Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Strategy
Chesapeake Bay Program
Part I: Chesapeake Bay Program
Strategic Monitoring Priorities
Final Draft
February 22, 2001
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. Living Resources Restoration and Protection 6
Blue Crabs 6
Oysters 8
Exotic Species 10
1. Ballast Water Introductions 10
2. Problematic Exotic Species 11
Migratory Fish 12
1. Fish Passage Efficacy 12
2. Migratory Fish Populations 13
Multi-Species Fisheries Management 14
1. Fisheries Independent Surveys 14
2. Fisheries Dependent Surveys 15
3. Fish Food and Habitat Availability 16
III. Vital Habitats Restoration and Protection 17
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 17
Watersheds, Wetlands, and Forests 18
1. Non-tidal Biological Network 19
2. Wetlands 20
3. Riparian Forest Buffers 20
IV. Water Quality Restoration and Protection 21
1. Tidal Water Quality 22
2. Non-Tidal Water Quality 24
3. Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen 26
V. Chemical Contaminants 27
Future Chemical Contaminant Monitoring 28
VI. Sound Land Use 30
Future Land Conservation and Development Monitoring Needs 31
-------
/'/' Table of Contents
Figures
1. Framework for Designing Monitoring Programs 2
2. Proposed Refined Designated Use Categories for
Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributary Waters 33
3. 5 Year Plan for Updating the Toxics Characterization 34
Attachments
A. Table 1 - Monitoring Needs, Current Funding Levels,
and Three Year Projections A-l
B. Summary of and Response to Subcommittee
Comments on September 2000 Draft B-l
C. Response to Monitoring Strategy Expert Panel
Findings and Recommendations C-l
-------
iii
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments:
The thoughts and ideas of many individuals have gone into developing this document. Guidance
and assistance was provided by many of the committees, and subcommittees, including the
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Monitoring Subcommittee, Living Resources
Subcommittee, Toxics Subcommittee, Air Subcommittee, Nutrient Subcommittee, Land Growth
& Stewardship Subcommittee, Communications Subcommittee, and Chesapeake Bay Stock
Assessment Committee.
In particular, we would like to acknowledge the following individuals who had the opportunity to
make specific, and in some cases invaluable, contributions:
Jonathan Champion (CRC), Catherine Clark (CRC), Rick Cooksey (US Forest Service), Kelly
Eisenman (US EPA), Mike Fritz (US EPA), Maggie Kerchner (NOAA), Mary Ellen Ley
(ICPRB), and Derek Orner (NOAA).
-------
1
I. Introduction
I. Introduction
Monitoring is an essential function for Chesapeake Bay Program restoration efforts. While a
restored Bay is the desired outcome, monitoring is the most important tool for assessing whether
or not that outcome has been achieved. In the early 1980s, the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring
Program was established and designed for the purposes of determining water quality and lower
trophic level status and trends in the tidal waters of the Bay and major tributaries. Since then, the
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) and its partners have evolved significantly to encompass a
wider range of issues and serve a larger set of stakeholders than was initially envisioned. This
programmatic expansion has been accompanied by a broader suite of information needs for
which the original monitoring program was not designed.
To determine a course of action for monitoring, Bay Program staff compiled an extensive list of
information needs and potential priorities for monitoring the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. A 175
page draft of the Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide Monitoring Strategy (December 1999) was
distributed to the Subcommittees. Numerous concerns were raised with the draft, particularly the
basis for determining the monitoring priorities. Many people suggested that the commitments in
the newly signed Chesapeake 2000 Agreement were the Program's priority management
objectives and should be the basis for setting monitoring priorities. The Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee Expert Panel review (December 2000) also concluded that monitoring
priorities should be based on the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
This logic is reflected in this first part of the Monitoring Strategy, Chesapeake Bay Program
Strategic Monitoring Priorities. Strategic Monitoring Priorities is organized by the Chesapeake
2000 goals and commitments for which monitoring is necessary. These commitments are the
Bay Program's management objectives. Monitoring to fulfill each commitment is discussed in
terms of existing programs, new parameters, costs, and general spatial and temporal
requirements. Schedules for implementation through 2003 are included.
The next step in the Monitoring Strategy will be to determine exactly what information is
needed. This is an iterative process in which assessment questions, monitoring objectives and
data analyses will be defined. The December 1999 draft Basin-wide Monitoring Strategy does
much of this as it contains hundreds of assessment questions. The 1999 draft will become the
second part of the Monitoring Strategy and be called Basin-wide Ecosystem Assessment Needs
for Designing Monitoring Networks. The end product of this step will be more specific
parameters and monitoring objectives. Once these are selected, the design of monitoring
networks can begin.
A great deal of coordination among the monitoring network design teams will be necessary at
this stage because the resultant will data frequently address several management objectives.
Where applicable, the monitoring networks need to be connected in an ecosystem context to
allow for a a comprehensive assessment of the ecosystem where both causes and effects of
problems can be examined. Coordination is necessary in the planning stages to establish
relationships between pollution control, water quality, habitats and living resources; this will be
-------
I. Introduction
done in Part II, Information Needs and in the network design plans.
Study Plans and Network Designs
The final portion of the Monitoring Strategy will be the detailed monitoring plans for the
monitoring networks. Many of these plans are being drafted in 2001 by representatives from all
agencies and institutions that commit to operate cooperatively as network partners. These
monitoring network plans will serve as a guide for day-to-day operations as well as an on-line
atlas to who's monitoring what, where, for what purpose, and how to access the resultant data
and information.
The process described above follows the diagram in Figure 1, Framework for Designing a
Monitoring Program. A general monitoring design framework is shown on the left and Bay
Program components that parallel the framework are shown on the right.
Figure 1. Framework for Designing a Monitoring Program1
Chesapeake Bav Propram
General
Management Goal
Management Objective(s)
Assessment Question(s)
Conceptual Model(s)
Existing Information
Study Plan
Chesapeake 2000 Goals
(Part I)
Chesapeake 2000 Commitments and
Monitoring Needs (Part I)
Information Needs
(Part II)
Network Design
(Part III)
Budget Priorities for Monitoring
The Monitoring Strategy is an opportunity for Chesapeake Bay Program partners to connect and
leverage their ongoing and planned monitoring programs with each other to obtain environmental
information in a cost effective manner. Table 1, Monitoring Needs, Current Funding Levels, and
1 Adapted from training materials presented by Dr. Paul Jacobson of Langhei Ecology, Glenelg, MD
-------
3
I. Introduction
3-Year Projections provides cost estimates for implementing basin-wide monitoring programs
through federal fiscal year 2003. It is emphasized that many of the projections in Table 1 are
best estimates at this time and will become more accurate as study designs are developed.
Table 1 estimates show that State and Federal agencies currently spend over $8 million dollars
per year for Chesapeake Bay Program related monitoring. To fulfill commitments of the
Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement, roughly $15 million dollars per year will be needed for 2002
and beyond. To help address the difference between current funding and future needs, new
funding resources must be identified. For remaining shortfalls, the Implementation Committee
has agreed to the following policy for allocating EPA Chesapeake Bay Program funds directed
towards monitoring.
"Monitoring is a priority activity for EPA Chesapeake Bay Program funding. It is a
critical function because environmental managers need the resultant data to: a) determine
whether or not the commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program are being achieved, b)
assess progress made and effectiveness of management actions and, c) assess the effects
of naturally occurring phenomenon and catastrophic events.
"Priority monitoring programs for EPA Chesapeake Bay funding are to be based on
measuring achievement of the water quality goals, with focus on tidal water quality
standards for clarity, dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a. To provide the scientific
underpinnings for Bay water quality standards, additional priorities should be given to
living resource parameters that respond to water quality improvements (i.e., SAV,
benthos, and plankton), and those parameters required for the Water Quality Model to
estimate load reductions for achieving the standards. This will mean increased priority on
monitoring near shore areas, fish spawning and nursery areas, and nutrient and sediment
loadings from the coastal plain. Additional priorities for Bay Program funding are related
to continued characterization of chemical contaminants under the new Toxics Strategy.
Monitoring for the following activities are listed below in priority order:
1. Assess status of chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen against water clarity standards.
2. Assess response of SAV, benthos, and plankton to water quality conditions.
3. Diagnose causes of non-attainment / measure effectiveness of management
actions.
4. Provide data for the Water Quality Model, including loadings from the coastal
plain.
5. Update Toxics Characterizations
"New authorizations for both EPA and NOAA may provide opportunities for funding of
additional living resource monitoring. While the Air Subcommittee appears to have done
the most thorough job on estimating monitoring needs for their work, alternative sources
of funds also should be sought for expanding the Air monitoring networks. In addition,
expanded monitoring in non-tidal areas will be needed to calibrate watershed models and
-------
4
I. Introduction
assess progress of the tributary strategies. For each of these monitoring needs, existing
Bay Program funding should not be viewed as the primary funding source but as a
secondary, supportive source."
Another point of emphasis is that the monitoring cost estimates in Table 1 represent only
data collection costs. Costs for data management and data analyses associated with each
monitoring need are excluded, but will be necessary. Similarly, additional costs for
research would be expected but are excluded from Table 1.
Remaining Issues
This document begins a monitoring network design process that will ultimately produce data to
determine whether or not the Chesapeake Bay Program has achieved many of its goals. The
monitoring needs identified here are the basic monitoring priorities for the Chesapeake Bay
Program. It gives the Program focus and direction on what needs to be monitored, by when it is
needed, and approximately how much it will cost. Finally, it establishes Program policy for
budget allocations and seeking outside funding sources.
Several issues remain. One is that Part I of the strategy is short term and additional monitoring
needs will likely emerge from the strategies and plans under development. For example,
monitoring needs for exotic species, water quality standards, and fish tissue are described but
their cost and implementation schedules are difficult to project at this time. Implementation
schedules in Part I will need to be developed beyond 2003.
Another concern is that the focus on commitments is too narrow and that it doesn't promote
understanding of the ecosystem and its interactions, or anticipate future changes. Some partners
had hoped that the monitoring strategy would include these research needs, or that the Program
could develop interrelated plans for monitoring, modeling and research. However, a combined
strategy is beyond the scope of this document. Specific research and modeling needs will
become apparent in the network design phase and the network design teams will incorporate the
needs of researchers where possible to make the data usable to the research community.
It may be possible to apply the national strategy for coordinating research and monitoring
programs (The Clean Water Action Plan: Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy, September
2000) to the Chesapeake Region to address these concerns and to make our monitoring and
research programs consistent with other regions across the country.
Finally, there are concerns about the ability of the existing Subcommittee structure to carry out
the monitoring strategy. Close coordination among various subcommittees and workgroups will
be necessary, priorities will need reevaluation, and implementation plans will require updating.
We will need to seek outside funding sources and combine our sampling programs with other
local, state, regional and national networks. The coordination and integration of Chesapeake Bay
Program monitoring programs needs to improve.
-------
5
I. Introduction
Recommendations
1. Agree that the Monitoring Strategy, because it describes the information needed to meet
the commitments in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, is the basis for the design of
monitoring networks for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
2. Establish and charge the new Monitoring and Assessment Subcommittee to: 1) oversee
development and implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Program monitoring strategy, 2)
coordinate data analysis and interpretation across workgroups for better understanding of
ecosystem recovery as a whole and, 3) seek additional sources of funding and partnering
opportunities.
3. Charge Chesapeake Bay Program subcommittees and workgroups to proceed with the
next stages of the monitoring strategy, i.e., determining assessment questions, identifying
necessary data analyses, and network design.
4. Update this Strategic Monitoring Priorities document every 2 years (next one in 2003) so
that monitoring needs and priorities can be reevaluated by the Implementation
Committee.
