB president to Sen. Harry Byrd, D-Va.)
In April 1977 the director of the university of Maryland's
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies wrote Senator
Mathias expressing dismay that the CBP was lagging behind schedule
and not addressing its mandate. He suggested that a brainstorming
session be held at the upcoming Bi-State Conference to put
together a work plan for the CBP. The April 27-29, 1977
Conference, partially funded by CBP, was certainly a blessing to
the future direction of the Bay program. The Conference was an
assembly of scientists, administrators, and interested groups and
individuals whose opinions and activities the EPA was directed to
coordinate. The Conference reviewed what was known about the
-46-
-------
major problems affecting the water quality and living resources of
the Bay and what management implications could be drawn from these
conclusions.
Several other agencies were vital players in identifying
research areas. The Corps of Engineers was consulted during the
planning stages to determine shortcomings and gaps in their recent
study, in 1965, Congress instructed the corps "to make a complete
investigation and study of water utilization and control of
Chesapeake Bay basin . . . including navigation, fisheries, flood
control, control of noxious waste, water pollution, water quality
control, beach erosion, and recreation," and they were authorized
to build a physical, hydraulic model of the Bay. The Corps
produced a seven-volume Existing conditions Report in 1973 and a
twelve-volume Future Conditions Report in 1977. The model proved
useful for a number of flow studies, but funding for its operation
was withdrawn in the spring of 1983. The corps' study was
criticized for a number of reasons: it was too comprehensive; it
was not well-coordinated with State agencies of Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania; it did not adequately consider the
entire Bay drainage basin; and the Corps was not the Agency
responsible for developing fisheries or water quality
recommendations. Additionally, much concern was raised about the
Corps' authority for the Bay when the Corps proposed to deepen
Baltimore Harbor and dispose of the contaminated sediments at the
popular fishing grounds of Hart and Miller Islands.
State agencies in Maryland and Virginia jointly prepared a
program for research study. Other organizations, such as CPCB,
-47-
-------
encouraged the CBP to develop research needs. Another helpful
source was a study by the Water Resources Research center at the
Virginia polytechnic institute citing citizens' attitudes about
the Bay.
The CBP committees worked together in analyzing and outlining
research needs and objectives. At an October 1977 workshop in
Ocean City, Maryland, CBP participants analyzed all lists and
identified ten critical areas for study. ihree of the ten areas
were selected to receive high priority attention and the seven re-
maining areas were given medium to low ranking in order to maxi-
mize available funds.
High priority
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
Eutrophication (nutrient enrichment)
Toxics accumulation in the food chain
Medium priority
Dredging and dredged material disposal
Shellfish bed closures
Fisheries modification (biological resources)
Hydrologic modification
Low priority
Wetlands alteration
Shoreline erosion
Water quality effects of boating and shipping
In addition to SAV, nutrient enrichment, and toxics
accumulation, a management study was selected as a fourth area for
major study. Data gathering and research integration enconpassed
all ten research areas. For instance, investigators could not
study SAV without looking at the entire ecosystem. Through
synthesis of research and characterization of the research with
data, scientists were able to link the decline of SAV with light
-48-
-------
and herbicides. SAV declines affected biological resources,
wetlands, and shoreline erosion.
Overall, the three major research areas were wisely chosen
because many areas of concern overlapped with these three.
However, there are those who say it fell short by eliminating a
study of a specific Bay species such as the oyster, blue crab,
striped bass, etc. This would have been extremely useful when
characterizing the Bay, a decision made in 1980. The purpose of
characterization was to link water quality with resources, thereby
establishing cause and effect relationships.
An excellent summary of the various research recommendations
is contained in the "Virginia and Maryland Chesapeake Bay and
Coastal Areas Briefing paper," dated August 1979, prepared by the
Virginia Office of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources and the
Maryland Coastal Zone Unit, Tidewater Administration, Department
of Natural Resources.
3.7 LESSONS LEARNED
The CBP identified five research objectives to guide
research. However, it was not until after the 1979 reorganization
that extensive, specific, in-depth questions were compiled.
Without the specific questions researchers had no way to guide
their projects toward addressing common concerns. The initial
questions which guided the research follow. Specific questions
are described in Section 4.3 of this report.
-49-
-------
What is the current state (health) of the Bay?
What might be the future state of the Bay under
certain growth scenarios?
How would you monitor changes from the current state
of the Bay conditions?
What management control options exist to meet
certain states of Bay conditions?
What are future research needs for the Chesapeake
Bay?
The CBP recognized that there were major environmental
problems that required immediate investigation. The methodology
used to identify a number of priority areas originated from lists
submitted by the various groups involved in meetings and
discussions mentioned earlier. These lists were scrutinized in
great detail as outlined below:
1. Major, easily identifiable research needs were
determined. Submission lists and project lists were
obtained.
2. Review of source lists allowed identification of
major topic areas.
3. Detailed review of source lists provided need
identification by topic.
4. Identified needs by topic were compared to source
submission lists to determine multiple sources for
each need.
5. Priority needs by topic (those having the greatest
number of source requests) were compared to identify
complementary needs.
The first priority of the Program was to select research
areas. The program's first priority should have been to develop a
detailed list of questions. The management study raised inportant
questions regarding the causes and sources of problems, but they
-50-
-------
were raised too late in the program, not until 1979. These
questions would have more effectively guided the research.
instead of limiting program goals to merely conpleting 40
research projects and data collection, the phased-management
approach provided an opportunity to periodically assess the
progress of research and integrate findings toward describing the
state of the bay.
-51-
-------
4.0 PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH
(1979 to 1983)
Research essentially began with the reorganization of the
Chesapeake Bay program in 1979. The newly appointed Director, Dr.
Tudor T. Davies, was an experienced manager of water quality
studies through his affiliation with the Great Lakes Study. Dr.
Davies was cognizant that under the Congressional mandate less
than three years remained to complete research and develop
management alternatives for the Bay. Results were attained
through utilization of existing committees, peer reviews, an
outreach program designed to involve user groups, and
establishment of effective management tools which guided the
research toward specific objectives.
4.1 PLANS OF ACTION
At a planning meeting held in Ocean City, Maryland in 1977,
three distinct study plans were inplemented for the Chesapeake Bay
Program:
"plan of Action—Toxics Accumulation in Food Chain,"
prepared by the Toxics Workgroup.
"A Plan for Ecological Studies of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation and Associated Living Resources of Chesapeake
Bay," prepared by the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Workgroup.
"Eutrophication program for Chesapeake Bay," prepared by
the Eutrophication Workgroup.
-52-
-------
These plans were circulated to major institutions,
universities, and government agencies involved in Bay research to
solicit their participation. The plans of Action enconpassed
literature reviews, accumulation and evaluation of available data,
extensive sampling in the Bay, analyses of the samples,
experimental laboratory work, and management tasks. The sampling
and analytical activities described in the various plans were
designed to partially overlap, sampling events were combined
whenever possible for the sake of economy, to reduce duplication
of efforts, and to obtain concurrent data for facilitating
interpretation and modeling.
