@/uKce&£
-------
Tv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreward	ii
Introduction 		1
Chapter 1 Habitat Management 		4
Chapter 2 Land Activities	16
Chapter 3 Water Use Activities 		46
Chapter 4 Fisheries Management 		60
Chapter 5 Monitoring 		70
Bibliography 		84
U.S. EPA Region 111
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
i
-------
FOREWARD
"Choices for the Chesapeake: An Action Agenda" is the capstone of a
fairly remarkable series of events in the Bay region. It marks the cul-
mination of a period of intense research which has succeeded in focusing
unprecedented public attention on the Bay. The conference offers an oppor-
tunity to articulate a new regional policy for the Bay, based on preser-
vation of living resources. If this potential is realized, December 1983
will be extraordinarily significant in the long history of governmental
attempts to manage the Bay.
The conference is being sponsored by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the
Governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District
of Columbia, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A contract was
awarded to the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. to provide the
staff work necessary to mount the conference.
The most important preparatory activity consisted of the creation of
five workshops. These workshops were asked to review current studies and
reports about the Bay and to develop recommendations for appropriate govern-
mental responses. The workshops were supported financially by the spon-
soring agencies and were staffed by the Citizens Program and by the spon-
sors. Their reports, presented here, provide advice for consideration by
policy makers, now and at the conference in December.
ii
-------
INTRODUCTION
To prepare for the 1983 conference entitled "Choices for the Chesa-
peake: An Action Agenda," the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay
convened five pre-conference workshops. These working committees were asked
to examine the Chesapeake Bay from five different perspectives and to bring
to the Governors and legislative leaders policy recommendations to improve
the management and enhance the productivity of Chesapeake Bay.
The workshops looked at the Bay the way a manager or decision-maker
might view it. They looked at the water, at the living creatures, and at
the land and water activities which affect those living resources. They
examined existing programs and policies, laws and regulations, and attempted
to suggest how to more effectively fit them to the needs of the Bay.
Chairmen and committee members were chosen because of their knowledge
and experience. They represented the scientific community, government,
academia, business and industry, agriculture, and public interest groups.
Members came from Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. They served without
reimbursement, some attending as many as eight committee meetings over the
summer. The reports presented here represent their best professional jud-
gment on what actions are necessary and appropriate for government, in view
of new scientific information on the condition of Chesapeake Bay. Clearly,
not every committee member concurred with every recommendation. In addi-
tion, these reports are workshop reports and should not be mistaken for the
official position of any agency or organization. They represent the col-
lective wisdom of small, informed groups of people who were charged to
provide advice on what ought to be done to preserve the Bay.
The five workshops are recommending that government at all levels re-
spond forcefully to recently-presented information on the declining con-
dition of Chesapeake Bay. The reports which follow contain a series of
policy recommendations and some specific proposals. For the most part, the
workshops are making strong recommendations about what government should do,
but they have not attempted to deal in more than a cursory way with the
specifics of how actions should be carried out. That is the role of legis-
lators and government managers. The conference in December will, it is
hoped, provide the consensus needed to move forward with those actions which
will constitute a regional, coordinated effort to restore Chesapeake Bay.
SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The habitat workshop concluded that the Chesapeake is being affected by
nutrient enrichment, by sedimentation, by toxic chemicals, and by man-made
alterations. The committee is urging policy makers to acknowledge that the
fragile Bay ecosystem Is stressed because of Increasing numbers of people
who want to live in this watershed. The most critical habitat problem in
1
-------
the Bay is the loss of dissolved oxygen; other problems include loss of sub-
merged vegetation and sediment contamination. The workshop recommends con-
trol of nutrients from both point and nonpoint sources, by requiring nu-
trient removal at sewage treatment plants and management of nonpoint runoff
from land. The workshop also recommends that controls be strengthened on
toxics and that, to the extent possible, natural freshwater flows into the
Bay not be altered.
The land activities workshop reached two broad conclusions:
1)	There is sufficient evidence of degradation to warrant serious
efforts to reduce the nutrient enrichment of the Bay.
2)	Inputs of toxic materials muBt be controlled.
The workshop recommends that specific nutrient goals be established for each
river basin, to be achieved by 1990, and that these goals, in general, be
20% below the 1980 loading for phosphorus and no greater than the 1980 load-
ing for nitrogen. To achieve these goals, the workshop recommends that each
state, working with local jurisdictions, develop specific strategies for
each basin. These strategies must incorporate both point source and non-
point source programs and must acknowledge that anticipated growth and the
human activities associated with it, unless properly managed, could negate
the gains in pollution control made over the last decade. The report which
follows contains a number of specific recommendations for each tributary,
all based on the premise that the policy of the states should be to reduce
toxic and nutrient pollution of the Bay below current levels.
The water activities workshop developed a number of specific recom-
mendations for both management and research in the areas of vessel discharge
management, water access management, and dredged material management. In
general, the workshop recommends:
1)	The conflicts, whether they be real or apparent, between water-based
recreational activities with their supporting facilities and the shellfish
industry in Chesapeake Bay must be resolved if both are to obtain their most
effective position in the Chesapeake Bay.
2)	Long-term (i.e., 20-50 years) questions relating to the problems of
dredging and dredged material placement in the Chesapeake Bay must be re-
solved if the Bay's maritime commerce industry is to maintain and increase
its competitive position.
3)	A comprehensive system-wide approach to land and water use planning,
which recognizes and incorporates the interactions between competing acti-
vities, must be instituted if we are to develop the full recreational and
commercial potential of Chesapeake Bay.
Issues related to management of the fisheries of Chesapeake Bay were
examined. The workshop concluded that there is a critical need to ar-
ticulate a management policy for fisheries which has as its goal the con-
servation of stocks, in order to maintain both the commercial and recrea-
tional fishing industries. The workshop recommends that management plans
for all important species be developed immediately. Recognizing the link
between quality of habitat and fish, the workshop recommends that the Bay be
managed as an ecosystem, with water quality standards that take into account
2
-------
the requirements of the living resources. The workshop acknowledged, how-
ever, that factors other than environment are responsible, in part, for
declines in some important species and recommends that the states take steps
immediately to reduce harvest pressure, particularly on the striped bass.
Existing fisheries management agencies were deemed adequate, but the work-
shop strongly recommends that administrative agencies in the states be given
the authority, responsibility and flexibility to manage the fisheries of the
Bay under careful legislative oversight.
The monitoring workshop was charged to address Information needs and to
recommend a strategy for monitoring that would provide managers, scientists
and the public with information on important environmental and resource
variables in the Bay. The workshop recommends that the baseline monitoring
plan developed by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program be adopted and imple-
mented. Details of this proposed strategy appear in the final report of the
Bay Program. Prior to the conference, the monitoring committee will examine
the monitoring needs identified by the other four workshops and will present
in December a more comprehensive monitoring proposal.
The format of each of the following chapters is different. Workshop
reports and recommendations are presented exactly as they were developed by
committee members. In each case, however, committee recommendations are
clearly marked.
3
-------
Chapter 1
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Habitat is here defined in the broadest sense, namely, to encompass
physical, chemical, and biological features that may influence growth,
reproduction, and behavior of living resources. In this context, physical
features such as temperature, sediment characteristics, and current
velocities are Included. Chemical features would include obvious items such
as salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and toxicants. Biological
considerations encompass host-disease, host-parasite, predator-prey
relationships.
The Committee charge was to define and describe the major Chesapeake Bay
habitats; determine their status and what is at stake in the "man and
nature" sense, particularly in terms of conflicts or problems associated
with the well-being of these habitats. Finally, we were asked to make rec-
ommendations to protect and enhance these habitats that collectively make up
the Chesapeake Bay system.
We identified five major habitat regimes of the Bay in vertical and
horizontal dimensions. Some of these were subdivided for practical con-
siderations. Their descriptions are as follows:
1.	Intertidal habitat (one meter above and below mean tidal level)
a.	Vegetated wetlands
b.	Non-vegetated wetlands
2.	Subtidal habitat (maximum low tide level to channel)
a.	Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) zone
b.	Public and private shellfish grounds
c.	Major bare-bottom communities
3.	Fresh and low salinity zone (overlying waters)
4.	Mesohaline zone (overlying waters)
5.	Bay mouth (overlying waters)
Thus, eight specific habitats (Figures 1 and 2) were selected for report
preparation. Appropriate subcommittees were organized and given the task to
develop a report on each habitat and to follow a stake, status, solutions
and recommendations format. A final summary chapter (this chapter) was then
to be prepared highlighting the solutions and recommendations offered.
As a point of departure, the Committee recognizes that concern for habi-
tat is due to the presence of living resources. It has been estimated,
using data from the late 1970' s, that economic value to the Chesapeake reg-
ion from aquatic biological harvests approaches $750,000,000 annually.
Continuing evidence indicates useful biological stocks and harvests have
4
-------
been declining, especially for those species dependent upon the Bay and its
tributaries for spawning and nursery. Three substantial possibilities exist
for these stock declines: (1) natural climatological and meteorological
variation; (2) overharvest, and (3) loss of habitat quality. We will
focus on habitat issues in this report.
It is important to state here that the Committee recognizes a major
overriding issue in habitat protection and enhancement, namely, growth of
human population within the total watershed. If we continue as we have
historically, then it is clear the quality of the Bay environment will
continue to decline with resultant declines in biological and economical
yields. Two solutions are available: (1) regulate abundance and distri-
butional patterns of human populations, and (2) maximize our utilization of
science, technology and education to solve problems in this critical man and
nature arena.
VEGETATED WETLANDS
There are over 300,000 acres of vegetated wetlands on the Bay and its
tributaries. Previous to the 1970's, the rate of wetlands destruction was
alarming. In Virginia alone, the loss rate was over 400 acres per year in
the 1960's and the predicted rate for the 1970's was over 600 acres annually.
Research efforts clearly demonstrated the ecological value of our coast-
al wetlands, which led to the enactment of a number of wetlands protection
measures. The Maryland Wetlands Act went into effect in 1970 and Virginia
followed suit in 1972. Federal wetlands protection was not actively pursued
until 1975 under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, later to become the Clean Water Act of 1977.
The loss rate of tidal wetlands has greatly diminished as a result of
current regulations. No new initiatives or major recommendations seem nec-
essary for tidal wetlands.
Peripheral to tidal wetlands concern is the proper evaluation of the
ecological role of non-tidal wetlands to the Bay system's ecological well-
being. Non-tidal wetlands do serve as holding basins for excess runoff and
may well be important in some subsystems for anadromous fish spawning and
nursery areas.
NON-VEGETATED WETLANDS
Non-vegetated wetlands are here defined as those relatively level land
forms of unconsolidated sediments, ranging from gravel to mud, generally
found in the edges of the Bay system, and include the area from one meter
above and below mean tidal level. This habitat links all marsh and upland
areas to the deeper subtidal habitats and shares some valuable functions
with them, namely:
-	primary and secondary production
-	nutrient storage and functioning
-	waterfowl and wildlife utilization
5
-------
In addition to serving as feeding and nursery ground for many important
species of mollusks, crustaceans, fish and birds, they are used extensively
and intensively by people. This habitat is also one that would be heavily
impacted upon by an oil spill.
The portion of non-vegetated wetlands habitat below mean tide level at
one time was prime submerged aquatic vegetation grounds. In recent years,
the loss of SAV has caused relatively large modifications in this land-water
interface zone through disruption of sediment, nutrient and turbidity dynam-
ics. Additional discussion of SAV is covered in the following section.
Fortunately, non-vegetated wetlands are included in the Maryland and
Virginia Wetlands Protection Acts. No further major recommendations seem
warranted at this time for protection.
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
The Chesapeake Bay, with its extensive littoral zone and broad salinity
range of 0 to 33 °/oo, supports many different species of submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV). Approximately 10 species of SAV are abundant in
the Bay and its tributaries, with another 10 species occurring less
frequently. Salinity appears to be the most important factor in controlling
species composition of an individual bed of SAV. Bottom sediment
composition and light characteristics are important factors controlling SAV
distribution within regions of the Bay. All SAV species are found in
relatively shallow waters, less than 3 meters in depth, due to lack of
sufficient light below this depth.
Research has demonstrated the valuable ecological role of SAV to the Bay
ecosystem. They serve to stabilize sediments, baffle currents and waves,
reduce suspended sediments, and reduce shore erosion. They serve as food
for many waterfowl (as well as animals in the aquatic foodweb). In addition
to serving as a nutrient buffering system, they also provide habitat for
spawning and nursery for many Bay species. Indeed, SAV beds support some of
the densest populations of animals found anywhere in the Bay.
Recent investigations have clearly documented that SAVs throughout the
Bay are at the lowest level in recorded history. The current decline has
affected all SAV species throughout the Bay.
It is now clear that, directly or indirectly, the SAV loss has had dam-
aging impacts on waterfowl populations, crab harvests, shoreline erosion,
nutrient buffering, and organic production.
Research has identified factors that reduce the amount of light reaching
the plant surface as the major causes of SAV decline. Nutrient enrichment
of Bay waters has caused increased growth of microscopic plant life, both in
the water column and attached to plant surfaces. This results in increased
shading that, when coupled with shading due to suspended and deposited sedi-
ments, reduces the ability of SAV to grow, reproduce, and thrive as in ear-
lier times when Bay waters were clearer and less enriched.
6
-------
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SHELLFISH GROUNDS
The American oyster is the most valuable seafood product harvested com-
mercially in the Chesapeake Bay. Over 30% of U.S. oyster landings are from
the Chesapeake Bay system and, of these, approximately 50% of all commercial
seafood landings (oysters, crabs, soft clams, and hard clams) are from pub-
lic and private shellfish grounds. However, current landings are about 20%
of the yield sustained around the turn of the century and have generally
declined dramatically during the 60's and 70's. Natural metereological
factors, as well as overharvest and man—caused environmental changes have
all been identified as causes of these declines.
Although higher spatfall seems to occur during low runoff or drought
conditions, the resulting increased salinities appear to cause increased
rates of MSX disease and consequent increased oyster mortality. Patterns
and quantities of freshwater flow into the Bay, thus, are critical to oyster
population dynamics.
BARE-BOTTOM HABITAT
Bare-bottom habitats are defined as unvegetated bottom sediments that
occur below mean low water. They make up the vast majority of the
6,000-7,000 km^ of Bay bottom habitats and provide living space for many
species of organisms, collectively known as the benthos. These organisms
form in- termediate linkages between primary producers and higher trophic
levels such as fish and waterfowl, and are among the major secondary
producers in the Bay food web. The feeding, burrowing, and decomposing
activities of the benthic biota also have an important role in recovering
nutrients from dead phytoplankton and other organic material and recycling
them to the water.
Sediment transport and deposition processes vary between the upper and
lower Bay segments. As a result, upper Bay sediments in this habitat tend
to contain more mud and muddy sands, while the lower Bay contains mostly
sands. In a vertical dimension, most fine sediments and organics tend to be
deposited in channel reaches. It is the fine deposits containing high or-
ganic content that tend to sorb and trap potential toxicants such as heavy
metals, oils, pesticides, etc..
The seasonally—occurring low dissolved oxygen lens in the Bay has its
greatest impact on the bare-bottom community, as a significant areal region
of this habitat is below the 20 or 30 ft. contour. Below this contour
oxygen depletions are experienced during warmer seasons.
FRESH AND LOW SALINITY ZONE
The fluvial or free-flowing freshwater tributaries change to tidal
freshwater at the fall line, the demarcation that separates the Piedmont
physiographic province from the Coastal Plain. Tidal freshwater reaches
then grade into the oligohaline or slightly salty reaches of the upper Bay
and various tributaries. This zone ends at approximately 5 parts per
thousand salinity; however, its areal extent may vary seasonally due to
freshwater runoff volumes.
7
-------
This habitat supports major freshwater fisheries and is an important
route for highly migratory species such as the herrings and shads. It also
serves as spawning and nursery grounds for important commercial and rec-
reational species such as striped bass and white perch. Indeed, this habi-
tat serves as the major spawning and nursery site for striped bass on the
entire U.S. East Coast. Approximately 60 species of fish are found here.
The fresh and low salinity zone also provides extensive shallow marsh
environments that support large waterfowl populations.
Distributions of human populations within the Bay region are such that
this zone is readily accessible and receives major impacts from human use.
Industrial and domestic discharges of waste materials are also highest
here. Further, it is this habitat that receives the greatest impact of
nonpoint sources of upland drainage materials such as sediments, herbicides,
pesticides, fertilizers, and urban runoff.
Nutrient levels in the fresh and low salinity habitats are the highest
found anywhere in the Bay system. Excessive nutrient Impacts causing re-
duced water quality, excessive microscopic plant growth, and fish kills have
been well documented in this zone and have been the basis for landmark deci-
sions for improved sewage wastewater treatment and nutrient removal ini-
tiatives.
Substantial economic considerations are involved here as well. Due to
the decline of striped bass alone, mainly due to recruitment failures in the
Chesapeake, it is estimated that about $220 million worth of direct economic
activity and 7,000 jobs associated with fishing have been lost to the At-
lantic Coast since the early 1970*s. Restoration of American shad in the
Susquehanna Basin alone would generate $75 million worth of direct economic
activity annually.
MESOHALINE ZONE
The mesohaline Bay segment is the largest in areal extent of all the
"overlying waters" habitats. As such, it supports numerically the largest
amount of recreational and commercial activity of all the habitats. Most of
the well-known and economically important species of the Bay region use and
depend extensively on this zone for many or all of their important life
history functions such as spawning, nursery, feeding or migration. The
extensive mesohaline habitat is fundamentally what makes the Chesapeake, as
a major inland sea, so socially, economically, and biologically unique in
the United States.
Well-recognized species can thrive in this habitat; for example, Amer-
ican oysters, soft-shelled clams, blue crabs, striped bass, bluefish, sea
trout, spot, menhaden, stinging jellyfish, canvasback ducks, Canada geese,
and whistling swans. Key to the success of these species is availability of
food and habitat in the mesohaline segment.
8
-------
Major concerns about water quality of the overlying waters of this zone
involve excessive nutrients, suspended and deposited sediments, and chemical
contaminants. One primary and outstanding concern has been the expansion in
time and space of the seasonally-occurring low dissolved oxygen lens in the
mesohaline reaches. Excessive nutrients, especially nitrogen, seem to be
driving excessive production of microscopic plant life that, when coupled
with certain conditions and phenomena, cause oxygen depletions from about
20-30 feet in depth to the deep channel in warmer seasons. In effect, this
occurrence takes a major segment of the Bay out of useful biological produc-
tion at the season of highest biological activity and need.
