[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
"nesapeake Bay Study 7! @ilff.RY REPORT 41 14 7777 7 j,7 AM Ab io GC 511 .C44 1984 C-v Chesapeake Bay Study SUMMARY REPORT Property of CSC Library U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENIER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 co US Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District September 1984 IJL @17 OR, fIA FOREWORD This is one of the volumes compris- Bay communities in which structural ing the final report on the Corps of and nonstructural measures could be Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study. beneficial. The report represents the culmina- tion of many years of study of the The final report of the Chesapeake Bay and its associated social, Bay Study is composed of three economic, and environmental proc- major elements: (1) Summary, (2) esses and resources. The overall Low Freshwater Inflow Study, and study was done in three distinct (3) Tidal Flooding Study. The developmental phases. A description Chesapeake Bay Study Summary is provided below of each study Report includes a description of the phase, followed by a description of results, findings, and recommenda- the organization of the report. tions of all the above described phases of the Chesapeake Bay Study. The initial phase of the overall pro- It is incorporated in four parts: gram involved the inventory and assessment of the existing physical, Summary Report economic, social, biological, and en- Supplement A-Problem vironmental conditions of the Bay. Identification The results of this effort were Supplement B-Public published in a seven volume docu- Involvement ment titled Chesapeake Bay Existing Supplement C-Hydraulic Model Conditions Report, released in 1973. This was the first publication to pre- sent a comprehensive survey of the The Low Freshwater Inflow Study tidal Chesapeake and its resources as consists of a Main Report and six a single entity. supporting appendices. The report includes: The second phase of the program focused on projection of water resource requirements in the Bay Main Report Region for the year 2020. Completed Appendix A-Problem in 1977, the Chesapeake Bay Future Identification Conditions Report documents the Appendix B-Plan Formulation results of that work. The 12-volume Appendix C-Hydrology report contains projections for Appendix D-Hydraulic Model resource categories such as naviga- Test tion, recreation, water supply, water Appendix E-Biota quality, and land use. Also presented Appendix F-Map Folio are assessments of the capacities of the Bay system to meet the identified future requirements, and an iden- tification of problems and conflicts The Tidal Flooding Study consists that may occur with unrestrained similarly of a Main Report and six growth in the future. appendices. The report includes: In the third and final study phase, Main Report two resource problems of particular Appendix A-Problem concern in Chesapeake Bay were ad- Identification dressed in detail: low freshwater in- Appendix B-Plan Formulation, flow and tidal flooding. In the Low Assessment, and Evaluation Freshwater Inflow Study, results Appendix C-Recreation and of testing on the Chesapeake Bay Natural Resources Hydraulic Model were used to assess Appendix D-Social and Cultural the effects on the Bay of projected Resources future depressed freshwater inflows. Appendix E-Engineering, Physical and biological changes were Design, and Cost Estimates quantified and used in assessments Appendix F-Economics of potential social, economic, and environmental impacts. The Tidal Flooding Study included develop- ment of preliminary stage-damage relationships and identification of Table of Contents Chapter Title Page I Introduction .................................. I Authority ................................... I Study Purpose and Scope ..................... 3 Study Process and the Report .................. 3 Study Participants and Coordination ........... 3 Prior Corps Reports and Supporting Studies ..... 4 Related Water Resource Activities .............. 5 Study Area Description ......................... 7 The Chesapeake Bay ......................... 7 Natural Resources and Environmental Setting .... 9 Physiography ............................. 9 Soils ..................................... 10 Climate .................................. 10 Surface and Groundwater Resources .......... 10 Biota .................................... 11 Aquatic Plants .......................... 11 Fish and Wildlife ........................ 11 Important Plant and Animal Organisms ..... 12 Demographic and Economic Characteristics ..... 12 Existing Conditions ........................ 12 Population and Employment .............. 12 Land Use ............................... 14 Future Conditions ......................... 16 Population and Employment .............. 16 Land Use ............................... 17 Sensitivity Analysis ........................ 19 Institutional Framework ...................... 20 Problems, Needs and Opportunities .............. 23 Problem Inventory ........................... 23 Water Supply ............................. 23 Water Quality ............................. 25 Outdoor Recreation ........................ 26 Navigation ................................ 27 Tidal Flooding ............................ 29 Shoreline Erosion .......................... 29 Fish and Wildlife .......................... 30 Electric Power ............................. 32 Noxious Weeds ............................ 32 Problems Selected for Study ................... 33 Relation Between Model Tests and Resource Studies ................................. 34 Initial Model Testing Program ............... 34 Expanded Study and Testing Program ........ 35 Revisions to the Expanded Study Program ..... 36 National Objective ........................... 36 Planning Objectives .......................... 37 Planning Constraints ......................... 37 v IV Tidal Flooding Study ........................... 39 Identification of Problem Communities ......... 39 Causes of Tidal Flooding .................... 39 Existing Tidal Flooding Areas ............... 39 Future Tidal Flooding Areas ................. 40 Screening of Communities for Detailed Analysis ................................. 40 Detailed Problem Definition ................... 43 Plan Formulation and Evaluation .............. 43 Survey of Potential Management Measures .... 44 Structural Solutions ...................... A4 Non-Structural Solutions ................. 44 No Action .............................. 45 Development of Alternate Plans .............. 46 Maryland Communities ................... 46 Virginia Communities .................... 46 Findings and Conclusions ....................... 48 Low Freshwater Inflow Study .................... 49 Problem Identification ....................... 49 Water Supply Demand and Consumptive Losses ................................. 51 Problem Identification Hydraulic Model Test . . 51 Problems and Needs ........................ 52 Plan Formulation ............... 59 Planning Objectives and Assumptions ......... 59 Potential Measures ......................... 60 Preliminary Screening ...................... 60 Formulation of Flow Supplementation Plans ... 61 Conservation ............................ 61 Reasonable Storage ...................... 62 Storage Requirements .................... 63 Phase I Plan Development ................ 63 Phase 11 Plan Development ................ 64 Most Promising Alternatives .................. 66 VI Public Involvement ............................ 69 Overview ................................... 69 Purpose .................................. 69 Public Involvement Measures ................ 69 General Information ..................... 69 Interaction-Dialogue .................... 69 Review-Reaction ....................... 70 Relationship to the Planning Process .......... 70 Description of Public Involvement Program ..... 70 Organizational Structure .................... 70 Advisory Group ......................... 70 Steering Committee ...................... 71 Task Groups ............................ 71 Coordination Process ...................... 72 Public Involvement Activites .................. 72 Initial Study Phase ....................... 72 Existing and Future Conditions Phase ....... 72 Detailed Study Phase ..................... 73 Hydraulic Model ........................ 73 Public Views and Comments ................... 73 VII Summary and Findings ......................... 75 Summary ................................... 75 Significant Findings .......................... 76 Existing and Future Conditions Reports ..... 76 Tropical Storm Agnes Study ............... 77 Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model .......... 78 Tidal Flooding Study ..................... 78 Low Freshwater Inflow Study .............. 78 vi V111 Recommendations ............................. 81 Glossary ...................................... 83 Acknowledgements and Credits .................. 87 List of Tables Number Title Page 1 Basin Characteristics of Major Chesapeake Bay Tributaries .................................. 11 2 Important Chesapeake Bay Plants and Animals ..... 13 3 1980 Population and Employment By Sub- Region Chesapeake Bay Study Area ............ 16 4 Comparison of OBERS Series C and Series E Projections Population and Employment ........ 18 5 Institutions with Water Resources Responsibilities Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin ................ 20 6 Average Water Demands Chesapeake Bay Area ..... 24 7 Federally Authorized Main Channel Depths Chesapeake Bay Region ....................... 28 8 Tidal Flood Damages ........................... 29 9 Critically Floodprone Communities ............... 30 10 Potential Model Tests .......................... 35 11 Tidal Flooding Critical Problem Areas ............ 41 12 Average Annual Damages Due to Tidal Flooding ... 44 13 Plans for Tidal Flood Protection-Maryland Communities ................................ 47 14 Plans for Tidal Flood Protection-Virginia Communities ................................ 47 15 Final Study Species List ......................... 54 16 Important Species Dependent on Tidal Freshwater and Oligohaline Zones ........................ 55 17 Summary of Environmental Impacts .............. 55 18 Summary of Economic Impacts .................. 58 19 Summary of Social Impacts ..................... 59 20 Priority Problem Species ........................ 59 21 Conservation Potentials ........................ 62 22 Potential Reasonable Upstream Storage Chesapeake Bay Basin ................................... 62 23 Storages Required to Reduce Drought Salinities in Main Bay ................................... 63 24 Results of Phase 11 Screening .................... 64 25 Storage Requirements for Multi-Season Plans ...... 65 26 Most Promising Alternatives .................... 66 27 Benefits of Most Promising Alternatives ........... 67 vii List of Figures Number Title Page 1 Chesapeake Bay Study Area ...................... 2 2 Chesapeake Bay Study Organization ................ 4 3 Circulation in a Partially Mixed Estuary .............. 8 4 Physiographic Provinces of the Study Area ........... 9 5 Fishes: Their Use of the Estuary .................... 12 6 SMSA Sub-Regions in Chesapeake Bay Study Area .... 15 7 Employment by Economic Sectors, Chesapeake Bay Study Area and United States (1980) .............. 17 8 Major Land Use Types Chesapeake Bay Region (1970) ...................................... 17 9 Series C Projections of Population (1980-2020) ........ 19 10 Series C Projections of Employment (1980-2020) ...... 19 11 Average Water Use by Type Chesapeake Bay Region (1970) ................................ 24 12 Water Quality Problems in Chesapeake Bay .......... 26 13 Shorelands of Chesapeake Bay .................... 30 14 Projected Energy Requirements for the Chesapeake Bay Market Areas ............................ 33 15 Relation between Resource Studies and Hydraulic Model Testing ................................ 34 16 Floodprone Communities Designated for Detailed Study ...................................... 43 17 Water Supply Demands .......................... 50 18 Consumptive Losses ............................. 51 19 Ratio of Incremental Consumptive Losses to Freshwater Inflows ..................................... 52 20 Intrusion of Safinity-Long Term Average ........... 53 21 Intrusion of Salinity During Drought ................ 53 22 Gearing Public Involvement Measures to the Public .... 70 23 Chesapeake Bay Study Organization ...... I ......... 71 viii pq -Z@ 7-- ......... 7.: 7@7 Chapter I Introduction Chesapeake Bay is a vast natural, eco- provided in Section 312 of the River nomic, recreation, and social re- and Harbor Act of 1965, adopted on source. The Bay and its numerous October 27, 1965. This section reads tributaries serve many purposes. It as follows: provides a transportation network on which much of the region's eco- (a) The Secretary of the Army, act- nomic development has been based, ing through the Chief of Engineers, wide variety of water-oriented is authorized and directed to make a recreation opportunities, a home for complete investigation and study of numerous fish and wildlife species, a water utilization and control of the source of water supply for both Chesapeake Bay Basin, including the municipalities and industries, and a waters of the Baltimore Harbor and disposal site for many waste prod- including, but not limited to the ucts. Human activities interact with following: navigation, fisheries, the natural resources and processes flood control, control of noxious of the Bay to create a diverse system. weeds, water pollution, water quality Unfortunately, problems sometimes control, beach erosion, and recrea- arise when people's uses of the tion. In order to carry out the pur- resources conflict with each other or poses of this section, the Secretary, with the natural environment. Thus, acting through the Chief of En- the impetus for the Chesapeake Bay gineers, shall construct, operate, and Study came from a need to plan for maintain in the State of Maryland a the most efficient use of the Bay's hydraulic model of the Chesapeake natural resources. Bay Basin and associated technical The Chesapeake Bay Study Area was center. Such model and center may defined as the shaded portion of be utilized, subject to such terms Figure 1. It encompassed all the and conditions as the Secretary counties and Standard Metropolitan deems necessary, by any depart- Statistical Areas (SMSA) adjacent to ment, agency, or instrumentality of or directly influencing Chesapeake the Federal Government or of the Bay and its sub-estuaries. In all, States of Maryland, Virginia, and almost 25,000 square miles in parts Pennsylvania, in connection with of three states and the District of any research, investigation, or study Columbia were included. The shaded being carried on by them of any portion of Figure I contains about aspect of the Chesapeake Bay Basin. 20,600 square miles of land area and The study authorized by this section 4,400 square miles of water sur ace, shall be given priority. and is hereafter referred to as the (b) There is authorized to be ap- "Study Area" or the "Bay Region." propriated not to exceed $6,000,000 The area under examination was ex- to carry out this section. panded during the water demand projection phase of the Low An additional appropriation for the Freshwater Inflow Study to include Chesapeake Bay Study was provided the entire Chesapeake Bay drainage in Section 3 of the River Basin area (over 64,000 square miles). The Monetary Authorization Act of 1970, boundary of the Chesapeake Bay adopted on June 19, 1970. This sec- drainage area is shown on Figure I tion reads as follows: along with the primary Study Area. Authority In addition to the previous au- thorization, the completion of the The authority for the Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Basin Compre- Bay Study and the construction of hensive Study, Maryland, Virginia, the related hydraulic model was and Pennsylvania, authorized by *UTICA WICK ALBANY* -5-1 st'.b'o ELMIR4 Ti... . ............. '4&AMtN OB [email protected]: '\0 S RANTON 'in' LLIAMSPPRTO -1;'*" I Jett, r... WILKES 13,@E*A m wo. 'in L I ... field ( F-I YL -1.0h.,ob, .9, RLROUDSBURG PUNXSUTAVVNE soyd I I oylk,11 Lehigh 7' ' ' " -11 @\ I *,ALLENT N ALT007 Belts , Blacks HA R II- a-L o"in LANCASTE cc... SOMERSET 0 Ildl.,d I k I-otte, r 3 Ch"'t" . Ad- PA lomste, @Irnde. ORK rD 1--Y IN All F- W h HAGEQs Cecil y "4 tied llktlaol@@ Jim- A( castle .!B!AL;T1=mC I Cumberland 0 CLARKSBURG J.'_ _' 1@'-.-Po- 1 Cape .rk sai-l" on I 11od... **7 1Pend.1 no" Kept ma MOK EFIE@Do 11h ... 1..@ G D fouquier\ Foi"*fox P It, im, I N @P it DEL Highl.ed w Ion, L HARRISPNBURG 7! D I in % It . 1-N A. R.,k- Ile liar b"d Net- on- I it 9.1ki.sh. Me C ..be'/ P*, "' , HBURG \jRICH IND G I choi, -ROA@O 0 .. Ito. fit t '@E A.eh. (it; o Oldio,d Not,. Geo, F-kli. su'l, lJo,4.,4 on U "u g S.