Technical Support Document for
Identification of Chesapeake Bay
Designated Uses and Attainability
2004 Addendum
October 2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, Maryland
and
Region III
Water Protection Division
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
in coordination with
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Washington, D.C.
-------
Contents
Acknowledgments v
I. Introduction 1
II. Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water
Designated Use Boundaries 3
Western Lower Chesapeake Bay 4
Rappahannock River 8
Elizabeth River 10
Mouth to mid-Elizabeth River 12
Lafayette River 13
Western Branch Elizabeth River 14
Eastern Branch Elizabeth River 15
Southern Branch Elizabeth River 16
Patapsco River 16
Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributary
Designated Use Boundary Documentation 18
Literature Cited 18
III. Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary
Delineations 19
Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Schemes 19
Need for a segmentation scheme 19
1983-1985 segmentation scheme 20
1997-1998 revised segmentation scheme 20
2003 segmentation scheme refinements 20
Maryland's Split Segments for Shallow-Water
Bay Grass Designated Use 21
Virginia's Upper James River Split Segment 22
Literature Cited 25
IV. Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries 27
Contents
-------
iv
V. Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV
No-Grow Zones 41
Literature Cited 43
VI. Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow-Water
Acreages: Updated and Expanded Documentation 57
Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal 57
Clipping of 'on land' SAV beds 57
Clipping of SAV beds due to lack of bathymetry data 58
Clipping of SAV beds by depth 58
Accounting for clipped SAV acreages 58
Shallow-water Existing Use Acreages 59
Updated Restoration, Existing Use and
Shallow-Water Acreages 60
Upper Tidal Potomac River Water Clarity Criteria
Application Depths 66
Appendix A: Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributaries Designated Use
Boundary Documentation 67
Appendix B: Maryland's and Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program
Split Segments Boundary Documentation 71
Contents
-------
V
Acknowledgments
This addendum to the October 2003 Technical Support Document for Identification
of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability was developed and
documented through the collaborative efforts of the members of the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Water Quality Standards Coordinators Team: Richard Batiuk, U.S. EPA
Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Joe Beaman, Maryland Department of
the Environment; Gregory Hope, District of Columbia Department of Health; Libby
Chatfield, West Virginia Environmental Quality Board; Tiffany Crawford, U.S. EPA
Region III Water Protection Division; Elleanore Daub, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality; Lisa Huff, U.S. EPA Office of Water; Wayne Jackson, U.S.
EPA Region II; James Keating, U.S. EPA Office of Water; Robert Koroncai, U.S.
EPA Region III Water Protection Division; Benita Moore, Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection; Shah Nawaz, District of Columbia Department of
Health; Scott Stoner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation;
David Wolanski, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control; and Carol Young, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
The individual and collective contributions from members of the Chesapeake Bay
Program Office and NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office staff are also acknowledged:
Ricky Bahner, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin/Chesapeake Bay
Program Office; David Jasinski, University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science/Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Marcia Olson, NOAA Chesapeake Bay
Office; Gary Shenk U.S. EPA Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office; and
Howard Weinberg, University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science/Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
Acknowledgments
-------
1
chapter |
Introduction
In October 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the
Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses
and Attainability (Technical Support Document) in cooperation with and on behalf
of the six watershed states—New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia
and West Virginia—and the District of Columbia. Developed as a companion docu-
ment to the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and
Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries, the Technical
Support Document was the direct result of the collective contributions of hundreds
of regional economists, technical modelers and analysts, stakeholders and agency
managers.
At the time of publication of the Technical Support Documen t, a number of technical
designated use and attainability issues still remained to be worked through, resolved
and documented. The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards Coordinators
Team—water quality standards program managers and coordinators from the seven
Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions and EPA's Office of Water, Region 2 and
Region 3—took on the responsibility on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay watershed
partners to collectively work through these technical issues. The work on these
issues was largely in support of the four jurisdictions with Bay tidal waters who were
formally adopting the published Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria, designated
uses and criteria attainment procedures into their states' water quality standards
regulations.
This EPA published addendum to the 2003 Technical Support Document for Identi-
fication of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability provides expanded
designated use related documentation for the following issues and designated uses:
• Documentation on refinements to Chesapeake Bay tidal water designated use
boundaries for the western lower Chesapeake Bay, Rappahannock River, Eliza-
beth River and Patapsco River (Chapter 2).
• Documentation for the Chesapeake Bay Program segmentation scheme boundary
delineations (Chapter 3).
chapter i • Introduction
-------
2
• Documentation for the boundaries between the three jurisdictions along the tidal
Potomac River (Chapter 4).
• Expanded documentation on the Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) no-grow zones (Chapter 5).
• Updated data and expanded documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV restora-
tion goal, shallow-water habitat and shallow-water existing use acreages (Chapter
6).
• Detailed narrative descriptions and latitude/longitude coordinates delineating the
migratory, open-water, deep-water and deep-channel designated use boundaries
(Appendix A).
Through publication by EPA, as a formal addendum to the 2003 Chesapeake Bay
Technical Support Document, this document should be viewed by readers as supple-
mental chapters and appendices to the original published Technical Support
Document.
chapter i • Introduction
-------
3
chapter |
Refinements to Chesapeake Bay
Tidal Water Designated Use
Boundaries
Upon adoption of the nutrient and sediment cap load allocations by major tributary
basins by jurisdiction in April 2003 (Secretary Murphy 2003), the watershed part-
ners had additional information and tools to both confirm the published designated
uses (U.S. EPA 2003) and refine specific use boundaries in selected regions of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. A series of summer (June-September)
month by month density/pycnocline boundaries/dissolved oxygen concentrations
depth profiles were generated for 1985-1994 (hydrodynamic years of the Chesa-
peake Bay water quality model output). Both the observed (actual monitored water
quality conditions 1985-1994) and Chesapeake Bay water quality model simulated
water quality (1985-1994 hydrologic conditions) upon achievement of the cap load
allocations were generated for over 150 individual Chesapeake Bay Water Quality
Monitoring Program stations. An example of the literal thousands of generated
profiles is provided in Figure II-1.
Based on this information made available to the Chesapeake Bay watershed partners
after the October 2003 EPA publication of the Technical Support Document for Iden-
tification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability (Technical Support
Document) (U.S. EPA 2003), refinements to the published open-water, deep-water
and/or deep-channel designated use boundaries in the western lower Chesapeake
Bay, Rappahannock River, Elizabeth River and Patapsco River have been docu-
mented below. For the remaining Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributary waters, the
detailed evaluation of the summer months density/pycnocline boundaries/dissolved
oxygen concentrations depth profiles confirmed the attainability and validity of the
EPA published open-water, deep-water and deep-channel designated use boundaries.
The recommended refined Chesapeake Bay tidal water designated use boundary
delineations for open-water, deep-water and deep-channel designated uses are illus-
trated in Figure II-2. No changes were recommended to the migratory spawning and
nursery designated use boundaries published in U.S. EPA 2003. Extensive documen-
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
4
-
Observed w (! 1
dissolved ^ \
oxygen If j
-
// i
-
j Chesapeake Bay water \
/ quality model \
Monitored
water column )~
density
-
! /
>1 I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Dissolved Oxygen Corrcentration (mg/liter); Density (sigma T)
Figure 11-1. Example of the summer (June-September) month by month density/-
pycnocline boundaries and dissolved oxygen concentrations depth profiles generated
for 1985-1994. Monitored water column density and observed dissolved oxygen
concentrations with depth are illustrated alongside the Chesapeake Bay water quality
model simulated dissolved oxygen concentration depth profile under basinwide achieve-
ment of the nutrient and sediment cap load allocations at station CB5.4 in the middle
Chesapeake Bay mainstem on August 19, 1985.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling Programs
h tt p ://www. chesapeakebay. net/data
tation of the recommended migratory spawning and nursery, open-water, deep-water
and deep-channel designated uses boundaries—narrative text descriptions and
latitude/longitude coordinates—is contained in Appendix A. Recommended refine-
ments to the shallow-water bay grass designated use boundaries are documented in
Chapter 6.
WESTERN LOWER CHESAPEAKE BAY
Based on water quality model estimates, achievement of the established nutrient and
sediment cap load allocations basinwide would result in just over 1 percent non-
attainment in the western lower Chesapeake Bay, also referred to as segment CB6PH
(Figure II-3; Table II-l). This level of model-estimated non-attainment was based on
the designated use boundaries previously published by EPA in the Technical Support
Document (U.S. EPA 2003). Virginia representatives expressed a desire to determine
a refined southern boundary between the open-water/deep-water and open-water
throughout the entire water column designated uses whereby the estimated level of
dissolved oxygen criteria non-attainment would fall below 1 percent. This level of
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
5
Open Water, Surface to Bottom
Open Water over Deep Water
| Open Water over Deep Water over Deep Channel
Figure 11-2. Map illustrating the refined geographic distribution of the open-water fish
and shellfish, deep-water seasonal fish and shellfish and deep-channel seasonal refuge
designated uses across Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries.
non-attainment is consistent with the water quality model estimated very low levels of
remaining percent dissolved oxygen criteria non-attainment in a number of other Chesa-
peake Bay Program segments—see segments CB20H, CB3MH, CB5MH, CB7PH,
PAXOH, POTOH, POTMH and EASMH in the "Confirmation" column in Table II-1.
The percent remaining dissolved oxygen criteria non-attainment in the segment
CB6PH open-water designated use habitats was determined for incremental (1 kilo-
meter) southward movements of the down-Bay boundary between the
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
6
Current Southern Boundary
1.40%
c
O)
E
c
re
c 1.20%
o
z
c
O)
o
a)
1.00%
Q.
C
o
O
«
~
3
C
South
North
<1>
O 0.20%
0.00%
4125
4130
4135
4140
4145
4150
4155
4160
Horizontal Distance in North/South Coordinates, UTM Zone 18(1 unit= 1 kilometer)
Figure II-3. Illustration of the Chesapeake Bay open-water dissolved oxygen criteria percent
non-attainment within the lower western Chesapeake Bay, segment CB6PH, under model sim-
ulated summer (June-September) water quality conditions upon basinwide achievement of
nutrient and sediment cap load allocations. Percent open-water dissolved oxygen criteria non-
attainment estimates are provided at one kilometer increments north and south of the bound-
ary between the open-water/deep-water and the open-water throughout the water column
designated uses originally published in the October 2003 Technical Support Document.
Source: U.S. EPA 2003; Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
open-water/deep-water and open-water throughout the entire water column desig-
nated uses (Figure II-3). On the x-axis in Figure II-3, each 1 unit change in the Y
coordinate equals one kilometer in horizontal distance. Southward movement of the
southern CB6PH boundary between the open-water/deep-water and open-water
throughout the entire water column designated uses yielded incrementally lower and
lower dissolved oxygen criteria non-attainment percentages. A down-Bay movement
of the designated uses boundary only 2 kilometers results in a percent dissolved
oxygen criteria non-attainment of <0.85 percent. There is clearly a significant down-
ward slope in the remaining non-attainment percentages from 4152 (location of the
current southern boundary between the open-water/deep-water versus open-water
throughout the entire water column designated uses) to 4145 (<0.4 percent) in Figure
II-3. In this figure, 4145 is the location in the western lower Chesapeake Bay, adja-
cent to Milford Haven, Virginia, where the natural channel shallows out into a
consistent bottom plain of depths averaging around 35 feet. Beyond this location,
incremental decreases in percent dissolved oxygen criteria non-attainment tends to
flatten out, with percent non-attainment under the basinwide cap load allocation
achieved model scenario estimated water quality conditions eventually reaching zero
at 4130 (a location adjacent to New Point Comfort at the northern entrance to
Mobjack Bay) (Figure II-3).
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
7
Table 11-1. Summer (June-September) dissolved oxygen criteria percent non-attainment by designated use by
Chesapeake Bay Program segment for key Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model scenarios based
on the 1985-1994 hydrodynamic years.