BAY MOUTH
The Bay mouth extends from a line joining Willoughby Spit and
Cherrystone Inlet to a line joining Cape Henry and Cape Charles and includes
Little Creek and Lynnhaven Bay. Salinities vary seasonally and spatially
between 16 and 33 parts per thousand and are higher near the bottom than
near the surface. Plumes and fronts occur frequently in this area and,
coupled with a complex current field, create unusual and hard-to-predict
mixing patterns.
The volume of ocean water entering the Bay mouth is about 10 times that
for freshwater entering the entire Bay from runoff and river discharges. A
two-layered circulation pattern exists that drives denser ocean water up-Bay
along the bottom with low-salinity water, toward the surface, flowing sea-
ward. Characteristics and quality of Bay mouth water thus affect both the
entire Bay (to the freshwater area) and the Bay plume water entering the
Ocean.
Water quality tends to be good in this habitat; however, large concen-
trations of ships, both transient and moored, carry over 100 million short
tons of cargo to and from Bay ports. Accidental discharge of materials from
human error or shipping accidents are possible and have happened.
Maintenance and new dredging and spoil disposal activity are routine,
with an estimated 3 billion cubic meters of spoil to be produced in the next
50 years. Channel alterations can change water velocities and circulation
patterns.
The Bay mouth shoreline area is under steady pressure for development
and is subject to shoreline alteration from meteorological conditions.
This habitat provides the pass through which all migratory species must
navigate on their way to spawning or feeding grounds. It possesses the
highest diversity of fishes and crustaceans of any Bay habitat and supports
large commercial and recreational fisheries.
Virtually the entire spawning stock of blue crabs of the Chesapeake
overwinter in and near the Bay mouth and essentially all larvae produced
within the Chesapeake hatch in this zone. Bay mouth circulation patterns
appear to be an important regulating factor controlling recruitment of
young-of-the-year blue crab back into the Bay system.
9
-------
The following lists the Habitat Committee's major recommendations in two
groupings; one reflects needs for habitat protection or enhancement, and the
second mainly suggests implementation possibilities.
KEY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS (In order of priority)
1.	Develop policy declarations that recognize population growth as a seri-
ous problem which historically has caused progressive stress on natural
systems through habitat degradation. Implement programs which:
a.	Minimize impact of population increases by guiding density and
distributional patterns through adequate regional and local planning
assistance programs.
b.	Maximize the use of science, technology and education to reduce or
solve environmental degradation problems associated with increased human
population densities and associated activites.
2.	Institute nutrient management strategies to protect the Bay by:
a.	Implementing phosphorus control plans for all major drainages to the
Chesapeake system.
b.	Implementing nitrogen removal programs at advanced wastewater
treatment facilities in watersheds where point source nitrogen dis-
charges dominate input levels, such as in the Patuxent River watershed.
c.	Using subsystems, such as the Patuxent River watershed, as model
systems to evaluate nutrient removal strategies upon water quality and
living resources.
3.	Require best management land use practices in all major Chesapeake Bay
watersheds to reduce the rapidity of runoff, reduce nutrient release and
sediment by:
a.	Requiring storm water retention programs, with emphasis on areas
under development.
b.	Eliminating the use of combined stormwater and sewage systems.
c.	Correcting infiltration and water waste problems that cause sewage
treatment plant overloading.
d.	Emphasizing agriculture best management practices which reduce
sediment loss, control runoff, and minimize the release of fertilizers
(particularly nitrogen) and other agricultural chemicals into the
watersheds.
e.	Controlling waste discharges associated with feed lot operations.
f.	Maintaining and reestablishing, where appropriate, wetland and
watershed vegetated buffers which act to absorb water nutrient and
sediment loads.
4.	Identify point sources of toxics and initiate appropriate controls.
a. Implement pretreatment programs for industrial waste prior to
discharge to municipal sewage systems.
10
-------
b. Develop specific standards and criteria for discharge of heavy
metals, pesticides and other toxic compounds, based upon normal growth,
reproduction and behavior requirements of the living resources.
5^ Pursue a conservative policy toward alterations of freshwater inflow.
a.	Maintain the natural seasonal pattern of freshwater flows into the
Bay and its tributaries to the maximum extent possible.
b.	Defer reductions in freshwater inflow until high water quality is
achieved in upstream habitats. (Upstream shifts of species caused by
reduced flow will frequently move the species into waters of lower
quality and reduce the habitat available to them.)
c.	Drastically reduce, or preferably, eliminate stream channelization.
d.	Restrict or eliminate interbasin tranfer of water.
KEY IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS (Not in order of priority)
I. Implement monitoring programs to determine whether management
strategies are being adhered to and to determine their degree of
success, utilizing
A.	"Fingerprints" of industrial and municipal effluents using gas
chromatography and mass spectroscopy.
B.	Improved fishery statistics.
C.	Information on diseases and predators, particularly for shellfish.
D.	Data describing recruitment to finfish and shellfish populations,
e.g., juvenile Index studies.
E.	Benthic biota as an "indicator" of overall environmental quality.
F.	Yearly aerial mapping and field surveys to evaluate submerged
aquatic vegetation distribution and abundance.
II. Develop a fully coordinated and comprehensive inter-govemmental
permit evaluation process for all watershed construction and habitat
alteration projects, including:
A.	Adoption, wherever possible, of uniform criteria, standards and
guidelines for decision-makers.
B.	Development of a data system to allow tracking of cumulative
alteration of habitat through permitted use or development.
C.	Thorough evaluation of overboard disposal options.
D.	Judicious adherence to environmental windows, when proximity of
resources warrants.
E.	Development of a data system to allow tracking of cumulative
alteration of habitat through permitted use or development.
III. Foster development of innovative cost sharing, tax incentives and
similar institutional initiatives which will encourage routine
(BMPs)QCe t0 8011 and Water conservatlon Best Management Practices
IV* 3ini!i^e le8lslativVeview of state statutes establishing regulatory
jurisdiction over habitat alteration to assure that colonial grants
11
-------
and patents, court decrees and historic enactments do not diminish
the authority of agencies to exercise police powers over the use of
living resources and thereby interfere with effective management.
V. Implement strong enforcement programs to support management
strategies. Provide staff and funding to monitor and enforce
environmental permits to be issued and those currently in place.
VI. Develop and implement a public education program which includes:
A.	The overall goal to create a land and water ethic in society.
B.	Public participation in protecting the Bay by increasing awareness
that each individual's actions have an impact and the
consequences of the cumulative effect of individual impacts.
C.	Education in proper use of chemicals at home, particularly toxics
and nutrients and chemicals used in lawn and garden care.
D.	Orienting school children to the Bay and the complexity of its
ecosystem.
E.	Integration of problems involving water quality protection with
habitat maintenance and enhancement.
VII.	Improve plans and procedures to cope with chronic and acute stresses,
such as boating and hovercraft operations and discharges and spills
caused by shipping and military operations.
VIII.	Install and maintain artificial reefs as a means of enhancing
recreational and commercial fishing.
IX. Dedicate resources to the increased productivity of public shellfish
grounds, including maximum utilization of available sources of shell
and seed material to support annual repletion efforts.
X. Evaluate thoroughly the contribution of non-tidal wetlands to living
resources of the Bay and, if the need is demonstrated, establish a
protection program similar to that currently operating for tidal
wetlands.
XI. Continue research into the feasibility of reestablishing submerged
aquatic vegetation in areas where these plants previously flourished,
but which are currently devoid of any growth.
XII. Focus research efforts to understanding factors regulating abundances
of important biological stocks; specifically, determine to what
extent overharvest, loss of environmental habitat quality, natural
climatological/meteorological features, or combinations thereof are
critical.
12
-------
Bay
Mouth
Habitat
o;
o
75* 30'
75*00'
Figure 1
13
-------
£lW«Kte
Vegetated Wetlands
Norv~Ve$©tated Wetlands
¦Bubmm§m4 Aquatic Vegetation
8h$tff&h Grounds
WK .a1*
fi 9wr«t- 2
-------
HABITAT COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Chairmen
Dr. Joseph A. Mihursky
Mr. Norman E. Larsen
Members
Dr. Bette Bauereis
Dr. Mike Bender
Dr. Ray Blrdsong
Dr. Carvel Blair
Dr. Walter R. Boynton
Mr. W. R. Carter
Mr. Mike Castagna
Dr. Robert Diaz
Mr. K. A. Dierks
The Hon. Bernie Fowler
Ms. Mary Jo Garreis
Dr. A. Fred Holland
Dr. Mike Kemp
Dr. Glen Kinser
Dr. F. Douglas Martin
Mr. Don Mathias
Dr. Kent Mountford
Mr. Jack Northam
The Hon. W. Tayloe Murphy
Dr. Bob Orth
Dr. Kent Price
Dr. Gene Silberhorn
Dr. Stephen Sulkin
University of Maryland
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Old Dominion University
Old Dominion University
University of Maryland
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Langley-McDonald Engineering Consul-
tants
Maryland State Senate
Maryland Office of Environmental Pro-
grams (Dept. of Health and Mental
Hygiene)
Martin Marietta Laboratories
University of Maryland
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
University of Maryland
City of Norfolk
District of Columbia Government
(Dept. of Environmental Services)
Maryland Oyster Grower, Profes-
sional Engineer
Virginia General Assembly
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
University of Delaware
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
University of Maryland
15
-------
Chapter 2
LAND ACTIVITIES
The Land Activities Committee held eight meetings to develop our rec-
ommendations concerning the impact of land activities on the Bay and how to
control these impacts.
In reaching our conclusions we have studied the Bay Management Report
and have also called on the expertise of the members of the Committee, out-
side experts, and outside interests.
CONCLUSIONS
We have reached two general conclusions:
1.	NUTRIENTS: The nutrient enrichment of the Bay must be reduced.
Cause and effect relationships are imperfect, but there is sufficient ev-
idence that excessive nutrients are responsible for resource declines to
warrant commitment of more public funds and other resources to reduce the
volume of nutrients entering the Bay.
2.	TOXIC SUBSTANCES: Inputs of toxic materials to the Bay must be con-
trolled and the sources and fates of toxic materials must be identified and
monitored. The Chesapeake Bay Program research has shown that the bed sedi-
ments act as a reservoir, accumulating most of the toxics entering the Bay
system.
GOALS FOR IMPROVEMENT
We strongly recommend that Virginia, the District of Columbia, Maryland,
and Pennsylvania agree to specific goals for each of the major Bay tributary
basins and then, individually or collectively, for basins such as the Poto-
mac or Susquehanna, develop a strategy to achieve those goals.
We recommend the following goals:
1.	For all basins except the Patuxent, the York, and the Upper
Bay, reduce by 1990 the average year (March-Oct.) phosphorus loading to the
Bay by 20% from the 1980 (1980 as defined by the Chesapeake Bay Program)
loading. Do not allow the average year (March-Oct.) nitrogen loadings to
Increase above the 1980 loading.
2.	For the Patuxent Basin, implement the "Charette" strategy that
will reduce the phosphorus loading to the Bay by 63% and the nitrogen
loading by 57%.
3.	Because the tributaries to the Upper Bay contribute such a
heavy loading of nutrients and because the Upper Bay is more stressed,
16
-------
reduce by 1990 the phosphorus loading from the Upper Bay by 23% from the
1980 loading and do not allow the nitrogen load to increase above the 1980
(March-Oct.) level.
4.	For the York Basin, maintain a ceiling phosphorus load of
221,000 pounds (March-Oct.), or reduce it, and insure that the nitrogen load
does not increase above 2.329 million pounds (March-Oct.).
5.	For all Basins and the Bay itself collect and store biological
and chemical data and control toxic materials so they do not damage the
natural resources of the Bay or its tributaries.
ACHIEVING THE GOALS
The Committee's specific recommendations to achieve the goals for each
basin follow and are the framework of our findings. However, there are
common elements of these recommendations that we feel are important to
emphasize.
A. Annual Maximum Nutrient Control Strategy Nutrients and toxic
materials flow from the land to the rivers to the Bay. To control this
flow, a strategy that ignores political boundaries and addresses all the
land sources is the only way to achieve the recommended goals. In the
Potomac Basin, for example, despite the expenditure of almost $1 billion for
point source control, the river is still enriched. For the Potomac, we feel
it is essential for Maryland, D.C., and Virginia to agree to reduce the
nutrients, to agree on a strategy that allocates the necessary reductions
between the two states and D.C., and then, to each achieve these reductions.
Our specific recommendations to achieve the Annual Maximum Nutrient load for
each Chesapeake Bay basin follow, and this Is the major product of our
effort.
Phosphate Ban. Because a ban on phosphate detergents will reduce
the phosphate loading by 11% soon after it is in effect, we believe
Pennsylvania, Virginia, D.C., and Maryland should enact legislation limit-
ing phosphates in detergents to less than 0.5 percent by weight in the next
session of their legislative bodies.
We wish to emphasize that this ban is not necessarily a substitute
for other measures to reduce phosphorus to the recommended goals. When
other point and non-point controls have been Implemented, it may be ap-
propriate to relax or rescind the ban.
C. Land Use. It is important that the States and D.C. recognize
fully the increase in nutrient loadings that result from increased
population growth, urbanization, and the conversion of land from uses bene-
ficial to the Bay to others that are detrimental (e.g., from forest to
agriculture, from agriculture to urban). Strategies to reduce phosphorus
and hold nitrogen at the 1980 levels will require land use planning, zoning,
and possibly a permit system for land conversions that limit nutrient
discharges, both from runoff and to treatment plants. Merely establishing
discharge concentrations for treatment plants and controls for existing
17
-------
non-point sources will NOT be enough. Total pound loading limitations can
only be achieved if the impacts of growth and urbanization are considered.
D.	The 208 Agricultural Water Quality Program. Considering the
diversity of soil types, topography, cropping systems, climatic condi-
tions, etc., the Committee feels it inappropriate and impractical to address
specific management practices for agriculture. Instead, we believe strongly
that present and future 208 Agricultural Water Quality Programs are the best
way to manage agricultural nutrients. There are existing well-prepared 208
Agricultural Plans in many basins that, if implemented, will help achieve
the recommended goals. Where 208 plans are not well-prepared, they should
be improved and then implemented.
Sufficient personnel must be provided to the Soil Conservation
Districts to develop and implement the 208 plans. It is essential that
within the 208 Agricultural Plans, the state and federal governments foster
and financially support the implementation of Best Management Practices to
control soil loss and agricultural nutrients from entering the Bay and its
tributaries.
E.	Funding for the Recommended Bay Strategies. The cost to
restore the Bay will be high. Virginia, Maryland, D.C., and Pennsylvania,
Ln partnership with the federal government, will have to devote more funds
than In the past to nutrient and toxic controls. We suggest that the states
and D.C. "set the example" by taking initiatives, such as Maryland's
commitment to the Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy, Pennsylvania's
Lncrease in financial assistance to Soil Conservation Districts from
|>250,000 to $750,000, Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiative, and the
Washington Metropolitan Region's continuing emphasis on water quality
nonitoring and control strategy modeling. A phosphate detergent ban will
ilso demonstrate a serious commitment. Such examples and commitments will
lemonstrate to Congress and the Executive Branch our willingness to bear the
burden when enlisting federal financial help. The Bay is a national
resource, which must receive funding priority from the federal government,
aut the states must clearly demonstrate their commitment before expecting
nore federal assistance.
F.	Personnel. The point source nutrient controls will not be
iffective without properly trained and supervised plant operators. The
:ontrol of nonpoint pollution will depend upon adequately staffed agencies
to Initiate and implement Best Management Practices. The states, D.C., and
the federal government must insure that there are enough properly trained
ind supervised personnel at the plants and in the agencies to accomplish the
>bjectives they establish.
G.	Water Conservation. There are no reasons for not having good
rater conservation programs in the states and D.C.. Wasting water is
foolish, expensive, and, in the long run, environmentally damaging,
fear-round water conservation will reduce the loads to treatment plants and
:end to increase the freshwater flows in the basins of the Bay.
18
-------
H. Pretreatment Programs for POTWs. The Committee's strategy for
Toxic Compounds contains several recommendations. However, we wish to
emphasize our feeling that the states and D.C. should provide the leader-
ship to bring all POTWs into compliance with the Federal Pretreatment
Program by 1985. In addition to being a very effective method of con-
trolling toxic compounds and recording data on their sources and fates, good
management of POTWS requires a Pretreatment Program—which would be better
named Industrial Discharge Control Program.
Our principal findings, conclusions, and recommendations are included in
this report under the following headings:
Annual Maximum Nutrient Loadings
Toxic Compounds
Land Use and Population Growth
Point Source Nitrogen Loadings
Agriculture
Phosphate Detergent Ban
Water Conservation
Sediment Control
Stormwater Management
Environmental Management Mechanisms
These are followed by specific recommendations to achieve the goals for
each of the Chesapeake Bay basins listed below:
Upper Bay (West Chesapeake, Susquehanna, and Eastern Shore)
Patuxent River
Potomac River
Rappahannock River
James River
York River
Eastern Shore (Lower Bay)
ANNUAL MAXIMUM NUTRIENT LOADINGS
Background
The Chesapeake Bay Program has documented the continuing over-enrichment
of the Chesapeake Bay with both nitrogen and phosphorus from a variety of
sources. Trend analysis shows that continued addition of these elements at
current rates will result in further water quality degradation.
Although the linkage between over-enrichment and the decline in bio-
logical resources is at present unclear, evidence developed to date suggests
a strong correlation between the two components. The states and D.C. must
recognize that population growth without stringent maximum nutrient loads
will quickly overtake initial reductions through treatment. Consequently,
the Committee feels strongly that nutrient loading caps should be developed
and implemented for each basin in the Bay's watershed.
While it is not possible to set in concrete the exact level of nutrient
loading which should be maintained, or to define precisely the biological
improvements which will result from these levels, it is clear that the
19
-------
levels are currently too high and must be reduced. If, however, the reduc-
tion is based simply on levels of control (i.e., conservation tillage,
TP=2), increased wastewater flows will counteract water quality improve-
ment. The concept of establishing maximum loads implies that as wastewater
flows or other sources of loadings (i.e., urban stormwater) increase,
additional treatment measures must be implemented. The target maximum loads
established in this document should be viewed as preliminary and should be
modified as new research or future experience dictates is necessary to
achieve the goal of a healthy, diverse, living resource.
Problem
Increased sewage flows and additional nonpoint source loading may coun-
teract water quality improvements gained through current strategies.
Conclusion
Maximum annual nutrient loads should be established on a watershed by
watershed basis.
