Strategy to Accelerate the Protection and Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay


December 2003



Chesapeake Bay Program

A Watershed Partnership

Strategy to

Accelerate the Protection
and Restoration of
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
in the Chesapeake Bay

SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE

This document presents a strategy to accelerate the
protection and restoration of submerged aquatic
vegetation, or SAV, in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tidal tributaries. Research, monitoring and imple-
mentation projects over the past 30 years have
demonstrated that SAV is one of the most important
biological communities in the Chesapeake Bay The
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has committed sig-
nificant resources during this period to determine
the causes for the declining SAV populations in the
Bay and its tributaries and to identify the most
appropriate methods for protecting and restoring
SAV populations. The present strategy is based on
consensus among the formal and informal partners
of the CBP Its adoption fulfills the following com-
mitment in the program's Chesapeake 2000 agree-
ment:

By December 2002, implement a strategy to acceler-
ate protection and restoration of SAV beds in areas
of critical importance to the Bay's living resources.

The new Baywide SAV goal is to achieve 185,000
acres by 2010. By adopting this goal and strategy,
the Chesapeake Bay Program partners commit to
four major initiatives that must be successfully
implemented to reach the new goal and sustain
healthy levels of SAV in the Chesapeake Bay.

SAV Protection and
Restoration Initiatives

1. Meet jurisdictional ivater clarity criteria in areas des-
ignated for SAV use. The impacts of excessive
nutrients and sediments must be reduced signifi-
cantly in order for the water clarity criteria and
interim SAV restoration goals to be fulfilled.
Sources of degradation to water clarity from
upland sources, tidal shorelines, tidal resuspen-
sion and estuarine processes must all be success-
fully addressed. In order to meet current and

future SAV restoration goals, it is essential to ful-
fill the water clarity criteria in areas and at depths
that are designated by Maryland, Virginia and
the District of Columbia for the application of
that criteria (i.e., SAV use). The water clarity crite-
ria reflect the light requirements that are neces-
sary for the growth and maintenance of SAV
populations throughout the shallow waters of
the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. At a
minimum, meeting these criteria in the Bay's
shallow water SAV designated use areas will pro-
vide the water clarity conditions necessary to
support 185,000 acres of SAV by 2010.

2.	Provide existing SAV beds greater protection from
anthropogenic activities and invasive species. To
increase protection for existing SAV beds and to
manage use conflicts as SAV populations
increase, the CBP partners will:

•	Characterize direct and indirect threats to SAV
including shoreline erosion and tidal resuspen-
sion, and develop and implement new best
management practices and protection meas-
ures, as necessary.

•	Establish criteria for SAV protection areas. Sites
may be formally designated by federal and
state governments for the sole purpose of
increasing protection and restoration of SAV or
as components of more comprehensive con-
servation and restoration efforts.

•	Minimize the impact of invasive species.

•	Increase understanding of the potential effects
of sea-level rise on SAV populations.

3.	Accelerate SAV restoration by planting 1,000 acres of
new SAV beds by December 2008. SAV planting
projects can accelerate the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries if they are tar-
geted in areas that have suitable water quality
and are designed to benefit specific living

-------
resources. Large-scale planting projects will
require the development of significant sources
of plant material and sufficient financial
resources for monitoring the success of these
projects. Improving the coordination of Baywide
SAV restoration and protection activities will be
necessary if we are to meet this goal.

4. Enhance SAV research, citizen involvement and edu-
cation. Increased understanding of how to
restore SAV populations efficiently and effec-
tively is critical to our efforts to restore the
Chesapeake Bay. This cannot be accomplished
without a continuing commitment to research
restoration technologies and the basic biological
requirements of individual SAV species. To
ensure long-term stewardship of this restored
resource, we must further expand our efforts to
educate the public about the critical importance
of SAV.

Budget Estimates

The estimated cost of fulfilling jurisdictional water
clarity criteria has been estimated by the Chesa-
peake Bay Commission. In order to implement ini-
tiatives two, three and four to accelerate the
protection and restoration of SAV's in the Chesa-
peake Bay and its tributaries, an estimated $32.26
million must be secured over five years (not includ-
ing completion of the water clarity criteria). This
will require the development of an extensive public
and private partnership similar to that of the oyster
restoration effort.

The following strategy describes the rationale for and actions associated with each of these initiatives
and includes an estimated budget at several levels of funding.

Introduction

More than 30 years of research in the Chesapeake
Bay and throughout the world have shown that
SAV constitutes one of the most important biological
communities in an estuary. SAV beds influence
physical conditions in the Bay and are integral to
the needs of many other Bay species. Through
photosynthesis, SAV converts inorganic carbon,
nitrogen and phosphorous into organic molecules,
cells and tissues that other plants and animals can
use for energy and growth. The plants provide shel-
ter and substrate for invertebrates that serve as a
food source for organisms. SAV beds shelter spawn-
ing fish and their offspring, and SAV is the principal
food source for many waterfowl. Even the detritus
from SAV is used by filter-feeding organisms such as
clams and oysters.

SAV also influences water quality, both directly and
indirectly. SAV uses sedimentary and water-column
nutrients, sequestering them in their tissues during
the growing season, when high nutrient levels
would otherwise contribute to algal growth that can
reduce water clarity and cause dissolved oxygen
problems. SAV beds also attenuate current and
wave energy, which causes suspended sediment to
settle and protects against shoreline erosion. Both of
the above mechanisms directly contribute to
improvements in water clarity.

For the past 30 years scientists, legislators, federal
and state resource managers and concerned citizens
have worked cooperatively to develop policies and
plans to protect, preserve and enhance SAV in
Chesapeake Bay. These efforts resulted in five
Chesapeake Bay agreements and a number of
strategies, policies and federal and state guidelines
for protecting SAV (see Appendix A, History of CBP
SAV Initiatives). These management efforts depend
upon our recognizing both the habitat value of SAV
to many fish and shellfish and the link between
water quality conditions and the occurrence of SAV.

Because of these linkages, the distribution of SAV in
the Bay and its tidal tributaries is being used as a
measure of progress in the restoration of living
resources and water quality. For example, the new
water clarity criteria that have been developed for
the Bay are based in large part on SAV requirements
for water clarity conditions that allow enough light
to reach plants' underwater leaves to promote
growth.