4.2 ANNUAL MEETINGS
perhaps the singlemost important contribution to completion of
the Bay study was the effectiveness of open communication. The
importance of cooperation among the multitude of Bay organizations
was emphasized at the congressional hearing in 1979 and followed
with extreme attentiveness. Annual meetings proved to be an
excellent method for bringing individual elements of the program
together and reassessing program objectives. The monumental
advancements made at these meetings deserve recognition. The
meetings described in this section focus on workshops and events
after the reorganization of 1979.
-53-
-------
4.2.1 Second Annual Workshop
The CBP's Second Annual Review Workshop conducted November 27,
28 and 29, 1979, in Hanpton, Virginia, was attended by over 250
people. Unique to this meeting were the separate reviews of the
CBP conducted by the Scientific Review panel (selected from
outside EPA), the Technical Advisory Committee, the Citizens
Steering Committee, and individual citizens. These reviews were
directed both at the overall CBP and at individual projects and
project tasks. The reviews generated comments and criticisms that
helped define the program direction during its remaining years.
The Second Annual Workshop provided an opportunity for all
participants to understand more fully the scientific projects and
management efforts. At the same time, outside scientific peer
reviewers could critique research and program direction and offer
suggestions for meeting the CBP's goals. In addition, the workshop
provided an opportunity for work groups in the three research
areas to discuss ongoing research. comments were extremely
beneficial and resulted in major actions by the CBP. A need for
integration of research was the most critical observation made by
the outside peer reviewers. Their comments changed the direction
of the entire program from a solely research orientation toward
integration and answering managers' questions. The Management
Committee had this to say about the Meeting:
It is our opinion that the Second Annual Workshop
was a success because those who attended were able to sit
back and review the entire Chesapeake Bay program as well
as gain a greater understanding of the highly technical
projects. The Workshop proved extremely valuable as new
-54-
-------
ideas were generated from all facets of the Bay
community. The comments resulting from the Workshop and
all the corresponding responses have contributed to
making the efforts of the CBP more responsive to
management needs.
Perhaps the most startling revelation of the Second Annual
Workshop was the lack of basic knowledge by the average citizen
concerning the Bay ecosystem. As principal investigators
presented abstracts of their research, citizens were uncertain how
the projects related to Bay ecosystem concerns. The Scientific
Review panel observed the questions being asked and recommended
preparation of a base document which would educate the
non-scientist on the Bay ecosystem. The CBP staff prepared
"Chesapeake Bay: An Introduction to an Ecosystem,* a publication
well received by the Bay community, in less than two years, over
10,000 copies were distributed to Bay citizens and the publication
is currently in its third reprint. One and two page briefs and
summaries describing the conplexities of the research in
non-technical terms were also prepared.
The Technical Advisory Committee functioned at the Second
Annual Workshop in a peer review capacity. By listening to
principal investigators, comparing projects, and addressing
questions, they determined final research requirements. The last
major research grants were awarded early in 1980 and were geared
toward strengthening the link between management and scientific
research as identified at the second Annual Meeting.
The Scientific Review panel made critical comments at the
meeting which resulted in a major directional change of the CBP.
-55-
-------
The panel pointed out the need for an integration of all research
to characterize the state of the Bay. To respond to the
Scientific Review panel's concern# CBP organized a meeting of
principal investigators in Wallops Island to influence how they
would write their final reports.
4.2.2 Wallops island
The Wallops island Research Team Meeting was held May 11 to
13, 1981. The meeting was attended by the principal investigators
of CBP projects plus CBP staff. The meeting emphasized the
synthesis of research results. Each Workgroup - toxics, SAV and
eutrophication - addressed this issue by developing a preliminary
outline for a synthesis paper in each area. These outlines formed
the basis for one of the major CBP reports, "Chesapeake Bay
Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis," which was published in
September 1982. Another topic discussed was the development of
criteria for characterizing the state of the Bay. . Also finalized
at this meeting was a timetable for completing CBP projects.
4.2.3 Third Annual Meeting
The Third Annual Meeting of the CBP at cross Keys inn,
Baltimore, Maryland, on December 1-2, 1980, focused on science and
its management implications. The congressional mandate directed
the Program to assess the adverse factors affecting the health of
the Bay and to recommend management solutions to mitigate
stresses. Since the research was in final stages, it was natural
to link management concerns with the research findings.
-56-
-------
Two guest participants were invited from recently completed
water studies—The Thames River Authority and The Great Lakes
Water Quality Study. CBP Director Dr. Tudor Davies and Deputy
Director Mr. Tom DeMoss had recently participated in an
environmental conference sponsored by the NATO Committee on the
Challenges of Modern Society. There they discussed pilot water
quality studies with participants from other Nations and solicited
the counsel of Dr. peter Casapieri, Directorate of Scientific
Services with the Thames Water Authority. Dr. Casapieri spoke at
the Third Annual Meeting about the Thames Water Authority, which
is responsible for overall water study, water quality management,
and public accountability. CBP participants were able to ask
questions about the United Kingdom's Water Act of 1973. The Act
transferred duties previously exercised by a large number of
authorities into a single authority with total control of all
water programs. Successes and failures in their program were
scrutinized by CBP managers.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 was discussed
by George Alexander, former director of the Great Lakes study.
The CBP asked questions about the Great Lakes long-term monitoring
program and its management structure. George Alexander emphasized
the need to "look at a type of structure that will allow all of
the parties that are eventually going to have to implement to be
involved in making the recommendations on what you are going to
implement."
Both speakers provided valuable insight into broadening and
refining management approaches to Bay findings. The states and
-57-
-------
citizens organizations added their perspectives on Chesapeake Bay
Management at the Third Annual Meeting. The CPCB listened to
comments regarding the education of the public and the need to
integrate the proper mix of Bay users in the decision-making
process. Fran Flanigan, Director of the public Participation
program for CPBC responded:
This coming year we have decided to target our
efforts on selected groups who we know have an interest
in the Chesapeake Bay. There are associations and groups
of people who already have a viewpoint that we feel need
to be brought into the Bay program We are going to
focus this year on reaching specific interest groups,
agricultural groups, seafood-oriented groups, the
business community, and the environmental interest and
public interest groups who have for such a long time been
interested in the quality and future of the Bay.
4.2.4 Donaldson-Brown Workshop
A three-day workshop was held March 5-7, 1981 at the
Donaldson-Brown Center in port Deposit, Maryland. After the Third
Annual Meeting held in December 1980, principal investigators and
CBP staff reviewed and revised the draft synthesis papers and
attempted to answer the management questions as refined at that
meeting. Citizens and scientists alike watched the fruits of
their research efforts come together. Briefs and summaries
describing management implications were written for each completed
research project. The non-technically composed briefs were
distributed by CPCB to concerned citizens, apprising them of
scientific findings requiring their future action.