Recommendations
A.	The states and D.C. should develop annual nutrient loadings for each
basin within their respective jurisdictions. For the present, we have re-
commended a phosphorus reduction of 20% (below the 1980 loads) for basins
except the Patuxent, the Upper Bay, and the York. For the Patuxent and
Upper Bay basins, reductions of 63% and 23%, respectively, are suggested.
For the York, we recommend maintenance of the 1980 loading (or reduction, if
possible).
B.	Nitrogen load limits are excessive. However, nitrogen control at
point sources is expensive. Also, the technology for non-point nitrogen
control is not as well developed. Consequently, the Committee recommended
that a limit on nitrogen loadings, based upon the 1980 rate, is justified.
Concurrently, the existing Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy, which will
achieve a 57% reduction in nitrogen, should be fully implemented.
C.	Further research into the fate and transport of nitrogen in estu-
aries is clearly necessary. Funding for this work should be made available
on a priority basis.
D.	The Committee strongly endorses land treatment to achieve AWT for
all POTW upgrades and new construction. Establishing strict load limits for
both nitrogen and phosphorus will encourage the use of this and other in-
novative and alternative techniques.
E.	Based on the Chesapeake Bay Program Management Report, the Admin-
istrator, Environmental Protection Agency, should revise and extend the cur-
rent approval for grant eligible phosphorus removal for the Upper Chesa-
peake Bay (UPCB) to approval of a 2 mg/liter phosphorus limit for all plants
discharging more than 1 mgd to the Bay or its tributaries. This extension
is justified by the CBP Management Report and would be similar to the Admin-
istrator's approval of phosphorus control in the Great Lakes.
20
-------
TOXIC COMPOUNDS
Toxic materials enter the Bay from a variety of sources, including in-
dustrial effluents and other point sources, runoff from urban areas and
agricultural lands, atmospheric inputs, and disposal of contaminated dredge
spoil.
(Note: The Water Activities Workshop is addressing dredge spoil.)
Problem
Elevated levels of heavy metals and toxic organic compounds are found
in Bay water and sediment. Research has shown that the bed sediments act as
a reservoir, accumulating most of the toxic chemicals entering the Bay
system. These absorbed toxic chemicals can be subsequently picked up by
filter-feeding organisms or metabolized by plankton.
Conclusion
Inputs of toxic materials to the Bay should be controlled and the
sources and fates should be identified and monitored.
Recommendations
A.	Virginia, Maryland, D.C., and Pennsylvania provide leadership and
resources within their respective jurisdictions to bring all POTWs into
compliance with the Federal Pretreatment Program by June 1985. A pre-
treatment program (perhaps better named an Industrial Discharge Control
Program) is relatively inexpensive to plan and install, is an essential part
of good POTW management, will provide the data needed for the data base
recommended below, and will also provide a data base of the characteristics
and quantities of industrial discharges to the POTWs. There is no reason to
procrastinate any longer—pretreatment is a legal requirement, federal and
state grants are available to assist in the development of programs, and
good management demands these controls.
B.	Review and upgrade NPDES permits for direct industrial discharges.
Fully implement and enforce the NPDES requirement for "Best Available
Technology" (BAT) for direct industrial discharges. The NPDES permit
program is a powerful tool to control the discharge of toxic material. Full
implementation and enforcement of BAT will benefit the Bay.
C.	Virginia, Maryland, D.C., and Pennsylvania establish a program to
collect and store in a permanent data base biological and chemical analy-
ses of industrial and municipal dischargers to the Bay's tributaries. In
addition to establishing a permanent data base, provisions should be made to
analyze the data to identify biological communities that are becoming
endangered, so that corrective action can be initiated.
D.	The States and D.C. develop and adopt a combination biological and
biomonitoring protocol as part of the NPDES permitting program to insure
that waste water discharges are not hazardous to biota. Such a protocol can
be modeled after the Monsanto protocol developed by the CBP. This protocol
can be adapted by the three states and D.C. to address their mutual needs
but it is strongly recommended that a uniform protocol for all be developed
in conjunction with EPA.
21
-------
E.	The states and D.C. develop chlorine control strategies on a basin
by basin basis. We recommend that the strategy focus on three approaches:
reduction or elimination of chlorination (no biocides), use of alternative
biocides, and reduction of the impact of effluents.
F.	The states and D.C. consider modifying their storm water control
programs to require control of sediment and metal discharges for new
construction and retrofit of existing of existing storm water discharge
facilities where appropriate. Properly designed detention basins, re-
charge basins, and other techniques such as natural infiltration are
effective in removing pollutants, including metals. The data base and
biomonitoring protocol recommended above would assist in the analysis of the
need for this type of storm water control.
Also, the recommendation that the discharge of nutrients to the
tributary basins of the Bay not be allowed to increase (and in the case of
phosphorus be reduced) will probably require this type of storm water
control for new development and/or retrofitting.
LAND USE AND POPULATION GROWTH
Background
In order to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay, there must be a
significant reduction of nutrients, sediments and toxics entering the Bay's
system. Such a reduction, from point and nonpoint sources, will require
significant expenditures of public and private funds. However, it is clear
that much of the population growth and changing land use patterns in the
Basin will be concentrated in the Coastal Plain and near the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries.
Between 1950 and 1980, population in the Bay region grew from 8.45 mil-
lion to 12.65 million, or by about 50%. By the year 2000, population in the
Bay region is projected to reach 14.57 million people, or a 72% increase in
50 years.
This growth in numbers will bring shifts from environmentally beneficial
land uses, urbanization, increased wastewater flows, and greater surface
runoff. Even with significant improvements in wastewater treatment, in-
cluding phosphorus and nitrogen removal, and with Improved sediment control
and stormwater management, the nutrient and sediment loadings from popu-
lation growth and land use changes could increase overall loadings. Without
a comprehensive strategy of land use planning, Including zoning and, pos-
sibly, a permit system for land conversion that would limit increased
nutrient and sediment loadings, the EPA study projects an Increase in POTW
flows of 35% by the year 2000 with a 43% increase in phosphorus loads (from
the 1980 loads), due to population growth and land use changes.
Any comprehensive strategy should protect existing forest land and
provide for the reforestation of other lands. Critical sub-basins of the
Chesapeake Bay have lost large amounts of forest land, with the low level of
nutrient loading which it affords, to urbanisation and other land uses. For
example, the Patuxent sub-basin and the West Chesapeake sub-basin both lost
22
-------
over 21% of their forest land between 1950 and 1980. The chart below, taken
from the Synthesis of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program technical Studies,
clearly illustrates the range of nonpoint source nutrient contributions from
different land uses:
lbs/ac/yr Phosphorus lbs/ac/yr Nitrogen
Forest	0.06 - 0.1	0.5 - 2
Pasture	0.3 -0.5	2.0-6
Cropland	1.5-5.0	8.0-18
Urban/Suburban	1.0 -2.0	4.0-10
Policy makers also should be aware of the significant point source
nutrient loads from increased population growth. The following figures
illustrate that with a density of 4 units per acre, even with advanced
wastewater treatment (including nitrogen removal), the phosphorus loading
per acre far exceeds the nonpoint source contributions of forests and
pastures.
lbs/ac/yr Phosphorus lbs/ac/yr Nitrogen*
4 units per acre with	20	55
secondary treatment
4 units per acre with	5	15
advanced waste treatment
(TP=2 mg/l; TN=6 mg/1)
* Assumes 75 gallons of water used/person/day; 3 persons per unit, and
TP=8, TN=20 in secondarily treated sewage. No contribution for asso-
ciated commercial development was considered.
It should be noted that the above figures relate to land use and
point and nonpoint nutrient loadings. The conversion of land, with its
natural vegetative cover, and the urbanization of the land also increase
sediment loading to the Bay system.
Problem
It is	apparent from the above that man's activities on land,
coupled with	an increasing population, will have great impact on the
health of the	Chesapeake Bay.
The Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy, which this workshop has
endorsed, found that "Population growth and related land use change are
the fundamental cause of point and nonpoint pollution."
Conclusion
The impacts of land use changes and population growth patterns
must be mitigated.
Recommendations
A. States should take more of a direct role in land use planning
and development around the Bay and its tributaries.
23
-------
B.	States in the Bay drainage area must act to control the con-
version of beneficial land uses, such as forest land and vegetated areas
directly surrounding the Bay and tidal tributaries. Consideration should
be given to the adoption of Primary Management Areas around the Bay and
its tributaries, as in the Patuxent strategy.
C.	States must act to prevent or modify the impact of significant
population increases on and near the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal trib-
utaries.
D.	States should review their policies, especially their tax
structures, and revise those policies that tend to encourage the con-
version of forest, pasture, and crop land to urban development.
POINT SOURCE NITROGEN LOADINGS
Background
Nitrogen was identified by CBP researchers as a significant con-
tributing factor in the decline of Bay grasses. It may also play a role
in the depletion of oxygen in the main stem during the summer months.
The reduction of phosphorus in the Susquehanna (based on implementation
of the Upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Policy) will result in a signi-
ficant increase in the nitrogen load, unless coupled with significant
reductions. A similar effect may be occurring as a result of phosphorus
removal in the Potomac. Although non- point sources contribute 67% of
the total nitrogen to the Bay, it is not currently known if sufficient
nitrogen reduction can be achieved from nonpoint source strategies
(agriculture) to counteract increasing nitrogen loads from developed land.
Problem
Nitrogen loads to the Bay are excessive. Present trends suggest
that, unless control measures are undertaken, additional loss of habitat
and continued eutrophication will occur. In most basins, nitrogen is
primarily associated with nonpoint sources. However, sewage treatment
plants supply large amounts directly to the Bay system. The nitrogen
from most of these plants is in the form most available to algae.
Conclusion
Nitrogen inputs from point and nonpoint sources must be ad-
dressed. However, the level of control with present practices and tech-
nologies is only roughly known. Control at point sources is more ex-
pedient .
The Committee recognizes that nitrogen control at sewage treatment
plants may be necessary if phosphorus removal strategies and nonpoint
controls fail to reverse current water quality trends.
Recommendations
A. Current nitrogen loads are excessive. However, the cost of
nitrogen control at sewage treatment plants is high. For this reason,
the committee recommends that the Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy be
fully implemented. All jurisdictions in the basin should agree to take
experience gained in the Patuxent into account in designing nutrient
control strategies.
24
-------
B.	If sufficient water quality benefits are not realized from
phosphorus removal, then nitrogen removal or other equivalent control
technology should be implemented at wastewater treatment facilities.
C.	Research into the transport and fate of nitrogen in estuaries
should be emphasized. Funding should be made available on a priority
basis.
D.	In addition, new phosphorus removal facilities, as well as new
sewage treatment plants, should be designed with nitrogen removal in
mind, realizing that phosphorus removal also achieves some nitrogen re-
moval and some modifications of phosphorus advanced wastewater treatment
can offer significantly better nitrogen removal.
E.	To ensure interpretability and transferability to other bas-
ins, the reduction in loading and the resulting water quality improve-
ments must be tracked by a comprehensive monitoring and special studies
program. Such a program should be developed cooperatively by the res-
earch community, the states, D.C., and EPA. Resources should be made
available, on a long-term basis, for developing adequate mathematical
water quality and hydrodynamic models for the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. This effort, where practicable, should build upon existing
models and utilize existing resources (i.e., WMCOG - Potomac Eutro-
phication Model, Hampton Roads Sanitation District - James River Model).
F.	The EPA should endorse the Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy,
making nitrogen removal eligible for grant support.
AGRICULTURE
Background
On a Bay-wide basis, although the sources are diffuse, the rel-
atively large amount of agricultural cropland contributes 60% of the
nitrogen and 27% of the phosphorus to the Bay system. Several rural
watersheds of the Bay area are dominated by nonpoint sources of nitrogen
and phosphorus; these include the Susquehanna, the York, the Rappahan-
nock, and the Eastern Shore. Water quality impacts from agriculture
include sediment from cropland. Other concerns are biological oxygen
demand from animal wastes, herbicides, and pesticides.
Existing 208 Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans recognize
sediment and animal wastes as pollutants. Nutrients are not recognized
as problems in these plans, but nonetheless, plan implementation would
lead to some reduction in nutrients, especially phosphorus. Plans have
not been implemented due to lack of manpower and funding. Nitrogen move-
ment from agricultural land is not well understood and new and innovative
techniques may need to be developed. The 208 programs in all three
states set forth a variety of Best Management Practices. The plans vary
in the degree to which they define target areas and describe an outreach
and implementation process.
25
-------
Agriculture has traditionally been exempted from mandatory erosion
and sediment controls, primarily because it is felt that farmers would
not be able to pass along the potentially considerable costs. Research
performed under the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) has established the
economic viability of soil and water conservation techniques under a wide
range of cropping and management systems. To date, the soil conserva-
tion effort has depended upon a cooperative assistance approach through
the Soil Conservation Districts. However, Districts have not received
enough funding to reach the majority of farms, but have generally
assisted only those who requested it.
On the federal level, the Agriculture Department is targeting
funds for cost sharing for soil conservation and technical assistance to
those areas of the country with the greatest rates of erosion. This
means funds and personnel are being diverted from the Bay region to the
Midwest.
Problem
Agriculture contributes significant amounts of sediment and nu-
trient pollution to the Bay region. Insufficient resources have been
devoted to addressing agricultural conservation problems in the past.
Conclusion
Agricultural conservation Best Management Practices must be put in
place throughout the Bay area. Added personnel, incentives for BMP im-
plementation, and research must all be directed at reducing sediment and
nutrient loads to the Bay system from agriculture.
Recommendations
A.	A goal of having soil conservation plans developed for and
Implemented on every farm in the basin should be stated. In meeting this
goal, priority areas should be identified for immediate attention. These
priorities should be based on the knowledge of the agricultural community
and resource agencies of (1) areas where nonpoint source contributions
are significant, (2) sensitive resource (habitat) areas, (3) the way in
which nutrients and sediments enter the aquatic system, and (4) soil
type, slope, crops grown, and other factors which affect erosion.
B.	A program of applied research to develop new, innovative, and
economical means for reducing nutrient movement from farmland should be
carried out through the Agricultural Research Service and Experiment
Stations. Such a program should balance net farm income, water quality,
and long term productivity. This research should stress coss effective
utilization of nitrogen and reduction of Its loss to water and air.
C.	Considering the large amount of land owned by federal, state,
and local jurisdictions, including forest, open space, and agricultural
lands, they should take the lead in implementing Best Management Prac-
tices for both sediment and nutrient control.
D.	Agricultural 208 water quality programs should be Implemented
as quickly as is feasible. Plans should, however, be reviewed and up-
26
-------
dated to take into account new knowledge of nutrient impacts and con-
trols. These plans should not only describe Best Management Practices,
but also describe how to implement programs for putting them in place on
the land.
E.	Adequate funds should be made available by states to put Best
Management Practices on the land in all target areas by 1990. This
should include cost share assistance, demonstration projects and
personnel to provide adequate technical assistance. When cost-share
funding is available, states should have the authority to ensure that
BMPs are implemented. State efforts should be coupled with maintenance
of a high level of federal support for the Soil Conservation Districts
and the federal Agricultural Conservation Program in the basin.
F.	The federal government should be encouraged to provide tar-
geted funding and technical assistance for such programs as the Mason-
Dixon Project.
G.	Efforts to improve implementation of conservation plans should
be coupled with strong agricultural land preservation programs. Agri-
culture should be viewed as a desirable land use, and conversion to urban
uses should be slowed as much as possible.
H.	Animal waste control measures should be implemented. Trial
manure marketing programs, such as that proposed by the Pennsylvania
Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, should be established on a pilot
basis in areas where high animal concentrations exist.
I.	As an educational tool, agricultural economists should be made
available to the farm community to prepare an economic analysis of BMPs,
relating their implementation to the level of farm income. These
resources should be made available through the Cooperative Extension
Service.
J. The states, in cooperation with the federal government, must
provide the funds to accomplish the above recommendations. This includes
staffing increases for the Soil Conservation Districts and Extension
Service and more cost-share and research monies.
K. If voluntary efforts fail to achieve significant reductions in
nutrient loadings and soil erosion and significant improvements in animal
waste control, mandatory requirements should be implemented, including
cross-compliance.
PHOSPHATE DETERGENT BAN
The Land Use Workshop of the Chesapeake Bay Program has carefully
considered the benefits and costs of phosphate detergent limitation to
0.5 percent by weight.
27
-------
CONCLUSIONS
A.	The existing phosphorus loading to the Bay is excessive and
will increase.
B.	Even with our recommended nutrient strategies, the complete
control of phosphorus loadings to the Bay from point and non-point
sources will not be implemented until 1990.
C.	A phosphate detergent limitation in Maryland, Virginia, Penn-
sylvania and D.C. will reduce the phosphorus load to the Bay by 11% from
the 1980 level.
D.	This 11% reduction of the phosphorus loading to the Bay will
start as soon as the ban is implemented.
E.	A phosphate detergent limitation is a reasonable cost-
effective, immediate measure to limit phosphorus loading.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A.	Enact legislation in the next session of the legislatures to
limit phosphate content in detergents to 0.5 percent by weight in Penn-
sylvania, Maryland, D.C., and Virginia.
B.	Continue the phosphate limitation until it is determined that
other point and nonpoint controls have been Implemented that will achieve
such reduction of the phosphorus that the limitation can be relaxed or
rescinded.
WATER CONSERVATION
Background
Wastewater flows have Increased significantly in the Chesapeake
Bay Basin over the last 30 years and are projected to continue to in-
crease significantly due to population growth. Freshwater withdrawals
from river systems feeding the Bay have also increased and will continue
to do so.
Problem
Increased wastewater flows reduce the ability of sewage treatment
plants to properly treat wastes, resulting in the unnecessary addition of
nutrients and other pollutants to the Bay system. Increased freshwater
withdrawals can result in declining water quality, particularly in the
tidal freshwater portions of the Bay's rivers during low-flow summer
periods.
Conclusion
There are no adverse impacts from water conservation. There is no
reason NOT to have strong water conservation programs. A comprehensive
and aggressively implemented water conservation strategy will result in a
reduction in per capita water consumption and in a consequent reduction
in wastewater flows. Because of the significant population increase pro-
28
-------
jected in the Bay area and the resultant increase in wastewater flow,
water conservation will be an effective tool in modifying water con-
sumption and wastewater flows.
Such reductions in the volume of wastewater flowing to wastewater
treatment plants mean better treatment because of longer retention times
and less need for costly expansion or new plant construction. Funds that
would be necessary for such expansion or new construction may be diverted
to upgrade existing facilities and provide for phosphorus and nitrogen
removal. Further, reductions in water consumption will result in less
freshwater withdrawal and, thus, an improvement in water quality in
flow-restricted areas of the Bay's rivers.
