Chesapeake Executive Council
Habitat Requirements
For Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources
Agreement fcommitment Report
January 1988
-------
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY LIVING RESOURCES:
A Report from the Chesapeake Bay
Executive Council
Annapolis, Maryland
January, 1988
-------
JANUARY 1988
To link the health of specific species occupying various habitats to the water
quality, the Implementation Committee recommended the formation of an ad hoc
Living Resources Task Force to define habitat requirements for living resources. The
Task Force spent two years developing and refining the Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bav Living Resources report, to establish a technical approach in setting
regional habitat objectives for the Bay. The evolution of the Task Force into a
permanent Living Resources Subcommittee strengthens the Chesapeake Bay
Program's ongoing pledge to the Bay's threatened living resources.
The restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay's living resources, their
habitats and their ecological relationships are a major focus of the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement. The Agreement called for the adoption of "guidelines for the
protection of water quality and habitat conditions necessary to support the living
resources found in the Chesapeake Bay system," with the directive, "use these
guidelines in the implementation of water quality and habitat protection programs."
By adopting this Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bav Living Resources report
as its own, the Chesapeake Executive Council begins fulfilling its strong commitment
to restoring living resources.
The Habitat Requirements report will be used in conjunction with EPA Water
Quality Criteria, State Water Quality Standards, and other information to help refine
and improve living resources restoration and protection programs. It is recognized
that the report is a dynamic document, and the Executive Council has directed the
Implementation Committee to periodically update the report to account for new
knowledge and research results regarding habitat requirements of living resources.
To attain the goals of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, a focused and concentrated
effort must be made to restore and protect the habitats of our living resources so that
the Chesapeake Bay may continue to be an economic and ecological treasure for
future generations.
-------
ADOPTION
We, the undersigned, adopt the report entitled Habi tat
Requirementsfor the Chesapeake Bay Living Resources" dated August,
1987, fulfilling our commitment "by January 1988, Fo" develop and
adopt guidelines for the protection of water quality and habitat
conditions necessary to support the living resources found in the
Chesapeake Bay system, and to use these guidelines in the
implementation of water quality and habitat protection programs."
We recognize that this report is a dynamic document and direct the
Implementation Committee to periodically update the report to
account for new knowledge and research results as re.gards the
habitat requirements of living resources.
This report will be used as guidance, along with EPA Water
Quality Criteria and State Water Quality Standards and other
information, to help refine and improve Chesapeake Bay Agreement
programs designed to provide for the restoration and protection of
living resources, their habitats, and ecological relationships. An
implementation strategy is being developed for these guidelines so
that managers will have available suggested methods for
incorporating the guidelines, as appropriate, into ongoing
protection programs and to ensure that use of the guidelines is
compatible with the protection, restoration, and enhancement of
Chesapeake Bay living resources.
The Implementation Committee shall report to the Executive
Council annually on the effectiveness of the guidelines,
complemented by baywide assessments and management strategies, in
helping meet the living resources goal stated in the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
January 29, 1988
Date
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the State of Maryland
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force
Habitat Requirements
For Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
August 1987
-------
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY LIVING RESOURCES:
A Report from the Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources Task Force
Annapolis, Maryland
August, 1987
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Living Resources Task Force of the Chesapeake
Bay Implementation Committee and approved for publication by the Chesapeake Bay
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the view and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Chairman of the Living Resources Task Force would like to acknowledge the par-
ticipation and contributions of: the members and supporting staff of the Chesapeake
Bay Living Resource Task Force; participants in the February Workshop on Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Living Resources; the principal authors of the report,
Steve Jordan, David Pyoas, and Charles Frisbee of the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources and Bert Brun of U.S. Fish and Wildlife; the technical editor, Nina
Fisher, Chesapeake Bay Program/Computer Sciences Corporation; and, the scientific
editor, Bess Gillelan, Chesapeake Bay Program/Computer Sciences Corporation.
MEMBERS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY LIVING RESOURCES TASK FORCE
Ralph Abele
Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Louis Berchcni
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Elizabeth Bauereis
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
Steve Jordan
Maryland Department of
Natural Resources
Glenn Kinser
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Louis Sage
Academy of Natural Sciences
Charles Spooner
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Larry Minock
Virginia Council on the Environment
Robert Siegfried
Virginia Water Control Board
James Thomas
NOAA Estuarine Programs Office
Lee Zeni
Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin
KEY
m =
meter
C =
celcius
ppt
= parts per thousand
KD
= light attenuation coefficient
TRC
= total residual chlorine
ctn/s
= centimeters per second
chlor
= chlorophyll
million
mg/1
= milligrams per liter - equivalent to parts per
ug/1
= micrograms per liter - equivalent to parts per
billion
LCO
= lethal concentration - 0 percent mortality
LC50
= lethal concentration - 50 percent mortality
um
= micron
iii
-------
FOREWORD
The Living Resources Task Force, an ad hoc workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay
Program, was charged by the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Committee to develop
an approach to define habitat objectives for the living resources of the Bay. The
objective of the Task Force in producing this report was to establish a technically
defensible approach in setting regional habitat objectives for Chesapeake Bay by
initially assembling habitat requirements for individual target species. The scope of
this report places limitations on its utility as a planning document for Bay managers.
It is intended, however, to summarize the results of the Task Force efforts to date and
to provide the basis for future refinement of the habitat objectives approach. This
document describes the results of ongoing efforts to identify critical habitat require-
ments for target species.
Within the context of this report, habitat is defined as the biotic and abiotic con-
ditions upon which the living resources of the Bay depend. Abiotic conditions
include factors such as water quality, substrate, circulation patterns, bathymetry,
and weather; two dominant factors are salinity and depth. Biotic conditions are
governed by variables such as vegetative cover, quality and quantity of prey species,
species composition, population density, and primary productivity. The estuarine
environment represents a wide range of these conditions which are dynamic in time
and space. Although Bay species are tolerant of dynamic natural conditions, their
habitats have been altered by man-induced activities; there is evidence that
thresholds for tolerating adverse conditions have been exceeded. The Living
Resources Task Force has attempted to identify the boundaries of tolerable conditions
in the form of habitat requirements.
The report is constructed following the guidelines created to direct the develop-
ment of living resources habitat requirements. The sections on the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem and the major physical factors affecting the Bay provide the structural
framework for all subsequent discussions of the living resources. The representative
living resources are a group of organisms that serve as indicators of the Bay's
ecological condition. From this group, target species were selected as particularly
important for the development of initial habitat requirements. The report includes a
set of matrices outlining habitat requirements for critical life stages of the target
species as well as range maps of these stages.
A scientific workshop, with invited participants from universities, research in-
stitutions, and state and federal agencies, was held to review the initial list of
requirements and advise the Living Resources Task Force on critical life stages of the
target species and seasonal and geographic distributions of the critical life stages.
The workshop proceedings are contained in Appendix C: Report of the Workshop on
Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bav Living Resources (Connery, 1987).
To guide subsequent efforts in linking living resources to habitat conditions,
several recommendations for future tasks are proposed. These include expanding the
habitat matrices to encompass requirements for food species on which the target
v
-------
species depend, creating habitat matrices for other representative species, identi-
fying species and population characteristics that could serve as indicators of the
Bay's health, and encouraging Bay planners to incorporate habitat requirements
into their environmental planning efforts.
This report will be utilized during discussions leading to the signing of the
revised Chesapeake Bay Agreement in December 1987. Continued development of
habitat and living resource goals will be part of the focus in the implementation of
that Agreement.
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
FOREWORD v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ECOSYSTEM 5
A. Plankton 5
B. Vegetation 7
C. Benthos 9
D. Finfish 9
E. Waterfowl and Wildlife 10
III. CHESAPEAKE BAY HABITAT ZONATION 11
A. Depth Zones 11
B. Salinity Zones 12
IV. SPECIES SELECTION 15
A. Representative Species 15
B. Target Species 19
V. HABITAT MATRICES 21
Target Species: Submerged aquatic vegetation complex 21
Target Species: Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 24
Target Species: Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) 26
Target Species: American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and
hickory shad (Alosa mediocris) 30
Target Species: Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 33
Target Species: White perch (Morone americana) 35
Target Species: Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) 38
Target Species: Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 38
Target Species: Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 41
Target Species: Molluscan shellfish: American oyster
(Crassostrea virginica), soft clam (Mya arenaria)
and hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) 43
Target Species: Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) 49
Target Species: Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) 51
Target Species: Redhead duck (Aythya americana) 51
Target Species: Black duck (Anas rubripes) 56
Target Species: Wood duck (Aix sponsa) 56
Target Species: Great blue heron (Ardea herodeas) 60
-------
Target Species: Great (American) egret (Casmerodius albus) 60
Target Species: Little blue heron (Florida caerulea) 63
Target Species: Green heron (Butorides striatus) 63
Target Species: Snowy egret (Egretta thula) 63
Target Species: Bald eagle (Haleaeetus leucocephalus) 67
Target Species: Osprey (Pandion halaetus) 67
VI. LITERATURE CITED 72
VII. SELECTED REFERENCES 79
References for Representative Species of Finfish Cited in Chesapeake Bay
Habitat Matrices 83
References for Representative Species of Shellfish Cited in Chesapeake Bay
Habitat Matrices 84
References for Representative Species of Birds Cited in Chesapeake Bay
Habitat Matrices 84
APPENDIX A: TOXICITY OF SUBSTANCES TO STRIPED BASS LARVAE AND
JUVENILES - ADAPTED FROM WESTIN AND ROGERS, 1978
APPENDIX B: HABITAT DISTRIBUTION MAPS FOR THE CRITICAL LIFE STAGES
OF THE TARGET CHESAPEAKE BAY LIVING RESOURCE SPECIES
APPENDIX C: REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP ON HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR
CHESAPEAKE BAY LIVING RESOURCES
viii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Declines in stocks of finfish, shellfish, waterfowl and submerged aquatic
vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay have prompted an unprecedented effort by
the states and federal government to understand causes of the declines and to
explore means of restoring and protecting these stocks. Studies completed in
1983 under the aegis of the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that
the decline of important resources was due to deteriorating water quality, par-
ticularly nutrient enrichment and contamination by toxic metals and organic
compounds (EPA, 1983).
Since 1983, most of the research and planning efforts for restoring and
protecting the Chesapeake Bay has focused on documenting the present water
quality of the Bay and refining strategies for reducing or preventing further
increases in nutrient and contaminant loads. Strategies based primarily upon
water quality, however, cannot necessarily ensure the restoration and pro-
tection of living resources. The most tangible warning signs of widespread
environmental problems in the Bay have been shifts in the relative abun-
dance of living resources. Therefore, living resources serve as excellent indi-
cators of the Bay's recovery for Bay managers and the public.
The abundance and distribution of species within the Bay are related to
many variables: climate, natural population cycles, reproductive potential,
disease, predation, and the abundance and quality of food and habitat. Human
activities impose another set of conditions which both directly and indirectly
affect species abundance. Fishing, land and water uses, contaminant dis-
charges, and physical habitat alterations can directly affect important species.
Indirect impacts of these activities can result in disruption of food chains and
perturbation of the ecological balance of the estuary.
In recognition of these principles, the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Implementation Committee established the Living Resources Task Force (LRTF)
to develop a living resource-based approach for defining habitat objectives
for the Bay. The membership of the LRTF consisted of managers and scientists
from federal and state agencies, private industry, and universities. Through a
series of meetings at both the managerial and technical levels, the Task Force
outlined an approach to establish living resource objectives by first identify-
ing habitat requirements for selected target species. The habitat requirements
are intended to provide planners, managers, researchers, and modelers of the
Bay with information on the minimum habitat quality needed by the target
species and the plants and animals upon which the target species depend for
food. These requirements can be used to estimate the feasibility, benefits and
potential costs of maintaining and protecting an estuarine environment
suitable for the successful reproduction and survival of living resources.
Habitat requirements are not meant to be standards or criteria for wastewater
discharge permitting or other types of regulatory activities, but they can be
-1-
-------
used to develop water quality standards for regions of the Bay that arc defined
in terms of living resource habitat rather than water use.
The relationship between the restoration or protection of living
resources and requirements for protecting specified habitats requires clarifi-
cation. Achievement of the proposed requirements will not necessarily
directly result in the establishment of specific population or harvest levels for
any of the targeted species. For example, total compliance with requirements
for striped bass larvae may not result in an improvement of the annual
juvenile index. However, the recovery of species which have declined in
Chesapeake Bay and the reestablishment of a balanced ecosystem must be seen
as the ultimate measures of success in restoring the quality of Chesapeake Bay.
These goals will be unattainable unless certain minimum habitat requirements
are achieved.
The Living Resources Task Force used the following sequential guidelines
for developing the living resources habitat requirements described in this
document:
1. Representative species for the Chesapeake Bay
were identified for all trophic levels, including
plankton, vegetation, benthic organisms, shellfish,
finfish, and wildlife;
2. A smaller group of target species were identified
for immediate development of habitat requirements.
Criteria selecting the target species were based upon
their commercial, recreational, aesthetic, or ecological
significance and the threat to sustained production due
to population decline or serious habitat degradation;
3. The critical life stages and critical life periods
for the target species were identified;
4. Habitat requirement matrices for the targcttcd
living resources and the species upon which they
prey were developed and refined from current scientific
literature and recent research findings;
5. Geographic areas of the Bay were defined where
habitat requirements should be met in order to protect
the reproduction and survival of the target species. These
areas were based upon present distributions with
consideration also given to historical distributions.
The guidelines were not set up to address issues of numerical population
objectives or management of fish and game harvests. For most Chesapeake Bay
species, neither the total population size nor the information needed to esti-
mate stock sizes is available at present, so realistic objectives for population
sizes cannot be set. While meeting habitat criteria may not ensure survival of
a species in the face of exploitation, there can be no harvest in the absence of
sufficient suitable habitat to support the species. The purpose of this first
phase of the Task Force effort is to specify the quality and geographic distri-
bution of Bay habitats necessary for the sustainable reproduction and long-
-2-
-------
term survival of the target species. In the future, the living resources
restoration efforts may also address such issues as:
1. Establishment of additional habitat requirements
that support both prey of the target species and
other representative species. Special attention should
be paid to the planktonic and benthic communities as
indicators of ecosystem stress and as support organisms
for higher trophic levels;
2. Identification of those characteristics of living resource
populations (e.g. distribution and abundance) or of Bay
communities (e.g. diversity) that will serve as
measures of the Bay's recovery or lack of recovery
in response to management actions;
3. Provisions for refining programs for monitoring, living
resources and habitat conditions, as well as water quality,
and for using computer models of the Bay to predict
the effects of actions to improve habitat conditions,
such as nutrient reduction strategies;
4. Synthesis of habitat requirements into regional habitat
objectives.
-3-
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ECOSYSTEM
Public interest in the environment has centered directly on the
Chesapeake Bay's aesthetic and economic values and indirectly on its eco-
logical values. The success of economically-important finfish and shellfish is
ultimately dependent on the primary producers of the Bay -- phytoplankton
and other organisms that form the base of the Chesapeake's food chain. The
animals, plants, and microbes of the Bay are interwoven by a complex of
feeding, chemical, and physical interactions. Thus, successful restoration and
protection of commercially, recreationally, and ecologically-important species
are not solely dependent upon the physical and chemical integrity of habitats:
the integrity of the trophic food web supporting these populations is crucial to
resource survival and abundance.
Figure 1 is a network diagram of the summer, mesohaline Chesapeake Bay
designed by Ulanowicz and Baird (1986). The network is presented as a proto-
type of the major trophic relationships and energy pathways in the Bay. It
has been greatly simplified (in comparison to the real system) by grouping
many species. It represents the general pattern of carbon flow (an indicator
of food and energy) in the upper Chesapeake Bay during summer. Two basic
pathways dominate the estuarine food web. The direct pathway leads from
living plants to higher animals. The indirect, or detrital pathway leads from
dead organic matter to lower animals then to higher animals. Tidal marsh,
benthic, and submerged aquatic vegetation communities are strongly domi-
nated by the detrital pathway.
The following discussion outlines the components of the Chesapeake Bay
system and food web. Some of the primary producers of the Bay (plankton and
aquatic vegetation) and primary and secondary consumers (benthic organ-
isms, finfish, and waterfowl) are described in general terms.
PLANKTON
PHYTOPLANKTON AND BACTERIA
Phytoplankton are microscopic, usually single-celled plants, repre-
senting several divisions of algae. They constitute the base of the food chain;
the major primary producers in Chesapeake Bay. Thus, phytoplankton play a
fundamental role in the structure of the ecosystem. They are the major food
source for a number of species including zooplankton, benthic suspension
feeders, and fish. Bacteria are single-celled organisms that are responsible for
tremendous amounts of carbon and nutrient-cycling processes (see Figure 1).
As part of the detritus food chain, their role in decomposition of organic
matter, particularly dead plankton cells, is a major causative factor of anoxia
in bottom waters of the Bay.
In the surface waters of the Bay, dissolved nutrients and sunlight are
taken up by these photosynthetic organisms. Factors which control fluctu-
-5-
-------
FIGURE 1.
Schematic Representation Of Carbon Flews Among The 33 Principal
Components Of The Chesapeake Mesohaline Ecosystem During A iVpical Summer.
Standing Crops Are Indicated Within The Compartments In mgC m-2 And
The Indicated Flews Are In mgC m-2 summer-1.
Source: Ulancwicz and Baird, 1986.
Bay Ecosystem.
A Network Analysis of the Chesapeake
62002
136533
3066-1 4
->2.0
M 720
-------
ations in phytoplankton numbers, composition, and production are critical to
the success or failure of higher trophic levels. The balance among photo-
synthesis, nutrient exchange and predation ultimately determines planktonic
species composition. Large changes in nutrient and toxic loadings can also
cause changes in the quantity and quality (size and species composition) of
plankton communities in the system. There is growing evidence that a com-
bination of factors, probably arising from the synergistic effect of point and
nonpoint source discharges of toxics and nutrients, are causing a shift in
species composition. This shift is reflected in high production of bacteria and
minute phytoplankton species (favoring microzooplankton production) and
may be related to reduced population numbers in the higher trophic levels of
the system. Oysters, for example, may grow more slowly in areas where nu-
trient enrichment has shifted phytoplankton species composition to smaller
species which are not suitable as food.
ZOOPLANKTON
Zooplankton are swimming or floating animals that range from micro-
scopic to jellyfish size. Many are important food for fish and other organisms.
Zooplankton represent important primary consumers in the Chesapeake Bay
food web, and thus function as a key link in the transfer of energy derived
from phytoplankton, bacteria and detritius to higher trophic levels. Some
zooplankton, particularly the mesozooplankton (medium-size), function as
important and often critical links by supplying food to larval stages of many
fish and shellfish species in higher trophic levels. The distribution of meso-
zooplankton and the phytoplankton upon which they feed is a function of
salinity.
Jellyfish, including ctenophores (comb jellies) and sea nettles, prey on
the smaller zooplankton and may influence summer planktonic populations
and distributions. Microzooplankton, which are mostly single-celled protozoa,
feed heavily on bacteria. The larvae of benthic animals and fish are also
considered to be zooplankton. These larvae prey on smaller forms of plankton
and may be consumed by larger animals. As the larvae develop, they may in
turn consume other zooplankton.
VEGETATION
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is one of the Chesapeake Bay's most
significant natural resources. In 1976, the decline of SAV was selected as one
of the three major Bay problems (the only one directly focused on living
resources) to be further researched. Since that time, SAV has remained at the
forefront of public consciousness. It provides food and habitat for fish,
numerous other aquatic organisms, and waterfowl. SAV remains a visible
indicator of good water quality and the general ecological health of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Several of the key species identified for detailed analysis in this effort
require SAV (directly or indirectly) for food and/or habitat. Plants such as
eelgrass (a common SAV species in mid to high salinity regions) and emergent
-7-
-------
marsh grasses are major sources of primary productivity in the shallow waters
of the Bay. In addition to being a direct food source for some consumers,
organic detritus produced by decomposition of plant material provides food for
other primary consumers such as small crabs, shrimp, selected fish and other
detritivores.
Associations between SAV and finfish, shellfish, and waterfowl are well
documented. The most important waterfowl wintering areas have been the
most abundantly vegetated. Fish abundance in SAV communities in the upper
Bay is high, indicating the importance of SAV for food and shelter. Lower Bay
SAV beds serve as a primary blue crab nursery, sheltering large numbers of
juvenile blue crabs throughout the year.
Because prey organisms use SAV habitats, predators may be attracted to
the beds. Adult fish, such as striped bass and bluefish, may hunt invertebrate
prey in SAV beds. Summer resident wading and shore birds seek prey in or
near SAV beds.
SAV also functions as an important stabilizer for sediments. As turbid
water circulates through SAV beds, sediments tend to settle out, resulting in
clearer water and increased light transmittance. Direct uptake of nitrogen
and phosphorus by SAV and its associated epiphytes also serves to buffer
nutrient levels in the water during the spring and summer growing season.
Decomposition of SAV releases nutrients back to the water column during the
fall and winter when water column nutrient concentrations arc lower.