This strategy has four essential elements which are
mutually complementary and will be pursued
simultaneously: (1) for areas where SAV should
grow, the CBP partners will complete the establish-
ment of water quality criteria and water quality
standards, and thereafter implement them to
achieve the water quality necessary to provide for
SAV recovery in areas designated for that use; (2) for

-2-

-------
areas where SAV grows, protect existing SAV beds
from destructive anthropogenic activities and inva-
sive species; (3) for areas where water quality is suit-
able but where SAV does not yet grow, accelerate
SAV restoration by planting 1,000 acres of new SAV
beds by December 2008; and (4) strengthen the sci-
entific and public support for SAV protection and
restoration through enhanced SAV research, citizen
involvement and education.

While the critical nature of the relationship between
SAV water quality requirements and the new water
quality criteria and standards and their implemen-
tation is described in general terms within this strat-
egy, the details of the water quality initiative and
the funding level required to implement those stan-
dards are not detailed. This document, instead,
focuses more on the other three essential elements
of the strategy, which will proceed simultaneously
with the development, adoption, and implementa-
tion of water quality criteria and standards. Like-
wise, the budget presented with this strategy
addresses only the estimated costs of the latter three
essential strategic elements listed above.

1. Strategy to Protect and Restore
SAV through Protection and
Restoration of Water Quality

ACTION 1.1—Establish and achieve the jurisdictional
water clarity criteria. This is the most significant action nec-
essary to protect and restore SAV in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement committed the sig-
natories to, "by 2001, define the water quality condi-
tions necessary to protect aquatic living resources."
These conditions are being defined through the
development of Chesapeake Bay-specific water
quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity
and chlorophyll a. Collectively, these water quality
parameters provide the best and most direct meas-
ures of the effects of excessive nutrient and sedi-
ment pollution on the Bay's aquatic living
resources—including fish, crabs, oysters and SAV.

The scientific understanding of the effects of water
quality on aquatic Bay living resources, combined
with long-term Bay monitoring and state-of-the-art
linked Bay airshed- watershed- water quality mod-
els, enable Bay Program partners to develop criteria

CO
-------
for water quality measures that directly influence
Bay aquatic living resources, including fish, crabs
and SAV. Loading caps will be established to help
address the causes of reduced water quality condi-
tions, including excessive nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment. Bay models enable the partners effec-
tively to translate the desired dissolved oxygen,
water clarity and chlorophyll a conditions back into
reduced loadings of nutrients and sediments from
the surrounding watershed and airshed. Bay sci-
ence has shown that nutrient and sediment loads,
not merely their ambient concentrations, have had
the greatest impact on oxygen, light and algae levels
in the Bay's tidal waters.

Water clarity is a measure of the amount of sunlight
that penetrates the water and reaches SAV leaves.
Poor water clarity is caused by sediments and other
suspended particles, including algae, and sediment
on SAV leaves. The water quality criteria propose
that such criteria should apply to areas where SAV
occurred historically or now occurs, at varying
depths up to 2 meters deep, depending on the area
of the Bay. Areas in which SAV has never occurred,
or where natural factors prevent its growth (e.g.,
strong currents or rocky bottoms) would be
excluded. The water clarity criteria reflect the differ-
ent light requirements for underwater plant com-
munities that inhabit low-salinity versus higher
salinity shallow water habitats throughout the Bay
and its tidal tributaries.

A document describing the Chesapeake Bay's water
clarity criteria in greater detail was published by the
EPA in April 2003. These criteria will be applied to a
tidal water designated use (i.e., shallow water SAV
habitat). The shallow water SAV habitat designated
use, along with the jurisdictional water clarity crite-
ria, will be adopted by Maryland, Virginia,
Delaware and the District of Columbia into their
state water quality standards. In turn, these stan-
dards will be the basis for setting nutrient and sedi-
ment loading caps to achieve water clarity that will
support SAV in the areas and at the depths to which
the shallow water SAV habitat designated use is
applied by the jurisdictions.

Once the Bay water clarity criteria and the refined
shallow water SAV habitat designated use are
adopted in state water quality standards, these tai-
lored sets of standards will apply to similar habitats
across all jurisdictions. Each of the state jurisdictions
and the District of Columbia will be responsible for
protecting and restoring SAV habitat in those areas
through the development and implementation of
tributary strategies to manage of nutrient and
sediment loadings that affect water clarity within
the designated use areas.

2. Track Progress Toward the
185,000 Acre Goal

On April 15th, 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Principals' Staff Committee approved the new bay
grass restoration goal of 185,000 acres by 2010. The
partner states of the Bay Program have adopted the
new goal, consistent with the Chesapeake 2000 agree-
ment. Progress toward the new 185,000-acre SAV
goal will be measured by the annual aerial survey
which currently is compiled by the Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences for the Annual Bay-wide
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping Program.
This program maps the distribution of SAV during
the peak growing season by means of aerial photog-
raphy and groundtruthing. Aerial photographs are
digitized for analysis and combined with ground-
truthing data in a central SAV distribution database,
which is available through the CBP website. The SAV
distribution database to date includes data from aer-
ial photographs taken in the following years: 1938,
1952,1964,1978,1986-1991, and 1996-2001.

The new bay-wide SAV goal, 185,000 acres, is the
sum of acreage targets for each of the 78 Chesa-
peake Bay segments. The segment-specific targets
are based on the single best year acreage on record
for each segment, within the depth to which the
segment exhibited sufficient SAV persistence or
abundance. The achievement of the baywide goal,
as well as the local tributary basin and segment spe-
cific restoration goals, will be based on the single
best year SAV acreage within the most recent three-
year record of survey results.

3. Strategy to Accelerate Protection
of Existing SAV Beds

For purposes of this section, "protection of existing
SAV beds" includes avoiding or minimizing the
direct physical disruption of SAV through anthro-
pogenic activities (e.g., dredging, propeller scarring
or aquaculture facilities) and invasive species (such
as the mute swan and water chestnut), as well as the
indirect effects of localized water quality degrada-
tion generated by these activities (e.g., sedimenta-
tion resulting from clam dredging). Recognizing
that SAV abundance throughout most of the Chesa-
peake Bay is greatly reduced from historic acreages,
it is assumed that if the water clarity criteria are
achieved, the overall coverage of SAV will increase.
As both human and SAV populations increase, the
potential for use conflicts increases as well. These
strategies should be implemented to accommodate
continued increases.

-------
3.1. Characterize threats to SAV

ACTION 3.1.1—By Dec. 2003, characterize direct and
localized indirect threats to existing SAV beds on a Bay
Program segment-specific basis.