@- NORFOLK oo-jk DANVILLW An. [email protected], I, on ii.- k' NC MURFEESBAR, e In.,d. U 'tlvd Wi. on, -og re, .P, 'r@ Figure I ChesaPeake Bay Study Area 2 the River and Harbor Act of 1965 reproducing, to a manageable scale, Report provided the basic informa- is hereby authorized at an esti- many of the natural events and tion necessary to address the third mated cost of $9,000,000. human changes affecting the Bay. study objective. In June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes The level of detail in this report is in this third phase, the most pressing moved through the mid-Atlantic generally of a framework scope. The problems were identified and prelim- states causing extensive damage to report identifies existing and future inary solutions were formulated. the resources of Chesapeake Bay. conditions, present and potential The two problems receiving the most Public Law 92-607, the Supplemen- problems, and possible solutions. It attention in the third phase were tidal tal Appropriation Act of 1973, was has not been prepared as a detailed flooding along Chesapeake Bay authorization document which rec- signed on October 31, 1972 and in- ommends specific projects for im- shorelines and low freshwater inflow cluded $275,000 for additional plementation. Rather, systematic to Chesapeake Bay. The tidal flood- studies of the storm's effect on comparisons are made of various ing problem and alternative solutions Chesapeake Bay. alternatives in terms of technical are discussed in Chapter V. Study Purpose feasibility; economic, environmen- Study Participants tal, social, and cultural impacts, im- and Scope plementation arrangements; 'and and Coordination public acceptability. Due to the Historically, measures taken to con- range of alternatives considered, the trol and utilize the water and related diverse geographic nature of the land resources of the Bay Region were Study Area, and the complexity of oriented toward solving individual the Bay itself, only the significant problems. No thorough examination effects of the alternatives are had been undertaken which con- evaluated. sidered the interrelationships among the Bay's resources, problems, and solutions. Study Process and the Report The Chesapeake Bay Study was ini- The study was conducted in three tiated in 1967 to fill this gap. The phases; each responsive to one of the study's overall purpose was to con- objectives. The first phase was com- duct a comprehensive investigation pleted in 1973. It consisted of an in- of the entire Bay Region so that the ventory of existing conditions. The most beneficial uses could be made findings were published in a docu- The problems of the Chesapeake Bay of its resources. Within this broad ment titled Chesapeake Bay Existing are of such complexity and magni- study purpose, three major study ob- Conditions Report. Included in the tude and involve so many varied dis- jectives were established. These are: seven-volume report was a descrip- ciplines that no single entity could be tion of the existing physical, eco- expected to have the requisite per- � To assess the existing physical, nomic, recreation, social, biological, sonnel, equipment, and technical chemical, biological, economic, and environmental conditions of know how to accomplish the many and environmental conditions Chesapeake Bay. This report was the special studies needed to complete of Chesapeake Bay. first published document that fur- this comprehensive investigation. � To project the future water re- nished a comprehensive survey of the Such expertise does exist, however, source needs of the Bay Region entire Bay Region and treated Chesa- among the many agencies which have to the year 2020. peake Bay as a single entity. More historically been responsible for importantly, the Existing Conditions certain features of water resource � To formulate and recommend Report assembled much of the data development. solutions to priority problems required to project future water using the Chesapeake Bay Hy- resource needs in the Study Area and The study was conceived as a coor- draulic Model. to assess the ability of the Bay to dinated partnership among federal, satisfy these needs. state, and local agencies and in- As directed in the authorization, the terested scientific institutions. Each study included the construction and A projection of future conditions involved agency was asked to pro- operation of a hydraulic model. The was completed in 1978. The results vide leadership in those disciplines in purpose in using a physical model were published in the 12-volume which it had special competence. To was to examine complicated hy- Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions furnish the necessary avenues for draulic processes not readily amen- Report. The primary focus of this public participation, an Advisory able to analysis by other analytical second phase was on the projection Group, a Steering Committee, and methods. The Chesapeake Bay Hy- of water resource needs to the year five Task Groups were established draulic Model was constructed be- 2020. In addition, problems and con- (see Figure 2). The initial planning of tween 1973 and 1976 at Matapeake, flicts were identified which could the study was coordinated with the Maryland. Following model adjust- result from uncontrolled growth and former National Council of Marine ment and verification, tests were per- use of the Bay's resources. Taken Resources and Engineering Develop- formed between 1978 and 1982. The together, the Existing Conditions ment through its Committee on hydraulic model provided a means of Report and the Future Conditions Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone. 3 The overall management of the Chesapeake Bay Study was the responsibility of the District, Corps of Engineers. His staff included professionals from the fields of engineering, economics, and the social, physical, and biological sciences. Hydraulic modelling expertise was provided by personnel from the Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The involvement of the general public was also an important facet of study coordination. The purpose in establishing such coordination was to provide two-way communication between the Corps and the public-at-large. A number of public involvement techniques were employed. An informal liaison was established with the Citizen's Program for Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (CPCB), an organization representing a wide range of groups in the Bay Region. It participated actively in the first two study phases. Two sets of public meetings were held. One was held at the study's outset to inform the public of study initiation and to solicit views as to the direction the study should take. The second was held near the completion of the future projections phase to inform the public of progress on the overall program and to solicit views regarding the study findings to date. In addition to the study's planning reports, a number of other printed materials and techniques were used to inform the public about the study. These included a leaflet on the hydraulic model, reprints of articles, transcripts from public meetings, periodic newsletters, tours of the hydraulic model, and a film titled Planning for a Better Bay. More information about study coordination and public participation can be found in Chapter VI of the Summary Report and in Supplement B, Public Involvement. Prior Corps Reports and Supporting Studies ECONOMIC PROJECTION WATER QUALITY & SUPPLY FLOOD CONTROL RECREATION TASK GROUP FISH & WILDLIFE TASK GROUP WASTE TREATMENT, ---- NAVIGATION,EROSION COORDINATION GROUP WEEDS TASK GROUP FISHERIES TASK GROUP ------------------ ---------------------- ------------------- -------------- --------------- Figure 2 Chesapeake Bay Study Organization The need for a complete and comprehensive investigation of Chesapeake Bay has long been recognized. One BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ADIVISORY GROUP STEE--ING COMMITTEE, LIAISON & BASIC RESEARCH ---------------- ----------------------- ---------------- ----------------------- ---------------- ----------------------- Figure 2 Chesapeake Bay Study Organization 4 of the first steps toward what might of Tropical Storm Agnes on Chesa- A number of large reservoirs were be considered a systems analysis was peake Bay was published in October completed within the Bay's drainage a 1959 report titled Chesapeake Bay 1975. area during the study. These projects Fishing Harbor Economics Study, included: Aylesworth Creek, Foster Maryland and Virginia. The study Studies and reports were also Joseph Sayers, Raystown, Cowa- provided, for the first time, a broad prepared by others in direct support nesque, and Tioga-Hammond Lakes overview of the commercial fishing of the Corps' comprehensive study. in the Susquehanna River Basin; industry and a consistent basis for The economic and demographic pro- Bloomington and Little Seneca the comparison of fishing benefits in jections, for example, were prepared Lakes in the Potomac River Basin; the Bay Region. by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Gathright Lake in the James (BEA), U.S. Department of Com- River Basin. While most of these In 1961, the District Engineer, merce. Projections of industrial projects are primarily for flood con- Baltimore District, prepared a water supply were prepared specif- trol and recreation, some do offer pamphlet concerning Chesapeake ically for this study by the Bureau of substantial capability for low flow Bay called An Appraisal of Water Domestic Commerce, U.S. Depart- augmentation. Likewise, dozens of Resource Needs Projected to the ment of Commerce. All agricultural small navigation and shoreline ero- Year 2060. This pamphlet recom- water demand projections, including sion projects have been completed mended that a cooperative study be rural domestic, livestock, and irriga- along the Bay and its tributaries. made by federal and state agencies tion uses, were done by the Eco- responsible for various Bay re- nomic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Several major studies dealing with sources. In the same year, a basin Department of Agriculture. All pro- critical problems in specific geo- plan for Chesapeake Bay was pre- jections and inventories relative to graphic areas have also been finished. pared by the Baltimore District in recreational uses were made by the The Metropolitan Washington Area cooperation with the Norfolk Dis- then Bureau of Outdoor Recreations Water Supply Study, for instance, trict. The Basin Plan, Chesapeake (BOR), U.S. Department of the In- was conducted by the Corps of En- Bay was based on readily available terior. The fish and wildlife analyses gineers. The Corps examined the information and consisted of a brief were conducted jointly by the Fish water supply problem facing Wash- description of the status of water and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. ington, DC, and seven surrounding development and planning in the Bay Department of the Interior, and the counties in Maryland and Virginia. Region. It also presented a program National Marine Fisheries Service The Potomac River is the area's ma- for bringing the basin plan up to (NMFS), U.S. Department of Com- jor water supply source, and solu- date. This basin plan was the first merce. The Chesapeake Research tions were proposed which stressed attempt to assemble comprehensive Consortium, Inc. prepared a report better management of that resource. information about the Bay's re- concerning the biota of Chesapeake A complementary study was per- sources, but it understandably Bay, and the projections of electric formed by the State of Maryland to provided only a very superficial power needs were prepared by the determine the proper amount of analysis. Federal Power Commission. Western flowby (water remaining in the river Eco-Systems Technology Inc. and after all withdrawals have been These reports and similar studies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made) during low flow conditions in conducted by other agencies high- prepared reports which assisted in the Potomac River. The minimum lighted the need for a comprehensive the assessment of the effects of flowby level was defined to be the study that produced a Bay-wide decreasing freshwater inflow on the amount of water necessary to main- management plan. Advances in biota of the Bay. These supporting tain acceptable aquatic habitat in the hydraulic modelling also stimulated studies, and others too numerous to lower fluvial and upper estuarine interest in using such techniques to mention in this Summary Report, portions of the Potomac River. Ad- evaluate certain hydrodynamic phe- served as information sources for the ditionally, the United States Geo- nomena in Chesapeake Bay. Thus, Chesapeake Bay Study. logical Survey (USGS) conducted a the authorizing legislation provided study of the Potomac River estuary by Section 312 of the River and Related Water to better understand the interactions Harbor Act of 1965 directed that a Resource Activities of hydrodynamic, chemical, and comprehensive study be conducted, biological processes in the tidal river- and that a hydraulic model be used in Since the Chesapeake Bay Study was estuarine system. support of such a study. initiated in 1967, a wide variety of Two major channel deepening related water resource activities have studies were also completed by the The resulting Chesapeake Bay Study been underway. Some of these have Corps of Engineers during the course was conducted between 1967 and had a direct bearing on the outcome of the Chesapeake Bay Study. The 1983. During this time, several in- of the study. Other activities have Norfolk Harbor and Channels Study terim documents were published by benefited from the information gen- proposed deepening the channels the Baltimore District. Two of the erated during the Chesapeake Bay and improving the anchorage areas most important of these, the Existing Study. Still others have benefited serving the port of Hampton Roads. Conditions Report and the Future from tests conducted on the Ches- The Baltimore Harbor and Channels Conditions Report, have already apeake Bay Hydraulic Model. The Study also proposed similar improve- been discussed in a previous section. following paragraphs discuss the ments for the facilities serving the A third interim report titled Impact more important of these activities. port of Baltimore. It should be noted that tests were conducted on the The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model findings clearly indicate that the Bay for both of these studies. is an ecosystem with increasing pollution burdens and declines in desired resources. It is also evident One other important study, known that actions throughout the Bay's as the Chesapeake Bay Program, watershed affect the water quality of was conducted by the U.S. Environ- the rivers flowing into the Bay. mental Protection Agency (EPA) be- Degradation of the Bay's water and tween 1976 and 1983. The EPA was sediment quality can, in turn, affect directed to coordinate research con- the living resources. Thus, effective cerning Chesapeake Bay, and espe- management of the Chesapeake Bay cially to assess the principal factors must be based on an understanding adversely affecting the Bay's water of, and an ability to control both quality. The EPA was also charged point and nonpoint sources of pollu- with determining which government tion throughout the Chesapeake Bay agencies had resource management basin. To achieve this objective, it is responsibilities and with devising essential that the states and federal ways to improve coordination government work closely together to among them. The three main areas develop specific management plans of focus concerning water quality to reduce the flow of pollutants into were: the presence of toxic sub- the Bay, and to restore and maintain stances, nutrient enrichment, and the Bay's ecological integrity. the reduction of valuable submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). As presented in the aforementioned report, EPA made specific recommen- dations for monitoring and research, In the EPA's report titled Chesa- control of nutrients, reduction in peake Bay Program: Findings and toxic compounds, and management Recommendations, the Chesapeake of the environmental quality of the Bay Program's research documented Bay System. The reader is referred to the serious impact of the nutrients the above document for a complete and toxic chemicals released from listing of the recommendations. point and nonpoint sources on the Bay's water and sediment quality Other related water resources studies and on the vitality and abundance of and activities too numerous to men- its living resources. Moreover, tion here are described in Supple- forecasts indicate that the sources of ment A-Problem Identification. these pollutants will continue to grow in number and change in nature, resulting in corresponding increases in the levels of the pollutants entering the Bay. 6 Chapter