TIDAL WETLANDS
The abundance of food and shelter provided by marsh grasses ensures a
very favorable habitat for other members of this community. A host of
invertebrates feed on decomposed plant material and, in turn, provide food for
numerous species of higher animals. Another source of food is the dense layer
of bacteria, algae, and microscopic animals that coats the stems of marsh
plants. Decomposing plants and, to a lesser extent, dead animals are major food
sources for the marsh dwellers. Therefore, the primary food web in the marsh
environment is based on detritus. Tidal marshes arc also important as physical
habitat for estuarine species.
Salinity and frequency of tidal flooding are the most important factors in
determining the types of plant and animal populations that inhabit a par-
ticular marsh. Freshwater marsh vegetation includes cattails, reeds, arrow-
arum, big cordgrass, wild rice, three-square, tearthumb and pickerel weed.
Salt marshes of the mid and lower Bay are dominated by salt meadow cordgrass,
saltgrass, and saltmarsh cordgrass. Irregularly flooded salt marshes have the
fewest plant species and are dominated by needlerush.
Situated at the boundary between land and water, marshes absorb the
erosive energy of waves and may also act as nutrient buffers, regulating the
flow of local sources of nutrients into the Bay. Nutrients taken up by marsh
vegetation are later slowly released into the Bay during decomposition.
Marshes also protect the Bay ecosystem by trapping sediments that enter from
streams or tidal flooding.
-8-
-------
BENTHOS
The Chesapeake Bay supports an active community of organisms which
live in association with bottom sediments or attached to solid substrate such as
oyster shells, pilings, rocks, and shoreline structures. This assemblage,
collectively known as the benthos, represents a major component of the Bay
ecosystem. The benthos forms an important link between primary producers
and higher trophic levels. Many benthic organisms are principal food
sources for fish, waterfowl and crabs, while others are of direct economic
importance (crabs, clams, oysters). Benthic organisms also play a significant
role in the dctrital pathway, breaking down organic matter. These decom-
posers are responsible for many key benthic processes, including nutrient re-
cycling, sediment chemistry, and the depletion of dissolved oxygen.
The temporal and spatial distribution of benthic communities is deter-
mined primarily by chemical and physical factors (mainly salinity, depth,
substrate, dissolved oxygen concentration, and temperature). The distribution
and abundance of organisms composing benthic communities are, therefore,
likely to respond to changes in water and sediment quality. Many benthic
organisms live for 1-2 years or longer so that benthic communities are
excellent indicators of an area's short and long-term trends in environmental
quality. In addition, because benthic organisms past the larval stage are rela-
tively immobile, they often complete much of their life cycles within well-
defined regions of the Bay. As a result, benthic responses to changes in
habitat quality are likely to be region-specific. As important intermediate
links in the Bay's food web, benthic community responses to habitat changes
are also likely to be representative of the responses of other living resources.
FINFISH
Finfish represent the majority of Chesapeake Bay nekton species. The
trophic relationships of fish are diverse, depending on developmental stage,
life histories, or physiological adaptations of different species. Most of the
large fish species of the Bay like bluefish, striped bass, and sea trout, are
temporary residents, living in the Bay for part of the year or only during
certain stages of their life cycles to spawn or feed. Resident finfish, such as
bay anchovies, hogchokers, and white perch, tend to be smaller in size. The
spawning behaviors of Chesapeake Bay finfish place them into two main cate-
gories: ocean-spawning fish (spot, croaker, menhaden) and freshwater or
estuarine-spawning fish (striped bass, herrings, shad).
Finfish occupy different trophic levels at specific stages of their lives.
Most finfish initially feed on zooplankton and later turn to larger prey. The
highest rates of survival of larval stages have been shown to correlate
positively with the highest zooplankton densities. Thus, the success of species
using the Bay as nursery grounds in its early life stages is dependent on the
availability of certain types of plankton.
Finfish are represented by all consumer levels within the Bay's food
web. Primary consumers, such as abundant schools of plankton-feeding
menhaden, represent a major pathway from the primary producers directly to
harvestable resources. Bluefish and striped bass are secondary or tertiary
-9-
-------
consumers, feeding on smaller finfish. Finfish also serve as prey for other
consumer-level species. The diets of many invertebrates, waterfowl, and some
mammals are composed largely of fish.
WATERFOWL AND WILDLIFE
In addition to the Chesapeake Bay's importance as a source of valuable
finfish and shellfish resources, the marshes and woodlands surrounding the
Bay provide habitat for a variety of waterfowl, birds and other vertebrates.
The Chesapeake Bay is part of an important migratory path known as the
Atlantic flyway. Most of the waterfowl reared between the western shore of
Hudson Bay and Greenland spend some time in the marshes and on the waters
of the Chesapeake Bay during their migrations. The Bay and the Delmarva
peninsula provide some of the prime, most heavily used waterfowl wintering
habitat along the Atlantic flyway.
Like finfish, bird species occupy all consumer levels of the food web.
Some birds feed on primary consumers (such as mollusks), while other species
feed on primary producers (plants). Birds feeding on secondary consumers,
such as fish, are considered tertiary consumers; at the extreme edge of the food
web, these high-level consumers (e.g. bald eagles) are often the first to be
affected by disruption of the ecological integrity of the Bay.
-10-
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY HABITAT ZONATION
The variety of habitats within the Chesapeake can be classified using the
two most basic factors controlling the distribution of Bay biota: water depth
and salinity. In this classification of Bay habitats, gradients of depth and
salinity can be divided into descriptive zones. Depths range from the deepest
troughs and channels in the mainstcm Bay to the intertidal shores and critical
land areas bordering tidal waters. Salinity ranges from the tidal freshwater
stretches of Bay tributaries and upper Chesapeake to the ocean-like water at
the mouth of the Bay. Within these zones, many other physical and biotic
factors such as sediment type, the presence of food and cover, the strength of
waves and currents, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and habitat con-
tamination and disturbance control the distribution and abundance of living
resources. A generic system of habitat zones, defined in terms of salinity and
depth, offers a simplistic way to classify, describe, monitor, and manage living
resources in Chesapeake Bay.
Brief descriptions of depth and salinity zones follow, along with examples
of representative species in each zone.
DEPTH ZONES
UPLAND SHORES
A variety of vegetation types exists on the upland shores which are the
terrestrial communities at elevations above the influence of tides. In many
cases, the physical nature of these upland regions is heavily influenced by
human activities, especially development and agriculture. Several species that
depend upon Bay aquatic habitats also rely upon these terrestrial environ-
ments for food, cover, or nesting sites. Examples of these species include the
bald eagle, Canada goose, river otter, beaver, and mink.
INTERTIDAL AND LITTORAL
The intertidal and littoral zones include areas with water depths of
approximately 0.5 meters (m) or less. They are semi-aquatic habitats, covered
periodically by tidal waters or washed by waves. These zones include marshes,
sandy beaches, mudflats, and shoreline structures such as revetments and
bulkheads. Representative species include marsh grasses, shorebirds, water-
fowl, muskrats, many benthic species, and larval or juvenile stages of finfish
and crabs.
SHALLOW WATER
The shallow water zone (to a depth of < 3 m) includes the uppermost
waters over the surface of the entire Bay and its tidal tributaries as well as the
bottom sediments in the shallow-water areas. Examples of important resident
-11-
-------
organisms include submerged aquatic vegetation, waterfowl, shallow-water
benthic species, crabs, and most juvenile finfish.
MID-WATER
The intermediate zone, with water depths between 3 and 6 m, includes the
mid-layer of pelagic waters and the underlying sediments. Submerged aquatic
vegetation is absent from all but the clearest waters at these depths. Oyster
bars and softshell clam habitat are most common in this zone. Oyster bars
support a specialized community of invertebrates, finfish and microorgan-
isms. In the summer, finfish, crabs, and other invertebrates which would
normally inhabit deeper water may be restricted to the intermediate zone by
the availability of dissolved oxygen.
DEEP WATER
Deep pelagic waters of the Bay having water depths of > 6 m constitute
habitat for most of the larger adult finfish. Many infaunal bcnthic species
inhabit the underlying sediments. Seasonal depiction of dissolved oxygen in
much of the Bay's deeper waters probably has limited the distribution of
species that otherwise would depend on these habitats. Examples include adult
striped bass, sciaenid finfish (croaker, spot, weakfish), flounder, sturgeon, and
infaunal invertebrates such as Macoma clam.
SALINITY ZONES
The absolute geographic location of salinity zones varies greatly, in-
fluenced by freshwater discharge, tides, weather, and water depth. Each
salinity zone includes the associated sediments and intcrtidal habitat.
TIDAL FRESH
The tidal fresh zone has salinities of < 0.5 ppt and includes the upper tidal
reaches of all Bay tributaries and the area of the upper Bay known as the
Susquehanna Flats. The tidal areas are critical spawning grounds for anadro-
mous finfish, but otherwise support mostly freshwater species of finfish,
invertebrates and plankton. Tidal fresh zone residents also include several
species of freshwater marsh plants, submerged aquatic vegetation, as well as
raptors, waterfowl, and upland wildlife.
OLIGOHALINE
The oligohaline zone, with a salinity range of 0.5 - 5.0 ppt, generally
includes the middle reaches of tidal tributaries and a portion of the upper
mainstem Bay, usually between the Susquehanna Flats and the mouth of the
Patapsco. These areas support fresh and brackish water species of aquatic
vegetation and are important nursery areas for anadromous finfish and
spawning grounds for estuarine finfish. Bcnthic species diversity is at its
lowest level in this zone, but some characteristic species (e.g. brackish-water
clam (Rangia cuneata)) are dependent upon it and can be present in high
densities. This zone is also characterized by high turbidity since it is a mixing
-12-
-------
zone of freshwater flow on the surface and the heavier, saline water along the
bottom.
MESOHALINE
The mesohaline portion comprises the most extensive salinity zone in the
Chesapeake Bay and has salinities ranging from 5.0 to 18 ppt. Under average
rainfall conditions, this zone encompasses the mainstem Bay from the mouth
of the Patapsco to the area just south of the Potomac River mouth. The lower
reaches of the major tributaries in the upper Bay are also mesohaline. Most of
the Chesapeake Bay species of finfish, shellfish and benthic organisms, along
with euryhaline (tolerant of a wide range of salinities) marine species,
inhabit this zone.
POLYHAL1NE
Most of the polyhaline zone, with salinity ranging from 18 to 32 ppt., is
found in the Virginia portion of the mainstem Bay. The lower reaches of the
York and James rivers are also in this zone. Some marine finfish live solely in
this segment of the Bay, although most of the estuarine finfish species are also
present. Spawning and overwintering habitat for female blue crabs occurs
within the polyhaline zone near the Bay mouth. Some benthic invertebrates
such as the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), the whelk or "conch"
(Busycon spp.), and the oyster drill (Urosalpinx spp.), are generally restricted
to this zone. Saltmarsh grass (Spartina spp.), eelgrass (Zostera sp.), and
widgeongrass (Ruppia sp.) are typical in the polyhaline zone.
-13-
-------
SPECIES SELECTION
REPRESENTATIVE LIVING RESOURCES
The following list of species or species associations was developed by the
Living Resources Task Force to serve as an indicator of the Bay's ecological
condition. Not all species are indicators of recovery; rather, the abundance of
some are reflective of poor habitat conditions for less tolerant species. The list
includes species of commercial and recreational importance and species
which, due to their abundance, productivity, or distribution, are important in
the flow and accumulation of energy through various trophic levels of the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
PHYTOPLANKTON ASSOCIATIONS:
Oligohaline
Winter/Spring
Cyclotella striata
Melosira granulata
Melosira islandica
Katodinium rotundatum
Cyclotella meneghiniana
Skeletonema costatum
Summer/Fall
Cyclotella striata
Merismopedia spp.
Microcystis aeruginosa
Gymnodinium spp.
Argetoceros spp.
Skeletonema costatum
Mesohaline
Winter/Spring
Skeletonema costatum
Cyclotella striata
Heterocapsa triquetra
Certaulina pelagica
Asterionella glacialis
Asterionella japonica
Summer/Fall
Cyclotella striata
Cryptomonas spp.
Skeletonema costatum
-15-
-------
Summer/Fall (continued)
Leptocylindrus minimus
Polyhaline
Winter/Spring
Skeletonema costatum
Leptocylindrus darticus
Asterionella glacialis
Cerataulina pelagica
Thalassiosira nordenskioldii
Thalassiosira rotula
Summer/Fall
Prorocentrum micans
Prorocentrum minimum
Heterocapsa triquetra
Cryptomonas spp.
Skeletonema costatum
ZOOPLANKTON ASSOCIATIONS:
Tidal fresh to oligohaline
Bosmina longirostris (Cladoceran)
Leptodora kindtii
Cyclops spp.
Mesocyclops edax
Diaptomus spp.
Tintinnids
Mesohaline to polyhaline
Winter
Cyanea capillata (lion's mane jellyfish)
Eurytemora affinis (copepod)
Acartia clausi (copepod)
Pseudocalanus spp.
Centropages hamatus
Temora longicornis
Neomysis americana
Sagitta elegans
Oithona spp.
Summer
Chrysaora quinquecirrha (sea nettle)
Mnemiopsis leidyi (ctenophore)
Podon polyphemoidese (cladoceran)
Evadne tergestina
Acartia tonsa (copepod)
Pseudodiaptomus coronatus
Labidocera aestiva
Parvocalanus crassirostris
Neomysis americana
-16-
-------
Summer (continued)
Sagitta tenius
Scottolana canadenis (meiobenthic copepod)
Ectinosonia centicorne (meiobenthic copepod)
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION SPECIES:
Ruppia maritima (widgeongrass)
Zostera marina (eelgrass)
Vallisneria americana (wild celery)
Potamogeton pectinatus (sago pondweed)
Potamogeton perfoliatus (redhead grass)
EMERGENT AQUATIC VEGETATION SPECIES:
Spartina alterniflora (salt marsh cordgrass)
Spartina cynosuroid.es (big cordgrass)
Spartina patens (salt meadow cordgrass)
Juncus roemerianus
BENTH1C ASSOCIATIONS:
Tidal fresh
Tubificidae (Limnodrilidae)
Chironomidae
Corbicula manilensis (Asian clam)
Oligohaline
Rangia cuneata (brackish water clam)
Scolecolepides viridis (polychaete worm)
Mesohaline
Macoma balthica (Baltic clam)
Heteromastus filiformis (polychaete worm)
Streblospio benedicti (polychaete worm)
Leptocheirus plumulosus (amphipod)
Mya arenaria (soft-shelled clam)
Polyhaline
Loimia medusa
Mulinia lateralis
Asabellides oculata
Sphiophanes bombyx
Mercenaria mercenaria (hard clam)
Maldanids
Tellinids
Nephty iids
Phoxocephalids
Haustoriids
-------
Euryhaline
Callinectes sapidus (blue crab)
Motile epifauna
Palaemonetes pugio (grass shrimp)
Gammarus gammarus (amphipod)
Crangon
Corophium
Mysidacea
Sessile epifauna
Balanus improvisus (barnacle)
Mytilis edulis
Molgula spp.
Bryozoa
Crassostrea virginica (American oyster)
Anemones
FINFISH SPECIES:
Freshwater and Estuarine Spawners
Alosa sapidissima (American shad)
Alosa pseudoharengus (alcwife)
Alosa aestivalis (blucback herring)
Alosa mediocris (hickory shad)
Anchoa mitchilli (Bay anchovy)
Mertidia menidia (Atlantic silversidc)
Morone saxatilis (striped bass)
Morone americana (white perch)
Perca flavescens (yellow perch)
Acipenser oxyrynchus (Atlantic sturgeon)
Acipenser brevirostrum (shortnose sturgeon)
Fundulus heteroclitus (mummichog)
Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)
Pseudopleuronectes americanus (winter flounder)
Trinectes maculatus (hogchoker)
Cynoscion regalis (weakfish)
Cynoscion nebulosus (spotted seatrout)
Pogonias cromis (black drum)
Ocean Spawners
Brevoortia tyrannus (menhaden)
Leiostomus xanthurus (spot)
Micropogonias undulatus (Atlantic croaker)
Sciaenops ocellatus (red drum)
Centropristis striata (black sea bass)
Paralichthys dentatus (summer flounder)
Pomatomus saltatrix (bluefish)
Anguilla rostrata (eel)
-18-
-------
WATERFOWL AND OTHER AQUATIC BIRD SPECIES:
Anas platyrhynchos (mallard)
Anas rubripes (black duck)
Aythya valisneria (canvasback)
Aythya americana (redhead duck)
Aix sponsa (wood duck)
Ardea herodias (great blue heron)
Florida caerulea (little blue heron)
Butorides striatus (green-backed heron)
Casmerodius albus (American egret)
Egretta thula (snowy egret)
Pandion haliaetus (osprey)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Clangula heimalis (old squaw)
Melanitta deglandi (white-winged scoter)
Olor columbianus (tundra swan)
Megaceryle alcyon (kingfisher)
Anas acuta (northern pintail)
Anas strepera (gadwall)
Anas americana (American widgeon)
Branta canadensis (Canada goose)
Sterna albifrons (least tern)
Haematopus palliatus (oystercatcher)
Rynchops niger (black skimmer)
Limnodromus spp. (dowitcher)
Arenaria interpres (ruddy turnstone)
Actitis macularia (spotted sandpiper)
OTHER VERTEBRATE SPECIES:
Mustela vison (mink)
Lutra canadensis (river otter)
Ondatra zibethica (muskrat)
Castorcanadensis (beaver)
Caretta caretta (Atlantic loggerhead turtle)
Lepidochelys kempi (Atlantic ridlcy turtle)
Malaclemys terrapin (diamondback terrapin)
TARGET SPECIES
The following list of target species, selected from the list of key repre-
sentative species by the Living Resources Task Force, was reviewed by partici-
pants at the Habitat Requirements Workshop held on February 24, 1987. Selec-
tion criteria are outlined in the introduction of this document. Species
grouped together with the symbol were determined to have habitat
requirements similar enough to permit treatment as a group rather than as
individuals.
-19-
-------
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION:
Ruppia maritima (widgeongrass)
Zostera marina (eelgrass)
Vallisneria americana (wild celery)
Potamogeton pectinatus (sago pondwccd)
Potamogeton perfoliatus (redhead grass)
FINFISH:
Morone saxatilis (striped bass)
* Alosa aestivalis (blueback herring)
* Alosa pseudoharengus (alewife)
* Alosa sapidissima (American shad)
* Alosa mediocris (hickory shad)
Perca flavescens (yellow perch)
Morone americana (white perch)
Brevoortia tyrannus (menhaden)
Leiostomus xanthurus (spot)
Anchoa mitchilli (bay anchovy)
SHELLFISH:
Molluscan
* Crassostrea virginica (American oyster)
* Mya arenaria (softshell clam)
* Mercenaria mercenaria (hard clam)
Crustacean
Callinectes sapidus (blue crab)
WATERFOWL AND OTHER AQUATIC BIRDS:
Aythya americana (redhead duck)
Anas rubripes (black duck)
Aythya valisneria (canvasback)
Aix sponsa (wood duck)
* Ardea herodias (great blue heron)
* Florida caerulea (little blue heron)
* Butorides striatus (green-backed heron)
* Casmerodius albus (American (great) egret)
* Egretta thula (snowy egret)
* Pandion haliaetus (osprey)
* Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
-20-
-------
HABITAT MATRICES
The Living Resources Task Force, aware of the many limitations and gaps
in the available information, has summarized minimum habitat requirements
for selected target species. The abundance and diversity of the Bay's living
resources are affected by several variables, many of which are not fully
understood. If the recovery of species which have declined in the Chesapeake
Bay and the reestablishment of a more balanced ecosystem are the ultimate
measures of success, the achievement of certain minimum habitat require-
ments for specific regions in the Chesapeake Bay is an essential first step.
The following text and matrices summarize existing information on habi-
tat requirements for the initial list of target species. For many species, reli-
able in situ water quality and habitat requirements are not known and numer-
ous data gaps exist. In all instances, the Living Resources Task Force reviewed
available laboratory and field studies which evaluated the tolerance of species
to individual variables such as salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and toxics.
Few studies dealt with the composite effects of water quality and habitat factors
on survival. These variables are closely interrelated and a change in one
variable often affects the relative tolerance to other factors. Water temper-
ature, for example, is inversely proportional to dissolved oxygen. Since rates
of respiration rise with increasing water temperature, animals can tolerate
lower oxygen concentrations longer at lower temperatures. Toxic substances
demonstrate similar interactions. In combination, these materials can exert
either synergistic or antagonistic effects and their relative toxicity is gen-
erally inversely proportional to dissolved oxygen. When such interactions
could clearly be identified, they have been noted in the text or accompanying
matrices.
The matrices contain information available for the sensitivities of target
species to toxic substances. The sensitivities have been included in the form in
which they were reported in the literature (LC50, LCO, etc.). These should not
be construed as levels of toxic materials that will necessarily protect the
resources. Future efforts must address the interpretation of existing toxics
data in the determination of specific habitat requirements.
The following sections describe the necessary requirements for each
target species.