A Management Committee meeting during the Donaldson-Brown
workshop evolved the CBP into a new phase, it was apparent from
-58-
-------
discussions with the researchers during the three-day workshop
that the individual project reports provided a description of the
research, but until the findings were linked with water quality
trends, no cause and effect relationships could be established.
Consequently, a new priority emerged to try and link water quality
research with Bay resources.
4.3 MANAGEMENT TOOLS USED TO DIRECT RESEARCH
4.3.1 Management Questions
• Management questions were prepared by the CBP staff in 1979
and peer reviewed by CBP committees. These questions were related
to the three research areas of highest priority—nutrient
enrichment, SAV and toxics. The questions were designed to answer
the concerns that precipitated the CBP in 1976, and served to
direct CBP research throughout the remainder of the Program. By
outlining specific questions which needed answering, principal
investigators geared their research toward common objectives. The
management questions, and their answers developed by the CBP, are
contained in "Chesapeake Bay program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis," pp 6-35.
Development of the management questions involved three steps,
initially, the management questions were reviewed by the CBP
Management committee, all Work Groups, EPA ORD and Regional
personnel. This ensured that all key actors—federal and state
managers and citizens—agreed upon the management questions to be
-59-
-------
addressed. Research teams, composed of the CBP staff and
principal investigators, refined and developed more detailed
research questions for each of the management questions.
Secondly, as soon as the specific research questions were ready,
they were distributed to CBP principal investigators. The
principal investigators were directed to answer questions
pertaining to their particular study within the context of their
final reports, in most cases, information from more than one
study was necessary to answer a specific research question.
Research teams composed of CBP staff, key principal investigators
and state personnel pulled together responses from the project
reports, as well as relevant literature information, and prepared
scientific monographs—one per research question. Finally, CBP
staff arrived at a set of working papers which answered the
management questions by analyzing the answers to the research
questions, synthesizing them, and drawing conclusions. These
papers were used in preparing the drafts of the final program
reports.
The CBP realized that it would not be able to answer all the
research questions, nor would it be able to be as definitive in
some as in others. The CBP conducted an honest evaluation of
available information and came to conclusions in each program
area. The philosophy of CBP research and management
recommendations originated from these questions; that is, don't
wait for the ultimate scientific experiment. Make sound choices
on the information in front of you now.
-60-
-------
The importance of the management questions in directing the
scientists cannot be over-emphasized. By using the management
questions prepared by the CBP staff, the researchers had specific
goals. The CBP was obligated to answer, to the extent possible,
the damage caused by excess nutrients, what had caused the decline
in SAV, and the extent to which the Bay was contaminated with
toxic chemicals. The management questions forced the scientists
to step out on a limb by using the best information available to
report not only their research findings, but also how these
results reflected past utilization and management of the Bay and
its watershed.
4.3.2 Quality Assurance
The scopes of work contained in the three plans of Action (see
Section 4.1) were performed primarily by grantees whose data
formed the input for the CBP final products. The precision and
accuracy of their data were inperative, since management decisions
concerning the Bay are only as good as the quality of data upon
which they are based.
A coirprehensive data collection and research quality assurance
(QA) program entitled "Quality Assurance for the Chesapeake Bay
Program" was developed for CBP. The EPA Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory (EMSL) in Las Vegas, Nevada, developed
sophisticated guidelines for assuring uniform quality control on
all data collection activities. The EMSL coordinated and served
as a focal point for all quality assurance activities including:
-61-
-------
Assisting grantees in identifying and coordinating
methods and quality assurance procedures.
Evaluating and coordinating the qa parts of all
protocols.
Defining data acceptability for the various tasks and
ascertaining uniform data reporting including variance
estimates.
Providing or arranging for the provision of reference
materials.
Conducting round-robin evaluations and intercomparison
studies as needed to evaluate analyst skills and methods
adequacy.
Through EMSL's guidance, CBP ascertained that all grantees
used standardized or comparable procedures in their activities:
sampling, sample preservation, handling and storage of sanples,
sanple analysis, reference methods, instrument calibration
routines, use of reference materials, duplicates, blanks and split
samples, chain-of-custody procedures and record-keeping. The EMSL
made available biological reference materials for distribution to
analytical laboratories involved in the program, such as fish
solubles, oysters, copepod homogenate, animal blood, animal
muscle, bovine liver, animal bone, and leaves. These materials
were certified for a variety of stable elements at environmental
levels.
Intercoirparison programs were conducted by various EPA
laboratories. Grantees were encouraged to participate in
respective programs to demonstrate the comparability and
compatibility of analytical data between participating
laboratories.
-62-
-------
The CBP/EMSL quality assurance plan can be broken into three
distinct parts:
Project specific QA requirements.
Standard documentation and procedure requirements
applicable to sampling activity and laboratory analyses.
Model verification and calibration process.
A fourth area of quality assurance, peer review, was established
by CBP and EPA/ORD. Peer review is described in Section 4.3.3 of
this report.
The EMSL referenced literature, where appropriate, of specific
guidelines for researchers, i.e., "Manual of Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes' (EPA 625/16-74-003). Other EMSL
services included the design of checklists to assist investigators
and project officers to assess the adequacy of their internal and
external controls.
CBP project officers were required to conduct periodic on-site
reviews of each facility. The project officer's evaluation
enabled the CBP director and deputy director to provide guidance
where necessary and a status of on-going research.
4.3.3 Peer Review
Throughout the Program, peer review was inplemented to ensure
that the best possible products were developed. The scientists
called upon to review reports responded by focusing not on the
best aspects of the science, but upon its weaknesses. Such an
approach caused delays by requiring additional work by
researchers, editors, and other staff, but resulted in high
-63-
-------
quality products. Peer reviews were conducted at many levels and
facets of the program. For instance, trimester meetings were
organized where researchers met and discussed status of research.
Then, once a year at annual meetings, researchers presented their
findings to all committees and organizations associated with CBP.
Finally, their final reports went through a formal peer review
process, established by EPA regulations. The four in-house CBP
final reports underwent the same type of review. The one
difference was in the infornal review: instead of trimester
meetings, there were weekly work group meetings, headed by the
Deputy Director. Through these meetings, staff interrelated on
problem areas, discussed findings, and established time
schedules. As CBP Deputy Director Thomas DeMoss noted:
I needed to know when to expect a product—in a day,
a week or a month. Without an estimated time, I would
have no way of quessing an end product. By holding the
staff accountable to those deadlines, I was able to push
for a completed product. Often, unforeseen problems
arose and deadlines were moved. But, a new deadline was
always imposed, thus, driving research toward a close.
Congress did not intend for the study to go on forever,
(interview)
After staff conpleted work, workshops were set up to discuss
their findings. Final peer review at the state and federal level
transpired for all reports.