H 0 Study Area Description The following chapter provides an long. Although the Chesapeake is overview of the Chesapeake Bay the largest estuary in the United Study Area. A general description of States, with a surface area of approx- the Bay is given along with a sum- imately 4,400 square miles, the mary of the existing and probable average depth of the Bay proper is future conditions. Existing condi- only about 28 feet. About two-thirds tions were defined as those physical, of the Bay is 18 feet deep or less. ecological, demographic, and eco- The ebb and flood of the tides and nomic characteristics of the region at the incessant action of the waves are the time of study. They formed the the most readily perceptible water basis for projecting the probable movements in the Bay. Average future conditions that would be ex- maximum tidal currents range from pected in the absence of any water 0.5 knots to over 2 knots (I knot resource development or manage- equals I nautical mile or 6,067 feet ment plan. So important were these tasks that two major interim reports per hour). The mean tidal fluctua- were prepared. These two reports, tion is small, generally between one the Existing Conditions Report and two feet. Except during periods (1973) and the Future Conditions of unusually high winds, waves in the Report (1978), were among the first Bay are relatively small, generally to provide a comprehensive as- less than 3 feet in height. sembly of information about the Bay Within the Bay proper and its major Region. Much of the information tributaries, there is superimposed on which follows in this chapter is ex- the tidal currents a less obvious, non- tracted from these earlier reports. It tidal, two-layered circulation pat- should be recognized that the data tern. This pattern is characterized by from these earlier reports were a net seaward flow of lighter, lower developed nearly 10 years ago and salinity water in the upper layer and a that some of the information may be flow up the estuary of heavier, outdated. These earlier data were up- higher salinity waters in the deeper dated only where the information layer. This phenomenon is illus- was readily available. trated on Figure 3. Tidal currents The Chesapeake Bay provide some of the energy necessary Chesapeake Bay is quite young. It is for the mixing of the two layers. generally believed that it was formed The mixing of sea water and fresh- about 10,000 years ago at the end of water in the estuary creates salinity the last Ice Age. When the great variations within the system. In Ches- glaciers melted, uncountable billions apeake Bay, salinities range from of gallons of water poured back into about 33 parts per thousand (ppt) at the world's oceans. The ocean level the mouth of the Bay near the Atlantic rose several hundred feet and inun- Ocean to near zero at the north end dated large stretches of the coastal of the Bay and at the heads of its rivers. The ancient Susquehanna tributary embayments. Higher salin- River, which had drained directly ities are generally found on the into the Atlantic Ocean near what is Eastern Shore than on comparable now the mouth of the Bay, was one areas of the Western Shore. Salinity of these "drowned" waterways. patterns also vary seasonally accord- This newly formed body of water ing to the amount of freshwater flow- was later to be named "Chesapeake ing into the Bay system. Bay. " The natural variations in salinity that Chesapeake Bay varies from 4 to 30 occur in the Bay are part of the miles in width and is about 200 miles dynamic nature of the estuary. The 7 resident species of plants and animals ordinarily are able to adjust to moderate changes. Sudden changes in salinity, however, or changes of long duration or mag- nitude, may upset the equilibrium between organisms and their en- vironment. Abnormal periods of freshwater inflow (i.e., floods and droughts) may alter salinities suffi- ciently to cause widespread damage to the ecosystem. Dissolved oxygen is another impor- tant physical parameter. Dissolved oxygen levels vary considerably, both seasonally and according to depth. During the winter, the Bay is high in dissolved oxygen. With spring and higher water temperatures, the dissolved oxygen content decreases. Surface waters stay near saturation - ----- - while in deeper waters the dissolved oxygen content becomes significantly less because of increasing oxygen demands by benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms and decaying organic ma- terial. By early fall, as the surface waters cool and sink, vertical mixing takes place. The oxygen content at all depths begins to steadily increase until there is an almost uniform distribution. While species vary in the amount of dissolved oxygen they need to sustain respiration, many estuarine species can function in waters with dissolved oxygen levels as low as 1.0 to 2.0 milligrams per liter (mg/1). How- ever, dissolved oxygen levels of about 5.0 mg/l are normally con- sidered necessary to maintain a healthy environment over the long term. The temperatures of the estuarine system are also extremely important to the biota of the Bay. Since the waters of Chesapeake Bay are relatively shallow compared to the LIGHTER FRESH WATER RIVER mospheric temperature conditions. ocean, they are more affected by at- Generally speaking, the annual tem- @qc perature range in Chesapeake Bay is between 32 and 85 degrees Farenheit SEA Because the mouth of the estuary is close to the sea, its temperature is more stable than that of the upper estuary. Temperature also causes variations in water density which plays a role in stratification and non-tidal circulation. Figure 3 Circulation in a Partially Mixed Estuary 8 Light is necessary for the survival of The Coastal Plain Province includes the northern portions of the Eastern plants because of its role in photo- the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Shore. The Coastal Plain reaches its synthesis. Turbidity, more than any Virginia, most of Delaware, and a highest elevation in areas along its other physical factor, determines the portion of the Western Shore. On the western margin. depth to which light will penetrate Eastern Shore and in those portions waters in the estuary. While the of the Western Shore adjacent to the The Piedmont Plateau is not, as its absence of light may be beneficial to Bay, the Coastal Plain is largely low, name implies, a plateau. It is charac- some benthic organisms, it limits the featureless, and frequently marshy. terized by low hills and ridges which distribution of plant life because of The province is a gently rolling tend to rise above the general lay of the restriction of photosynthetic ac- upland on the Western Shore and in the land reaching a maximum height tivity. This restriction of plant life (especially plankton in the open estuary) reduces the benthic and zoo- plankton population which in turn reduces fish productivity. Nutrients are essential to the normal functioning of an organism. In Ches- HARRISBURG apeake Bay, important nutrients in- clude nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, iron, manganese, and potassium. It is generally believed that most of the nutrients required by estuarine or- ganisms are present in sufficient quantity in Chesapeake Bay. Ex- cesses of some nutrients are often a Y more important problem than defi- B E I ciencies. Excesses of nitrogen and dx.' phosphorus, for example, cause in- creases in the rate of eutrophication. zllven POLIS DOVER This can cause a reduction in the number of desirable species, en- WASHINGTON D. N.* 1 courage the growth of obnoxious algae, and cause low dissolved ox- FALL LINE- J* ygen conditions from the decay of dead organisms. M It is necessary to keep in mind the in- teractions of these physical and PO chemical variables, along with many others not mentioned, when study- ing Chesapeake Bay. These para- meters should not and, in fact, can- M not be addressed separately. The Bay 10. ecosystem is characterized by the dynamic interplay between many RIC "011 complex factors. Natural Resources and Environmental Setting MORFOLK ljr,l Physiography The Chesapeake Bay Region is divided into two physiographic provinces -the Coastal Plain and the Pied- mont Plateau. These provinces run roughly parallel to the Atlantic Ocean in similar fashion to the Bay itself. They join at the fall line (see Figure 4). This natural line of demar- cation generally marks both the limit of tide as well as the head of naviga- tion. Figure 4 Physiographic Provinces of the Study Area 9 near the Appalachian Province on is thunderstorm activity which is latitudinal area, allowing wide tem- the west. Many of the stream valleys almost always on a local scale. It is perature variances. As a result, the are quite narrow and steep-sided, the last activity which brings about temperature at the head of the Bay having been cut into the hard crystal- the greatest amount of local variation averages less than 55 'F, while at the line rocks characteristic of the prOv- in precipitation in the Bay Region. mouth it averages almost 60'F. ince. Evapotranspiration, which includes Surface and Soils water losses due to evaporation from Groundwater Resources Soils are a thin layer of material land and water surfaces and transpi- ration from plants, amounts to ap- made from broken and decomposed proximately 60 percent of the annual The source of freshwater for the Bay rock with added products of decay- precipitation or about 26 inches per is runoff from a drainage basin cov- ing organic matter called humus. year. Authorities estimate an annual ering 64,160 square miles. Approx- The Study Area contains soils pro- evaporation of 36 to 40 inches from imately 90 percent of this basin is duced from the three major types of the Bay itself. drained by five major rivers, in- rock, namely igneous, metamorphic, cluding the Susquehanna, Potomac, and sedimentary. The first two types Rappahannock, York, and James (see are found primarily in the Piedmont The average temperature for the Table 1). Together, these five rivers Province. The Coastal Plain is com- Study Area is approximately 57 *F. account for most of the Bay's mean posed of sediments. The Bay is oriented in a north-south annual inflow of 69,800 cubic feet The drainage characteristics of the direction, however, and covers a wide per second (cfs). Coastal Plain soils are highly variable. Extensive liming is needed to neutralize their naturally acidic condition. Piedmont soils are medium-grained, easily tilled, and of generally higher fertility than those of the Coastal Plain. A few soils are impermeable when wet, retarding the movement of water and causing @J water logging. The resulting strong surface runoff can cause serious ero- sion of slopes. Climate The Chesapeake Bay Study Area is characterized by a generally mod- Z. erate climate, due in a large part to its V proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. The climate is somewhat variable, how- ever, due to the large geographical size of the Bay Region. Average precipitation for the Study Area is about 44 inches per year, with geographical variations from about 40 to 46 inches per year. Snow fall averages about 13 inches per year and generally occurs between November and March. Three types of storm activity bring precipitation to the Bay Region. The first type consists of extratropical storms or "lows" which originate to M, the west, either in the Rocky Moun- tains, Pacific Northwest, or the Gulf of Mexico. The second is tropical storm or hurricane activity which originates in the Middle Atlantic or the Caribbean Sea region. The third 10 Table I Basin Characteristics of Fish and Wildlife Major Chesapeake Bay Tributaries Like the plant communities, the Drainage Area at River Length aquatic animal communities are not River Basin Mouth (Sq. Mi.) (Mi.) spread homogeneously throughout Susquehanna 27,510 453 the Bay. Although the entire estuary Potomac 14,217 407 serves as nursery and primary habitat Rappahannock 2,885 184 for finfish, most spawning areas are York 2,857 130 concentrated in the areas of low James 10,187 434 salinity and freshwater in the upper Bay and corresponding portions of Groundwater aquifiers in the Study energy to the system. Chesapeake the major tributaries. The Bay serves Area contain large quantities of high Bay has all three types of producers as a spawning and nursery ground quality freshwater. Water levels in that power productive ecosystems: for fish caught from Maine to North the aquifiers fluctuate according to macrophytes (marsh and sea grasses), Carolina. Some of the fish that use the balance between precipitation benthic microphytes (algae which live the Bay as a nursery include striped and aquifier recharge on the one on or near the bottom) and phyto- bass, weakfish, shad, alewife, blue- hand and evapotranspiration, runoff, plankton (minute floating plants). back herring, croaker, menhaden, and withdrawals on the other hand. and kingfish (see Figure 5). Of the average precipitation of 44 Aquatic Plants Oysters are abundant in many parts inches per year in the Bay Region, an of the estuary. The numerous coves, estimated 8.5 to 11 inches actually Certain aquatic plants are critical to and inlets between the Chester and contributes to the recharge of the the health and productivity of Ches- Nanticoke Rivers along the Eastern groundwater reservoirs. apeake Bay. Plants use sunlight and Shore and the lower portions of the the inorganic nutrients in the water Patuxent, Potomac, York, Rappa- The most productive aquifiers in the to produce the energy to drive the hannock, and James Rivers account Chesapeake Bay Study Area are the estuarine ecosystem. These plants, waterbearing formations known as ranging from the microscopic algae for approximately 90 percent of the the Columbia Group. Extensive areas to the larger rooted aquatics are the annual harvest of oysters. Some on the Eastern Shore and portions of primary producers-the firsi link in species of Chesapeake Bay fish and Harford and Baltimore Counties, the aquatic food chain. shellfish thrive in the saltier waters of Maryland, are the principal users. the estuary. The mouth of the Chesa- The Piney Point Formation is impor- Phytoplankton is a general term for peake, an area of high salinity, is the tant in Southern Maryland, portions free floating, microscopic aquatic major blue crab spawning area. of Maryland's Eastern Shore and in plants of both fresh and saline waters. areas near the Fall Line in Virginia. The most important of the phyto- The Potomac Group provides water plankton are the green algaes, to Anne Arundel, Charles, and Prince diatoms, and dinoflagellates. The Georges Counties, Maryland, and is Population of these organisms is rep- the most important source of ground- resented by relatively few species, water in the Coastal Plain of but when they do occur, they can be Virginia. present in tremendous numbers. Blue- green algae are another type of phytoplankton. They are not gen- Biota erally considered to be of importance in aquatic productivfty and are best Z The estuary is extremely productive known for the nuisance conditions for a number of reasons. First, the caused when their growth occurs in circulation patterns within the Bay excess. create a nutrient trap which acts to retain and recirculate nutrients. Sec- Macrophytes are, as the Greek roots ond, water movements in the estuary of the word indicate, "large plants." _A do a great deal of work removing Their distribution ranges from entirely wastes and transporting food and freshwater to the open ocean. They nutrients, enabling many organisms are important as food and habitat to maintain a productive existence. for fish and wildlife. Unlike the free- 7W Third, the recycling and retention of floating and minute phytoplankton, nutrients by benthic organisms, the the macrophytic aquatic plants are effects of deeply penetrating plant usually either rooted or otherwise roots, and the constant formation of fastened to the bottom. Most have detrital material in the wetlands defined leaflets which grow either -7, VWW_qWIr._ create a self-enriching system. And entirely submerged, floating on the 'Iv last, the estuary benefits from a surface of the water, or out of the diversity of producer plant types water in direct contact with the at- which together supply year-round mosphere. The marshes and woodlands along the shorelines provide many thou- sands of acres of natural habitat for a variety of waterfowl, other birds, Freshwater Estuarine Marine reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. The marshes and grain fields of the Delmarva Peninsula are particularly attractive to Canada geese and grain- feeding swans, mallards, and black ducks. The Susquehanna Flats, lo- cated at the head of the Bay, tradi- tionally support flocks of American widgeon in the early fall, while sev- eral species of diving ducks such as canvasback, redhead, ringneck, and scaup winter throughout Chesapeake Bay. While the Bay is primarily a wintering ground for birds that nest