Seg merit
DU
Observed
Progress 2000
Tierl
Tier2
Tier3
Allocation
Confirmation
E3
Northern Chesapeake Bay (CB1TF)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Upper Chesapeake Bay (CB20H)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
1.92
0.88
0.68
0.43
0.17
0.08
0.09
A
Upper Central Chesapeake Bay (CB3MH)
MIG
0.19
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DW
4.18
2.52
2.24
1.61
0.73
0.38
0.46
A
DC
13.52
8.16
7.21
5.03
1.84
0.12
0.40
A
Middle Central Chesapeake Bay (CB4MH)
OW
0.05
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DW
19.64
15.28
14.28
12.05
8.51
5.96
6.99
0.69
DC
45.19
32.75
28.94
18.81
3.93
1.02
1.75
A
Lower Central Chesapeake Bay (CB5MH)
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DW
6.16
4.38
3.75
2.58
1.08
0.72
0.86
A
DC
13.79
7.76
6.00
2.59
0.15
0.08
0.08
A
Western Lower Chesapeake Bay (CB6PH)
OW
5.87
4.26
3.68
2.71
1.30
0.97
1.13
0.01
DW
0.36
0.01
A
A
A
A
A
A
Eastern Lower Chesapeake Bay (CB7PH)
OW
4.55
3.31
2.81
1.82
0.74
0.50
0.63
A
DW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (CB8PH)
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Upper Patuxent River (PAXTF)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.38
Middle Patuxent River(PAXOH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
9.79
1.56
1.84
1.62
0.86
0.09
0.10
A
Lower Patuxent River (PAXMH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
7.40
1.59
1.69
1.04
0.01
A
A
A
DW
5.52
0.85
0.82
0.50
0.07
A
A
A
Upper Potomac River (POTTF)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Middle Potomac River (POTOH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
2.10
1.36
1.08
0.63
0.31
0.18
0.20
0.01
Lower Potomac River (POTMH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
0.78
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DW
6.90
5.03
4.53
3.11
1.12
0.26
0.58
A
DC
18.89
11.39
8.64
5.07
0.19
0.16
0.17
A
Upper Rappahannock River (RPPTF)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Middle Rappahannock River (RPPOH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lower Rappahanock River (RPPMH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
0.44
0.27
0.10
A
A
A
A
A
DW
5.58
2.61
1.09
0.01
A
A
A
A
DC
6.39
5.20
3.38
1.65
A
A
A
A
Piankatank River (PIAMH)
OW
0.12
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Upper Mattaponi River (MPNTF)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
33.42
27.37
25.87
27.23
33.73
34.44
38.05
52.14
Lower Mattaponi River (MPNOH)
MIG
A
A
A
1.72
2.78
1.34
2.12
6.08
OW
46.93
31.00
28.95
31.86
28.99
24.17
28.21
48.11
Upper Pamunkey River (PMKTF)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.10
OW
62.25
49.53
42.07
30.35
32.94
21.77
32.47
54.50
Lower Pamunkey River (PMKOH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
42.15
15.22
12.66
13.86
10.32
4.92
9.55
11.39
Middle York River (YRKMH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
18.08
4.85
3.31
2.32
0.42
0.15
0.19
A
Lower York River (YRKPH)
OW
1.48
0.01
A
A
A
A
A
A
DW
0.01
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Mobjack Bay (MOBPH)
OW
2.30
1.78
1.60
1.10
0.34
0.25
0.30
A
Upper James River (JMSTF)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
0.66
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Middle James Rivery (JMSOH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lower James River (JMSMH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Mouth of the James River (JMSPH)
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
continued.
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
8
Table 11-1 continued. Summer (June-September) dissolved oxygen criteria percent non-attainment by
designated use by Chesapeake Bay Program segment for key Chesapeake Bay Water
Quality Model scenarios based on the 1985-1994 hydrodynamic years.
Eastern Bay (EASMH)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DW
3.26
2.18
2.00
0.90
0.36
0.27
0.27
A
DC
20.23
12.87
11.26
6.49
0.67
0.02
0.10
A
Middle Choptank River (CHOOH) MIGA A AAAA A A
OWO.11 A A A A A A A
Mouth of the Choptank (CHOMH1)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
2.27
1.83
1.78
1.51
1.08
0.78
0.92
0.43
Lower Choptank River (CHOMH2)
MIG
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
OW
0.33
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Tangier Sound (TANMH)
OW
0.15
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.36
0.31
0.33
0.22
Lower Potomac River (POCMH)
OW
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
KEY
DU: d esignated use.
Observed: 1985-1994 water quality monitoring data.
Progress 2000: model scenario simulating water quality conditions under BMPs and wastewater technology
upgrades implemented as of 2000.
Tier 1: model scenario representing current level of implementation throughout the watershed plus existing regu-
latory requirements implemented through the year 2010.
Tier 2: model scenario representing the first intermediate level between the Tier 1 and E3 scenarios.
Tier 3: model scenario representing the second intermediate level between the Tier 1 and E3 scenarios.
Allocation: model scenario simulating the adopted basinwide nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment cap loads.
Confirm: model scenario simulating the adopted nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment cap loads allocated by major
tributary basin by jurisdiction.
E3: model scenario simulating implementation levels at 'everything, everywhere by everybody' with no cost and
few physical limitations
Based on this information made available to the Chesapeake Bay watershed partners
after publication of the Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2003), the boundary
between the open-water/deep-water and open-water use throughout the water
column designated uses for the lower western Chesapeake Bay has been moved
approximately 8 kilometers southward from the original October 2003 published
boundary (Figure II-2). This refined boundary coincides with the location identified
in Figure II-3 (4145) where reductions in percent dissolved oxygen criteria non-
attainment flatten out with increasing distance as the natural channel shallows out
into a consistent bottom plain.
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER
In the Technical Support Document, the boundary between the open-water desig-
nated use throughout the water column and the open-water/deep-water/deep-channel
designated uses in the mainstem Rappahannock River was drawn between Mulberry
Point and Jenkins Landing, upriver of water quality monitoring station RET3.1 and
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
9
just down river of station TF3.3 (U.S. EPA 2003). A more detailed evaluation of the
summer months density/pycnocline boundaries/dissolved oxygen concentrations
with updated observed and confirmation scenario water quality model generated
depth profiles clearly indicated this boundary between the two sets of designated
uses was drawn too far upriver.
Evaluation of the water quality monitoring data record at station RET3.1 revealed
minimal to no water column stratification and only two observed bottom dissolved
oxygen concentrations less than 5 mg liter1 over the 10 year data record (i.e.,
1985-1994). The water quality monitoring record at station RET 3.2 indicated
minimal to no water column stratification and only two of the 75 observed bottom
dissolved oxygen concentrations were less than 4 mg liter1. Attainability of the
open-water designated use throughout the water column in the reach of the Rappa-
hannock River characterized by stations RET3.1 and RET3.2 was confirmed using
the Chesapeake Bay water quality model confirmation scenario outputs estimating
dissolved oxygen conditions throughout the water column under basinwide achieve-
ment of the allocated nutrient and sediment cap loads.
Under the 1985-1994 observed dissolved oxygen conditions recorded through the
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program, there is clearly non-attainment
of the deep-water and deep-channel designated uses south of the current use
boundary between the open-water throughout the water column and open-
water/deep-water/deep-channel designated uses (Figure II-4). At the same time, the
open-water designated use dissolved oxygen criteria non-attainment is less than 0.5
percent in the river reach from the current boundary between the designated uses
down river to coordinate 4185, a location in the Rappahannock River down river of
station RET3.2.
Under model estimated water quality conditions simulated under the basinwide cap
load allocations achieved scenario, the open-water, deep-water and deep-channel
designated uses dissolved oxygen criteria were estimated to be in full attainment
down river to coordinate 4185 (Figure II-5). Further, application of the open-water
designated use throughout the water column down to coordinate 4185 was estimated
to yield full attainment under these water quality model simulated water quality
conditions (Figure II-5). Moving the boundary for open-water throughout the water
column further down-river beyond coordinate 4185 results in dissolved oxygen
criteria non-attainment values climbing to over 1.3 percent within the next 15 kilo-
meters, clearly indicating a distinct hydrodynamic/bottom bathymetry transition in
this section of the river (Figure II-5).
Based on this information made available to the Chesapeake Bay watershed partners
after publication of the Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2003), the recom-
mended boundary between the open-water designated use throughout the water
column and the open-water/deep-water/deep-channel designated uses in the Rappa-
hannock River has been moved approximately 20 kilometers down river from the
original published boundary. The refined boundary has been delineated just upriver
of Jones Point on the southern shoreline then across the river to Farnham Creek on
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
10
7.00%
Current Northern Boundary
Deep water
hr
6.00%
Deep
channel
.00%
.00%
.00%
^ Open
water
.00%
South
1.00%
0.00% ¦
4165
4175
Horizontal Distance in North/South Coordinates, UTM Zone 18 (1 unit = 1 kilometer)
4185
Figure II-4. Illustration of the Chesapeake Bay open-water dissolved oxygen criteria percent
non-attainment within the lower Rappahannock River, segment RPPMH, under summer
(June-September) 1985—1994 water quality monitoring program observed conditions.
Percent dissolved oxygen criteria non-attainment estimates for the applicable open-water,
deep-water and deep-channel criteria are provided at five kilometer increments south of the
boundary between the open-water/deep-water and the open-water throughout the water col-
umn designated uses originally published in the October 2003 Technical Support Document.
Source: U.S. EPA 2003; Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
the northern shoreline (see Figure II-2). This refined boundary coincides with the
location identified in Figure II-5 as 4185 where fall open-water dissolved oxygen
criteria attainment transitions into increasing non-attainment with increasing distance
down river. This location is just upriver of where the natural river channel begins to
broaden and reach depths of greater than 30 feet, starting at Jones Point. These natural
bathymetric features, in combination with the resultant water column stratification
and hydrodynamic processes, farther validate the application of the combined open-
water/deep-water/deep-channel designated uses down river from this location.
ELIZABETH RIVER
Since publication of the Technical Support Document, the watershed partners gener-
ated and evaluated results from a series of analyses on measured ambient surface and
bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations compared with oxygen saturation calcu-
lated concentrations. Depth profiles of observed density, pycnocline depth(s) and
dissolved oxygen concentrations were also generated for all Elizabeth River water
quality monitoring stations for each station's available water quality data record, but
not for model estimated water quality conditions under basinwide achievement of
the nutrient cap load allocations.
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
11
1.40%
Current Northern Boundary
1.20%
"<5 1.00%
^ Open
water
° 0.60%
South
North
0.20%
Deep
water
Deep
channel
0.00% ¦
4165
4170
4175
4180
4185
4190
4195
4200
4205
4210
Horizontal Distance in North/South Coordinates, UTM Zone 18 {1 unit = 1 kilometer)
Figure II-5. Illustration of the Chesapeake Bay open-water dissolved oxygen criteria
percent non-attainment within the lower Rappahannock River, segment RPPMH, under
model simulated summer (June-September) water quality conditions upon basinwide
achievement of nutrient and sediment cap load allocations. Percent dissolved oxygen
criteria non-attainment estimates for the applicable open-water, deep-water and deep-
channel criteria are provided at five kilometer increments south of the boundary
between the open-water/deep-water and the open-water throughout the water
column designated uses originally published in U.S. EPA (2003).
Sources: U.S. EPA 2003; Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program
h tt p ://www. chesapeakebay. net/data
It must be noted that the current version of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model
does include cells required for simulation of water quality conditions within the tidal
Elizabeth River. However, given the complexity of circulation patterns within the
river, the limitations of the number of cells used to simulate the river, and the limited
efforts to calibrate the model specifically for the Elizabeth River, the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Modeling Subcommittee did not select any of the Elizabeth River's
five segments for assessment of model calibration for management application
(Linker et al. 2002). The Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Steering
Committee could not evaluate attainability of the designated uses within the Eliza-
beth River for this reason (U.S. EPA 2003). Therefore, the findings described here
do not reflect model estimated water quality conditions upon achievement of the
allocated nutrient and sediment cap loads for the five Elizabeth River segments.
However, evaluation of water quality monitoring data records available from 23
water quality monitoring stations—ranging from 2 to 20 years of data—provided
sufficient information to refine the recommended tidal water designated use bound-
aries for the Elizabeth River and its tidal tributaries.
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
12
MOUTH TO MID-ELIZABETH RIVER
In the mouth to mid-Elizabeth River, segment ELIPH, evaluation of the long term
water quality monitoring record for the five stations within this segment indicated
very few dissolved oxygen profiles with concentrations below the pycnocline (when
present) below 5 mg liter1. Often there was no measurable pycnocline observed in
the summer months. When a pycnocline was calculated, the water column stratifica-
tion often had little to no effect on the vertical water column dissolved oxygen
concentration gradient (less than a 1-2 mg liter1 change over the 14 meter water
column) (Figure II-6). As the channel extending out of the Elizabeth River makes a
direct connection with the channel connecting the James River with the Atlantic
Ocean via the Chesapeake Bay mouth, this results in the routine inflow of
oxygenated water along the Bay bottom into this segment of the Elizabeth River.
The actual observed dissolved oxygen concentrations in this section of the river may
also be affected by what tide the individual stations are sampled on. There is direct
evidence in a number of depth profile plots where the bottom dissolved oxygen
concentrations are higher than concentrations higher up in the water column as
might happen on flood tide (higher dissolved oxygen concentration water coming
into the Elizabeth River from the lower James/Atlantic Ocean) (Figure II-7).
-
-
^ Observed dissolved
oxygen conentrations
with depth
A \
Monitored vj
Calculated water column
(
pycnochne densjty
depth |
5 S 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/liter); Density (sigma T)
Figure II-6. Representative density and dissolved oxygen concentration depth profile for
the mouth to mid-Elizabeth River, segment ELIPH. Monitored water column density,
observed dissolved oxygen concentrations with depth and calculated pycnocline depth
are illustrated for station LE5.6 for data collected on July 13, 1987.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
13
^ Observed dissolved 1
\ oxygen conentrations \
\ with depth \
\
A
Calculated
pycnocline \
depth \
Monitored v \
water column ^
density \
Dissolved Oxygen Concentralion (mg/liter): Density (sigma T)
Figure II-7. Representative density and dissolved oxygen concentration depth profile for
the mouth to mid-Elizabeth River, segment ELIPH. Monitored water column density,
observed dissolved oxygen concentrations with depth, and calculated pycnocline depth
are illustrated for station LE5.6 for data collected on July 13, 1987.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
Finally, evaluation of calculated oxygen saturation concentrations in comparison
with observed ambient dissolved oxygen concentration yielded the conclusion that
caclulated oxygen saturation concentrations were well above the 5 mg liter1 level.
There is no indication that the open-water dissolved oxygen criteria could not be met
in this segment strictly due to natural limitations (temperature, salinity) on oxygen
saturation.
Given the information available at the time of publication of the Technical Support
Document, an open-water/deep-water/deep channel set of designated uses was
recommended for application in this segment (U.S. EPA 2003). Based on evaluation
of the more extensive water quality monitoring record and analysis of oxygen satu-
ration conditions, an open-water designated use extending throughout the water
column is recommended for the mouth to mid-Elizabeth River segment
(Figure II-2).