5. Examine the applicability of the monitoring and research framework described in the
Clean Water Action Plan Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy to the Chesapeake
Bay Program.
-------
6
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
Management Goals: Restore, enhance and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living
resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all fisheries and provide for a
balanced ecosystem.
Blue Crab Commitments
~ By 2001, establish harvest targets for the blue crab fishery and begin implementing
complementary state fisheries management strategies Baywide. Manage the blue crab fishery
to restore a healthy spawning biomass, size and age structure.
Blue Crab Monitoring Needs
The establishment of blue crab harvest targets and their annual modifications is dependent
on our ability to assess their relative abundance and distribution baywide. In addition, the
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) 2000 Blue Crab Advisory Report
calls for the blue crab monitoring program to provide information on: (1) harvest and effort
data for the commercial and recreational crab fisheries, (2) growth rates, (3) size at maturity,
and (4) the age, size, sex, and maturity composition of the harvest and stock. To achieve
these monitoring objectives, data from fishermen (i.e., fishery-dependent data) and from
scientists (i.e., fishery-independent data) are collected.
Current Blue Crab Monitoring - The current monitoring programs for blue crabs are state
funded fishery-independent surveys. Commercial removals and wholesale purchases of both
fish and crabs are reported to and tracked by Maryland and Virginia. Recreational removals
are not measured. Data for blue crab stock assessments come from the following surveys.
A) Baywide Winter Dredge Survey (~$250,000/yr) - The Blue Crab Winter Dredge Survey
is the only baywide fishery-independent effort to assess the relative abundance of blue crabs.
The survey is conducted annually from December through March. It consists of a stratified
random design with approximately 1,500 sites located in waters deeper than 1.5 meters. A
6' wide dredge is used to remove the crabs from the substrate. All of the dredged crabs are
counted, measured and sexed; subsamples are collected to determine age.
B) Virginia Trawl Survey (~ $425,000/yr) - The Virginia bottom trawl survey measures the
relative abundance, distribution, size, age, and sex ratios of both fish and crabs. The survey
samples 60 stations every month from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to the freshwater
interface at the fall line of the James, York, and Rappahannock Rivers. At each station, a
30' wide shrimp trawl is towed for five minutes.
C) Maryland Summer Trawl Survey (~ $100,000/yr) This survey is designed to estimate
summer blue crab relative abundance in Maryland tributaries. Sampling occurs from May
through October in six tributaries (Chester, Choptank, Eastern Bay, Patuxent, Tangier, and
-------
7
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
Pocomoke). Thirty-seven stations are sampled each month using a 6' net during a six minute
tow.
D) Calvert Cliffs Pot Survey (~ $55,000/yr) - This survey is done during the legal blue crab
fishing season to provide a fishery-independent estimate of the Maryland blue crab catch and
effort. The survey monitors 60 crab pots in three locations.
E) Fishery-dependent Catch and Effort Reporting (~ $300,000 baywide/yr2) - The blue crab
commercial harvest is estimated by tracking the number of crabs reported by commercial
fisherman. The data are collected by Maryland and Virginia. In FFY 00, NOAA funded the
design of a survey to measure the size and sex composition of blue crab landings in different
seasons, which will ultimately estimate population removals in absolute numbers.
Future Blue Crab Monitoring Needs - All of the current blue crab surveys will need to
continue. Additional monitoring data will be needed to: 1) determine the growth, fishing
mortality, natural mortality, size selectivity, catchability, reporting rates, and the distribution
of harvest among the different components of the fishery, 2) improve accuracy of
commercial catch and effort data, 3) estimate the age, size, sex ratios, diet, life stages, spatial
and temporal distribution of the commercial catch, and 4) estimate recreational catch,
fishing effort, age, size, and sex ratios,
A) Fishery-Independent Survey - Mark and Recapture (~ $275,000 baywide/yr) -
Uncertainty still exists in growth rates, mortality rates, and movement patterns of crabs
through the Bay and how these differ by sex, size and molt condition. Mark and recapture
studies are needed to improve our understanding of growth, fishing mortality, natural
mortality, size selectivity, catchability, reporting rates and the distribution of harvest among
the different components of the fishery. The information obtained will be essential in
refining our estimates of mortality and for defining targets for fishery management intended
to ensure sustainability of the resource.
B) Fishery-Dependent (Commercial) Survey (~ $300,000 baywide/yr2) - The major
impediment to the effective estimation of the status of the blue crab stock is inadequate
information on total removals due to commercial fishing. Catch and effort data need to be
improved over space and time. Biological data, (size, sex ratios, age, and diet), information
on the soft, peeler and hard crab fisheries and individual gear information (pots, trotlines,
scrapes, dredges) need to be collected. The expansion of Maryland's pilot commercial catch
biological survey to the rest of the Bay is a priority.
2 Total cost for fish, crab and oyster catch and effort data.
-------
8
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
C) Recreational Survey (~ $200,000 baywide/yr) - Catch and effort from recreational
fishing have never been fully assessed for Chesapeake Bay. Preliminary estimates of the
recreational harvest for the Maryland fishery range from 25-80% of the commercial
landings. This indicates the potential importance of the recreational sector to the overall
fishery. A recreational survey would provide reliable estimates of catch, fishing effort, catch
rates, size composition, and sex ratios for all components of the recreational fishery.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Continue existing blue crab monitoring programs.
Pilot commercial catch composition survey in Maryland to obtain biological data.
Pilot Bay wide recreational survey.
2002 Continue existing blue crab monitoring programs.
Expand pilot commercial catch composition survey to Virginia.
Implement Bay wide recreational survey.
Pilot mark and recapture study.
2003 Continue existing blue crab monitoring programs
Implement commercial catch composition survey Baywide.
Implement Baywide mark and recapture study.
Oyster Commitments
~ By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay,
based upon a 1994 baseline.
~ By 2002, develop and implement a strategy to achieve this increase by using sanctuaries
sufficient in size and distribution, aquaculture, continued disease research and disease-resistant
management strategies, and other management approaches.
Oyster Monitoring Needs
To assess the status of the Baywide oyster stock (population size/biomass) and track
progress toward the commitment to achieve a tenfold increase by 2010, consistent and
reliable estimates of the abundance and biomass of oyster populations in Chesapeake Bay
are needed. To support adaptive management of the oyster resource, sentinel populations
need to be identified for long-term monitoring.
Current Monitoring - Both Maryland and Virginia have fishery-independent oyster surveys
to support the regulation and management needs of their very different oyster fisheries.
A) Oyster Abundance and Biomass - A combination of fishery-independent and fishery-
-------
9
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
dependent data is used to estimate the current and historical baseline oyster populations.
Both Maryland and Virginia monitor the abundance, size and spat set of oysters in areas
where oyster shell was added for seed beds or for rehabilitation. Approximately 30-40
fixed stations are monitored in Maryland using a dredge or divers. Virginia's survey
consists of a stratified random design and uses a patent tong method.
As with blue crabs and fish, both states rely on fishery-dependent surveys for catch and
effort information. Commercial removals and wholesale purchases of oysters are reported to
and tracked by Maryland and Virginia.
B) Reef Sanctuary Program - Both Maryland and Virginia portions of the Bay have oyster
reef sanctuaries and shell plant regions (regions for settlement and subsequent seed
transplant). In Virginia, these efforts are surveyed by both patent tong and dredge
methodologies. In Maryland, they are surveyed with patent tongs, dredges or by divers with
quadrants. The presence or absence of oyster disease is noted in the samples.
Future Oyster Monitoring Needs - A project funded by NOAA and EPA (to be completed
in October 2002) will define an appropriate monitoring design and estimation protocol using
both fishery-independent and fishery-dependent surveys. It is likely that the existing
monitoring programs will need to continue and that future costs will be dependent on the
new design. Funding for new monitoring will come from state and federal sources. Also
critical to measuring the increase in oyster biomass is the creation of a database to store
existing monitoring survey information.
A) Oyster Abundance and Biomass - Consistent and reliable estimates of the relative
abundance and biomass of oyster populations will be needed through 2010. State agencies
will expand and standardize current oyster monitoring surveys. Because the fisheries are
distinct in each state, different methodologies may be appropriate. The new estimation
protocol will include counts from other efforts such as reef restoration projects, oyster
sanctuaries, private oyster culture and oyster gardening. The occurrence of disease will
continue to be monitored.
B) Oyster Reef Sanctuaries - Surveying of bottom substrate is needed to identify areas that
are potential sites for restoration or oyster sanctuaries. Water quality data also will be
needed to ensure that oyster habitat requirements are met.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Continue existing oyster monitoring.
Develop monitoring design for consistent baywide oyster monitoring program.
2002 Continue existing oyster monitoring.
Pilot testing of consistent baywide oyster monitoring program.
-------
10
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
2003 Implement full scale, consistent, baywide oyster monitoring program.
Design and/or implement oyster sanctuary monitoring.
Exotic Species Commitments
~ By 2001, identify and rank non-native, invasive aquatic and terrestrial species which are
causing or have the potential to cause significant negative impacts to the Bay's aquatic
ecosystem.
~ By 2002, develop and implement an interim voluntary ballast water management program for
the waters of the Bay and its tributaries.
~ By 2003, develop and implement management plans for those species deemed problematic to
the restoration and integrity of the Bay's ecosystem.
Exotic Species Monitoring Needs
Exotic species are monitored incidently with other aquatic species monitoring programs,
making the cost of monitoring for exotic species minimal.
1. Ballast Water Introductions
Current Ballast Water Monitoring - Adherence to the National Invasive Species Act
of 1996, which states that all vessels should transfer their ballast water in the open
ocean, is voluntary. The current monitoring program for ballast water introductions is
designed to provide the rate of voluntary compliance with guidelines for open-ocean
ballast exchange. Rates of ballast water exchange, both in terms of percentage of vessels
that undergo exchange and the percentage of ballast water exchanged for different vessel
types, is estimated. Differences in space and time for the rate of exchange and the
amount of foreign ballast released also are measured.
A) National Ballast Survey - Each vessel entering U.S. ports from outside the Exclusive
Economic Zone is required to complete a survey reporting their ballast water
management procedure. The survey is designed to measure the rate of implementation
of the management strategy but does not measure the actual effect on reducing the rate of
invasion. The assumption is that the smaller the amount of ballast water release, the
fewer invasions of exotic species overall.
Future Ballast Water Introduction Monitoring Needs - Additional monitoring for the
ballast water program is not known at this time but will be determined by the Ballast
Water Task Force.
2. Problematic Exotic Species
-------
11
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
Current Problematic Exotic Species Monitoring - The current monitoring programs
for exotic species are designed to provide information on the presence or absence of a
particular problematic species in an ecosystem.
A) Statewide Problematic Exotic Species ($512,250)- Water chestnut, grass carp, mute
swans, zebra mussels, nutria, asiatic clam, and phragmites are monitored in Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania at the state level. The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service also participates in the monitoring of Problematic Exotics.
Future Problematic Exotic Species Monitoring Needs
A) Statewide Problematic Exotic Species - Current exotic species monitoring programs
need to continue. Zebra mussels have been confirmed for the first time in eastern
Pennsylvania and there is a need for further monitoring of this problematic species. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that an additional
$200,000 per year will be needed to monitor this species.
B) Invasive Species of Concern - By 2001, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners must
identify and rank Invasive Species of Concern. This designation will apply to species
that cause or have the potential to cause negative impacts on the Bay ecosystem. A
centralized reporting system is necessary for the annual distribution of the Invasive
Species of Concern list. For these identified species, targeted monitoring may be needed
to determine the abundance and range of highly ranked species. Where possible,
monitoring will rely on and coincide with existing state exotics species monitoring.