TARGET SPECIES GROUP: Submerged aquatic vegetation complex
Critical life stage: all life stages
Critical period: April-September
Five species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), with tolerances
spanning the full range of salinities found in Chesapeake Bay habitats, were
-21-
-------
selected as members of the target species group. Widgeongrass (Ruppia
maritima) and eelgrass (Zostera marina) are representative of both the meso-
haline and polyhaline zones. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) and
redhead grass (P. perfoliatus) are tolerant of oligohaline and mcsohaline
salinities. Wild celery (Vallisneria americana) inhabits tidal fresh and oligo-
haline waters.
Submerged aquatic plants are particularly appropriate as target species
because of their key role in providing critical habitat for other species. An
SAV bed provides cover for fish and invertebrates, food for waterfowl and
reduces shore erosion and suspended sediment loads. Also, SAV is a good
indicator of poor water quality due to its sensitivity to turbidity and nutrient
enrichment.
Light penetration limits the depth at which SAV can survive and grow.
In Chesapeake Bay, this depth is usually less than 2 m, although in less turbid
water some SAV species may grow at depths of 6 m or more. Dense
phytoplankton blooms and epiphytic growth, stimulated by high nutrient
levels, can reduce the transmittance of light to SAV leaves. Shading reduces
photosynthetic activity causing depletion of carbohydrate reserves required
for growth, reproduction, and overwintering. In high salinity waters, ni-
trogen is generally a limiting nutrient. High nitrogen concentrations can
cause phytoplankton blooms and epiphytic growth harmful to SAV. In the
mesohaline zone, either nitrogen or phosphorus can limit algal growth.
Levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen greater than 0.14 mg/1 and dissolved
inorganic phosphorus greater than 0.01 mg/1 are thought to be responsible
for previous SAV declines, largely because of excessive epiphytic growth and
high algal concentrations in surrounding waters (Stevenson, unpublished
data).
Suspended sediment also can limit light penetration in the water column.
Light attenuation coefficients (kd) for photosynthetically active radiation
(400-700 nm wavelength) should not exceed 2.0/m, and total suspended solids
should be less than 20 mg/1 to promote reestablishment of SAV (Figure 2)
(Stevenson, unpublished data) in mesohaline zones.
Substantial regrowth of SAV in the tidal fresh portion of the Potomac
River has been attributed to recent reductions in phosphorus loadings from
the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant. In freshwater at the head of the Bay,
SAV grows well in the presence of high nitrate levels apparently because
phosphate concentrations are low enough to limit phytoplankton growth. In
these areas, SAV is able to obtain sufficient phosphorus from the sediments.
Dense beds of some SAV species, however, can raise daytime pH levels high
enough to cause chemical reactions which act to release phosphate from sedi-
ments, stimulating algal growth.
Herbicides, such as atrazine, can be harmful to SAV at concentrations in
excess of 10 ug/L. Water column concentrations of this magnitude are likely to
occur in localized shallow embayments directly affected by agricultural
runoff.
-22-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Complex Species
Critical life stage: All life stages
Critical Life period: April - September
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(PPt)
Temp.
(C)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Light
Intensity
(uE/m-2/s-l)
KD
(m-1)
Chlor.
(ug/1)
DIN (1)
(mg/1)
DIP(l)
(mg/1)
Herbicides
(ug/1)
PH
Wild celery
(yaUimeria
americtna)
Silt-clay-
sand
Littoral
(<3m)
0-5
18-35
<20
1.0
Best at 100
[ ]
<15
(1)
<0.7-1.4
<0.01
Mortality
at 12
atrazine
6-9
Sago pondweed
(Patanogeton
pectinatus)
Mud better
than sand
Littoral
(<3m)
0-12
15-35
<20
1.0
Best at 350
1.7-2.0
<15
(1)
<0.14
<0.01
250
diquatcr
paraquat
controls
6-9
Redhead grass
(Pctamogeton
perfoiiatus)
Mud, some
organics
littoral
(<3m)
2-19
15-35
<20
1.0
Best at 230
1.7-2.0
<15
(1)
<0.14
<0.01
Significantly
reduced photo-
synthesis
at> 50
6-9
Widgeongrass
(Ruppia maritima)
Prefers sand
littoral
(<2m)
5-60
20-26
<20
1.0
Best at 236
1.7-2.0
<15
(1)
<0.14
<0.01
[ ]
6-9
Eelgrass
(Zoster a marina)
Usually sand
littoral
(0.25-
1.5m)
5-35
8-30
<15
1.25
Best at 220
[ )
<10
(2)
[ ]
[ J
Mortality at
100-1000
ug/1 atrazine
6-9
(1) Stevenson (unpublished data)
(2) Orth and Webb (unpublished data)
-------
TARGET SPECIES: Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)
Critical life stage(s): larval, juvenile
Critical life period: April to June
BACKGROUND
There have been numerous literature reviews and synopses dealing with
striped bass biology (e.g. Richkus, 1986; Setzler-Hamilton, 1980; Westin and
Rogers, 1978; and Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928). The reader is referred to
these publications for a more thorough account of their life history.
SPAWNING AND RANGE
Striped bass spawn during the spring in tidal fresh or brackish waters.
The principal spawning and nursery areas of striped bass along the Atlantic
Coast are found in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (Merriman, 1941) and
the Hudson and Roanoke rivers (Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982).
Within the Chesapeake Bay basin, major spawning areas include; the
James, Pamunkey, Mattaponi. Rappahannock, Patuxent, and Potomac rivers on
the western shore; the head of the Bay with the Susquehanna Flats, Elk River,
Chesapeake and Delaware (C & D) Canal; and, the Choptank and Nanticoke
rivers on the Eastern Shore (Mansueti and Hollis, 1963; Speir, Personal
Communication, 1987).
Spawning activity is apparently triggered by a rise in water temperature.
Spawning times may vary from year to year due to annual temperature vari-
ations. In the Chesapeake Bay, 1 to 3 peaks occur during each spawning
season with the major peak occurring any time during the last half of April or
the first week of May (Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982; Grant and Olney,
1982). Research has suggested that freshwater flow (both velocity and
volume) is related to successful spawning (Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton,
1982; Bayliss, 1982).
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
Adult and copepodite copepods and cladocerans are the major food items of
larval striped bass. Setzler-Hamilton et al. (1981) reported that rotifers and
Eurytemora affinis copepodites are the dominant prey for first-feeding striped
bass larvae in the Potomac River. Larval striped bass from 6 to 13 mm consume
copepodites, adults of cyclopoids and other copepods. The diet of larvae > 14 mm
consists almost entirely of adult copepods (Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton,
1982). Westin and Rogers (1978) provided a comprehensive list of food items
for striped bass at various life stages.
TOXICITY
Of all the species examined in this report, striped bass has been studied
the most with respect to its sensitivity to toxic chemicals. This section sum-
marizes selected striped bass bioassays and highlights conflicting data.
-24-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)
Critical life stage: larval, juvenile
Critical life period: April - June
Target Species
Zone
Salinity Temp.
(PPO (C)
Metals
(mg/1)
DO Insecticides pH TRC Flow Alkalinity Total Hardness
(mg/1) (ug/1) (mg/1) (m/s) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Striped bass
(Morone saxatilis)
Water column
demersal (1)
0-5 (1) 16-19
PREY SPECIES:
Cyclops nauplii
and copepoditcs
Copepods
Cladocera (sididea)
Copepods:
(cyclops)
(Diaptomus)
Qadocera
(Diaphanosomal)
Neomysis
Gammarus
Calanoida
Chironomidae
larvae
Cadmium
LCO 0.001
Copper sulfate
LCO 0.10
Cupric chloride
LCO 0.10
Zinc chloride
LCO 0.10
Other metals
ofconcern:
Diss. A1
TBT
Tolerate
4.5-20(2)
Optimum (2)
6-12
Malathion
<14
Chlordane (2)
<2.4
2,4,5-T
<10
Optimum
7.5 - 8.5
(see text
for narrative
requirements)
0.3-5.0
0)
>20(2)
200-250
(1) Westin and Rogers (1978)
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) Fay et al. (1983)
Refer to Appendix A for more specific toxicity values.
-------
Hall (1984) reported that water quality data from an on-site toxicity
experiment on the Nanticoke River implicated that aluminum toxicity was
induced by low pH. According to Richkus (1986), striped bass exhibited "no
detectable effect" from aluminum concentrations of 200 to 400 ug/1 at about pH
7. However, a pH of 6.5 or less with aluminum concentrations in the range of
25 to 100 ug/1 caused significant mortality dependent upon the life stage of the
striped bass (Richkus, 1986). O'Rear (1972) compared the relative toxicity of
copper and zinc on embryos. Copper was more toxic, with a 48 hr LC50 value of
0.74 ppm. Hughes (1973) tested the tolerance of larval striped bass to cadmium,
copper, and zinc. Cadmium was the most toxic. Larval striped bass experienced
50% mortality when exposed to 0.001 ppm of cadmium chloride for 96 hr
(Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982).
Data indicate that levels of total residual chlorine (TRC), while not neces-
sarily lethal, may have significant sublethal effects on striped bass. For
example, striped bass larvae exhibited significantly shorter body lengths after
eggs were exposed to 0.15 ppm of total residual chorine. Kaumeyer and Setzler-
Hamilton (1982) report that striped bass eggs exhibit 50% and 100% reduction
in hatch rate when exposed to 0.19 and 0.43 ppm of TRC, respectively.
Lethal concentrations of toxic substances at various stages of the striped
bass life history have been summarized by Richkus, 1986; Westin and Rogers,
1978; DiNardo et al., 1984; Emergency Striped Bass Study, 1984; and, Bonn et al '
1976.
Appendix A contains additional information on the sensitivity of striped
bass for a selected group of toxic substances.
TARGET SPECIES: Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
Critical Life Stage(s): egg, larval
Critical Life Period: Early April to mid-June
TARGET SPECIES: Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)
Critical Life Stage(s): egg, larval
Critical Life Period: Early April to end of May
BACKGROUND
This profile covers the life history and environmental requirements of
the blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and the alewife (Alosa pseudo-
harengus), since their distributions overlap and their morphology, ecological
roles, and environmental requirements are similar. The alewife and blueback
herring are anadromous species found in riverine, estuarine, and Atlantic
coastal habitats, and have occurred historically throughout the Chesapeake
Bay region (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928). Since the early developmental
stages of the blueback herring, alewife, and hickory shad (Alosa mediocris)
are difficult to separate and the spawning seasons and locations overlap for all
these species, the matrix developed for both species also is applicable to the
hickory shad.
-26-
-------
SPAWNING AND RANGE
The spawning locations and seasons of blueback herring and alewife
overlap considerably. Blueback herring usually do not ascend streams as far
as alewives (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928; Scott and Crossman, 1973). Blue-
back spawn in both fresh and brackish water in rivers and ponds (Davis, 1973;
Hildebrand, 1963). However, Loesch and Lund (1977) reported that blueback
herring preferred spawning in fast-flowing waters with hard substrates.
Alewife often spawn in slower-moving waters (Wang and Kernehan, 1979).
Because spawning by blueback herring is more site-specific than for alewife,
dams and alteration of blueback spawning sites may be more detrimental to
their population.
The spawning period for these two species is also very similar. Blueback
spawning occurs from late April to early May in the PQtomac River
(Hildebrand, 1963). Alewives spawn from early April through mid-May (Wang
and Kernehan, 1979).
Smith (1971) observed blueback spawning at water temperatures of 19-24
degrees C, but Wang and Kernehan (1979) reported slightly lower spawning
temperatures (15.0-22.0 degrees C). Alewives spawn at water temperatures
from 12.0-22.5 degrees C (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). Alewife eggs hatch at
temperatures ranging from 12.7-26.7 degrees C (Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, 1985). Klein and O'Dell (1987) report that the optimum
temperature range for river herring larvae is 16-24 degrees C.
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
The river herrings, blueback herring and alewife, are seasonally abun-
dant fish feeding chiefly on zooplankton, particularly copepods (U.S. Corps of
Engineers, 1984). The larvae for these two species consume primarily zoo-
plankton and relatively small cladocereans and copepods (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1983). Juveniles and adults consume fish, crustacean and
insect eggs, as well as adult insects; young fish may also constitute a portion of
the diet when available (U.S. Corp of Engineers, 1984).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The LC50 of total residual chlorine (TRC) for blueback herring eggs
ranges from 0.20-0.32 ppm (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983). Eggs exposed
to 84 mg/1 of TRC reached early embryo stages but failed to develop further.
Larvae from eggs exposed to sublethal concentrations of total residual
chlorine were all deformed. Concentrations of 36 mg/1 TRC produced 100%
mortality in 1-day old larvae (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983). Ammonia,
nitrites and any form of reduced nitrogen are toxic. Nitrogen and phosphorus
can indirectly affect food production and induce anoxic conditions (Connery,
1987).
Auld and Schubel (1978) found that suspended sediments at concentra-
tions of 100 ppm or less had no significant effect on the hatch rate of alewife
or blueback herring eggs. Research suggests that water flow created by
shear, power plant uptake, pressure drop, and dam turbines is critical to the
reproduction and survival of river herrings (Connery, 1987).
-27-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical Life period: April to mid-June
Target Species
Substrate
Salinity
(PPt)
Temp.
(C)
Turbidity
(NTU)
PH
DO
(mg/1)
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
Alewife
(Alosa
pseudoharengus)
Sand, gravel with
75% silt "critical
far eggs and spawning
(3)
0-5 (optimum)
(1)
Eggs:
12.7-26.7
(2)
Larvae:
16-24
(2)
<50
(2)
6.5-8.5 >5.0
(2) (2)
50
PREY SPECIES:
Zooplankton
Cladocerans
Copepods
(1) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(2) Klien and O DeU (1987)
(3) FWS/DBS-82/11.9 October 1983
-------
Target Species
Blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis)
Substrate
Salinity
(PPO
Sand, gravel with
75% silt * critical
for eggs and spawning
(3)
0-5 (optimum)
(1)
PREY SPECIES:
Zooplankton
Cladocerans
Copepods
(1) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(2) Klien and ODell (1987)
(3) FWS/DBS-82/11.9 October 1983
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical Life period: early March to the end of May
Temp. Turbidity pH DO Suspended Solids TRC
(C) (NTU) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Eggs: <50 6.5-83 >5.0 <50 <0.20
12.7-26.7 (2) (2) (2) (3)
(2)
Larvae:
16-24
(2)
-------
TARGET SPECIES: American shad (Alosa sapidissima )
Critical Life Stage(s): egg, larval
Critical Life Period: Mid-April to early June
TARGET SPECIES: Hickory shad (Alosa mediocris )
Critical Life Life Stage(s): egg, larval
Critical Life Period: April to June
BACKGROUND
Historically, shad have inhabited virtually all rivers feeding the
Chesapeake Bay (Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982). Currently, shad pop-
ulation numbers are extremely low in Maryland waters, and shad fishing is
banned (Jones et al., 1978; Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982). There is
still a commercial shad fishery in Virginia tributaries, however.
SPAWNING AND RANGE
Spawning runs may begin as early as February, but are most frequent in
April. Characteristic spawning and nursery grounds for shad are tidal fresh-
waters in estuaries and rivers; however, some shad can tolerate moderate
salinities (Stagg, 1985; Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982). Successful
hatches have been reported at salinities ranging from 7.5 ppt at 12.0 degrees C
to 15 ppt at 17 degrees C. No eggs hatched at a salinity of 22.5 ppt (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1986).
Shad spawning areas vary in depth and substrate. Shad seem to prefer
areas dominated by shallow water or broad flats with sand or gravel bottoms
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986). Sufficient water current velocities are
required to keep the shad eggs suspended in the water column. Preferred
velocities in spawning waters range from 30.5 to 91.4 cm/sec (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1986). Exposure of the eggs to suspended sediment concen-
trations as high as 1,000 mg/1 did not affect hatching success (Auld and
Schubel, 1978), but larval mortality was high at suspended sediment concen-
trations greater than 100 mg/1 for 96 hours (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1986).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Eggs hatch in 12 to 45 days at 12 degrees C and in 6 to 8 days at 17 degrees C
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Maximum survival of eggs and larvae occurs at
15.5-26.6 degrees C (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986). Temperatures of 7-9
degrees C were reported to be lethal to eggs and larvae and temperatures of
20.0-23.4 degrees C caused extensive larval abnormalities (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1986). The LD50 for acid pH was 5.5 and it was 9.5 for basic pH
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986). Larval shad LD50 for low dissolved oxy-
gen (DO) ranges from 2.0-3.5 ppm, depending on the population. Mortality of
eggs was 100% at DO levels below 1.0 mg/1 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986).
Larvae exhibit significant signs of stress when exposed to a DO level of 3.0
mg/1, and many died at 2.0 mg/1 (Chittenden, 1969). A DO level of > 5.0 ppm is
considered optimum (Chittenden, 1969; Wang and Kernehan, 1979).
-30-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
American shad (Alosa sapidissima)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical Life period: mid-April to early June
Target Species
Substrate
Salinity
(PPO
Temp.
(C)
Turbidity
(NTU)
PH
DO
(nig/1)
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
American shad
{Alosa sapidissima)
I )
Egg: 75-15.0
at 12-17 C (3)
Larvae: 0-5(1)
Egg:
15.5-26.6
<50
(2)
6.5-8.5
(2)
>5
<2)
<50
Larvae;
15.5-26 (3)
16-25(2)
(See text for nar-
rative requirement)
PREY SPECIES: (3)
Midge larvae
Midge pupae
Cyclopoid
copepods
Daphniapulex
(1) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(2) Klien and O'Dell (1987)
(3) FWS habitat suitability index publications
Biological Report 82(11.45) 1986
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Hickory shad (Alosa mediocris)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical Life period: April to June
Target Species
Substrate
Salinity
(PPO
Temp.
(C)
Turbidity
(NTU)
pH
DO
(mg/1)
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
Hickory shad
(Alosa mediocris)
I ]
Egg: 75-15.0
at 12-17 C (3)
Larvae: 0-5 (1)
Egg:
15.5-26.6
<50
(2)
6.5-8.5
(2)
>5
(2)
<50
Larvae:
15.5-26 (3)
16-25 (2)
(See text for nar-
rative requirements)
PREY SPECIES: (3)
Midge larvae
Midge pupae
Cyclopoid
copepods
Daphrda pulex
(1) Kaumeyer and Se trier-Hamilton (1982)
(2) Klien and O'Dell (1987)
(3) FWS habitat suitability index publications
Biological Report 82(11.45) 1986
-------
Larvae remain near the spawning grounds, usually a short distance
downstream. Young remain in the nursery area until water temperatures
begin to decrease in the fall. The downstream migration begins at a water
temperature of approximately 21.1 degrees C (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). All
young have left the nursery grounds by the time the temperature reaches 8.3
degrees C (Wang and Kernehan, 1979).
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
Shad larvae consume cyclopoid copepods, midge larvae, midge pupae, and
Daphnia pulex (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1986).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For a concise overview see Boreman (1981); for a detailed study of the life
history of shad see Mansueti and Kolb (1953). Reports by Cooper (1984),
Richkus and DiNardo (1984), and Davis (1973) respectively provide thorough
reviews on the status of Atlantic coast shad, all anadromous alosids of the
eastern United States, and shad life history information for Virginia waters.
TARGET SPECIES: Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical life period: first year of life
SPAWNING AND RANGE
Yellow perch make vertical temperature-dependent migrations and in-
shore, upstream spawning migrations. The spawning period lasts from March
to April in shallow tidal and non-tidal freshwater. Spawning occurs in low
velocity currents (< 5 cm/s). The species is common where debris or vege-
tation are present. Eggs are gelatinous and semibuoyant (U.S. Corps of
Engineers, 1984; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983; and, Wang and Kernehan,
1979). In the Chesapeake Bay, yellow perch habitat is situated between the up-
stream limit of tidal freshwater to mid-mesohaline salinity zones. Spawning
activity has been reported in low salinity waters up to 2.5 ppt in the Severn
River (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). Hildebrand and Schroeder (1982) observed
yellow perch from Havre de Grace, Maryland to Lewisetta, Virginia. The fish
tend to migrate toward the shorezone in summer and into deeper waters in
winter (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984).
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
The principal foods of young yellow perch in freshwater consists of
insects and small crustaceans (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984). Adults feed on
soft-bodied fish, minnows, and anchovies, as well as isopods, amphipods,
shrimp, crabs, insect larvae, and snails (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984; Hilde-
brand and Schroeder, 1928).
-33-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical Life period: first year of life
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
Temp.
Turbidity
DO
Row pH
Cover
Suspended Solids
(PPO
(C)
(NTU)
(mg/1)
(cm/s)
(mg/1)
Yellow perch
Egg: sand or
Demersal
Tolerate
Tolerate
<50
>5L
Larvae 6.5-8.5
Vegetation,
>500, reduced
2.5 (3)
marsh areas (3)
PREY SPECIES:
Copepod aauplii
Cyctopoid copepods
Cladocerans
Diaphanosoma
(1) Kaumeycr and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(2) Klein and O'DeU (1987)
(3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen-ice (FWS/DBS-82/10.55 1983)
-------
OTHER SENSITIVITIES
Yellow perch inhabit slow-flowing tidal rivers containing vegetation,
submerged trees or pilings. Data suggest that yellow perch abundance de-
creases with increasing turbidity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983). They
are able to tolerate low dissolved oxygen levels and remain active even under
winter ice. However, laboratory and field studies determined that dissolved
oxygen levels from 0.2-1.5 mg/1 are lethal to yellow perch. A dissolved oxygen
level of 5 mg/1 was determined as the optimum lower limit (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1983).