As an example of the intensity of peer review, a sunjnary of
the review process for the CBP report, "Chesapeake Bay program
Technical Studies: A Synthesis," is detailed below. Although the
synthesis papers were written by separate authors, the contents of
each paper were arranged within a format of management questions
-64-
-------
developed by the Management Committee, CBP staff, CBP working
groups, scientists, EPA Headquarters, and Region in during the
fall of 1980 and winter of 1981. In the spring of 1981, authors
for each paper submitted outlines to CBP addressing those
questions. Each paper integrated or synthesized information from
CBP-funded research and from other sources relevant to the
papers. During the summer of 1981, authors wrote drafts of their
papers which were tracked by technical coordinators at CBP. The
papers were presented at Management committee meetings in July and
August 1981. Authors explained the purpose of the papers and
progress to date.
On September 15, 1981, completed drafts were nailed to two
peer reviewers and state manager/scientists. In mid-October 1981
authors met with CBP staff to discuss peer and state review
comments and incorporate changes. Final drafts were submitted
during December 1981. In early January 1982 finished papers were
mailed to the states and in February further technical issues,
together with the tone and format, were discussed, in early May
1982 the synthesis papers were sent to Region III, state
representatives, and citizens for a final policy review. On June
17, 1982, these groups met at the CBP office to discuss those
comments. The papers were also mailed to the authors for final
suggestions and approval. Until the end of July 1982, as many
technical and policy changes were made as possible. The final
product, "Chesapeake Bay program Technical Studies: A Synthesis,"
was given to Region III in early August 1982 for printing.
-65-
-------
4.3.4 Segmentation
Consultation with authorities from other water programs reaped
many benefits for the CBP. The basic concern of Bay scientists
was that large ecosystems are too diverse and complex to either
study or manage as one unit. For comparative purposes, it became
important to understand the components of the estuarine system in
terms of their interaction. A framework was required permitting
the estuarine ecosystem to be divided into comparable units from
an analytical perspective and to represent the continuity of the
system process. Segmentation was such a framework.
The Thames River Authority, the Great Lakes International
joint commission, the San Francisco Bay Authority, and others had
developed systematic methods to segment water bodies into
sub-units based upon physical, chemical, and biological
parameters, participation in the 1980 Committee on the Challenge
of Modern Society Conference helped the CBP to identify programs
with similar characteristics to CBP. For example, the Thames
River Authority divided the Thames into regions based upon
physical, chemical and biological parameters. Scientists and
managers then assessed trends to characterize the condition of
each segment with respect to water quality objectives, planning
agencies for the Great Lakes divided the lakes into zones with
similar nutrient and chlorophyll a levels to monitor
eutrophication. The proven success of segmentation in the Thames
estuary and the Great Lakes freshwater system indicated that
segmentation might be a useful step in studying the Chesapeake
-66-
-------
Bay. Segmentation did, in fact, influence most aspects of CBP
research. Research was identified, data were categorized, and
modeling efforts and management alternatives were developed using
segmentation.
Before adopting the segmentation approach, CBP consulted with
expert scientists who professed the concept of segmentation. Dr.
D. W. Pritchard had outlined his philosophy at the Chesapeake
Research Consortium's RANN Waste Water Program. Dr. pritchard
offered several refinements to CBP's segmentation approach, in
1974, R. E. Ulanowicz and B. J. Neilson implemented pritchard's
proposal by devising a successful segmentation scheme for the
patuxent and Elizabeth Rivers. They chose physical processes, as
opposed to biological, to segment boundaries since the
physical-chemical environment determines the nature of the
biological community inhabiting that environment.
A CBP Segmentation Task Force was established in December
1980. The Task Force assessed these various approaches and
developed a sophisticated approach for the Bay to arrive at 45
individual segments. The segments were used as a framework to map
and analyze past, present, and future conditions of Chesapeake
Bay.
The main criteria for segmentation of the Chesapeake Bay were
based upon geophysical conditions since these factors set the
boundaries for chemical and biological conditions. This was
explained in a CBP paper entitled "Trends in Water Quality for
Chesapeake Bay Relative to improved Management":
-67-
-------
Salinity and hydrographic structure are useful
parameters since salinity is widely recognized as a key
parameter in determining the nature and extent of
biological communities and the hydrographic structure
characterizes the potential for materials (e.g.,
nutrients# dissolved oxygen, and toxic chemicals) and
organisms (e.g., true plankton, eggs, and larvae of
numerous Bay fishes) to be transported in the system ...
thus, a first level of analysis might lead to segments
that correspond to the following classification: tidal
freshwater, turbidity maximum, region of two-layered
circulation, etc. Each of these regions shows similar
dominant biological features, e.g., the tidal freshwater
is the spawning area for several anadromous fishes and
when under excessive nutrient supply, responds with
"nuisance" blue-green algae . . .
Segmentation of the Chesapeake Bay had many benefits. It
provided a method to measure resource use changes over time as
related to water quality variables, it established bases upon
Which to evaluate control programs (both technical and
administrative alternatives) and water quality objectives. it
provided a picture of the Bay with regard to toxic pollutants,
nutrients, and Bay grasses. It was employed with other systems to
project the future state of the Bay. It helped identify
additional areas where research is still needed.
4.3.5 Modeling
In recent years, modeling has become an effective management
tool for predicting potential future effects for a body of water.
Not only do models offer the manager an understanding of the
short- and long-term conditions which contribute to degradation,
modeling can also shed light on the spatial extent of water
quality problems. Mathematical modeling can show, for example,
which river basins and watersheds contribute the greatest
-68-
-------
quantities of nonpoint pollution into the Bay. This prediction
tool allows policy controls to be tested before they are
implemented.
Since the field of water quality modeling is new and
considered somewhat of an art, the decision as to which model to
choose was a most difficult one. several physical models were
already operational. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in
Matapeake, Maryland, developed a physical hydraulic model of the
Bay which scaled depth, width, and length. The model, a large
concrete replica of the Bay, was used to evaluate freshwater flow
on the circulation pattern of Bay waters, but was limited by lack
of wind and storm conditions. On the other hand, sophisticated
computer models simulate the effects of wind associated with
storms, as well as changes in ecological parameters such as
dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels.
Bay scientists and managers sought a model which would provide
information on the chemical variations in the Bay. Such an
understanding would provide the key to the movement of freshwater
into the estuary, and thus transport of sediment and other
pollutants. With increasing loads of nutrients entering the
system from various sources, it was of paramount inportance to
understand existing eutrophication conditions in relation to
future trends, planners wanted to look beyond measured field data
and establish cause and effect relationships that explained water
quality. Mathematical models were the answer to these large
demands.
-69-
-------
Given the time constraints for completion of the study, CBP
felt that they could not wait for completion of the research and
data gathering to begin modeling efforts. When the decision was
made to begin modeling (1980), there was thought to be less than
one year left until the Program's end (1981). Little did CBP
realize that two one-year extensions would be granted for
completion and analysis of results. Like the research itself, it
was hoped that integration of the modeling efforts would be
possible with time. Two types of state-of-the-art mathematical
models were identified as giving the most rapid, accurate
predictions for the Bay. These were a watershed model for
estimating nutrient loadings at the fall line and a tidal model
for describing physical and chemical parameters downstream of the
fall line.