From these data, status and trends will be calculated. Management plans for Invasive
Species of Concern will be developed by 2003; these may identify additional monitoring
needs.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Identify and rank non-native invasive species.
Establish a Chesapeake Information Management System (CIMS) based
clearinghouse for reporting Invasive Species of Concern abundances and
distributions.
2002 If applicable, begin monitoring for interim voluntary ballast water program.
2003 If applicable, begin monitoring for invasive species according to management plans.
-------
12
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
Migratory Fish Commitments
~ By June 2002, identify the final initiatives necessary to achieve our existing goal of restoring
fish passage for migratory fish to more than 1,357 miles of currently blocked river habitat by
2003 and establish a monitoring program to assess outcomes.
*¦ By 2002, set a new goal with implementation schedules for additional migratory and resident
fish passages that addresses the removal of physical blockages. In addition, the goal will
address the removal of chemical blockages caused by acid mine drainage. Projects should be
selected for maximum habitat and stock benefit.
*¦ By 2002, assess trends in populations for priority migratory fish species. Determine
tributary-specific target population sizes based upon projected fish passage, and current and
projected habitat available, and provide recommendations to achieve those targets.
~ By 2003, revise fish management plans to include strategies to achieve target population sizes
of tributary-specific migratory fish.
Migratory Fish Monitoring Needs
1. Fish Passage Efficacy - Monitoring is needed for migratory and resident fish
populations above and below passages to determine fish passage efficacy, including sites
where chemical blockages are addressed. Monitoring the utilization of fish ladders
should occur during the peak of the shad and herring migration seasons on a two to four
year rotating basis to establish the efficacy of each passage.
Current Fish Passage Efficacy Monitoring - The current monitoring programs for fish
passage efficacy are designed to determine the rate at which fish successfully circumvent
dams and other fish blockages in streams and rivers.
A) Fish Efficacy Studies - ($179,000) As the fish are transported across the blockage,
they are counted by species to determine efficacy rates. The fish use lifts, ladders, and
fishways to move across dams and other such impervious barriers. State agencies supply
scientific support and federal agencies such as the EPA fund state staff positions.
Future Fish Passage Efficacy Monitoring Needs - In addition to the current
monitoring programs, migratory and resident fish will need to be monitored in three
more areas. Removal of the Embrey Dam on the Rappahannock, the opening of the
Appomattox passage, and the opening of the South Anna passage will require additional
monitoring. The annual cost to monitor these is estimated to be $39,000.
-------
13
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
2. Migratory Fish Populations
Current Migratory Fish Monitoring - Current migratory fish population monitoring in
the tributaries is very closely linked to the fish passage efficacy monitoring, resulting in
many overlaps between the programs. Tidal water monitoring programs that collect data
on migratory fish are:
A) Juvenile Striped Bass Seine Surveys ($816,000) - Seine surveys are done in tidal
tributaries during the months of July, August and September by Maryland DNR and
Virginia Institute for Marine Sciences (VIMS). The surveys measure the relative annual
recruitment success of juvenile striped bass and other finfish. Maryland samples 22
fixed stations and Virginia samples 18 fixed stations in major spawning and nursery
areas.
B) Juvenile Bluefish Seine Survey - VIMS monitors the relative abundance of bluefish at
10 fixed stations along Virginia's Eastern Shore and coastal beaches. The relative
abundance of other finfish also are measured.
C) Virginia Mark and Recapture Study ($40,000) - This survey is conducted by the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. It measures the Chesapeake coastal
migratory stock returning to the Bay to spawn and assumes that the survey estimates
75% of the total population size.
Future Migratory Fish Population Monitoring Needs
A) Tributary Specific Population Monitoring - All current monitoring for migratory fish
needs to continue to determine status and trends in migratory fish populations.
Tributary-specific monitoring for eel, herring and shad species abundances is needed to
assess their population status and trends. Population estimates along with projected fish
passage efficacy and available spawning habitat will determine progress toward
achievement of established target populations. Additional or more specific monitoring
needs may be identified in the future.
B) Coastal Migratory stocks - For coastal migratory stock, Virginia fishery managers
found that the 1999 fishery data yielded an uncertain abundance estimate. Another year
of data (2000 fishery data) added to the Mark and Recapture Study will clarify the
abundance and fishing mortality signals produced by this monitoring. An estimate of
this cost is $40,000.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Continue current tidal and non-tidal migratory and fish passage monitoring programs.
Develop monitoring and data interpretation protocols to determine fish passage
-------
14
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
efficacy and estimate tributary-specific populations.
2002 Continue current migratory fish monitoring programs.
Implement improved fish passage and tributary specific fish monitoring programs.
Multi-species Management Commitments
~ By 2004, assess the effects of different population levels offilter feeders such as menhaden,
oysters and clams on Bay water quality and habitat.
~ By 2005, develop ecosystem-based multi-species management plans for targeted species.
~ By 2007, revise and implement existing fisheries management plans to incorporate ecological,
social and economic considerations, multi-species fisheries management and ecosystem
approaches.
Multi-species Management Monitoring Needs
To develop ecosystem-based, multi-species fisheries management plans, information on the
relative abundance, status and health of prey species and the interactions between habitat,
prey and predators within the food web must be gathered.
Monitoring for multi-species management will require close coordination of monitoring and
research programs for fish, benthos, plankton, water quality and SAV.
1. Fisheries-Independent Surveys - A complimentary set of comprehensive, baywide,
fishery-independent surveys are needed to collect data on target species distribution and
their relative abundance, size, and age structure.
Current Fishery-Independent Monitoring - There are numerous fishery-independent
monitoring surveys underway in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission that include various species and life stages during selected
seasons.
A) Juvenile finfish and shellfish - Maryland and Virginia's dredge, trawl and seine
surveys for finfish and shellfish are described above in the Oyster Monitoring Needs
section. Most of these surveys estimate the distribution, relative abundance, size and age
of juvenile finfish and shellfish.
B) Open water and shallow water species - In FFY 2000, CBSAC, with NOAA
funding, initiated a project to design new and expand existing fishery-independent
surveys in Chesapeake Bay. The surveys will use multiple gears and be conducted in the
deeper waters and shallow (< 5 m depth) waters of the mainstem and principle
-------
15
II. Living Resources Restoration and Protection
tributaries. These surveys are expected to monitor the abundance young benthic and
pelagic fishes as well as mid-depth species such as menhaden, anchovy, and croaker .
Gut content analysis from targeted species may be incorporated into the surveys. From
these data, trophic relationships and production can be estimated.
C) Trophic Interactions in Estuarine Systems (TIES) - In this University of Maryland
study, researchers estimate juvenile fish abundance using in-situ acoustic instruments
that measure fish density and acoustic size. One of the TIES program goals is to
determine trophic linkages and mechanisms which promote efficient secondary
production and trophic transfers.
Future Fishery-Independent Monitoring Needs - All current fishery-independent
monitoring programs will need to continue. While the TIES research project is ending,
the new survey design will incorporate some of the TIES components. Fish and shellfish
surveys need to be expanded baywide to include the relative abundance of adults,
juveniles, larvae and eggs. Gut content analyses will be needed to establish predator-
prey relationships. Approximately $3.75 million has been identified for expanded
fishery-independent, multi-species monitoring. The final cost to implement the
expanded surveys and the allocations to the different components of the fisheries will be
better estimated when the CBSAC survey design is completed.
2. Fisheries-Dependent Surveys - Fishery-dependent data are used to estimate the number
of fish and shellfish removed by commercial fishermen. Commercial harvest data and
fishery-independent data are critical for assessing the stocks of targeted species.
Current Fishery-Dependent Monitoring- Commercial removals and wholesale
purchases of fish and shellfish are reported to and tracked by Maryland and Virginia at a
cost of - $300,000 per year.2 Recreational removals are measured through the Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), sponsored through NMFS. This
survey is not geared towards inshore areas and doesn't fully, or accurately, monitor
Chesapeake Bay.
Future Fishery-Dependent Monitoring - Commercial harvest data will continue to
provide fishery-dependent information. Additional monitoring of recreational catch and
effort are needed to compliment existing commercial catch and effort information.
2 Total cost for fish, crab and oyster catch and effort data.
-------
16
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration
3. Fish Food and Habitat Availability - Benthos, phytoplankton, and zooplankton species
abundances and distribution are needed to ensure that food of sufficient quality and
quantity are available to sustain targeted fish populations. Water quality data also are
needed to assess the habitat conditions of targeted fish and prey species.
Current Fish Food and Habitat Monitoring
A) Plankton Monitoring ($627,400) - Baywide monitoring of phytoplankton,
microzooplankton, and mesozooplankton occurs in the open waters of the mainstem and
tidal tributaries. Plankton monitoring is concurrent with water quality monitoring.
These programs provide species identifications, abundance, biomass, and primary
productivity estimates.
B) Benthic Monitoring ($418,900) - Baywide sampling occurs twice annually at a group
of fixed stations and a smaller group of supplemental strata. Measured parameters
include species abundance and species biomass.
C) Water Quality Monitoring - Current water quality data are collected mostly in open
and deep water habitats. See Section IV, Water Quality Restoration and Protection, for
more details.
Future Fish Food and Habitat Monitoring
A) Plankton Monitoring - Phytoplankton and zooplankton monitoring needs to be
targeted towards those tidal open water, shallow water, fish spawning, and nursery
habitats (Figure 2) where plankton is the principal food required to sustain critical life
stages of the targeted species.
B) Benthic Monitoring - Tidal benthic monitoring needs to be concentrated in open and
deepwater bottom, fish spawning and nursery habitats (Figure 2) which support bottom
feeding fish and crabs.
C) Habitat Quality Monitoring - Current monitoring of open and deep tidal waters will
continue to provide habitat quality data such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity,
primary productivity, etc, however, new water quality programs are needed to monitor
shallow waters and fish spawning areas. The attainment of water quality criteria based
on living resource habitat requirements is a priority for the Chesapeake Bay Program; the
monitoring needs for designated use areas are described in Section IV, Water Quality
Restoration and Protection.
Since it will be necessary to evaluate the living resource response to habitat
improvements, monitoring programs for fish, plankton, benthos, SAV, and water quality
need to be closely coordinated in time and space.
-------
17
II. Living Resources Protection and Restoration - III. Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
Implementation Schedule
2001 Continue monitoring current components of baywide fisheries-independent surveys.
Design complementary components of the baywide fisheries independent surveys.
Redesign existing benthic, planktonic and water quality monitoring programs.
2002 Monitor current and expanded components of baywide fisheries independent survey.
Implement redesigned tidal water benthic, planktonic and water quality monitoring
networks.
2003 Continue bay wide fisheries independent surveys.
Continue redesigned benthic, planktonic and water quality monitoring networks.
III. Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
Management Goals: Preserve, protect and restore those habitats and natural areas that are
vital to the survival and diversity of living resources of the Bay and its tributaries.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Commitments
~ Recommit to the existing goal ofprotecting and restoring 114,000 acres of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV).
*¦ By 2002, revise SAV restoration goals and strategies to reflect historic abundance, measured as
acreage and density from the 1930s to the present. The revised goals will include specific levels
of water clarity which are to be met in 2010. Strategies to achieve these goals will address
water clarity, water quality and bottom disturbance.
*¦ By 2002, implement a strategy to accelerate protection and restoration of SAV beds in areas of
critical importance to the Bay's living resources.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Monitoring Needs
Current SAV Monitoring
A) SAV Distribution and Abundance ($348,000) - Presently, Bay Program partners monitor
the abundance, distribution, and density of SAV via bay wide aerial and ground surveys.