TARGET SPECIES: White perch (Morone americana)
Critical life stage(s): egg, larval
Critical life period: first year of life
BACKGROUND
White perch are found throughout the Chesapeake Bay and C&D Canal
and have been reported in marine waters north of Chesapeake Bay. White
perch are considered anadromous, but non-migratory resident populations do
occur.
SPAWNING AND RANGE
White perch move upriver in the spring into the shorezone of tidal fresh
waters to spawn (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984). In the Chesapeake Bay,
spawning occurs from April to June. Spawning has been observed in Decem-
ber when appropriate climatic conditions occurred (Hildebrand and
Schroeder, 1928). The species prefers spawning over shoal hard bottoms (e.g.
sand or gravel) with currents. During their first year, juveniles remain in
soft-bottomed, shallow, freshwater nursery areas, preferably in vegetated
zones. Juveniles larger than 25 mm in total length begin inshore-offshore
movements in response to light levels. Low temperatures cause white perch to
move into deeper waters. Wintering populations are found in the deeper
channels and holes in the upper Bay and tributaries. White perch in the Bay
system are thought to consist of isolated subpopulations indigenous to each
tributary.
Adult white perch are found in salinity zones of 5-18 ppt; however, they
prefer to spawn at salinities less than 4.2 ppt (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1983; U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984). Osmotic regulation is disrupted in eggs de-
posited in water of salinities 10 ppt. Larvae can tolerate salinities in the
range of 0-8 ppt (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983).
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
The white perch is a generalized feeder and is benthophagus or pisciv-
orous depending upon food availability, age and season (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1983). Larvae prey upon zooplankton. Fish, crustaceans, annelids
and insect larvae are taken during juvenile and adult stages (Hildebrand and
Schroeder, 1928). The fry are consumed by larger prey fish such as bluefish
-35-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
White perch (Morone americana)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical Life period: first year of life
Target Species
Substrate
Salinity
(PPt)
Temp
(C)
PH
DO
(mg/1)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
Zone
White Perch
(Morone americana)
Compact silt, sand,
mud, clay (2)
Tolerate Tolerate 6.5 - >5 <50 <70 Subsurface
0-8 11-30 8.5 (4) (4) (4) waters (3)
Optimum Optimum (4)
0-1.5 12-20
PREY SPECIES:
Rotifers
Copepod nauplii
Cladoceran:
Bosmina
E. affinis
Cyclopid
copepods
Daphnia
(1) Kaumeyer and Setzler-H ami! ton (1982)
(2) FWS/DBS-82/11.7 1983
(3) Wang and Kemehan (1979)
(4) Klien and O'Dell (1987)
-------
(Cont'd)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
White Perch (M or one americana )
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical life period: first year of life
Target Species
Insecticides
(mg/1)
TRC
(mg/1)
Herbicides
(mg/1)
Metals
(mg/1)
White Perch
(Morone americana)
DDTLC50-
8.00
Dieldrin LC50 ¦
10.0
LC5 0.15
(1)
2,4-D LC50
55.5 (1)
Cupric chloride
LC5 0.023
Mercuric chloride
LC5 0.004
Nickel chloride
ICS 0.037
Silver nitrate
LC5 0.017 (1)
PREY SPECIES:
Rotifers
Copepod nauplii
Cladoceran:
Bosmina
E.affwis
Cyclopid
copcpods
Daphna
(1) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(2) FWS/DBS-82/11.7 1983
(3) Wang and Kemchan (1979)
(4) Klien and O'DeU (1987)
-------
and striped bass (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1983; U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984).
TARGET SPECIES: Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
Critical life stage(s): juvenile
Critical life period: April to October
SPAWNING AND RANGE
Juvenile menhaden are found in upper Chesapeake Bay tributaries from
late May through November. Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982) report
that juveniles were found in the Potomac River in March and April and in the
upper Bay from late May through late June and in November. April through
October is generally the peak time of abundance in the upper Chesapeake Bay.
During the post-larval stage, menhaden tend to accumulate at the fresh/salt-
water interface in the upper Bay region. Juveniles in the upper Bay begin to
emigrate, generally after their first summer, from the freshwater interface
into the mesohaline zone (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984; Kaumeyer and Setzler-
Hamilton, 1982). Larger fish are found in the deeper waters down the Bay.
Sub-adults leave the estuary with the adults in October; however, some over-
wintering occurs in Chesapeake Bay (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984; Kaumeyer
and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982).
Spawning and early larval development occur in continental shelf waters
of the Atlantic. Menhaden are estuarine dependent, utilizing the estuary both
as a nursery for juveniles and as adult feeding ground during the summer
months (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Reintjes, 1969; and U.S. Corps of
Engineers, 1984). Reintjes (1969) observed eggs and small larvae in Long
Island Sound, Narragansett Bay. and Chesapeake Bay, but suggested that
spawning in these areas made minor contributions to total population
numbers.
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
Menhaden represent a major energy link between plankton directly to
the large piscivores. Where menhaden are present in dense schools, their
filter-feeding can be a primary control over local plankton abundance. Ac-
cording to Ulanowicz and Baird (1986), the summer diet of menhaden in the
mesohaline part of Chesapeake Bay consists of zooplankton (65%), phyto-
plankton (5%), and unspecified organic particulates (29%).
TARGET SPECIES: Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Critical life stage(s); juvenile
Critical life period: Early April to early November
SPAWNING AND RANGE
The spot is a demersal, marine spawning fish. Spawning activity on the
continental shelf adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay was reported to occur during
late fall and winter (Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton, 1982). Some adults may
-38-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
Critical life stage: juvenile
Critical Life period: April to October
Target Species Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Temp. pH
(C)
DO
(mg/1)
Pathogens
Menhaden
(Brevoortia
tyrannus)
Pelagic or tolerate
open water 0-34
10-30 6.5-8.5 >5
(4) (3.4) (3.4)
Fungal
parasites
PREY SPECIES: (1)
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Paniculate
organic material
(1) Ulanowicz and Baird (1986)
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) Klein and OTteD (1987)
(4) U.S. Corps of Engineers (1984)
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Critical life stage: juvenile
Critical Life period: early April to early November
Target Species
Substrate
Salinity
Temp.
Turbidity
pH
DO
Suspended Solids
(ppO
(C)
(NTU)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Spot
Bottoms
Tolerate
Tolerate
<50
65 -8.5
>5
<70
(Leiostomus
dominated by
0-32
63-32.5
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
xanthurus)
grasses and
optimum
(2)
filter-feeding
0-5
clams (4)
(2)
PREY SPECIES: (1)
Nereis spp.
Other polychaetes
Macoma spp.
Ostracods
Copepods
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS/DBS-82/11.3 (1983)
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) Klien and ODell (1987)
(4) Wang and Kemehan (1979)
-------
spawn twice a year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982). Kaumeyer and
Setzler-Hamihon (1982) suggested that adult spot do not survive after they
spawn.
Post-larval and juvenile spot spend much of their lives in estuaries (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982). Post-larval spot inhabit Chesapeake Bay from
early April through early November (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928). In the
Maryland portion of the Bay, spot larvae and young juveniles congregate in
the oligohaline zone, although when population densities are high, some
young move into tidal freshwater, shallow marshes, and drainage ditches (U.S.
Corps of Engineers, 1984; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982). In the lower
Bay, spot larvae and young juveniles are found in mesohaline and polyhaline
tidal marshes. Spot are common near grass beds and over muddy substrates
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982). In Chesapeake Bay, adults are found in
mesohaline to polyhaline salinity zones (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982). Spot leave the Bay as water temperatures de-
cline in the fall (Wang and Kernehan, 1979).
Fish in their second or third year of life do not penetrate very far into
the estuary, and are abundant only in the lower Virginia portion of the Bay
(U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984). Adult spot habitat in the Chesapeake is defined
as mid-mesohaline to polyhaline areas with depths to 6 m overlying soft sedi-
ment bottoms (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984).
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
Juvenile spot primarily consume benthic invertebrates including: ostra-
cods, copepods, and polychaetes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982).
Approximately 93% of the summer diet consists of polychaetes; most of the
remainder is Macoma spp. (Ulanowicz and Baird, 1986). Spot are preyed upon
by large gamefish and also harvested by sport and commercial fisheries. Spot
represent a significant link in the transfer of energy from the detritivores
and primary consumers eaten by spot in the Bay to its predators in the waters
of the adjacent continental shelf (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984).
TARGET SPECIES: Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
Critical life stage(s): larval
Critical life period: May to September
BACKGROUND
Bay anchovy has been observed in virtually all open waters throughout
the Chesapeake Bay from the tidal fresh to the polyhaline zone; the C & D Canal
and Havre de Grace down to Lynnhaven Roads, Virginia (Wang and Kernehan,
1979; Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928). Anchovy larvae are pelagic and are
also found over a wide salinity range (Wang and Kernehan, 1979; Hildebrand
and Schroeder, 1928). According to Wang and Kernehan, (1979) the larvae
move upstream to low salinity regions after hatching, with the highest con-
centrations of larvae observed at salinities of 0-7 ppt salinity. The U.S. Corps of
Engineers (1984) reported larvae at salinities of 3-7 ppt. Larvae were found 40
miles above brackish water in Virginia (Wang and Kernehan, 1979) and in the
Potomac River in freshwater near Bryans Point, about 12 miles below Wash-
-41-
-------
Target Species
Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Bay anchovy Pelagic
{Anchoa mitchUli)
0-7
PREY SPECIES:
Copepods
Wang and Kemehan (1979)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
Critical life stage: larval
Critical Life period: May to September
Temp.
(C)
15.0-
30.0
-------
ington, D.C. (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928). Anchovy larvae also occur in
large numbers throughout the lower Chesapeake Bay (Olney, 1983).
SPAWNING AND RANGE
The Bay anchovy spawning season occurs from May to September in the
Chesapeake Bay (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). Spawning is pelagic and occurs
in the Chesapeake Bay at salinities ranging from 1-22 ppt (U.S. Corps of
Engineers, 1984; Wang and Kernehan, 1979). Spawning also occurs at the
Chesapeake Bay mouth where salinities are typically 25-28 ppt (Olney, 1983).
Wang and Kernehan (1979) reported that spawning activity in the Delaware
Bay occurs between 15 degrees C and 30 degrees C with peak activity occurring
at 22-27 degrees C. They also reported peak egg densities occur at salinities of
12-13 ppt in Chesapeake Bay. In the upper Chesapeake Bay, larvae are
observed in shallow shore areas where the salinities range between 3-7 ppt
(U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1979).
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
Anchovies feed primarily on mysids and copepods (Hildebrand and
Schroeder, 1928). In overlapping ranges, Bay anchovy larvae are reported to
compete with alosid larvae for copepods (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984; Hilde-
brand and Schroeder, 1928). The anchovy is a year-round resident, and an
important forage fish of the Chesapeake (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984).
During the summer, in the mesohaline portion of Chesapeake Bay, anchovies
consume large quantities of phytoplankton (13%), zooplankton (72%), and
organic detritus (15%) (Ulanowicz and Baird, 1986).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The larval stage is considered the most sensitive life stage for the Bay
anchovy. The larvae have been observed to congregate at the surface waters
of the oligohaline zone. Crowding has been observed as anchovies move into
the narrower oligohaline areas of tributaries. Concentration of larvae in the
surface waters may cause localized overpopulation which possibly resulting in
a reduction in year class abundance (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1984).
TARGET SPECIES GROUP: Molluscan Shellfish
American oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
Critical life stage(s): larval, spat and adult
Critical life period: entire life cycle
Soft clam (Mya arenaria)
Critical life stage(s): larval
Critical life period: May - October
Hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria )
Critical life stage(s): egg and larval
Critical life period: first year of life
-43-
-------
BACKGROUND
American oysters, soft clams, and hard clams are prominent members of
the benthic community in Chesapeake Bay and contribute substantially to the
economy of the region. Oysters have recently experienced severe declines in
abundance. Soft clams in the Chesapeake Bay have also decreased in abun-
dance in recent years in the Bay. Intense fishing pressure, loss of habitat, and
water quality degradation have been blamed for declines in the abundance of
these species. Hard clams, however, have maintained more stability in popu-
lation numbers, primarily due to greater market demand for surf clams and
ocean quahogs in the mid-Atlantic region.
SPAWNING AND RANGE
All Chesapeake oysters are subtidal, whereas their southern counterparts
are often intertidal. American oysters prefer a firm substrate: pilings, hard
rock bottoms, and substrates firmed with the oyster shells of previous gener-
ations. Soft clams in the Chesapeake inhabit shallow subtidal (10 m) estuarine
waters to intertidal areas in the oligohaline through the polyhaline zones.
Hard clams are euryhaline marine species sensitive to salinities below 12 ppt,
and thus are only found in the lower Bay from the mesohaline through the
polyhaline zone (12-32 ppt). Although found in a variety of substrates in-
cluding mud, hard clams prefer a firm bottom. They favor a mixture con-
taining sand or shell which provides points of attachment for juveniles as well
as protection from many predators.
The American oyster in the Chesapeake Bay spawns in the summer when
water temperatures exceed 15 degrees C. Heavy spawning is likely to occur at
22-23 degrees C. Sperm and eggs are released into the water where fertil-
ization occurs, producing free-swimming larvae. The duration of the larval
stage varies with temperature, lasting sometimes as few as 7 to 10 days, but
most often between 2 to 3 weeks before the larvae set and became sessile
organisms. Soft clams and hard clams, like most other bivalve mollusks, spawn
when a critical temperature occurs. In the Chesapeake, soft clams spawn in
the spring when water temperature reaches 10 degrees C and spawning may
be repeated in the fall when water temperature falls to 20 degrees C. Soft clam
eggs develop into planktonic trochophore larvae in about 12 hours. Larvae
remain in the water column for about 6 weeks during the fall. The faster
spring rate of larval development is caused by temperatures at the warmer end
of the soft clam's spawning temperature range. Setting of soft clams, there-
fore, may occur twice in the same year. Frequently, however, heavy predation
on the spring set by blue crabs and bottom-feeding fish results in unsuccess-
ful recruitment. Hard clams spawn at temperatures of 22-24 degrees C. Normal
egg development occurs between 20-35 ppt salinity. At salinities below 17.5
ppt, larvae fail to metamorphose and growth of juveniles ceases. Optimal
temperatures for larval growth range between 18 and 30 degrees C. Growth
ceases at oxygen concentrations below 2.4 mg/1.
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
The American oyster is an epibenthic suspension feeder, ingesting a
variety of algae, bacteria, and small detrital particles, most within a range of
3-35 um. Capture efficiency decreases rapidly at particle sizes < 3 um. Particles
filtered but not ingested by the oyster are eliminated as pseudofeces. Fecal and
-44-
-------
pseudofecal material is important in sediment production and deposition,
providing sites for remineralizing bacterial action, and as a food source for
deposit feeders. The hard shell provides a substrate for numerous epifaunal
organisms such as barnacles and mussels. These characteristics make the
oyster an important member of the benthic community throughout the Chesa-
peake Bay. Oysters, especially in the juvenile stages, are subject to heavy
parasitism and predation by many organisms include protozoans, crabs, snails,
and flatworms.
Both soft and hard clams are also important benthic species in the Bay.
Both species are infaunal suspension feeders, ingesting small detrital particles
and phytoplankton, as well as bacteria and microzooplankton in the case of
Mya spp. Adult soft clams burrow deeply, feeding through a long extensible
siphon. Juveniles, burrowing less deeply, often fall prey to finfish, blue crabs
and waterfowl. Commercial harvesting of adults reduces adult populations and
exposes juveniles to predation before they can burrow back into the sediment.
Hard clams favor shallow burrows and are also preyed upon by fish, crabs, and
waterfowl, particularly during the juvenile stage. Also of commercial impor-
tance, the hard clam populations in the Bay suffer from irregular recruitment
and are strictly limited to higher salinity regions.
OTHER SENSITIVITIES
Oysters are sensitive to both turbidity and sedimentation. Excessive sedi-
ment deposition smothers adults and prevents setting of spat. The observation
that the upstream limit of producing oyster bars has shifted downstream
several miles in historic times is evidence of the impact of sedimentation.
Adult feeding rates are depressed at suspended solids concentrations above 24
mg/1 and feeding ceases at concentrations above approximately 50 mg/1. Soft
clams are vulnerable to sediment disturbances since they are slow re-
burrowers. As such, they are impacted by harvesting practices, waves,
currents and bioturbation. Regrowth of SAV would benefit these bivalves by
reducing the amount of sediment resuspension and the resulting turbidity.
Areas of good circulation produce better setting and survival of young
oysters. Most oysters in the Chesapeake are found in areas less than 10 m deep
in which circulation patterns promote adequate levels of dissolved oxygen.
Soft clams are also impacted by anoxia which restricts their distribution to
shallow waters less than 10 m in depth.
Oyster diseases, notably Haplosporidium nelsoni ("MSX") and Perkinsus
marinus ("dermo"). have caused significant mortality in the lower Bay. The
organisms causing these diseases require the higher salinities of the lower
Bay to proliferate. The devastating oyster diseases, MSX and dermo, may not be
restricted by salinity. Infection rate may be related to the oyster's cellular
responses to salinity. In the Choptank River, at salinities < 13 ppt, MSX has
been observed.
Temperatures of 32.5 degrees C or greater are lethal to adult soft clam
limiting intertidal distribution in the species' southern range. For oysters,
soft clams, and hard clams, it is generally agreed that food availability is
another significant factor dictating their survival. Foods of critical sizes are
needed for the different life stages; with the cell sizes generally ranging from
3-35 um.
-45-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
American oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
Critical life stage: larval, spat, adult
Critical Life period: entire life cycle
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
pH
DO
(mg/1)
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
Salinity
(PPO
American oyster
(Crassostrea
virginica)
Finn substrate,
pilings, hard
rock bottom,
shells (1)
Subtidal (1)
6.8-8.5
(2)
>2.4
(2)*
<33 (adult activity
reduced above 24)
(3)
5-35
PREY SPECIES:
Phytoplankton
size range:
3-35 microns
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.65)
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) Jordan (1987)
~Critical DO should be higher when temperature
exceeds 25 degrees C. Exact requirements not known.
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Softshell Clam (Mya arenaria)
Critical life stage: larval
Critical Life period: May to October
Target Species
Substrate Zone Salinity Temp. Alkalinity DO pH TRC Herbicides Metals
(ppO (C) (mg/I) (mg/1) (mg/1) (ug/1) (mg/1)
Softshell clam
(Myaareneria)
Sand.
sand-mud,
sand-clay
(2)
Shallow >103
intertidal (1)
and sub-
tidal (2)
Mean temps
during larval
setting are:
Spring=19.4-21.9
Fall=19.6-13.9
(2)
20 >5 63-8 LCO 0.05 Chlordane
(3) (1) <2.4
(2)
LC50's for 168-hr
Cu, .035
Cd, .150
Zn, 135
Pb. 8.80
Mn, 3.00
Ni, 50.00
(3)
PREY SPECIES:
Microzooplanlcton
Phytoplankton
(1) FWS Habitat Suitability Index Publications Biological Report 82(11.68) 1986
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) EPA Quality Criteria for Water 1986
-------
Target Species
Substrate Zone Salinity
(PI*)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements tor
Hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
Critical life stage: egg, larval
Critical Life period: first year of life
Temp. DO pH Metals
(C) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
Insecticides
(mg/1)
Chlorinated
Hydocarbons
(mg/1)
Hard clam
Shell, sand, Mesohaline, >17 J
18-30 >2.4 6.8-8.5
Silver nitrate
20 (2)
Aldrin
Qrthodichloro-
(Mercenaria
mud (1) polyhaline (1)
(1) (1)
LC5- .021
LC0-.041
benzene
mercenaia)
(1)
Cupric chloride
Toxaphene
LCO->10.0
LC5- .018
LC0-<.025
Trichlorobenzene
Mercuric chloride
(1)
LC0->1.0
LC5-.005
Phenol
Nickel chloride
LC0-5.5 (1)
LC5-1.11
Zinc chloride
LC5-.068
PREY SPECIES:
Phytoplankton
size range: 3-35
microns
Detritus
(1) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(2) EPA Quality Criteria for Water 1986
-------
TARGET SPECIES: Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)
Critical life stage: larval, pre-molt, post-molt
Critical life period: June - October
BACKGROUND
Blue crabs are found from the mouth of the Bay to tidal fresh areas.
There are distinct differences in the ranges of males and females. During the
summer months, males are found from freshwater to the polyhaline zone,
although they occur in the greatest numbers in salinities of 3-15 ppt. Maxi-
mum numbers of females occur down Bay at salinities of 10 ppt to ocean
salinities. When air temperatures drop below 10 degrees C, adult crabs leave
shallow, inshore waters and seek deeper areas where they bury themselves
and remain in a state of torpor throughout the winter.
SPAWNING AND DISTRIBUTION
After mating, females migrate south in the Bay toward higher salinity
waters. The timing of egg hatching is seasonally dependent. If mating occurs
during spring, then the first egg mass, or sponge, may hatch in July. Most
females mate during the late summer season in July, August, or September,
with hatching delayed until the following summer. A female may also produce
two or more egg sponges later in the summer. Blue crab spawning appears to
be concentrated at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay in the channel region
between Cape Henry and Cape Charles where salinities are near oceanic.