The singlemost criticism of the CBP decision regarding the
tidal model was that the model was chosen without intensive peer
review. Since CBP was successful in quality assuring products
through intensive peer review, failing to do so in such a new area
was viewed by some with dismay. CBP managers, however, felt that
under the existing time constraint of one year, they made the best
choice by selecting a state-of-the-art model that had already been
applied to Bay research. When the tidal modeling effort was
finally peer reviewed in March 1983, it was judged unsuitable and
the model results were never used by the CBP. The watershed model
received high marks by the same review panel and this model was
used by the CBP to develop fall line loadings for nitrogen and
phosphorus.
-70-
-------
4.4 CHARACTERIZATION
As mentioned earlier in this report, the CBP proceeded with
the assunption that 1981 would be the last year of the program.
However, during that year research culminated, data gathering
neared coirpletion, and results of CBP findings surfaced.
Researchers stood back and saw similar trends in their research.
One CBP Management committee member, Lee zeni, from the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, pushed
for linkage of the research with the recently accumulated
historical data, in essence, Mr. Zeni argued, the program should
not be just another water quality study, but should link living
resources with water quality, making the CBP an environmental
quality program.
The characterization effort drew on dozens of major Bay-wide
water quality and living resource studies from the past thirty
years. Since CBP did not originate as a living resources study,
emphasis was not placed upon collecting resource data. To
overcome this, state agencies pulled relevant data from their
files for inclusion in the CBP data base and staff approached
outside organizations in search of vital information. In most
instances data were readily volunteered. However, some
organizations not funded by CBP grants were reluctant to give
their data to the CBP.
Segmentation eased the comparison and organization process of
describing water quality trends. To characterize how water
quality and resources changed over time, the CBP assessed
-71-
-------
plankton, SAV, benthic animals, and finfish. From 1981 to 1983,
CBP staff collected and analyzed data (current and historic) from
institutes around the Bay. Correlations were found indicating
strong relationships between certain water quality conditions and
the abundance of resources. The characterization report earmarked
specific needs and reasons for monitoring strategies and control
mechanisms in problem areas. The result of these efforts are
described in a major CBP report published in 1983 entitled
"Chesapeake Bay: A profile of Environmental change."
4.5 DATA MANAGEMENT
Data management refers to the collection of computerized
mechanisms for storing, processing, and analyzing data. The
need for Bay data management was voiced by Congress in 1975 when
it authorized the funding for the CBP. The senate committee on
Appropriations directed EPA to:
analyze all environmental sampling data presently being
collected on the Chesapeake Bay and to suggest and
undertake methods for improving such data collection.
The (Environmental protection) Agency is also directed to
establish a continuing capability for collecting,
storing, analyzing and disseminating such data. (Senate
Report 94-326)
This broad directive created a major challenge for the CBP which
by the end of the program had been only partially fulfilled.
The need to provide data management support was recognized by
the CBP soon after the program was moved in 1979 to Annapolis, in
May 1979 an employee of the EPA Environmental Research Lab, Gulf
Breeze, Florida, was transferred to the CBP as Automated
-72-
-------
Data processing (ADP) Coordinator. At about the same time, EPA
brought to Annapolis on a part-time basis the Gulf Breeze Lab's
senior statistical consultant. These two formed the initial data
management team. Their transfer from Gulf Breeze was initiated by
Dr. Davies, who had recently served as Deputy Director of the Gulf
Breeze Lab. The Gulf Breeze Data Management Program was
considered an acceptable model for the CBP because Gulf Breeze
performed scientific research that was similar to the CBP,
particularly in the areas of toxics in estuarine environments and
submerged aquatic vegetation.
During 1977 CBP data management requirements centered on the
40 CBP-funded research projects. It was estimated that the needs
of these projects plus corputerization of Bay management data
would generate the requirement for 45 to 50 million bytes of data
storage. This is equivalent to approximately 600,000 computer
cards.
In the summer of 1979 the anticipated data management users of
the CBP computer included environmental modelers, contractor staff
for data entry and program development, EPA administrators, and
CBP grantee scientists. At that time it was thought that the
scientists receiving CBP grants and contracts would organize and
analyze their own data on the CBP conputer. Similarly, the CBP
in-house environmental engineers would organize their own data in
support of the modeling effort. Little if any thought had been
given to the need for the CBP to provide extensive data management
support. This need became apparent, however, as the program's
-73-
-------
emphasis shifted from initiating research to interpreting and
synthesizing large quantities of data from many and diverse
sources.
In August 1979 the University of West Florida's Institute for
Statistical and Mathematical Modeling (ISMM) was awarded a
cooperative agreement to provide the CBP with statistical
support. This began a four-year association under which most of
CBP's statistical and computer support were carried out. Dr.
jerry Oglesby, Director of the ISMM, managed this effort in
Annapolis. Dr. Oglesby's prior role in the CBP was as a
consultant. The cooperative agreement brought Dr. Oglesby into
the program as a manager. In addition, he continued to provide
statistical and scientific support. The cooperative agreement
also supplied additional researchers who, working in conjunction
with EPA staff, developed the widely publicized CBP data base.
The CBP data base would require the next two and one-half years to
complete, and at CBP completion, would be considered one of the
Program's most important products.
On November 27, 28, and 29, 1979, the Second Annual CBP Review
Workshop was held in Hampton, Virginia. This workshop provided
the data management staff with its first opportunity to gain an
overview of the types and volume of data being generated by CBP
grantees, as well as to learn in detail about the sanpling plans,
data collection techniques, etc., being utilized by grantee
scientists. Each principal investigator presented the objectives,
scientific approach, preliminary results, and anticipated products
-74-
-------
of his project, in addition, a milestone chart was developed for
each project. These presentations were assembled into a report
that became a primary reference document for data management
planning.
The CBP data management planning effort during the fall of
1979 was matched by parallel efforts in Maryland and Virginia.
Both states received funding from the CBP for data organization,
technical support, and coordination. Under these projects both
states developed procedures for entering and processing data via
STORET (EPA's coirputer software system for the storage and
retrieval of water quality data). CBP funds were used to hire
data management staff, acquire terminals, and pay for coirputer
usage. CBP data management staff trained state personnel in the
use of EPA systems. in turn, the states assisted the CBP by
entering data into STORET that had been collected by state
agencies (e.g., 106 program data) as well as by CBP grantees.
During 1980 the CBP evaluated its data management program and
arrived at the following conclusions.
1. Extensive statistical analyses were providing
benefit to a few grantee scientists but were of
lijnited benefit to the CBP.
2. Data from CBP-funded studies were not being
delivered to the CBP on time.
3. Data from CBP studies were insufficient to
characterize the Bay.