Current methods need to be evaluated for possible improvement in efficiency of obtaining
the desired status and trends information.
B) SAV Restoration Monitoring ($46,000)- Current monitoring differs greatly between
jurisdictions, but the main goal is to determine the success of the restoration of SAV.
-------
18
III. Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
Maryland Department of Natural Resources staff travel to restoration sites and visually
assess the SAV regrowth. (Staff time estimated to cost $1,500). Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (VIMS) staff use SCUBA equipment to visually monitor SAV restoration sites and
to perform research at a cost of $45,000.
C) SAV Habitat Quality ($242,000) - The University of Maryland has developed towed in-
situ technology for monitoring shallow, nearshore waters. University of Maryland and
VIMS staff are using the technology. The system covers large areas of the water surface,
recording concentrations of chlorophyll, turbidity, salinity, temperature and dissolved
oxygen.
Future SAV Monitoring Needs - Current monitoring for SAV abundance, distribution, and
density must continue. Ground surveys of restoration sites also should continue. VIMS
estimates that an additional $50,000 per year is necessary to monitor the progress of SAV
restoration in Virginia. Maryland will use existing staff for ground surveys.
SAV habitat quality monitoring will need be expanded to demonstrate attainment of the
water quality standards (See Section IV, Tidal Water Quality Monitoring). If each nearshore
area is monitored once every three years, the cost may be as high as $1,155,000 per year.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Continue ongoing SAV comprehensive survey.
Expand nearshore, SAV habitat monitoring to Virginia waters.
Investigate and implement methods to evaluate attainment of water clarity criteria in
near shore habitats.
2002 Continue ongoing SAV comprehensive survey.
Expand nearshore, SAV habitat monitoring to cover one-third of the tidal areas
Expand ground surveys to assess availability of local sources of propagules.
Monitor critical areas targeted for accelerated SAV bed protection and restoration.
2003 Continue 2002 monitoring activities.
Watershed, Wetland and Forest Commitments
Watersheds
~ By 2010, work with local governments, community groups and watershed organizations to
develop and implement locally supported watershed management plans in two-thirds of the Bay
watershed covered by this Agreement. These plans would address the protection, conservation
and restoration of stream corridors, riparian forest buffers and wetlands for the purposes of
-------
19
III. Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
improving habitat and water quality, with collateral benefits for optimizing stream flow and
water supply.
*¦ By 2001, each jurisdiction will develop guidelines to ensure the aquatic health of stream
corridors. Guidelines should consider optimal surface and groundwater flows.
*¦ By 2002, each jurisdiction will work with local governments and communities that have
watershed management plans to select pilot projects that promote stream corridor
protection and restoration.
*¦ By 2003, include in the "State of the Bay Report, " and make available to the public, local
governments and others, information concerning the aquatic health of stream corridors based
on adopted regional guidelines.
Wetlands
~ Achieve a no-net loss of existing wetlands acreage and function in the signatories' regulatory
programs.
*¦ By 2010, achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
To do this, we commit to achieve and maintain an average restoration rate of2,500 acres per
year basin wide by 2005 and beyond. We will evaluate our success in 2005.
*¦ (97-2 Wetlands Commitments) No net loss of wetland acres and function. Every 5 years,
beginning in 2000, evaluate and report on wetland status and trends.
Forests
~ By 2002, ensure that measures are in place to meet our riparian forest buffer restoration goal
of 2,010 miles by 2010. By 2003, establish a new goal to expand buffer mileage.
*¦ Conserve existing forests along all streams and shorelines.
Watersheds, Wetlands and Forest Monitoring Needs
1. Non-tidal Biological Network - The aquatic health of stream corridors is determined by
the types of biota inhabiting the waters and the physical condition of their habitat.
Current Non-Tidal Biological Network Monitoring ($1,435,000) - Each state has its
own biological stream assessment program. Data from these programs establish in-
stream aquatic community and habitat baselines by monitoring benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages, physical habitat parameters such as percent
shading, stream bank condition, and water quality parameters such as pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, flow, etc. Maryland and Virginia's biological monitoring is done in
first through fourth order streams, while Pennsylvania monitors first and second order
-------
20
III. Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration
streams and a few lakes and ponds.
Future Non-Tidal Biological Network Needs - Data are insufficient in stream reaches
between the non-tidal and tidal fresh transition areas. The Maryland Biological Stream
Survey program would require $30,000 per year over a 5-year period to adequately
survey the transition areas between first through fourth order, non-tidal, freshwater
streams and the larger tidal rivers and bays where much of monitoring activity is
occurring. These areas include tidal fresh and brackish streams/embayments, and
present some special sampling challenges. These water courses have been mapped and,
some approaches have been developed that seem to effectively sample the biota
inhabiting these areas. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
would require an additional $875,000 per year. Virginia will use its current resources to
fulfill any needs that may arise.
2. Wetlands - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
maps have some limitations (e.g., omission errors in identifying certain types of forested
wetlands), but they provide a valuable baseline map that, for wetlands monitoring
purposes, can be updated using remote sensing techniques as well as project-specific
tracking data available from the States and the Army Corps of Engineers. Landsat™
imagery is a readily available and relatively low-cost data source for determining when
NWI maps require updating. Using a technique called Cross Correlation Analysis on the
Landsat™ imagery can cost-effectively identify areas experiencing loss in wetlands.
Thresholds can be established that will "trigger" the updating of the NWI maps to obtain
a new inventory that can be used to determine the reasons for the change. Federal and
state agency data will be used to track regulated wetland losses and gains to factor into
the net wetland resource gains into the baseline maps. Our current estimate of the
annual cost to monitor wetlands and other land cover on a 5-year cycle is $200,000 per
year.
3. Riparian Forest Buffers - The Chesapeake Bay Program has a basin-wide inventory for
riparian forest buffers that was produced by Pennsylvania State University. Based on
Landsat™ imagery, it provides a 1991/1992 base-line on 100' and 300' riparian forest
buffers. The inventory can be used for Bay Program management and policy needs, but
is inappropriate for site-specific information. Geo-referenced, project specific tracking
of riparian buffer restoration will continue to provide the basis of buffer gains.
The Chesapeake Bay Program needs to repeat the buffer inventory every 5 years to
assess basinwide status and trends. Interpreted and validated Multi-Resolution Land
Cover (MRLC) data would be the best source for this information.
Watersheds, Wetlands and Riparian Forest Implementation Schedule
2001 Continue state biological stream assessments, evaluate changes to better assess
-------
21
III. Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration - IV. Water Quality Protection and Restoration
aquatic health of stream corridors.
Map MRLC 2000 data for wetlands baseline and riparian buffer update.
2002 Continue state biological stream assessments and implement modifications if
necessary.
Update wetland and riparian forest coverages using state and federal tracking data.
Calculate status of wetlands and status and trends of riparian forest buffers.
IV. Water Quality Protection And Restoration
Management Goals: Achieve and maintain the water quality necessary to support the
aquatic living resources of the Bay and its tributaries and to protect public health.
Nutrient and Sediment Commitments
~ Develop and begin implementation of tributary-specific strategies by August 1993. These
strategies will be designed to: 1) Meet the mainstem nutrient reduction goals. 2) Achieve the
water quality requirements necessary to restore living resources in both the mainstem and the
tributaries. (1992 Amendments)
~ Continue efforts to achieve and maintain the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal from
controllable sources agreed to in 1987, as well as new goals being adopted for the tributaries
south of the Potomac River.
*¦ By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the
list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act. In order to achieve this:
A) By 2001, define the water quality conditions necessary to protect aquatic living resources
and then assign load reductions for nitrogen, phosphorus to each major tributary;
B) Using a process parallel to that established for nutrients, determine the sediment load
reductions necessary to achieve the water quality conditions that protect aquatic living
resources, and assign load reductions for sediment to each major tributary by 2001.
C) By 2002 complete a public process to develop and begin implementation of revised Tributary
Strategies to achieve and maintain the assigned loading goals.
D) By 2003, work with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and others to adopt and begin
implementing strategies that prevent the loss of the sediment retention capabilities of the
lower Susquehanna dams.
~ By 2003, assess the effects of airborne nitrogen compounds and chemical contaminants on the
Bay ecosystem and help establish reduction goals for these contaminants.
-------
22
IV. Water Quality Protection and Restoration
Nutrient and Sediment Monitoring Needs
1. Tidal Water Quality - Monitoring tidal water quality is necessary to meet the above
water quality commitments for several reasons: 1) to determine if water quality
conditions meet water quality standards established to protect living resources from
nutrient and sediment impacts, 2) to demonstrate that improvements in water quality are
benefitting living resources, 3) to diagnose the likely causes of non-attainment and
assess improvements still needed to meet the tidal water quality standards, and 4) to
support refinement, calibration and validation of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality
Model for assignment of load reductions and multi-species model development.
Current Tidal Water Quality Monitoring - The current monitoring program for tidal
water quality is a fixed station network, designed to provide data for status and trends
analyses and for Water Quality Model calibration. The continuous, 16 year record is also
used extensively by the research community.
A) Mainstem Monitoring ($1,272,100) - Routine Baywide sampling of 20 water
chemistry parameters. Sampling occurs at least once a month at 49 mid-channel and
lateral stations.
B) Maryland Tidal Tributary Monitoring ($472,000) - Routine sampling of 21 water
chemistry parameters. Sampling occurs 20 times yearly at 58 mid-channel stations in the
Potomac, Patuxent, and other tidal tributaries.
C) Virginia Tidal Tributary Monitoring ($265,000) - Routine sampling of 23 water
chemistry parameters. Sampling occurs once a month at 42 mid-channel stations in the
Elizabeth, York, James, and Rappahannock rivers.
D) Plankton Monitoring ($627,400) - Baywide monitoring of phytoplankton,
microzooplankton, and mesozooplankton occurs at a subset of the water quality stations.
These programs provide species identifications, abundance, biomass, and primary
productivity estimates.
E) Benthic Monitoring ($418,900) - Baywide sampling occurs twice annually at a group
of fixed stations and a smaller group of supplemental strata. Measured parameters
include species abundance and species biomass.
Future Tidal Water Quality Monitoring Needs - Monitoring to meet commitments in
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement will require some significant changes in the Water
Quality Monitoring Program, including a shift towards monitoring in near shore and
shallow water habitats. Data will be needed to define baseline conditions, causes of
problems, load reductions, and living resource response to improvements.
A) Attainment of Water Quality Standards - To remove the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
-------
23
IV. Water Quality Protection and Restoration
tributaries from the list of impaired waters, the Bay Program partners are developing
criteria for clarity, chlorophyll a, and dissolved oxygen. These water quality standards
will be applied to several designated use habitats: Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery
Habitats, Shallow Water Habitats, Open Water Habitats, Deep Water Habitats, and Deep
Channel Habitats (Figure 1). These defined levels of water clarity, chlorophyll and
dissolved oxygen represent the minimum water quality conditions necessary to protect
aquatic speices in these habitats. Sampling frequency will vary for each designated use,
but data for dissolved oxygen will be required in each designated use area, and
chlorophyll a and light penetration data will be required in all but the Deep Water and
Deep Channel habitats.
B) Living Resource Response - The purpose of improving water quality is to provide
better habitat conditions for aquatic living resources. Biological response indicators can
demonstrate that improvements in water quality are providing habitat conditions
beneficial to living resources. For example, benthos are a sensitive indicator for
dissolved oxygen improvements, phytoplankton and zooplankton respond to changes in
nutrients and chlorophyll, and SAV responds to changes in water clarity. It is necessary
to collect benthic and plankton data concurrently with the water quality data to establish
concentration-response relationships. Therefore, current lower trophic monitoring
programs need to be redesigned to coincide with changes to the water quality program.