Recommendations
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and D.C. should implement water
conservation programs that include:
A.	Enactment and enforcement of plumbing codes specifying water-
conserving plumbing fixtures for all new construction;
B.	Encouragement of retrofit programs to install low-cost water
conservation devices and to detect and repair leaks in plumbing fix-
tures in existing buildings;
C.	Initiation of public education programs, especially in the
schools, to encourage water conservation;
D.	Adoption of rate structures that require increasing per unit
charges for water;
E.	Encouragement of increased industrial recycling of water.
F.	Development of policies which encourage the development and
use of recycling and water conservation methods.
SEDIMENT CONTROL
Background
The major thrust of strategies identified in the Land Activities
Report involve nutrient and toxic control. Sediment is also important,
both as a carrier of nutrients and toxics and as a pollutant itself. The
Habitat Workshop has identified several ways in which sediment causes
problems. Among these are reducing the clarity of water, smothering
living organisms, and altering the characteristic of the substrate, which
may reduce fish or oyster spawning or settling success.
Sediment pollution is attributable to agriculture, construction
activities, stormwater runoff and shore erosion. While shoreline erosion
is a natural process, it can be exacerbated by man's activities along the
shoreline and by the loss of fringe vegetation, buffering marshes, and
SAV beds. Awareness of the problems generated by sediment is not new.
29
-------
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia all have
enacted legislation and put programs in place which are aimed at con-
trolling sedimentation. In Maryland and Virginia, these programs are
carried out at the local level, following state imposed standards. While
local governments have enacted ordinances and developed programs, it is
generally acknowledged that enforcement has been weak. The 208 Agri-
cultural Water Quality Plans also recognize sediment as a problem and
address it in the Best Management Practices proposed. As noted else-
where, these plans have not been implemented throughout most of the
basin. In addition, Maryland and Virginia have developed shoreline
erosion programs. Maryland's program provides technical assistance and
loans to private landowners for construction of erosion control works;
because of the cost of these projects and limited funds, only about 1
mile of shoreline is protected annually. (There are several hundreds of
miles eroding at greater than 2 feet per year.) Virginia's assistance
program is aimed at public beaches, but also provides technical
assistance to the local private landowner.
Figures are not available for the relative amounts of sediment
which result from agriculture, land clearing and construction activity,
stormwater runoff and shore erosion, but all are significant sources.
While construction activities take place on many fewer acres than agri-
culture, if uncontrolled, the sediment from a single site can be sig-
nificant. Because of the significant amount of land in agriculture, the
cumulative effect can be great, even where the per acre contribution is
low.
Problem
Large amounts of sediment reach the waters of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries, having a detrimental effect on the quality of
habitat for living organisms, reducing water clarity, and speeding the
rate of channel silting (and thus the necessity for dredging).
Conclusion
Sediment losses to the waters of the Bay and its tributaries must
be reduced.
Recommendations
A. Strengthen sediment control programs in Pennsylvania, Mary-
land, Virginia and the District of Columbia by:
1. Initiating effective accountability procedures, including
a.	Detailed documentation of each inspection
b.	Spot checking validity of documentation
c.	Review of documentation for adherence to enforcement
procedures
2.	Developing more uniform standards for sediment control
Implementation
3.	Significantly increasing the number of enforcement agents
at the state and local levels
4.	Providing for strong state oversight of local programs
5.	Aggressively pursuing the imposition of fines and sanc-
tions for violators
6.	Conducting education and outreach programs for develop-
ers, contractors, enforcement agents, judges, and
others on the impacts of sediment pollution.
30
-------
B.	Maintain an emphasis on sediment control in 208 Agricultural
Plans and assure the implementation of these plans. While recognizing
the need to add emphasis on nutrients to these plans, the agricultural
community should be encouraged to proceed with controlling sediment
pollution, as already addressed in these plans.
C.	Limit development on highly erodible soils and shorelines
through zoning and other land use controls.
D.	Provide for additional technical assistance for shore erosion
control, emphasizing the use of preventative measures and non-structural
controls, such as vegetative stabilization and targeting assistance to
areas having the most significant water quality impacts.
E.	Assure that state-funded construction activities, particularly
highways, bridges and buildings, strictly adhere to sediment control
plans.
F.	Provide incentives and disincentives in planning and zoning
regulations to encourage the retention of natural vegetative cover in
land development.
G.	If the local enforcement of sediment control laws continues to
prove ineffective in Maryland and Virginia, the states should assume en-
forcement and administration of the programs.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Background
Although the urbanized area of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is
small in relationship to the agricultural and forested areas, the impacts
of urban development can be locally and regionally severe. The amount of
urbanized land is increasing and, with it, the amount of impervious sur-
faces and the volume of stormwater runoff. Stormwater carries with it
sediment and toxic pollutants such as heavy metals and hydrocarbons from
road surfaces. In addition, it can add to the "flashlness" of the sys-
tem; that is, more fresh water enters the system rapidly, rather than
gradually over a period of time. This effect can be particularly stress-
ful on an estuarine system by causing rapid changes in the salinity
regime and contributing to excessive stream bank erosion. The temper-
ature regime of receiving waters can also be adversely modified. An in-
creased emphasis should be placed on natural infiltration of stormwater
through porous surfaces in addition to the use of more conventional re-
tention methods. Controlling stormwater will ensure that fresh water
enters the system in a more gradual manner, that it will carry fewer
pollutants, cause less erosion and have a less drastic effect on the
salinity and temperature regimes of tidal streams.
Stormwater runoff problems in areas already urbanized may be cost-
ly to correct, but substantial water quality benefits may be attained
31
-------
by corrective measures. For new development, design and construction
techniques are available which will permit the pre-development runoff
characteristics to be retained.
Problem
Stormwater runoff is adversely affecting the quantity and quality
of water, stream channel stability and localized flooding, and placing
additional stress on the living resources of the Bay.
Conclusion
Stormwater flows from existing development should be reduced,
where possible, and stormwater quantity and quality from new developments
should be controlled at pre-development levels.
Recommendations
A.	States and the District of Columbia should set a long-term
goal requiring local governments to improve stormwater quality and reduce
the adverse impacts of stormwater from existing urbanized areas. Federal
and state financial assistance to municipal governments should be con-
sidered to address such problems.
B.	All jurisdictions should implement stormwater management pro-
grams which achieve pre-development stormwater runoff characteristics.
These programs should emphasize and encourage infiltration of rainfall
on-site and flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural
depressions, in addition to the retention of runoff in wet ponds that may
provide shallow marsh habitat and water quality benefits.
C.	The states and D.C. should initiate education and outreach
programs to help residents of urban and suburban areas understand the
needs and benefits of proper stormwater management measures and their
maintenance and to help them put in low-cost water retention devices
(e.g., rain barrels)..
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS
The effective environmental management of Chesapeake Bay requires
a management structure which is responsive to the diverse commercial and
recreational needs of the Bay.
Problem
An environmental management structure is needed to maintain and
improve the quality of Chesapeake Bay. The management structure must
coordinate the various agencies that will take actions to solve the Bay
water problems.
32
-------
Conclusions
A.	The EPA Region III and Chesapeake Bay Mananagement Committee,
working through consensus, appears to be the most effective and practical
management structure for the Bay.
B.	The input from citizens groups, state and local elected offi-
cials, and the scientific community has been very important to the Ches-
apeake Bay Program and they should be represented on the management com-
mittee.
Recommendations
A.	The management structure, composed of EPA Region III and the
Chesapeake Bay Management Committee, continue.
B.	The Management Committee be expanded to include representa-
tives of citizen groups, state and local elected officials, and the
scientific community.
BASIN STRATEGIES
The final section of this report contains the Land Activities
Committee's specific recommendations for achieving the goals we have
outlined above in each of the basins tributary to the Chesapeake Bay.
UPPER BAY
The Upper Bay is defined as the estuarine portion of the Sus-
quehanna River down to the Patuxent River Basin on the Western Shore and
to the Choptank River on the Eastern Shore.
The Upper Bay receives more than 40% of all phosphorous (5 million
pounds) and 52% of all nitrogen (76 million pounds) delivered to the Bay
in an average rainfall year. The breakdown of nutrient loading by
percent in the Upper Chesapeake is as follows:
Phosphorous Nitrogen
Susquehanna	53	77
West Chesapeake	44	21
Upper Eastern Shore	3	2
From this it is obvious that the Susquehanna is a significant contributor
of nutrients not only to the Upper Bay, but to the entire Chesapeake Bay
system. Nearly 50% of the freshwater flow to the Bay enters from the
Susquehanna; 40% of total nitrogen loading to the Bay comes from the
Susquehanna.
The water quality of the Upper Bay as poor, due to the high level
of nutrient enrichment and toxicants. The problem of toxic organic
compounds and heavy metals will be addressed separately.
33
-------
The significant nutrient loading to the Upper Bay is caused by
nonpoint sources, primarily agricultural lands, and point sources,
primarily wastewater treatment facilities. In the Susquehanna, nonpoint
sources are the dominant contributor of nutrients: agricultural land
contributes 85% of the nitrogen and 60% of the phosphorous.
On the Western Shore of the Upper Bay, the dominant sources of
nutrients are wastewater treatment facilities.
The high nutrient enrichment in the Upper Bay and most tributaries
is linked to the decline in anadromous fish, such as the striped bass and
shad, the significant decline in the oyster spat set in recent years, and
the loss of Bay grasses. This nutrient enrichment has caused the anoxic
trench from above the Bay Bridge to mid-Bay to increase in size by 15
times in water area from 1950 to 1980. The Upper Bay has recorded some of
the greatest losses in Bay grasses and some of the most severe nutrient
enrichment and massive algal blooms in the entire Chesapeake Bay region.
Problem
The flow of nutrients into the Upper Bay is significantly affec-
ting water quality and Bay fisheries and grasses.
Conclusion
The nutrient loading from the Upper Chesapeake Bay tributaries
must be significantly reduced to restore water quality.
Re commendat ions
A. Recognize that in Upper Chesapeake Bay the total nutrient load
(point plus non-point) will increase—not decrease—unless there is a
coordinated management effort to reduce nutrients. Policy makers
must be aware of the significantly increased point source loads from
population growth. Even with advanced wastewater treatment (includ-
ing nitrogen removal), the nutrient load per acre far exceeds the
non-point contribution of even the worst cropland.
1. Maryland and Pennsylvania agree to reduce the phos-
phorus load from 5.54 million pounds (March-Oct.) to 4.26
million pounds by 1990 and to Insure that the nitrogen
load does not increase above 75.930 million pounds
(March-Oct.). Specifically, the following actions should
be implemented, as a minimum, to achieve the reduction of
phosphorus and to prevent an increase In nitrogen.
a. Point sources
(1). The Upper Chesapeake Bay phosphorus policy
should be fully implemented for all point source
discharges (not just POTW discharges) first. Treat-
ment plants and other point source discharges not in
compliance with this policy should be corrected by
December, 1985. If this control, plus nonpoint
source phosphorus control, does not achieve the
34
-------
recommended reductions, consider extending the Upper
Bay Phosphorus Policy to all plants (not just POTW
discharges) with discharges greater than 1 mgd.
(2). Facility planning should recognize that if
monitoring of the Bay shows that this phosphorus
policy and non-point source controls outlined below
do not achieve the desired improvements, the control
of nitrogen from the point source discharges in the
Upper Bay may be necessary.
b. Non-point sources
(1).	Urban — Recognizing that the non-point sources
of some of the urban areas result in phosphorus and
nitrogen loads in the Bay, a coordinated effort by
Maryland and Pennsylvania should be initiated to:
(a)	Identify the major urban sources of nutri-
ents in the Upper Bay that result in loading on
the Bay.
(b)	Determine if the reduction of this source of
nutrients is cost effective.
(c)	If this coordinated effort by Maryland and
Pennsylvania identifies very cost effective non-
point source nutrient control projects in one or
more urban areas in the Upper Bay, negotiate
agreements to allocate the costs between Maryland
and Pennsylvania.
(2).	Agricultural — Vigorous efforts should be insti-
tuted to reduce both nutrient loading, particularly
phosphorous and nitrogen, and soil loss from agri-
cultural land throughout the Susquehanna River Basin,
with a concentration on the lower Susquehanna. To ac-
complish these reductions it is recommended:
(a)	That specific projects, such as the Mason-Dixon
Erosion Control District, be established with suf-
ficient funding and aggressive implementation. The
full implementation of the Mason—Dixon Erosion
Control proposal is expected to cost $9 million per
year for 10 years. Obviously, a strong Federal
commitment, coupled with State and local support, is
needed to address agricultural non-point sources of
nutrient and sediment loading.
(b)	Whenever appropriate, all projects adopted
under these recommendations should include estab—
35
-------
lishment of programs to significantly reduce nut-
rient loading from agricultural animal wastes.
(c)	State projects using education and incentives
should be pursued to bring agricultural land under
implemented soil conservation plans. Examples of
such projects include Maryland's Agricultural
Cost-Share Program ($5 million in funding to date),
Pennsylvania's increase in financial assistance to
Conservation Districts from $250,000 to $750,000,
and special projects such as the Mason-Dixon Erosion
Control program.
(d)	If voluntary efforts fail to achieve a
significant reduction in soil erosion and nutrient
loading in the Susquehanna, cross-compliance should
be implemented and consideration should be given to
mandatory requirements for soil conservation and
control of animal wastes.
(3). Sediment control — Maryland and Pennsylvania have
excellent sediment control laws, but the enforcement is
not adequate. The sediment entering the rivers of the
Upper Bay and the Bay itself is excessive. Therefore,
both states should take the necessary actions to
dramatically improve the enforcement of their laws,
including state take-over of con- trol programs from
local jurisdictions, if necessary.
B. The Future
The preceding recommendations will reduce the phosphorus and
nitrogen load into the Bay from the Upper Bay from existing land
uses. However, these reductions could easily be offset by changes
in land use such as increased population, conversion of land from
forest to commercial or industrial, etc. To Insure that the Bay
is protected in the future, a bi-state strategy of monitoring and
nutrient control through land use planning, zoning, permits, P0TW
improvements and/or agricultural controls must be developed;
monitoring to insure that the nutrient loads are reduced and to
warn of further corrective action if they are not; controls, both
point aind nonpoint source, to maintain the reductions achieved as
the Upper Bay changes.
PATUXENT BASIN
The Patuxent drains an 884 square mile area and contributes about
4% of the total phosphorus and 2% of the total nitrogen loads
delivered to the tidal Bay. Bay-wide, the highest nutrient
concentrations have been found in the Patuxent and, when compared to
similar segments, the highest chlorophyll a concentrations.
36
-------
Point sources are the predominant source of nutrients,
contributing 83% of the phosphorus and 49% of the nitrogen load within
the Patuxent Basin.
Problem
The Patuxent River has deteriorated because of nutrient load-
ings. In addition, nutrients to the Bay from the Patuxent are
excessive.
Conclusions
A.	A program to reduce nutrient loadings in the Patuxent is
necessary.
B.	The Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy that resulted from the
Patuxent Charette addresses point and non-point nutrient loadings and
will, by 1990, reduce phosphorus by 63%, from 480,000 pounds
(March-Oct.) to 177,000 pounds, and nitrogen. 57%, from 2,520,000
pounds (March-Oct.) to 1,080,000 pounds.
Recommendations
A.	Implement the Patuxent Charette strategy.
B.	Establish adequate monitoring to insure that reductions are
achieved and to provide valuable research information for other rivers.
C.	Support and complete the Maryland OEP research projects on
sediment oxygen demand, bottom nutrient fluxes and microcosm studies.
D.	The Federal Government participate in the funding of nitrogen
removal to demonstrate the implementation of a prototype nutrient
strategy for a basin and to participate as a full partner in the
monitoring and analysis of the effectiveness of the strategy.
POTOMAC BASIN
The Potomac Basin drains 14,134 square miles and carries 21% of
the total phosphorus and 24% of the total nitrogen load delivered to
the Bay tidal system during average rainfall.
Despite approximately $1.0 billion spent to upgrade the POTWs, the
Upper Potomac is still enriched.
The breakdown of phosphorus and nitrogen delivered to the tidal
Bay system from the Potomac is shown below.
37
-------
Phosphorus
Tons %
Nitrogen
Tons %
Point source
Non-point source
949 12
584 9
7884 11
9636 13
Total
1533 21
17520 24
The nutrient load, especially phosphorus, is expected to increase
without further controls.
The Potomac Basin is delivering an excessive nutrient load to
the Chesapeake Bay.
Conclusion
The future nutrient loading from the Potomac should be reduced.
Recommendation
Recognize that in this rapidly developing basin the total nutrient
load (point plus non-point) will increase—not decrease—unless the
development process is managed to reduce nutrients. Therefore, the
fol- lowing should be accomplished:
A.	Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia agree to
reduce the phosphorus load from 2.866 million pounds (March-Oct.) to
2.292 million pounds (March-Oct.) by 1990 and to insure that the
nitrogen load does not increase above 35.077 million pounds
(March-Oct.).
B.	Through negotiations, allocate to the two states and D.C. the
phosphorus reduction to be achieved by each.
C.	Each jurisdiction, through land use planning, zoning permits, POTW
improvements, and/or agricultural controls achieve their reduction.
Specifically, the following actions should be implemented as a
minimum to achieve the reduction of phosphorus to 2.292 million
pounds.
1.	Provide sufficient resources to implement the 208 Agricul-
tural Water Quality Management Programs in the Potomac
Basin. (Note: There are well-prepared 208 Agricultural
Water Quality Plans for a significant portion of the
basin that can be implemented without further planning.
In some parts of the basin, the 208 Agricultural Plans
are inadequate or incomplete and these need revision
and/or completion before imple- mentation.)
2.	Require all treatment plants (POTWs, private, and indus-
trial) in the Potomac Basin over 1 mgd discharge that do
not remove phosphorus now to meet a minimum of 2 mg/liter
Problem
38
-------
phosphorus limit. Maintain the existing phosphorus
limits for the Blue Plains, Alexandria, Arlington, Lower
Potomac, and Piscataway treatment plants.
3.	Change policies and attitudes to encourage—rather than
discourage—the use of alternatives, such as septic
systems, mounds, etc. , in lieu of collection, treatment
and discharge to the streams of the Potomac for new
development and the relief of failing septic tanks.
4.	Change policies and attitudes to encourage—rather than
discourage—land treatment systems that eliminate or
significantly reduce discharges to the streams and rivers
of the Potomac Basin.