further north, several species of waterfowl including the black duck, Figure 5 Fishes: Their Use of the Estuary blue-winged teal, and wood duck find suitable nesting and brood-raising habitat in the Bay Region. Important Plant and Existing Conditions Many other species of birds besides Animal Organisms Population and Employment waterfowl are found in the Study Part of the work on the Future Con- The majority of the inhabitants of Area. Some rely primarily on wet- ditions Report, consisted of a survey the Study Area are concentrated in lands for their food and other habitat of prominent Bay Region scientists and around the major cities. In 1980, requirements. These include rails, to determine the most important about 90 percent of the Study Area's various sparrows, marsh wrens, red- plant and animal species based on population of 8,481,000 resided in winged blackbirds, snipes, sand- economic, biological, and social one of the Bay Region's seven pipers, plovers, marsh hawks, short- criteria. For example, a species SMSA's. Economic Areas including eared owls, herons, egrets, gulls, would qualify as important if it were both the SMSA and non-SMSA sub- terns, oyster catchers, and curlews. either a commercial species, a species regions are shown on Figure 6. A tab- There are numerous other birds which rely more heavily on the wooded up- pursued for sport, a prominent species ular breakdown of the 1980 popula- lands and agricultural lands for their important for energy transfer to or- tion according to these sub-regions is basic habitat and food requirements. ganisms higher in the food chain, a shown in Table 3. In general, Study Among these are many game birds, mammal or bird protected by federal Area residents have higher levels of including wild turkeys, mourning law, or if it exerted a deleterious in- education, have higher incomes, and doves, bobwhite qualis, woodcocks, fluence on other species important to are younger than people in the and pheasants. Modest populations humans. The common names and United States as a whole. Significant of ospreys and American bald eagles genera of the 124 species identified variations do occur, however, across also inhabit the Bay Region. according to these criteria are pre- the Bay Region. sented in Table 2. The Chesapeake, Bay Region is also In 1980, there were approximately home for most of the common mam- Demographic and Economic 4.1 million people employed in the mals native to the coastal Mid- Characteristics Study Area, or about 48 percent of Atlantic region. The interspersion of the total population. Nine out of forest and farmland and the prox- Since Captain John Smith first ex- every ten people employed worked in imity of shore and wetland areas plored Chesapeake Bay in 1608, con- one of the seven SMSA's. Between form the basis for a great variety of ditions have changed substantially 1970 and 1980, the total number of ecological systems. The abundance because of human settlement and ac- people employed increased from 3.3 of food such as mast and grain crops tivity. Settlers first moved into the million to 4.1 million, or almost 25 and the high quality cover vegetation Bay Region to take advantage of the percent. Table 3 also shows a tabular found on the wooded uplands and soil and climate which was favorable breakdown of the 1980 employment agricultural lands support good pop- for growing tobacco. Later, major according to the subregions. ulations of white-tailed deer, cotton- manufacturing and transportation tail rabbit, red fox, gray fox, gray centers developed around the Bay, Compared to the nation as a whole, squirrel, woodchuck, opossum, and and the nation's capital was founded the Bay Region has a lower proportion skunk. The various vegetation types at Washington, D.C. From its modest of workers in the blue-collar in- found in wetland areas also provide colonial roots, the Bay Region has dustries such as manufacturing and indispensible natural habitat for grown to include nearly 8.5 million mining, and a higher proportion in beaver, otter, mink, muskrat, marsh people in 1980 and a wide range of the white-collar industries such as rabbit, and nutria. economic activity. public administration and services. 12 Because employment in the white- Table 2 collar industries tends to be less vola- important Chesapeake Bay Plants and Animals tile, the Study Area has had consis- tently lower unemployment rates 0 Algae Arthropoda (Crabs, shrimp, over the last several decades than the Blue-green alga 0 rest of the nation. Also contributing and other crustaceans) to these relatively stable employment Diatom (4 genera) Barnacle levels are the large number of workers Dinoflagellate (3 species) Copepod (2 genera) whose jobs depend on relatively con- Sea lettuce Opposum shrimp sistent federal government spending. Green alga Cumacean Red alga Isopod (2 species) Amphipod (5 genera) Vascular Plants Sand flea (Marsh and aquatic) Grass shrimp Widgeongrass Sand shrimp Saltmarsh cordgrass Xanthid crab (2 species) Eelgrass Blue crab Horned pondweed Wild rice Urochordata Cattails Sea squirt Pondweeds Arrow-arum Pisces (Fish) Wild celery Cownose ray Eel Cmdarta Shad, herring Stinging nettle Menhaden Hydroid Anchovy Variegated minnow Ctenophora (comb jellies) Catfish, bullheads Comb jelly (2 species) Hogchoker Killifish Platyhelminthes Silverside (flatworms) White perch Flatworm Striped bass Black sea bass Annelida (Worms) Weakfish Bloodworm Spot Clam worm Blenny Polychaete worm (4 genera) Goby Oligochaete worm Harvestfish Flounder Mollusca (Shellfish) *Northern puffer Eelgrass snail Oyster toadfish Oyster drill Marsh periwinkle Reptiles Hooked mussel Snapping turtle Ribbed mussel Oyster Diamond-backed terrapin Hard shell clam A ves (Birds) Coot clam Horned grebe Brackish water clam Baltic macoma Cattle egret 10 1 Great blue heron Stout razor clam glossy ibis Razor clam Soft shell clam Whistling swan Asiatic clam Canada goose Wood duck Black duck Canvasback Lesser scaup Bufflehead Osprey Clapper rail VW4*wmq Virginia rail 13 Table 2 (contd) American coot American woodcock Common snipe Sernipalmated sandpiper Laughing gull Herring gull Great black-backed gull Forster's tern . ftAq Least tern is Mammalia (mammals) Beaver Muskrat Otter Raccoon White-tailed deer I* Endangered Species Shortnose sturgeon Atlantic sturgeon Maryland darter Southern bald eagle American peregrine falcon Ipswich sparrow Delmarva fox squirrel Life histories discussed in the "Biota" Chapter of the Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report. G .1-1 **Life histories discussed in the "Biota" Appendix of the Chesapeake Bay i@ -101 1 Future Conditions Report. Figure 7 shows a comparison be- About 43 percent of the Bay Region Maryland, Virginia and Delaware, in tween the Chesapeake Bay Study is considered to be developed, includ- rural portions of the Baltimore Area and the nation for employment ing 36 percent in agricultural lands SMSA, in the northwestern portion by major economic sectors. Although and 7 percent in urban lands. Urban of the Washington, DC SMSA, and the percentages for the Study Area land uses are concentrated around around Virginia Beach, Virginia. and the nation are similar in many the principal urban centers located sectors, there are notable exceptions near the head of tide on the major Forest lands occupy more area in the such as in the manufacturing, public tributaries of the Western Shore. Bay Region than any other land use administration, and armed forces Many smaller urban centers are type, approximately 54 percent. The sectors. A more detailed description found scattered throughout the of the various economic sectors oper- Study Area, some serving as small Virginia portion of the Study Area ating within the Study Area is pro- ports, retail and wholesale trade accounts for almost two-thirds of the vided in Supplement A-Problem centers, or political centers such as total forest land. Also a high propor- Identification. state capitals or county seats. In- tion of southern Maryland is wood- dustrial, institutional, and military lands. Land Use reservations (of which the Bay Region The existing land use information has many) are also included as urban The wetlands of the Bay Region, for this report was based on remote lands. Most frequently, industries although accounting for only three sensing data obtained from high are found in or adjacent to urban percent of the total land area, are of altitude aerial photography taken in areas where good transportation fa- crucial importance to the ecosystem 1970. These data were supplied by cilities and ample manpower are of the Bay. Wetlands consist of sea- the USGS and were part of the Cen- available. sonally flooded basins and flats, tral Atlantic Region Ecological Test meadows, marshes, and swamps. Site (CARETS) project. Figure 8 Land used for the production of Most of the counties of the Bay shows the approximate percentages farm commodities comprises about Region have some wetland areas of of each major land use type in 1970. one-third of the Chesapeake Bay varying types and sizes, although it Although significant land use Region's land area. As such, it con- should be emphasized that not all changes have occurred in some lo- stitutes the second largest land use wetland types are equally valuable to I1@@ fflc 4211 calized areas since 1970, the area- type in the Study Area, second only the ecosystem. The major concentra- wide percentages are still reasonable to forest lands. The major agricul- tion of wetlands in the Chesapeake 0 approximations for the overall Study tural areas in the Bay Region are Bay system is found along the lower Area. located on the Eastern Shore of Eastern Shore. 14 Areas of archaeological and historic importance can be found throughout the Region. The primary prehistoric archaeological resources within the Study Area are associated with Indian artifacts. The numberous Indian tribes which inhabited what is now Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware left much evidence of their existence in the form of clay pottery and stone artifacts. The large number of historic sites in the Bay Region provides proof of the region's historic significance and its fundamental role in the development of the nation. Many of the sites relate to the earliest colonial settlements, the winning of national indenpendence, the founding of the Union, the Civil War struggle, and the lives of national leaders. There are certain other areas of the Bay Region which are of special importance for their ecological or natural significance. Many of these have been identified, and in some cases are being protected wetlands or other floral habitats, faunal habitats (especially for threatened or endangered species) and natually Figure 6 SMSA Sub-Regions in Chesapeake Bay Study Area 15 Table 3 1980 Population and Employment by Sub-Region Chesapeake Bay Study Area 1980POPULATION 1980EMPLOYMENT MAJOR ECONOMIC ARE,4 SUB-REGIONNAME S UB-REGION NO. (1,000',)** (1,000',)** Wilmington, DE Wilmington SMSA 15-7 523 232 Baltimore, MD Baltimore SMSA 17-1 2,174 994 Maryland Eastern Shore 17-2 236 105 Virginia Eastern Shore 17-3 46 18 Delaware 17-4 196 86 Washington, DC Washington SMSA 18-1 3,061 1,586 Southern Maryland 18-2 95 40 Virginia Non-SMSA 18-3 101 45 Richmond, VA Richmond SMSA 21-1 607 296 Petersburg-Colonial 21-1 129 57 Heights-Hopewell SMSA Virginia Non-SMSA 21-2 83 32 Norfolk, VA Newport News-Hampton SMSA 22-1 364 170 Norfolk-Virginia Beach- 22-2 796 372 Portsmouth SMSA Virginia Non-SMSA 22-3 70 28 STUDY AREA TOTALS 8,481 4,061 See Figure 6 for location of each sub-region by number. **Figures are based on 1980 census. scenic areas. At present, there are 20 several times, most notably by the dologies which were considered ap- properties within the Study Area decennial censuses of 1970 and 1980. propriate in the mid-1970's. designated as national refuges or These data, in turn, became the basis related properties. There are also for new projections for future years. Population and Employment about 70 state fish and wildlife The assumptions and methodologies management areas and related prop- for making projections also con- The total population of the Study erties including game farms, sanc- tinued to change as the state-of-the- Area is expected to increase from tuaries, and preserves. art evolved. Conceivably, the future about 8.5 million in 1980 to 16.3 without condition could be revised million in 2020. This is an increase of Future Conditions each time a new set of data or new about 90 percent over 40 years. Figure projection methodologies are 9 shows the expected population in- A projection of the future conditions published. creases in each of the five major in the Chesapeake Bay Study Area economic areas. The fastest growing was necessary to identify the most With this background, it should be areas will be the Washington, DC, probable characteristics in the absence noted that a consistent set of pro- economic areas (portion of Area 18 of any water resources management jections was prepared for the Future on Figure 6), the Richmond economic plan. For the purposes of the Ches- Conditions Report using the best in- area (portion of Area 21 on Figure apeake Bay Study, the target year for formation available at that time. 6), and the Wilmington economic planning was established as year These projections were based on the area (portion of Area 15 on Figure 2020. The "without condition" for OBERS Series C estimates of pop- 6). Slower growing areas include the year 2020 then became the basis for ulation, income, earnings and manu- Baltimore economic area (Area 17 comparing any actions which were facturing output. OBERS is an on Figure 6) and the Norfolk-Ports- proposed during the detailed study acronym reflecting a cooperative ef- mouth area (Area 22 on Figure 6). phase. fort of the Office of Business Eco- nomics (now the Bureau of Economic Real per capita income in the Study Because the study was conducted Analysis) in the U.S. Department Area is expected to remain slightly over parts of three decades beginning of Commerce and the Economic above the national average through in 1967, the projection of future with- Research Service (now the Economic the year 2020. There will be some dis- out conditions progressed through a Statistics and Cooperative Services) tinct differences, however, among series of refinements and modifica- in the U.S. Department of Agricul- the per capita income averages for tions. Demographic and economic ture. The OBERS Series C estimates the five major economic areas. One data@ for instance, were updated used data, assumptions, and metho- of the major driving forces behind 16 the significant increases in popula- tion and income will be major in- creases in manufacturing output. However, the proportion of total output accounted for by the heavy Armed Forces 6.2% water-impacting industries as a group (i.e., metals, petroleum refin- Public Adm in - ldv@ 101.001.01 164VA01.0 22.4 % ing, food and kindred products, 15.6% Services - -JF'_3 22.9% chemicals, and paper and allied 20.4% products) is expected to decline Fin, Ins, Real Est. @3_ 5.3 % slightly by 2020. 5.1% Whole Rat Trade 19.6% Employment in all economic sectors Tran, Comm, Util - 0"AO'w --j4.9% 21.2% in the Study Area is expected to reach 5.1% about 6.8 million persons in year Manufacturing- 11.4% 2020. This is an increase of about -:; 5.8% 20.7% two thirds over the 4.1 million Construction - d0`10- 5.3% workers who were employed in the Mining - 0.1 % Study Area in 1980. Figure 10 shows 0.9% a bar graph which indicates the pro- Agr, Forest, Fish.'