ACTION 3.1.2—Annually, perform aerial monitoring of
SAV beds to detect damage to existing SAV beds and to
monitor the status of previously impacted areas.

Although many impacts to SAV are acknowledged,
such as shoreline erosion and sediment resuspen-
sion, and although some have been studied directly,
the full extent of these effects is unknown. Annual
SAV losses are due to direct and localized indirect
impacts such as dredging and shoreline alterations,
destructive commercial and recreational boating
and fishing practices, aquaculture and the influx of
exotic species of birds, fish and plants. The annual
aerial survey will continue to be the primary tool to
detect the effects of damaging activities.

3.2. Manage the regulatory program
effectively

ACTION 3.2.1—By December 2004, Maryland, Vir-
ginia, the District of Columbia, and the Army Corps of
Engineers will contribute data annually to a centralized
database on SAV loss and damage, the amount and type of
mitigation being planned or performed and mitigation
success rates and the long-term effects of these projects
upon SAV.

ACTION 3.2.2—By December 2004, Maryland, Vir-
ginia, the District of Columbia and federal agencies will
develop tributary-specific guidelines for protecting SAV
from threats characterized in Action 3.1, review the ade-
quacy of existing federal and state programs to meet these
guidelines and report to the CBP on their findings includ-
ing strategies to develop new SAV protection measures,
where necessary.

The CBP Living Resource Subcommittee will
facilitate this process to seek consistency across
jurisdictions. In implementing Regulatory Program
Management our objectives will be to:

• Maintain full implementation of existing SAV
regulatory protection provisions to minimize use
conflicts (see Appendix 2, Review of Existing SAV
Protection Provisions).

• Develop and implement new tributary and/or
segment-specific protection guidelines for SAV
populations that take into account multiple uses
by different groups in the bay community and
investigate the implications of resource trade-offs
(e.g., wetland creation in areas occupied by SAV).

• Examine existing regulatory programs and deter-
mine whether they are adequate for implementing
the tributary-specific guidelines identified above.
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia and
the federal government will consider recommen-
dations to modify existing regulatory programs to
implement and enforce such guidelines.

3.3. Establish SAV protected areas (PAs)

ACTION 3.3.1—By December 2004, the SAV Task
Group will propose to the jurisdictions potential SAV pro-
tected areas (PAs) in areas of critical importance to living
resources in Chesapeake Bay. This exercise will include
consideration of current and historical SAV abundance,
the current amount of SAV protected, water quality con-
ditions and potential for use conflicts, among other issues.
A GIS map of SAV areas in need of protection will be
created to assist in evaluating and communicating PA
strategies.

ACTION 3.3.2—By December 2005, the jurisdictions
will initiate a public review process to consider protection
for the PAs identified in Action 3.3.1.

Since it is impractical to characterize all existing and
potential threats to SAV, and recognizing the historic
benefits of establishing refuge areas for many fish
and shellfish species, it is likewise desirable that cer-
tain areas of the Chesapeake Bay be established that
will exclude uses that are destructive to SAV. Such
areas will serve as critical sources of seeds and
propagules for the continued health of Chesapeake
Bay SAV populations. We anticipate that establish-
ing these PAs would dovetail with similar efforts
undertaken to protect other resources (such as oys-
ter sanctuaries) to create a baywide strategy for
resource protection.

3.4. Minimize impacts of invasive exotic
species

ACTION 3.4: In accordance with the Chesapeake 2000
commitments for exotic species, work with the Invasive
Species Workgroup to develop and implement plans to
manage invasive species that have the potential to affect
SAV abundance.

Exotic species may significantly damage Chesa-
peake Bay SAV beds. Several such species currently
living in the Bay have threatened existing SAV beds
and pose major threats to SAV restoration if popula-
tions increase (e.g., mute swans, water chestnut and
hydrilla). We must identify species with such poten-
tial and take appropriate actions to minimize their
impact on SAV.

-5-

-------
3.5. Anticipate effects of climate change
and sea level rise on SAV protection
strategies

ACTION 3.5—The CBP SAV Task Group will continue
to evaluate the best available information concerning
anticipated effects of climate change on SAV in the Bay
and will forward their recommendations to the CBP
community.

The Chesapeake Bay is considered at high risk for
the negative impact of sea level rise. Flooding and
erosion of shorelines and marshes may lead to
increased water turbidity and changes in SAV habi-
tats, making areas adjacent to marshes unsuitable
for SAV growth. It is possible that some of the lack
of success of SAV restoration efforts to date is linked
to global climate change. For example, some Chesa-
peake Bay species are considered cold-water SAV. A
global increase in temperature may stress these
plants and decrease their success rate when com-
pared with warmer water species in the Chesapeake
Bay. If this is anticipated to be an important factor
affecting SAV in the Bay, it may be appropriate to
favor heat-tolerant SAV species in planting and
transplanting efforts.

4. Strategy to Accelerate Restoration
through the Planting and
Transplanting of New Beds

Through water quality improvements and the pro-
tection of existing SAV beds, CBP partners will cre-
ate conditions conducive to the natural expansion of
existing SAV beds. The following strategies focus on
planting and transplanting new beds in order to
accelerate SAV recovery in areas that have suitable
water quality but suffer either from a lack of
propagules or a low population of native SAV
species. The objective is not to try to replant entire
habitats in the Chesapeake Bay, but rather to estab-
lish "parent" beds that will expand naturally over
time to other suitable areas. Estimates of the fund-
ing levels required for the completion of this section
is presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3.

4.1. Strategic targeting of restoration
projects

ACTION 4.1.1—Continue water quality assessment via
fixed-station water quality monitoring, and expand
efforts to use spatially intensive monitoring in shallow
areas to more fully characterize SAV habitat conditions.

ACTION 4.1.2—By December 2003, develop and imple-
ment a baywide GIS-based targeting system that uses
monitoring data, depth, historic coverage, biological objec-
tives, potential threats, potential benefits of newly vege-
tated areas and other factors to target areas most suitable
for large-scale restoration. This action should be updated
annually.

SAV planting and transplanting projects should be
targeted within CBP segments based on water qual-
ity suitability, biological objectives and potential
threats. In order to identify sites that would most
benefit from planting, sufficient habitat quality data
is necessary to adequately characterize the SAV
habitat conditions.

4.2. Develop sources of plant material

ACTION 4.2—By December 2003, identify, evaluate and
recommend techniques and facilities capable of producing
adequate quantities of seeds and plants for planting.