Because recovering benthos and plankton populations provide more food to fish and
wildlife, these data also are needed for multi-species management. Similarly, increasing
SAV beds offer more shelter to living resources. The monitoring network designs for
these must satisfy these objectives as well as response objectives.
C) Diagnosis of Non-Attainment - To determine nutrient and sediment load reductions,
it is necessary to understand the reason desired levels of water quality have not been
attained. In each designated use area, nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids data
are needed to diagnose what is contributing to reduced water clarity, which parameters
are limiting growth of algae and what is causing low dissolved oxygen levels.
D) Water Quality Model Calibration - The Water Quality Model will be necessary to
assign nutrient and sediment load reductions to major tidal tributaries to provide input
for multi-species management models. All parameters monitored in the existing water
quality monitoring program are essential for the calibration and verification of this
model. Thus, the Bay Program must continue collecting the full suite of parameters
from a core set of monitoring stations (yet to be determined) in the mainstem and tidal
tributaries.
2. Non-tidal Water Quality - Non-tidal water quality and loadings data are used for two
purposes: 1) to directly measure nutrient and sediment load reduction progress and 2) to
support continued refinement, calibration and verification of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model, which is used to make projections of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and
-------
24
IV. Water Quality Protection and Restoration
sediment loads reductions resulting from various management practices.
Current Nontidal Water Quality Monitoring - The current water quality monitoring
in nontidal areas focuses on characterizing nutrient and sediment loadings at the fall line
and above the fall line. This information is used to assess the effectiveness of nutrient
and sediment reduction efforts. Pollutant loading information is also used for Watershed
Model Calibration purposes.
A) Chesapeake Bay River Input Monitoring Program ($527,000) - Regular and storm
event sampling at nine stations. Streamflow, nutrient, and sediment data are measured
for the Bay's nine major tributaries.
B) Non-Point Source Monitoring ($180,000) - Regular and storm event sampling at four
stations. The information collected at these stations is intended to fill major gaps in the
River Input Program. Streamflow, nutrient, and sediment data are measured at sites in
the Shenandoah basin, Susquehanna basin, and on the Eastern shore.
C) Other Above Fall Line Monitoring (No estimate) - Data required to calculate a load
and measure trends are collected at 20 additional stations above the fall line. These
stations are operated by a number of different agencies. Data on streamflow, nutrients,
and sediment is collected at each station.
This number of stations which can provide load and trend information are only a small
subset of the nontidal water quality monitoring stations throughout the watershed. There
are over 1,100 monitoring stations for which some kind of nutrient and/or sediment data
are or have been collected. These stations have been established by different state and
local agencies for many different purposes. For a number of reasons, these stations do
not meet Bay Program data requirements. Stations may lack streamflow data, nutrient or
sediment concentration data, or a data record long enough to calculate a trend. However,
with enhancements, these existing stations could increase the Bay Program's ability to
characterize nutrient and sediment loads from nontidal areas.
Future Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Needs - To meet commitments in the
new Bay Agreement, monitoring efforts will focus on characterizing nutrient and
sediment loadings from areas the Bay Program has historically not monitored, either by
establishing new networks or enhancing existing networks.
-------
25
IV. Water Quality Protection and Restoration
A) Coastal Plain Loadings from Nontidal Areas - The Chesapeake Bay Program needs
to initiate a new monitoring program to estimate loads from non-tidal coastal plain
streams in the basin. The Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model indicates that
coastal plain streams deliver about a third of the nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay.
However, there are very few monitoring data to verify the model estimates of nutrient
and sediment loadings from land areas below the fall line. Monitoring for flow,
nutrients, suspended sediment, carbon and periphyton is needed in coastal plain regions
on both the Eastern and Western shores.
B) Fall Line and Above Fall Line Loadings - A comprehensive non-tidal water quality
monitoring network is needed for several purposes including: 1) assessment of in-stream
habitat quality for aquatic resources as described in the "Vital Habitat Protection and
Restoration" section, 2) determining local watershed-scale responses to implemented
management actions , and 3) improved watershed model calibration for application at
small watershed scales.
The non-tidal network will draw together numerous state, regional, and federal
monitoring programs. The design would include monitoring for several different sizes
and types of watersheds, arranged in a "nested" design. The existing River Input stations
must continue to be monitored to address nutrient and improved sediment loads and
trends at the fall line of the largest basins. These data confirm the validity of the
Watershed Model through calibration and verification routines. Also, stations should be
established in small watersheds (< 50 mi2) that have predominant land use and geology
to provide further data to calibrate the Watershed Model, understand pollutant loading
rates, and assess the effectiveness of management practices. All stations need to be
equipped with stream gages; routine and storm event sampling are needed to estimate
runoff and groundwater contributions to loads.
C) Sediment Retention in the Lower Susquehanna - Sediment trapping behind the four
reservoirs on the lower Susquehanna River is nearing steady state conditions, which will
result in increased loads of sediments and nutrients to the Bay. This increase will be
equal to the amount currently being trapped, which the USGS has estimated as 50 to 70
percent. There are very little monitoring data to verify the fate and transport of sediment
fractions (sand, silt, clay) through the reservoir system as the reservoirs reach their
steady state conditions.
Monitoring information will be needed to assess the significance of any changes in
sediment retention. The most important information can be obtained by monitoring at
three reservoir inflow points (Marietta, Conestoga, and Pequea) and at the outflow point
(Conowingo). Suspended sediment data would provide information about sediment
transport. Total suspended solids data would help determine the organic and inorganic
fractions of sediment loads, which will relate back to sources. Particle size analysis
should be performed quarterly for base flow and during storm events. Finally,
bathymetry surveys of the bottom surface should be performed every five years. This
-------
26
IV. Water Quality Protection and Restoration
information will help to accurately predict when the reservoir will reach sediment
storage capacity.
3. Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen - It is estimated that 25% of the nitrogen loadings
entering the Bay and its tidal tributaries are deposited from the atmosphere.
Current Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition Monitoring - The majority of the current
atmospheric deposition monitoring programs for nitrogen deposition are designed to
address specific environmental threats, such as acidic deposition-not eutrophication of
the Bay. However, long-term data sets, primarily from the principle national networks,
do provide useful information for the CBP to establish estimates of atmospheric nitrogen
loadings. Currently, the CBP calculates the wet deposition load to the Bay by using wet
inorganic nitrogen deposition data from 15 National Atmospheric Deposition Program
(NADP) sites in and near the Bay's watershed. Literature estimates are used to calculate
dry inorganic nitrogen deposition and wet and dry organic nitrogen deposition.
A) Wet Deposition Monitoring ($638,000, of which $38,000 is from the CBP) - Weekly
monitoring is conducted by the NADP and state operated networks. Daily deposition
monitoring is conducted by NOAA's Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring
Network (AIRMoN)
B) Dry Deposition Monitoring ($580,000)- Weekly monitoring is conducted by EPA's
Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) and NOAA's AIRMoN program.
Future Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition Monitoring Needs - Determining total
atmospheric nitrogen deposition ultimately requires the measurement of all nitrogen
compounds in both wet and dry deposition. It also requires monitoring to be conducted
in areas that better represent emission source regions. Lack of data in urban and coastal
areas and on dry deposition, particularly reduced nitrogen from the primary source
regions, significantly underestimates total atmospheric nitrogen loadings.
If the CBP is to better quantify and track atmospheric inputs of nitrogen compounds on
the Bay and its watershed, the following steps must occur: 1) continue to utilize the data
from NADP sites, including new NADP sites, 2) add 2-4 wet and dry deposition
monitoring stations to the existing networks to better capture air deposition loadings
(particularly reduced nitrogen) from urban and agricultural source regions and to better
represent coastal areas (ideally, daily monitoring for 5 or more years), and 3) improve
methodologies for measuring dry deposition for inorganic nitrogen compounds and wet
and dry deposition of organic nitrogen; add these parameters to the monitoring network.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Redesign tidal water quality monitoring to assess water quality standards and identify
reason(s) for non-attainment.
-------
27
IV. Water Quality Protection and Restoration - V. Chemical Contaminants
Identify new air deposition sites in urban and coastal areas and possible funding
sources.
Begin coastal plain loadings monitoring.
Continue fall line monitoring, add additional parameters, improve suspended
sediment monitoring.
Design the "nested" non-tidal monitoring network by building upon existing
monitoring programs and identifying where new stations are needed.
2002 Implement refined tidal water quality monitoring program.
Continue fall line and coastal plain monitoring.
Finalize new air deposition network, including wet deposition/ammonia stations.
2003 Continue tidal water quality monitoring, fall line and coastal plain monitoring.
Move James River fall line station to Richmond.
Initiate new wet/dry air deposition network.
V. CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Management Goal: Reduce or eliminate the input of chemical contaminants from all
controllable sources to levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on the living
resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health.
Toxics Strategy Commitments
~ By 2005, update the 1999 Toxics Characterization by conducting the necessary biological and
chemical monitoring to characterize the status of chemical contaminant effects on living
resources in those tidal rivers characterized as Areas with Insufficient or Inconclusive Data
and in the mainstem Bay. In 2009, update the Toxics Characterization using any data collected
since the previous characterization.
~ By 2003, identify toxic impacts on benthic communities by analyzing concurrently-collected
sediment contaminant concentrations and benthic community data.
~ By 2004, acquire relevant chemical contaminant data that is collected by local governments
and is of sufficient quality to aid in updating the 1999 Toxics Characterization.
~ By 2010, reduce nonpoint sources of chemicals of concern to Regions of Concern by at least
30% through implementation of pollution prevention means and other voluntary nonpoint
source programs and through accounting of reductions achieved through regulatory programs.
By 2002 baselines will be developed for each region.
~ Conduct more detailed source assessments and loadings inventories to better define and
manage chemical contaminants inputs from all sources, including contaminated sediment.
By 2007, conduct the necessary monitoring and assessments to determine whether aquatic-
dependent wildlife is experiencing toxic impacts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with
-------
28
V. Chemical Contaminants
particular emphasis in the three Regions of Concern.
~ Through 2010, continue to conduct the necessary monitoring and assessments to evaluate
progress of eliminating toxic impacts in areas where management actions are underway, better
defining chemical contaminant problems in the areas at risk, and ensuring that un-impacted
areas are not getting worse.
~ By 2002, evaluate finfish and shellfish tissue monitoring programs and consumption estimates
to determine whether they are sufficient for developing, updating, and confirming consumption
bans and advisories caused by chemical contaminants and recommend any necessary
improvements.
~ By 2002 and every two years thereafter, report on progress in terms of the area (or river miles)
of finfish and shellfish grounds assessed, area under advisories due to chemical contaminants,
and a summary of trends in contaminant levels in finfish and shellfish in areas under advisories,
areas at risk, and un-impacted areas.
~ By 2004, institute the improvements to programs identified above and assess major fishing
areas in the Bay watershed, complete risk screenings, identify specific sub-populations at risk
where necessary, and issue consumption advisories where appropriate.
~ By 2004, complete initial monitoring and assessments to determine the potential for toxic
impacts from episodic chemical contaminant loads from agricultural and urban/suburb an
runoff on living resources.
Existing data will be used to meet commitments for assessing the effects of airborne
chemical contaminants on the bay ecosystem and for identifying toxic impacts on benthic
communities. These are not included here because additional monitoring is not anticipated.