--- -J 1,4% jected increases in employment by 3.4% major economic areas. Reflecting ex- I I I I I _"" isting traits of employment through- 0 5 10 is 20 25 30 out the Study Area, the percentage Legend Percent of job opportunities in the public ad- United States ministration, armed forces, and serv- ice sectors will be greater than for the Study Area rest of the nation. Conversely, the percentage of job opportunities in the manufacturing sector will be significantly less in the Bay Region Figure 7 Employment by Economic Sectors, Chesapeake Bay Study Area than for the nation. and United States (1980) Land Use The expected future distribution of land uses in the Bay Region was de- veloped from the relevant county, municipal, and regional comprehen- sive land and water use plans. Numerical estimates of future acreages for urban, agricultural, and URBAN LANDS 7% forest lands are presented in the following paragraphs. AGRICULTURE LANDS 36% The portio WETLANDS 3% uses in the urban areas can be ex- n of land in residential pected to increase at roughly the same rate as population growth if the assumption is made that population densities will remain at about the same level over the projection period. Using 1970 as the base year, this means that the demand for residen- tial lands will increase approximately 60 percent by the year 2000, and about 110 percent by 2020. FOREST LAND 54% As discussed earlier, manufacturing output in the Chesapeake Bay Region is projected to increase significantly by the year 2020. It is not valid, however, to assume that land needed for industrial purposes will also in- crease at the same rate since output Figure 8 Major Land Use Types Chesapeake Bay Region (1970) 17 per worker and per unit of land will probably increase during this period. If the assumption is made that the productivity of land increases at about the same rate as the produc- At tivity of workers (about three per- cent annually), then the land needed for industrial purposes in the year W, 2000 can be expected to increase by '44 28 percent over the 1970 acreage, and by 50 percent in 2020. The projections of land in crops and miscellaneous farm uses in the Ches- apeake Bay Region were derived from OBERS projections. The amount in cropland and miscellaneous farmland is projected to show a steady decline of more than 600,000 acres between 1980 and 2020. Projections of private commercial forest lands were also disaggregated ar to from OBERS projections. Simil ; 40 4@. agricultural land, the projected acreage of private commercial forest land within the Study Area is ex- pected to decline steadily over the projection period. Nearly 700,000 7- acres are expected to be lost between 1980 and 2020. Although no projections were pre- pared for future wetland acreages, it can be stated with a high degree of < confidence that the demand for shoreline lands for such uses as marinas, vacation homes, or port facilities will increase in the future. However, more stringent federal and state restrictions on the development or degradation of wetland areas are likely to at least slow down the historic rate of wetlands destruction Table 4 in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Comparison of OBERS Series C and Series E Projections From an overall perspective, the ex- Population and Employment pected increase in industrial and residential land use will be offset by Series C Series E % Difference decreases in agricultural and forest 1980* use. The locations in which these Population 9,273,100 8,875,900 -4.3 land use changes will occur, how- Employment 3,904,300 4,061,200 4.0 ever, has not been clearly defined. Percent Employed 42.1 45.8 8.8 The conflict, then, is not one of 2000 enough land for development, but one of where the development should Population 12,489,400 11,574,300 -7.3 take place. Often the best agricul- Employment 5,233,000 5,457,000 4.3 tural lands or the most productive Percent Employed 41.9 47.1 12.4 forests are also desirable for urban 2020 development. Without proper plan- Population 16,320,200 14,127,400 -13.4 ning, areas of special ecological, Employment 6,825,100 6,499,000 -4.8 historical, or archaeological signi- Percent Employed 41.8 46.0 10.0 ficance may be destroyed. 18 Sensitivity Analysis Although the future without condi- tion has been defined using OBERS IV Series C information, it is important to recognize that more recent data A and projections have been developed. 6 The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA, successor of the Office of Business Economics) issued a revised Legend set of projections in 1974 called 5- Z/1Z 2020 OBERS Series E. These projections reflected lower population estimates .2 2000 ment than Series C. In 1981, yet 1980 but higher percentages of employ- 4- L 0 V/ another set of estimates called the 1980 OBERS Regional Projections 0 were published forcasting even lower population levels than the 1974 re- 3 visions. Official results of the 1980 census have recently become avail- able confirming the slower rate of population growth and higher em- 2 ployment levels, at least for the r7/1 r decade between 1970 and 1980. In light of these continuing changes the Corps of Engineers elected to evaluate the sensitivity of its earlier OBERS Series C projections (con- tained in the Future Conditions Report) to the new information. Wilmington Richmond Norfolk Baltimore Washington Table 4 displays a comparison be- Major Economic Areas tween Series C and Series E projec- ries C Projections of Population (1980-2020) tions for the two key variables of F'gure 9 Se population and employment. The Series E estimates were based on more conservative assumptions 3 about population growth, resulting in a decrease of about 13 percent from the Series C population fore- casts for 2020. Conversely, the Legend employment percentages for the 2020 L J Series E estimates were greater than for the Series C forecasts, reflecting 2000 an expectation that a larger propor- 2 1980 tion of the population would be .2 working. Even the Series E projections for /z/, E population are now considered to be 0 too high. The 1980 census revealed CL E that 8,481,000 people lived in the LU Bay Region. This number is about 400,000 less than the Series E projec- tions and about 800,000 less than the Series C projections. Likewise, the conversion of agricultural and forest 7 717 lands to urban land (residential and industrial) is not proceeding at the rate projected a few years ago. V, 0- In summary, it is clear that popula- Wilmington Richmond Norfolk Baltimore Washington tion growth and its associated effects Major Economic Areas are lagging behind the projections Figure 10 Series C Projections of Employment (1980-2020) 19 available during the 1970's which stitution may be formal (i.e., formed cells has varied in its effectiveness in formed the basis for the Future Con- by law or contract) or informal (i.e., both planning and managing the ditions Report. These lower than formed by a consensus of people, water resources of the region. The ef- projected growth rates, however, do usually with no strict legal basis). fectiveness of the planning has gen- not invalidate any of the Chesapeake Likewise, the process used by the in- erally been a function of the com- Bay Study's findings and conclusions. stitutions may be either formal (i.e., plexity and geographical extent of At worst, they merely mean that the specified in regulations, by-laws, or the problem. Where Bay-wide prob- projections have erred on the conser- charters) or informal (i.e., not lems have extended beyond the tradi- vative side and that the project with- written, but customary or assumed tional boundaries of state and local out condition may not be realized methods of operation). For the most governments, there have often been until sometime beyond the 2020 part, both the institutions which problems with implementing a solu- target year. handle water resource activities and tion. the processes which they use are Table 5 contains a list of the major Institutional FrarneWork formal. federal, state, and interstate agencies Regional planning in the Chesapeake which have water resource responsi- For the purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Basin is conducted by three bilities in the Chesapeake Bay Bay Study, an institution was defined levels of government (federal, state, Region. Federal responsibilities are as an organization which uses certain and local) consisting of three assigned to several different Cabinet administrative, political, and social branches within each level (legisla- level departments and agencies. processes to implement and/or man- tive, executive and judicial). This Some overlap in responsibilities do age water resource activities. An in- three by three matrix of planning occur, but most federal organizations Table 5 Institutions with Water Resources Responsibilities Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin FEDERAL AGENCIES STATE AGENCIES INTERSTATE/REGIONAL Department of Agriculture Delaware AGENCIES Agricultural Research Service Department of Natural Susquehanna River Basin Soil Conservation Service Resources and Environmental Commission Department of Commerce Control Interstate Commission on Economic Development Bureau of Environmental Health the Potomac River Basin Administration District of Columbia Metropolitan Washington National Marine Fisheries Service Department of Environmental Council of Governments National Oceanographic and Services Atlantic States Marine Atmospheric Administration Maryland Fisheries Commission Department of Defense Department of Natural Resources Potomac River Fisheries Corps of Engineers Department of Health and Commission Department of Interior Mental Hygiene Maryland-Virginia Bi-State Geological Survey New York Working Committee on Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Environmental Chesapeake Bay Department of Housing and Conservation Chesapeake Bay Commission Urban Development Department of Health (Maryland and Virginia) Environmental Protection Agency Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Resources Secretary of Human Resources State Corporation Commission West Virginia Department of Natural Resources 20 have specific areas of expertise and jurisdiction. State responsibilities for water resources are generally assigned to an environmental re- sources department or similar organ- ization. In a few states, the respon- sibilities for water quality and pollu- tion control are specifically assigned to separate health departments. In- terstate and regional agencies with water resources responsibilities also exist within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. Most of the organiza- tions listed in the third column of Table 5 are organized according to river basin boundaries, but have dif- ferent degrees or regulatory and en- forcement powers. Supplement A- Problem Identification provides a more detailed description of the ex- isting institutional framework. Legal doctrines and principles that govern water and its uses are con- tained in a variety of sources. Those of primary importance include fed- eral and state constitutions, common law decisions, and statutory enact- ments. None of these sources alone determine the legal rights pertaining to water law. Each supplements the other, and the composite serves as the basis for the water resources management. Water use (in the eastern United States) is generally governed by the so-called riparian doctrine. This system emphasizes the rights of water users in common without re- gard to specific quantities, times, or places of use. Rights under the riparian doctrine are dependent upon ownership of land contiguous to the water source. All such owners have equal right to co-share in the use of the waters, so long as each riparian is reasonable in its use. Riparian rights are further considered usufructuary in nature. That is, they are rights of use, not ownership, of the flowing waters. All states within the Chesa- peake Bay drainage area subscribe to the riparian doctrine. 21 111111101111 If 'Ai 11 Chapter M Problems, Needs and Opportunities Forecasts of future population, in- million or about 80 percent were dustrial output, income, and leisure served by public water supply time in the Chesapeake Bay Region systems. These systems ranged in size all indicate significant growth in from those serving as few as 20 per- coming years. Corresponding in- sons in small developments to large creases in demands on the Bay's municipal systems serving commer- water and related land resources will cial, institutional and industrial almost assuredly accompany such establishments as well as millions of growth. This chapter contains a individuals. The total volume of general discussion of the problems water furnished through the central facing Chesapeake Bay, the iden- systems averaged about 870 mgd in tification of certain high priority 1970. problems for detailed examination, Water for use in manufacturing (in- and a statement of national and dustrial water supply) totaled 1,620 study planning objectives. mgd in 1970, including water from Problem Inventory surface fresh and brackish sources, ground water, and public water supply Water resource problems and needs systems. Water use is concentrated within the Bay Region were identified within a few specific types of in- at length in the Future Conditions dustries. Over 80 percent of total Report. The major problem categories water use is accounted for by three included: water supply, water quality, groups of industries; paper and outdoor recreation, navigation, flood allied products, chemicals and allied control, shoreline erosion, fish and products, and primary metals. wildlife, power, and noxious weeds. In the present report, Supplement A Water for livestock and poultry in- -Problem Identification contains a cludes the supply necessary for detailed discussion of these prob- sustenance of beef and dairy cattle, lems. The population and economic sheep, hogs, horses, chickens, and projections used to determine future turkeys as well as that necessary to needs were based on OBERS Series C produce farm products for the forecasts as noted in the previous market place. In the Chesapeake Bay chapter. Also much of the data pre- Region, livestock and poultry water sented reflects 1970 conditions consumption amounted to about 15 unless otherwise noted. mgd in 1967, or less than I percent of all uses Bay-wide. The amount of Water Supply water used for irrigation purposes amounted to 8 billion gallons in Water is required to meet the needs 1969. This was applied to only about of the many communities, industries, 2 percent of the total land in crops, and agricultural activities in the Bay indicating the relative unimportance Region. As shown on Figure 11, the of irrigation to agricultural produc- total volume of water withdrawn tion in the Bay Region. The major from streams, rivers, and reservoirs irrigated crops were corn, small and subsurface aquifers (ground grains, cropland/pasture, vege- water) to meet these needs averaged tables, and nursery stock. about 2,650 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1970. Approximately 95 Future increases in water demand percent of the total was used in mu- will occur in the Study Area along nicipal and industrial systems. with projected population and eco- nomic growth. Demands for water Of the Study Area's 7.9 million resi- supplied through central systems, dents in 1970, approximately 6.5 for example, have been projected to 23 increase by approximately 170 pe@- cent Bay-wide by 2020 as shown In Table 6. The Baltimore and Wash- ington, DC, SMSA's are expected to account for the largest share of the centrally supplied water; about 75 percent of the total demand in both 2000 and 2020. Certain problems are associated with the provision of water for the people, industries, and farms of the Bay Region. Growing affluence and eco- Rural Dornestic Vu n,icipal nomic development, with accompa- 63 MGD - 2.5% OiO MG6 35.1 % nying increases in demands for Irrigation, water, will require expansion of 22 MGD - 0.99b water systems and water source Livestock development. In most urban areas anTP661try 15 MGD - 0.6% that are located on or near the tidewater portions of the Bay (such as Baltimore, Newport News, Nor- folk, and Portsmouth), nearby 7 sources of freshwater have long since been developed. Increased competi- tion for new sources at greater distances from the urban centers is thus occurring. The economic, in- ;:re h' stitutional, and engineering pro- Industria 1,FXeih',, blems associated with these large- 603 MGD @@2i.4* scale projects are substantial. ickis h ri One of the more significant problems associated with large scale water supply withdrawals is the possibility of reduced freshwater inflows to Chesapeake Bay. Potential increases in future consumptive uses will further depress the natural freshwater in- flow. Such reductions may incrFase the Bay's salinity and cause serious problems for its ecosystem. For example, prolonged periods of de- pressed inflows may destroy val- Figure 11 Average Water Use by Type Chesapeake Bay Region (1970) uable grasses, alter the spawning pat- terns and range of finfish, change the Table 6 distribution of shellfish in the Bay, or permit diseases and predators to extend further into the Bay. The location of commercial fishing areas may be altered with higher salinites. This could affect the livelihood of many of the Bay's watermen. In- Average Water Demands creased salinity regimes may also Chesapeake Bay Area adversely affect those industries (MGD) which require water of relatively low salinity for their cooling and process- 1970 1980 2000 2020 ing activities. Municipal 870 1,090 1,590 2,320 Industrial 1,620 1,580 1,400 1,820 Due to the nature and potential se- Agricultural* 160 480 900 1,470 verity of the low freshwater inflow TOTAL 2,650 3,150 3,890 5,610 problem, it was selected for detailed examination and model testing dur- *Includes irrigation use during a dry year. ing the Chesapeake Bay Study. Chapter V of this Summary Report and the separate sub-report titled 24 Low Freshwater Inflow contain more detailed information about the A problem and possible solutions. Water Quality Water quality is the term used to describe the biological, chemical, and physical condition of water. What is termed as "good" water 4 _41A quality differs depending on the in- tended use. Humans require water for drinking that is free of color, pathogenic bacteria, and objec- tionable taste and odor. Industries which use water primarily for cool- ing and steam production require water free of materials such as 101 chlorides, iron, and manganese which may be harmful to equipment. Agriculture requires still a different quality of water that is free of de- grading materials which are toxic to plant and animal life. Finally, each form of aquatic life requires water of vi I 0/rAl V I VA ILI V4 varying qualities in order to assure its healthy existence. 