LAFAYETTE RIVER
The long term water quality monitoring record at two stations in the Lafayette River,
segment LAFMH, indicated very few dissolved oxygen profiles with concentrations
below the pycnocline (when present) below 5 mg liter1. This tidal river system has
a very shallow water column (3-4 meters) with very limited to no evidence of water
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
14
column stratification. The very well mixed water column throughout this tidal
system is evidenced by the vertical density profiles (Figure II-8). There is no indica-
tion that the open-water dissolved oxygen criteria could not be met in this segment
strictly due to natural limitations on oxygen saturation. These findings validate the
recommended open-water designated use throughout the water column for the
Lafayette River published in the Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2003).
*0.5
-
£ 1
*
§
Z.
f-1.5
-
£
75
^ Observed dissolved
O
oxygen conentrations
| -2
with depth
-
Monitored w
water column ^
-2.5
density
i ¦ i i ¦ i
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mgfliter); Density (sigma T)
Figure II-8. Representative density and dissolved oxygen concentration depth profile
for the Lafayette River, segment LAFMH. Monitored water column density and observed
dissolved oxygen concentrations with depth are illustrated for station LFA01 for data
collected on July 26, 2001.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
WESTERN BRANCH ELIZABETH RIVER
In the Western Branch Elizabeth River, segment WBEMH, the long term water
quality monitoring record at two stations indicates almost no water column stratifi-
cation within a very shallow water column (3-5 meters). Top to bottom differences
in water column dissolved oxygen concentrations were almost always 1 mg liter1 or
less, with infrequent bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5 mg liter1
(Figure II-9). There is no indication that the open-water dissolved oxygen criteria
could not be met in this segment strictly due to natural limitations on oxygen satu-
ration. These findings validate the recommended open-water designated use
throughout the water column for the Western Branch Elizabeth River published in
the Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2003).
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
15
-0.5
^ Observed dissolved
oxygen conentrations
with depth
fc -2.5
Monitored
water column
density
7.5
5.5
6.5
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mgfliter); Density (sigma T>
10.5
Figure II-9. Representative density and dissolved oxygen concentration depth profile for
the Western Branch Elizabeth River, segment WBEMH. Monitored water column density
and observed dissolved oxygen concentrations with depth are illustrated for station WBE1
on August 20, 1996.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
EASTERN BRANCH ELIZABETH RIVER
The water quality monitoring record for four stations in the Eastern Branch Eliza-
beth River, segment EBEMH, documented infrequent water column stratification
(defined as when pycnocline boundaries can be delineated). There is clear evidence
of a more frequent number of dissolved oxygen profiles with concentrations below
5 mg liter1 compared to stations in the mouth to mid-Elizabeth River segment.
However, the presence or absence of a measurable pycnocline does not impact the
observed dissolved oxygen water column profile. About half the dissolved oxygen
profiles have a surface versus bottom difference of 1 mg liter1 or less; majority of
the remaining profiles have a difference of up to 2 mg liter1 (Figure 11-10). There
were several recorded profiles (3 of 55) with 3-4 mg liter1 differences between
surface and bottom water dissolved oxygen concentrations. Application of a deep-
water designated use would not work on this segment given: 1) lack of water column
stratification influence on water column dissolved oxygen; and 2) frequent, clear
evidence of concentrations of 5 mg liter1 and above throughout the water column.
Factoring in the unquantified dissolved oxygen concentration improvements
expected upon achievement of the nutrient cap loads allocated to the encompassing
James River basin, these findings validate the recommended open-water designated
use throughout the water column for this segment published in the Technical Support
Document (U.S. EPA 2003).
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
16
-2
2 _3
jjj o
e
c.
Q_
f ¦«
£
"
A
Calculated
Observed dissolved Pycnocline
/ oxygen conentrations P
with depth
-
75
O
V
|-5
J
I
-6
/
Monitored w \
water column ^ \
density \
/
4
6 8 10 12 14 16
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/liter): Density (sigma T)
Figure 11-10. Representative density and dissolved oxygen concentration depth profile
for the Eastern Branch Elizabeth River, segment EBEMH. Monitored water column density
for data collected, observed dissolved oxygen concentrations with depth and calculated
pycnocline depth are illustrated for station EBE1 for data collected on August 11,1993.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
SOUTHERN BRANCH ELIZABETH RIVER
The long term water quality monitoring record synthesized from nine different
stations in the Southern Branch Elizabeth River, segment SBEMH, indicates
stronger and more frequent water column stratification and clear evidence of a more
frequent number of dissolved oxygen profiles with concentrations below 5 mg
liter1 compared with the adjacent upriver mouth to mid-Elizabeth River segment.
However, the extent of influence of the water column stratification on the observed
water column profile dissolved oxygen concentration is questionable. The relation-
ship was strongest at station SBE2 but even at that station there were often dates
where the change in dissolved oxygen from top to bottom is 1 mg liter1 or less with
a calculated pycnocline present (Figure 11-11). These findings call into question
strict application of open-water/deep-water uses and application of the respective
applicable dissolved oxygen criteria. Consideration should be given to derivation of
a segment specific set of dissolved oxygen criteria reflecting the significant level of
anthropogenic modification of the Southern Branch Elizabeth River.
PATAPSCO RIVER
A open-water/deep-water/deep-channel designated use was recommended for the
Patapsco River (segment PATMH) in the Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA
2003b). Further analysis by the Maryland Department of the Environment, using a
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
17
/ ' \
i
-2
-
-
-3
¦
-
e
AJ
-4
¦
-
I
-5
.
^ Observed dissolved
_
C.
a
oxygen conentrations
V
0
c
1
-6
with depth
¦
O
-7
-
-
52
<3
2
-8
.
Monitored
>\
.
water column
-9
density
-
-10
-
¦11,
i i i i i
i
4 6 8 10 12
14
16
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mgdiler); Density (sigma T)
Figure 11-11. Representative density and dissolved oxygen concentration depth profile
for the Southern Branch Elizabeth River, segment SBEMH. Monitored water column
density and observed dissolved oxygen concentrations with depth are illustrated for
station SBE2 on July 23, 1993.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data
tidal water quality model specific to the Patapsco River, yielded results indicating
that the dissolved oxygen criteria for the deep water (30-day mean 3.2 mg liter1
applied June 1 to September 30), and the deep channel (instantaneous minimum
1.0 mg liter1, applied June 1 to September 30) could not be met. Even after simu-
lating implementation of limit of technology nitrogen reductions from point sources
(3 mg liter1 total nitrogen effluent concentration) and achievement of the nutrient
cap loads allocated to the Patapsco basin, Maryland's water quality model estimated
a 4 percent non-attainment of the deep-water designated use dissolved oxygen
criteria and a 72 percent non-attainment of the deep-channel designated use criteria
(Beaman 2004). The dissolved oxygen criteria for the open-water designated use,
which also applies in both of the aforementioned areas from October 1 to May 31,
was projected to be attained under the same load reductions.
Starting back in the 1830, the tidal Patapsco River has been dredged at yearly to
decadal frequencies for the past 170 years. The existing benthic community in the
Patapsco Rivers' dredged navigation channels can be characterized as unstable due
to frequent disturbances such as annual maintenance dredging and prop-
wash/displacement associated with commercial vessel movement, and is thought to
consist primarily of opportunistic species. Opportunistic species tend to be pollution
tolerant and are able to readily recolonize disturbed habitats. The benthic commu-
nity, likely to recolonize the dredged channels after such repeated physical
disturbances, would be similar in nature to the existing benthic community.
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
18
As stated in the Technical Support Document, the deep-channel designated use was
defined as protecting "the survival of balanced, indigenous populations of ecologi-
cally important benthic infaunal and epifaunal worms and clams, which provide food
for bottom-feeding fish and crabs." An instantaneous minimum dissolved oxygen
criterion of lmg liter1 was determined to be protective of this designated use (U.S.
EPA 2003a).
Given the deep-channel designated use dissolved oxygen criteria can not be attained
and the unique, routine physical disturbance of these dredged channel habitats, a
navigation channel use is recommended to apply from June 1 to September 30 in
place of a deep-channel use in the Patapsco River. The navigational channel use will
protect opportunistic species that are tolerant of or have behaviorally adapted to
routine habitat disturbance caused by shipping and dredging activities and/or
tolerant or have behaviorally adapted to frequent sustained periods of minimal or no
dissolved oxygen due to seasonal stratification of the water column between June 1
and September 30.
CHESAPEAKE BAY AND TIDAL TRIBUTARIES
DESIGNATED USE BOUNDARY DOCUMENTATION
Appendix A contains detailed narrative descriptions and latitude/longitude coordi-
nates delineating the boundaries for the open-water fish and shellfish, deep-water
fish and shellfish and deep-channel seasonal refuge designated uses illustrated in
Figure II-2. Detailed documentation for the migratory spawning and nursery desig-
nated use boundaries, originally published in U.S. EPA 2003, is also provided in
Appendix A.
LITERATURE CITED
Beaman, Joseph. 2004. June 2, 2004. Personal communication/unpublished documentation.
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.
Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, P. Wang, C.F. Cerco, A.J. Butt, P.J. Tango and R.W. Savidge. 2002.
A Companion of Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model Calibration with 1985-1994 Observed
Data and Method Application to Water Quality Criteria. Modeling Subcommittee, Chesa-
peake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland
Secretary Tayloe Murphy. 2003. "Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment
Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals." April
25, 3003, Memorandum to the Principals' Staff Committee members and representatives of
the Chesapeake Bay headwater states. Virginia Office of the Governor, Natural Resources
Secretariate, Richmond, Virginia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Technical Support Document for Identification
of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability. EPA 903-R-03-004. Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
chapter ii • Refinements to Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Use Boundaries
-------
19
chapter hi
Chesapeake Bay Program
Segmentation Scheme
Boundary Delineations
For the last 20 years, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners have used various forms
of a basic segmentation scheme to organize the collection, analysis and presentation
of environmental data. The Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme: Revi-
sion, decisions, and rationales provides documentation on the development of the
spatial segmentation scheme of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries and the
later revisions and changes over the last 20 years (Chesapeake Bay Program 2004).
The document contains information on the 1983-1985 original segmentation, the
1997-1998 revisions for the 1997 Re-evaluation, and the 2003 segmentation correc-
tions and expansion. This chapter provides a concise summary on the segmentation
scheme background and a listing of the principal contents of the larger segmentation
document related to tidal water designated uses.1
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEGMENTATION SCHEMES
NEED FOR A SEGMENTATION SCHEME
Segmentation is the compartmentalizing of the estuary into subunits based on selected
criteria. The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is diverse and complex, and the physical and
chemical factors which vary throughout the Bay determine the biological communities
and affect the kind and extent of their response to pollution stress. These same factors
also influence their response to restoration and remediation. For diagnosing anthro-
pogenic impacts, segmentation is a way to group regions having similar natural
characteristics, so that differences in water quality and biological communities among
similar segments can be identified and their source elucidated. For management
purposes, segmentation is a way to group similar regions to define a range of water
quality and resource objectives, target specific actions and monitor response. It
provides a meaningful way to summarize and present information in parallel with these
objectives, and it is a useful geographic pointer for data management.
lrThe entire Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme document can be viewed and downloaded at
http://www. chesapeakebay.net/pubs. segmentscheme.pdf
chapter iii • Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary Delineations
-------
20
1983-1985 SEGMENTATION SCHEME
The original Chesapeake Bay Segmentation Scheme, published in the appendices of
Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change (Flemer et al. 1983), was
developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This initial segmentation scheme
formed the spatial aggregation scheme for station network design of the baywide
water quality and biological monitoring programs that were initiated in the mid
1980s,
The 1983-1985 scheme was based primarily on salinity, circulation and natural
features, and secondarily on biological factors and management objectives. The
salinity data record on which the scheme was based extends to the late 1940s, but for
many parts of the Chesapeake Bay, the data were at best patchy in time and space,
and at worst, nonexistent.
1997-1998 REVISED SEGMENTATION SCHEME
Early in 1997, in preparation for tributary basin analyses in support of the 1997
Nutrient Reduction Re-evaluation, members of the Chesapeake Bay Program Moni-
toring Subcommittee's Data Analysis Workgroup proposed the existing
segmentation scheme be revised to facilitate better linkages between water quality
and living resources. Since distribution and abundance of plankton, submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) and most other estuarine communities are strongly
dependent on salinity, the spatial aggregation of plankton, SAV and water quality
data for the Re-evaluation was to be based on salinity regimes. Water quality
analyses for the Re-evaluation focused on changes occurring during the 12-year
period 1985 to 1996, a period dominated in later years by higher than normal flows,
causing relatively large shifts in salinity zone boundaries. The salinity zones were
defined as tidal fresh (0-0.5 ppt), oligohaline (>0.5-5 ppt), mesohaline (>5-18 ppt)
and polyhaline (>18 ppt).
In the 1983 segmentation scheme, many segments contained stations with widely
differing salinity characteristics. Some segments aggregated stations and waters with
seemingly disparate influences. Other needs for modification were also identified
e.g., correcting earlier station mis-assignments and modifying segment boundaries
to account for near shore characteristics impacting SAV assessments. The 1997
Nutrient Reduction Re-evaluation provided an opportunity to make these revisions.
However, not all of the planned work was completed by the time the re-evaluation
analyses had to be undertaken, so those data analyses used the interim segmentation
scheme as it then existed in 1997. Further work on revising the segmentation scheme
was then picked up again in 1998 and brought to a state of closure in 2003.