One of the current obstacles to SAV restoration is
the lack of plants, propagules and seeds. There are
several potential sources, including SAV beds that
are established specifically to serve as sources of
plant material; laboratories and nurseries capable of
propagating SAV for restoration purposes; and wild
collection (when it can be achieved without damag-
ing the donor populations, or when it is harvested
from areas that would be lost due to construction
activities). The genetic diversity of SAV beds should
to be taken into consideration.

4.3. Perform large-scale planting and
follow-up monitoring

ACTION 4.3.1—By 2004, develop and publish on the
web proven restoration protocols that include species
selection, production schedules, use of pilot projects,
transport and planting methods, acclimation needs of
plants (to the restoration site conditions) and follow-up
monitoring templates.

ACTION4.3.2—By December 2003, Maryland, Virginia
and the District of Columbia will offer coordinated on-line
databases that will allow individuals, groups and agencies
to enter the design and results of new projects and to view
ongoing and completed projects.

ACTION 4.3.3—By December 2008, to have planted at
least 1,000 acres of SAV at multiple sites in suitable areas
within the tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Conduct
appropriate follow-up monitoring and inclusion in SAV
restoration web databases.

-6-

-------
Investments in planting and transplanting projects
will focus on species and techniques with a docu-
mented history of success based on the past 20 years
of SAV restoration (Appendix 3). Projects should use
proven planting techniques, performed in areas
with suitable conditions. All projects should begin
with pilot plantings and then, if successful, should
be implemented on a larger scale. These pilot proj-
ects should be monitored for at least two growing
seasons and should be designed to improve overall
knowledge of the factors contributing to restoration
success or failure. SAV planting and transplanting
projects should be designed and implemented to
optimize the overall ecological value of the restored
bed.

A successful restoration project should persist over
time and have as many of the attributes of natural
SAV beds as possible, including sustainability, plant
density, species diversity, high quality fish and shell-
fish habitats, reproduction and dispersal of SAV
propagules, water quality improvement capacity
and wave attenuation. In all cases, appropriate fol-
low-up monitoring of both the bed's health and
associated habitat parameters should be conducted
to enable assessment of the reasons for success or
failure. The group or agency implementing the proj-
ect will judge the success of their particular SAV
beds. In the regulatory context, where SAV restora-
tion is a mitigation or remediation requirement, the
jurisdictional regulatory agency will establish the
definition of successful restoration for the specific
project. Maryland, Virginia and the District of
Columbia should maintain coordinated, accessible
databases on the web that describe all SAV planting
projects and the results of follow-up monitoring.
Inclusion of information into this database should
be a requirement of any permits necessary for plant-
ing. This will allow other members of the SAV com-
munity to learn from prior projects.

For species that have not shown reasonable success
in pilot restoration projects, investments will be lim-
ited to projects designed to determine limiting fac-
tors, to test restoration methods or to answer other
questions critical to removing barriers to accelerat-
ing restoration. Research is needed in support of
SAV restoration for other native species, and to bet-
ter understand parameters other than light that
may limit SAV growth. Research needs are
addressed in detail in Section 7.

5. Strategy to Improve Coordination
of Protection and Restoration
Activities

SAV restoration activities are part of a baywide
effort that involves many partners. Success will
depend on a coordinated approach that will foster
communication and the pooling of resources, wher-
ever possible. The existing CBP framework is the
most appropriate venue for this task.

5.1. Conduct regular meetings to discuss
restoration activities

ACTION 5.1.1—The SAV Task Group will hold frequent
(bimonthly) conference calls among interested parties to
discuss ongoing and planned projects.

ACTION 5.1.2—The SAV Task Group will hold an
annual SAV restoration coordination workshop to review
the year's progress, facilitate transfer of improved propa-
gation and planting techniques and coordinate projects for
the coming year.

ACTION 5.1.3—Regulatory agencies will hold regular
meetings to address SAV protection issues.

To be successful in restoring Chesapeake Bay SAV
communities, communication among all involved
parties is essential. The SAV Task Group should hold
frequent conference calls to discuss all aspects of
ongoing or planned projects. The group should also
hold, at a minimum, an annual planning meeting
dedicated to restoration efforts in late fall or early
winter, after eelgrass planting has been done. The
main goal would be to share results and plan coor-
dinated SAV protection and restoration efforts for
the following year. This would be early enough to
plan for the upcoming legislative sessions and to
apply for project grants. Finally, there should be
coordinated enforcement of protected areas and an
annual meeting of regulatory agencies to address
issues.

6. Strategy to Enhance Public
Communication and Education

Preservation and restoration of SAV represents a
tangible example of the importance of improved
water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. As SAV
restoration techniques are refined and as the scope
of planting increases, these SAV beds can be used as
a communication tool to make the public more
aware of the link between water quality and SAV.
SAV-focused educational programs, field experi-

-7-

-------
ences, volunteer opportunities and media attention
will provide opportunities for establishing and
maintaining public support for water quality
improvement initiatives. The involvement of volun-
teers, adults and students in SAV restoration and
protection efforts will increase their awareness of
SAV and related water quality issues.

6.1 Increase public awareness of involve-
ment in SAV protection and restoration

There are many existing and potential avenues for
increasing public awareness and involvement in
SAV restoration activities. Public understanding and
support of SAV restoration efforts is essential to
large-scale success.

ACTION 6.1.1—By December 2003, the SAV Task
Group will coordinate with the Communication and Edu-
cation Subcommittee (CESC) to consider ways to educate
the public about the importance of protection and restora-
tion of SAV and will continue to work with the CESC to
implement and expand public education and outreach
programs.

ACTION 6.1.2—By December 2003, the SAV Task
Group will coordinate with the CBP and state webmasters
to update SAV restoration and information pages to
include information on the status and location of SAV
restoration activities, volunteer opportunities and
resource information, as needed. The SAV Task Group
will continue to work with the relevant webmasters to
maintain SAV-related web pages with updated informa-
tion aimed at Bay restoration managers, tributary teams
and the general public.

ACTION 6.1.3—Continue to involve students and
citizens in SAV restoration activities (i.e., grow-out
programs in schools, homes and businesses),
groundtruthing for the annual aerial survey and water
quality monitoring.

ACTION 6.1.4—Work with the CBP Communications
Office to coordinate SAV-related press communications
among the Bay Program jurisdictions to ensure that the
public is receiving consistent messages regarding SAV.
Press releases should especially include annual SAV sur-
vey results, planting successes and new technologies.