D. If monitoring of the Bay shows that this reduction of phos-
phorus from 2.866 to 2.292 million pounds (March-Oct.) does
not achieve the desired improvement in the Bay, the control
of nitrogen from point sources in the Potomac Basin may be
necessary.
RAPPAHANNOCK
The Rappahannock River drains 2,631 square miles and discharges
less than 2% of the total phosphorus and nitrogen load delivered to
the Bay tidal system. The Rappahannock is moderately enriched, but
the trend analysis indicates increasing nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations in the mid and lower levels.
Nutrient loads are chiefly from non-point sources, 61% of the
phosphorus and 87% of the nitrogen loads.
Problem
The nutrient loads to the Bay are minor, but mid and lower
portions of the river are degrading. This degradation will result in
damage to an extremely valuable marine life resource.
Conclusion
Correction of the degradation of the Rappahannock is very
important to protect this valuable fishery resource for the benefit
of the Bay.
Recommendation
Virginia agree to reduce the phosphorus load from 278,000
pounds (March-Oct.) to 222,000 pounds (March-Oct.) by 1990 and insure
that the nitrogen load does not increase above 2.945 million pounds
(March-Oct.). Specifically, the following actions should be
implemented as a minimum to achieve this.
1. Provide sufficient resources to implement the 208 Agri-
Agricultural Water Quality Management Programs in the
Rappahannock Basin. If these plans are incomplete or
39
-------
inadequate, resources should be made available to complete
and/or revise them prior to implementation.
2.	Require all treatment plants (POTWs, private, and public)
with flows greater than 1 mgd to meet a 2 mg/liter phosphorus
limit.
3.	Virginia establish the policy that if new treatment plants
are built or existing plants expanded, land treatment tech-
nology that eliminates discharges to the Rappahannock Basin
will be used or nutrient removal to 1 mg/liter phosphorus and
6 mg/liter nitrogen will be required.
JAMES RIVER BASIN
The James River drains 10,580 square miles and contributes 27% of
the total phosphorus and 14% of the total nitrogen delivered to the
Bay tidal system. The James River is highly enriched, but the trend
analysis Indicates that phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations are
declining throughout most of the estuary.
While non-point sources account for 91% of the nitrogen and 64%
of the phosphorus load delivered to the fall line, industrial and
municipal point sources below the fall line are the dominant sources
of nutrients basin- wide, contributing 81% of the phosphorus and 62%
of the nitrogen load.
Problem
The nutrient loads from the James River Basin are degrading the
Bay.
Conclusion
The nutrient loading from the James should be reduced.
Recommendation
Virginia agree to reduce the James River phosphorus load from
3.791 million pounds (March-Oct.) to 3.033 million pounds
(March-Oct.) by 1990 and maintain it at that level and insure that
the nitrogen load does not increase above 20.505 million pounds
(March-Oct.). Specifically, the following should be implemented to
achieve this.
1. Develop a strategy that requires: a. Selected treat-
ment plants to add AWT to their processes to meet a 2
mg./liter phosphorus limit, b. Fully implements the
208 Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan to
achieve and maintain this level of nutrients, c. Im-
poses a ban on consumer use of phosphate detergents as
a very cost-effective way of reducing phosphorus in
the James River.
AO
-------
2. Through land use planning, zoning, permits, treatment
plant improvements, encouragement of land treatment,
and/or agricultural controls, insure that the nutrient
loads are not allowed to increase as the result of
development.
YORK RIVER BASIN
The York River drains 2,987 square miles and contributes a little more
:han 1% of the phosphorus and 2% of the nitrogen load delivered to the Bay
:idal system. The York is moderately enriched. The trend analysis
Indicates continuing enrichment.
Non-point sources are the major source of nutrients, 65% of the phos-
>horus load and 87% of the nitrogen.
The highest fisheries landings for the Bay are recorded in the York
.iver.
'roblem
The nutrient loads to the Bay are minor, but the river is moderately
LUtrient-enriched. This enrichment can result in damage to an extremely
'aluable fishery resource.
inclusion
Prevention of degradation of the York River is very important to protect
:his valuable fishery resource.
.ecommendatlon
Virginia agree to maintain a ceiling phosphorus load of 221,000 pounds
March-Oct.), or reduce it, and insure that the nitrogen load does not
ncrease above 2.329 million pounds (March-Oct.). Specifically, the
following should be implemented as a minimum to achieve this.
1.	Provide sufficient resources to implement the 208 Agricultural
Water Quality Management Programs for the York Basin. If 208
Agricultural plans have not been developed or are inadequate, then
resources should be provided to develop good plans.
2.	Through land use planning, zoning, permits, treatment plant
mcouragement of land treatment, and/or agricultural controls, insure that
he nutrient loads are not allowed to increase as the result of development.
[ote: The new York River Sewage Treatment Plant which is scheduled to go on
.ine in the near future will add a 15 mgd discharge to the York River
>asin. The recommendations to maintain a ceiling on phosphorus, or reduce
t, and insure that nitrogen does not increase are based on the loadings in
980 before this new discharge.
41
-------
EASTERN SHORE
The Eastern Shore drains 4,130 square miles and contributes 6% of the
phosphorus and 6% of the nitrogen load delivered to the Bay tidal system.
The non-point source contributions of phosphorus and nitrogen are 60% and
90% respectively.
Problem
The nutrient loads to the Bay from the Eastern Shore are not minor.
These nutrient loads will also result in degradation of the extremely
valuable marine life resources of the tributaries from the Eastern Shore.
Conclusion
Control of the nutrient loads from the Eastern Shore is important to
protect the Bay and the tributaries from the Eastern Shore.
Recommendation
Maryland agree to reduce the phosphorus load from 833,000 pounds
(March-Oct.) to 668,000 pounds (March-Oct.) by 1990 and Insure that the
nitrogen load does not increase above 8.741 million pounds (March-Oct.).
Specifically, the following actions should be implemented, as a minimum, to
achieve this.
1.	Provide sufficient resources to implement the 208 Agricultural
Water Quality Management Programs for the Eastern Shore. If these
plans are incomplete or inadequate, resources should be made
available to complete and/or revise them prior to implementation.
2.	Require all treatment plants (POTWs, private, and industrial)
with flows greater than 1 mgd to meet a 2 mg/liter phosphorus limit.
3.	Establish a policy that If new plants are built or existing
plants expanded, land treatment technologythat eliminates
discharges to the Bay will be used or nutrient removal to 1 mg/liter
phosphorus and 6 mg/liter nitrogen will be required.
42
-------
LAND
ACTIVITIES
COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Chairmen

Robert S. McGarry
Unified Industries, Inc.
Davidson J. Gill
Remlik Hall Farm
Members

Robert S. Bloxom
Virginia General Assembly
Stephen M. Bunker
Tri-County Council for
Southern Maryland
R.M. (Mel) Davis
Pennsylvania
David Doss
Soil Conservation Service
Richard Gardner
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
W. Lamar Harris
University of Maryland
Sally Kanchuger
League of Women Voters
Ruth Keeton
Howard County Council
Waldon Kerns
Virginia Polytechnic

Institute
B.C. Leynes
Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission
James H. McDermott
District of Columbia, Dept. of

Environmental Services
Gerald R. Prout
FMC Corporation
Richard B. Sellars, Jr.
Maryland Department of Health and

Mental Hygiene
James Shell
Virginia State Water Control Board
Wayne L. Sullivan
Allied Corporation
Paul 0. Swartz
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Resources
Gerald Winegrad
Maryland General Assembly
Dale Wismer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
43
-------
Participants
K.C. Das
Paul Eastman
Paul Fisher
Stuart A. Freudberg
Victor Funk
Harry E. Gregori, Jr.
Steven Hogye
Margaret Johnston
Norman LeBlank
Austan Librach
Joseph Macknis
Larry McBride
Kent Mountford
Graham Munkittrick
Bruce Neilson
Carl Osborne
Thomas M. Schwarberg
Richard Sedlak
Donald L. Wells
Donny Wheeler
Cameron Wiegand
Virginia State Water Control Board
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin
Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources
Richmond Regional Planning District Com-
mission
Virginia State Water Control Board
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
Chesapeake Bay Program
Virginia State Water Control Board
District of Columbia (Department of
Environmental Services)
Soil Conservation Service
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Virginia State Water Control Board
Soap and Detergent Association
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
44
-------
45
-------
Chapter 3
WATER USE ACTIVITIES
BACKGROUND
The Water Use Activities Workshop was planned and coordinated by a
steering committee composed of a wide variety of Chesapeake Bay water
users. Members represented diverse and occasionally conflicting or
overlapping interests and constituencies concerned with the beneficial uses
of Bay waters (e.g., port development, public health, marina siting, etc.).
The committee and workshop were co-chaired by W. J. Detweiler of the'
Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore and Dr. M. P. Lynch of the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science.
At its initial meetings, the steering committee discussed an array of
water use-related Issues which impact the use and quality of the resources
of the Chesapeake Bay. The group agreed that ensuing discussions and work-
shop deliberations should focus primarily on three priority issues:
1.	Vessel discharge management
2.	Water access management
3.	Dredged material management
Concurrent workshop sub-committees were designated to address each of
these issues. It was acknowledged that these questions are interconnected
and, to a certain extent, overlapping, but that each represented a distinct
area of concern for the community of Chesapeake Bay water users. A common
thread throughout the discussions was the fact that none of the identified
issues of concern had been addressed by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
study, so that the deliberations or agenda of this workshop were in no way
limited by the conclusions of that study. In fact a principal recommen-
dation of the workshop is that those areas which have been Inadequately or
only peripherally addressed by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program (i.e.. water
use activities, including shellfish closures« the fate and effects of disin-
fectants in the ecosystem, the effects of boating and vessels on water
quality, and dredging and dredged material placement) be the primary focus
of federal and state sponsored research efforts over the next several
years. The EPA study constitutes a major attempt to address water quality
issues in the Bay region, but a number of priority issues identified at the
outset of that study (including water use activities) remain unaddressed.
The workshop identified the following broad issues as priority concerns
in the area of water use management:
1. The conflict between water-based recreational activities and the
classification of shellfish growing areas.
46
-------
2.	Long-term (i.e., 20-50 years) answers to questions regarding the
identification and designation of appropriate dredged material placement
sites in the Bay region.
3.	The need for a comprehensive system-wide approach to land and water
use planning which recognizes and incorporates the interactions among com-
peting activities.
General and specific findings and recommendations of the individual
workshop sub—committees, adopted by consensus of workshop participants,
constitute the remainder of this report.
Because of the close relationship between shellfish sanitation concerns
and issues related to marina siting and the regulation thereof, there were a
number of common interests between the Vessel Discharge and Water Access
Management groups. In fact, a number of the following conclusions and re-
commendations were reached jointly by the two groups acting in concert. For
the sake of clarity and simplification, however, an attempt has been made to
separate the concerns of each group. Basically, the Vessel Discharge Man-
agement workshop was concerned with the impacts of vessel discharges ema-
nating from existing marinas and boat ramps, while the Water Access Man-
agement group addressed questions of new marina/boat ramp siting.
VESSEL DISCHARGE MANAGEMENT
Discussions of the Vessel Discharge Management sub-committee centered
primarily on questions related to marine sanitation devices (MSDs) and the
impacts of recreational and commercial boat wastes on shellfish growing
areas and water quality. An assumption implicit In group deliberations was
that the Environmental Protection Agency would adopt some variation of
"Option B" in Its forthcoming recommendations on the existing federal marine
sanitation device program. This action would abolish federal MSD require-
ments for vessels 65 feet or less in length and allow optional state pro-
grams for these vessels based on federal design standards. Existing federal
MSD requirements would remain In effect for vessels longer than 65 feet.
(An explanation of the three types of marine sanitation devices and other
options under consideration by the EPA are included in the Appendix.)
1. If some variation of Option B is adopted, the states should estab-
lish discharge areas In the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for the dis-
posal of acceptable waste discharges from recreational vessels. Primary
criteria to be used in designating such areas should include the following:
(a) that an adequate water depth exists to provide for protection of shell-
fish beds, (b) that hydrographic and flushing characteristics in the area
provide for the reasonable assimilation of waste discharges, and (c) that
current and potential shellfishing and water-based recreational activities
in the area be taken into consideration. The administrative procedures and
technical systems required to implement this proposal should be designed by
April 1, 1985 with full implementation by April 1, 1986. If EPA recommen-
dations on the federal MSD program are not forth-coming by December 1, 1983,
the Governors should request that the Congress urge EPA to issue those re-
commendations, favoring the adoption of Option B, as soon as possible. A
coordinated bi-state educational program should be instituted immediately to
47
-------
inform the boating public and the boating industry about the concept of
discharge areas and waste handling options.
2.	Demonstration projects should be designed to assess the feasibility
of handling recreational vessel wastes in small municipal and private sewage
treatment plants. The states of Maryland and Virginia should initiate coor-
dinated paired demonstration or pilot projects whereby small municipal or
private sewage treatment plants (e.g., systems with less than 30,000 gallons
capacity and 30,000-100,000 gallons capacity) receive recreational vessel
wastes. The demonstration projects should incorporate an appropriate moni-
toring strategy to assess the impacts of these additional wastes on plant
operations and efficiences. Issues of concern would include the amount of
boat waste which could be reasonably received, the effects of traditionally
used bacteriocidal/odor depressant chemicals on plant operations, the nec-
essity and/or desirability for pre-treatment of boat wastes, etc..
3.	In concert with the above recommendation, the states should estab-
lish a Bay-wide system of reasonably-spaced recreational vessel pumpout
facilities. There was some discussion as to whether Types I and II MSDs
provide adequate levels of treatment for the protection of shellfish grounds
and recreational swimming areas. Type III devices, however, require that a
sufficient number of pumpout facilities be available in the Bay region.
Marina operators are reluctant to provide such facilities until the EPA
establishes enforceable no-discharge areas and there is some assurance that
the facilities would be used. Using the cumulative results of the above-
suggested demonstration projects, the location of these pumpout facilities
should be prioritized as follows:
a.	At municipal docks.
b.	At commercial marinas in small municipalities where sewage
is transferred directly to sewage treatment plants.
If, using these priorities, an adequate number of equitably distributed
sites could not be identified, additional (though less desirable) locations
could be established at commercial marinas which rely on traditional septic
tank and drain-field systems. This latter option should be employed only
after states have developed criteria and recommendations for acceptable
vessel waste loading rates into such systems.
4.	The states must provide reasonable economic incentives to encourage
the adoption of the above two recommendations. Both of these solutions
would involve large expenditures, particularly on the part of municipalities
and marina owners. Mechanisms which might be examined as a means of defray-
ing costs include cost-sharing programs utilizing Increased user fees or
dedicated taxes, industrial revenue bonds, low interest loans or long-term
defrayed financing mechanisms, tax credits, etc.. If these recommendations
are adopted, the states should ensure that sufficient additional resources
are forthcoming to provide for adequate enforcement capability and authority.
5.	Shellfish management agencies and research organizations in the two
states should pool their knowledge and focus their research efforts on deve^
48
-------
loping ail effective and economically feasible evaluation process for estab-
lishing buffer zones around marinas. Each existing or proposed marina
should be evaluated on a case-by-case, site-specific basis with respect to
hydrography and flushing or flow characteristics before any seasonal or
year-round buffer zone prohibiting direct harvest of shellfish is es-
tablished. Existing mathematical models of the major tributaries and es-
tuarine creeks should be expanded, verified and utilized, in conjunction
with dye release studies where appropriate. Scientifically designed and
monitored water sampling programs and shoreline sanitation surveys should be
used in making informed decisions concerning both the creation and the
dimensions of a buffer zone. Significant changes in structures, numbers of
vessels or bathymetric alterations in or around any marina would require a
reevaluation of buffer zone requirements at that site. Shellfish sanitation
agencies should be provided sufficient resources and scientific assistance
to develop, implement, maintain and monitor these efforts.
6. A pilot plant for the depuration of shellfish from marginal or sea-
sonally condemned areas should be constructed. The plant should incorporate
design criteria specific to the Chesapeake Bay region. This, coupled with
research on the feasibility and effectiveness of shellfish relaying, might
significantly increase shellfish production and harvests in both states.
In addition to these specific recommendations, the workshop identified a
number of basic research questions and needs which must be addressed if the
states are to resolve the conflict between recreational boating and shell-
fish harvesting and other legitimate recreational uses of the waters of the
Chesapeake Bay. Resolution of the issues and answers to the questions pre-
sented in the following recommendations would aid greatly in furthering an
understanding of the actual impacts of the recreational boating community on
the quality and uses of Chesapeake Bay resources.
a.	A fundamental question which remains under debate is whether
recreational vessel discharges represent a legitimate public health concern
for Maryland and Virginia. It is extremely difficult to determine the ori-
gins or sources of the contamination which forces the closure of shellfish
grounds, particularly in the absence of a properly-conducted sanitary sur-
vey. It may be traced to recreational or commercial vessel discharges,
sewage treatment plant effluents, sewage or stormwater overflows, etc.. The
nature of the problem must be defined—Is it public health, boat traffic and
congestion, water pollution, aesthetic, or a combination of many fac- tors?
There is a lack of, and need for, comprehensive and definitive data related
to health risk assessments in this area.
b.	Efforts should be undertaken immediately to evaluate the actual
impact of recreational vessel discharges on the shellfish growing waters of
both states. Specific areas should be selected with respect to hydrographic
characteristics (depth, flushing rates, etc.) to determine the conditions
necessary to avoid the transport of such wastes to shellfish growing waters
and shoreline areas and to provide for the dispersal and removal of waste
particulates and the assimilation of waste-generated biological oxygen de-
mand. Impacts of waste discharges on biological communities (including
benthic, finfish and shellfish organisms) should be assessed under a variety
of salinity, temperature and tidal regimes. The assimilative capacities of
49
-------
water masses and biological communities should be determined for a wide
range of waste discharge scenarios.
c.	The concept of indicator organisms presently used to evaluate
and classify shellfish growing waters, and methods for detecting such organ-
isms in waters overlying shellfish beds, should be closely examined* There
are some questions regarding the validity of fecal coliform counts as an
indicator of public health risks in shellfish growing areas and in shellfish
market standards. A lessening of existing standards or establishing al-
ternative means of examining water quality sanitation criteria could release
additional, currently-closed, acreage for harvest, thereby increasing pro-
duction. Specifically, E. coli should be considered as an alternative in-
dicator organism to fecal coliforms for shellfish, but not for seawater.
d.	The states should reevaluate the criteria (i.e., bacterial
counts) currently used in determining the standards and definitions which
are applied to growing areas and market shellfish.