Contributing to the CBP's data management problems was a
re-definition of the CBP's end goals. By the fall of 1980 the
CBP's primary research objective was not only to sponsor research,
-75-
-------
but also to characterize the Bay's environmental quality. This
objective implied a redirection in the program's scientific
activities to more strongly emphasize the integration and
synthesis of data. The need to integrate data and combine
research results created new demands on the data management
program. In addition to merely storing and retrieving data from
independent studies, the need now was to standardize and combine
data sets into new units that could be used for comprehensive
statistical analyses and scientific hypothesis testing. Clearly,
the need for a unified holistic data base had emerged.
The problems of misdirected statistical analyses and missed
due dates for data submission by CBP grantees required a major
shift in the leadership role of the data management effort to
resolve. Prior to 1980, data management was primarily defined as
assisting CBP grantees as needed, with the level of assistance
delineated by the grantees. During 1980 it was recognized that,
given the diverse and autonomous group of institutions
participating in the CBP, this nanagement strategy would not
result in the needed data base.
In April 1980 the CBP moved computer operation and computer
systems responsibility from an existing computer contractor to the
ISMM. The reason for this decision was that since the principal
justification for the CBP cornputer was to process, analyze, and
interpret CBP data, management of the computer should be under the
direction of those responsible for these tasks. The result was a
streamlined and more effective management mechanism. CBP Deputy
-76-
-------
Director Mr. Thomas DeMoss began taking an active role in the data
management program. Weekly meetings were held to discuss progress
in acquiring data and building the data base. Extensive
statistical analyses were discouraged in order to devote more time
to development of the data base.
The problem of late data set submittal was solved by taking a
more agressive tack. Rather than wait for data, the CBP decided
to actively work with grantees to assure the timely delivery of
their data. Data formatting requirements and storage media were
discussed in meetings with study principal investigators and in
visits with grantee scientists in their offices. In some cases it
was possible to transmit CBP data directly from the research
institution's computer to the CBP computer via phone line.
By the fall of 1980 the goal of characterizing the state of
the Bay regarding toxics, nutrients, and SAV had been adopted by
the CBP* At this time it was realized that the CBP would need
data in addition to those generated by CBP-funded studies in order
to achieve this goal. The data collection job confronting the CBP
was stated by Mr. DeMoss at the December 1980 Cross Keys Meeting:
First, we must look at the observed data that exist both
in our program and outside. This will include literature
searches and reviews of data bases from Bay institutions
which have done, as you know, excellent work on the Bay
for many years. We must not recreate the wheel. Another
source of information is projected data from modeling
work.
The data searcii articulated by Mr. DeMoss at the cross Keys
Meeting continued through the summer of 1982. The objective was
to increase the spatial and temporal extent of the data base. The
-77-
-------
willingness of institutions to give data to the CBP varied, in
most cases complete cooperation was given. In one instance,
however, a well known institution receiving substantial federal
funding turned down a formal request from the CBP. Data sets were
provided on a variety of storage media, in some cases, the CBP
keypunched data that had arrived in boxes of laboratory sheets,
in others the CBP was given quality assured and well organized
data sets on tape.
External data were combined with data generated by CBP-funded
research to form the basis of the CBP data base. The final data
base contains over three million observations. The principal data
sources utilized are shown in Table 4-1. The CBP evaluated the
suitability of various data base management systems for handling
this vast amount of data. The following criteria were used.
1. The system must contain statistical and graphical
analysis capabilities, or the system must be able to
format the data base into a structure that can be
utilized by statistical and graphical software.
2. The data base must be easily updated.
3. Data access and siirple descriptive analyses and
tabular listings should be possible by scientists
who are not corrputer specialists.
4. The data base should be portable.
5. Complete data documentation should be possible
within the system. Documentation should be stored
within the data base.
6. The system should contain sophisticated data
subsetting and merging capabilities.
7. The scientific validity and accuracy of the system's
computational algorithms should be universally
accepted.
-78-
-------
8. There should be a large existing . user community for
the system.
These criteria were best met by the Statistical Analysis system
(SAS). consequently, the development of a SAS data base was
initiated. SAS would be utilized via batch mode on EPA's IBM 370.
-79-
-------
Table 4-1. Principal Data Sources for the CBP Data Base
Agency Temporal Data Base parameters
Coverage Descr iption
American Scattered
University years
since
1936
Historical SAV
aerial
photographs
Vegetation
distribution
EPA,
Chesapeake
Bay program
1980 CRIMP, Taft
1977-1980 USGS, Fall Line
1977-1981 Helz, sediment
Nichols, sediment/
water
National Bureau
of Standards,
sediment/water
USGS, sediment/
water
Monsanto,
sediment/water
Huggett,
sediment/tissue
1978-1979 SAV Aerial
Survey (Quads)
1980
Bay Benthic
Survey
Tenp., sal., D.O.,
flow, nutrients,
Chi-a
Heavy metals
Heavy metals,
Organics
Organics
Hectares of
vegetatioiVquad
Biomass and
community
composition
EPA, STORET 1961-1981 Water,
Tissue, sediment
Heavy metals,
pesticides,
organics
EPA,
Annapolis
Central
Regional Lab
1965-1979 Main Bay
1965-1970 Potomac
Temp., conduc-
tivity, D.O., BOD,
secchi, Chl-a,
nutrients
-80-
-------
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Agency
Temporal
Coverage
Data Base
Description
Parameters
Chesapeake
Bay institute
1949-1980
Bay, River,
Nutrient, AESOP,
Special, Model,
Whaley-Carpenter,
Pro-Con
Temperature,
salinity, D.O.# 01,
Chl-a, nutrients
Chesapeake
Biological
Lab
1970 Patapsco Benthic
Survey
1978-1979 Calvert Cliffs
Benthic Survey
Biomass and
community
composition
Fish and Wild- 1971-1981 SAV Vegetation
life Service Survey
% vegetation
coverage
Maryland
Department
of Health
1968-1980 Maryland Shellfish Fecal coliforms
Sampling Stations
1970-1981 Haire—sediment
Heavy metals
1971-1981 Eisenberg—tissue Heavy metals, pCB's
pesticides
1966-1972 STORET/MD 106
1973-1980
Temp., sal., D.O.
Temp., D.O., BOD,
Ph, Chl-a,nutrients
Maryland
Department of
Natural
Resources
1939-1981
Oyster spat set
on natural
cultch (MD)
1963-1981 Oyster condition
index (MD)
Spat per
bushel
Rating of meat
quality poor to
good
-81-
-------
Table 4-1 (Continued)
Agency Teirporal Data Base parameters
Coverage Descr iption
National Marine 1880-1981
Fisheries
Service
Fisheries pounds
historical
landings (Bay-
wide)
Virginia 1964-1982 STORET Fecal coliforms
Bureau of
Shellfish
Sanitation
Virginia
Institute
of Marine
Science
1970-1980 Slackwater
1946-1981 Oyster spat set
on natural
cultch (VA)
Temp., sal., D.O.,
BOD, Secchi,
Chl-a, nutrients
Spat per bushel
1955-1981 Oyster condition
index (VA)
1973 Hampton Roads
Benthic Survey
1) index no. 3.0 to
7.6
2) Yield of meats
per bushel
3) Rating below
average to
above average
Biomass and
community
composition
Virginia
State
Water
Control
1964,
1968-1980
1970-1981
STORET/VA 106
Gilinsky—
sediment and
tissue, VA-106
Temp., D.O., BOD,
Ph, turbidity,
nutrients
Heavy metals,
organic compounds
-82-
-------
4.6 LESSONS LEARNED
A high degree of quality assurance was placed on the synthesis
and characterization reports to ensure their credibility to the
Bay community, since the papers were one step towards development
of management alternatives, the endorsement of Bay organizations
was mandatory. Quality assurance originated during research
gathering, as individual researchers adhered to the EPA/ERL-LV
Quality Assurance procedures. The individual reports underwent
in-depth peer review. The principal investigators synthesized the
individual reports to answer management questions that had also
been peer reviewed. in turn, the synthesis reports and
characterization were given the same degree of scientific scrutiny
as the reports they were based upon. The peer review process was
very time consuming when considering CBP deadlines and the
additional work it caused staff and researchers revising reports.