7. Strategy to Conduct Research to
Support Protection and Restoration

Although much SAV restoration work is under way,
little research in SAV restoration takes place due to a
lack of discretionary funding. Fundamental primary
research directed at determining SAV protection

and restoration needs has been practically nonexist-
ent in the Chesapeake Bay over the past 10 years.
Although restoration methods have substantially
improved, significant investments in research must
be made to improve the body of knowledge sur-
rounding restoration techniques. Recent updates to
the SAV Technical Synthesis relied primarily upon
old data, because little new research was available.
While sufficient light and water quality data are
available to establish target zones for SAV restora-
tion, other possible parameters limiting SAV must
be investigated.

Also, although some significant annual physical
damage caused by fishing and boating activities is
known to exist, the full extent of these effects and
their causes is unknown. Research should be
directed toward the extent of physical damage
caused by commercial fishing, recreational boating
and other anthropogenic activities. Effective protec-
tion policies may require further research and mon-
itoring to increase our understanding of biotic,
abiotic, local vs. global, and anthropogenic impacts
on SAV persistence; determine the effectiveness of
existing protection policies; develop innovative
tools or techniques to enhance protection of threat-
ened SAV beds; and examine costs and benefits of
various protection strategies.

7.1. Develop, implement and disseminate
results from a Chesapeake Bay SAV
protection and restoration research
agenda

ACTION 7.1.1—By June 2003, develop a research
agenda that identifies specific research to advance SAV
protection and restoration to achieve the 185,000-acre
SAV goal.

ACTION 7.1.2—Develop successful and cost-effective,
efficient restoration methods. Specific objectives for
restoration and protection research should include:

• Succession. Determine whether success rate increases
if a primary colonizing SAV species is planted first,
followed by a climax species (e.g., Ruppia followed by
Zostera).

• Species diversity. Determine the conditions under
which planting multiple species in the same location
are likely to increase the chances of plant survival.

• Propagule choice. For species that grow well from two
or more types of propagules (such as seeds and whole
shoots), determine which propagule choice is the most
cost-effective under different conditions, comparing
total planting cost to the survival rate.

-8-

-------
• Size. Define the ideal size of restoration plots to maxi-
mize success.

• Density. Determine at what density SAV should be
planted to maximize success and restoration of ecolog-
ical functions.

• Pattern. Determine whether the spatial arrangement of
the plants matters, and whether checkered patterns or
homogeneous plantings are more successful.

• Exclosures. Determine whether the protection of
plantings and of sporadic populations resulting from
natural recruitment results in significantly improved
survivorship and the spread of individuals in a
population.

Information is needed on the basic ecology of SAV,
the factors influencing its growth and reproduction
and the best methods of restoration. Research into
these subjects should be carried out with an ulti-
mate objective of applying what is learned to the
Chesapeake Bay SAV restoration goals. Extensive
research on restoration methods and habitat
requirements needs to be undertaken for most of
the Chesapeake Bay's native SAV species. Topics
other than those outlined in the habitat require-

ments should be investigated as possible limiting
factors to SAV restoration. Researchers must iden-
tify and prioritize research needs by species,
because each species may have different habitat
requirements. Results of these research projects
should be shared with the CBP community.

Five-Year Budget Estimates

The actions called for in this strategy—particularly
the 1,000 acre planting goal—are admittedly bold
and exceed current technology and resources. With
proper funding and support, however, we can
achieve these goals. A five-year plan and budget
have been developed in anticipation that the
research and development of techniques will
progress simultaneously with the actual large-scale
planting. Obviously, the cost of SAV protection and
restoration would not be eliminated after this five-
year period, however it would then be appropriate
to revise costs based on what we have learned, what
capabilities have been developed (e.g., private SAV
propagation for planting) and how much further
we must go to reach our goals

-9-

-------
TABLE 1. $32,261,000 five year budget estimate for completion of strategy to accelerate restoration of SAV through the planting and
transplanting of new beds.

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

ACTIONS

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Total

Jurisdictional
SAV Coordinator

Most of the actions called for in this
strategy (data analysis, coordination among
partners, etc.) can be accomplished by
technically competent staff within each
jurisdiction. Funds are for one full-time
equivalent position in MD, VA and DC and
associated travel and software costs.

3.1, 3.2.1,
3.2.2, 3.3.1,
3.3.2, 3.4,3.5,
4.1.2,4.3.1,

4.3.2, 5.1.1,

5.1.3, 6.1.1,
6.1.3, 6.1.4,
7.1.1

$210,000

$1,050,000

Targeting
Restoration Sites

Equipment and implementation costs to
carry out intensive, shallow water
monitoring of 10 medium-sized tributaries
2X/month during the SAV growing season.
Costs also include expenses for 2
continuous monitors of each system.

3.1.2, 4.1.1,
4.1.2

$746,420

$3,732,100

Developing large-
scale SAV
propagation
capabilities

Develop techniques for large-scale
propagation of plants. Production of
sufficient material to plant 1,000 acres.

4.2

$2,380,916

$7,142,750

Implementing

large-scale

plantings

Plant a total of 1,000 acres of SAV in
multiple sites baywide.

4.3.3

$5,238,017

$15,714,050

Funding annual

restoration

workshop

Workshop for researchers and managers to
compare results of the previous year's
research/plantings and coordinate the
following year's work.

5.1.2

$3,000

$15,000

Public education

Implement education and outreach
programs to generate public interest and
concern for SAV restoration

6.1.1

$285,710

$1,428,550

Citizen- and
school-based
restoration

Involve citizens, students, watershed
organizations, businesses and other groups
in SAV restoration activities.

6.1.3

$100,000

$500,000

Research and

technology

development

Conduct intensive research into species-
specific habitat requirements of SAV in
Chesapeake Bay and develop planting
protocols.

7.1.1,7.1.2

$535,710

$2,678,550

Total

$4,261,756

$9,499,773

$7,118,857

$32,261,000

-------
TABLE 2. $18,231,875 five year budget estimate for completion of strategy to accelerate restoration of SAV through the
planting and transplanting of new beds.

h-l
h-1

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

ACTIONS

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Total

Jurisdictional
SAV Coordinator

3.1, 3.2.1,
3.2.2, 3.3.1,
3.3.2, 3.4,3.5,
4.1.2,4.3.1,

4.3.2, 5.1.1,

5.1.3, 6.1.1,
6.1.3, 6.1.4,
7.1.1

$100,000

$500,000

Targeting
Restoration Sites

Equipment and implementation costs to
carry out intensive, shallow water
monitoring of 6 medium-sized tributaries
2X/month during the SAV growing season.
Costs also include expenses for 2
continuous monitors of each system.