McConaugha et al. (1981) examined seasonal, horizontal and vertical dis-
tribution of blue crab larvae in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and
nearshore waters. Only early stage zoeae (mainly Stages I-III) and megalopae
were found in the Bay mouth, while all zoeal stages and megalopae were
present in abundance offshore. They concluded that larval development
occurs in the rich coastal waters and recruitment back to the estuary occurs in
the post-larval or juvenile stages.
Juvenile crab migration up the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries begins
in August. Male and female juvenile crabs apparently have different migra-
tory patterns. Miller et al. (1975) reported that juvenile crabs, predominantly
males, move into the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area in late spring. This
distribution of sexes is quite unlike the sex distribution of juvenile crabs in
the lower Bay, around Tangier Sound, suggesting there is a separation of the
sexes at an early stage which is probably due to differences in migratory
behavior.
GROWTH
Blue crab growth is regulated by water temperature. Growth occurs from
late April to mid-October when temperatures are above 15 degrees C (Van
Engel et al., 1973). They grow by shedding their hard shells (molting).
Molting is a major physiological event of crustacean life history. Blue crabs
molt frequently during the early juvenile stages (7-10 days). The periodicity
decreases with age and size. The premolt and postmolt phases are periods of
high metabolic activity; therefore, the animal may be more susceptible to
-49-
-------
Target Sputa
PtEY SPECIES:
liwaM
Grata
Zone
2
See text
6-8
SAV
-------
environmental stress during these periods. The crabs reach adult size (130 mm
or larger) while on the "nursery grounds," brackish water habitats in the
tributaries and mainstem of the Bay.
TROPHIC IMPORTANCE
Blue crabs are generally considered omnivorous. The zoeae and mega-
lopae prey primarily upon zooplankton. The megalopae will also feed upon
pieces of fish or shellfish and aquatic plants (Van Engel, 1958). Juvenile and
adult blue crabs are also omnivorous, feeding on benthic macroinvertebrates,
small fish, aquatic vegetation and associated fauna, and dead organisms
(Lippson et al., 1979). The blue crab is known to prey on young quahogs and
seed oysters under experimental conditions. It will also prey on oyster spat,
newly set oysters and clams, or young oysters if other food is unavailable (Van
Engel, 1958; Shea et al., 1980). It follows that the blue crab may be a major
factor in the control of benthic populations (Shea et al., 1980).
TARGET SPECIES: Canvasback (Aythya valisineria)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: March - June
BACKGROUND
The canvasback is a diving duck, often descending several meters in
search of food. It breeds on the North American prairies and migrates only
when water becomes too cold in its summer range. Chesapeake Bay popu-
lations have been reduced from a peak of almost 400,000 canvasbacks, to aver-
ages of 250,000 in the 1950s and generally less than 70,000 in the 1980s. Before
hunting reforms in 1918, canvasbacks, an international delicacy, were
slaughtered in the thousands by market hunters.
Canvasbacks have adapted with success from their earlier dependence on
and preference for wild celery and other submerged aquatic vegetation. These
ducks now depend on Rangia and Macoma clams, snails, insects, worms and
small crustaceans as a substantial portion of their diet. This dietary change
has made them less desirable table fare, but canvasbacks are still much prized
by hunters.
TARGET SPECIES: Redhead duck (Aythya americana)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: March - June
BACKGROUND
The redhead's principal breeding grounds are the North American
prairies, where habitats have been reduced. Most redheads migrate to the Gulf
of Mexico coast, but in the 1950s as many as 118,800 were estimated in the
Chesapeake Bay during January 1956. The 1980s populations have averaged
about 3,500. This duck's exceptionally large salt glands enable it to spend much
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Canvasback (Aythya valisneria)
Critical life stage: wintering
Critical Life period: November - March
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Temp.
(C)
Turbidity
(mg/1)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Light
Intensity
(uE/m-2/S-l)
KD
(m-1)
(1)
Canvasback Duck
(Aythya valisneria)
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L
I }
N.L.
N.L.
PREY SPECIES:
Wild celery
(Vallisneria
americana)
Silt-clay
sand
Littoral
(3m)
0-5
18-35
<20
1.0
Best at 100
[ ]
Sago pondweed
(Potamogeton
pectinatus)
Mud better
than sand
Littoral
(3m)
0-12
15-35
<20
1.0
Best at 350
1.7-2.0
Redhead grass
(Potamogeton
perfoliatus)
Mud, some
organics
Littoral
(3m)
2-19
15-35
<20
1.0
Best at 230
1.7-2.0
Widgeongrass
(Ruppia maritima)
Prefers sand
Littoral
(<2m)
5-60
20-26
<20
1.0
Best at 236
1.7-2.0
Eelgrass
(Zostera marina)
Usually sand
Littoral
(0.25- 1.5m)
5-35
8-35
<15
1.25
Best at 220
[ 1
Baltic clam
(Macoma balthica)
All substrates;
best in mud
Intertidal;
Subtidal to
15m
2-19
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
N.L.
N.L.
Brackish-waler
clam
(Rangia cuneata)
Mud/sand
mix
Intertidal;
Subtidal to
5m
0-18
8-32
[ ]
[ ]
N.L.
N.L.
Crustaceans
Insects
Small fish
(1) Stevenson (unpublished data)
(2) Orth and Moore (unpublished data)
-------
(Cont'd)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Canvasback (Aythya valisneria)
Critical life stage: wintering
Critical Life period: November - March
Target Species
DIN (1)
(mg/1)
DIP(l)
(mg/1)
Heitoicides
(ug/1)
Metals Chlorophyll a (1,2)
(mg/1) (ug/1)
DO
(mg/1)
pH
Canvasback
(Aythya valisneria)
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
[ 1
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
PREY SPECIES:
Wild celery
Q/allisneria
cmericana)
<0.7-14
<0.01
Mortality at 12
atrazine
[ J
<15
N.L.
6-9
Sago pond weed
0Potamogeton
peclinatus)
<0.14
<0.01
2S0diquat [ ]
or paraquat controls
<15
N.L.
6-9
Redhead grass
(iPotamogeton
perfoiiatus)
<0.14
<0.01
Signficantly re-
duced photo-
synthesis at 50
[ ]
<15
N.L.
6-9
Widgeongrass
(Ruppia maritima)
<0.14
<0.01
[ ]
[ ]
<15
N.L.
6-9
Eelgrass
(Zostera marina)
[ ]
[ ]
Mortality at 100 -
1000 atrazine
[ ]
<10
N.L.
6-9
Baltic dam
(Macoma bailhica)
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
Accumulates
metals; toxicity
not known
t ]
[ ]
N.L.
Brackish-water
clam
(iRangiacunecta)
Crustaceans
Insects
Small Fish
[ ] I ] [ 1
(1) Stevenson (unpublished data)
(2) Orth and Moore (unpublished data)
[ ]
[ ]
Withstands [ ]
anoxia for
days.
Intolerant
of air exposure
-------
Target Species Substrate Zone Salinity
(PPO
Redhead duck
(Aytkya americana)
FOOD ITEMS :
Wild celery
(VaOisneria
americana)
Sago pondweed
(Potamogeton
pectinatus)
Redhead grass
(PcXamogeton
perfoliatus)
Widgeongrass
(Ruppiamarilima)
Eelgrass
(Zosura marina)
Crustaceans
Insects
Small fish
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
Silt-clay
sand
Littoral
(3m)
0-5
Mud better
than sand
Littoral
(3m)
0-12
Mud, some
organics
Littoral
(3m)
2-19
Prefers sand (<2m) 5-60
Usually sand 0.25-1.5 5-3S
m
(1) Stevenson (unpublished data)
(2) Orth and Moore (unpublished data)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Redhead Duck (Aythya americana)
Critical life stage: All life stages
Critical Life period; April - September
Temp. Tmbidity Secchi Light KD pH
(C) (mg/1) Depth Intensity (m-1)
(m) (u/E/m-2/S-l)
N.L. N.L. 2.0 N.L. N.L. N.L.
18-35 <20 1.0 Best at 100 [ ] 6-9
15-35 <20 1.0 Best at 350 1.7-2.0 6-9
15-35 <20 1.0 Best at 230 1.7-2.0 6-9
20-26 <20 1.0 Best at 236 1.7-2.0 6-9
8-35 <15 1.25 Best at 220 [ ] 6-9
-------
Target Species
Chlor. ESN DIP
Redhead duck
(Aythyaamericana)
FOOD ITEMS:
WDdceloy
(VUZtmria
antriana)
Sagopondweed
{Potanogeton
pectinatus)
Redhead grass
(Pctanogeton
perfoliatus)
Widgeongrass
(Ruppiamaritima)
Eelgrass
(Zoster a manna)
Crustaceans
bisects
Small fish
Ni. N.L. N.L.
<15 <0.7- <0.01
1.4
<15 <0.14 <0.01
<15 <0.14 <0.01
<15 <0.14 <0.01
<10 [ ] [ ]
(1) Stevenson (unpublished data)
(2) Orth and Moore (unpublished data)
(cont'd)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Redhead Duck (Aythya americana)
Critical life stage: All life stages
Critical Life period; April - September
Herbicides Metals
N.L. N.L.
Mortality [ ]
at 12
atrazine
250diquat [ ]
or paraquat
controls
Significantly [ ]
reduced photo-
synthesis at 50
[ 1 [ ]
Mortality at [ ]
100-1000
atrazine
-------
of its wintering time in waters at or near ocean salinity. Entire winters may
be spent on the water.
The food of the redhead consists largely of vegetation, more so than other
diving ducks. Sago pondweed, wild celery, widgeongrass and other submerged
aquatic plants are the favored items. A small percentage of insects, mollusks,
other invertebrates, and small fish are also eaten.
TARGET SPECIES: Black Duck (Anas rubripes)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: April - July
BACKGROUND
The Chesapeake Bay's population of black ducks has dwindled in recent
years, from an estimated 200,000 overwintering in 1955 to less than 50,000 in
the mid-1980s. For this reason, more severe hunting restrictions have been
placed upon the species.
Black ducks pair in the autumn. Typically in April, the female lays from
7 to 12 eggs in simple, hollowed-out, pine needle-lined nests. In the Chesa-
peake Bay area, isolated islands and marshes are the favored breeding places.
Though wary of people and other intruders such as predators, which include
raccoons, crows and gulls, almost half the nests are usually destroyed. A
second clutch of eggs is then usually laid.
Black ducks feed on animal foods more than most other dabblers. Favored
items are snails, mussels, clams, small crustaceans and immature insects.
Pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), widgeongrass, eelgrass, smooth cordgrass, wild
rice and bulrushes are plant food items which, along with corn, are consumed
when available.
TARGET SPECIES: Wood duck (Aix sponsa)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: April - July
BACKGROUND
Wood ducks are at the northern edge of their wintering range in the
Chesapeake area, but can breed successfully, given proper habitat. Breeding
habitat should include 10 acres of isolated wetlands with at least 50 percent
cover, while wintering habitats may be less dependent on size given the
adults' greater sociability and mobility. Typical habitat consists of secluded
freshwater swamps and marshes providing plenty of downed or overhanging
trees, shrubs, and flooded woody vegetation. Areas inhabited by beaver often
provide good wood duck habitat. Cavity nesting sites are important for wood
ducks, in order to provide safety from predators such as raccoons.
Adults are largely herbivorous, typically feeding on nuts and fruits from
woody plants, aquatic plants and seeds. Their diet does include some insects
-56-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Black Duck (Anas rubripes)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: April - July
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Temp.
(C)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Cover
Light
Intensity
(uE/m-2/s-l)
Metals
(mg/1)
Herbicides
(ug/1)
Black duck
{Anas rubripes)
PREY SPECIES:
Wild celery
(Vallisneria
americana)
Sago pondweed
(Potamogeton
pectinatus)
Redhead grass
(Potamogeton
perfoliatus)
Widgeongrass
(Ruppia maritima)
Smartweeds
(Polygonum spp.)
Rice cutgrass
(Leevsia oryzoid)
Cordgrass
(Spartina
aiterniflora)
Salt marsh snail
(Melampus
bidentatus)
[ ]
Silt-clay-
sand
Mud better
than sand
Mud, some
organics
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
N.L. N.L.
Littoral 0-5
(3m)
Littoral 0-12
(3m)
Littoral 2-19
(3m)
Prefers sand Littoral 5-60
(<2m)
I ]
[ ]
I ]
[ ] [ 1
[ ] t ]
N.L.
18-35
15-35
15-35
20-26
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
[ ]
1.0 - needs
intertidal feed-
ing areas
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N.L
N.L
N.L.
N.L.
Marsh
vegetation
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
[ ]
N.L.
Best at 100
Best at 350
Best at 230
Best at 236
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Lead shot [
ingested
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Mortality at
12 atrazine
250 diquat or
paraquat controls
Significantly
reduced photo-
synthesis at >50
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
(1) Stevenson (Unpublished data)
( 2) Orth and Moore (Unpublished data)
-------
Target Species Turbidity KD Chlor.
(NTU) (m-1) (ug/1)
Black dude
(Anasrubripes)
PREY SPECIES:
Wild celery
(VaMsneria
ameriama)
Sago pondweed
(Potamogeton
pectinatus)
Redhead grass
(P.perfoliatus)
Widgcongrass
(Ruppia maritima)
Smartweeds
(Polygonum spp.)
Rice cutgrass
-------
Target Specks
Wood Dack
PKEY SPECIES:
y;
t T.
Urn
Mt
Cower
Needed far
NX.
NX.
NX.
NX.
Salinity
CPPO
NX.
0
0
0-12
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Wood Dock (Abe sponsa)
Critical life stage: wintering
Critical Life period: November to March
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (unpublished data)
-------
and aquatic invertebrates. During the egg laying period, adult wood duck hens
have high protein and calcium requirements, satisfied mainly through an
invertebrate diet. Young ducklings up to 6 weeks of age also ingest a high
percentage of invertebrates, chiefly insects.
TARGET SPECIES: Great blue heron (Ardea herodeas)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: May-July
BACKGROUND
Habitat for the great blue heron includes wooded areas suitable for colo-
nial nesting and wetlands within a specified distance (e.g. 1 kilometer) of a
heronry where foraging can occur. The heronry area itself can be an acre or
two in size, but is preferably isolated. Most great blue heron colonics in the
Bay area are located in riparian swamps with trees tall enough for nest place-
ment at 5 to 15 m above ground. Other wading bird species may coexist in a
great blue heronry. Four eggs are typically laid by the adult female, with an
incubation period of four weeks.
Great blue herons feed alone or occasionally in flocks. Feeding usually
occurs during the day, but occasionally takes place at night. Both still-hunt-
ing and stalking techniques are used to hunt for fish which is their main
prey. Herons also eat frogs, lizards, snakes, small birds, mammals, and insects.
Usually, feeding is limited to clear waters less than 0.5 m in depth, with firm
substrate. Contaminants in the food chain have been documented as a prob-
lem, especially dieldrin and DDE and possibly other organochlorines, which
cause eggshell thinning.
TARGET SPECIES: Great (American) egret (Casmerodius albus)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: June - August
BACKGROUND
Habitat needs of the great heron are similar to those of the great blue
heron; a heronry area preferably isolated, with good roosting trees and a
foraging area close by. Fresh, brackish and salt water marshes are all used for
foraging.
Three or four eggs, incubating in about 24 days, are typically produced.
The large nests can be from 6 to greater than 15 meters high, located in large
trees near the water. Crows and vultures may prey on the eggs when left
unattended. The young of the year sometimes wander northward before
migrating southward for the winter.
The food of the great egret consists of small fish from the shallow waters,
as well as frogs, lizards, small snakes, crustaceans, mollusks and insects. The
depth of water in which foraging takes place is usually less than 25 cm.
-60-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Great blue heron (Ardea herodeas)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: May to July
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Temp. Flow
(C) (cm/s)
DO
(mg/1)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Metals
(mg/1)
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
(mg/1)
Great blue heron
(Ardea herodeas)
Firm better
Iniertidal,
shallow
NX.
N.L Estuarine
N.L.
0.5
[ ]
[ ]
PREY SPECIES: (1)
Atlantic silvcrsides
(Menidia menidia)
Prefer hard,
vegetated-
Needed far
eggs, young
Iniertidal
Tolerate
1-34
Plefer
3-14
Juveniles: ( ]
Tolerate
3-31
Prefer
18-25
>5.0
[ ]
[ ]
Endrin <0.05
Mummichog
(Fundulus
heteroclitus)
Prefer mud
Iniertidal
0-30
[ ] t ]
>5.0
[ 1
(2)
Endrin <10 (2)
Striped killfish
(Fundid us majalis)
Refer sand
Intertidal
1-30
[ 1 M
>5.0
[ ]
(2)
Endrin <0.3 (2)
Reptiles
Insects
Crustaceans
Small mammals
Amphibians
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (unpublished data)
(2) Eisler (1986) lists toxicity information on 118 toxicants
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Great egret (Casmerodius albus)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: June to August
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Temp. Flow
(C) (an/s)
DO
(mg/1)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Metals
(mg/1)
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
(ug/1)
Great Egret
(Casmerodius albus)
Finn better
Intertidal
N.L.
N.L. Estuarine
N.L.
0.25
[ ]
[ 1
PREY SPECIES: (1)
Atlantic
silvexsides
(Menidiamenidia)
Prefer hard,
vegetated-
Needed for
eggs,young.
Intertidal
Tolerate
1-34.
Prefer
3-14
Juveniles: [ ]
Tolerate
3-31,
Prefer
18-25
>5.0
[ 1
[ ]
Endrin <0.05
Mummichog
(Fundulus
heteroclitus)
Prefer mud
Intertidal
0-30
[ 1 [1
>5.0
[ 1
(2)
Endrincl.O (2)
Striped killfish
{Fundidus majalis)
Prefer sand
Intertidal
1-30
[ ] M
>5.0
I ]
(2)
Endrin <0.3 (2)
Reptiles
Insects
Crustaceans
Small mammals
Amphibians
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (unpublished data)
(2) Eisler (1986) lists toxicity information on 118 toxicants
-------
TARGET SPECIES: Little blue heron (Florida caerulea)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: June - August
BACKGROUND
The little blue heron breeds in the Chesapeake Bay area, but winters to
the south. This heron's habitat includes fresh and salt water marshes where it
seeks to avoid human activity. The heronry is typically situated in dense
vegetation on or near a secluded small water body, often far inland from the
larger marsh.
Food for little blue herons consists of minnows, crustaceans, insects such
as grasshoppers, small frogs, lizards and worms. The little blue heron is an
active feeder. Organochlorine residues have probably found their way into
tissues and eggshells, but resulting physiological problems have not been
noted.
TARGET SPECIES: Green heron (Butorides striatus)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: June - August
BACKGROUND
The green heron breeds in the Chesapeake Bay area and winters further
to the south. Habitat for the green heron consists of either fresh or saltwater
marsh. This heron appears to be more tolerant of human activity than some
other heron species. The green heron nests singly or in small colonies, unlike
the large heronries of other species. Their nests are not necessarily located
near the water. Four to five eggs are usually laid, with incubation taking 17
days.
Food of the green heron includes minnows, tadpoles, water insects and
their larvae, and crustaceans. They occasionally feed in the uplands where
prey includes worms, insects such as crickets and grasshoppers, snakes and
small mammals.
TARGET SPECIES: Snowy egret (Egretta thula)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: June - August
BACKGROUND
The snowy egret breeds in the Chesapeake Bay area and winters to the
south. Both fresh and saltwater marshes are typical habitats for the snowy
egret. Large rookeries, preferably in isolated sections of a marsh, are favored.
Nests usually range in height from 3 to 6 meters in small trees.
-63-
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Little blue heron (Florida caerulea)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: June-August
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(ppO
Temp.
(C)
Flow
(cm/s)
DO
(mg/1)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Metals
(mg/1)
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
(ug/1)
Little blue heron
{Florida caerulea)
Firm better
Intertidal
N.L.
N.L.
Estuarine
N.L.
0.25
[ ]
[ ]
PREY SPECIES: (1)
Atlantic
silversides
{Menidia menidia)
Prefer hard
vegetated-
Needed for
eggs, young.
Intertidal
Tolerate
1-34.
Prefer
3-14
Juveniles
tolerate
3-31,
Prefer
18-25
I )
>5.0
I ]
[ ]
Endrin <0.05
Mummichog
(Fundulus
heteroclitus)
Ptefer mud
Intertidal
0-30
[ ]
[ ]
>5.0
[ ]
(2)
Endrincl.O (2)
Striped killfish
{Fundulus majalis)
Prefer sand
Intertidal
1-30
[ 1
[ 1
>5.0
[ I
(2)
Endrin <0.3 (2)
Reptiles
Insects
Crustaceans
Small mammals
Amphibians
~1 \ I t e i?:_i
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (unpublished data)
(2) Eisler (1986) lists toxicity information on 118 toxicants.
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Green Heron (Butorides striatus)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: June-August
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Temp.