The Toxics 2000 Strategy also calls for reviewing the state of knowledge regarding the
potential for pesticide use and animal agriculture to cause toxic impacts on the Bay's living
resources and to make monitoring recommendations to fill any data gaps. In 2001 and 2002,
new monitoring needs may arise to address any data gaps identified.
Future Chemical Contaminant Monitoring Needs - The focus of the Chesapeake Bay
Program's chemical contaminant monitoring needs are to: A) Continue the Toxics
Characterization to identify all toxic impacts, B) improve contaminant loadings estimates to
eliminate toxic impacts, and C) enhance fish tissue monitoring programs where necessary.
A) Continue Toxics Characterizations and Improve Loads Estimates - Toxics
characterizations serve as the basis for how and where Bay program partners target chemical
contaminant monitoring and management activities. The 1999 Toxics Characterization
reports the status of toxic impacts on living resources in the Chesapeake Bay's tidal rivers.
Tidal rivers have been classified into 4 categories according to the availability of data and
extent of chemical contamination: Regions of Concern, Areas of Emphasis, Areas with
Insufficient or Inconclusive Data, and Areas with Low Probability for Adverse Effects. Each
-------
29
V. Chemical Contaminants - VI. Sound Land Use
of these categories elicit specific monitoring actions.
i) Areas with Insufficient or Inconclusive Data - There are 20 tidal segments with
insufficient or inconclusive data that remain to be characterized. The highest priority for
chemical contaminant monitoring is to conduct monitoring in these areas to characterize
them into one of the other 3 categories. For the majority of these areas, sufficient data
may be available from state and federal monitoring programs and CBPO-funded projects
that have been conducted since the 1999 Toxics Characterization, however, additional
CBP funding is necessary to monitor the Wye, Wicomico, Manokin, and Big
Annemessex rivers.
With data from a combination of federal and state monitoring programs and CBP funded
projects, all Areas with Insufficient or Inconclusive Data will be characterized by 2005.
States will have electronic access of all data used in the characterization for their 303(d)
list updates scheduled for 2002 & 2004.
ii) Areas of Emphasis - The second highest chemical contaminant monitoring priority is
to collect additional data in the Areas of Emphasis In some of the Areas of Emphasis,
the CBP may need to fund additional monitoring of ambient conditions and contaminant
sources to better define and manage chemical contaminant threats in these areas. A CBP
role may be particularly important in those areas that are not on the 303(d) lists, and,
therefore, are not the focus of State/District monitoring programs.
iii) Regions of Concern - The Baltimore Harbor, Elizabeth River and Anacostia River
are Regions of Concern where chemical contaminant remediation, reduction, and/or
prevention actions are being implemented according to Regional Action Plans.
Although toxic impacts in these areas are fairly well documented, State, District and
federal agencies are conducting additional chemical contaminant monitoring to better
define the problems so that they can develop TMDLs and implement the Regional
Action Plans. Because urban stormwater runoff is a significant contributor of chemical
contaminant loads into these systems, the States and District will be conducting
additional monitoring to better quantify these loads. These data, along with the National
Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater data will be used to
measure progress towards the proposed 10% reduction goal for nonpoint source
contaminants loads. These data will be used to extrapolate contaminant loads to other
watersheds outside of the Regions of Concern, to reduce uncertainty in urban stormwater
loadings estimates from the 1999 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Loading and
Release Inventory.
B) Fish Tissue Monitoring - Twenty-one areas in the Bay watershed have fish consumption
bans or advisories due to chemical contaminants. The Toxics 2000 Strategy calls for an
evaluation of CBP jurisdiction fish tissue monitoring programs by 2002 to ensure that fish
are safe to eat throughout the watershed and to measure progress of our management actions
in removing the advisories. No recent fish tissue monitoring data were available in
-------
30
VI. Sound Land Use
conducting the 1999 Toxics Characterization for the majority of the rivers, making it
impossible to identify additional fish tissue contamination problems. NOAA Mussel Watch
will provide supplemental information for chemical contaminant concentrations in oysters.
C) Monitoring Progress of Eliminating Toxic Impacts - The Toxics 2000 Strategy calls for
monitoring to evaluate results of management actions through 2010. The States/District and
CBPO will monitor Regions of Concern, Areas of Emphasis, and 303(d) waterbodies where
management actions are underway to ensure that these areas are getting better. These areas
will be monitored only when a measurable response to management actions is expected.
Un-impacted areas that are critical to living resources and are under toxics-related pressures
(i.e., expanded growth and development) will be monitored to ensure that they are not
getting worse.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Monitor ambient toxicity and chemical contaminant concentrations in the Wye,
Wicomico, Manokin, and Big Annemessex rivers.
2002 Where necessary, conduct supplemental monitoring to confirm initial
characterizations in upper western shore tributaries, Elk/Bohemia, Chester, Choptank,
Lower Potomac, and York rivers.
2003 Implement fish tissue monitoring recommendations from the 2002 evaluation.
Where necessary, conduct supplemental monitoring to confirm initial
characterizations in middle Rappahannock, Mattaponi, Pamunkey, and James rivers.
2004 Where necessary, conduct supplemental monitoring to confirm initial
characterizations in Eastern Shore, lower Rappahannock River, Mobjack Bay, and
Mainstem Bay.
2005 Initiate monitoring to assess toxic impacts on aquatic-dependent wildlife.
Initiate monitoring to assess progress of management actions underway in impacted
areas and areas at risk.
VI. Sound Land Use
Management Goal: Develop, promote and achieve sound land use practices which protect
and restore watershed resources and water quality, maintain reduced pollutant loadings for
the Bay and its tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic living resources.
Land Conservation and Development Commitments
~ By 2001, complete an assessment of the Bay's resource lands including forests and farms,
-------
31
VI. Sound Land Use
emphasizing their role in the protection of water quality and critical habitats, as well as
cultural and economic viability.
*¦ Permanently preserve from development 20 percent of the land area in the watershed by 2010.
~ By 2012, reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development offorest and agricultural land in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30 percent, measured as an average over five years from the
baseline of1992-1997.
Future Land Conservation Monitoring Needs - Monitoring of land use and land cover is
necessary to achieve multiple Bay Program objectives. Land use and land cover data are
needed to meet Chesapeake 2000 commitments pertaining to resource lands assessments and
rate of development. Other land cover monitoring needs for wetlands and riparian forest
buffers are discussed above in their respective sections. Where monitoring needs for these
purposes overlap, the monitoring must be closely coordinated to ensure multiple uses of the
same data sets.
A) Land Cover - The most complete land cover data set comes from the Multi-Resolution
Land Cover (MRLC) program. MRLC data are compiled and classified through several
federal agencies using data collected by the Landsat™ satellite. The data are interpreted to
provide coverage estimates of numerous land cover classes such as agricultural, forested and
urban lands using conventional land cover classification methods. Presently, MRLC data
are used as input into Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model simulations to estimate
acres of forest, high and low till crop lands, hay crops, pasture, impervious and pervious
urban lands. Results from the planned MRLC 2000, covering the Bay watershed and
surrounding mid-Atlantic states, will be used for the Watershed Model revisions scheduled
for 2005.
In 2001, the Bay Program partners need to complete an assessment of the Bay's forests,
farms and other resource lands. Interpreted MRLC data would be the most desired data for
this but it is needed by the end of 2000 to be ready for the resource lands assessment in
2001. Since this is unlikely, acreage estimates of farm, forested, and developed lands will
be obtained from many different sources that will be determined by the Resource Lands
Assessment Task Force.
B) Land Use - Chesapeake Bay Program partners have agreed to use data generated by the
Natural Resouce Inventory (NRI) for all land use issues, particularly to track the rate of
development of forest and agriculture lands. The NRI is conducted by the United States
Department of Agriculture every five years. It captures data on land cover and use, soil
erosion, prime farmland, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation practices, and
related resource attributes. The inventory provides statistical sampling based estimates of
the total area of rural and developed lands within each county. In 2000, data from the period
1992 through 1997 will be available to establish the farm/forest/urban lands baseline.
Subsequent 5 year conversion rates will be calculated with future NRI data against this
-------
32
VI. Sound Land Use
baseline.
Implementation Schedule
2001 Implement Bay watershed land cover mapping in partnership with MRLC 2000 (Use
fall 2000 to spring 2001 Landsat 7 imagery and corresponding ground truthing.)
Resource Lands Assessment Task Force completes assessment.
USD A continues NRI data collection.
2002 Update basin-wide land cover maps. Calculate gains and losses of wetlands and
riparian forest buffers using land cover maps and state and federal tracking data.
USD A continues NRI data collection.
-------
33
Figures and Attachments
Figure 2 Draft Proposed Refined Designated Use Categories for Chesapeake Bay
and Tidal Tributary Waters. Designated Uses arrayed with depth (A) and across
space (B).