2003 SEGMENTATION SCHEME REFINEMENTS
Between 1998 and 2003, a few inadvertent errors in station coordinates and segment
lines had been discovered and corrected. For the most part, the changes were small
chapter iii • Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary Delineations
-------
21
and undetectable at the scale of the figures in referenced segmentation scheme docu-
ment. However, discrepancies might show up as small differences in volume, area or
perimeter citations for affected segments. The segmentation scheme was expanded
in the Potomac River to incorporate additional below-fall line stations in the
Potomac and Anacostia rivers. In addition, a new segment was created for the
Anacostia River (ANATF), and in the Elizabeth River, segment ELIMH was rede-
fined as polyhaline and joined with segment ELIPH. The details of all these changes
are given in the complete document.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical Segmentation Scheme Report: Revision,
decisions and rationale, 1983-2003 (Chesapeake Bay Program 2004) contains the
following maps and tables used to document changes to the segmentation scheme
from 1983 through 2003 as well as provide the jurisdictions with detailed documen-
tation on the geographical delineation of each segment's boundaries:
• Maps for the 1983, 1997 and 2003 segmentation schemes;
• Statistics on the perimeter, surface and volume of each Chesapeake Bay Program
segment;
• Narrative descriptions of each of the coordinates bounding each Chesapeake Bay
Program segment; and
• Maps of all the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality monitoring program stations
displayed by segment by Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
MARYLAND'S SPLIT SEGMENTS FOR SHALLOW-WATER
BAY GRASS DESIGNATED USE
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources compared SAV habitat conditions
with the proposed water clarity application depths and discovered that certain
segments, if left in their entirety, could not meet the water clarity criteria even though
they already contained substantial amounts of SAV. The SAV was not growing in
proximity to the segment's monitoring water quality station and, therefore, the
station measurements were not accurately describing in-situ conditions. In other
words, the station measurements might have described poor water quality conditions
but the abundant SAV in another part of the segment indicated otherwise. Some
segments had sizable areas of SAV but their upper tidal reaches would support little
or no SAV growth due to adverse physical conditions.
Due to these discrepancies, Maryland representatives requested certain Chesapeake
Bay Program segments be subdivided in order to establish attainable water clarity
and SAV restoration goals for those segments. A series of very targeted subdivisions
of existing Chesapeake Bay Program segments were made to set even more
geographically specific shallow-water designated use boundary delineations based
chapter iii • Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary Delineations
-------
22
on the agreed upon decision rules for determining the water clarity criteria applica-
tion depth to support regrowth of SAV beds (U.S. EPA 2003).
The segments involved were Northern Chesapeake Bay (CB1TF), Elk River
(ELKOH), Gunpowder River (GUNOH), Sassafras River (SASOH), Middle
Potomac River (POTOH), Lower Patuxent River (PAXMH), Tangier Sound
(TANMH), Manokin River (MANMH) and Big Annemessex River (BIGMH).
General subdivision boundaries were assigned. The majority of a given segment was
retained, with one or more sections of the segment being partitioned. When actually
defining the subdivision boundaries digitally physical features such as points of
land, mouths of tidal creeks, etc. were used as end points wherever possible. In some
segments, such as Manokin River and Big Annemessex River, a 'natural break'
between an area containing a lot of SAV and an area without little or no SAV was
used to guide where the subdivision boundary line was drawn.
The same analyses that were done to ascertain the original water clarity criteria
application depths were performed on the new segment subdivisions to assign new
application depths. Most of the main portions of those subdivided segments main-
tained their original water clarity criteria application depths while two (Sassafras
River and Lower Patuxent River) had their application depths increased to 1-2
meters in depth. The smaller subdivisions had application depths ranging among all
three-depth classes: 0-0.5, 0.5-1 and 1-2 meters.
Figure III-l shows those Chesapeake Bay Program segments that were subdivided
and their new water clarity criteria application depths. Appendix B lists and spatially
defines the subdivided segments.
VIRGINIA'S UPPER JAMES RIVER SPLIT SEGMENT
The James River tidal fresh segment (JMSTF) was sub-divided into an upper
segment (JMSTF2) and a lower segment (JMSTF 1) at the request of Virginia repre-
sentatives. The upper segment which extends from Richmond to Hopewell
(JMSTF2) is narrower, faster flowing, and with much greater average depth. This
translates to a lower residence time for algal biomass to develop (i.e., naturally lower
chlorophyll a levels) as well as less available habitat for SAV. The river widens from
approximately 0.4 miles across at the end of segment JMSTF2 to as much as 1.6
miles shortly downriver in the segment JMSTF2 region of Hopewell. The Appo-
mattox River enters the James River here. There are much wider shoals (i.e., greater
natural SAV habitat availability), and a greater photic zone area due to the increased
width-depth ratio. The greater photic zone area and greater residence time leads to
naturally higher chlorophyll a levels in JMSTF 1.
Figure III-2 shows the subdivided upper James River segments and their new water
clarity criteria application depths. Appendix B lists and spatially defines the subdi-
vided segments.
chapter iii • Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary Delineations
-------
ELKOH2
CB1TF2
ELKOH1
CB1TF1.
GUNOH2
Application depth
IflHI 0-0.5m
0.5-1 m
SASOH1
SASOH2
GUNOH1
PAXMH2
POTOH3
PAXMH6
POTOH2
PAXMH5
PAXMH3
PAXMH4
POTOH1
TANMH2
IIGMH2
BIGMH1
Figure 111-1. Maryland's split Chesapeake Program segments for the delineation of the shallow-water bay grass
designated use and determination of the resultant water clarity criteria application depths.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program GIS
chapter iii • Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary Delineations
-------
"
JMSTF2
V "r
JMSTF1
Application depth
I^Hl 0-0.5m
|l | 0.5-1m
1-2m
15 20 Miles
Figure III-2. Virginia's split tidal fresh James River Chesapeake Program segments for the delineation of the shal-
low- water bay grass designated use and determination of the resultant water clarity criteria application depths
and application of chlorophyll a criteria.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program GIS
chapter iii • Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary Delineations
-------
25
LITERATURE CITED
Chesapeake Bay Program 2004. Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical Segmentation
Schemes: Revision, decisions and rationales, 1983-2003 CBP/TRS 268/04. Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD
Flemer, D.A., G.B. Mackieman, W. Nehlsen, V.K. Tippie, R. B. Biggs, D. Blaylock, N.H.
Burger, L.C. Davidson, D. Haberman, K.S. Price and J.L. Taft, 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A
Profile of Environmental Change. E.G. Macalaster, D.A. Barker and M. E. Kasper, eds. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Washington, D.C. 120 pages
and Appendices.
chapter iii • Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme Boundary Delineations
-------
chapter IV
Tidal Potomac River
Jurisdictional Boundaries
In the process of allocating the SAV restoration goals among the three jurisdictions sharing
the tidal waters of the Potomac River—Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia—it
became apparent that those Chesapeake Bay Program segments shared by more than one
jurisdiction (Upper Potomac River, Middle Potomac River, Lower Potomac River) needed to
be subdivided, so that each jurisdiction was only responsible for the restoration of the amount
of SAV within their borders. However, there was no single legally recognized set of
geographic boundary data for the Potomac River that all of the jurisdictions were using. This
chapter documents the creation of a single jurisdictional boundary file for the tidal Potomac
River that all three jurisdictions could agree upon.
After examining several different digital boundary files, it was determined that the best
boundary along the Virginia shoreline was one produced by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (VA DCR). The VA DCR boundary is mostly based on the state
boundaries appearing on digital 1:24,000 scale quad sheets (DRGs). The Maryland-Virginia
state boundaries delineated on the quad sheets appear to be based on the Mathews-Nelson
Survey of 1927, which used the legally defined boundary of the low-water mark on the
Virginia side of the river, except where embayments were crossed from one point on land to
another point on land. However, shorelines can change in almost 80 years since the original
survey, either through natural or anthropogenic influences, which may partially account for
discrepancies between the legal definition of the boundaries and how the data appear today.
The state boundaries were digitized on-screen using the DRGs as a background upon which
to trace the line work. In the lower Potomac River, VA DCR used 1:12,000 scale digital
orthophoto quarter quads (DOQQs) having photo dates of 1992-1996 as the source for the
boundary definition.
For the Maryland-District of Columbia boundary lines that cross the Potomac diagonally
from the Virginia shoreline, data provided by the District of Columbia Department of
Health's Water Quality Control Branch were used. These and the VA DCR data were merged
to create a boundary file that all three jurisdictions agreed to use in allocating SAV restora-
tion goals and acreages of shallow-water habitat in those shared segments (see Chapter 6 for
actual acreages). A series of 12 maps that illustrate the jurisdictional boundaries follows as
Figures IV-1 through Figures IV-12
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
28
^jJwiiCcar
fa?; r
-¦ State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
100 acres
l Miles
Figure IV-1, Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from Three Sisters Island to just south of Daingerfield Island.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
- State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
Miles
Figure IV-2 Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from Daingerfield Island to Arcturus.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
Figure IV-3 Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from Wellington to east of the mouth of Dogue Creek.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
Figure IV-4 Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from east of Dogue Creek to the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Potomac Shoreline Regional Park boundary.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
100 acres
State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
Figure IV-5 Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge to southwest of Cockpit Point.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
33
iW
msm
Mf^;
*t£si&k
in '•"•»• t
State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
Figure IV-6 Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from north of Possum Point to south of Brent Marsh.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
100 acres
wmm
State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
Figure IV-7 Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from Brent Marsh to east of Fairview Beach.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
<
o
c
"O T—
a o
3 o
CC TO
U ^
TO cn
o I
II
V V,
$ s
c E
° 2
TO >4-
-1
g-1
- .2,
J5 cu
o £
cn
* c
fc o
In E
E «j
3 oo
75 cu
M ^
^ TO
M— CD
° b
-t—1 TO
-SS
CO .—
Q -g
TO
~o -£=
c ^
to cu
+->
fU TO
1 3
E? 3
> .2
- TO
"o _C
C
-5."°
- £
TO
2 15
o
oo 01 _*
C
o> IS
1—
3 o ._
¦? s s
LL. 2_ DC
u
i—
CD
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
Figure IV-9 Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from north of Route 301 Bridge to Nomini Cliffs.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
> £
< =3
IS)
Q) >
>
to o
— CD
TO
~D
CD
*!
bC ^
u O
to "O
C TO
° 3
° ™
Q_ CD
"O C
¦J3 CD
CD
CD >
5 "S
+-' CD
cn _Q
o £
TO 2
TO
xs
C +-'
§ .y
o "o
_Q .Hi
TO
_Q
E
_3
O
u
U)
c
o
£
to TO
5*
"O TO
C _C
I |
5j
TO
_TO "5
>^"D
TO C
U
O
5
TO to
— CD
TO QQ
° ^
Ol c
C 'o
S" m "g
13
cn t?
IT" P
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
— State and District boundary
CBP segment boundary
SAV used to set restoration goals
3 Miles
Figure IV-11. Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from west of Ragged Point Beach to west of Hull Creek.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
U Miles
Figure IV-1 2. Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries along the tidal
Potomac River used to allocate SAV restoration goal and shallow-water habitat acreages among the
three jurisdictions: from Walnut Point, Coan River to mouth of the Potomac River.
chapter iv • Tidal Potomac River Jurisdictional Boundaries
-------
41
chapte v
Expanded Documentation
on the Chesapeake Bay
SAV No-Grow Zones
Building upon the previously published descriptions of Chesapeake Bay SAV no-
grow zones in the Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay
Designated Uses and Attainability (U.S. EPA 2003) (see pages 108-110), this
chapter provides additional, more detailed graphical and tabular documentation.
In summary, the methodology for revising and updating the SAV no-grow zones was
as follows:
1. The process started with the originally designated SAV no-grow zones published
in 1992 (Batiuk et al. 1992, 2000).
2. A single composite of all SAV mapped during thel978-2002 SAV aerial surveys
along with SAV mapped from historical 1930s through early 1970s aerial photog-
raphy was generated and overlaid on the original 1992 SAV no-grow zones.
3. Where the composite map of historical and recent SAV distributions indicated no
evidence of SAV growth, the 1992 SAV no-grow zones were designated across the
entire 0-2 meter depth contour.
4. Where the composite map of historical and recent SAV distributions indicated
evidence of SAV growth in the 0-1 meter depth contour, but there were strictly
physical reasons (wind fetch, wave action, offshore bars) to believe SAV could not
grow at depths deeper than 1 meter, the 1992 SAV no-grow zones were designated
only across the 1-2 meter depth contour.
5. Additional SAV no-grow zones were delineated in the upper Nanticoke,
Wicomico and upper Pocomoke rivers due to the lack of evidence of any histor-
ical SAV combined with clear evidence these Eastern Shore systems are directly
influenced by inputs of dissolved organic carbon from the extensive adjacent tidal
wetlands ("blackwater rivers") and/or extensive physical channelizing of the
rivers to the point of virtually eliminating most shallow water habitats.