1 Water quality problems generally arise when the waste loads imposed by cities, farms, and industries ex- ceed the water's capacity to assim- ilate them. The resulting degradation can be very costly, both economically and ecologically. Increased water ent, the closing of shellfishing treatm i areas, the loss of valuable recreation areas, the corrosion of structures ex- posed to water, and the destruction of fish and wildlife habitats are some of the costs attributable to poor water quality. ALT .A .111, "71- Characterizing the quality of Ches- apeake Bay's waters is difficult because of the wide variety of condi- tions encountered in an area of this size. As quoted from the findings of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program: "Chesapeake Bay Program find- ings clearly indicate that the Bay is an ecosystem with increasing pol- lution burdens and declines in desired resources, It is also evi- dent that actions throughout the Bay's watershed affect the water IL quality of the rivers flowing into the Bay. Degradation of the Bay's @A_ water and sediment quality can, in turn, affect the living resources. `Av Thus, effective management of the Chesapeake Bay must be based on an understanding of, and abil- ity to control both point and non- point sources of pollution through- out the Chesapeake Bay basin." 25 The most severe water quality problems occur in the tributaries near areas of high population concentrations. Figure 12 summarizes the major watr quality problems of the larger tributaries. In general, municipal and industrial wastes have been found to be the major problems in the populated areas of Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, and Norfolk. Other less populated areas suffer mainly from agricultual and land runoff as well as smaller amounts of municipal discharges. As noted above, the overall system is being impacted by the collective pollutants and nutrients from its tributaries. It is obvious that much work must be done with regard to water quality improvements if Chesapeake Bay waters are to continue to serve Study Area residents in the manner to which they are accustomed. Since the beginning of the Chesapeake Bay Study in 1967, a number of positive steps have been taken. For instance, Public Laws (PL) 92-500 mandated certain limits on both municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. Some water quality improvements are being noticed around the Bay in response to the construction of better wastewater treatment plants. The EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program also devoted its efforts to water quality considerations, and it now appears that both state and federal agencies will initiate stronger Bay management programs based on teh findings of that study. Outdoor Recreation The physical characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay region make it an attractive place for water-related recreation activities such as sailing and boating, swimming, camping, and picnicking. From the standpoint of the general public though, Chesapeake Bay is one of the most inaccessible estuaries in the nation. Much of the recreationally desirable land is in competition with other forms of land development such as private homes, industries, or military reservations. For example, in urban areas where recreation opportunities are most urgently needed, the shoreline has often been developed as major port and industrial complexes. A significant percent of the publicly-owned shoreline is unavailable for use by the general public. Figure 12 Water Quality Problems in Chesapeake Bay 26 Other factors interfere with the max- imum recreational utilization of the Bay and its tributaries. Water quality has deteriorated in many sections of the tributaries precluding body- contact water recreation. This prob- lem is especially severe in the urban areas where recreation demands are the greatest. Recreational use of the Bay and its tributaries has created certain frictions and conflicts in A itself. For example, marky boaters are responsible for degrading water mv quality by dumping refuse over- board, discharging sewage effluent, and spilling gas and oil into the water. Recreational boating has also led to overcrowding of certain wate IL ways, particularly those most acces- sible to the large urban areas. This has created dangerous and undesirable "OWN conditions for both boaters and swimmers. 0C In terms of future recreation demands, the former Bureau of Outdoor Recre- ation (BOR) projected the need for swimming beaches and pools to in- crease significantly by year 2020 with the largest supply deficiencies occur- ring in the Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond areas. On the other hand, large supply surpluses were projected for the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shore, Delaware, and Hampton Roads where sizable expanses of ocean beach exist. In similar fashion, the supply of camp- sites, boat ramps, and picnic tables is expected to be deficient in the large metropolitan regions. A surplus is expected in the less populated regions and small urban areas. Navigation Approximately 160 million short tons of cargo was shipped on Ches- apeake Bay during 1974. About 80 percent of this freight passed through the ports of Baltimore or "Wr Hampton Roads. Approximately 70 A- ..0 percent of the total freight traffic in these two ports is foreign in origin or C destination. Baltimore is basically an Ado* importing port, while Hampton Roads is an exporting port. Rt@ 71 The major commodities going into Baltimore are metalic ores and con- *Aim centrates, petroleum and petroleum products, gypsum, sugar, iron and steel products, salt, and motor ve- hicles and equipment. The port is one of the nation's leaders in the im- ffisbii@ 27 porting of automobiles and ore. Most of the total freight tonnage passing through Hampton Roads is coal and lignite. Hampton Roads also conducts important trade in the exporting of corn, wheat, soybeans, tobacco leaf, and grain mill prod- 06 ucts, as well as in the importing of petroleum products, gypsum (lime stone), lumber and wood products, and chemicals. Although Baltimore and Hampton T'Aff Roads are the only major interna- tional deepwater ports in the Chesa- peake Bay Study Area, there is also a vow . significant amount of traffic in the harbors of some of the smaller ports such as Richmond, Yorktown, Hope- well, Petersburg, and Alexandria, Virginia; Piney Point, Annapolis, 4 Salisbury, and Cambridge, Mary- land; and Washington, DC. The ma- jor commodities shipped through [Table 7 these ports are petroleum and petroleum products, construction materials, fertilizers, and seafood. Federally Authorized Main Channel Depths In addition, the Chesapeake and Ch esap eake Bay Region Delaware (C&D) Canal handles large quantities of general cargo and Port or Waterway Authorized Depth (feet)l petroleum products. Baltimore Harbor and Channels, 50* Hampton Roads 45 Due to the increasing size of ocean- York River (to West Point) 22 5 going vessels during the past 100 James River (to Richmond) 3 years and the economies involved in Wicomico River (to Salisbury) 14 the use of these ships, repeated deep- Nanticoke River (to Seaford) 12 eake enings and widenings of Chesap Rappahannock River (to Fredericksburg) 12 Bay's ship channels have been nec- Choptank River (to Cambridge) 25 essary. The present main channel Tred Avon River (to Easton) 12 depth in Baltimore Harbor is 42 feet, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 35 although in December of 1970 Con- *Existing depth in main channel is 42 feet. gress authorized a deepening of the i"Existing depth maintained at 25'feet. channel to 50 feet. In Hampton Roads, the main channel was deep- ened to 45 feet in 1965. The Norfolk tion period. It will continue to be 0A need for economically and District of the Corps of Engineers dominated by bulk oil movements. environmentally acceptable meth- has completed a report recommending Generally speaking, the level of traf- ods of dredge material disposal, that the channel be further deepened fic and the rates of increase for the especially for the larger ports. to 55 feet. Table 7 provides a list of waterways on the Western Shore will 9A need to alleviate potential con- the major federally authorized chan- be greater than those on the Eastern gestion problems in port, channel, nels and the corresponding channel Shore. and anchorage areas. Waterway depths. Several significant navigation and congestion increases the likeli- waterborne commerce problems face hood of accidents, with a poten- In the future, the bulk commodities the Study Area in future years. These tial for the spill of hazardous (i.e., metallic ores, coal, petroleum, problems and needs were identified substances into the water. and grain) are projected to continue in the Future Conditions Report, 0A need to minimize the potential to dominate waterborne traffic in the and are summarized as follows: conflicts between commercial and port complexes of Baltimore and recreational users of the Bay. Hampton Roads. General cargo A need to accommodate large movements in both ports, however, bulk vessels which are expected to *A need to minimize erosion are also expected to increase a very dominate the world trade in damage from waves caused by high rate over the projection period. petroleum, coal, and iron ore. passing vessels. Waterborne commerce on the Serious economic inefficiencies 9A need to provide additional t6smaller" waterways is also ex- will result if the larger vessels are lands to accommodate expanding pected to increase over the projec- unable to fully load. port facilities. 28 Tidal Flooding Serious tidal flooding along Chesapeake Bay is caused either by huricanes or "northeaster." Huricanes usually occur in the summer or ealy fall month while northeasters usually occur in the winter months. Since records were first kept in the late 1800's, there have been about 100 storms which have caused tidal flooding damage. Table 8 contains estimates of tidal flood damages caused by four of the worst storms that passed through the Bay Region. The estimates reflect the actual physical damages that occurred, updated to reflect 1983 price levels. Due to the changes in the degree of development in the flood plain, these figures figures do not reflect the damages that would result from a recurrence of these storms under today's conditions. Existing and future flood problem areas were identified initially by condisering the degree of tidal flooding that would be experienced by those communities located along the shoreline of the Bay and its tributaries. The analysis was limited to communities or urbanized areas because residential, commercial, and industrial development would suffer the greatest monetary losses as a result of a tidal flood. Through a screening and evaluation process described more fully in Chapter IV, critically floodprone communities were subsequently identified. Table 9 contains the initial list of both the existing and future critical problem areas. The communities on this list were further screened and evaluated as discussed in Chapter IV and inthe separate sub-report titled Tidal Flooding. Shoreline Erosion The shorelands of Chesapeake Bay are composed of three physiographic elements-fastland, shore, and nearshore(see Figure 13). The fastland is that area landward of normal water levels. The shore is the zone of beaches and wetlands the water body and the fastland. The nearshore extends waterward from the mean low water level to the 12-foot depth contour. While the causes of shoreline erosion are complex and not completely understood, the primary processes responsible for it are wave action, Table 8 tidal currents, and ground water. Waves generated by wind, especially during hurricanes or other large Fastland storms, are the cause of most of the shoreline erosion in the Bay Region. Shore Nearshore In some busy harbors and waterways, the wakes of passing ships are also a significant erosive force. The natural processes of shoreline MLW + 1.5 Tide Range erosion have claimed thousands of acres of land around Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. One estimate places the amount of shoreline ero- sion at 45,000 acres over the past 100 years. Futile attempts to arrest the rate of erosion through either poorly designed or constructed protective measures have frustrated property MLW - Mean Low Water owners. In many cases, landowners Figure 13 Shorelands of Chesapeake Bay have accelerated the rate of erosion by eliminating natural protective devices such as vegetative cover. I Table 9 CriticallyFloodprone Communities Sediment, the product of erosion, @STATEOFMARYLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA has also had significant impacts on Anni?,Arundett7ounty Independent Cities both the natural environment and Arund6l on the Bay Fredericksburg man's use of the resource. Sediment Av on Shpres"(Shad, ,i,,d-e,, Curtis Hampton from shoreline erosion may eventually Pf. to, @ 14o'rsesh6&, pt an, 'West Norfolk be deposited in either natural or Shad sid Portsmouth I I I y , I man-made navigation channels re- "Dealt Virginia Beach quiring maintenance dredging and Baltimore CW Chesapeake the problems associated with dredged Poquoson material disposal. In addition, s Baltimore- County- edi- pact Dundalk (Including Pt.) ment also has a considerable im Accomack County ,Middle Rivier 14-ec-k-@ on water quality and the biota of the Tangier Island Bay. The sediment can cover produc- Patapsc0RtvtrN`ec-k tive oyster beds and valuable aquatic Caroline County King George County plants. Reduced light penetration Denton Dahlgren into the turbid waters can also be CecilCouniy' very detrimental to aquatic life. Elkton' King William County In order to define those areas or Northeast West Point reaches of tidal shoreline along the Dorchester County Northampton County Bay and its tributaries that are suf- arribridge Cape Charles C fering critical losses of land, an in- @Kent County ventory of historical erosion rates Rock Halt Westmoreland County and the adjacent land use was com- Colonial Beach Queen Anne'@ County piled. Using these erosion rates together with the land use informa- Grasonville- WASHINGTON, DC Stevensville tion, approximately 400 miles of shoreline (260 miles in Maryland and St. Mary's County 140 miles in Virginia) were identified Piney Point as existing critical erosion reaches. In Somerset County addition, nearly 45 more miles of Ckisfield Bay shoreline have the potential to Smith Island become critical erosion reaches in the Talbot County future. St. Michaels Tilghman Island Fish and Wildlife Wicomico County Salisbury The fish and wildlife of Chesapeake I Bay contribute in many ways to mak- Worcester County ing the Bay what it is today, in terms I Pocomoke City of both commercial markets and re- Snow Hill 30 creational enjoyment. increasingly, people are turning to the out-of- doors for use of their leisure time, and fish and wildlife contribute both directly and indirectly to the value of the outdoor experience. Sport hunt- ing and fishing, for example, are ma- jor activities of outdoor enthusiasts, as are birdwatching and nature pho- tography. In addition, commercial interests rely on fish and wildlife resources as an important source of income and employment. -PIN- Commercial landings of finfish in- clude striped bass, weakfish, shad, *1L catfish, bluefish, menhaden, ale- 16 wife, spot, white perch, croaker, flounder, and herring. Shellfish, which are commonly harvested com- mercially, include crabs, oysters, soft clams, and hard clams. The shellfish harvest usually represents the large money crop in Chesapeake Bay as it sometimes comprises up to 80 percent of the total commercial harvest value. The fishermen respon- sible for catching the finfish and shellfish constitute the harvesting sector of the commercial fishing in- dustry. Employment in the harvest- ing sector varies between 16,000 and 20,000. About 7,000 more people work in the processing sector of the commercial fishing industry. Catches of finfish and shellfish by recreationists in the Bay Region make up the balance of the total fishery harvest. Species of fish par- ticularly sought by the recreational fisherman, include spot, striped bass, white perch, weakfish, shad, croaker, flounder, yellow perch, cat- fish, and bluefish. It is estimated that @L@e landings of all of these but striped bass, flounder, and catfish actually exceed the commercial catch, demon- strating the importance of recrea- tional fishing in the Bay. Shellfish are also taken by a considerable number of