(C)
Flow
(cm/s)
DO
(mg/1)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Metals
(mg/1)
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
(ug/1)
Green heron
(Butorides striatus)
PREY SPECIES: (1)
Atlantic silversides
(Menidia menidia)
Mummichog
{Fundid us
heterocliius)
Striped killfish
(Fundulus majalis)
Reptiles
Insects
Crustaceans
Small mammals
Amphibians
Firm better
Prefer hard,
vegetated-
Needed fix
eggs, young.
Prefer mud
Prefer sand
Intertidai
Intertidal
Intertidai
Intertidal
N.L.
Tolerate
1-34,
Prefer
3-14
0-30
1-30
N.L.
Juveniles:
Tolerate
3-31,
Prefer
18-25
Tidal, nontidal
wetlands
[ ]
N.L.
>5.0
0.25
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
>5.0
>5.0
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
I )
Endrin <0.05
(2) Endrin <10 (2)
(2) Endrin <0.3 (2)
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (unpublished data)
(2) Eisler (1986) lists toxicity information on 118 toxicants
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: June to August
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Salinity
(PPO
Temp. Flow
(C) (cm/s)
DO
(mg/1)
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Metals
(mg/1)
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
(ug/1)
Snowy egret
(Egretta Aula)
Firm better
Intertidal
N.L.
N.L. Tidal,
nonbdal
N.L.
0.25
[]
~
PREY SPECIES: (1)
Atlantic sflversides
(Menidiamenidia)
Prefer hard,
vegetated-
Needed for
eggs, young.
Intertidal
Tolerate
1-34
Prefer
3-14T
Juveniles: [ ]
Tolerate
3-31,
Prefer
18-25
>5.0
[ ]
[]
Endrin <0.05
Mummkhog
(Fundid us
heUroclitus)
Prefer mud
Intcztidal
0-30
[ ] [ 1
>5.0
[ ]
(2)
Endrin<1.0 (2)
Striped killfish
{Funduius majalis)
Prefer sand
Intertidal
1-30
[ ] [ 1
>5.0
[ ]
(2)
Endrin <03 (2)
Reptiles
Insects
Crustaceans
Small mammals
Amphibians
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (unpublished data)
(2) Eiskr (1986) lists toxicity information on 118 toxicants
-------
The snowy egret usually produces 4-5 eggs which incubate in about 18
days. Both parents share in nesting chores. Food consists of small fish,
insects, crayfish, small snakes, frogs and lizards.
TARGET SPECIES: Bald eagle (Haleaeetus leucocephalus)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: late-January to mid-June
BACKGROUND
The southern bald eagle is still endangered but has been making a come-
back in the Chesapeake Bay area — it was estimated that 136 pairs occupied
nests in 1986. The bald eagle breeds in the Bay area and a select number
migrate south in autumn. Others remain in congregations in areas such as
Caledon State Park, VA, on the Potomac River.
Habitat for the bald eagle is typically close to the water, where tall trees
provide good perching places for the bird to observe prey. The bald eagle
avoids human activities and it will usually not vigorously defend a nest.
Two to three eggs are produced, laid in a large nest up to 7 feet high by 7
feet across. The nest may be 60 feet or more above ground placed in large
trees. About 35 days are required for incubation of eggs.
Food of bald eagles consists primarily of fish, which is often found dead
by the birds. Other dead animals may also be taken. The bald eagle will also
take other prey alive such as ducks, and small to medium mammals. The prob-
lem of organochlorine pesticide residues which caused eggshells to thin and
hatch success to be reduced has been minimized.
TARGET SPECIES: Osprey (Pandion halaetus)
Critical Life Stage: nestling
Critical Life Period: April to mid-July
BACKGROUND
The Chesapeake Bay region supports over 1,500 nesting pairs of ospreys.
Ospreys always live near the water, roosting in large trees and building large,
bulky, stick-nests in trees or on poles or platforms. The osprey can learn to
tolerate human disturbance near its nest. After the breeding and rearing
season is complete, the birds migrate to tropical wintering grounds.
Ospreys feed almost exclusively on live fish taken from near-surface
waters. Nearly every common Chesapeake Bay species of fish has been
recorded in the osprey's diet. Situated at the top of the food chain, ospreys
experienced trouble with accumulated organochlorine pesticide residues of
DDT and dieldrin some years ago. The problems of thinned eggshells and poor
hatch rates experienced at the time, have apparently been rectified, and the
birds are doing well in the Bay.
-67-
-------
Matrix Habitat Requirements for
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical life period: late January to mid-June
Target Species
Cover Salinity
(PPO
Temp.
(C)
Metals
DO
(mg/1)
PH
Turbidity
(NTU)
Suspended solids
(mg/1)
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
PREY SPECIES:
Quiet area near N.L.
water, with tall
trees
N.L.
lead shot
ingested:
11.3 ppm
in kidney is
fatal.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
Striped bass
(Morone saxatilis)
[ ] 0-5 (1)
16-19
*
6-12
7-8*
[ ]
I ]
American shad
(Alosa sapidissima)
[ ] 0-15(2,3)
15.5-26
[ 1
>5(4)
6.5-8.5
(4.5)
<50(4)
<50(5)
Menhaden
CBrevoortia tyr annus)
[ ] 0-15 (2)
10-30
[ ]
>5 (4,6)
6.5-8.5
(4,6)
[ ]
[ ]
Alewife
CAlosa
pseudoharengus)
[ 3 0-5*
16-25
[ ]
>5
6.5-8.5
(4)
[ ]
<50
White Perch
(Morone americana)
[ ] 0-8*
12-20*
[ ]
>5(4)
6.5-8.5
(4)
<50(4)
<70 (4)
Yellow Perch
CPercaflavescens)
SAV, Sub- 0-0.5
merged trees
10-19
[ ]
>5(4)
6.5-8.5
<50 (4)*
<500 (1)*
Carrion
Small mammals
Turtles
Birds
* See target species habitat requirement matrices for more detailed information.
(1) Westin and Rogers (1978)
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) FWS Habitat suitability index publications Biological Report 82(11.45) 1986
(4) Klein and O'Dell (1987)
(5) Connery (1987)
(6) U.S. Corps of Engineers (1984)
(7) Wang and Kemehan (1979)
-------
(Cont'd)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: April to mid-July
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Flow
(m/s)
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
Pathogen
Metals
(mg/1)
Insecticides
(mg/1)
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
PREY SPECIES:
Striped bass
(Morone saxatiiis)
( ]
Water
column
demersal
03-
5.0(1)
>20
[ ]
~
*
American shad
(Alosa sapidissima)
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
Menhaden
(,Brevoortia tyrannus)
[ ]
Pelagic or
open waters
[ ]
[ J
Fungal
parasites
[ 1
[ ]
Ale wife
(Alosa
pseudoharengus)
Sand, gravel
w/75% silt
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I ]
[ ]
[ ]
White Perch
(.Morone cmericana)
Compact silt,
sand, mud clay
Subsurface
waters (7)
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
*
DDT LC50 - 8.0
Dieldrin LC50 -10.0
Yellow Perch
(Percaflavescens)
*
Demersal*
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
* See target species habitat requirement matrices for more detailed information.
(1) Westin and Rogers (1978)
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) FWS Habitat suitability index publications Biological Report 82(11.45) 1986
(4) Klein and O'Dell (1987)
(5) Connery (1987)
(6) U.S. Coips of Engineers (1984)
(7) Wang and Kemeham (1979)
-------
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: April to mid-July
Target Species
Cover Salinity
(ppt)
Temp.
(Q
TRC
(mg/1)
DO
(mg/1)
PH
Turbidity
(NTU)
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
Qsprey
(Pandicn haliaetus)
N.L. N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
N.L.
PREY SPECIES:
Striped bass
{Moronc saxatihs)
[ ] 0-5(1)
16-19
*
7-8*
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
America! dud
(AIcaasapkHssima)
[ ] 0-15(23)
15.5-26
[ ]
>5(4)
6.5-8.5
(4,5)
<50(4)
<50(5)
Menhaden
(Brevoortiatyrannus)
[ 1 0-15(2)
10-30
[ ]
>5 (4.6)
6.5-8.5
(4,6)
[ 1
[ ]
Akwife
(A&wa
pseudoharengus)
[ ] 0-5*
16-25
[ 1
>5
6.5-85
(4)
[ 1
<50
White Perch
(Moroneanericand)
[ ] 0-8*
12-20*
0.15
>5(4)
6.5-8.5
(4)
<50(4)
<70(4)
Yellow Perch
(fercaflavesctns)
SAV, Sub- 0-0.5
merged trees
10-19
[ 1
>5(4)
6.5-8.5
<50(4)
<500(1)
* See target species habitat requirement matrices for more detailed information.
(1) Westin and Rogers (1978)
(2) Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton (1982)
(3) FWS Habitat suitability index publications Biological Report 82(11.45) 1986
(4) Klein and O'Dell (1987)
(5) Coimery (1987)
(6) U.S. Corps of Engineers (1984)
(7) Wang and Kemehan (1979)
-------
(Cont'd)
Matrix of Habitat Requirements for
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Critical life stage: nestling
Critical Life period: April to mid-July
Target Species
Substrate
Zone
Flow
(mis)
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
Pathogen
Metals
(mg/1)
Insecticides
(mg/1)
Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus)
PREY SPECIES:
Striped bass
(Morone saxatilis)
American shad
(Alosa sapidissima)
Menhaden
(Brcvoortia tyrannus)
Alewife
(Alosa
pseudoharengus)
White Perch
(fiaroneemericana)
Yellow Perch
(Percajiavesctns)
N.L.
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
N.L.
Water
column
demersal
[ ]
N.L.
03-
5.0(1)
[ ]
Pelagic or [ ]
open waters
Sand, gravel [ ] [ ]
w/75% silt
Compact silt. Subsurface [ ]
sand, mud clay waters (7)
Demersal* [ ]
N.L.
>20
[ ]
[ ]
( ]
[ ]
[ ]
N.L.
[ 1
[ ]
NJL.
[ ]
Fungal [ ]
parasites
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
*See target species habitat requirement matrices for more detailed information.
(1) Westin and Rogers (1978)
(2) Kaumeyer and Sealer-Hamilton (1982)
(3) FWS Habitat suitability index publications Biological Report 82(11.45) 1986
(4) Klein and O'Dell (1987)
(5) Cannery (1987)
(6) U.S. Corps of Engineers (1984)
(7) Wang and Kemeham (1979)
N.L.
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
DDT LC50 - 8.0
Dieldrin LC50 -10.0
[ ]
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Abraham, B.J. and P.L. Dillon. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates. (Mid Atlantic)—Soft shell clam.
U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/11.68. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-
82-4. 18 pp.
Barnes, R.D. 1974. Invertebrate Zoology. 3rd ed. W.B. Saunders Company. 841 pp.
Bason, W.H. 1971. Ecology and early life history of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in
the Delaware Estuary. Ichthyol. Assoc. Bull. 4, Ichthyological Associates, Box 35,
R.D. 2, Middletown, DE, 19709, 112 pp.
Beauchamp, R.G. (ed). 1974. Marine Environment Planning Guide for the Hampton
Roads/Norfolk Naval Operating Area. Naval Oceanographic Office. Spec. Pub. No.
250. Naval Ocn. Off. Washington, D.C. 262 pp.
Berggren, T.J. and J.T. Lieberman. 1978. Relative contribution of Hudson, Chesapeake
and Roanoke striped bass, Morone saxatilis, stocks to the Atlantic coast fishery.
Fish. Bull. U.S. 76:335-345.
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Striped Bass. In: Fishes of the Gulf of Maine.
U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Fish Bull. 74(53):389-405.
Bogdanov, A.S., S.I. Doroshev and A.F. Karpevich. 1967. Experimental transportation
of Salmo gairdneri and Roccus saxatilis from the USA for acclimatization in bodies
of water in the USSR. Voprosy Ikhtiologii, 7, No. 1.
Boreman, J. 1981. American shad stocks along the Atlantic coast. National Marine
Fisheries Center, Northeast Fisheries Center Lab. Ref. Doc. No. 81-40.
Boynton, W.R., E.M. Setzler, K.V. Wood, H.H. Zion, and M. Homer. 1977. Final report on
Potomac River fisheries study. Ichthyoplankton and juvenile investigations.
Univ. Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD, 20688. 328 pp. UMCEES Ref. No. 77-196 CBL.
Bradford, A.D., J.G. Miller, and K. Buss. 1966. Bioassays on eggs and larval stages of
American shad, Alosa sapidissima.. Pages 52-60 in F.T. Carlson, 1968, Suitability of
Interior Maryland Board of Natural Resources, New York Conservation
Department, and Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Washington, D.C. 60 pp.
Brousseau, D.J. 1978. Spawning cycle, fecundity and recruitment in a population of
soft-shell clams, Mya arenaria, from Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Fish. Bull.
76(1): 155-166.
Boynton, W.R., T.T. Polgar, and H.H. Zion. 1981. Importance of juvenile striped bass
food habits in the Potomac estuary. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110:56-63.
-72-
-------
Butler, P.A. 1963. Commercial fisheries investigations, pesticide-wildlife studies:
A review of Fish and Wildlife Service investigations during 1961-1962. U.S. Dept.
Inter. Fish Wildl. Circ. 167:11-25.
Butler, P.A. 1964. Pesticide-wildlife studies, 1963. A review of fish and wildlife service
investigations during the calendar year. U.S. Dept. Inter. Fish Wildl. Circ. 199.
Butler, P.A. 1965. Commercial fisheries investigations. Effects of pesticides on fish
and wildlife, 1964. Research findings Fish Wildl. Serv. U.S. Inter. Fish Wildl. Circ.
Butler, P.A. 1966. The problem of pesticides in estuaries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec.
Publ. 3:110-115.
Butler, P.A., A.J. Wilson and A.J. Rick. 1960. Effect of pesticides on oysters.
Proc. Nat. Shellfish Assn. 51:23-32.
Calabrese, A., R.S. Collier, D.A. Nelson and J.R. Maclnnes. 1973. The toxicity of heavy
metals to embryos of the American oyster Crassostrea virginica.. Mar. Biol. 18:162-
166.
Calabrese, A. and D.A. Nelson. 1974. Inhibition of embryonic development of the hard
clam, Mercenaria mercenaria by heavy metals. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
11:92-97.
Calabrese, A., J.R. Maclnnes, D.A. Nelson and J.E. Miller. 1977. Survival and growth of
bivalve larvae under heavy metal stress. Mar. Biol. 41:179-184.
Cardwell, R.D., D.G. Foremen, T.R. Payne, and D.J. Wilbur. 1976. Acute toxicity of
selected toxicants to six species of fish. Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA 600/3-76-008. Environ.
Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Duluth, MN. 117 p.
Carlson, F.T. 1968. Suitability of the Susquehanna River for the restoration of shad.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Maryland Board of Natural Resources, New York
Conservation Department, and Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Washington, D.C. 60
pp.
Carriker, M.R. 1961. Interrelation of functional morphology, behaviour, and
autecology in early stages of the bivalve Mercenaria mercenaria. J. Elisha
Mitchell Sci. Soc. 77:168-241.
Chittenden, M.E., Jr. 1969. Life history and ecology of the American shad, Alosa
sapidissima, in the Delaware River. Ph.D. Thesis. Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, N.J. 458 pp.
Chittenden, M.E., Jr. and J.R. Westman. 1967. Highlights of the American shad on the
Delaware River. Dept. Environ. Sci. Rutgers Univ. 9 pp.
Colton, J.B., Jr., W.G. Smith, A.W. Kendall, Jr., P.L. Berrien, and M.P. Fahay. 1979.
Principal spawning areas and times of marine fishes, Cape Sable to Cape Hatteras.
U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 76:911-914.
Cooper, J.C. and T.T. Polgar. 1981. Recognition of year-class dominance in striped bass
management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110:180-187.
-73-
-------
Connery, J. (ed.) 1987. " Report of the Workshop on Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources". Eastern Research Group, Arlington, MA.
Costlow, J.D., Jr. 1967. The effect of salinity and temperature on survival and
metamorphosis of megalops of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus Helgolander wiss.
Meeresunters. 15:84-97.
Costlow, J.D., Jr., and C.G. Bookhout. 1959. The larval development of Callinectes
sapidus Rathbun reared in the laboratory. Biol. Bull. 116:373-396.
Crisp, D.J. 1967. Chemical factors inducing settlement in Crassostrea virginica
(Gmelin). J. Anim. Ecol. 36:329-335.
Daniel, D.A. 1967. A laboratory study to define the relationahip between survival of
young striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and their food supply. State of California,
The Resources Agency. Dept. Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Branch,
Administrative Rept. No. 76-1. 13 pp.
Davis, J. 1973. Spawning sites and nurseries of fishes of the genus Alosa in Virginia.
Pages 140-141 in A.L. Pacheco, ed. Proceedings of a workshop on egg, larval and
juvenile stages of fish in Atlantic Coast estuaries. Tech. Publ. No. 1, Natl. Mar. Fish.
Serv. Mid. Atlantic Coast. Fish. Cent., Highlands, N.J. 338 pp.
Davies, W.P. 1970. The effect of temperature, pH and total dissolved solids on the
survival of immature striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum). PhD. Thesis, North
Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, 100 pp.
Davis, H.C. 1953. On food and feeding of larvae of the American oyster
C. virginica. Biol. Bull. 104:334-350.
Davis, H.C. and A. Calabrese. 1964. Combined effects of temperature and salinity on
development of eggs and growth of larvae of M. mercenaria and C. virginica. Fish
Bull. 63:643-655.
Doroshev, S.I. 1970. Biological features of the eggs, larvae, and young of the striped
bass, Roccus saxatilis (Walbaum), in connection with the problem of its
acclimatization in the U.S.S.R. J. Ichthyol. 10:235-248.
Dovel, W. L. 1971. Fish eggs and larvae of the upper Chesapeake Bay. Natural
Resources Inst., U. of Md., Spec. Rept. (4): iii+ 71.
Durbin, A.G. 1976. The Role of Fish Migration in Two Coastal Ecosystems: The Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in Narragansett Bay, and the alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) in Rhode Island ponds. PhD. Disseration. Univ. of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI.
Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and
environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid-Atlantic) -
Striped bass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. WWS/OBS-82/11.8.
Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. Fish. Bull.
64:1-480.
-74-
-------
Grant, G.C. and J. E. Olney. 1982. Assessment of larval striped bass, Moronejaxatilis
(Walbaum), stocks in Maryland and Virginia waters. Part II. Assessment of
Spawning Activitity in Major Virginia Rivers. Final report, Segment 2, to the Nat'l
Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA, (Grant No. NA81FAD - VA3B), 42 pp.
Hardy, J. D, Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the mid-Atlantic Bight: an atlas of the
egg, larval and juvenile stages, Volume III. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Prog.
Rep. No. FWS/OBS-78/12. 394 pp.
Harper, J. L., and R. Jarman. 1972. Investigation of striped bass, Roccus saxatilis
(Walbaum), culture in Oklahoma. Proc. 25th Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game
Fish Comm. 1971:510-512.
Harrison, W., J.J. Norcross, N.A. Pore, and E.M. Stanley. 1967. Circulation of Shelf
Waters off the Chesapeake Bight, Surface and Bottom Drift of Continential Shelf
Waters Between Cape Henlopen, Delaware, and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. June
1963-December 1964. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Prof. Paper 3, Environmental Sci.
Ser. Admin., Washington D.C. 82 pp.
Haven, D.S. 1957. "Distribution, Growth, and Availability of Juvenile Croaker,
Micropogon undulatus, in Virginia". Ecology 38(l):88-97.
Haven, D.S., W.J. Hargis, and P.C. Kendall. 1978. The oyster industry of Virginia: Its
status, problems and promise. Virginia Ins. Mar. Sci., Spec. Papers Mar. Sci. (No.
4). 1024 pp.
Haven, D.S. and V.G. 1982. The Oyster - a shellfish delicacy. Leaflet 11, 2nd. ed., Marine
Resources of the Atlantic Coast. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 8 pp.
Hildebrand, S. F. 1963. Family Clupeidae. Pages 257-385, 397-442, and 452-454 in Fishes
of the western North Atlantic. Sears Found. Mar. Res. Mem. 1(3).
Holland, A.F., N.K. Mountford, M.H. Hiegel, K.R. Kaumeyer and J.A. Mihursky. 1980.
Influence of predation on infaunal abundance in upper Chesapeake Bay, USA.
Mar. Biol. 57:221-235.
Hollis, E.H. 1952. Variations in the feeding habits of the striped bass Roccus saxatilis
(Walbaum), in Chesapeake Bay. Bull. Bingham. Oceanog. Coll. 14:111-131.
Homer, M. and W.R. Boynton. 1978. Stomach Analysis of Fish Collected in the Calvert
Cliffs Region, Chesapeake Bay - 1977. Final Report to: Md. DNR Power Plant Siting
Program. Annapolis, MD.
Humphries, E.T. 1971. Culture of striped bass (Morone saxatilis, Walbaum) fingerlings
in Virginia. PhD Thesis, Va. Polytechnic Inst, and State University. 77 pp.
Ingle, R.M. 1951. Spawning and setting of oysters in relation to seasonal
environmental changes. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib. 1:111-135.