Table V-l provides the acreage, jurisdictions, depth zones and narrative descriptions
of the SAV no-grow zones. Since the SAV no-grow zones were based on depth,
physical limitations to underwater bay grasses growth and historical presence or
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
42
O
i—
cn
o
c
3:
IS)
fU
CQ
cu
TO
CU
Q_
U
cu
cu
"O
>
a
J2
."5
5 - *
£ 2 a a
©J) 22 rji q.
z n -a
© « g la
6 = ft,
® 8 ® -2-
^ n XJ
ph a
3 0X1
P? a>
u u u
I > >
(L> (U
00 00 00 Ph i-*-i 0.
w w w T3 6 'o K
u
¦Jh Ph
§ ,3 £
O Ph Ph
H d> (L>
RUt)
_| CA C/2
ffl ffl M
in £ 2
X X X X X X
X X
p < M < M M
X XXX
•s> >s> k J KJ KJ >s> >sy< >sy<
n n i^nnnnnnnnnnn
^ 53 53 £
k> k> k> k> U k> k> k> k> k> U k> U U U k> k> k> k> k>
rSrSrSrSrSrNrSrSrSrS ^ rS rS rS rS rS rSrSrSrS
I > > >
>>>>>>>>
^ ^ ^
I > > >
3fc
o\^'t\£iONdf^>rrioo^ooomoooosOc~~-m'—'OsOro'-H'-HOOoo^f^o co *—< in m oo^o ^t^oosos
m'-H^oco^O'-HOOfN^r -—i in t oo tj- c~- ^ ?n -—<
'-hii—irj-Tt-inmooi—ii—i i i—i i—i i—i i—i i—< (N m md
ftKK
POO
5 KK
1< Ph Ph
&^»SQSS5(JSlJ^lJ.
jQ^^o+-'ce5y
n w -g ^ 5
6 ^ ^ | u t
d> a> xi +3 a> a>
¦— Qh-73 =
£
h m
& O a
c$ © _cs "
ffl ^ O ^
% *
goHa^S.SOH^.^OHa 5 £
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
43
absence, these zones can not (in most cases) be described using only a small number
of latitude/longitude coordinates. In place of georeferenced descriptions of all the
coordinates bounding each SAV no-grow zone, a series of detailed maps have been
provided as Figures V-l through V-12.
LITERATURE CITED
Batiuk, R. A., P. Bergstrom, M. Kemp, E. Koch, L. Murray, J. C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V.
Carter, N. B. Rybicki, J. M. Landwehr, C. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K. A.
Moore, S. Ailstock and M. Teichberg. 2000. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Water Quality and Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical
Synthesis. CBP/TRS 245/00 EPA 903-R-00-014. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program,
Annapolis, Maryland.
Batiuk, R. A., R. Orth, K. Moore, J. C. Stevenson, W. Dennison, L. Staver, V. Carter, N. B.
Rybicki, R. Hickman, S. Kollar and S. Bieber. 1992. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. CBP/TRS
83/92. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Technical Support Document for Identification
of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability. EPA 903-R-03-004. Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
ELKOH
NORTF
SAV No Grow Area
Chespeake Bay Program Monitoring Segment
Depth
0-1m
1-2m
CB1TF
CB20H
Figure V-1. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the northern Chesapeake Bay (CB1TF) and the
Northeast River (NORTF).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
CB1TF
SASOH
CB20H
ChwpcJfcc Bay Program Monitoring Segment
1.5 Miles
Figure V-2. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the upper section of the upper Chesapeake Bay
(CB20H) and Sassafras River (SASOH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
CB20H
BACOH
CB3MH
Figure V-3. Chesapeake Bay SAV rio-grow zones for the lower section of the upper Chesapeake Bay
(CB20H) and the upper section of the upper central Chesapeake Bay (CB3MH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
MAGMH
SEVM
SOUM
CB4MH
WSTMH
EASMH
US
~
Depth
SAV No Grow Area
Ch«pcakc Bay Program Monitomg Segment
CB3MH
Figure V-4. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the lower section of the upper central
Chesapeake Bay (CB3MH), upper section of the middle central Chesapeake Bay (CB4MH), Magothy
(MAGMH), Severn (SEVMH), South (SOUMH), Rhode (RHDMH), West (WSTMH) rivers and Eastern Bay
(EASMH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
CB5MH
CH0MH1
PAXMH
CB4MH
SAV No Grow Area
Chespeake Bay Program Monitoring Segmenl
01m
1-2m
Figure V-5. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the lower section of the middle central
Chesapeake Bay (CB4MH), mouth of the Choptank River (CHOMH1) and Little Choptank River
(LCHMH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
CB4MH
PAXMH
HNGMH
CB5MH
SAV Mo Grow Area
cnespeake Bay Program Monitoring Segment
TANMI-
POTMH
Figure V-6. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the upper section of the lower central
Chesapeake Bay (CB5MH) and lower Potomac River (POTMH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
CB5MH
iCRRMI
RPPMH
Chespeake Bay Program Monrtonng Segment
10 12 3 Miles
'RKMH
MOBPH
Figure V-7. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the lower section of the lower central
Chesapeake Bay (CB5MH), upper section of the western lower Chesapeake Bay (CB6PH), lower
Rappahannock River (RPPMH) and Piankatank River (PIAMH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
YRKPH v
MOBPH
CB6PH
Chespeake Bay Program Monitoring Segment
JMSMH
CB8PH
JMSPH
ELIPH
Figure V-8. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the lower section of the western lower
Chesapeake Bay (CB6PH), Mobjack Bay (MOBPH), lower James River (JMSMH), mouth of the James
River (JMSPH), mouth of the Elizabeth River (ELIPH), and Lafayette River (LAFMH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
BIGMH
POCOH
POCMH
«|||
CB7PH
2 3 Miles
HE!
n
Depth
SAV No Crow Area
Clwspeake Bay Program Monitoring Segment
TANMH
Figure V-9. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the Tangier Sound (TANMH), lower
Pocomoke River (POCMH), middle Pocomoke River (POCOH), and the upper section of the
eastern lower Chesapeake Bay (CB7PH),
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
pn
SAV No Grow Area
~
Chespeake Bay Program Monitoring Segment
Depth
0-lm
1-2m
CB7PH
Figure V-10. Chesapeake Bay SAV rio-grow zones for the middle section of the eastern lower
Chesapeake Bay (CB7PH).
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
MOBPH
CB6PH
CB7PH
Chespeake Bay Program Monrtorng Seflmenl
CBSPH
JMSPH
LYNPH
Figure V-11 Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the lower section of the eastern lower
Chesapeake Bay (CB7PH) and the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (CBSPH),
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
PATMH
MAGMH
3 Miles
SEVMH
¦
SAV No Grow Area
~
Cnespeake Say Program Monitoring Segment
Depth
(Mm
1-2m
CB3MH
Figure V-12. Chesapeake Bay SAV no-grow zones for the Patapsco (PATMH) and Magothy
(MAGMH) rivers.
chapter v • Expanded Documentation on the Chesapeake Bay SAV No-Grow Zones
-------
57
chapte VI
Chesapeake Bay SAV
Restoration Goal and Shallow
Water Acreages
Updated and Expanded Documentation
Since the publication of the Technical Support Document for Identification of
Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability (U.S. EPA 2003), additional
information has been generated and documented in support of state adoption of SAV
restoration goal, shallow water habitat and shallow-water existing use acreages into
their water quality standards regulations.
CHESAPEAKE SAV RESTORATION GOAL
CLIPPING OF 'ON LAND' SAV BEDS
The SAV restoration goal methodology to determine the single best year of SAV
growth and subsequently set restoration goal acreages called for clipping mapped
SAV beds to the shoreline used to delineate the Chesapeake Bay Program segments
(U.S. EPA 2003). When the single best year maps of SAV beds were overlaid by the
shoreline, parts of the mapped SAV beds looked as if they had been mapped on dry
land. These 'on land' sections of SAV beds were clipped or removed from the
acreage used to determine each respective segment's SAV restoration goal. The loss
of this 'on land' SAV was due to inaccuracy in the shoreline data either because of
the scale of the data, changes in the shoreline over time not being reflected in the
data or some other factor. At the same time a similar problem involved SAV around
islands. In some instances the shoreline data for islands were not very accurate or an
island's actual shoreline had changed overtime and so a similar SAV 'on land' effect
and subsequent clipping of 'on land' SAV beds occurred.
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
58
CLIPPING OF SAV BEDS DUE TO LACK OF BATHYMETRY DATA
During the process of determining the SAV restoration goal, there were a limited
number of areas of tidal waters completely lacking bathymetry data. In the absence
of such data, those areas could not be considered in the single best year calculation
and, therefore, in the quantification of the SAV restoration goal. The principal areas
lacking bathymetry data included tidal portions of the upper Patuxent River (segment
PAXTF) and Anacostia River (segment ANATF). While this lack of bathymetry data
did not directly affect the Anacostia SAV restoration goal because no SAV had ever
been recorded that far upstream, it greatly affected the upper Patuxent River restora-
tion goal, excluding most of the mapped SAV that actually occurred in that segment.
Also, there were no bathymetric data for many tidally connected ponds along the
river and mainstem Bay shorelines and so SAV in these tidal ponds were also
excluded from determination of the respective segment's SAV restoration goal.
CLIPPING OF SAV BEDS BY DEPTH
The maximum depth at which SAV beds were mapped was one of the key decision
rules used in determining a Chesapeake Bay Program segment's water clarity appli-
cation depth which, in turn, was used in setting the restoration goal acreage for that
segment. The SAV restoration goal methodology called for clipping the single best
year SAV acreage at the established water clarity criteria application depth. Even
though mapped SAV beds extended beyond that established depth, these deeper SAV
were eliminated from consideration in setting the SAV restoration goal.
The cumulative effect of these three forms of clipping was to undercount a segment's
SAV acreage by the amount of SAV that went beyond the mapped shoreline,
occurred in an area without bathymetric data and/or grew beyond the established
water clarity criteria application depth.
ACCOUNTING FOR CLIPPED SAV ACREAGES
The baywide and segment specific Chesapeake Bay SAV restoration goals have been
established and formally adopted by the Chesapeake Bay watershed partners (U.S.
EPA 2003; Chesapeake Executive Council 2003). The acreage information reported
here is intended to provide the jurisdictions with best accounting of SAV and shallow
water acreages possible in a form directly comparable with SAV acreages reported
through the annual baywide SAV aerial survey.
The chosen solution to addressing the above described undercounting problems was
to count all of the SAV acreage for a given segment that occurred within the single
best year regardless of any shoreline, bathymetry data limitations or water clarity
application depth restrictions. In order words, evaluate the single best year SAV
acreages without any artificial clipping. The advantage of this approach is that direct
comparisons can be made with the SAV acreage mapped based on aerial photog-
raphy gathered and interpreted through the annual baywide SAV aerial survey
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
59
program. The SAV acreages reported through the aerial survey program by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science are reported as mapped (e.g., no clipping).
SHALLOW-WATER EXISTING USE ACREAGES
The shallow-water existing use acreages, reported in Table IV-15 on pages 124-127
of the Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated
Uses and Attainability (U.S. EPA 2003), were determined using part of the same
methodology used to determine the SAV restoration goal acreages. The segment
specific SAV restoration goals were derived from the full record of mapped SAV
data (from historical through year 2000 data) for the year in which a segment had the
greatest amount of SAV acreage, referred to as the single best year. The SAV data
were then clipped by the shoreline used to define the segments (any data not within
a segment boundary was deleted) and further clipped by the segment's water clarity
criteria application depth, as described above. The existing use acreage methodology
used the same single best year approach, except only mapped SAV data from 1978
through 2000 were considered. The resultant single best year acreage for each
segment was then clipped by shoreline, but not by the water clarity criteria applica-
tion depth.
To provide the jurisdictions with responsibilities for adopting state water quality
standards regulations for Chesapeake Bay tidal waters with the best available
quantification of existing use conditions, the data used for determination of the
shallow-water existing use acreages has been expanded to include both 2001 and
2002 SAV data. In addition, the single best year SAV acreages were not clipped by
the segment's shoreline. The addition of two more years of SAV data and not
clipping by the shoreline resulted in increasing the existing use acreage for 25 of
78 total Chesapeake Bay Program segments compared to the existing use acreages
originally published in the Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2003).
There were four possible reasons for why the updated (1978-2002) and non-clipped
existing use acreages were now greater than the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted
SAV restoration goal acreages, with more then one reason applying in many
segments:
1. The 2001 or 2002 SAV acreage more recently mapped for the segment was greater
than the SAV restoration goal single best year acreage based on historical through
2000 data.
2. The segment's water clarity criteria application depth was less than 2 meters while
the existing use acreage, undipped by the water clarity criteria application depth,
reflected SAV mapped at all depths within the segment.
3. The SAV restoration goal single best acreage was clipped to the shoreline while
the updated existing use acreage was not.
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
60
4. Some segments had single best year SAV mapped at depths greater than 2 meters
(although not in large amounts) which could slightly increase the updated existing
use acreage compared to SAV restoration goal acreage, even for those segments
with a 2-meter application depth.
UPDATED RESTORATION, EXISTING USE AND
SHALLOW-WATER ACREAGES
The four tables which follow provide the updated and expanded acreage data for
appropriate use and application by the jurisdictions and partners accounting for the
above described undercounting of actual mapped SAV. Table VI-1 lists the 'ex-
panded restoration acreage' for each Chesapeake Bay Program segment and sorted
by jurisdiction. Table VI-2 provides the same categories of data for the subset of split
segments in Maryland and Virginia. The 'expanded restoration acreage' is the
greatest acreage from among the updated existing use acreage (1978-2002; no
shoreline clipping), the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted SAV restoration acreage
(strictly adhering to adopted single best year methodology with clipping) and the
goal acreage displayed without shoreline or application depth clipping and including
SAV from areas still lacking bathymetry data. This 'expanded restoration acreage' is
being documented here and provided to the partners as the best acreage value that
can be directly compared with SAV acreages reported through the baywide SAV
aerial survey. These acreages are not the officially adopted goals of the watershed
partners; they are for consideration by the jurisdictions when adopting refined and
new state water quality standards regulations for Chesapeake Bay tidal waters.