However, when considering the conplexity of the Bay ecosystem, the
magnitude of the Bay community, and the long-range effects CBP
recommendations would have on the fate of the Bay, extensive peer
review is commendable.
The decision to synthesize and integrate the results of the
CBP-funded and non-CBP data in order to characterize the Bay
represented a major shift in direction for the program. This
shift enabled the CBP to utilize CBP research data more
effectively by combining them for analysis and interpretation with
a large amount of additional data. However, the decision to
characterize the Bay should have been made earlier. This would
-83-
-------
have enabled research studies to be designed for the goal of
supporting characterization. The inability of the CBP to show
statistically valid causal relationships between living resources
and water quality could be considered a shortcoming. However,
since this was not an original CBP goal, many CBP watchers are
reluctant to fault the CBP for this inability. A better
evaluation of CBP effectiveness might be to assess the way in
which the CBP was able to develop management recommendations
despite the lack of real causal relationships.
The decisions made to choose appropriate mathematical models
and manage the water quality modeling effort are difficult to
assess because the modeling results are still undergoing review
and are the subject of much controversy. However, one of the
fundamental objectives of the modeling effort was clearly not
met. The CBP was unable to relate changes over time in fall line
nutrient loadings to downstream nutrient concentrations. This
relationship was needed to estimate the effect of alternative
point and nonpoint source control strategies.
The development of the CBP data base is considered by many to
be one of the Program's most important products. This was
possible only due to the development and implementation of an
effective data management plan and strong leadership in this
area. The data management plan should have been developed much
earlier; it should have been in place at the time CBP contracts
were finalized. Because it was not, the CBP had little control
over data precision, computer storage media, variable names, or
-84-
-------
data formats. This led to delays when the CBP began utilizing
contractors' data.
An important lesson to remember when embarking on a similar
project is to make the public aware of the system undergoing
study. A document describing the intricacies of the ecosystem
should be distributed for reference as soon as research is
underway.
-85-
-------
5.0 ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 OVERVIEW
The Chesapeake Bay program, from the very beginning, had a
clear commitment to assure that the results and findings were both
scientifically sound and implementable. Prior sections of this
report have dealt with the history and processes relating to the
research. This section deals with how those findings and
recommendations were turned into action items for the states and
the federal agencies. It also looks at steps that must be taken
to assure that the implementation process continues forward.
5.1.1 Tools
Tools in this context are simply the collective knowledge of
the condition of the Bay and its trends and processes. This
statement of condition, or "state of the Bay," is primarily
contained in the report "Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of
Environmental change." This report characterizes the Bay's
present and historic condition for both biological and water
quality parameters. It is the primary integration document that
links water quality with resources and explains the changes that
are taking place in the Chesapeake estuary. The report does not
judge if a change is "good" or "bad" from a user perspective.
A second tool that was used to develop a scenario of action
items was the watershed model. This mathematical model helped
-86-
-------
estimate loadings of nutrients from all nonpoint sources delivered
to the fall line for each major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay.
Data were available for nitrogen and phosphorus loadings under
wet, dry, and average runoff conditions. These data, when
combined with knowledge of point source effluent loadings, helped
identify the river systems that contribute the highest percentages
of nutrients to the Bay. This information helped to begin the
process of developing recommendations for nutrient load
reductions.
Using these two tools, CBP staff gained an understanding of
the condition and trends in water quality and resources and the
sources of nutrient loadings. The problem then became one of
turning this understanding into a plan of action for improving Bay
environmental quality.
It should be noted that the process of developing management
recommendations did not go exactly as planned. Two major
obstacles had to be overcome before this process could continue.
The first obstacle was reluctance on the part of the scientific
community (both within and external to the CBP) to state that
there was a cause-effect relationship between the decline in water
quality and the decline in biological resources. The second
obstacle was the failure of the CBP modeling effort to accurately
predict Bay circulation and the transport of materials downstream
of the fall line. The two mathematical models designed to do this
were judged unsound by scientific peer review and were never
coupled to the watershed model.
-87-
-------
The inability of the CBP to predict with engineering precision
the consequences of alternative load reduction programs had a
profound impact on not only how the management recommendations
evolved, but the actual recommendations themselves. The
inperative to overcome these two hurdles was reinforced by
sustained public and political pressure to develop a firm action
plan. The pressure to develop a plan, when combined with the
scientific reality, led CBP managers to make three basic working
assunptions.
There is a relationship between water quality and the
biological health of the Bay.
Any reduction in nutrient loads will eventually benefit
the water quality and also the biological health of the
Bay.
The Bay should be managed on a regional watershed basis.
With these three working assumptions defined as CBP policy
concepts, the process of developing management recommendations
continued.
5.1.2 Goal Setting
Goal setting for the Chesapeake Bay was essentially a
democratic public process that involved Bay users from a wide
spectrum of interests. The primary entity that articulated a
desired condition was the Resource Users Management Team (RUWT).
It was composed of 35 individuals representing a wide array of Bay
users and interest groups. Members were selected after an
exhaustive series of interviews and were chosen because they met
one or more of these criteria:
-88-
-------
Serves as a spokesman for a major user or interest group.
Has experience in the development of water quality and
resource management policy.
is knowledgeable about the technical and economic
feasibility of some of the pollution control options
being considered by CBP.
is potentially affected by the management recommendations
of CBP.
in its final meeting in April 1983 in Fredericksburg, Virginia,
KJWT recommended the goal of restoring Bay water quality to the
conditions existing in 1980. The recommendations for biota were
to restore lost fisheries and to maintain the existing ones. The
Management Committee concurred with the stated RUMT goals. This
statement of the problem, combined with clear, quantifiable goals
and objectives, set the stage for the next step, which was the
development of action tasks.
5.1.3 Specific Action Tasks
Specific tasks, which are the action items in the Management
Report titled "Chesapeake Bay: A Framework of Action," have
evolved from a series of sessions between EPA and the States. The
report contains recommendations only; it is not a contract and
does not represent agreement by the states to implement its
recommendations.