WATER ACCESS MANAGEMENT
The Access Management sub-group focused primarily on questions and con-
straints related to the siting of marinas and boat ramps and the need to
consider the impacts of land use decisions on water use activities.
1.	Local .jurisdictions should be required, by July 1, 1986, to incor-
porate water use activities into their comprehensive land use planning pro-
cess. Based upon criteria and guidelines developed by appropriate state
planning agencies by July 1, 1985, localities should be encouraged to de-
signate those areas which they deem to be suitable or appropriate for the
location of marinas and other water-related facilities; conversely, they
should designate those areas specifically not suitable for such uses. Crit-
eria should be based upon such factors as current and proposed development
pressures in the area, population densities, existing land use, hydrographic
characteristics, biological and physical habitat values, etc.. State and
local jurisdictions should identify the number and spatial distribution of
areas and facilities which should be designated for or dedicated to meeting
the demands for public access to the water. Maryland and Virginia, working
with their respective local jurisdictions, should identify all existing and
potential resources available for providing water-oriented recreational
opportunities and develop a comprehensive capital program for the instal-
lation and implementation of those facilities and goals. Land (and water)
use planning decisions should be based on a comprehensive, system-vide per-
spective of the Chesapeake Bay and its resources. This might Involve a
prioritization of Issues such as "best available" or "best attainable" land
uses for a given objective in a specific area.
2.	As a part of the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, the states should pro-
vide cost-share assistance to localities for the adoption and Implementation
of the above recommendation.
3.	Consideration should be given to the concept of a Bay-wide waterway
use authority or to the establishment of some type of Bay-wide waterway use
50
-------
zoning guidelines. There currently exists no comprehensive Bay-wide plan
for activities directed toward water-based recreation. These questions
should be considered jointly with land use planning, guidelines, or con-
trols. "Water use guidelines" might address such questions as boat-induced
shoreline erosion in confined estuaries, boat loading or "saturation point
guidelines for particular waterways, carrying capacities for individual
streams, etc.. These proposed guidelines would apply primarily to recrea-
tional vessels in relatively confined areas and not to large container and
cargo vessels entering and exiting Chesapeake Bay port facilities. In de-
veloping such guidelines, however, consideration should also be given to
issues of concern to the commercial sector (e.g., long-term lay-up sites,
anchorages) as well as to the designation of multiple-use areas, the creat-
ion and location of artificial reefs, etc..
4. Both states should expand existing education and public relations
efforts concerning water use activities. Boat owners, property owners, and
all other water users must be made aware of their contributions to and re-
sponsibility for Chesapeake Bay problems and solutions. This is a basic
question of "user attitude" toward stewardship of the waters and adjoining
lands in the Bay region; rights imply responsibilities.
Several other issues and questions were identified by workshop par-
ticipants as requiring further study or consideration by the states:
Questions regarding user fees (submerged lands assessment fees,
"rent", etc.) should be closely examined in both states.
- Are current fees appropriate and/or ade-
quate to cover or adequately subsidize costs?
-	Are funds currently collected being spent
in an appropriate manner?
-	Should the states establish a priority
system for the utilization of these reve-
nues?
- Are techniques such as dedicated taxes
and user fees being under-utilized as a
means of implementing public policy?
These, and others, are among the many questions which must be addres-
sed by management agencies and decision-makers in the Bay region with the
clear recognition that the general public must not be excluded' from its
legitimate role in the selection of and access to water-based recreational
sites.
A related question is whether taxation policies such as use-value
assessments might be employed as a means of encouraging site reservation to
protect or enhance access points for water-dependent activities. These
issues, of course, are a part of the larger, more fundamental, questions of
the tradeoffs among recreational opportunities, other waUr uses and
environmental protection (i.e., who benefits, who pays?).
51
-------
DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
Recommendations made by this panel are based upon the premise that
dredging activities are now and will continue to be necessary in order to
maintain the economic viability of the region in general and the ports in
particular. After this assumption was adopted by the group, discussions
centered around questions related to identifying, monitoring and miti-
gating the environmental impacts of dredging activities and dredged mat-
erial placement policies. Implicit in the deliberations of this sub-group
was the understanding that the most effective means of reducing dredging
needs in the region is to reduce sediment loads to the Bay. Thus, the
workshop strongly recommends that the states improve the implementation and
enforcement of erosion and sediment control ordinances to reduce
sedimentation in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin. Participants agreed
that an over-riding concern which supersedes all other considerations is the
continuing need to address dredged material issues from a long-term
perspective (I.e., beyond the life spans of Hart-Miller and Craney
Islands).The principal areas of group concern were habitat modification,
water quality, toxic substances and legislative/administrative policies.
Because of the nature of the problems, most recommendations involve
increasing or re-focusing research efforts and are, therefore, closely
related.
Dredging and dredged material handling policies and decisions should
incorporate system-vide considerations. A great deal of data exists
concerning federal dredging projects in the Bay, but the system-wide impacts
of these activities remain ill-defined. These impacts are both short-term
(i.e., benthic community disruption) and long-term (i.e., hydrologic
modifications) in nature. Unfortunately, we frequently lack the necessary
information to determine the nature or severity of cumulative impacts on
other resources or areas in the Bay system.
Clearly, the cooperative spirit which currently exists between the
states of Maryland and Virginia should be maintained and enhanced. The
concepts of regionalism and interstate cooperation are especially impor-
tant in the area of dredged material management and attempts to view the Bay
ecosystem in a comprehensive manner. Interstate cooperation and
coordination could be extremely beneficial in mitigating adverse Impacts or
promoting positive impacts associated with dredging access channels to and
harbor facilities for the ports of Baltimore and Hampton Roads.
1. Suitable sites for various types of dredged material should be
Identified. In making decisions or enacting policies regarding dredged
material placement, increased consideration should be given to the nature of
the dredged material and Its most appropriate uses. This would involve an
inventory of specific sites and sediments and an identification of areas
most suitable for the placement of individual materials. Such an inventory
would Include inquiries related both to water quality (i.e., toxic substance
resuspension) and habitat modification (i.e., the choice of open water,
coastal margin, confined or upland placement sites). Dredging activities
and the placement of dredged material should be assessed in terms of their
overall, long-term impacts on aquatic habitats, including an identification
52
-------
of key habitat areas which should not be modified. Hydrological, biologi-
cal, physical and chemical factors should be incorporated into the deci-
sion-making process. Seasonal and climatic factors should be considered as
well.
Legislative or administrative policies which contain blanket and
arbitrary prohibitions on dredged material placement in or from a parti-
cular area (e.g., Maryland Natural Resources Article 8-1601), which draws
arbitrary boundaries in the Baltimore Harbor area) should be re-examined and
consideration given to allowing the appropriate agencies to evaluate
placement policies on a site-specific basis.
2.	Increased attention should be focused on the potentially benefi-
cial uses of dredged material within the Chesapeake Bay system. Efforts
should focus on the identification of open water and coastal fringe
placement sites where new habitat (i.e., non-vegetated wetlands and tidal
flats) might be created or existing habitat enhanced. Such mitigation
procedures should be considered as an integral component of all decisions
regarding dredging and dredged material placement. Functionally beneficial
uses such as beach nourishment and erosion control in appropriate areas
should also be examined.
3.	Developments concerning the applicability of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRAj to dredging activities should be closely
monitored by both states and any arbitrary or blanket designation of bottom
sediments as "hazardous wastes under the provisions of this Act should be
rigorously opposed. Such action would require that dredged materials be
placed only in designated hazardous waste disposal sites. The general
classification of bottom sediments or dredged material from a particular
area as "hazardous wastes" under RCRA would have serious implications for
and impose severe restrictions on dredging activities and placement site
identification in the Chesapeake Bay region.
4.	Management agencies on the Bay should continue to work closely with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordinating research which addresses
dredged material management. The Corps has committed a large amount of
resources over the past ten years to the development of its Dredged Material
Research Program. Management agencies should continue to utilize the
information generated from this program and request additional technical
assistance when appropriate.
5- The Governors should urge that dredging technology and equipment be
exempted from the buy American" provisions of the Jones Act (Title 46,
U.S.C.A.f Sec. 11). Increased research attention should be focused upon
53
-------
those dredging techniques and equipment which reduce turbidity. Dredging
projects should employ the best available technology to minimize
environmental hazards in the Bay, regardless of the national origin of that
technology.
Two additional issues of a socio-political-economic nature were raised
by workshop participants:
a.	Royalty fees obtained by the states for the dredging of
state-owned bottoms should be evaluated both in terms of their magnitude and
their use.
-	Are the amounts of such fees appropriate?
-	Should all or part of these fees be dedi-
cated to monitoring activities, research
and development, habitat enhancement/acqui-
sition or other activities directly impacted
by or related to dredging and dredged mater-
ial placement?
b.	The philosophies of the two states regarding private oyster
leases/rights should be examined to consider their potential Impacts on
questions related to dredging and dredged material placement* Oyster leases
are regarded in Virginia as a virtual private property right.
-	Does this hinder the most effective
placement of dredged material or in-
crease the costs of dredging?
-	Could unproductive or unused privately-
held bottoms be put to more suitable or
productive uses?
-	Should the states consider the devel-
opment of some mechanism whereby private
leases could be rescinded or revoked when
such action is determined to be in the
interest of the citizens of the state or
the public at large?
54
-------
APPENDIX
The federal standards prescribed for marine sanitation devices are as
follows:
Type I devices: U.S. Coast Guard-certified to 1000 fecal coliforms/
100 ml and no visible floating solids.
Type II devices: U.S. Coast Guard-certified to 200 fecal coliforms/
100 ml and 150 mg/1 total suspended solids.
Type III devices: U.S. Coast Guard-certified to no-discharge.
The following presents the options considered by the EPA and the Coast Guard
in their evaluation of the federal MSD program:
Existing program: All vessels with installed toilets are required
to be equipped with an operable Type I, II, or III MSD. The Coast
Guard performs certification and enforcement. States are pre-empted
from issuing differing MSD requirements.
Option A: Abolish all Federal requirements for MSDs. There would be
no federal involvement in MSD certification or enforcement. States
would be able to adopt and enforce their own individual MSD requirements.
Option B: Abolish federal MSD requirements for all vessels 65 feet or
less in length, and allow optional state programs for those vessels
based on federal design standards (Types I, II, or III), or states may
elect to have no MSD program at all. Existing federal MSD requirements
would still apply to vessels greater than 65 feet in length.
Option C: Allow optional state programs based on existing federal
design standards (Types I, II, or III), or states may elect to have no
MSD program at all. Federal MSD requirements, in addition to federal
design standards, would also be retained, but vessel owners could elect
to comply with either state or federal requirements. Federal enforce-
ment for vessels 65 feet in length or less would be eliminated.
Option P: Federal Type I discharge standards would be established as
the minimum level for all vessels. States may establish more stringent
discharge standards, based on federal design standards (Types I, II, or
III). Coast Guard certification and enforcement activities would be
retained.
0£tionE: Federal Type I discharge standards would be established
as the minimal level for all vessels; states could not establish a more
stringent standard. Coast Guard certification and enforcement
activities would be retained.
55
-------
The options analysis recommended Option B as the preferred approach.
Classification of Shellfish Growing Areas
Both Maryland and Virginia utilize the MPN (Most Probable Number)
technique for counting coliforms, as recommended by the American Public
Health Association and the National Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation. In both
states, a fecal coliform count of greater than 14 organisms per 100
milliliter water sample renders the shellfish of an area unsuitable for
consumption or direct marketing.
56
-------
WATER ACTIVITIES WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Chairmen
William J. Detweiler
Dr. Maurice P. Lynch
Steering Committee
George A. Bruner, Jr.
Dr. Robert Byrne
R. Todd Coyle
Mary G. Dolan
Gregory Halpin
Mitchell Nathanson
Russell C. Scott
Participants
Jonathan E. Amson
Trisha Bednarz
Carvel Blair
David Carroll
Harold M. Cassell
William Chicca
Trevor Clarke
Don Elmore
J. W. Ferguson
Cathy Fitzpatrick
Mary Jo Garreis
A. F. Golding
R. W. Grabb
Alan Graefe
Joe Green
Frank L. Hamons
Jan Hollman
Bob Jackson
Derral Jones
J. Claiborne Jones
Howard Kator
Waldon Kerns
Richard Klein
Jon A. Lucy
Charles A. Lunsford
Jeffrey A. McKee
Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Boating Advisory Commission
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Port Authority
Baltimore Regional Planning Council
Maryland Port Administration
Marine Trades Association of Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Department of Oceanology, Old Dominion
University
Baltimore City Planning Department
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association
Maryland Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene,
Office of Environmental Programs
J. W. Ferguson Seafood Company, Inc.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Maryland Sea Grant Program
Town Manager, Urbana, Virginia
Maryland Port Authority
For Del. Robert Kramer, Maryland House
of Delegates
Virginia State Water Control Board
Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Norfolk, Virginia
Virginia Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service
Virginia State Water Control Board
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore, Maryland
57
-------
Jay C. Means
James W. Shell, Jr.
N. B. Theberge
Bud Watson
Cloyd W. Wiley
University of Maryland, Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory
Virginia State Water Control Board
Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Dept. of Ocean & Coastal Law
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Virginia Department of Health
58
-------
59
-------
Chapter 4
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Background
The Fisheries Management Workshop consisted of three days of intensive
exchange of technical information and the development of consensus on
recommendations. The workshop was planned by a steering committee that
consisted of the members of the Cooperative Fisheries Committee of the
Bi-State Working Committee. The workshop was designed to build on the work
done previously by this committee and by the community of fisheries experts
in the Bay area.
The agenda was structured to define fisheries management goals and
policies for the Chesapeake Bay, to examine the structure of existing
fisheries management institutions, to describe the status and value of
commercial and recreational fisheries, to address the relative roles of
legislative and administrative processes in fisheries management, and to
evaluate biological, economic, and social considerations in fisheries
management. The program also consisted of a report from the Habitat
Workshop, a description of research needs for obtaining the necessary
additional biological information to implement effective management
programs, and a synopsis of the recommendations being considered by the
Environmental Matters Committee of the Maryland General Assembly.
The Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Primer prepared by the
Chesapeake Bay Commission in November, 1982 was used as background to
provide information on the status of Chesapeake Bay fisheries. During the
Workshop, statistics on the value of the fisheries to the Chesapeake Bay
were obtained from several participants. These have been summarized in
Table I. Findings of the Workshop strongly support the estimated annual
economic impact of Chesapeake Bay fisheries as $767 million, as shown in the
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Primer. Table I presents the Workshop's
best estimate of the value of each major sport and recreational fishery in
the Chesapeake Bay, even though statistical data may not be compatible
between Maryland and Virginia. Detailed data on the fisheries landings were
constructed mainly from the proceedings of the 1982 Fisheries Statistics
Workshop, and the August 26, 1983 presentation of the findings of that
Workshop to the Bi-State Working Committee, and an atlas of fisheries
landings statistics now in preparation by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources and the University of Maryland. Detailed data on the value of
sport fisheries in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay can be found
in a publication under preparation entitled "Recreational Fishing Surveys
for the State of Maryland, 1979 and 1980". The data in these reports are,
in fact, estimates and the actual values may be much greater. Economists
have not yet fully examined the data and the economic structure of the Bay
fisheries to develop appropriate economic modifiers{ therefore, they are not
able to determine fully the types of economic benefits typically used to
describe the total value of the industry to the economies of the States of
Maryland and Virginia.
60
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. A management policy which states that the living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay are dependent on the management of the total ecosystem, the
improvement of the Bay habitat, and the protection of today's living
resources from overharvest, must be articulated.
The workshop found that all Chesapeake Bay fisheries stocks, with the
possible exception of the blue crab, are below levels that are desired by
the user groups and below levels that could be maintained by effective
management. Existing management procedures, and the laws and regulations
now being used in the management of the Chesapeake Bay are not adequate to
enhance, or even maintain present levels of fishery stocks. For the
immediate future, the Workshop recommends that State management agencies
recognize three very important factors that are presently affecting stock
size: (1) fishing pressure; (2) impact of natural environmental variables;
and (3) changes in water quality. There is an immediate need to institute a
new approach to the management of fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay. The new
fisheries management goal should be conservation of the natural resources
through an integrated approach of harvest management, habitat management,
and public education concerning resource management strategy. General
management policy should preserve both commercial and recreational fisheries
and allocate the resources equitably amoung all user groups.
Management of the fisheries must be based on biological criteria and a
preplanned management strategy to assure the stability and eventual
enhancement of the living resources. The quality of management activity
strongly depends upon the quality of scientific information concerning the
resource, the adequacy of a statistical data base on harvest and stock size,
and the continuous legislative support of the management decision process,
and a program of integrated research and public communication. The present
program of responding to fishery crises and short-term management problems
is not adequate to address the fishery problems that now exist in the
Chesapeake Bay.
The workshop suggests that the Lake Erie situation provide an object
lesson for the users of the Bay as well as the management agencies.
Following a period of rapidly degrading environment and the near extinction
of the fisheries resources, Lake Erie's fisheries are now recovering through
a program of stringent and progressive management practices. A combination
of restrictive legislation to protect the environment and the liberalization
of administrative management practices that were adequately supported by a
broad financial base of user fees and taxes has created a more desirable
situation from a nationally recognized disaster. Decisive action at this
point could reverse negative trends in Chesapeake Bay and permit resources
to recover more rapidly than Lake Erie.
The Workshop recommends that the Governors and legislative leaders
articulate a specific management policy f£T~Chesapeake Bav fisheries] ThiS
policy should state that the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay are
dependent upon the management of the total ecosystem, the improvement of the
Bay habitat and the protection of today's living resources. The goal of
fisheries management must be the conservation of stocks, in order to
maintain both commercial and recreational industries. The Workshop
61
-------
encourages th6 Governors to make a proclamation which focuses the attention
of the general public, legislators, administrative agencies and user groups
on these goals for the coming years.
2. It is critical that harvest pressure on fish stocks be immediately
reduced. Statistical data on the harvest and on the recruitment of most of
the finfish and shellfish (with the exception of the blue crab) clearly
demonstrate that our Bay stocks have reached a biological crisis and may be
on the verge of collapse during this decade. Biological studies, sport
fishing surveys, as well as anecdotal information from the user groups at
the Workshop all agree that the collapse of the Chesapeake Bay fisheries may
be imminent.
There should be an immediate effort to reduce stress on the existing
finfish populations by reducing harvest pressure. This reduction in harvest
pressure will ensure that adequate stocks are available to respond to future
changes in habitat and water quality that may result from programs being
recommended by habitat, land use, and water use workshops.