Table VI-3 illustrates the 'expanded restoration acreage' as a percentage of the
shallow-water habitat acreage. The shallow-water habitat acreage is the portion of a
Chesapeake Bay Program segment that is 0-2 meters in depth, excluding those areas
designated as SAV no-grow zones. Note that there is no shallow-water habitat
acreage value for the Patuxent River (segment PAXTF) because no bathymetry
currently exists for most of the segment.
Table VI-4 is an updated version of Table IV-16 originally published in the Technical
Support Document (U.S. EPA 2003). In this updated table, the 'expanded restoration
acreage' is expressed as a percentage of the shallow-water habitat acreage and then
summarized by salinity regime. The values presented in Table VI-4 do not include
data from the upper Patuxent River for the reason referenced above.
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
61
Table VI-1. Updated shallow-water existing use acreage, Chesapeake Bay Program adopted
SAV restoration goal, SAV restoration goal acreage without clipping and expanded
SAV restoration acreage by Chesapeake Bay Program segment by jurisdiction.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Segment Name
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Segment
Shallow-Water
Existing Use
Acreage
(1978-2002
Single Best)
Year
Chesapeake
Bay Program
Adopted
SAV Restoration
Goal Acreage
Year
SAV Restoration
Goal Acreage
w/o Clipping and
Depth Limitations
Expanded
SAV
Restoration
Acreage
MARYLAND
Northern Chesapeake Bay
CB1TF
9,223
2002
12,908
Flistorical
13,228
13,228
Upper Chesapeake Bay
CB20H
705
2000
302
Flistorical
1,010
1,010
Upper Central Chesapeake Bay
CB3MH
1,370
1978
943
1978
1,370
1,370
Middle Central Chesapeake Bay
CB4MH
269
2002
2,511
Flistorical
2,824
2,824
Lower Central Chesapeake Bay
CB5MH #
2,136
2002
8,257
Flistorical
8,575
8,575
Bush River
BSHOH
350
2002
158
Flistorical
236
350
Gunpowder River
GUNOH
2,432
2000
2,254
2000
2,432
2,432
Middle River
MIDOH
740
2000
838
Flistorical
911
911
Back River
BACOH
*
*
*
*
Patapsco River
PATMH
121
1978
298
Flistorical
585
585
Magothy River
MAGMH
473
1979
545
Flistorical
716
716
Severn River
SEVMH
455
1999
329
1999
455
455
South River
SOUMH
54
1998
459
Flistorical
552
552
Rhode River
RHDMH
15
1978
48
Flistorical
98
98
West River
WSTMH
115
1978
214
Flistorical
338
338
Upper Patuxent River
PAXTF
205
2001
5
1996
158
205
Western Branch (Patuxent River)
WBRTF
*
*
*
*
Middle Patuxent River
PAXOH
115
2000
68
2000
115
115
Lower Patuxent River
PAXMH
141
2002
1,325
Flistorical
1,685
1,685
Upper Potomac River
POTTF#
2,142
1991
1,992
1991
2,142
2,142
Piscataway Creek
PISTF
789
1987
783
1987
789
789
Mattawoman Creek
MATTF
792
2002
276
2000
331
792
Middle Potomac River
POTOH #
2,801
1998
2,576
1998
2,801
2,801
Lower Potomac River
POTMH #
2,438
2002
6,919
Flistorical
9,005
9,005
Northeast River
NORTF
76
2002
88
Flistorical
164
164
C&D Canal
C&DOH
7
2001
0
1978
2
7
Bohemia River
BOHOH
354
2001
97
2000
187
354
Elk River
ELKOH
2,034
2001
1,648
2000
1,710
2,034
Sassafras River
SASOH
1,169
2001
764
2000
960
1,169
Upper Chester River
CHSTF
*
*
*
*
Middle Chester River
CHSOH
*
63
Flistorical
117
117
Lower Chester River
CHSMH
2,601
1978
2,724
Flistorical
3,762
3,762
Eastern Bay
EASMH
4,953
1999
6,108
Flistorical
6,397
6,397
Upper Choptank River
CHOTF
*
*
*
*
Middle Choptank River
CHOOH
*
63
Flistorical
89
89
Lower Choptank River
CHOMH2
233
1978
1,499
Flistorical
2,020
2,020
Mouth of the Choptank River
CHOMH1
6,898
1997
8,044
Flistorical
8,721
8,721
Little Choptank River
LCHMH
2,904
2002
3,950
Flistorical
4,134
4,134
Honga River
HNGMH
6,317
2002
7,686
Flistorical
7,935
7,935
Fishing Bay
FSBMH
109
2002
193
Flistorical
730
730
Upper Nanticoke River
NANTF#
*
*
*
*
Middle Nanticoke River
NANOH
*
3
Flistorical
13
13
Lower Nanticoke River
NANMH
*
3
Flistorical
6
6
Wicomico River
WICMH
*
3
Flistorical
8
8
Manokin River
MANMH
727
2002
4,359
Flistorical
4,434
4,434
Big Annemessex River
BIGMH
782
2002
2,014
Flistorical
2,212
2,212
Upper Pocomoke River
POCTF
*
*
*
*
Middle Pocomoke River
POCOH
*
*
*
*
Lower Pocomoke River
POCMH #
68
1993
859
Flistorical
912
912
Tangier Sound
TANMH #
9,134
1992
24,614
Flistorical
26,416
26,416
Totals
66,247
108,790
121,282
122,610
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
62
Table VI-1 continued. Updated shallow-water existing use acreage, Chesapeake Bay Program adopted
SAV restoration goal, SAV restoration goal acreage without clipping and
expanded SAV restoration acreage by Chesapeake Bay Program segment
by jurisdiction.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Segment Name
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Segment
Shallow-Water
Existing Use
Acreage
(1978-2002
Single Best)
Year
Chesapeake
Bay Program
Adopted
SAV Restoration
Goal Acreage
Year
SAV Restoration
Goal Acreage
w/o Clipping and
Depth Limitations
Expanded
SAV
Restoration
Acreage
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Upper Potomac River
POTTF#
383
1991
368
1991
383
383
Anacostia River
ANATF
15
1996
6
1991
12
15
Totals
398
374
395
398
DELAWARE
Upper Nanticoke River
NANTF#
*
*
*
*
VIRGINIA
Lower Central Chesapeake Bay
CB5MH #
2,767
2002
6,704
Historical
7,633
7,633
Western Lower Chesapeake Bay
CB6PH
1,264
1993
980
Historical
1,267
1,267
Eastern Lower Chesapeake Bay
CB7PH
11,040
1993
14,620
Historical
15,107
15,107
Mouth of the Chesapeake Bay
CB8PH
11
1996
6
1996
11
11
Upper Potomac River
POTTF #
2,093
1991
2,008
1991
2,093
2,093
Middle Potomac River
POTOH #
1,503
1998
1,145
1998
1,503
1,503
Lower Potomac River
POTMH #
179
2002
3,254
Historical
4,250
4,250
Upper Rappahannock River
RPPTF
66
2001
20
2000
40
66
Middle Rappahannock River
RPPOH
*
*
*
*
Lower Rappahannock River
RPPMH
1,006
2002
5,380
Historical
7,814
7,814
Corrotoman River
CRRMH
768
2002
516
Historical
647
768
Piankatank River
PIAMH
1,075
1993
3,256
Historical
3,479
3,479
Upper Mattaponi River
MPNTF
85
1998
75
1998
85
85
Lower Mattaponi River
MPNOH
*
*
*
*
Upper Pamunkey River
PMKTF
187
1998
155
1998
187
187
Lower Pamunkey River
PMKOH
*
*
*
*
Middle York River
YRKMH
*
176
Historical
239
239
Lower York River
YRKPH
921
2002
2,272
Historical
2,793
2,793
Mobjack Bay
MOBPH
10,973
1997
15,096
Historical
15,901
15,901
Upper James River
JMSTF
95
2001
1,600
Historical
1,905
1,905
Appomattox River
APPTF
*
319
Historical
379
379
Middle James River
JMSOH
15
2001
7
1998
15
15
Chickahominy River
CHKOH
535
2000
348
2000
535
535
Lower James River
JMSMH
3
1999
531
Historical
712
712
Mouth of the James River
JMSPH
280
2002
604
Historical
693
693
Western Branch Elizabeth River
WBEMH
*
*
*
*
Southern Branch Elizabeth River
SBEMH
*
*
*
*
Eastern Branch Elizabeth River
EBEMH
*
*
*
*
Lafayette River
LAFMH
*
*
*
*
Mouth of the Elizabeth River
ELIPH
*
*
*
*
Lynnhaven River
LYNPH
107
1986
69
1986
107
107
Middle Pocomoke River
POCOH
*
*
*
*
Lower Pocomoke River
POCMH #
1,847
1993
3,233
Historical
4,066
4,066
Tangier Sound
TANMH #
8,972
1992
13,351
Historical
13,579
13,579
Totals
45,792
75,725
85,039
85,186
Totals for all jurisdictions
112,437
184,889
206,716
208,194
* No SAV data available or no SAV present.
# Contains only the jurisdiction's portion of the segment.
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
Q_
> ^
00 cD
03
CD
u
03
a; a>
*- -£
^ g
"D O
a;
03
03
'c
'en
*—• ro
Q__c
o ^
~S
03 c
E 03
(13 C
o)-|
2 ™ _
°- o >
ra1 "
5 aj c
00 >— 03
6 > n
^ ,
(is ai i=
10 -7-; (13
1
U S.C
- X
ai ai
en . p
S
¦S E
S" ?n
m ^ CT
Q- Qj
ai :— -
00
f!
j/i ¦
X
a>
^_
(D
¦i—1
03
g
l/l
E
03
i_
CT)
O
i_
Q_
a> ^
rr» ^
TO 0°
±*8
l§«
03 CD § u
"O "J3 -~—1
CD (-Q I—
¦£ i- Q.
03 o to
"o to
-=r a> .c
—j +->
rN
i
>
_QJ
-Q
."3
9P .