3.1.2, 4.1.1,
4.1.2

$450,000

$2,375,000

Developing large-
scale SAV
propagation
capabilities

Develop techniques for large-scale
propagation of plants. Production of
sufficient material to plant 500 acres.

4.2

$1,380,916

$4,142,748

Implementing

large-scale

plantings

Plant a total of 500 acres SAV in multiple
sites baywide.

4.3.3

$2,619,009

$7,857,027

Public education

Implement education and outreach
programs to generate public interest and
concern for SAV restoration

6.1.1

$85,710

$428,550

Citizen- and
school-based
restoration

Involve citizens, students, watershed
organizations, businesses and other groups
in SAV restoration activities.

6.1.3

$50,000

$250,000

Research and

technology

development

Conduct intensive research into species-
specific habitat requirements of SAV in
Chesapeake Bay and develop planting
protocols.

7.1.1,7.1.2

$535,710

$2,678,550

Total

$2,627,336

$5,246,345

$3,865,429

$18,231,875

-------
TABLE 3. $8,624,889 five year budget estimate for completion of strategy to accelerate restoration of SAV through the
planting and transplanting of new beds.

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

ACTIONS

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Total

Jurisdictional
SAV Coordinator

3.1, 3.2.1,
3.2.2, 3.3.1,
3.3.2, 3.4,3.5,
4.1.2,4.3.1,

4.3.2, 5.1.1,

5.1.3, 6.1.1,
6.1.3, 6.1.4,
7.1.1

Targeting
Restoration Sites

Equipment and implementation costs to
carry out intensive, shallow water
monitoring of 3 medium-sized tributaries
2X/month during the SAV growing season.
Costs also include expenses for 1
continuous monitor of each system.

3.1.2, 4.1.1,
4.1.2

$325,000

$1,625,000

Developing large-
scale SAV
propagation
capabilities

Develop techniques for large-scale
propagation of plants. Production of
sufficient material to plant 125 acres.

4.2

$690,458

$2,071,374

Implementing

large-scale

plantings

Plant a total of 125 acres SAV in multiple
sites baywide.

4.3.3

$1,309,505

$3,928,515

Public education

Implement education and outreach
programs to generate public interest and
concern for SAV restoration (cut from
original funding table)

6.1.1

Citizen- and
school-based
restoration

Involve citizens, students, watershed
organizations, businesses and other groups
in SAV restoration activities, (cut from
original funding table)

6.1.3

Research and

technology

development

Conduct intensive research into species-
specific habitat requirements of SAV in
Chesapeake Bay and develop planting
protocols.

7.1.1,7.1.2

$200,000

$1,000,000

Total

$1,215,458

$2,524,963

$1,834,505

$ 8,624,889

* At levels below this funding projection, although restoration activities would still be possible, it is likely that economies of scale would result in disproportionate decreases in acreage planted per dollar allocated.

-------
Appendix I

A History of Chesapeake Bay Program SAY Initiatives

The decline of SAV communities, coupled with the
general deterioration of the Bay's water quality (due
to nutrient enrichment, hypoxic and anoxic condi-
tions and toxics) and the health of its other living
resources, including oysters and striped bass,
focused enormous political attention on the Chesa-
peake Bay in the 1970s. This led to an initial five-
year, $25 million study of Chesapeake Bay, the
formation of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the
establishment of a governance structure to oversee
the massive effort of restoring the Chesapeake Bay
This effort included studies focused on the magni-
tude of the SAV decline and its causes. The synthe-
sis of this work and the recognition that the
Chesapeake Bay was in serious decline (U.S. EPA
1983 a, b) led to the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signed in 1983 by the Chesapeake Executive Coun-
cil. The council consists of the governors of the sur-
rounding jurisdictions of Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania, the mayor of the District of Columbia,
the EPA administrator representing the United
States federal government and the chair of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission. The commission,
formed in 1980, consists primarily of legislative
members of the three signatory states, a member of
a management agency from each state and one citi-
zen from each state. It advises the state legislatures
on matters of baywide concern.

The 1983 agreement highlighted the need to
develop and implement coordinated plans "to
improve and protect the water quality and living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system."
An elaborate Chesapeake Bay Program manage-
ment infrastructure was also formed for implement-
ing the recommendations from the agreement that
included elected officials, political appointees, scien-
tists, resource managers and citizens (Hennessey
1994).

A second Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed in
1987 that expanded the 1983 commitments to
include living resources, water quality, population
growth and development, public information, edu-
cation and participation, public access, and gover-
nance (Chesapeake Executive Council 1987). A firm
declaration was made to: 1) reduce and control
point and nonpoint sources of pollution to attain
water quality conditions necessary to support living
resources of the Bay; 2) develop, adopt and begin to
implement a strategy to equitably achieve by the

year 2000 a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the mainstem Chesapeake
Bay; and 3) determine the essential elements of
habitat and environmental quality necessary to sup-
port living resources and to see that these condi-
tions are attained and maintained.

One objective of the living resource goal was to
restore, enhance and protect submerged aquatic
vegetation. A working group of scientists and man-
agers (referred to as the SAV Work Group in the
Chesapeake Bay Program management structure)
developed the Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Management Policy, which was
approved by the Chesapeake Executive Council in
1989 (Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). The goal
of the policy was to achieve a net gain in SAV distri-
bution, abundance and species diversity by: 1) pro-
tecting existing SAV beds from further losses either
from increased degradation of water quality or
physical damage to the plants; 2) setting and achiev-
ing water and habitat quality objectives that would
result in natural restoration of SAV; and 3) setting
regional SAV restoration goals in terms of acreage,
abundance and species diversity that considered
the historical distribution records and potential
habitat. An Implementation Plan was approved by
the Executive Council in 1990 (Chesapeake Execu-
tive Council 1990) that provided a means for devel-
oping programs and procedures to ensure that the
goals and objectives of the SAV Policy were reached.
These included detailed plans for assessment, pro-
tection, restoration, education and research. In 1992,
a comprehensive report was published (Chesapeake
Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat and Restora-
tion Targets: A Technical Synthesis, Batiuk et al. 1992)
which summarized the research that had been con-
ducted to meet the commitments in the Implemen-
tation Plan. (This was subsequently revised to
reflect the increased understanding of plant habitat
requirements, specifically that of the light environ-
ment [Batiuk et al. 2000].) The major goal of the first
SAV technical synthesis was to determine the quan-
titative levels of relevant water quality parameters
necessary to support continued survival, propaga-
tion and restoration of SAV (Dennison et al. 1993).
Secondary goals were to establish regional distribu-
tion, abundance and species diversity targets for the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and to deter-
mine the baywide applicability of habitat require-
ments developed through the case studies in the