A strong program for enforcement of both harvest and environmental
regulations must be implemented. An integral part of this task will be an
active system of public communication and education so as to involve the
public in the planning process, in the execution of the various regulations,
and to provide the necessary public support for the major legislative and
administrative policies which must be implemented to preserve our resources.
A. Striped Bass
The general Workshop consensus was that striped bass population
require immediate management attention to restrict fishing pressure on the
stocks until they recover from a period of extremely low reproduction.
Fishing pressure is viewed as a stress that could be lifted from tKe
population so that it is better able to cope with the stresses of habitat
and water quality. A total moratorium on the catching of striped bass is
the most easily implemented management strategy for both Maryland and
Virginia.
The Workshop recommends that harvest restrictions be fair and equitable
among the commercial and recreational user groups. All restrictive
management activities on striped bass should include a trigger mechanism for
the reinstitution of a more liberal fishing practice. Detailed scientific
information and mathematical models were presented to suggest alternates to
a total striped bass fishing moratorium. One suggestion included the
adoption of an 18 inch size limit with a concurrent change in net mesh size
so as to allow the escape of striped bass smaller than 18 Inches in any
other fishery. This practice would permit existing Chesapeake Bay fish to
spawn and they would be protected by the 24 inch coastal size limit so that
50 to 60 percent of the animals would not be exploited until they had
8Pawned at least once.
B. Blue Crab
Recruitment to the blue crab fishery Is controlled predominately
k® environmental factors that are associated with the mouth of the
62
-------
Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters. There appears to be no immediate need
for restrictive regulations for the species.
C. Oyster
The oysters falls between the two extremes. The oyster
industry could be greatly enhanced in both States by changes in the existing
laws that would permit more progressive and dynamic management.
Maryland's repletion program was cited as a model program. However, the
program has suffered from lack of adequate funding in recent years and needs
to be expanded. General funds to match present tax revenues would be
necessary for this expansion. Virginia's program would need to be
substantially expanded to be similar in scope to that of Maryland. Part of
Virginia's implementation might include more efficient utilization of the
extensive seed areas in the James River to provide seed on a more cost
effective basis for all the waters of the state. A bi-state management plan
might provide for greater movement of seed to Maryland waters which are
generally disease-free and where better growth is normally assured.
Maryland has a large amount of public bottom which is currently barren
and not being utilized. The State's large public harvesting sector is
operating at a small percentage of its harvest capacity. Virginia, on the
other hand, has large areas of private grounds which are not being utilized
because of poor growing conditions or other factors. Virginia has an
extensive processing industry that needs oysters. Presently this need,
traditionally filled by Chesapeake Bay oysters, is being satisfied by
importing oysters from other states. It should be noted that 70% of oysters
currently harvested in Maryland are processed in Virginia. Implementation
of the most rational oyster management strategies in the Chesapeake Bay
would require a carefully planned bi-state management porgram and major
legislative reforms to implement it.
3. The primary recommendation of the fisheries workshop is that
management plans for each Important species be developed immediately.
Management should be based on modern fishery management theory supported
by the most accurate statistical base that can be obtained. The
comprehensive management plans should be flexible enough to deal with the
dynamic nature of the fisheries while ensuring equitable regulation of all
fisheries and coordination of Bay management practices with other
jurisdictions along the Atlantic Coast. Habitat and water quality criteria
necessary to ensure the prepetuation of each species should be described in
the plans. In drafting plans, managers must be able to (1) propose a
responsive management approach such as reliance on indices of recruitment
(such as the juvenile index for striped bass) to trigger management actions
and (2) consider use of innovative harvest controls such as limited entry
and quotas.
It was recommended that fisheries management plans follow set guidelines
such as those delineated by the Magnuson Act. This Act specifically defines
the national standards that are used in the development of fisheries
management plans in the territorial sea. If Bay-wide management plans
follow these national standards, the implementing State agencies would be
able to integrate their programs into the programs of other
63
-------
interjurisdictional bodies. Briefly, the national standards require that
fishery management plans (1) consider biological, political, and social
concerns of the specific region; (2) prevent overfishing and encourage the
optimum yeild from the given fisheries; (3) be based on best available
scientific and statistical information; (4) ensure that the entire stock be
managed as a unit; (5) ensure that there is no discrimination between user
groups; (6) provide an equitable allocation between user groups and
implement conservation measures in a manner which minimizes the costs while
permitting flexibility of execution
Legislative and executive oversight of the process, of developing and
implementing plans, especially in the formative years, is a universally
recognized need.
The Workshop recommends that water quality standards based on the needs
of the living resources—-the true occupants of the Bay—be developedf
describing the habitat needs of each species. Present water quality
standards based on chemical and physical parameters do not provide adequate
protection to living resources, especially in areas critical to sensitive
life stages.
Plans may initially address species-specific needs, but must include
long term planning in which management of the various fisheries gear types
and the various ecosystems are addressed. Plans for the future management
must be closely tied to the projected changes in habitat and consider the
Bay as an ecosystem integrated with human development. These planning
documents will provide an information base for legislative, executive and
Public review.
Funds for the development of species-specific management plans must be
Pade available. Administrative representatives at the Workshop recognized
the urgency with which legislative bodies in both States need management
plans to use in their decision making process. However, full development of
management plans such as those used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council have required the expenditure of three to four man years of staff
time per plan. It is anticipated that btoad framework plans containing
objectives, authorities, and activities can be developed by legislative and
management agency staff in a short time frame. However, a true biological
Plan as recommended by the Workshop will require more time and be relatively
expensive (i.e., $150,000 per management plan). Since there are no less
than 15 species of critical concern In the Chesapeake Bay, the ultimate
costs for the development of Bay-wide management plans could exceed $2.25
Million. This effort will require long-term application of new human and
financial resources and a short-term redirection of the activities of
fisheries management agencies in both States. Without these resources the
development of adequate management plans will not be possible.
Financial support for research on fisheries management questions is also
badly needed. At present, management agencies are dependent on federal
fishery research funds which have species-specific orientation. This
constraint and the lack of State funds prevent solution of many resource
management problems. Funds should be appropriated by legislative bodies of
b°th States so that necessary statistical data and biological data are
available for development of Bi-State Management Plans.
Workshop participants recognised a need for user fees, Including a sport
fishing license fee, sales taxes, fuel taxes, increases in existing user
64
-------
fees, etc. All such potential revenues should be considered a source of
Income to support the implementation of fishery management practices.
4. Management of fisheries resources should be placed in the hands of
the appropriate state administrative agencies with the assurance that they
are given the authority, responsibility and flexibility to manage, under
careful legislative guidance and oversight.
Major legislative reform in both States is necessary to achieve this
recommendation. The legislatures should state a comprehensive management
policy to guide administrative agencies. The authority and the
responsibility for the management of the living resources of the Bay must be
placed in an adequately staffed and financially supported administrative
agency in each State. These groups should develop and follow bi-state
cooperative management plans for all the living resources in the Chesapeake
Bay. The Workshop agreed that a major deterrent to expeditious
implementation of the proposed fishery management strategy is the inability
of current legislatures and regulatory processes to provide for dynamic
management as conditions in the fishery vary.
An analysis of both Maryland and Virginia fishery regulations found that
very few were based on biological factors. Most regulations restrict
fishermen, allocate resources among user groups, address application of
types of gear, and describe areas were fishing can occur. Instead of
putting emphasis on the social needs of user groups, the fisheries laws and
regulations should be modified to focus primarily on the needs of the
resources. New laws should focus on habitat and resource enhancement rather
than restriction.
5. Existing institutions designed to manage the fisheries resources of
Chesapeake Bay should be more fully utilized.
The Workshop carefully examined existing institutions that could be
utilized in the implementation of progressive fisheries management
throughout the Chesapeake Bay. The creation of new commissions, which may
or may not be effective in day to day management, involves a long and
tedious legislative process.
The Workshop felt that four existing groups could coordinate the State
management agencies to meet the Bay-wide management objective listed above.
These are (1) The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; (2) Middle
^lan^CcFi8hel2 *!a,nagement Counc11; <3> The Chesapeake Bay Commission; (4)
The Bi-State Working Committee through its subcommittees on fisheries
management, research and education, water dependent activities, and water
quality-pollution control.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was established in 1942
r ? ! °f a11 Atlantic Coast states have ratified its
compact. T^is Commission has been very effective in settling
MisrfiS™ ltd ^	issues concerning migratory fish stocks.
in the Chesapeake Ba^and th"?8 are amonS the most valuable resources
, r	y nd the Chesapeake Bay serves as a major nursery
states Active ^articin m Spec:ie8 that are caught and consumed by other
states. Active participation in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
65
-------
Commission will assure wise utilization of all fish stocks and uniformity of
effort in the preservation of the more valuable species. The Workshop
recommends that Maryland, Virginia, and perhaps Delaware and Pennsylvania
reconvene the Chesapeake Bay section of ASMFC which is now inactive. The
Workshop also recommends that the legislative representative to the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission be selected from the body of legislators
appointed to the Chesapeake Bay Commission. This would assure timely and
responsible communication among the various interjurisdictional fisheries of
the Atlantic Coast and to the Chesapeake Bay Commission. A timely flow of
Chesapeake Bay management needs would be assured to other Coastal States.
The same information would also be rapidly disseminated by the heads of the
Maryland and Virginia natural resources agencies who are representatives to
the Bi-State Working Committee, Middle Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission working committees.
The Middle Atlantic Fishery Management Council is presently the most
active interjurisdictional management unit and, with cooperation of National
Marine Fisheries Service, makes fishery management decisions for the federal
fisheries* conservation zone (3 to 200 miles offshore). The Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, as well as working committees of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, follow the national standards and
guidelines delineated in the Magnuson Act in developing management plans.
Plans are implemented through NMFS regulations and enforced by the Coast
Guard.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission, established in 1980, is an appropriate
body for discussing bi-state fisheries management needs and developing
proposals for legislative bodies in both Maryland and Virginia. The
Workshop recommends that the Chesapeake Bay Commission be intimately
involved. perhanR nn pn ad hoc basis, m the activities and deliberations^?
the Bi-State Working Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries. Through this
mechanism staff members of the Chesapeake Bay Commission could receive a
timely indication of the fishery issues and legislative needs of the
bi-state fisheries management group. In addition, the Workshop recommends
that periodic briefings be given to formal meetings of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission by the Bi-State Working Committee and its Fisheries Subcommittee
so that the legislative process can be timely and necessary legal
requirements can be implemented as needed.
The Workshop views the Bi-State Working Committee and its subcommittees
as the group to actively prepare management plans and implement many of the
management recommendations on a bi-state basis. Through representation of
the Virginia Marine Resources Commission and Maryland Tidewater
Administration on the various subcommittees the specific management
activities can be coordinated. Members of the subcommittees should be
selected to represent the various user groups and public interest groups so
that balanced and equitable management plans can be developed. The present
agenda for consideration in the Bi-State Working Committee Subcommittees is
very ambitious, but does address many of the immediate needs defined by the
Workshop. The Bi-State Committee lacks a mechanism for public participation
and/or public education. It is recommended that a public information
mechanism, similar to that provided by the Citizens Program for _the
Chesapeake Bay for the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, be added to the Bi-State
Working Committee.
66
-------
Another recommendation is to request the Chesapeake Research Consortium
to provide guidance to the Bi-State Working Committee's Subcommittee on
Research and Education. The Workshop felt that the present structure relies
too heavily on direction from Sea Grant institutions which may not have a
stable future. The Chesapeake Research Consortium represents approximately
two-thirds of the non-federal scientific capacity in the Chesapeake Bay area
and would provide a continuity of research needs to support the various
management components. Participation would assure more timely interchange
with the reseearch community.
TABLE I
Economic Value of Chesapeake Bay Fisheries, 1980
Number	Landings	Value
People Millions Pounds Millions dollars
MARYLAND
Edible Fish
Sport	900,000	9.7	132.0
Commercial	3,369	13.7	3.1
Menhaden	?	8.7	0.5
Blue Crab	26,800	24.0	42.0
Oysters	5,289	18.6	20.2
Clams	257	1.9	4.28
Total	76.6	202.08
VIRGINIA
Edible Fish
Sport	9,000*
Blue Crab	2,500
Oysters	1,625
Clams	383
Total
* ™ direct employees
? ¦ data not available
127.0
Commercial 4,000	24 5
Menhaden	800	?
40.5
10.0
8.7
1.18
211.88
67
-------
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Chairmen
Dr. George Krantz
William A. Pruitt
Steering Committee
Dr. Herbert Austin
Dr. L. Eugene Cronin
Dr. Brian Rothschild
Participants
Jack Travelstead
John Boreman
Paul Anninos
W. Pete Jensen
James F. McHugh
David Loveland
Henry Silbermann
Fred M. Biddlecomb
John McConaugha
Philip Jones
Larry Kohlenstein
Bob Stevens
William Gordon
Dick Schaefer
John Gottschalk
A. C. Carpenter
William Hargis
Cranston Morgan
Robert Harris
Willard VanEngle
John B. Williams
Margaret Johnston
Chris Bonzek
Jon Lucy
Charles Frisbie
W. R. Carter, III
Lenwood Hall
Marvin O'Malley
Barbara C. Turner
Ivar Strand
Irwin Alperin
Director, Tidewater Fisheries
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Commissioner, Virginia Marine Resources
Commission
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Chesapeake Research Consortium
University of Maryland
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service
Virginia Council of Angling Clubs
District of Columbia, Dept. of Environ-
mental Services
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Virginia Watermen's Association
Old Dominion University
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University, Applied
Physics Laboratory
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Citizens Program for the Chesapeake
Bay, Inc.
Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
W. F. Morgan & Sons, Seafood
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Virginia Institute of FMarine Science
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Johns Hopkins University, Applied
Physics Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
Maryland State Government
University of Maryland
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Council
68
-------
Larry Simns
Paul V. Martenson
The Hon. John Joannou
Ken Allen
Steve DiAngelo
Clay Jones
Harley Speir
Robert. H. Forste
Austin R. Magill
Maryland Watermen's Association
National Marine Fisheries Service
Virginia General Assembly
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Maryland Tidal Fisheries
Maryland General Assembly
National Marine Fisheries Service
69
-------
Chapter 5
MONITORING
Introduction
The Monitoring Workshop met as two committees, a baseline monitoring
committee and a research committee. Technical exchange was made concerning
various aspects of monitoring. Specific attention was given to review of
the monitoring and research strategy outlined by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram. In addition, the other conference workshop reports were reviewed and
recommendations concerning monitoring and research needs were acknowledged
and have been incorporated Into our recommendations.
The role of monitoring in the management of Chesapeake Bay was
summarized well in the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program's final report:
"We also do not know with certainty to what extent levels of
pollution must be reduced to achieve a quality of water that
can support resource objectives. Mathematical models, which
will someday enable us to arrive at these answers, have not yet
been perfected for the complex Chesapeake estuary. Based on
these significant gaps in our understanding, some would argue
that proof of the urgency for action is incomplete. However,
the evidence of increased pollution loads, accumulation and
retention of toxicants in the system, and declines of valued
resources are compelling reasons for prompt and effective cor-
rection. Nonetheless, whatever actions are taken, we must bear
in mind that our ability to assess the effectiveness of control
programs and redirect our efforts will depend on the adequacy
of our monitoring and research efforts."
Summary
At the workshops there was a general consensus concerning the monitoring
and research strategy as outlined by the Chesapeake Bay Program. In addi-
tion, there was a major consensus that accurate data are essential, thus
indicating a need for (a) quality control and determination of accuracy and
precision of data; and (b) determination of the natural variability of habi-
tat, environmental, and biological variables. In fact, there was consensus
that one of the major roles of research applied to monitoring should be the
determination of natural versus anthropogenic variability of resource and
habitat quality indicators, (physical, chemical, or biological). There was
agreement that long-term support at all levels of management is needed for
consistent development of policies. This essential ingredient is needed
because interpretation of data resulting from monitoring programs often in-
volves the differentiation of long-term natural cycles from impacts due to
land use activities. The remaining portion of this report Includes specific
recommendations, followed by a general discussion of baseline monitoring and
research monitoring, their goals and objectives, and a framework for imple-
mentation.
70
-------
Recommendations
General: These recommendations are generally those developed by the EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program (they are not prioritized).
— The states and Federal governments, through the Management Com-
mittee, should design and implement a coordinated program of
Bay-wide monitoring and research by July 1, 1984.
o a baseline (descriptive and analytical) long term monitoring
program;
o a coordinated and sustained interpretive program of monitoring
and research to improve the understanding of relationships
between water and sediment quality and living resources; and
o a research effort to identify important living resource hab-
itats and guide their preservation and restoration.
— develop chemical "fingerprints" of industrial and municipal ef-
fluents using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy.
conduct yearly aerial mapping and field surveys to evaluate sub-
merged aquatic vegetation distribution and abundance.
develop information on diseases and predators, particularly for
shellfish.
- insure collection of compatible bi-state fisheries and shellfish
harvest statistics and data base development. Begin collecting
such data on a tributary specific basis for future fisheries man-
agement plans.
include in the framework for monitoring special studies (Level II
monitoring) which will help derive correlations among habitat and
water quality variables and important biological species with
defined statistical significance
include in the monitoring research studies concerning ecosystem
processes cause and effect relationships between the environment
and living resources as well as specific monitoring research that
address spatial and temporal variability of parameters.
include in the baseline monitoring stragegy special research to
streamline and improve its accuracy.
Specific5 These recommendations are a compilation of recommendations
from the other workshops, from the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program monitoring
strategy and from workshop participants. They are not prioritized to date.
71
-------
Monitoring should address those issues that were not part of the
EPA study but were identified as needing study, e.g.,. dredging,
shellfish closures, living resources, wetland modifications, etc..
The current concept of indicator organisms presently used to
evaluate and classify shellfish growing waters and methods for
determining such organisms should be examined.
Scientific standards and criteria for heavy metals, pesticides and
toxic compounds for estuarine waters and economically important
species should be developed.
Monitoring of tributary basins adequate to indicate Increases or
decreases in nutrient sources must be assured.
Sources and fates of toxic materials should be indentified and
monitored.
Collection and storage of existing biological and chemical data in
a permanent data base must be continued. Include data concerning
industrial and municipal discharges to the Bay and tributaries.
Analyze data to identify biological communities threatened.
A uniform biomonitoring protocol must be developed as part of the
permit programs implemented by the states. Insure this program can
be implemented on a site specific basis.
Overboard dredge disposal options must be monitored and evaluated.
Research into the feasibility of reestablishing submerged aquatic
vegetation in areas where these plants previously flourished, must
continue.