VI
g & 15 i?n
a< 0 |
At S_i M Q j—j w
in -
"7j ox
15
-
1 -3 |S"|
8°I
« 13 |
^ O
PQ a> te ©J)
atS a
sS -d -££ «
S "3 A "3
qi O 'i. ©
h o 5 o
«S P H
S oj> 2fS «
S 3
U 00 03
^ « t-
•a ^ ©•> ,£
w ^ ^
5 Ph s
2 £> !>
U P9 &
P5 g
-------
64
Table VI-3. Expanded SAV restoration acreage as percentage of available shallow-water habitat by
Chesapeake Bay Program segment by jurisdiction.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Segment Name
Chesapeake
Bay Program
Segment
Expanded
SAV Restoration
Acreage
Shallow-water Acreage to
2 meter Depth (Excluding
SAV No-growth Zones)
Percent Expanded SAV
Restoration Acreage of
Shallow-water Habitat
MARYLAND
Northern Chesapeake Bay
CB1TF
13,228
20,907
63.3
Upper Chesapeake Bay
CB20H
1,010
8,787
11.5
Upper Central Chesapeake Bay
CB3MH
1,370
4,671
29.3
Middle Central Chesapeake Bay
CB4MH
2,824
10,630
26.6
Lower Central Chesapeake Bay
CB5MH #
8,575
15,586
55.0
Bush River
BSHOH
350
4,605
7.6
Gunpowder River
GUNOH
2,432
7,358
33.1
Middle River
MIDOH
911
2,479
36.7
Back River
BACOH
*
2,859
*
Patapsco River
PATMH
585
3,418
17.1
Magothy River
MAGMH
716
2,055
34.8
Severn River
SEVMH
455
2,108
21.6
South River
SOUMH
552
2,236
24.7
Rhode River
RHDMH
98
710
13.8
West River
WSTMH
338
1,468
23.0
Upper Patuxent River
PAXTF
205
-
-
Western Branch (Patuxent River)
WBRTF
*
0
*
Middle Patuxent River
PAXOH
115
2,072
5.6
Lower Patuxent River
PAXMH
1,685
8,793
19.2
Upper Potomac River
POTTF#
2,142
5,958
36.0
Piscataway Creek
PISTF
789
914
86.3
Mattawoman Creek
MATTF
792
1,389
57.0
Middle Potomac River
POTOH #
2,801
10,342
27.1
Lower Potomac River
POTMH #
9,005
32,323
27.9
Northeast River
NORTF
164
2,742
6.0
C&D Canal
C&DOH
7
171
4.1
Bohemia River
BOHOH
354
1,904
18.6
Elk River
ELKOH
2,034
5,024
40.5
Sassafras River
SASOH
1,169
3,710
31.5
Upper Chester River
CHSTF
*
870
*
Middle Chester River
CHSOH
117
2,308
5.1
Lower Chester River
CHSMH
3,762
11,500
32.7
Eastern Bay
EASMH
6,397
20,805
30.7
Upper Choptank River
CHOTF
*
0
*
Middle Choptank River
CHOOH
89
1,284
6.9
Lower Choptank River
CHOMH2
2,020
6,833
29.6
Mouth of the Choptank River
CHOMH1
8,721
20,857
41.8
Little Choptank River
LCHMH
4,134
12,368
33.4
Honga River
HNGMH
7,935
16,456
48.2
Fishing Bay
FSBMH
730
13,643
5.3
Upper Nanticoke River
NANTF#
*
0
*
Middle Nanticoke River
NANOH
13
2,053
0.6
Lower Nanticoke River
NANMH
6
7,712
0.1
Wicomico River
WICMH
8
5,911
0.1
Manokin River
MANMH
4,434
10,700
41.4
Big Annemessex River
BIGMH
2,212
5,065
43.7
Upper Pocomoke River
POCTF
*
0
*
Middle Pocomoke River
POCOH #
*
242
*
Lower Pocomoke River
POCMH #
912
5,049
18.1
Tangier Sound
TANMH #
26,416
47,809
55.3
Totals
122,610
356,733
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Upper Potomac River
POTTF #
383
1,466
26.1
Anacostia River
ANATF
15
321
4.7
Totals
398
1,787
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
65
Table VI-3 continued. Expanded SAV restoration acreage as percentage of available shallow-water
habitat by Chesapeake Bay Program segment by jurisdiction.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Segment Name
Chesapeake
Bay Program
Segment
Expanded
SAV Restoration
Acreage
Shallow-water Acreage to
2 meter Depth (Excluding
SAV No-growth Zones)
Percent Expanded SAV
Restoration Acreage of
Shallow-water Habitat
DELAWARE
Upper Nanticoke River
NANTF#
*
0
*
VIRGINIA
Lower Central Chesapeake Bay
CB5MH #
7,633
14,514
52.6
Western Lower Chesapeake Bay
CB6PH
1,267
5,569
22.7
Eastern Lower Chesapeake Bay
CB7PH
15,107
34,085
44.3
Mouth of the Chesapeake Bay
CB8PH
11
1,050
1.0
Upper Potomac River
POTTF#
2,093
10,078
20.8
Middle Potomac River
POTOH #
1,503
4,851
31.0
Lower Potomac River
POTMH #
4,250
13,481
31.5
Upper Rappahannock River
RPPTF
66
4,512
1.5
Middle Rappahannock River
RPPOH
*
2,510
*
Lower Rappahannock River
RPPMH
7,814
30,108
26.0
Corrotoman River
CRRMH
768
2,611
29.4
Piankatank River
PIAMH
3,479
8,014
43.4
Upper Mattaponi River
MPNTF
85
1,409
6.0
Lower Mattaponi River
MPNOH
*
554
*
Upper Pamunkey River
PMKTF
187
2,652
7.1
Lower Pamunkey River
PMKOH
*
806
*
Middle York River
YRKMH
239
12,715
1.9
Lower York River
YRKPH
2,793
6,998
39.9
Mobjack Bay
MOBPH
15,901
33,990
46.8
Upper James River
JMSTF
1,905
12,835
14.8
Appomattox River
APPTF
379
1,603
23.7
Middle James River
JMSOH
15
10,944
0.1
Chickahominy River
CHKOH
535
4,501
11.9
Lower James River
JMSMH
712
26,598
2.7
Mouth of the James River
JMSPH
693
2,402
28.9
Western Branch Elizabeth River
WBEMH
*
*
*
Southern Branch Elizabeth River
SBEMH
*
*
*
Eastern Branch Elizabeth River
EBEMH
*
*
*
Lafayette River
LAFMH
*
*
*
Mouth of the Elizabeth River
ELIPH
*
*
*
Lynnhaven River
LYNPH
107
3,941
2.7
Middle Pocomoke River
POCOH #
*
*
*
Lower Pocomoke River
POCMH #
4,066
9,368
43.4
Tangier Sound
TANMH #
13,579
22,064
61.5
Totals
85,186
284,758
Totals all jurisdictions
208,194
643,278
* No SAV data available or no SAV present.
# Contains only the jurisdiction's portion of the segment.
- Insufficient bathymetry data available.
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
66
Table VI-4. The expanded SAV goal acreage as a percentage of available shallow-
water habitat by summarized salinity regime.
Tidal-Fresh Oligohaline Mesohaline Polyhaline
All segments in regime
33.1
17.0
33.4
40.8
Minimum (single segment)
0
0
0.1
1.0
Maximum (single segment)
86.3
40.5
61.5
46.8
Number of segments*
13
20
29
7
* Segments totally within exclusion areas not included.
UPPER TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER WATER CLARITY
CRITERIA APPLICATION DEPTHS
As part of the efforts described previously in Chapter 4 for delineating the bound-
aries between the three jurisdictions with tidal Potomac waters, the SAV restoration
goal acreage for the upper Potomac River segment POTTF was divided into separate
SAV acreage goals for Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia (Table VI-
1). However, a segment-wide existing use acreage and single water clarity criteria
application depth remained. The jurisdictions requested a recalculation of the appli-
cable existing use acreage and the water clarity application depth specific to their
portion of the upper Potomac River segment.
Following the decision rules previously published in the Technical Support Docu-
ment (U.S. EPA 2003), EPA determined the existing use acreage and the water
clarity criteria application depth necessary to restore the SAV restoration goal
acreage specific to each jurisdiction's portion of the upper Potomac River segment
(POTTF). The resultant jurisdiction specific existing use acreages are presented in
Table VI-1. The Maryland portion of segment POTTF required a 2 meter water
clarity criteria application depth to both protect existing uses as well as to meet the
SAV restoration goal whereas the Virginia and District of Columbia portions of the
same segment required at least a 1 meter application depth. This analysis supports
the three jurisdictions sharing the tidal waters of the upper Potomac River segment
POTTF applying different shallow water designated use applications depths for their
water clarity criteria to protect existing uses and support achievement of the SAV
restoration goal for their portions of the shallow waters within this segment.
chapter vi • Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Goal and Shallow Water Acreages
-------
a ppend ix^3l
Chesapeake Bay and Tidal
Tributaries Designated Use
Boundary Documentation
Table A-1. Narrative descriptions and latitude/longitude coordinates for the Chesapeake Bay
migratory spawning and nursery designated use boundaries.
River or Bay and all tributaries
from the following points upstream State(s) Latitude Longitude Description
Upper Chesapeake Bay
MD
Point 1
Point 2
39.011570
38.994961
-76.394485
-76.324997
Sandy Point, Sandy Point SP
Kent Island, 1 mile north of Bay Bridge
Severn River
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.981407
38.983685
-76.476166
-76.471535
USNA, eastern comer of seawalls, north of Spa Creek
0.13 miles NW of US Naval Reservation boat basin
South River
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.898491
38.915867
-76.493752
-76.477776
Shoreham Beach, south end
One third mile SE of Cherrytree Cove, west of Oakwooc
Rhode River
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.880882
38.879383
-76.522644
-76.514511
Locust Point
Cloverlea, at mouth of Cadle Creek
West River
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.850563
38.862885
-76.518219
-76.533806
East side of mouth of Deadwood Cove
West side of mouth of Scaffold Creek
Patuxent River
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.323620
38.130527
.76.494446
-76.433563
Mouth of Little Kingston Creek
West side of Point Patience. 0.1 mile from the tip
Potomac River
MD/VA/DC
Point 1
Point 2
38.168564
38.256958
-76.856857
-76.805122
0.2 miles NW of Big Meadow Run, Westmoreland SP
West side of Whites Neck, NE of St. Margaret Island
St. Clements Bay
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.226414
38.233227
-76.747932
-76.719238
Coltons Pt.
Cornish Pt.
Breton Bay
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.234688
38.233093
-76.704155
-76.686234
Kaywood Pt.
Huggins Pt.
St. Marys River
MD
Point 1
Point 2
38.133293
38.130527
-76.461433
-76.433563
0.4 miles south of Edmund Pt.
W side Inigoes Neck, 0.6 miles SSW ofFortPt.
Rappahannock River
VA
Point 1
Point 2
37.786079
37.823021
-76.715286
-76.701874
0.7 miles dowmstream of Mark Haven Beach
Sharps
York River
VA
Point 1
Point 2
37.435936
37.448486
-76.737389
-76.715416
Mt. Folly, 0.55 miles SE of Sycamore Landing
0.6 miles upstream of mouth of Poropotank Bay
appendix
-------
68
Table A-1 continued. Narrative descriptions and latitude/longitude coordinates for the Chesapeake
Bay migratory spawning and nursery designated use boundaries.
River or Bay and all tributaries
from the following points upstream State(s)
Latitude Longitude Description
James River
Wye River
VA
Point 1 37.024994
Point 2 37.076099
Point 1 38.874359
Point 2 38.859478
-76.581276 1.2 miles downstream of Mogarts Beach
-76.554527 Jail Pt.
-76.193619 East side of western neck of Wye I., south of Drum Pt.
-76.190376 North end of Bruffs Island
Miles River
Tred Avon River
Choptank River
Fishing Bay
Nanticoke River
Wicomico River (East)
Monie Bay
Manokin River
Big Annemessex River
Pocomoke River
Point 1 38.775665
Point 2 38.771210
Point 1 38.708347
Point 2 38.703396
Point 1 38.614681
Point 2 38.592419
Point 1 38.292126
Point 2 38.301033
Point 1 38.343781
Point 2 38.326164
Point 1 38.247482
Point 2 38.241608
Point 1 38.230408
Point 2 38.212467
Point 1 38.148384
Point 2 38.133850
Point 1 38.074532
Point 2 38.070129
Point 1 37.970169
Point 2 37.968102
-76.158585 0.33 miles east of Hunting Creek mouth
-76.155998 0.95 miles NE of Newcomb Creek
-76.149284 On SE point of neck containing Pecks Point Rd.
-76.139626 At pond between Goldsborough Cr. and Trippe Cr.
-76.081299 0.25 miles east of Dickinson Bay mouth
-76.085014 Westem end of Hambrooks Bar
-76.036751 Little Creek Marsh, 1 mile NW of Roasting Ear Pt.
-76.006828 McCreadys Pt.
-75.908028 Northem end of Lower Greens Cove
-75.884125 1200'S S W of northern tip of Hatcrown Pt.
-75.851654 Holland Pt.
-75.845528 0.2 miles upstream of Victor Pt.
-75.834694 0.64 miles west of Nail Pt.
-75.841820 0.44 miles SW of Bay Pt.
-75.825874 Between Geanquakin Creek and St. Peters Creek
-75.814491 Halfway between Broad Creek and Fishing Pt.
-75.787209 Charles Pt.
-75.778313 0.16 miles downstream of Gales Creek
-75.646004 0.72 miles NEof northeeast tip of Fair I sland
-75.643646 0.3 miles north of SW tip of Pitts Neck
appendix a
-------
Table A-2. Narrative descriptions and lattitude/longitude coordinates for the Chesapeake Bay open-
water, deep-water and deep-channel designated use boundaries.
Designated Chesapeake Bay Program Chesapeake Bay Latitude/Longitude and Narrative Georeference Identifiers
Use Segment Name Program Segment for End Coordinates Bounding Each Designated Use
Deep Water
Zone 1 Southern Branch Elizabeth River
Zone 2 Lower Y ork River
Zone 3 * not defined by CBP segments
SBEMH
YRKPH
Deep Channel
Zone 1 * not defined by CBP segments
Zone 2 Upper Central Chesapeake Bay
Middle Central Chesapeake Bay
Lower Central Chesapeake Bay
Patapsco River
Lower Patuxent River
Lower Potomac River
Lower Chester river
Eastern Bay
CB3MH
CB4MH
CB5MH
PATMH
PAXMH
POTMH
CHSMH
EASMH
Northern part of lower Chesapeake Bay and lower Rappahannock River
Point 1 Lat/Long 37.445248 -76.251490
Description East side of Rigby I., 0.5 miles from southern end
Point 2 Lat/Long 37.446326 -76.142080
Description 6 miles due east of Point 1
Point 3 Lat/Long 37.513095 -76.137665
Description 8.1 miles due east of north end of Gwynn I. (Point 17)
Point 4 Lat/Long 37.782822 -75.800687
Description Big Marsh on Pompco Creek, north of Rogue I.
Point 5 Lat/Long 37.787926 -75.741074
Description S of Webb I., between Deep Cr. and Doe Cr.
Point 6 Lat/Long 37.846237 -75.786530
Description 0.57 miles WSW of fl. red It. at tip of Guilford Flats
Point 7 Lat/Long 37.781960 -75.873726
Description 1 mile SE of S tip of Watts I., just E of quad bound.
Point 8 Lat/Long 37.797581 -76.025650
Description 3 miles WNW of Tangier Sound Light
Point 9 Lat/Long 37.619465 -76.280251
Description Fleets Island, at end of road north of Windmill Pt.
Point 10 Lat/Long 37.613708 -76.280586
Description Windmill Pt.
Point 11 Lat/Long 37.653767 -76.457794
Description 0.5 mile NW of Orchard Pt.
Pointl2 Lat/Long 37.649799 -76.496513
Description Aprox. 0.25 miles S of Whitehouse Cr. Mouth
Point 13 Lat/Long 37.642095 -76.509873
Description Towles Pt.
Point 14 Lat/Long 37.612686 -76.533853
Description North of Christchurch, 0.75 miles west of Cooper
Point 15 Lat/Long 37.558598 -76.297974
Description Stingray Pt.
Point 16 Lat/Long 37.558395 -76.283516
Description 0.8 miles east of Stingray Pt. (RPPMH point 1)
Point 17 Lat/Long 37.512447 -76.285423
Description Gwynn Island, east side of northern end
Point 18 Lat/Long 37.473808 -76.263008
Description Gwynn Island, 0.25 miles NE of Sandy Pt. tip
Point 19 Lat/Long 37.462313 -76.257705
Description 0.08 miles NNE from northern tip of Rigby I.