Johnson, G.D. 1978. Developement of fishes of the mid-Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg,
larval and juvenile stages. Volume IV. Carrangidae through Ephippidae. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services
Program. FWS/OBS-78/12. 314 p.
-75-
-------
Johnson, R.K. and T.S.Y. Koo. 1975. Production and distribution of striped bass
(Morone saxatilis) eggs in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Chesapeake Sci
16:39-55.
Jones, P.W., F.D. Martin, and J.D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the mid-
Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. Vol. 1. U.S. Fish Wildl
Serv. Biol. Serv. Program FWS/OBS-78/12.
Kaufmann, L.S., D.S. Becker, and R.G. Otto. 1980. Patterns of distribution and
abundance of macro-benthos at Taylors Island, Maryland, with implications for
monitoring programs. CBI Spec. Rep. 81, Ref. 80-4, 34 pp.
Keeney, M. 1975. Biochemical and nutritional interactions between the oyster
Crassostrea virginica and its environment. Univ. Maryland Water Resources
Research Center Technical Report No. 32, 5 pg.
Kendall, A.W., Jr. and L.A. Walford. 1979. Sources and distribution of bluefish,
Pomatomus saltatrix, larvae and juveniles off the east coast of the United States.
Fish. Bull. 77(l):213-227.
Kennedy, V.S. 1980. Comparison of recent and past patterns of oyster settlement and
seasonal fouling in Broad Creek and Tred Avon River, Maryland. Proc. Natl.
Shellfish Assoc. 70:36-40.
Kennedy, V.S. and L.L. Breisch. 1981. Maryland's oysters: research and management.
Univ. of Maryland Sea Grant Publication, UM-SG-TS-81-04, College Park, MD. 20742
286 p.
Kernehan, R.J., B.E. Beitz and S.L. Tyler. 1975. Ichthyoplankton. Vol. II. In: Ecological
studies in the vicinity of the Summit Power Station, January through December,
1974. 618 p. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Box 286, R.d. #1, Middletown, DE. 19709.
Koo, T.S.Y. 1970. The striped bass fishery in the United States. Chesapeake Sci.
11:73-93.
Leggett, W.C. 1976. The American shad (Alosa sapidissima) with special reference to
its migration and population dynamics in the Connecticut River. Am. Fish. Soc.
Monogr. 1:169-225.
Leim, A.H. 1924. The life history of the shad (Alosa sapidissima (Wilson)) with special
reference to the factors limiting its abundance. Contrib. Can. Biol. 2(11): 161-284.
Levesque, R.C. and R.J. Reed. 1972. Food availability and consumption by young
Connecticut River shad, Alosa sapidissima, in the lower Connecticut River.
Chesapeake Sci. 13(2): 116-119.
Lewis, R.M. 1966. Effects of salinity and temperature on survival and development of
larval Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95:423-426.
Lippson, A.J., M.S. Haire, A.F. Holland, F. Jacobs, J. Jensen, R.L. Moran-Johnson, T.T.
Polgar and W.A. Richkus. 1979. Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary.
Prepared for Power Plant Siting Program, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources by Environmental Center, Martin Marietta Corporation, 1450 S. Rolling
Rd., Baltimore, MD 21227.
-76-
-------
Lippson, R.L. 1971. Blue crab study in Chesapeake Bay Maryland: Ann. Progress Rept.
Univ. of Maryland Natural Resources Institute, Chesapeake Biological Lab.,
Solomons, MD 20688, Ref. No. 71-9.
Lippson, A.J. and R.L. Moran. 1974. Manual for Identification of Early Development
Stages of Fishes of the Potomac River Estuary. Power Plant Siting Program, Md.
Dept. Nat. Res. 282 pp.
Loesch, J.G. and W.A. Lund, Jr. 1977. A contribution to the life history of the blueback
herring, Alosa aestivalis. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106:583-589.
Loesch, J.G. and W.H. Kriete, Jr. 1976. Biology and management of river herring and
shad. Completion Rep. Anadromous Fish. Project. 1974-76-Va. AFC 8-1 to 8-3, 226 pp.
Loosanoff, V.L. 1958. Some aspects of behavior of oysters at different temperatures.
Biol. Bull. 114:57-70.
Loosanoff, V.L. 1965. Gonad development and discharge of spawn in oysters of Long
Island Sound. Biol. Bull. 129:546-561.
Mansueti, R.J. 1962. Eggs, larvae and young of the hickory shad, with comments on its
ecology in the estuary. Chesapeake Sci. 3:173-205.
Mansueti, R.J. 1961. Age, growth and movements of the striped bass, Roccus saxatilis,
taken in size selective fishing gear in Maryland. Chesapeake Sci. 2:9-36.
Mansueti, R.J. 1964. Eggs, larvae and young of the white perch, Roccus americanus,
with comments on its ecology in the estuary. Chesapeake Sci. 5:3-45.
Mansueti, R.J. and H. Kolb. 1953. A historical review of the shad fisheries of North
America. Md. Dep. Res. Educ. Publ. 97. 293 pp.
McHugh, J.L. and L.E. Fitch. 1951. An annotated list of the clupeoid fishes of the
Pacific Coast, from Alaska to Cape St. Lucas, Baja California. Calif. Fish Game
37:491-495.
Miller W.S., E.M. Wallace, C.N. Schuster, Jr., and R.E. Hillman. 1975. Hard Clam - the
gourmet's delight. Leaflet 14, Marine Resources of the Atlantic Coast. Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, 8 pp.
Morgan, R.P., II and V.J. Rasin, Jr. 1982. Influence of temperature and salinity on
development of white perch eggs. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111:396-398.
Morgan, R.P., II, V.J. Rasin, Jr. and L.A. Noe. 1973. Hydrographic and ecological
effects of enlargement of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Appendix XI; Effects
of suspended sediments on the development of eggs and larvae of striped bass and
white perch.
Neves, R.J. 1981. Offshore distribution of alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and blue-
back herring, Alosa aestivalis, along the Atlantic Coast. Fish. Bull. 79(3):473-485.
-77-
-------
Olney, J.E. 1983. Eggs and early larvae of the Bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli and the
weakfish, Cynuscia regalis, in lower Chesapeake Bay with notes on associated
ichthyoplankton. Estuaries 6:20-35.
O'Rear, C.W., Jr. 1972. The toxicity of zinc and copper to striped bass eggs and fry with
methods for providing confidence limits, p. 427-434. In: Proceedings of the 26th
Meeting of Southern Assoc. of Game and Fish Commissioners. Knoxville, Tenn.
Raney, E.D. 1952. The life history of the striped bass (Roccus saxatilis) (Walbaum).
Bull. Bingham. Oceanogr. Collect; Yale Univ. 14(l):5-97.
Raney, E.C., and W.H. Massmann. 1953. The fishes of the tidewater section of the
Pamunkey River, Virginia. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 43(12):424-32.
Rehwoldt, R.E., E. Kelley and M. Mahoney. 1977. Investigations into acute toxicity and
some chronic effects of selected herbicides and pesticides on several freshwater
fish species. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18:361-365.
Richkus, W.A. 1986. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Striped Bass
Management Plan. Prepared for the Striped Bass S & S Committee.
Scott, R.F. and J.G. Boone. 1973. Fish Distribution in Various Areas of Maryland
Tidewater as Derived from Shore Zone-seining 1956-1972. Md. Dept. Nat. Res. Fish.
Admin., Annapolis MD.
Setzler, E.M., W.R. Boynton, K.V. Wood, H.H. Zion, L. Lubbers, N.K. Mountford, P. Frere,
L. Tucker and J.A. Mihursky. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on striped bass,
Morone saxatilis (Walbaum). NOAA Technical Report, NMFS Circular 433, 69 pp.
Stagg, Cluney. 1985. An Evaluation of the Information Available for Managing
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries: Preliminary Stock Assesments. Volume I. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Maryland.
Sykes, J.E. and B.A. Lehman. 1957. Past and present Delaware River shad fishery and
considerations for its future. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Res. Rep. No. 46. 25 pp.
Ulanowicz, R.E. and D. Baird. 1986. A Network Analysis of the Chesapeake Bay
Ecosystem. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tidewater Administration.
Ref. No. [UMCEES] CBL 86-79.
Ulanowicz, R.E. and T.T. Polgar. 1980. Influences of anadromous spawning behavior
and optimal environmental conditions upon striped bass (Morone saxatilis) year
class success. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:143-154.
VanCleve, R. 1945. A preliminary report on the fishery resources of California in
relation to the Central Valley project. Calif. Fish and Game. 31:35-52.
VanEngel, W.A. 1958. The blue crab and its fishery in Chesapeake Bay, Part 1:
Reproduction, early development, growth and migration. Comm. Fish. Rev.
20(6):6-17.
VanEngel, W.A., D. Cargo and F. Wojcik. 1973. The edible blue crab - abundant
crustacean. Leaflet 15 Marine Resources of the Atlantic Coast. Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission. 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
-------
Walburg, C.H. 1960. Abundance and life history of the shad, St. Johns River, Florida.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 60(177): 487-501.
Westin, D.T. and B.A. Rogers. 1978. Synopsis of biological data on the striped bass,
Morone saxatilis (Walbaum) 1792. University of Rhode Island Marine Technical
Rept. 67, Kingston, RI.
SELECTED REFERENCES:
Auld, A.H. and J.R. Schubel. 1978. Effects of suspended sediment on fish eggs and
larvae: a laboratory assessment. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 6:153-164.
Bain, M.B. and J.L. Bain. 1982a. Habitat suitability index model: coastal stocks of striped
bass. Rep. Natl. Coastal Ecosystems Team, U.S. Fish. Wild. Serv. Rep. No. FWS/OBS
82/10.1, Washington, D.C. 47 pp.
Beaven, M. and J. Mihursky. 1980. Food and feeding habits of larval striped bass: an
analysis of larval striped bass stomachs from 1976 Potomac Estuary collections.
Rep. Maryland Univ. Chesapeake Biol. Lab. UMCEES 79-45-CBL, PPSP-PRFF 80-2.
27 pp.
Berggren, T.J. and J.T. Lieberman. 1978. Relative contribution of Hudson, Chesapeake,
and Roanoke striped bass stocks to the Atlantic coast fishery. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish.
Serv. Fish. Bull. 76: 335-345.
Bogdanov, A.S., S.I. Doroshev, and A.F. Karpevich. 1967. Experimental transfer of
Salmo gairdneri and Roccus saxatilis from the USA for acclimatization in bodies of
water of the USSR. Vopr. Ikhtiol. 42: 185-187. (Translated from Russian by R.M.
Howland, Narragansett Mar. Game Fish Res. Lab., R.I.)
Bovee, K.D. and T. Cochnauer. 1977. Development and evaluation of weighted criteria,
probability-of-use curves for instream flow assessments: fisheries. Instream Flow
Information Paper 3. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-77/63. 39 pp.
Boynton, W.R., E.M. Setzler, K.V. Wood, H.H. Zion, and M. Homer. 1977. Final report of
Potomac River fisheries study: ichthyoplankton and juvenile.
Carlson, F.T. and J.A. McCann. 1969. Report on the biological findings of the Hudson
River fisheries investigations, 1965 - 1968. Hudson River Policy Committee, N.Y.
State Conserv. Dep. 50 pp.
Clady, M.D. 1976. Influence of temperature and wind on the survival of early stages of
yellow perch, Perca flavescens. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 33:1887-1893.
Clady, M. and B. Hutchinson. 1975. Effects of high winds on eggs of yellow perch in
Oneida Lake, New York. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104(3):524-525.
Coots, M. 1956. The yellow perch, Perca flavescens (Mitchill), in the Klamath River.
Calif. Fish Game. 42(3):219-228.
Davis, J.C. 1975. Minimal dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life with emphasis
on Canadian species: a review. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32(12):2295-2332.
-79-
-------
Dorfman, D. and J. Westman. 1970. Responses of some anadromous fishes to varied
oxygen concentration and increases in temperature. Water Resour. Res. Inst.
Publ. No. PB192312, Rutgers University. 75 pp.
Dovel, W.L. 1971. Fish eggs and larvae of the upper Chesapeake Bay. Univ. Maryland,
Nat. Resour. Inst. Spec. Rep. No. 4. 71 pp.
Edsall, T.A. 1970. The effect of temperature on the rate of development and survival of
alewife eggs and larvae. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99:376-380.
Hassler, W.W., W.L. Trent, and B.J. Florence. 1966. The status and abundance of the
striped bass in the Roanoke River, North Carolina, for 1965. Rep. to the N.C. Dept.
of Conserv. and Dev., Div. of Commer. Sport Fish., Raleigh. 52 pp.
Hildebrand, S.F. 1963. Family Clupeidae. Pages 257-454 in Fishes of the Western North
Atlantic. Mem. Sears Found. Mar. Res. 1(3).
Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur.
Fish. 43(l):l-366.
Hollis, E.H. 1967. Investigation of striped bass in Maryland. Md. Dep. Game Inland Fish.
Rep. No. MD F-003-R-12. 96 pp.
Johnson, H.B., B.F. Holland, Jr., and S.G. Keefe. 1977. Anadromous fisheries research
program, northern coastal area. N. C. Div. Mar. Fish. Rep. No. AFCS-11. 138 pp.
Jones, P.W., F.D. Martin and J.D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the mid-
Atlantic Bight. An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stage. Volume I. Acipenseridae
through Ictaluridae. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program. FWS 78/12. 366 p.
Jordan, S.J. 1987. Sedimentation and remineralization associated with oyster
[Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin)] biodeposition. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Md. College
Park, MD.
Kernehan, R.J., M.R. Headrick, and R.E. Smith. 1981. Early life history of striped bass
in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and vicinity. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110:137-
150.
Kohlenstein, L.C. 1981. On the proportion of the Chesapeake Bay stock of striped bass
that migrates into the coastal fishery. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110: 168-179.
Koo, T.S.Y. 1970. The striped bass fishery in the Atlantic States. Chesapeake Sci. 11:73-
93.
Leggett, W.C.G., and R.R. Whitney. 1972. Water temperature and the migrations of the
American shad. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. No. 70. 670 pp.
Leim, A.H., and W.B. Scott. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic coast of Canada. Fish. Res. Board
Can. Bull. No. 155. 485 pp.
Loesch, J.G. 1968. A contribution to the life history of Alosa aestivalis. M.S. Thesis.
University of Connecticut, Storrs. 31 pp.
-80-
-------
Loesch, J.G., and W.A. Lund. 1977. A contribution to the life history of the blueback
herring. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106: 583-589.
Loesch, J.G., R.J. Hugget, and E.J. Foell. 1982b. Kepone concentration in juvenile
anadromous fishes. Estuaries 5(3): 175-181.
Lund, W.A., Jr. 1957. Morphometric study of the striped bass. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 216. 24 pp.
Mansueti, R.J. 1956. Alewife herring eggs and larvae reared successfully in lab.
Maryland Tidewater News 13(1): 2-3.
Mansueti, R.J. 1962. Eggs, larvae and young of the hickory shad, with comments on its
ecology in the estuary. Chesapeake Sci. 3: 173-205.
Mansueti, R.J. 1958a. Eggs, larvae, and young of the striped bass. Chesapeake Lab. Biol.
Contrib. No. 112. 35 pp.
Mansueti, R.J., and E.H. Hollis. 1963. Striped bass in Maryland tidewater. Univ. Md. Nat.
Resour. Inst. Educ. Ser. No. 61. 28 pp.
Mansueti, R.J., and A.J. Mansueti. 1955. White perch eggs and larvae studied in lab.
Maryland Tidewater News 12(7): 1-3.
Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1969. Age determination from scales of Alosa pseudoharengus and
Alosa aestivalis in Connecticut waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98: 621-630.
Markle, D.F., and G.C. Grant. 1970. The summer food habits of young of the year striped
bass in three Virginia rivers. Chesapeake Sci. 11: 50-54.
Massman, W.H. and A.L. Pacheco. 1961. Movements of striped bass in Virginia waters
of Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 2: 37-44.
Moore, W.G. 1942. Field studies on the oxygen requirements of certain freshwater
fishes. Ecology 23(3):319-329.
Morgan, R.P., II, and R.D. Prince. 1977. Chlorine toxicity to eggs and larvae of five
Chesapeake Bay fishes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106:380-385.
Morgan, R.P., II, V.J. Rasin, Jr., and R.L. Copp. 1981. Temperature and salinity effects
on development of striped bass eggs and larvae. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110: 95-99.
Muncy, R.J. 1962. Life history of the yellow perch, Perca flavescens, in estuarine
waters of Severn River, a tributary of Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. Chesapeake Sci.
3(3): 143-159.
Murawski, W.S. 1958. Comparative study of populations of the striped bass based on
lateral line scale counts. M.S. Thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 80 pp.
Nakashima, B.S., and W.C. Leggett. 1975. Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) biomass
responses to different levels of phytoplankton and benthic biomass in Lake
Memphremagog, Quebec-Vermont. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:1785-1797.
-81-
-------
Nelson, W.R. and C.H. Walburg. 1977. Population dynamics of yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), sauger (Stizostedion canadense), and walleye (5. vitreum vitreum) in
four main stem Missouri River reservoirs. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34(10):1748-
1763.
Pearson, J.C. 1938. The life history of the striped bass, or rockfish. U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull.
No. 49: 825-860.
Polgar, T., R.E. Ulanowicz, and A. Pyne. 1975. Preliminary analyses of physical trans-
port and related striped bass ichthyoplankton distribution properties in the Po-
tomac River in 1974. Potomac River Fish. Prog. Rep. Ser. Ref. No. PRFP-75-2. 51 pp.
Polgar, T., J.A. Mihursky, R.E. Ulanowicz, R.P. Morgan II, and J.S. Wilson. 1976. An
analysis of 1974 striped bass spawning success in the Potomac Estuary. Pages 151-
165 in M. Wiley, ed. Estuarine processes, Volume 1. Academic Press, New York.
Radtke, L.D., and J.L. Turner. 1967. High concentrations of total dissolved solids block
spawning migration of striped bass in the San Joaquin River, California. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 96: 405-407.
Rahel, FJ. 1983. Population differences in acid tolerance between yellow perch,
Perca flavescens, from naturally acidic and alkaline lakes. Can. J. Zool. 61:147-152.
Raney, E.C. 1952. The life history of the striped bass. Bingham Oceanogr. Collect., Yale
Univ. Bull. 14: 5-97.
Ritchie, D.E. and T.S.Y. Koo. 1968. Movement of juvenile striped bass in the estuary as
determined by tagging and recapture. Chesapeake Biol. Lab. Rep. No. 68-31. 1 p.
Rogers, B.A., and D.T, Westin. 1978. A culture methodology for striped bass. EPA Ecol.
Res. Ser. Rep. No. 660/3-78-000.
Runn, P., N. Johansson, and G. Milbrink. 1977. Some effects of low pH on the
hatchability of eggs of perch. Zoon 5:115127.
Schneider, J.C. 1973. Influence of diet and temperature on food consumption and
growth by yellow perch, with supplemental observations on the blue-gill.
Michigan Dept. Nat. Resour. Fish. Res. Rep. 1802. 25 pp.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can.
Bull. 184. 966 pp.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bull. Fish. Resour.
Board Can. 184. 996 pp.
Sellers, M.A. and J.G. Stanley. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic)-- American
oyster. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. FWS/OBS-82/11.23. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 15 pp.
Smith, B.A. 1971. The fishes of four low salinity tidal tributaries of the Delaware River
Estuary. M.S. Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 304 pp.
-82-
-------
Smith, R.E. and R.J. Kemehan. 1981. Predation by the free living copepod Cyclops
bicuspidatus on larvae of striped bass and white perch. Estuaries 21(4):32-38.
Stroud, R.H. 1967. Water quality criteria to protect aquatic life: a summary. Am. Fish.
Soc. Spec. Publ. 4:33-37.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Standards for the development of habitat
suitability index models. 103 ESM. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. n.p.
Finfish:
References for Key Species of Finfish cited in the Habitat
Requirements Matrices
Habitat Suitability Index Models:
(1) Striped bass FWS/OBS 82/11.8. 1983. 27 pp.
FWS/OBS 82/10.1 1982 23 pp.
FAO Synopsis No. 121- 1980 6/ pp.
(2) Blueback herring FWS/OBS 82/11.9 1983 20 pp.
Alewife FWS/OBS 82/10.58 1983 17 pp.
(3) American shad Biological Report 82(10.88) 1985 27 pp.
Hickory shad Biological Report 82(11.45) 1986 15 pp.
Biological Report 82(11.37) 1985 15 pp.
(4) Yellow perch FWS/OBS 82/10.55 1983 32 pp
(5) White perch FWS/OBS 82/. 11.7 1983 10 pp.
(6) Menhaden FWS/OBS 82/11.11 1983. 15 pp.
(7) Spot FWS/OBS 82/10.20 1982 10 pp.
* All the above publications are from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. Chesapeake Bay Low Freshwater
Inflow Study. Appendix E-Biota. 1984.
Setzler, E.; Boynton, W.; Wood, K.; Zion, H.: Lubbers, L; Mountford, N.; Frere, P.; Tucker,
L.; and Mihursky, J.; Synopsis of Biological Data on Striped Bass, Morons saxatilis
(Walbaum). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular 433. NMFS/S 121. U.S.