Data describing recruitment to finfish and shellfish populations,
e.g., juvenile index and larval success, must be collected.
Benthic biota and sediment should be monitored as indicators of
overall environmental quality.
An additional subcommittee of the Bi-State working committee should
be established that would address the details of coordiantion and
implementation of the monitoring strategy. There should be repre-
sentation from Federal, state, and research institutions on the
subcommittee.
The Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the admin-
istrator of EPA should sign agreements for future monitoring
strategy implementation. This should form the long term mechanism
for accomplishing the monitoring program.
72
-------
Legislative oversight or review of monitoring activities should be
maintained by the Chesapeake Bay Commission to insure that habitat
quality, water quality and living resource data are collected in a
coordinated manner, i.e., sample, frequency, location, accuracy are
compatible.
Key elements of the long term habitat, water quality and living
resource monitoring strategy should be (a) data management; (b)
information dissemination; and (c) periodic (every 2 years) re-
porting to State and Federal legislative bodies.
Continuous monitoring at three locations in the Bay should be
established for: current speed and direction, temperture,
conductivity, pressure.
Several locations (approximately 10) in the Bay and tributaries
should be established as key sediment and biological monitoring
stations for bethic organisms (oysters) in order to assess exposure
to potentially toxic metals and synthetic organic chemicals.
A specimen banking program should be established within the
Chesapeake Bay Region for storage of sediment and biological
samples for use in cross calibrating future monitoring technologies
and to address new problems in the future.
The application of mathematical models for habitat modification and
water quality management strategies should be implemented in con-
junction with the monitoring strategy.
State-of-the-art capabilities for monitoring applications to
Chesapeake Bay should be determined.
Research should be supported for development of standard reference
materials in order for chemical data to be meaningful and com-
parable. Initial efforts should focus on reference materials for
toxic substances in tissues and sediments.
Level II and III monitoring should include biological community
structure and interaction (process) monitoring which includes
abundance measurements.
Non-point source monitoring for specific BMP applications and
conservation tillages should be Implemented for soil types and
da?aeexis?s?m Within the Che8aPeake Bay and where no previous
fr^V18	80urce compliance monitoring should be evaluated
of ostimTtoc \ assurance perspective and for determining accuracy
of estimates of sources of pollutants from this data.
73
-------
Enhancement of existing juvenile index and oyster spat d.atJ
collection efforts should be made in order to determine theii
relation to climatic and land use activities (pollution)
— The monitoring plan recommended for implementation should Include a
data management plan.
DISCUSSION
I. Background
Monitoring is both a support activity to determine the effectiveness of
management strategies and a scientific activity w c P P
teractions of ecological components being studie .
Monitoring is the process which allows us to dete^ne the status of an
environmental system and its components and to assess	Bulse
the system is moving. Monitoring can, in its simplest form, take ^
of a system or, in a more advanced application, explain the interre
lationships of many individual comPone^* ^uld^allow us^t^know'which sub-
monitoring program for the Chesapeake Bay would ax	, ,	j j
stances ZI pleased to the estuarine «££-%£££?£ a"
what quantities, how they subsequently behave, w	jr health is
and at .hat stage of their life cycle and	£
threatened. This knowledge would result in the a y	ideal like
protect the important living resources. Unfortunately, this ideal, like
many others, is difficult to achieve.
It is important to note when referring to monitoring that there are at
least two types:
1.	Baseline .onitorlng to determine trends	, Me>1
a system. This includes monitoring to satisfy
requirements.
2.	Monitoring research based y-	at
understanding the environmental or ecosy o. rflt..BV.
directing and improving the basic monitoring str gy
The Chesapeake Bay Program discussed monitoring in terms of three
levels of complexity. These ares
1-..1 T.	Descriptive# To allow the monitor to
changes in the parameters waaured over time with
their statistical characteristics.
level II, Analytic. lo allow	J°o"f H-a^h
lations among parameters measure
defined statistical significance.
74
-------
Level III: Interpretive. To allow analysts and scientists
to determine cause and effect relationships among
measured parameters and to understand and predict
interactions among ecosystem components and the
probable effects of changes with statiscal charac-
terization.
Figure 1 shows the interaction of monitoring and research and integrates
the three monitoring levels into a mutually supportive conceptual framework.
It is important to expand our thinking of water quality monitoring to
include other factors which contribute to habitat quality. Water quality in
this context becomes a part of the overall ovjective of habitat protection.
We gain little or nothing if we improve water quality, only to find that or-
ganisms do not respond to such improvement due to other factors.
Monitoring programs should also be designed and conducted to allow man-
agers to separate anthropogenic effects from natural and climatic effects.
A system as large and complex as the Chesapeake Bay is subject to climatic
and natural variables of great magnitude. It becomes increasingly difficult
to differentiate the variable influences exerted by natural causes from im-
pacts due to the activities of man.
Finally, management must be an active participant in any monitoring
strategy. The monitoring strategy proposed by the Chesapeake Bay Program
joins baseline monitoring with research and places them in a management con-
text.
Objectives
The monitoring strategy is intended to;
(1)	establish a long term baseline monitoring program to
determine water quality and resource trends.
(2)	initiate a series of related monitoring research stu-
dies designed to add to our knowledge base and to re-
fine the long term baseline monitoring program.
(3)	define the interaction between baseline monitoring for
trends and monitoring research.
(4)	improve the data management and information dissemina-
tion functions to include management, scientists and
the public.
(5)	suggest a mechanism for accomplishing the monitoring
program.
(6)	provide precise and accurate data through implementation
of a quality assurance plan.
75
-------
By integrating baseline (pulse-taking) monitoring at Levels I and II and
monitoring research studies at Levels II and III, the proposed monitoring
strategy will combine routine and research monitoring in a mutually sup-
portive way. The Level I and II baseline monitoring plan is a surveillance
plan which tracks the trends of the Bay and selected biota. The monitoring
research studies are unique problem areas that require individual research
attention. By identifying the critical research problems and their compo-
nents and prioritizing them in order of significance to the health of the
Chesapeake Bay ecological system, a series of special monitoring problems
can be recommended for study. These special studies will complement and
reinforce the baseline effort by providing a basis for refinement and mid-
course corrections. The following is a discussion of the objectives and key
elements of the recommended baseline monitoring and research monitoring.
II. Baseline Monitoring
Through activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program, in cooperation with
the states of Maryland and Virginia, a monitoring strategy for the Chesa-
peake Bay was developed (Appendix F, Chesapeake Bay Program—A Framework for
Action, reference 1). The baseline monitoring portion of the plan incor-
porates several facets:
o It has a Bay-wide perspective.
o It is problem oriented, i.e., toxics, nutrients, effects
on living resources.
o It builds on present monitoring programs.
o It encourages coordination of efforts among local, state
and federal agencies.
o It recognizes the critical relationship between baseline
(pulse-taking) monitoring, data analysis, and monitoring
research.
o It dictates that there will be an effective Bay-wide Data
Management Plan.
In FY 84, a Level I and II baseline monitoring effort should begin. The
goal of the Level I monitoring is to define the state of the Bay with regard
to habitat and water quality and assess trends. Level II efforts allow the
monitor to evaluate interrelationships between water quality and biota. A
comprehensive set of stations is being selected to be sampled on a time-
series basis in the main stem and tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay to
accomplish the Level I and II goals. Baseline water quality monitoring
efforts in the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay will follow the baseline
monitoring strategy and be supported by the states of Maryland and Vir-
ginia. The states are currently responsible for funding the monitoring the
Bay tributaries through the 106 mechanism or other grants. These ongoing
efforts will be integrated into one coordinated monitoring plan. Baseline
water quality monitoring of the main stem of the Bay will be accomplished
through the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. Living resources trend moni-
toring will be the joint responsibility of state and federal agencies.
76
-------
The elements comprising the baseline program are listed below. The de
tails of this program are still being developed. However, a formal
mechanism for development between federal and state agencies is needed.
Baseline Monitoring Major Elements
A.	Core Network of Chesapeake Bay and Tributary Stations
-	Water Quality Trends (nutrients and toxics)
-	Living Resources Trends (stocks, mortality, spawning success)
-	Habitat Suitability (climatic, land use activities, sediments,
etc.)
B.	Input Stations at Major Riverine Fall Lines
-	Import (loadings) of nutrients, sediments, biocides, and other
toxic substances.
C.	SAV Aerial Surveillance
-	Quantitative assessment of standing crop (with ground truthing)
D.	Data Management, Analysis and Information Dissemination
-	Annual Data Reports
-	Biannual Reassessment Program
E.	Continuous Monitoring at Three Stations
-	Quantitative determination of current speed and direction,
depth, conductivity, temperature and pressure
F.	Quality Assurance Program
-	Estimates of precision and accuracy
-	Interlaboratory comparisons
III. Monitoring Research
The monitoring of various aspects or elements of the Chesapeake Bay eco-
system serves multiple purposes. One is to determine trends; for instance,
determination of dissolved oxygen trends in a given segment of the Bay.
Another is to supply data which will allow predictions of the future. For
example, the determination of a spawning success of one year can be used to
estimate the abundance of that resource in the future, and hence the poten-
tial landings and associated economics. A third purpose is to determine if
management policies are effective. For instance, if phosphorus removal in
sewage treatment plants is initiated, management needs to know if dissolved
oxygen improves or if there are decreases in nuisance phytoplankton as well
as increased fisheries. Thus, it is obvious that monitoring of the Ches-
apeake Bay is essential for the proper management of the system.
The objectives of a research strategy to support baseline monitoring and
management questions concerning habitat suitability, water quality and fish-
eries resources objectives are as follows:
o to assist in experimental design of special studies (Level II)
o to provide statistical analysis which helps determine variability
of samples (same size, frequency, location, etc.)
o to develop new monitoring methodologies, field and laboratories
o to conduct special studies and test hypotheses concerning the
importance of physical, chemical, and biological processes
77
-------
For any of the above-mentioned examples, accurate data are essential,
and the data must represent the system or process being monitored. This
sounds obvious, but, unfortunately, it is too often ignored. Most of our
past efforts have focussed on the accuracy and precision of data derived
from laboratory analytical analyses. Less attention has been given to
whether the right kinds of samples have been collected, from the right
places, at the right times, and with the proper number of replicates. This
necessarily results in data being generated which may or may not be mean-
ingful, and bad data are often worse than no data. We must correct this
situation. Below are listed several elements of a research monitoring
strategy. It must be recognized that a major role of research is its abi-
lity to improve baseline monitoring as well as helping to answer questions
related to what habitat or environmental process are dominant factors con-
trolling research monitoring elements.
A. Determine Natural Variability and Accountability
-	Sample type (determine what is best type of sample to collect
to reflect the system being sampled)
-	Sample size (determine how many replicates from a site are needed)
-	Sample frequency (determine how often a station needs to be sampled
for determining trends)
-	Sample location (determine the best places to sample to detect
changes)
Discriminate Anthropogenic vs. Natural Variability
-	Determine length of natural cycles
-	Determine what processes are responsible for causing variability
of physical, chemical, and biological processes
C.	Analytical and Field Methodology, Development and Transfer
-	Develop new approaches for monitoring
-	Compare new methods with existing methods
-	Transfer methods to the states
D.	Establishment of Reference Materials (for Quality Assurance)
-	Develop reference materials for toxic chemicals in sediment and
biota (should be a federal NBS/research initiative.)
E.	Specimen Banking of Environmental Samples
-	Biological and sediment samples stored (frozen) for future compari-
sons (should be a federal NBS/research initiative)
Special Studies
-	Mathematical Modelling (should include state, EPA, and research
personnel)
-	Remote Sensing
-	Toxic Substance, Fate, and Effects (especially upon spawning
success of economically important species)
-	Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrient monitoring of important processes
-	Habitat Monitoring (sediments, etc.)
-	Climatic effects upon stocks of economically important species
-	Phytoplankton dynamics (uptake, productivity)
78
-------
It is not possible to describe all possible special research studies
necessary for supporting the baseline monitoring program, and for helping to
answer management questions. However, the Monitoring Workshop participants
did discuss general topical areas of needed study. These are listed below
(not in priority).
Research Monitoring Special Studies
A. Biological Monitoring
-	Development of toxicological test procedures for important
species in the Chesapeake Bay
-	Determination of the most sensitive stages of important
species to toxicants
-	Evaluation of known toxicants or potential toxicants
-	Complete toxicity and bioassay studies on the stages of
each economically or ecologically important species which
occurs in the Bay
B. DO Deficit Related Monitoring Studies
-	Temporal/spatial aspects of anoxic area
-	Nutrient/toxic elements released to water column due to anoxia
-	Effects on biota
C. Nutrient Monitoring
-	Monitor for long term nutrient trends
-	Determine major nutrient cycling/regeneration mechanisms
-	Develop predictive capabilities for consideration of alter-
nate nutrient control strategies
D.	Bottom Quality Monitoring
-	Sources and pathways of sediments in the Bay
-	Bed sediment-water interactions
-	Guidelines for dredging and placement of dredged materials
E.	Toxic Substances Monitoring
-	Determine the sources, distribution, concentration and
seasonal patterns of man-induced environmental contaminants
-	Determine the effects of man-produced contaminants on indivi-
duals, populations, communities, and systems of the Bay
-	Monitor to insure toxic materials identified as problems
affecting spat/set recruitment are within acceptable toler-
ance limits (Issue #3, Habitat Workshop)
F.	Atmospheric Dry-Wet Fall Monitoring
G.	Mathematical Modelling
-	Continue development of estuarine model and refined appli-
cation land runoff model on Bay—wide basis and smaller river
basins
79
-------
H.	Remote Sensing
- Determine state-of-the-art capabilities for monitoring appli-
cations to Chesapeake Bay
I.	Climatic effects upon stocks, spawning, and mortality of econ-
omically important species
Conclusions
The first phase of work undertaken by the Monitoring Committee is com-
plete. We have identified the research monitoring priorities and have de-
tailed a baseline monitoring program as a critical first step to under-
standing the status and direction of the health of the Bay. This step is
necessary to judge the effectiveness of any management control programs that
are put in place.
While the program needs refinement, the Committee's next task will be to
consider implementation alternatives and to integrate specific requirements
of the other workgroups into the overall plan.
Acknowledgement s
We wish to thank all the members of the Monitoring Committee for their
assistance in the past several weeks, particularly Jota Roland, Cterles Bos-
tater, Mike Haire, Dave Wright, Bob Huggett, and Herb Austin. Th* work
Dave Flemer, Linda Davidson and Romano Trovato is especially appreciate .
80
-------
LEVEL I S II
MONITORING
o
o
0
0
0
0
Compilation of baseline information
Detection of Environmental change
o Assessment of regulatory compliance
o Determination of management action effectiveness
4-
O
£
W
•H
4J
U
Uh
0)
•u
Q>
•H
10
0)
T5
UH
M
PROBLEM DEFINED
TJ
(11
£
V)
¦H
r—I
D«
13
o
o
o
Itf
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
LEVEL III
MONITORING & RESEARCH
Experimental design
Parameter sampling
Lab and field research
Statistical analysis
-------
MONITORING WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Chairman
Orterio Villa
Participants
Ray Alden
Herbert Austin
Charles Bostater
Ted Clista
Richard Cook
Eugene Cronin
Linda Davidson
Tudor Davies
Leo Fisher
Paul Fisher
Robert Frey
Michael Halre
Jerry Hollowell
Robert Huggett
Greene A. Jones
Floyd Kefford
Randall Kerhin
Douglas Lipton
Robert E. Magnien
Eugene Maurakis
Archie McDonnell
Robert J. Mitkus
Cranston Morgan
Ian Morris
Carl Osbourne
William Rickards
Randy Roig
John Roland
Stanley Sauer
Evelyn B. Schultz
Sharon Shutler
Robert B. Stroube
Walter Taylor
Ramona Trovato
William Willsey
David Wright
Craig Zamuda
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Old Dominion University
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources
Dupont Chemical Company
Chesapeake Research Consortium
Chesapeake Bay Program
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service
Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources
Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental
Hygiene
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources
Maryland Geological Survey
National Marine Fishery Service
Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental
Hygiene
Potomac Electric Power Company
Pennsylvania State University
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
W. F. Morgan & Sons, Seafood Processors
University of Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
University of Virginia
Maryland Power Plant Siting Program
Virginia State Water Control Board
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
National Marine Fishery Service
Virginia Department of Health
Chesapeake Bay Institute
Chesapeake Bay Program
Philadelphia Electric Company
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
U. S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries & Wildlife
82
-------
83
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In some Instances conference workshops wrote new technical papers which
provide the background for their committee recommendations. In other cases,
existing reports and papers were used. These materials are listed below,
and starred (*) items are available from the Citizens Program for the
Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Eight original papers, edited into one report, on the vertical and
horizontal habitats of Chesapeake Bay. Edited by Norman Larsen, Virginia
Marine Resource Commission.*	_	„	_ ¦
Chesapeake Bav: Profile of Environmental Change. Report of the EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program (final draft).*
LAND ACTIVITIES
Chesapeake"Bay: A Framework for Action.. Report of the EPA Chesapeake
Bay Program (drafts).*	,	_ . - „ ..
Strategies for Municipal Pnint Source Phosphorus Control. North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, January
1983
Lake Erie Wastewater M«r.aRement Stuldy. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo District, September 1982.	1 rtf
Potomac River w«*»t Quality of 1982. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, August 1983.	. o _ _ .		,
A Comparison of Tillage System** for Reducing Soil Erosion and Water
Pollution. U. S. Department of Agriculture, May 1983.
Patuxent River Policy Plan. Maryland Department of State Planning,
February, 1983. Patuxent River Basin. Maryland
Nutrient Control Strategy for the Patuxent 	.
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, January 19~ *	Selected Hiah
An Asseftfiment of Agricultural Nonpoiat Source Pollution ^Selected High
Priority Watersheds * in Pennsylvania.Pennsylvania Department of
environmental Resources, June 1983.	virninia State
Upper Janea M»r Mm Ir--"1 Allocation flan. Virginia State
Water Control Board. December 1983.	u weslev
Report on COG PHn.fhate Uttc-fT"* R*n Recommendation.. W. Wesley
Eckenfelder, Jr., February 1^6l«
84
-------
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Primer. Chesapeake Bay Commission,
November 1982.
Notes and papers from the fisheries workshop, September 1983.*
Blue Crab Fisheries of Virginia and Maryland. Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, September 1983.
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Statistics. Chesapeake Research Consortium.
19g2-
AtlaB of Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Statistics. Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, 1983.
Maryland Saltwater Sportfishlng Survey, 1979-80. Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, 1980.
85
-------