recreationists. Projections of future demands for finfish and shellfish resources are a function of the maximum harvest for each species that can be sustained over time. Continued harvesting be- 40v yond this "Maximum Sustainable Yield" (MSY) would result in even- tual decline in the species population. Most of the commercially and recre- 0 ationafly important species are ex- pected to experience harvesting pres- sures in excess of their MSY before 31 2020, and some before 2000 if pres- rate than the population. Nature dissipated almost entirely by wet ent practices are continued. In some walking is expected to increase at a cooling towers in the future, irrespec- cases, commercial catches of recrea- rate equal to population growth. The tive of the generating process. tionally important species will factors most affecting the provision decline over the projection period. of a quality non-consumptive recre- The gradual move to wet cooling An associated reduction in employ- ational experience are the availability towers portends an increase in con- ment in the commercial fisheries har- of suitable habitats for wildlife and sumptive use. Water withdrawals are vesting and processing sectors is also access by the public. Compared with expected to decrease over the pro- expected. the 814,000 acres of public land in jection period. Water consumption, the Study Area available in 1970, on the other hand, is expected to in- Wildlife are trapped for commercial about 1.9 million acres of public land crease substantially. This apparent purposes in the Bay Region. Fur- will be required by 2020 for non- discrepancy is due to the fact that bearing species commonly trapped consumptive outdoor activity. once-through cooling systems, are beaver, gray fox, red fox, mink, which have high withdrawal rates, muskrat, opossum, otter, raccoon, Electric Power will slowly be replaced by cooling skunk, weasel, and bobcat. The towers which have high consumptive muskrat is of primary economic The Chesapeake Bay Region is served use rates. The result of this increase importance since it provides approx- by about 75 electric utilities covering in water consumption will be reduced imateiy 70 percent of the total in- parts of Maryland, Virginia, freshwater inflows to the Bay. If come of Bay trappers. Delaware, West Virginia, North allowed to continue unabated, de- Carolina, and Washington, DC. clining freshwater inflows could Hunting in the upland forests, These utilities are of varied owner- cause severe environmental damage. farms, wetlands, and open water ships: private corporations, munici- Adverse social and economic effects areas of the Bay Region is a widely palities, consumer cooperatives, and would likely accompany such practiced form of recreation. An- the federal government. changes. imals such as deer, rabbit, squirrel, woodchuck, raccoon, and opossum, With the exception of hydropower, In addition to the water quantity and and game birds such as turkey, quail, most electric generating processes quality problems, electric power and dove are hunted in uplands. In (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and combus- plants and their associated facilities the open water and wetland areas, tion) use water as a means to remove pose other problems. These include waterfowl such as ducks and geese waste heat from the power genera- siting of new plants, compatible land and other birds such as rails and ting process. The heated water is then uses adjacent to large plants, im- woodcock are the most significant pumped into cooling towers or re- pingement and entrainment of fish in game species. turned to its source (in this case, plant facilities, air pollution, radio- Chesapeake Bay or one of its tribu- logical effects, disposal of nuclear Future hunting effort in the Bay taries). Possible detrimental effects wastes, and routing of transmission Region for big game and waterfowl can occur. In those processes which lines. is seen primarily as a function of the use once-through cooling, waste heat amount of land available as quality is discharged to a receiving water Noxious Weeds habitat for wildlife and the degree of body for assimilation. Undesirable access to it by the public. Hunting ef- fish and aquatic plants may predom- The aquatic plants which inhabit fort by 2020 is projected to increase inate near the discharge point. The Chesapeake Bay waters are very im- by 70 percent for waterfowl and 140 immediately surrounding water body portant as they serve as the primary percent for big game over the 1970 may also become undesirable for producers or vital life line for other amounts. Small game hunting is pro- other uses as well, particularly in the species. However, as with any re- jected to decline over the study summer. Most thermal discharges source, an overabundance can also period. Based on the hunting demand are now regulated by federal and lead to problems. Excessive growth analysis, land access requirements state standards which establish a or heavy concentrations can actually for hunting should increase by 60 maximum allowable temperature in- restrict the use of other resources. percent by 2020 over the amount crease. In generating processes which Problems arise when the plants occur available in 1970. use cooling towers, a significant in such a place or to such an extent amount of cooling water may be lost that they limit other beneficial water The wetlands and uplands of the Bay to evaporation. This loss, termed a related uses such as navigation, re- Region are also inhabited by plants consumptive use, represents water creation, fish and wildlife, water and animals which are enjoyed strictly which is withdrawn but not returned quality, and public health. At this for their presence. Wild untrampled to the source. point, they become a hindrance and areas provide a source of recreation Electric use is expected to grow sub- are termed "noxious weeds." to large numbers of people who en- stantially in coming years, although joy birdwatching, nature walking, not nearly as much as was estimated The three types of aquatic plants and photography. just a decade ago. With increased which have, in the past, caused the electric use, additional generating most widespread problems in Chesa- Non-consumptive wildlife utilization facilities will be needed and obsolete peake Bay include Eurasian water- (excluding nature walking) is pro- plants must be replaced. It is further milfoil, water chestnut, and sea let- jected to increase at a slightly higher expected that waste heat will be tuce. Eurasian watermilfoil, a sub- 32 merged aquatic plant which flour- ing studies and research. To better e Maximizing the use of the Ches- ishes in water ranging from fresh to define a productive effort for both apeake Bay Hydraulic Model. 15 ppt salinity, caused problems in the study and testing programs, the the late 1950's and early 1960's in the Corps generally adhered to the fol- * Avoiding duplication of work be- Gunpowder and Middle River areas lowing four guidelines: ing conducted under other existing of the northern Bay and in tribu- or proposed programs. taries of the Potomac and Rappa- 0 Selecting problems for study that hannock Rivers in the lower Bay. were considered of high priority 0 Being responsive to Congress' Water chestnut problems, which oc- and that had Bay-wide signifi- original intent in the authoriza- cur near tributary headwaters (as the cance. tion. plant can tolerate no salinity), were documented in the Gunpowder and Sassafras Rivers in the early 1960's. Finally, sea lettuce, growing in saline waters over 12 ppt, caused problems 14,000 in tributaries of the Potomac River and near the Norfolk area in the mid-1960's. 12,000 While the aforementioned aquatic 10,000 plants have caused problems in the Bay Region in the past, today only an - occasional isolated report of these 8,oOO can be found. They are still present in the Bay waters, but none in suffi- cient numbers to require comprehen- %6,000 sive control measures. The potential 7a does exist, however, for these plants 3: W 4,000 to cause problems in future years '6 should certain favorable conditions :L exist. 3:2,000 An emerging aquatic plant problem 0 1972 1985 2000 2020 is the increase of Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) in the Washington, D.C. Years area. The Potomac River and several freshwater impoundments in the Washington area are becoming in- fested with hydrilla at an alarming rate. Planning efforts are presently underway to address the problem. 1,400 Problems Selected 1,200 for Study 1,000 As is evident from. the preceding sec- :3 tions, there are many existing and M .f Soo emerging problems facing Chesapeake ca Bay. The responsibility for address- (D ing a particular problem may rest at 600 the federal, state, or local govern- .0 ment level, depending on the nature CL E 400 of the problem and its areal extent. In this regard, there are numerous 0 studies and research programs U 200 underway at all levels of government that are investigating various Bay- 0 related problems. 1972 1985 2000 2020 The Corps of Engineers, therefore, Years had to establish its role at the study Figure]4 Projected Energy Requirements for the outset within this spectrum of ongo- Chesapeake Bay Market Areas 33 Relation Between Model Tests 'n and Resource Studies Before continuing, it is important to understand that two categories of 41 "Studies" were defined within the LiN context of the overall Chesapeake Vqk` Bay Study. The first category, called "model study" or "model test" 4-' refers to examinations which were to 'Wr be conducted using the Chesapeake Bay Model. A model test typica ly addressed only the physical aspects of a particular water resource prob- 7, lem. The second category, called resource study," refers to the @V Corps traditional planning process of plan formulation, assessment, and evaluation. A resource study typically addressed one or more problems, and considered economic, environmental, social, and institu- tional effects along with the physical parameters. Figure 15 shows a schematic diagram outlining the relationship between the resource studies and hydraulic Existing Future model tests which were conducted Conditions Conditions for the Chesapeake Bay Study. The Report Report Existing Conditions Report and the Future Conditions Report served as the primary means to identify prob- lems. Once the problems were defined, they were separated into those which were suitable for hydraulic model testing and those which required the broader efforts associated with a Identified resource study. Naturally, several of Problems the model tests provided informa- tion directly to the resource studies; this important link is shown on Figure 15. Other model tests were performed in support of related F Corps studies and in support of in- Tidal Flooding vestigations by other agencies. Study Model Low Freshwater Tests Initial Model Testing Program Inflow Study A list of problems having potential for testing on the hydraulic model is shown in Table 10. This list was gen- erated from information contained Report on the Studies in the Existing Conditions Report, Chesapeake Say Study by Others the Future Conditions Report, cor- respondence, meetings with the Ad- visory Group and Steering Commit- tee, and specific inquiries from Other others as to model applications. At Corps the beginning of the study, it was Studies assumed that the Corps would con- duct only one year of testing using the Chesapeake Bay Model. There- fore, it became necessary to screen Figure 15 Relation between Resource Studies and Hydraulic Model Testing 34 the list of potential model tests to Table 10 identify those having the highest Potential Model Tests priority. This screening and ranking ESTUARINE PROCESSES STUDIES was accomplished with the help of Low Freshwater Inflow Study the Steering Committee and the Ad- High Freshwater Inflow Study visory Group. Water Exchange Among Tributaries Three problems were selected for Determination of Circulation Patterns testing during the model's initial year Tidal Flooding Study of operation. First, an examination Movement of Hydrogen Sulfide in Lower Bay was to be made of the effects of MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY STUDIES decreased inflows on salinity regimes Potomac River Estuary Water Supply within Chesapeake Bay (Low Fresh- Baltimore-Susquehanna River Diversion water Inflow Study). Second, an in- Rappahannock River Estuary Study vestigation was to be made of the Susquehanna-Potomac Water Diversion effects on the estuarine system of Upper James River (Hopewell and Richmond) Water Supply dredging the Baltimore Harbor James-Appomattox Diversions Channels to a depth of 50 feet James-York Diversions (Baltimore Harbor Study). Third, a POWER PLANT EFFECTS STUDIES study was to be made of the effects Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study on salinity and current patterns of Proposed Lower Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study using the upper Potomac Estuary as Upper Bay Power Plants Cumulative Thermal Effects Study a supplemental water supply source Lower Bay Power Plants Cumulative Thermal Effects Study for Washington, DC (Potomac Potomac River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study River Estuary Water Supply and James River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study Wastewater Dispersion Study). York River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study Rappahannock River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study It should be noted that this initial NAVIGATION STUDIES model testing program did not in- Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Study clude any in-depth analysis of the North Bay Dredged Material Containment Area Study data to be collected. Furthermore, Norfolk Harbor Channel Enlargement Study the hydraulic model was to be closed South Bay Dredged Material Containment Area Study after one year of testing. Bay-Wide Dredged Material Containment Area Study York River Channel Enlargement Study Crisfield Harbor Construction Study Expanded Study and Cape Charles Harbor Channel Enlargement Study Testing Program WASTEWATER STUDIES During the development of this first Upper and Lower Bay Wastewater Dispersion Study (EPA) year program, it became apparent Potomac River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study that there were many problems in Patuxent River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study Chesapeake Bay which could be ex- James and Elizabeth Rivers Wastewater Dispersion Study amined only in the context of a Patapsco River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study hydraulic model testing program far Back River Wastewater Dispersion Study beyond that which could be accom- Chester River Wastewater Dispersion Study plished in a one year period. It was Choptank River Wastewater Dispersion Study also apparent that if such a model York River Wastewater Dispersion Study testing program were undertaken, it Rappahannock River Wastewater Dispersion Study should be formulated in the context Upper and Lower Bay Nutrient Equilibrium Study of a resources study. Further, the DEVELOPMENT OF NUMERICAL MODELS model testing data should be used in Determination of Dispersion Coefficients the resources study as an aid in for- Verification of Numerical Tidal Model mulating solutions. In 1975, the Determination of Water Masses in Three Dimensions Corps prepared a revised scope of Determinations of Mass Exchanges at Open Boundaries work recommending an expanded Calibration of Numerical Hydrodynamic Model study program and a total of four years of model testing. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES Following approval of the concept of Sediment Transport in Upper Bay an expanded study and model testing Sediment Transport in Potomac River Estuary program, a study program was iden- Sediment Transport in Rappahannock River Estuary tified and documented in the Revised Sediment Transport in York River Estuary Plan of Study published in October Sediment Transport in James River Estuary 1978. During the development of this Sediment Transport in Chester River Estuary 35 program, the potential study can- didates listed in Table 10 were again reviewed. Based on this review, it ap- peared that at least a portion of the future study and model effort to be funded by the Chesapeake BayStudy should be directed toward studies of extraordinary natural events that have Bay-wide significance. More specifically, these rare natural events included: periods of prolonged low freshwater inflow from the Bay's tributaries, periods of high fresh- water inflow from the Bay's trib- utaries, and tidal flooding caused by unusual climatological/meteorolog- ical conditions. -;;;W- In considering the desirability of conducting additional studies of these rare events, the following points were germane to the selection process. 0 Potomac River Estuary Water each of these two studies. The testing � These events all have signifi- Supply and Wastewater Dis- that was conducted for others is dis- cant Bay-wide impacts on the persion Test cussed in more detail in "Supplement natural resources. 