-13-

-------
synthesis. A conceptual model developed in the
early stages of the technical synthesis of the interac-
tions and interdependence of the SAV habitat
requirements illustrated the water quality parame-
ters that influence SAV distribution and abundance.
The primary measures of environmental factors
contributing to light availability (identified as the
major factor controlling SAV distribution, growth
and survival) used to formulate SAV habitat require-
ments were the following: light attenuation coeffi-
cient (Kj), chlorophyll a, total suspended solids
(TSS), dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and dis-
solved inorganic phosphorus (DIP). The appropri-
ate levels of these measures were defined through
empirical relationships between these water quality
characteristics and SAV distribution, as well as
through numerous experimental studies.

The differing species makeup in the various salinity
regimes of the Chesapeake Bay led to the establish-
ment of somewhat different habitat requirements
based on salinity regime. Seasonal water quality
conditions that were found to be associated with the
growth, survival and reproduction of SAV to tar-
geted water depths of one meter (MLLW) were used
as SAV habitat requirements (Table 1) (Batiuk et al.
1992; Dennison et al. 1993). The results of the first
technical synthesis were incorporated into the 1992
amendments to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment, which highlighted "the link between water
quality conditions and the survival and health of
critically important SAV" (Chesapeake Executive
Council 1992). In addition, it was agreed "to use the
distribution of SAV in the Bay and its tidal tributar-
ies as documented by baywide and other aerial sur-
veys conducted since 1970, as an initial measure of
progress in the restoration of living resources and
water quality." Thus, after 1992, SAV was used as an
integral barometer of Chesapeake Bay health.

SAV distribution and abundance restoration goals,
approached from a baywide and regional perspec-
tive, were quantified through a series of geographi-
cal overlays delineating actual and potential SAV
habitat (Batiuk et al. 1992, 2000). A tiered set of SAV
distribution restoration targets consisted of areas
previously vegetated between 1971 and 1990 as doc-
umented through aerial monitoring programs (Tier
I), potential SAV habitat to 1-meter depths at MLLW
(Tier II) and 2-meter depths (Tier III) were estab-
lished (Table 2). These provide management agen-
cies with increasing levels of SAV distribution that
might be expected in response to the implementa-
tion of Chesapeake Bay water quality restoration
strategies (e.g., reducing nutrients by 40 percent).

These targets were identified for both the entire
Chesapeake Bay and specific segments within the
Bay and tributaries. The annual distribution of SAV
is then compared to these targets, and progress can
be quantitatively assessed. The Tier I target was offi-
cially adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council
in 1993 (Directive 93-3, Chesapeake Executive
Council 1993) as a specific goal in the Bay clean-up
process, along with efforts "to restore SAV to their
historical levels" and to begin to develop a target
"for restoration of SAV to all shallow water areas
delineated as existing or potential SAV habitat to the
1-meter contour."

Building from advances in monitoring, research data
and ecosystem processes modeling, and driven by
management needs for the next generation of
requirements, a group of scientists and managers
were assembled in 1997 to produce a second techni-
cal synthesis (Batiuk et al. 2000). Simplified mini-
mum light requirements for SAV survival and
growth in different salinity regimes were deter-
mined (Table 1). Models were developed using water
quality conditions, including dissolved inorganic
nutrient levels, Kj, and suspended sediment con-
centrations, to estimate incident light reaching the
SAV leaf surfaces through both the water column
and also through projected periphyton growth on
the leaves. Managers can apply this model to predict
the potential for SAV growth at any depth using the
predicted light levels. Also, by applying a simple
diagnostic tool they can evaluate what reductions in
total suspended solids or chlorophyll a (phytoplank-
ton) would be needed to reduce water-column light
attenuation to levels that allow SAV growth. Quanti-
tative requirements for physical, geological and
chemical factors affecting SAV habitat suitability
were also established. An expanded set of tiered
restoration goals was documented along with a
more in-depth assessment of the applicability of
midchannel monitoring for evaluating water quality
in adjacent shallow-water habitats. Maryland, Vir-
ginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia are
committed to adopting the minimum SAV light
requirements as the basis for specific water clarity
standards for their portion of the tidal waters by
2003 (Chesapeake Executive Council 2000).

In addition to the efforts to promote the recovery of
SAV, its importance as an essential habitat for the
blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, was delineated in the
1997 Blue Crab Fisheries Management Plan (FMP),
which the Executive Council signed in 1997. As the
first FMP that recognized the links among water
quality, seagrass habitat and fishery yields, the plan

-14-

-------
recommended SAV restoration baywide, but partic-
ularly in areas that are the primary settlement sites
for blue crab post-larval recruitment into the Chesa-
peake Bay

Most recently, the Chesapeake 2000 agreement
(Chesapeake Executive Council 2000) committed
the signatory partners to revising the tiered restora-
tion targets into a set of SAV acreage goals reflecting
historical SAV distribution levels from the 1930s
through the present. The partners also committed
to set and attain water clarity goals. Attainment of
these goals is a critical first step toward meeting the
revised SAV acreage restoration goals.

The new water clarity goals set restoration depths
for each of the 70 CBP segments, at which the mini-
mum light requirements set in Batiuk et al. (2000)
need to be met. The restoration depths were chosen
based on the greatest documented depth at which
SAV grew in that segment in recent and historical
maps of SAV distribution, so their attainment
should allow SAV to grow back to its historical
depths. Guidelines for assessing attainment of the
goals were based on the water clarity that was
found in reference segments within each of the four
salinity regimes. These reference segments were
chosen to represent the best current conditions of
SAV growth in each salinity regime.

Appendix II

Review of Existing SAV Protection Provisions

While many Chesapeake Bay Program policies
underscore the need to protect and restore SAV,
their implementation often requires the adoption of
specific rules and regulations by federal and state
agencies that have regulatory authority over the
regions' natural resources (Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram 1995). These guidelines range from broad,
over-arching federal guidelines such as the Clean
Water Act, to individual state regulations controlling
or limiting fishing activities in SAV beds.