Cross Section of Bay or Tidal Tributary
Seasonally Avaiiabla " A,
Deep Channel Habitat
Oblique View of the "Chesapeake Bay" and Its Tidal Rivers
€1
j
——
g
{ i
JJ
aBHHHK
h
-------
34
Figures and Attachments
Figure 3. 5 Year Plan for Updating the Toxics Characterization
"BY2005, UPDATE TOXICS CHARACTERIZATION"
5 YEAR PLAN - Revised August 8, 2000
SCIENTISTS
ASSESS TOXIC IMPACTS
ON LIVING RESOURCES
REGIONAL FOCUS WG
MAKE
CHARACTERIZATION
O
O
O
O
o
o
TT
O
o
if)
©
o
First Cut Assessment
Ml) Eastern Shore Rivers
• Wye • Big Annemesse:
• Wicomico • Manokin
Confirmatory Assessments
(if necessary)
• Gunpowder
• Patuxent
• Bush
• Lower Potomac
• Middle
•Northeast
• Magothy
•Elk/Bohemia
• South/Rhode
•Chester
•Upper Mid. York
•Choptank
1 Middle Rappahannock
1 Mattaponi
1 Pamunkey
1 Upper/Middle James
Confirmatory Assessments
(if necessary)
•Wye ,
• Wicomico ,
• Manokin ,
•Pocomoke
•Big Annemessex
Lower Rappahannock
Mobjack Bay
Mainstem Bay
Confirmatory Assessments
(if necessary)
* * All data will be made available to states lor 303(d) listing
*
FINALIZE TOXICS CHARACTERIZATION
~
-------
A -1 Figures and Attachments
Table 1. Monitoring Needs, Current Funding Levels, and 3-Year Projections
Monitoring Need
Funded By
Current $$
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
Oyster Abundance, Biomass & Disease
EPA / CBP
$0
$50,000
$50,000
(Fishery Independent)
VIMS
$80,000
$105,000
$105,000
$105,000
MDNR
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
NOAA
$50,000
$50,000
Shortfall
$0
$0
$100,000
$150,000
Subtotal
$210,000
$285,000
$335,000
$335,000
Oyster Sanctuaries
NOAA
CBF
States
Fishery Dependent Surveys -
States
$355,000
$355,000
$355,000
$355,000
Commercial & Recreational
Shortfall
$0
$0
$500,000
$500,000
Subtotal
$355,000
$355,000
$855,000
$855,000
Blue Crab Independent Surveys
MD DNR
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
VMRC
$425,000
$550,000
$550,000
$550,000
NOAA
$125,000
Shortfall
$0
$100,000
$275,000
$275,000
Subtotal
$775,000
$875,000
$1,050,000
$1,050,000
Problematic Exotic Species
USFWS
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
VADEQ
$75,250
$75,250
$75,250
$75,250
MD DNR
$147,000
$147,000
$147,000
$147,000
PA DEP
$135,000
$135,000
$135,000
$135,000
Shortfall
$0
$0
$200,000
$200,000
Subtotal
$532,250
$532,250
$732,250
$732,250
Fish Passage Efficacy
VADEQ
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
MD DNR
$46,000
$46,000
$46,000
$46,000
PA DEP
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
River Basin Commiss
$18,000
$18,000
$18,000
$18,000
Shortfall
$0
$0
$36,000
$36,000
Subtotal
$179,000
$179,000
$215,000
$215,000
Migratory Fish Populations
VADEQ
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
MD DNR
$437,000
$437,000
$437,000
$437,000
PA DEP
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
-------
A - 2
Figures and Attachments
Monitoring Need
Funded By
Current $$
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
River Basin Commiss
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
Subtotal
$856,000
$860,500
$896,500
$896,500
Multi-species, Fisheries-Indep. Surveys
NOAA
$425,000
$425,000
Others
Shortfall
$0
$0
$3,750,000
$3,750,000
Subtotal
$425,000
$425,000
$3,750,000
$3,750,000
Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
EPA / CBP
$284,400
$284,400
$284,400
$284,400
MD DNR
$251,000
$251,000
$251,000
VADEQ
$92,000
$92,000
$92,000
$92,000
Subtotal
$627,400
$627,400
$627,400
$376,400
Benthos
MD DNR
$218,000
$218,000
$218,000
$218,000
VADEQ
$192,000
$192,000
$192,000
$192,000
Subtotal
$410,000
$410,000
$410,000
$410,000
SAV Distribution and Abundance
EPA / CBP
$140,000
$140,000
$140,000
$140,000
(Aerial survey)
VIMS
$83,000
$83,000
$83,000
$83,000
VADEQ
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
MD DNR
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
USFWS
$35,000
$0
$0
$0
Shortfall
$0
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
Subtotal
$348,000
$348,000
$348,000
$348,000
SAV Restoration Monitoring
VIMS
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
MD DNR
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
Shortfall
$0
$0
$50,000
$50,000
Subtotal
$46,500
$46,500
$96,500
$96,500
Habitat Restoration Site Monitoring
Shortfall
$0
$0
$40,000
$40,000
Non-Tidal Biological Network
MD DNR
$470,000
$499,000
$503,000
$508,000
VADEQ
$180,000
$180,000
$180,000
$180,000
PA DEP
Shortfall
$0
$0
$30,000
$30,000
Subtotal
$650,000
$679,000
$683,000
$688,000
Retention of Susquehanna Sediment
Shortfall
$23,000
$25,000
$111,500
Subtotal
$0
$23,000
$25,000
$111,500
Tidal WQ: Fixed Station Network
EPA/CBP-Mainstem
$1,065,100
$1,065,100
**
**
Mainstem & Tribtaries
MD DNR- Tributary
$1,472,000
$1,472,000
$472,000
$472,000
VA DEQ- Mainstem
$107,000
$107,000
$107,000
$107,000
-------
A - 3
Figures and Attachments
Monitoring Need
Funded By
Current $$
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
VA DEQ- Tributary
$265,000
$265,000
$265,000
$265,000
Shortfall
$0
$0
**
**
Subtotal
$2,909,100
$2,909,100
**
**
Tidal WQ: Shallow & Spawning Areas
EPA / CBP
$32,000
$125,000
MD DNR
$41,000
$41,000
VIMS
$0
$76,000
Shortfall
$0
$0
$1,155,000
$1,155,000
Subtotal
$73,000
$242,000
$1,155,000
$1,155,000
Tidal WQ: Remote Sensing Network
NASA/NOAA
$100,000
$100,000
$150,000
$150,000
MD DNR-Buoys
$228,000
$228,000
$228,000
$228,000
Shortfall
Subtotal
$328,000
$328,000
$378,000
$378,000
Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen:
CBP Wet Dep Monitoring Site
EPA / CBP
$38,000
$38,000
$38,000
$38,000
Existing Wet Deposition Network
States, Other Feds
$600,000
$600,000
$600,000
$600,000
Existing Dry Dep Monitoring Sites
EPA/NOAA
$580,000
$580,000
$580,000
$580,000
Adjustment to Existing Wet & Dry Sites
Shortfall
$0
$0
$80,000
$80,000
4 New Hotspot Wet Deposition Stations
Shortfall
$0
$0
$120,000
$120,000
4 New Hotspot Dry Deposition Stations
Shortfall
$0
$0
$230,000
$180,000
Subtotal
$1,218,000
$1,218,000
$1,648,000
$1,598,000
Non-Tidal Water Quality:
Fall Line Monitoring
USGS
$130,000
$130,000
$130,000
$130,000
MD DNR*
$130,000
$130,000
$130,000
$130,000
VADEQ
$205,590
$205,590
$205,590
$205,590
Subtotal
$465,590
$465,590
$465,590
$465,590
Above Fall Line Monitoring
SRBC / PADEP
$145,000
$145,000
$145,000
$145,000
ICPRB / PADEP
$38,000
$38,000
$38,000
$38,000
USGS
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
EPA / CBP
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
Shortfall
$0
$0
$180,000
$360,000
Subtotal
$363,000
$363,000
$543,000
$723,000
Coastal Plain Loads (below fall line)
USGS
$0
$60,000
$60,000
$60,000
EPA / CBP
$0
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
Shortfall
$0
$0
$180,000
$360,000
Subtotal
$0
$150,000
$330,000
$510,000
Toxics Characterization
EPA / CBP
$295,000
$154,000
$300,000
$300,000
-------
A - 4
Figures and Attachments
Monitoring Need
Funded By
Current $$
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
States
Subtotal
$217,000
$512,000
$220,000
$374,000
$220,000
$520,000
$220,000
$520,000
Fish Tissue Monitoring
Shortfall
$0
$0
$0
TBD
Land Cover Monitoring
Shortfall
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
Total Needs
All Partners
$9,581,850
$10,604,350
$13,922,250
$14,323,750
** Projections for EPA/CBP funding for mainstem tidal water quality monitoring in FY02 and FY03 are currently
pending development of new tidal water quality standards. Appropriate level of effort for the mainstem bay cannot
be determined until the standards are finalized and a subsequent design has been determined.
Blank cells in the table indicate monitoring needs for which future cost estimates and funding levies are
currently unavailable. Estimates for these monitoring needs will be developed in the future.
-------
B-l
Figures and Attachments
Attachment B
Summary of Comments on Part I of the Monitoring Strategy
General Comments
• The strategy is more readable and intelligible - continue that approach.
Commitments to add which require monitoring
• By 2003, work with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and others to adopt and begin
implementing strategies that prevent the loss of the sediment retention capabilities of the lower
Susquehanna River dams. [Monitor sediment sources, sinks and loads to better understand
sediment sources (including bedload and riparian areas), sediment transport and fate via the
stream network and through the reservoir system.]
• By 2002, evaluate fmfish and shellfish tissue monitoring programs and consumption estimates to
determine whether they are sufficient for developing, updating, and confirming consumption bans
and advisories caused by chemical contaminants and recommend any necessary improvements.
• By 2007, conduct the necessary monitoring and ^Assessments to determine whether aquatic-
dependent wildlife is experiencing toxic impact-, m the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with particular
emphasis in the three Regions of Concern
• By 2001, ... quantify 'typical pollutant concentrations 'for specific point source sectors and
extrapolate loadings to these sectors throughout the watershed.
• By 2004, complete initial monitoring and assessments to determine the potential for toxic impacts
from episodic chemical contaminant loads from agricultural and urban/suburb an runoff on living
resources..
Response: The commitment to address sediment issues in the lower Susquehanna river has been
incorporated and addressed in the Water Quality section. The two commitments above
concerning toxic impacts to living resources have been incorporated into the Chemical
Contaminants sections. Similarly, the commitments concerning finfish and shellfish tissue
monitoring have also been included in the Chemical Contaminants section. Finally, the
commitment concerning 'typical pollutant concentrations' for specific point source sectors will
draw upon existing data, rather than requiring new monitoring. Due to this, the commitment is
not addressed in the Strategy.
Monitoring Needs
Part I must include monitoring needs for prior commitments as well as C2K commitments.
-------
B-2
Figures and Attachments
(Living Resources Subcommittee members will identify those commitments and needs in the
near future.)
How much should CBP invest in monitoring that isn't required to meet C2K (or prior)
commitments? Examples: harmful algal blooms, state tributary monitoring and beach water
testing.
The monitoring strategy should prioritize the monitoring needs listed and identify how the
monitoring needs will be funded and implemented.
Monitoring for oyster disease may be unnecessary.
Response: Prior commitments relevant to monitoring needs have been identified and incorporated
into the Monitoring Strategy. Monitoring for purposes other than C2K or prior commitments are
not a Chesapeake Bay Program priority and will not be addressed in this document.
Prioritization, funding, and implementation of monitoring needs are addressed in the introduction
to the document. The specific comments regarding oyster disease monitoring remain unresolved;
however, oyster disease monitoring will most likely be addressed by other oyster monitoring, and
not as a separate program.
Ecosystem Management
Tie together the various monitoring components in a more durable ecosystem context. A
compartmentalized vision will limit the utility of the program to address a number of
important management issues (e.g. relationships between pollution control, water/habitat
quality and living resources). If this overarching document lacks this vision, it is unlikely to
emerge from the fleshing-out of individual components.
Monitor habitats and fish populations in the same locations to connect population responses
to habitat conditions.
Near shore water quality monitoring for SAV habitat parameters is inadequately explained.
Add to the 2001 SAV implementation schedule: "investigate and implement methods to
evaluate attainment of water clarity criteria in near shore habitats".
Design plankton monitoring program to provide indicators of ecosystem response to nutrient
and sediment reduction as well as for fish food.
Response: The Multispecies Management section addresses the need to monitor living resources
and habitats concurrently. To address the role plankton data can serve as an indicator of
ecosystem response to water quality improvements, a "Living Resources Response" section has
been added to the Water Quality section. The implementation schedule for SAV monitoring now
includes the above text concerning water clarity criteria. The first comment will be addressed in
-------
B-3
Figures and Attachments
the implementation of the strategy and by the reorganization of the Bay Program structure. A
reorganized and reconstituted Monitoring and Assessment Subcommittee will encourage
cooperation and coordination between Bay Program monitoring and analysis efforts.
Funding Issues
For budget purposes, the IC and BSC must understand that for each monitoring need,
additional funding must be allocated for data analysis, information management, quality
assurance, and sometimes research and modeling, to meet the C2K commitments.
The monitoring strategy should prioritize the monitoring needs listed and identify how the
monitoring needs will be funded and implemented.
Response: Each of these concerns are addressed in the introduction to the strategy. The
introduction outlines CBP funding priorities and clarifies that further investment will be required
for data analysis, information management, QA/QC, etc.
Water Quality
A fundamental reason for monitoring has been omitted - the need to determine trends in
water quality to assess the effectiveness of management decisions. Trend analysis has
provided some of the most compelling and useful monitoring information for making
management decisions.
For tidal water quality standards monitoring, the temporal and spatial aspects of sampling are
premature because standards and criteria are still in development. Put these details in Part II
or Part III of the strategy.
Response: In response to the comment regarding trends, monitoring for trend analyses is not a
goal in and of itself. Some trend analyses may still prove useful, especially for determining living
resource response to water quality improvement, and for diagnosing non-attainments of water
quality standards. The second comment has been addressed in the water quality section. The text
concerning spatial and temporal aspects of the new water quality standards has been removed.
Content regarding the water quality standards is now limited to what is currently developed and
established.
Living Resources
Clarify existing monitoring programs for exotic species, fish passages, and oyster disease.