Point 20 Lat/Long 37.459854 -76.257225
Description Rigby Island, east side of northern end
Middle lower Rappahannock River
Point 1 Lat/Long
Description
Point 2 Lat/Long
Description
Point 3 Lat/Long
Description
Point 4 Lat/Long
Description
37.612686 -76.533853
North of Christchurch, 0.75 miles west of Cooper
37.642095 -76.509873
Towles Pt.
37.800789 -76.654432
Oakley Landing
37.799628 -76.734467
0.7 miles NW of Mark Haven Beach
appendix
-------
71
append ix b>
Maryland's and Virginia's
Chesapeake Bay Program
Split Segment Boundary
Documentation
Table B-1. Latitude/longitude and narrative georeference identifiers for the end
coordinates bounding each of Maryland's and Virginia's split Chesapeake
Bay Program segments.
Coordinates bounding Maryland split segments
Segment
Description
CBP
Segment
Split
Segment
Number of Latitude/
Longitude Coordinates to follow
MARYLAND
Northern Chesapeake
39.420143 -76.123344
39.401688
39.429420
39.449200
39.449471
39.475323
39.476006
39.475132
39.475132
39.476006
39.475323
39.449471
39.529629
39.540794
39.608994
39.608959
39.609001
39.608971
-76.035194
-75.997681
-76.007698
-76.010475
-76.072807
-76.094421
-76.097580
-76.097580
-76.094421
-76.072807
-76.010475
-75.979271
-76.002899
-76.121094
-76.132683
-76.135147
-76.143379
CB1TF CB1TF1 8
1000' SW of Cherry Tree Pt., APG
North of Chesapeake Haven, Grove Neck
1300' SW of Wroth Pt.
Turkey Pt.
Turkey Pt., 0.1 miles WSW of lighthouse
Locust Pt. on Spesutie Island
East side of Spesutie Narrows bridge
West side of Spesutie Narrows bridge
CB1TF2 10
West side of Spesutie Narrows bridge
East side of Spesutie Narrows bridge
Locust Pt. on Spesutie Island
Turkey Pt., 0.1 miles WSW of lighthouse
Red Pt.
East side of Carpenter Pt.
Port Deposit
East side Spencer Island
West side Spencer Island
Just south of Rock Run on western shore
appendix b
-------
72
Segment
Description
CBP
Segment
Split
Segment
Number of Latitude/
Longitude Coordinates to follow
MARYLAND (cont).
Gunpowder River
39.316414
39.312862
39.312767
39.303204
39.356564
39.358330
39.326569
39.326477
-76.331039
-76.321449
-76.321190
-76.296249
-76.322929
-76.345024
-76.361801
-76.361130
39.358330
39.356564
39.412685
Lower Patuxent
38.304638
38.319176
38.322941
38.321041
38.386593
38.389153
38.412220
38.411896
38.481140
38.475594
38.342590
38.339634
38.475594
38.481140
38.540684
38.542320
38.321041
38.322941
38.339634
38.342590
38.389153
38.386593
38.446831
-76.345024
-76.322929
-76.400780
River
-76.421448
-76.420990
-76.451630
-76.451965
-76.498840
-76.506416
-76.542747
-76.544487
-76.647560
-76.662788
-76.500587
-76.499550
-76.662788
-76.647560
-76.668045
-76.678818
-76.451965
-76.451630
-76.499550
-76.500587
-76.506416
-76.498840
-76.492088
GUNOH GUNOH1 8
Carroll I., midway betw. White Oak and Carroll Pts.
Carroll Pt.
Carroll Pt.
Rickett Pt. at end of Ricketts Pt. Rd.
Maxwell Pt.
Cunninghill Cove, mouth of unnamed creek
170' South of West side of bridge to Carroll Island
170' S of east side of bridge to Carroll Island
GUNOH2 3
Cunninghill Cove, mouth of unnamed creek
Maxwell Pt.
Gunpowder Falls, 1500' below Rt. 7
PAXMH1
12
PAXMH
Fishing Pt.
Drum Pt.
Point of land S of Ship Pt. and E of Ma Leg I.
Eastern tip of Solomons
Mouth of St. Leonard Creek, east side
Petersons Pt.
Island Creek mouth, east Side
Island Creek mouth, Broomes Island Side
0.64 miles south of the Sandy Pt. near Buzzard I.
Trent Hall Pt.
Mouth of Cuckold Creek, north side
Mouth of Cuckold Creek, south side
PAXMH2 4
Trent Hall Pt.
0.64 miles south of the Sandy Pt. near Buzzard I.
Gods Grace Pt. near end of Leitchs Wharf Rd.
Chalk Pt., eastern side
PAXMH3 2
Eastern tip of Solomons
Point of land S of Ship Pt. and E of Ma Leg I.
PAXMH4 2
Mouth of Cuckold Creek, south side
Mouth of Cuckold Creek, north side
PAXMH5 3
Petersons Pt.
Mouth of St. Leonard Creek, east side
0.25 miles downstream of Parran Road
appendix b
-------
73
Segment CBP Split Number of Latitude/
Description Segment Segment Longitude Coordinates to follow
MARYLAND (cont).
PAXMH6 3
38.411896
-76.544487
Island Creek mouth, Broomes Island Side
38.412220
-76.542747
Island Creek mouth, east Side
38.433407
-76.540894
0.7 miles N of point where Marshall Rd. ends
Middle Potomac River
POTOH POTOH1 8
38.389660
-77.029305
1 mile SE of Mathias Pt., just north of 639
38.407509
-76.997322
0.65 miles NW of the town of Popes Creek
38.444935
-77.016396
1.5 miles SE of Chapel Pt., due E of Windmill Pt.
38.444565
-77.040695
Windmill Pt.
38.408894
-77.110886
Blossom Pt.
38.408745
-77.124855
0.15 miles SW of Benny Gray Pt.
38.523266
-77.256630
1000' SW of Moss Pt.
38.524181
-77.285294
Midway between Shipping Pt. and Quantico Pier
POTOH2 3
38.444565
-77.040695
Windmill Pt.
38.444935
-77.016396
1.5 miles SE of Chapel Pt., due E of Windmill Pt.
38.500164
-77.026306
Port Tobacco Marina (edge of 7.5' quad sheet)
POTOH3 3
38.408745
-77.124855
0.15 miles SW of Benny Gray Pt.
38.408894
-77.110886
Blossom Pt.
38.475391
-77.130676
Wards Run, 0.25 miles upstream of Hill Top Fork
Elk River
ELKOH ELKOH1 8
39.449200
-76.007698
Turkey Pt.
39.429420
-75.997681
1300' SW of Wroth Pt.
39.474773
-75.940498
East of Ford Landing on Veazey Neck
39.486473
-75.923767
Town Pt.
39.523182
-75.871521
West of where the road north from Randalia ends
39.525536
-75.874619
East side of Welch Pt.
39.544392
-75.855301
Paddy Biddle Cove
39.545540
-75.876144
0.6 miles south of Elkmore
ELKOH2
39.545540 -75.876144 0.6 miles south of Elkmore
39.544392 -75.855301 Paddy Biddle Cove
39.607624 -75.822853 Elkton - 500' below Rt. 7
Sassafras River
39.389511 -76.040848
39.372025 -76.101227
39.371868 -75.955750
39.378330 -75.961472
SASOH SASOH1
Grove Pt.
2850' east of Howells Pt.
0.66 miles NW of Freeman Creek
Cassidy Wharf
appendix b
-------
74
Segment
Description
CBP
Segment
Split
Segment
Number of Latitude/
Longitude Coordinates to follow
MARYLAND (cont.)
SASOH2
39.378330 -75.961472 Cassidy Wharf
39.371868 -75.955750 0.66 miles NW of Freeman Creek
39.376785 -75.806549 350'upstream of Rt. 301
Tangier Sound
TANMH TANMH1 26
37.792580
-76.032707
3.25 miles W, 0.3 miles N of Tangier Sound Light
37.781960
-75.873726
1 mile SE of S tip of Watts I., just E of quad bound.
37.846237
-75.786530
0.57 miles WSW of fl. red It. at tip of Guilford Flats
37.924927
-75.848007
Eastward Pt., on eastern side of Broad Creek
38.015781
-75.845947
East side of Daugherty Creek Canal
38.016033
-75.846458
West side of Daugherty Creek Canal
38.020733
-75.856712
South side of gut SW of Acre Creek
38.020973
-75.856819
North side of gut SW of Acre Creek
38.036049
-75.868935
700' east of Flatcap Pt., Janes Island
38.058910
-75.868744
South shore of Pat Island
38.064907
-75.866974
NE Pat Island, across gut from Hazard Island
38.065315
-75.866608
Hazard Island, across gut from Pat Island
38.075314
-75.870750
Gut between Hazard Cove and Mine Cr., south side
38.075665
-75.871155
Gut between Hazard Cove and Mine Cr., north side
38.078552
-75.877586
Hazard Island, 1200' NE of tip of Hazard Pt.
38.122917
-75.937126
Eastern side of Little Deal Island
38.125946
-75.941216
Eastern point on north side of Little Deal Island
38.131565
-75.948860
Wenona on Deal Island, north of channel
38.136566
-75.959633
Twiggs Pt.
38.232738
-75.972618
Southern-most point of Clay Island
38.216042
-76.032051
Bishops Head Pt.
38.215809
-76.032349
Bishops Head Pt.
38.231964
-76.134285
Lower Hooper I. between Nancys and Creek Pts.
38.231445
-76.135773
Lower Hooper I. between Nancys and Creek Pts.
38.051910
-76.128838
7000' N and 2500' W of Fog Pt., Smith Island
37.797581
-76.025650
3 miles WNW of Tangier Sound Light
TANMH2 8
38.232738
-75.972618
Southern-most point of Clay Island
38.136566
-75.959633
Twiggs Pt.
38.160080
-75.932388
Upper Thorofare, Deal Island side
38.160442
-75.929558
Upper Thorofare at the mouth of Moores Gut
38.202679
-75.890579
1100' west of the tip of Long Pt.
38.227970
-75.893486
Nanticoke Pt. (Stump Point Marsh)
38.243217
-75.906105
West of Waterview, north of Jones Creek
38.244740
-75.941284
Sandy Island, NE of Frog Pt.
Manokin River
MANMH MANMH1 14
38.131565
-75.948860
Wenona on Deal Island, north of channel
38.125946
-75.941216
Eastern point on north side of Little Deal Island
38.122917
-75.937126
Eastern side of Little Deal Island
38.078552
-75.877586
Hazard Island, 1200' NE of tip of Hazard Pt.
38.075665
-75.871155
Gut between Hazard Cove and Mine Creek, N side
38.075314
-75.870750
Gut between Hazard Cove and Mine Creek, S side
appendix b
-------
75
Segment
Description
CBP
Segment
Split
Segment
Number of Latitude/
Longitude Coordinates to follow
MARYLAND (cont.)
38.069160
38.069599
38.073784
38.074146
38.133823
38.142979
38.160442
38.160080
38.142979
38.133823
38.172668
-75.855591 West part Hazard Island at Shirtpond Cove
-75.853897 East part Hazard Island at Shirtpond Cove
-75.848656 W side of gut heading N from Flatland Cove
-75.848228 E side of gut heading N from Flatland Cove
-75.827339 Cormal Pt.
-75.821144 Champ Pt.
-75.929558 Upper Thorofare at the mouth of Moores Gut
-75.932388 Upper Thorofare, Deal Island side
MANMH2 3
-75.821144 Champ Pt.
-75.827339 Cormal Pt.
-75.732979 Manokin River confluence with Hall Branch
Big Annamessex
38.058910
38.036049
38.020973
38.020733
38.016033
38.015781
38.078850
38.074585
38.074146
38.073784
38.069599
38.069160
38.065315
38.064907
38.074585
38.078850
38.087246
River BIGMH BIGMH1 14
-75.868744 South shore of Pat Island
-75.868935 700' East of Flatcap Pt., Janes Island
-75.856819 North side of gut SW of Acre Creek
-75.856712 South side of gut SW of Acre Creek
-75.846458 West side of Daugherty Creek Canal
-75.845947 East side of Daugherty Creek Canal
-75.782249 Persimmon Pt.
-75.787170 Charles Pt.
-75.848228 East side of gut heading N from Flatland Cove
-75.848656 W side of gut heading N from Flatland Cove
-75.853897 East part Hazard Island at Shirtpond Cove
-75.855591 West part Hazard Island at Shirtpond Cove
-75.866608 Hazard Island, across gut from Pat Island
-75.866974 NE Pat Island, across gut from Hazard Island
BIGMH2 3
-75.787170 Charles Pt.
-75.782249 Persimmon Pt.
-75.733032 1000' below confluence with Annemesex Creek
VIRGINIA
Upper James River
37.227379 -76.946426
37.241180
37.332580
37.334998
37.329826
37.317638
-76.945686
-77.267880
-77.274640
-77.281128
-77.277275
JMSTF JMSTF1 6
0.3 miles downstream of Sloop Pt.
Tettington, 500' downstream of road to the river
Most western point of Eppes Isand
South of Bermuda Hundred, west of substation
Mouth of sm. creek E of Shand Cr. and N of light
City Point, Hopewell
JMSTF2 3
37.334998 -77.274640 South of Bermuda Hundred, west of substation
37.332580 -77.267880 Most western point of Eppes Isand
37.533394 -77.436775 Upstream of Mayos Bridge, as far as Browns I. dam
appendix b
------- |