Federal Agency Guidelines

SAV is afforded increased protection under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S. C. 1341- 1987),
which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
material into U.S. waters. The US EPA and Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) have the authority for
administering the Clean Water Act. Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S. C. 403), adminis-
tered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, regulates
all activities in navigable waters, including dredging
and placement of structures. SAV protection under
these acts is provided by a federal permit. Potential
impacts on "Special Aquatic Sites," such as SAV, are
considered in the permit review process.

Individual permit applications under the Clean
Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act are routinely
reviewed by the USACE, the US EPA, the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Com-
ments from the agencies are provided to the USACE
to recommend approval (often with recommended

conditions or project modifications) or denial of
individual permits. Consultations among agencies
on environmental impacts of federal and other proj-
ects also are required through the provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U. S. C. 661-
667e) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U. S. C. 4231-4370a). Many permit applications are
reviewed as national and regional permits, some of
which do not require coordination with NOAA,
MFFS, FWS and EPA, because the permits were
coordinated with the federal agencies at the time
they were developed.

In the permit review and approval processes, spe-
cial consideration is made for the protection and
preservation of SAV. Other than the permit process
outlined above, the federal agencies have no writ-
ten policies specific to SAV protection. Guidelines
that the regulatory agency (USACE) and the com-
menting agencies (US EPA, USFWS and NMFS) use
to make their decisions and recommendations are
summarized in Table 4 (based on Chesapeake Bay
Program 1995). These guidelines in most cases are
specific to physical alterations accompanying
dredging and direct impacts. They do not cover
direct physical impacts from fisheries or boating
activities, which, while regulated by state laws, may
also be evaluated as indirect impacts through the
federal and state regulatory permit process.

In general, all four federal agencies involved in per-
mit review use similar guidelines (Table 4). All con-
sider it desirable to avoid dredging in or near
existing SAV beds, in areas that historically sup-
ported SAV and in potential shallow habitat, espe-

-15-

-------
dally where there is no documented boat access.
Unfortunately, the majority of requests for new and
maintenance dredging are proposed within these
areas. This has made it increasingly difficult to allow
dredging and still protect SAV and its habitat. The
line of priority for protection is first to protect SAV
beds, then historic SAV beds and finally potential
SAV habitat. All agencies generally recommend
avoiding dredging during the SAV growing season,
but specific dates vary. Most of the agencies recom-
mend a minimum of a 1-meter horizontal buffer
around existing SAV for each vertical 0.3 meter of
material removed. Most agencies also recommend
against depositing dredged material on SAV and
often suggest project modifications or alternatives
when marine-related developments are proposed
near SAV beds. The agencies sometimes differ over
whether to recommend dredging through SAV beds
and shallow areas. The definition of maintenance
dredging used by the Chesapeake Bay Program
(1995) is "dredging to maintain existing navigation
channels with documented historic boat use. In
some circumstances, this may include areas not pre-
viously dredged."

SAV beds are considered one of several Essential
Fish Habitats (EFH, Fluharty 2000) identified by the
NMFS, i.e., habitats necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. The
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC), a council of 15 Atlantic States with
responsibility to conserve and enhance interjuris-
dictional fisheries of the Atlantic coast of the United
States, adopted an SAV Policy in 1997 (ASMFC
1997). The policy recognized the importance of SAV
as habitat for ASMFC managed species, and
"encourages the implementation of its policy by
state, federal, local and cooperative programs which
influence and regulate fish habitat and areas
impacting fish habitat."

Virginia and Maryland Agency Guidelines

The state of Maryland and the commonwealth of
Virginia, which are the only two regions that con-
tain tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay and its tributar-
ies, each have separate regulatory agencies to
oversee activities that could be injurious to SAV
populations (Table 4). Both Maryland and Virginia
are committed to protecting SAV habitat, while
maintaining viable commercial fisheries and aqua-
culture operations.

Maryland State Code COMAR 4-213 specifically
prohibits damage to SAV for any reason except for
commercial fishing activities and certain specific sit-
uations such as clearing SAV from docks, piers and
navigable waters. If SAV could be adversely affected,
a permit is required, which includes a plan showing
the proposed activity site, a dated map of current
SAV and the extent of SAV to be removed. The Mary-
land Department of the Environment (MDE) and
Natural Resources (MD DNR) are responsible for
issuance of the permit. Maryland does prohibit one
type of commercial fishing activity—hydraulic clam
dredging—in specific regions of its state waters.
Hydraulic clam dredging is prohibited both within a
specified distance from shore, which varies by polit-
ical boundaries (NRA 4- 1038), as well as in existing
SAV beds (NR4-1006.1) as determined by annual aer-
ial mapping surveys. In 2002 the Maryland legisla-
ture passed legislation (Senate Bill 195) creating SAV
protection zones from hydraulic clam dredging
based on a composite distribution of grass beds from
three successive years of SAV monitoring, specifi-
cally from the annual survey, rather than a single-
year specified in previous legislation.

In Virginia, permits to use state-owned submerged
lands now include SAV presence as a factor to be
considered in the application process (Code 28.2-
1205 [A] [6], amended in 1996). Shellfish aquaculture
activities requiring structures are now prohibited
from being placed on existing SAV (4 VAC 20 335-10,
effective January 1998). In 1999, the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission (VMRC) was directed (Code
28.2-1204.1) to develop guidelines with criteria to
define existing beds of SAV and to delineate poten-
tial restoration areas. Dredging for clams (hard and
soft) in Virginia is prohibited in waters less than 1.2
meters. A special regulation was passed for SAV in
the Virginia portion of Chincoteague Bay (4-VAC 20-
1010), a coastal bay of Virginia and Maryland, where
clam and crab dredging is prohibited within 200
meters of SAV beds. However, as a result of the vio-
lations, following a series of meetings among man-
agers, scientists and watermen, a new regulation (4
VAC 20-70-10 seq.) was approved in October, 2001,
which authorized the placement of distinct marker
posts that, along with existing aids to navigation,
outlined a revised SAV protection zone for Virginia
coastal bays, using straight lines instead of buffers.

1995 Guidance document is available online through the
CBP web site at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/
SAV guidance.pdf

-16-

-------
TABLE 4: Summary of existing regulations, guidelines and policies of regulatory and
commenting agencies regarding activities affecting submerged aquatic vegetation.