Clarify monitoring needs for blue crab stocks, watersheds, wetlands and forests.
Response: The strategy now describes currently existing monitoring programs for exotic species,
fish passage, and oyster disease. Future monitoring needs for blue crab stocks, watersheds,
-------
B-#
Figures and Attachments
wetlands, and forests are also clarified.
Oysters
Monitor oyster disease and mortality rates in sanctuaries.
Identify/add oyster monitoring needs from ongoing evaluation of biomass methodologies.
The text should recognize that oyster reef restoration efforts have been ongoing for some
time and that additional State and Federal funds will be dedicated to the pursuit of the 10-
fold oyster goal.
Response: Each of these comments has been addressed in the oyster section of the strategy.
Both current and future oyster disease monitoring are accounted for in this section. The Future
Monitoring Needs section, as well as the Strategy's introduction, also acknowledge that new
monitoring needs will emerge through ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
Multi-species Management
Agree that both fishery-independent monitoring and fishery-dependent monitoring
(commercial and recreational) are needed Bay-wide for stock assessments. For each of
these, size/sex/age composition is needed, even from the recreational sector. (CBSAC,
February 2000)
Consider adding certain specific habitat types (e.g., SAV, marshes) to the habitats identified
for fisheries-independent monitoring.
Include tributary fisheries-independent monitoring in areas known to be important habitat
components for some important target species (e.g., menhaden, striped bass, shad, herring).
Fisheries-independent surveys should include gut-contents monitoring to support analysis of
fish health and population dynamics with food and habitat conditions.
Response: Each of these comments has been incorporated into the Multi-species Management
section of the document.
SAV - Include identification of SAV species.
Response: Opinions on this topic have been varied. While some comments suggested species ID
be included as a SAV monitoring need, other comments specifically disagreed and questioned the
value of SAV species ID information. In light of this disagreement, the issue is not specifically
addressed in the Monitoring Strategy.
Benthos and Plankton - Benthic and planktonic monitoring should be given status similar to SAV
-------
B-5 Figures and Attachments
because they are important food groups for fish, shellfish and birds.
Response: This comment is addressed in the introduction to the Strategy, which treats benthic,
plankton, and SAY monitoring with equal priority.
-------
C-l
Figures and Attachments
Attachment C
Response to Monitoring Strategy Expert Panel Findings and Recommendations
General/Intro. Comments
The Implementation Committee has received STAC's Expert Panel Review of the CBP
Monitoring Program, considered the panel's recommendations, and is providing the following
response to STAC. In general, the IC agrees with many of the comments, and has taken action to
address them. Since the Expert Panel Review, the Monitoring Strategy has been refocused on the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The Strategy now outlines the monitoring needs required to meet
the commitments in the new agreement. The Bay Program committee structure is also changing
to meet new needs and priorities. The Living Resource's Subcommittee recently reorganized to
better address C2K commitments. Similarly, the Monitoring Subcommittee will soon undergo a
substantial reorganization to better coordinate monitoring, assessment, and analysis efforts.
Detailed responses to each of the recommendations follow below.
Finding #1
The Chesapeake Bay's monitoring database is one of the most comprehensive
compilations of its kind nationally and internationally. This data provide extraordinary
resource for evaluating past management strategies to restore the Bay as well as predicting
future conditions and trends.
Recommendation #1
Any changes in the monitoring strategy and collection procedures should complement the
historical record as much as possible. The consequences of any changes in sampling
design should be assessed by government representatives and scientists who are familiar
with both sampling design and the Bay ecosystem.
Response #1
Changes in the existing Chesapeake Bay monitoring programs will be in response to the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, which defines how the Program intends to manage the
ecosystem. Chesapeake 2000 expands and shifts our management objectives, so our
sampling designs will expand and shift accordingly. The assessment of management
actions and prediction of status and trends will continue to be priority monitoring
objectives. Unfortunately, the historical data are not always sensitive enough to establish
cause and effect relationships between management actions and ecosystem responses.
Monitoring network design teams will be formed that consist of state and federal
scientists. They will focus on meeting the objectives in Chesapeake 2000 and assess the
consequences of changes against those needs. The Program acknowledges that existing
-------
C-2
Figures and Attachments
data are utilized for many other research and assessment purposes and that others may be
affected by these changes. However, the consequences of sampling design change on
these efforts will not be assessed.
Finding #2
Analysis and integration of existing monitoring data were not highlighted in the Basin
Wide Monitoring Strategy and presumably have not been a focus of the Bay Program (or
most other restoration projects). Instead, the Bay Program has relied on water quality
modeling to demonstrate that management goals have been accomplished. The review
panel recommends that a full-time research position be created for appropriate
subcommittees to rigorously analyze the existing data and provide expertise to the
subcommittees on future monitoring strategies.
Recommendation #2
Before new programs are developed, the existing monitoring data should be analyzed to
determine its sensitivity and reliability in reflecting ecosystem changes. It is critical to
determine why the empirical data collected by the monitoring program does not coincide
with the predictions of the Bay model.
Response #2
Data analysis and integration are discussed throughout the main body of the Monitoring
Strategy. The Data Analysis Workgroup spends $300,000 per year to analyze water
quality and living resources data. Their work demonstrates that current monitoring data
are sensitive and reliable for status and trend analyses in the open, deep water, and deep
channel designated use areas. Water quality and biological data are inadequate in many
nearshore and fish spawning areas where ecological responses to management actions are
first expected. This deficiency is listed as a priority in the monitoring strategy and is
recognized by the IC as a high priority for Bay Program funding.
Presently, modelers and data analysts are refining the integration of modeling and
monitoring data for dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll and clarity. Annual changes in
hydrology, land use and BMP implementation have been added to the model to see if
predictions better agree with water quality data. Both long term and short term data sets
will be compared. (A 15-year time series of empirical data will be compared to a time
series of Water Quality Model predictions.)
Finding #3
New remote and in situ monitoring technologies are continually developed and utilized by
scientists working in the Chesapeake Bay. These technologies provide much broader
-------
C-3
Figures and Attachments
spatial and temporal coverage of the Bay ecosystem than the existing field collection
system.
Recommendation #3
The Bay Program should embrace and lead in the implementation of remote monitoring
techniques and promote better coordination with existing programs around the Bay (e.g.
CBOS and C-GOOS). However, the implementation of new technologies or
methodologies should occur through a series of inter-calibrations with historical methods
thereby preserving the historical record.
Response #3
Agree. The Bay Program and its partners use several remote monitoring technologies and
are funding projects to expand their use. Maryland DNR is evaluating a spatially intensive
flow-through system for monitoring nearshore areas. Satellite imagery may be useful for
monitoring chlorophyll and turbidity at the surface of the mainstem. These and other
sensors cited by STAC will be considered in the design of the new tidal water quality
network. Landsat imagery will be interpreted for Bay Program model inputs and for
assessing status and trends of wetland and forest buffer areas.
It is standard practice for the Bay Program to validate new methodologies and perform
inter-calibrations with historical methods when new methodologies replace old ones.
Finding #4
Setting priorities to conduct ecosystem management of the Bay have been established in
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, and the Agreement should drive the Basinwide
Monitoring Strategy.
Recommendation #4
The Bay Program should evaluate the objectives of the existing monitoring program and
determine which elements have been completed and if opportunity and resources exist to
address new objectives and priorities identified in the Agreement.
Response #4
The Bay Program has identified monitoring needs to meet Chesapeake 2000 commitments
in the document Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Strategy Part I: Chesapeake Bay Program
Strategic Monitoring Priorities. This document will be sent to Implementation
Committee members of February 22 for their review for approval at the March 8 IC
meeting. Considerable expansion of monitoring will be needed to demonstrate whether or
not the commitments are achieved, however, resources have been identified for some of
the new monitoring programs (e.g., multi-species management and oyster restoration).
-------
C-4
Figures and Attachments
To address resource gaps the Implementation Committee developed general priorities for
Bay Program funding. For those monitoring programs not being funded, STACs
suggestion (p. 4) for the Bay Program to assume a technical coordination role rather than
directly funding monitoring projects can be pursued as long as relevant programs exist to
coordinate.
The most common monitoring objective is to assess progress of management actions by
determining the status and trends of physical, chemical and biological parameters.
Implementation of management actions will continue so it could be argued that we keep
the same monitoring designs. For water quality, however, the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement specifies more stringent management objectives.
The current management objective is to achieve fixed nutrient load reductions, and the
resultant water quality response is variable. Current data analysis and monitoring focus on
trend analysis to detect the magnitude and direction of this response.
The future management objective is to achieve fixed water quality standards, and nutrient
load reductions will be varied. Data analysis and monitoring will need to emphasize
baseline conditions, causes of problems, and rates of change to meet standards. The Data
Analysis Workgroup has begun integrating living resource, water quality and nutrient
loading information to identify problems, probable causes and controlling factors in major
basins. Their results will help modelers and tributary teams determine effective load
reduction scenarios.
Finding #5
The current subcommittees of the Bay Program (e.g. Living Resources, Toxics, Air, etc.)
do not coordinate their respective monitoring programs effectively.
Recommendation #5
The existing subcommittee structure should be linked under three major committees
(Modeling, Monitoring and Management/Research). These larger committees should
meet quarterly and coordinate the functions of the subcommittees. For example, the
Monitoring Committee would coordinate field sampling trips for toxics, nutrients, etc.
The Management/Research Committee would ensure that the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement goals are being met and advise the Bay Program on the management and
research information needs to achieve these goals. Membership in these major committees
would include representative(s) from the existing subcommittees (e.g. Living Resources,
Toxics, Air, etc.).
Response #5
Currently, oversight of monitoring programs is divided among the Monitoring, Living
Resources, Air, Toxics, and Nutrient Subcommittees. Each of these subcommittees has in
its membership technical people or technical workgroups who focus on monitoring and
-------
C-5
Figures and Attachments
data analysis issues. This structure is good for each subject area, but is weak in
coordination/integration among subcommittees and in providing policy guidance to the IC
and BSC.
The Bay Program is considering a new structure in which a Monitoring and Assessment
Subcommittee would operate through a series of joint workgroups with other
Subcommittees, but would provide oversight and coordination consistent with the
priorities in the new Monitoring Strategy.
The Monitoring and Assessment committee may consist of the chairs or representatives of
the technical workgroups and/or monitoring program experts. Their mission would be
oriented toward policy issues and monitoring needs across the Program. They would
advise the IC and BSC on monitoring issues and priorities. Their main functions would be
to: 1) Coordinate and communicate monitoring program and data analysis efforts, 2)
Oversee implementation and revision of the monitoring strategy, 3) Review monitoring
and data analysis proposals, make budget recommendations, review products, 4) Examine
new technologies, and 5) Integrate Bay Program monitoring activities with other national
and regional efforts.
The proposal has received positive feedback from the existing Monitoring Subcommittee
and the Implementation Committee. It preserves the connection to monitoring that
subcommittees have developed already in their workgroups, strengthens coordination
among subcommittees, provides a forum to discuss monitoring policy, and a mechanism to
advise the IC and BSC on the big picture monitoring issues.
Finding #6
Coordinating and integrating the findings of regional monitoring networks including
federal, state and local programs remains one of the largest challenges for implementing
restoration programs in the Chesapeake Bay.
Recommendation #6
The Bay Program should commit to a larger leadership role in the Bay region and work to
coordinate monitoring and management/research efforts as well as ensure compatible
sampling designs and methodologies among government and academic studies. The role
of facilitator is one of the major strengths of the Bay Program and should be treated as a
high priority activity.
Response #6
This would be an appropriate function for the proposed Monitoring and Assessment
Subcommittee described above.
------- |