Bigelow, H.B and W.C. Schroeder, 1953. Striped bass Roccus saxatilis (Walbaum) 179.2.
In Fisheries Wildlife Service., Fish Bull. 53.
Kaumeyer, K.R. and E.M. Setzler-Hamilton 1982. Effects of Pollutants and Water Quality
on Selected Estuarine Fish and Invertebrates: A Review of the Literature. Ref. No.
UMCEES 82-130 CBL. 157 pp.
Klein, R. and J.C. O'Dell. 1987. "Physical Habitat Requirement for Fish and Other
Living Resources Inhabiting Class I and II Waters". Internal Document, Md. Dept.
of Nat. Res., Tidewater Administration.
Lippson, A.J. and R.L. Lippson. 1984. Life in the Chesapeake Bay. The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 221 pp.
-83-
-------
Barnes, R.D., ed. 1974. Invertebrate Zoology. W.B. Saunders Company: Philadelphia, Pa
84 pp.
Wang, J.C.S., and R.J. Kemehan. 1979. Fishes of the Delaware Estuaries. E.A.
Communications. Towson, Md. 341 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/5-86-
001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. "Report of the Workshop on Habitat
Requirements for the Chesapeake Bay Living Resources" (1987). Prepared by
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
These sources supplied most of the life history information quoted; additional
information on food, contaminants, etc. was taken from the more general sources
cited above.
Shellfish:
References for Key Species of Shellfish Cited in the Habitat
Requirements Matrices
Habitat Suitability Index Models:
American oyster Biological Report 82(11.65) FWS 1986. 17 pp.
Blue crab FWS/OBS - 82/11.19 1984 13 pp.
Soft shell clam Biological Report 82(11.68) FWS 1986 15 pp.
Hard shell clam Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton. 1982.
* These sources supplied most of the life history information quoted;
additional information on food, contaminants, etc. was taken from
the more general sources cited above.
Waterfowl:
References for Key Species of Birds Cited in the Habitat Requirements Matrices
Habitat Suitability Index Models:
(1) Wood Duck FWS/OBS 82/10.43. 1983. 27 pp.
(2) Redhead (wintering) FWS/OBS 82/10.53. 1983. 14 pp.
(3) American black duck (wintering) FWS/OBS 82/10.68 1984. 16 pp.
* All the above publications are from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Wash. DC 20240.
Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wildfowl, Part. 1 Dover Publications,
Inc., New York, NY. 239 pp.
Johngard, P.A. 1975. Waterfowl of North America. Indiana University Press. 575 pp.
-84-
-------
These sources supplied most of the life history information quoted; additional
information on food, contaminants, etc. was taken from the more general sources
cited below.
Wading Birds:
Habitat Suitability Index Models:
(1) Great blue heron FWS/OBS 82(10.99). 1985. 23 pp.
(2) Great egret FWS/OBS 82/(10.78). 1984. 23 pp.
The above publications are from the USFWS, U.S. Dept of Interior, Wash. DC 20240.
Bent, A.C. 1963. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Publications,
Inc., New York, NY. 385 pp.
Erwin, R.M. 1979. Coastal Waterbird Colonies: Cape Elizabeth, Maine to Virginia.
FWS/OBS-79/10. 212 pp.
See also general references below.
Raptors:
Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Part 1. Dover
Publications, Inc., New York, NY. 398 pp.
Bird, D.M., N.R. Seymour and J.M. Gerrard. 1983. Biology and Management of Bald
Eagles and Ospreys. MacDonald Raptor Research Center of McGill University -
Proceedings of 1st International Symposium, Montreal, Canada, October 1981.
325 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. The Chesapeake Bay Region Eagle Recovery Plan.
Region 5, USFWS. 81 pp.
General:
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1951. Food of Game Ducks in the United States and Canada.
Research Report 30. U.S. Dept. of Interior. 308 pp.
Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim and A.L. Nelson. 1961. American Wildlife and Plants - A Guide to
Wildlife Food Habits. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY. 500 pp.
Collins, H.H., Jr., Ed. 1981. Complete Field Guide to North American Wildlife. Eastern
Edition. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York. 714 pp.
Wernert, S.J., Ed. 1982. North American Wildlife. Readers Digest Association, Inc.,
Pleasantsville, NY. 539 pp.
Stevenson, J.C. and N. Confer. 1978. Summary of Available Information on Chesapeake
Bay Submerged Vegetation. FWS/OBS 78/66. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, co-
sponsored by Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 335 pp.
-85-
-------
Contaminant Sources:
U.S. EPA. 1982. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. Part IV
SAV. pp. 379-634.
Brown, A.W.A. 1978. Ecology of Pesticides. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
525 pp.
Ohlendorf, H.M., E.E. Klaas and T.E. Kaiser. 1979. Environmental Pollutants and
Eggshell Thickness: Anhingas and Wading Birds in the Eastern U.S. Special
Scientific Report - Wildlife #216. USFWS, U.S. Dept. Of Interior. 94 pp.
* Provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1987)
-86-
-------
APPENDIX A:
TOXICITY OF SUBSTANCES TO STRIPED BASS LARVAE AND JUVENILES
Adapted from Westin and Rogers. 1978.
Synopsis of Biological Data on the
Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis
(Valbaum) 1972" University of
Rhode Island, Marine Technical
Report 67, Kingston, RI
-------
-TABLE 1-
TOXICITY OF SUBSTANCES TO STRIPED BASS LARVA
SUBSTANCE
96-HOUR TLm
(95% C.I.)
(mg/1)
AUTHOR
Acriflavine
5.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Aldrin
0.01 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Ami fur
10.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Butyl ester of 2,4-D
0.15 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Cadmium
0.001 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Chloride
1000 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Chlorine
0.20 (NA)
Morgan
Princ<
0.40-0.07 incipient
Middaugh et al
Copper
0.05 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Copper
0.31 (0.12-3.08)
O'Rear
1971)
Copper sulfate
0.1 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Dieldrin
0.001 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Diquat
1.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Diuron
0.5(NA)
Hughes
1973)
Dylox
5.0 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Ethyl parathion
2.0 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Formaldehyde
10.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
HTH
0.5 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Iron
4.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Karmex
0.5 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Malachita green
0.05 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Methylene blue
1.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Methyl parathion
5.0 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Potassium dichromate
100 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Potassium permanganate
1.0 (NA)
Hughes
1971)
Roccal
0.5 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Rotenone
0.001 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Sulfate
250 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Tad-Tox
5.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Terramycin
50.0 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Zinc
0.1 (NA)
Hughes
1973)
Zinc
1.18 (0.25-2.46)
O'Rear
1971)
a All 4-7 day-old larvae from Moncks Corner, South
Carolina,
ested
C, except O'Rear (1971)
which were tested in 14-19 C range,
Morgan
Prince (1977) not specified, and Middaugh et al.
(1977) at
8 C.
b NA = not available (i.e.
, neither given nor calculatable).
(1977)
c 48-hour TLm
d 96-hour LCo
e 24-hour TLm
-------
-TABLE 2-
TOXICITY OF SUBSTANCES TO JUVENILE STRIPED BASS
SUBSTANCE TEST 96-HOUR TLm AUTHOR
TEMP C (95% C.I.)
(mg/1)
Abate
13
Achromycin
21-22
Acriflavine
21
Aldrin
13
21
20
Ami fur
21
Ammonium hydroxide
15
23
Aquathol
21
Bayluscide
21
Benzene
17.4
16
Butyl ester of
21
2,4-D
20
Cadmium
21
Carbaryl
17
Casoron
21
Chlordane
15
Chloride
21
Chlorine
18
Cooling Tower
4.5-6j
Blowdown and
18.5-2
Power Plant
Chemical Discharge
Co-Ral
21
Copper
21
17
Copper sulfate
21
21-22
21
Cutrine
21
DDD
17
DDT
17
Dibrom
13
Dieldrin
14
21
Diquat
21
21
Diuron (Karmex)
21
1.0 (NA)
190 (153.2-235.6)
27.5 (NA)
16.0 (14.7-17.4)
0.0072 (0.0034-0.0152
LCo 0.075 (NA)
0.010 (NA)
LCo 30.0 (NA)
1.9-2.85
1.4-2.8
610 (634-795)
72 hr. 1.05 (0.94-1.18)
10.9 ul/1 (+0.02)
5.8 ul/1
3.0 (NA)
70.0 (NA)
0.002 (NA)
1.0 (NA)
6,2000 (5,210-7,378)
0.0118 (0.0057-0.024)
5000 (NA)
0.04 incipient
>4. OX
>4.OX [incipient LC50
w/o CL2, 3.6X
(3.81X -3.4X)]
62 (53-73)
0.05 (NA)
4.3 (NA)
0.15 (NA)
0.6 (0.51-0.83)
0.62 (0.54-0.71)
0.1 (NA)
0.0025 (0.0016-0.004)
0.00053 (0.00038-
0.00084)
0.5 (0.1-2.4)
0.0197 (0.0098-
0.00334)
0.25 (NA)
10.0 (NA)
80 (74-86)
6.0 (NA)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Kelley (1969)
Hughes (1973)
Wellborn (1971)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Hughes (1973)
Rehwoldt et al. (1977)
Hughes (1973)
Hazel et al. (1971)
II M II II
Wellborn (1971)
Wellborn (1971)
Meyerhoff (1975)
Benville and Korn (1977)
Hughes (1971)
Rehvoldt et al. (1977)
Hughes (1973)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Wellborn (1971)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Hughes (1973)
Middaugh et al. (1977)
Texas Instruments (1974)
Wellborn (1971)
Hughes (1973)
Rehwoldt et al. (1971)
Hughes (1971)
Kelley (1969)
Wellborn (1969)
Hughes (1973)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Hughes (1973)
Hughes (1973)
Wellborn (1969)
Hughes (1973)
-------
-TABLE 2 (cont.)-
SUBSTANCE
TEST
TEMP C
96-HOUR TLm
(95% C.I.)
(mg/1)
AUTHOR
Dursban
13
0.00058 (0.00035-
Korn & Earnest (1974)
0.00097)
Dylox
21
2.0 (NA)
Hughes (1971)
5.2 (4.2-8.0)
Wellborn (1969)
Endosulfan
16
0.0001 (0.000048-
Korn & Earnest (1974)
0.00021)
Endrin
17
0.000094 (0.000045-
Korn & Earnest (1974)
0.00019)
E.P.N.
18
0.60 (0.025-0.150)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Ethyl parathion
21
1.0 (NA)
Hughes (1971)
15
0.0178 (0.0048-
Korn & Earnest (1974)
0.0657)
Fenthion
13
0.453 (0.216-0.955)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Formaldehyde
21
15 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
21-
-22
20 (15.4-26)
Kelley (1969)
21
18 (10-32)
Wellborn (1969)
Heptachlor
13
0.003 (0.001-0.006)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
HTH
21
0.25 (NA)
Hughes (1971)
Instant Sea
21
LCo 17000 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
as (CI)
Iron
21
6.0 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
Karmex (Diuron)
21
6.0 (NA)
Hughes (1971)
3.1 (2.5-3.9)
Wellborn (1969)
Lindane
21
0.40 (0.35-0.46)
Wellborn (1971)
13
0.0073 (0.0045-0.0119)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Malachite green
21
0.2 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
24 hr. 0.30 (0.27-0.33)
Wellborn (1971)
Malathion
21
0.24 (0.20-0.29)
Wellborn (1971)
13
0.014 (0.013-0.015)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
20
0.039 (NA)
Rehwoldt et al. (1977)
Methoxychlor
15
0.0033 (0.0021-0.0051)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
Methylene blue
21
12.0 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
Methyl parathion
21
4.5 (NA)
Hughes (1971)
13
0.79 (0.17-1.40)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
20
14.0 (NA)
Rehwoldt et al. (1977)
MS-222
21-
-22
31.5 (25.6-37.5)
Kelley (1969)
22-
-28
24 hr. 50.0 (NA)
Tatum et al. (1965)
MS-222
21-
-22
31.5 (26.6-37.5)
Kelley (1969)
with 20 o/oo
Nickel
17
6.2 (NA)
Rehwoldt et al. (1971)
Oil field brine
21
LCo 16600 (NA)
Hughes (1968)
(as CI)
Potassium
21
75 (NA)
Hughes (1971)
dichromate
Potassium
21
4.0 (NA)
Hughes (1971)
permanganate
21-
-22
2.6 (2.17-3.12)
Kelley (1969)
-------
-TABLE 2 (cont.)-
SUBSTANCE TEST 96-HOUR TLm AUTHOR
TEMP C (95% C.I.)
(mg/1)
21
2.5 (2.1-2.9)
Wellborn (1969)
Polyotic
21
>1818 (NA)
Wellborn (1969)
PMA
21-22
1.1 (0.84-1.44)
Kelley (1969)
Quinaldine
21-22
4.5 (3.82-5.45)
Kelley (1969)
22-28
24 hr. 22.0 (NA)
Tatum et al. (1965)
Quinaldine with
21-22
5.0 (3.86-6.65)
Kelley (1969)
20 o/oo
Reconstituted
21-22
35 o/oo (NA)
Kelley (1969)
sea water
Roccal
21
1.5 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
Rotenone
21
LCo 0.001 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
Simazine
21
0.25 (0.17-0.36)
Wellborn (1969)
Sodium nitrilo-
20
5500 (NA)
Eisler et al.
triacetic acid
(1972)
Sulfate
21
3500 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
Syndet Ch
20
4.6 (NA)
Eisler et al.
(1972)
Syndet Ga
8.7 (NA)
Eisler et al.
(1972)
Tad-Tox
21
10.0 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
Terramycin
21
75.0 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
21-22
170 (140.5-205.7)
Kelley (1969)
21
178 (144-221)
Wellborn (1969)
165 (147-185)
Wellborn (1971)
Toluene
16
7.3 ul/1
Benville & Korn (1977)
Toxaphene
17
0.0044 (0.002-0.009)
Korn & Earnest (1974)
m-xylene
16
9.2 (8.3-10) ul/1
Benville & Korn (1977)
Zinc
21
0.1 (NA)
Hughes (1973)
17
6.7 (NA)
Rehwoldt et al. (1971)
2, 4, 5, T
20
14.6 (NA)
Rehwoldt et al. (1977)
a Unless specified otherwise
b NA = not available (i.e., neither given nor calculatable)
c Range of 96-hour TLm in freshwater, 33% sea water, and sea water (95X
C.I. given for percent mortality at 0, 40, 60, 80, and 100%).
-------
APPENDIX B:
HABITAT DISTRIBUTION MAPS OF CRITICAL LIFE STAGES OF
THE TARGET CHESAPEAKE BAY LIVING RESOURCE SPECIES
-------
List of Habitat Distribution Maps for the Critical Life Stages of the
Target Chesapeake Bay Living Resource Species
1. 1986 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay
2. Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis): Habitat Distribution of Legislatively
Defined Spawning Reaches and Rivers in Chesapeake Bay
3. Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis): Habitat Distribution of Nursery
Areas in Chesapeake Bay
4. Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus): Habitat Distribution of Nursery Areas
in Chesapeake Bay
5. American Shad (Alosa sapidissima): Habitat Distribution of Nursery
Areas in Chesapeake Bay
6. Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris): Habitat Distribution of Nursery Areas
in Chesapeake Bay
7. Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens): Habitat Distribution of Spawning
Areas in Chesapeake Bay
8. White Perch (Morone americana): Habitat Distribution of Spawning and
Nursery Areas in Chesapeake Bay
9. Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus): Habitat Distribution of Nursery Areas
in Chesapeake Bay
10. Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus): Habitat Distribution of Nursery Areas in
Chesapeake Bay
11. Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchelli): Habitat Distribution of Spawning and
Nursery Areas in Chesapeake Bay
12. American Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): Habitat Distribution of Seed
Areas and Suitable Substrate in Chesapeake Bay
13. Softshell Clam (Mya arenaria): Habitat Distribution in Chesapeake Bay
14. Hard Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria): Habitat Distribution in Chesapeake
Bay
15. Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidius): Summer Habitat Distribution of
Females and Spawning Areas in Chesapeake Bay
16. Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidius): Summer Habitat Distribution of Males
in Chesapeake Bay
17. Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidius): Winter Habitat Distribution of
Females in Chesapeake Bay
18. Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidius): Winter Habitat Distribution of Males
in Chesapeake Bay
19. Canvasback (Aythya valisneria): Distribution of Wintering Populations
20. Redhead Duck (Aythya americana): Distribution of Wintering Populations
21. Black Duck (Anas rubripes): Distribution of Wintering Populations
22. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa): Distribution of Wintering Populations
23. Colonial Waterbirds: Habitat Distribution of Nesting Populations in
Chesapeake Bay
24. Osprey (Pandion halaetus) and Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus):
Habitat Distribution of Nesting Populations in Chesapeake Bay
-------
1986 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Orth et al„ 1987
FIGURE 1
-------
STRIPED BASS (Morone saxatilis): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
LEGISLATIVELY DEFINED SPAWNING REACHES AND RIVERS
w
LEGEND
SPAWNING REACHES
SPAWNING RIVERS
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCES: Code of Maryland Regulations 08.02.05.02
Virginia Marine Resources Commission Regulation 450-01-0034
FIGURE 2
-------
BLUEBACK HERRING (Alosa aestivalis): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 3
-------
ALE WIFE (Alosa pseudoharengus): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 4
-------
AMERICAN SHAD (Alosa sapidissima): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 5
-------
HICKORY SHAD (Alosa mediocris): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 6
-------
YELLOW PERCH (Perca flavescens): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
SPAWNING AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
LEGEND
SPAWNING AREAS
SCALE 1:1.500.000
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 7
-------
WHITE PERCH (Morone americana): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
SPAWNING AND NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 8
-------
MENHADEN (Brevoortia tyrannus): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 9
-------
SPOT (Leiostomus xanthurus): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 10
-------
BAY ANCHOVY (Anchoa mitchilli): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF
SPAWNING AND NURSERY AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 11
-------
AMERICAN OYSTER (Crassostrea virginica): HABITAT
DISTRIBUTION OF SEED AREAS AND SUITABLE SUBSTRATE IN
CHESAPEAKE BAY
SUITABLE SUBSTRATE
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 12
-------
SOFTSHELL CLAM (Mya arenaria): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION
IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
LEGEND
HIGH DENSITY
LOW DENSITY
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 13
-------
HARD CLAM (Mercenaria mercenaria): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION
IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
LEGEND
HIGH DENSITY
LOW DENSITY
SCALE 1:1.500,000
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers. 1980 FIGURE 14
-------
BLUE CRAB (Callinectes sapidus) : SUMMER HABITAT
DISTRIBUTION OF FEMALES AND SPAWNING AREAS IN CHESAPEAKE
BAY
LEGEND
SPAWNING AREAS
HIGH DENSITY
LOW DENSITY
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980 FIGURE 15
-------
BLUE CRAB (Callinectes sapidus) : SUMMER HABITAT
DISTRIBUTION OF MALES IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
LEGEND
HIGH DENSITY
LOW DENSITY
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980
FIGURE 16
-------
BLUE CRAB (Callinectes sapidus) : WINTER HABITAT
DISTRIBUTION OF FEMALES IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980 Fl G U R E 17
-------
BLUE CRAB (Callinectes sapidus) : WINTER HABITAT
DISTRIBUTION OF MALES IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOURCE: Corps of Engineers, 1980 FIGURE 18
-------
CANVASBACK (Aythya valisneria) : DISTRIBUTION OF
WINTERING POPULATIONS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
WINTERING POPULATIONS
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCE: USFWS unpublished data
FIGURE 19
-------
REDHEAD DUCK (Aythya americana) : DISTRIBUTION OF
WINTERING POPULATIONS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
LEGEND
WINTERING POPULATIONS
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCE: USFWS unpublished data
FIGURE 20
-------
BLACK DUCK (Anas rubripes) : DISTRIBUTION OF
WINTERING POPULATIONS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
-------
WOOD DUCK (Aix sponsa) : DISTRIBUTION OF
WINTERING POPULATIONS IN CHESAPEAKE BA\
LEGEND
WINTERING POPULATIONS
SCALE 1:1,500,000
SOURCE: USFWS unpublished data
FIGURE 22
-------
COLONIAL WATERBIRDS: HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF NESTING
POPULATIONS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
LEGEND
¦ NESTING POPULATIONS
SCALE 1:1.500,000
NOTE: Colonial waterbirds include: Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)-.
Little blue heron (Florida caerulea)-, Green-backed heron (Butorides striatus);
Snowy egret (Egretta thula): American or great egret (Casmerodius albus)
Scattered nests may occur in many other wooded, secluded areas of Bay tributaries.
SOURCE: USFWS unpublished data FIGURE 23
-------
OSPREY (Pandion haliaetus) AND BALD EAGLE (Haliaeetus
leucocepha/us): HABITAT DISTRIBUTION OF NESTING POPULATIONS
IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
NOTE: Bald eagle nests, roosts and feeding areas are generally found within one mile of
the riverine and estuarine shoreline in the Bay system. Occasionally, lakes and
reservoirs are used. Some bald eagles remain in the Bay area year round.
SOURCE: USFWS unpublished data FIGURE 24 tt U, S, COVE RNWE NT PRINTING Off ICC 119B8-570-467 10018?
------- |