The tasks in the Management Report are the result of a series
of negotiating sessions. They are a compromise between the best
judgment of what is needed to improve water quality in a
particular watershed with what is politically acceptable in that
-89-
-------
watershed. Throughout the negotiating process it was pointed out
repeatedly that the States have the primary responsibility to
clean up their waters while EPA has an oversight role.
5.1.4 Accountability
Accountability in this context incorporates the concept of a
public iterative process, combined with political oversight and
combined federal/state management. The CBP has been since its
beginning a highly visible program with its own public and,
therefore, political constituency. While the high level of
interest by the press and elected officials is not unique to the
CBP* it has affected the development of CBP products including the
Management Report.
The Bay is a national resource with a substantial following
that is acutely aware of virtually every aspect of Bay
management. There were at least three categories of CBP
watchers: state and federal political agencies; Congress; and the
private sector, which was represented by organizations such as the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Citizens program for the
Chesapeake Bay. These forces provided a constant check on the CBP
to insure that the interests of the broadest possible spectrum of
Bay users were represented at all times.
5.2 INVOLVING BAY USERS
A very effective plan to involve the public at all steps was
undertaken from the very beginning of the CBP. This report will
-90-
-------
focus briefly on the role of the following groups: Citizens
program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (CPCB), RUMT, Citizens
Steering committee (CSC), the Water Quality Management Team, and
the Urban Task Force.
5.2.1 Citizens program for the Chesapeake Bay
The CPCB has been the primary umbrella organization that has
coordinated the majority of the outreach programs for the CBP,
including the RUMT and CSC. in addition to being a member of the
Management Committee, the CPCB has been the focal point of public
information and coordination. The CPCB has:
Initiated and coordinated a series of mini-conferences on
Bay goals and objectives,
published over 20 editions of the CPCB newsletter with a
circulation of over 10,000 each,
Prepared newspaper supplements, one of which was
circulated to over 200,000 Bay area residences,
Coordinated and participated in hundreds of television
and press interviews,
prepared a film titled "Chesapeake Bay Challenge* that
was shown on all commercial television networks, and
Coordinated special forums for interested user groups.
5.2.2 Resource Users Management Team
in the spring of 1981 it became apparent that more specialized
advice from the private sector was needed in order to develop the
Management Report. Responding to this need, the Resource users
Management Team (RUMT) was established. RUMT has met officially
five times since the fall of 1981. The last RUMT meeting in
-91-
-------
Fredericksburg, Virginia, April 1983, produced a draft series of
goals, objectives, and recommendations for the water quality and
resources of the Bay. Those recommendations are sumrarized as
follows:
Restore and maintain Bay water quality at 1980 levels.
Restore finfish and shellfish fisheries.
Impose a phosphorous limit of 1 milligram per liter for
all point source discharges.
Set priorities for intensive funding for targeted
nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution.
Begin the implementation phase immediately.
Do not allow any further degradation of any section of
the Bay.
Actively manage resources as well as water quality.
Identify and implement agricultural Best Management
practices (BMP) by region.
Fund the Mason-Dixon project.
Strengthen and implement 208 plans.
Conduct research on BMP's for NPS losses of nitrogen and
nitrogen infiltration of groundwater.
Find solutions to NPS problems that do not put
agriculture out of business.
Enforce the toxic chemical programs that are currently in
effect including but not limited to NPDES, TOSCA, and
RECRA.
Continue the Management Committee, a strong federal
presence, public participation, and the RUMT.
5.2.3 Citizens Steering Committee
The Citizens Steering Committee was formed in 1978. It was
composed of a cross section of representatives of public interest
-92-
-------
groups and private citizens who were community leaders and who
were knowledgeable about public perceptions of Bay problems. The
CSC met 28 times between 1978 and 1982 to comment on the direction
and conduct of the CBP.
5.2.4 Water Quality Management Team (WQMT)
This group acted in an advisory capacity and commented in
depth on the practicality and feasibility of the draft management
recommendations. Since mid-level managers within state and local
organizations would be tasked with carrying out recommendations of
the CBP, they were asked to "join" the CBP. The WQMT consists of
a group of managers involved with administering industrial
permits, construction of new sewage treatment plants, nonpoint
source control planning, and monitoring of watersheds. These
professionals understood technical terms and were cognizant of
existing regulations and their shortcomings.
5.2.5 Urban Task Force
This Task Force focused primarily on the role of local and
regional governments in reducing urban runoff and planning
stormwater/sewer duplex systems. Representatives on the urban
Task Force came from the Baltimore Regional Planning council,
Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Authority, and the Greater
Washington Council of Governments.
-93-
-------
5.3 DISSEMINATION OF CBP FINDINGS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The process of dissemination of the findings and
recommendations of the CBP was closely linked with the CPCB. The
CPCB played a lead role in communicating all phases of the program
to both the general public and to a wide range of users. An
additional dissemination process is the scheduled Governor's
Conference December 7-9 at George Mason University in Fairfax,
Virginia.
The Governor's Conference titled, "Choices for the
Chesapeake: An Action Agenda," is sponsored by The Honorable
Harry R. Hughes, Governor of Maryland; The Honorable Charles s.
Robb, Governor of Virginia; The Honorable Richard L. Thornburgh,
Governor of Pennsylvania; The Honorable Marion S. Barry, jr.,
Mayor of the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay commission;
and the U. S. Environmental protection Agency. The conference
will be convened to "develop a strategy for regional management of
Chesapeake Bay to assure protection and enhancement of the Bay's
living resources." It is expected that the conference will in
part use the recommendations of the CBP as the foundation for a
compact between the governors and the public. The conpact may
include specific action steps to be taken by the conference
participants to "assure protection and enhancement of the Bay's
living resources."
-94-
-------
5.4 LESSONS LEARNED
A discussion of the lessons learned will include both general
observations that apply equally well to the entire effort and
specific suggestions that apply only to the process of developing
a plan to improve the Bay's environmental quality.
The general recommendations include the following:
Plan for continuity between the research and
incrementation phases of a program. The transition
will be infinitely simpler if one plans in advance
to have some continuity of staff and an
institutional memory. Experiences at the end of the
CBP suggest that the planning and implementation
phases would benefit from the expertise of a cadre
of the core staff who were involved in research.
Plan for" even greater involvement in the
implementation process by the states and agriculture
and user communities. As the need for state and
local programs grows, affected groups will become
more involved in trying to influence actions.
Federal managers should anticipate this shift in
emphasis.
Specific recommendations include the following:
Computerize to the greatest extent possible data on
both point and nonpoint characteristics.
prepare for smaller and smaller geographical units
of data. The next step after a basin profile with
subbasin recommendations will be requests for action
plans down to each STP, farm, or municipality.
Determine in advance which variables will be needed
by the next generation of mathematical modelers.
This will avoid duplications if the variables are
coordinated in advance and are compatible.
Be certain to include all constituencies in the
planning process—particularly at the state level.
-95-
------- |