0 Proposed Upper Bay Power C - Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic � The effects of these rare events Plant Thermal Effects Test for Model. are intensified because of peo- Maryland ple's use of the Bay and its re- 0 Upper Bay Cumulative Thermal National Objective sources. Effects Test for Maryland � There is a lack of data/under- * Tidal Flooding Test and Study Guidelines for the formulation and standing of the physical changes 0 High Flow Test and Study evaluation of water resource plans that occur in the estuarine * Bay-wide Wastewater Disper- by federal agencies are contained in system as a result of these rare sion Test for EPA the "Economic and Environmental events. Further, the effect on Principles and Guidelines for Water both the resources themselves The Low Freshwater Inflow, Tidal and Related Land Resources Imple- and people's use of the re- Flooding, and the High Flow tests mentation Studies." These guide- sources is not well defined. and studies were the three programs lines were published by the Water � There is no existing federal or selected for detailed analysis as part Resources Council (WRC) on March state program that is address- of the Chesapeake Bay program. 10, 1983 pursuant to Section 103 of ing these rare events on a Bay- The other tests were to be conducted the Water Resources Planning Act wide basis. in support of other Corps' studies or (PL 89-80) and Executive Order The resource problems and con- the programs of others. 11747. flicts associated with these events Revisions to Expanded The federal objective for water and were ranked as high priority by Study Program related land resources planning is to the Steering Committee. contribute to national economic de- All of these rare events could be For a number of reasons, the most velopment (NED). Planning to duplicated and evaluated using significant of which was the lack of achieve the NED objective must be the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic sufficient funding, the study and consistent with protecting the Model. testing program as recommended in nation's environment in accordance the 1978 Revised Plan of Study was with national environmental statutes, Based on a formulation process not completed. Rather, the expanded applicable executive orders, and which considered the above points, study program was limited to the other federal planning requirements. the need for testing for others, and Low Freshwater Inflow Study and Contributions to the NED objective the overall priority of need for the the Tidal Flooding Study. Both of are defined as increases in the net testing, it was recommended that the these studies were also somewhat value of the national output of goods expanded study and testing program reduced in scope from that originally and services, expressed in monetary be composed of the following: planned. A more complete descrip- units. Contributions to NED are the tion of these studies is provided in direct net benefits that accrue in the � Baltimore Harbor Channel En- Chapters IV and V of this Summary planning area and the rest of the largement Test Report. Further, a complete sub- nation, both in terms of goods and � Comprehensive Low Fresh- report with accompanying technical services that are marketed and also water Inflow Test Study appendices has been prepared for those that may not be marketed. 36 Federal planning efforts are also to Assure sufficient quantities of develop alternatives to the one that water to meet the needs of reasonably maximizes net NED domestic, municipal, industri- benefits. In evaluating and display- al (including power plants), ing the effects of alternative plans, and agricultural users. four accounts are employed. These Assure water of suitable four accounts include NED, envi- qualities for all intended or ronmental quality (EQ), regional potential water resource uses. economic development (RED), and other social effects (OSE). The EQ Maintain, enhance, and/or in- account shows effects on ecological, crease water-based recrea- cultural, and aesthetic attributes of tional opportunities. significant natural and cultural Maintain, enhance, and/or in- resources that cannot be measured in crease the commercial and monetary terms. The RED account sport fishing opportunities and shows the regional incidence of NED resources. effects, income transfers, and Maintain or improve water employment effects. The OSE ac- navigation facilities which pro- count shows urban and community vide service advantageous to effects on life, health, and safety. the nation's transportation system. Planning Objectives Reduce tidal flooding dam- ages. Planning objectives are expressions Reduce damages due to shore- of public and professional concerns line erosion. about the future use of water and Develop power facilities where related land resources. They are they can contribute to a needed derived through an analysis of the increase in power supply. existing resource base and the ex- pected future conditions within a 0 Control the occurrence of cer- study area. The purpose in defining tain aquatic plants where they planning objectives is to establish interfere with people's use of targets which guide the formulation the Bay. of alternative plans and to enable a Maintain or improve adequate evaluations of the plan effectiveness. outlets for approved on-farm Planning objectives may sometimes drainage systems for surface conflict with each other, reflecting water management. different perceptions of how the water resource should be managed in the future. Planning Constraints Planning objectives were developed Planning constraints are those for the Chesapeake Bay Study physical, environmental, social, through various Advisory Group and economic, and institutional bound- Steering Committee meetings, public aries which define the limits of study. meetings, workshops, agency cor- The broad constraints on any planning respondence, and individual dis- process conducted at the federal level cussions. Additionally, the Existing are embodied in a large volume of law, Conditions Report and the Future regulation, and policy such as the Conditions Report along with the "Principles and Guidelines." These Revised Plan of Study helped to put constraints form the framework in into focus the important planning which water resource projects are con- objectives. The planning objectives ceived, developed, and evaluated. The are listed as follows: technical, economic, environmental, and social constraints and criteria for � Preserve, restore, and enhance the resource studies selected for de- the integrity of the Chesapeake tailed analysis are discussed in the Bay ecosystem. following chapters. � Manage, preserve, and en- hance areas of significant natural, historical, cultural, or scientific interest. 37 4W 40 110-W A, "i' -lit 'W'-"l- 14 Chapter IV Tidal Flooding Study Tidal flooding of low lying areas ad- these storms change to a northerly jacent to the Chesapeake Bay shore- and northeasterly direction in the lines is an occasional natural vicinity of the East Coast of the phenomenon. Over the years, tidal United States. flooding has caused significant As a hurricane progresses over the human suffering and millions of open water of the ocean, a tidal surge dollars of damage for those people is created. This tidal surge is caused living along the shorelines. Table 8 in not only by the force of the wind and the previous chapter displays mone- the forward movement of the storm tary losses associated with some of wind field, but also by differences in the worst tidal floods. atmospheric pressure accompanying the storm. The actual height reached As discussed earlier, the Chesapeake by a hurricane tidal surge depends on Bay Tidal Flooding Study was one of many factors including shoreline two priority studies selected for configuration, bottom slope, dif- detailed analysis because of the mag- ference in atmospheric pressure, and nitude and Bay-wide nature of the wind speed. Generally the tidal surge problem. The Tidal Flooding Study increases as the storm approaches had three primary objectives (1) to land because of both the decreasing provide a better understanding of the depth of the ocean and the contours tidal flood stage-frequency relation- of the coastline. An additional rise ship; (2) to define environmental and usually occurs when the tidal surge socio-economic impacts of tidal invades a bay or estuary and hurri- flooding; and (3) to recommend cane winds drive waters to higher structural or non-structural meas- levels in the more shallow areas. Tid- ures for tidal flood protection. al surges are greater and the tidal This summary chapter includes a de- flooding more severe in coastal com- scription of the screening process used munities which lie to the right of the to identify communities subject to storm path. This phenomenon is due to the counterclockwise spiraling of tidal flooding, a discussion of poten- the hurricane winds and the forward tial solutions, and a presentation of movement of the storm. the plan formulation and evaluation rationale which was used for com- "Northeaster" is a term given to a munities facing critical tidal flooding high intensity storm which almost in- problems. Details concerning the variably develops near the Atlantic Tidal Flooding Study are contained Coast. These storms form so rapidly in the separate report titled Chesa- that an apparently harmless weather peake Bay TidalFlooding Study. situation may be transformed into a severe storm in as little as six hours. Identification of Most northeasters occur in the winter months when the temperature con- Problem Communities trasts between the continental and maritime air masses are the greatest. Cause of Tidal Flooding The East Coast of the United States has a comparatively high incidence Serious tidal flooding in the Chesa- of this type of storm, with the area peake Bay Region is caused by either near Norfolk, Virginia, being one of hurricanes or "northeasters. " Hurri- the centers of highest frequency. canes which reach the Middle Atlan- tic states are usually formed either in Existing Tidal Flooding Areas the Cape Verde region or the western Caribbean Sea and move westerly Existing flood problem areas were and northwesterly. In most cases identified by considering the degree 39 of tidal flooding that would e ex- perienced by those communit es lo- horeline oft i cated along the shoreline of t @ Bay and its tributaries. The analy s was limited to communities or urbanized _V areas. 11W The initial step in the analysis was to identify all Bay communities having a population of 1,000 or greater that were located either in total or in part within the "Standard Project Tidal Flood Plain." The Standard Project flood problem was considered to be ducted. This screening eliminated Tidal Flood (SPTF) was defined as critical if the Intermediate Regional those communities where it was evi- the largest tidal flood that would be Tidal Flood (IRTF) inundated 25 dent that flood protection would not likely to occur under the most severe acres or more of intensively devel- be feasible. This determination was combination of meteorological and oped land and also caused significant based on the fact that many residen- hydrological conditions that are con- physical damage. The IRTF was de- tial communities are located along sidered reasonably characteristic of fined as that tidal flood which has a the Bay's shoreline solely for aesthe- the geographic region. one percent chance of occurrence in tic and recreational reasons. A struc- any one year, generally referred to as tural solution would require, in most The Corps of Engineers, in coopera- the I 00-year flood. Elevations for the cases, a flood wall of excessive tion with the National Weather Serv- 100-year tidal flood were approx- height. This type of structure would ice, determined that the SPTF would imated for points around Chesa- impact upon the use of the shoreline average approximately 13 feet above peake Bay based on historical rec- for recreation and would cause visual mean sea level (msl) for the Bay ords. The flood heights were found disruption of the shoreline's environ- Region. The above figure is a static or to range between 6 and 11 feet above ment. Application of non-structural standing water surface elevation msl. Approximately 27,000 acres of solutions such as flood proofing and which would occur in conjunction land in 32 communities were found to relocation, would also be inappropri- with an astronomical high tide. It be in the 100-year tidal flood plain. ate. Many of these structures are old does not include the effects of waves. The 32 critically floodprone com- and not suitable for major flood Wave heights of approximately five munities are designated in the second proofing modifications. Relocation feet could be expected during a hurri- column of Table 11. away from the shoreline would like- cane. Based on the above combina- wise be unacceptable because the tion of tidal surge and wave action, Future Tidal Flooding Areas houses were built adjacent to the the SPTF would inundate areas up to water to take advantage of the re- approximately 18 feet above msl. The criterion used for designating an source. However, for ease in delineating the area as floodprone in the future was flood area, an elevation of 20 feet that 50 acres or more of land pro- Further screening eliminated several above msl was assumed for the SPTF posed for intensive land use fall with- additional communities from further elevation. in the Standard Project Tidal Flood consideration. Smith Island, Mary- Plain. Areas were considered to be land, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and The next step in the analysis was to "critically" floodprone if 25 acres or Colonial Beach, Virginia were elimi- identify those communities that more of land proposed for intensive nated as detailed studies of these should be classified as "floodprone. " land use were within the 100-year communities were being conducted In order for a community to be desig- flood plain. The communities found by the Corps of Engineers under spe- nated as floodprone, at least 50 acres to be critically floodprone in the cific study resolutions. Any further of land that were developed for in- future are designated in the third col- effort under the Chesapeake Bay tensive use had to be inundated by umn of Table 11. Program would have been duplica- the SPTF. Intensive land use was tive. Denton and Salisbury, Mary- defined as residential (four dwelling Based on a comparison of the exist- land, were eliminated when prelim- units/acre or greater), commercial ing and future acreage, it was noted inary stage-damage surveys and (including institutional), or in- that an additional 58,000 acres of more detailed flood plain delineation dustrial development. The sixty Bay land are proposed for intensive de- indicated that the flood problem was Region communities identified as velopment within the Standard Proj- limited to only scattered develop- floodprone are listed in the first col- ect Tidal Flood Plain with 19,000 ment at frequencies in excess of once umn of Table 11. Approximately acres of that land being within the in 100 years. Likewise, Fredericks- 82,000 acres of land in these com- I 00-year flood plain. burg, Virginia, was eliminated when munities were located in the SPTF Screening of Communities fluvial rather than tidal flooding was flood plain. found to be the problem. for Detailed Analysis The next step was to further examine Lastly and most significantly, Balti- b i h si the communities designated as flood- During the preparation of the Revised more City and the Dundalk area of prone and classify each as to whether Plan of Study, a further screening of Baltimore County were eliminated or not the tidal flood problem was those critical communities listed in after preliminary damage surveys considered to be "critical." The columns 2 and 3 of Table I I was con- and an evaluation of several struc- 40 Table 11 Tidal Flooding Critical Problem Areas Communities Facing Communities With Communities Facing Communities Floodprone Critical Additional Critical Designated For Communities* Existing Problems" Problems in Future*** Detailed Study Maryland Anne Arundel County Arundel on the Bay X X Avalon Shores X Broadwater Columbia Beach Deal X Eastport Franklin Manor on the Bay & Cape Anne Galesville Rose Haven Baltimore City X Baltimore County Back River Neck Dundalk X X Middle River Neck X Patapsco River Neck X Calvert County Cove Point North Beach on the Bay Solomons Island Caroline County Choptank Denton X Federalsburg Cecil County Elkton X Northeast X Charles County Cobb Island Dorchester County Cambridge X X Harford County Havre de Grace Kent County Rock Hall X X X Queen Anne's County Dominion Grasonville X X Stevensville X 41 Table il (contd) Tidal Flooding Critical Problem Areas Communities Facing Communities With Communities Facing Communities Floodprone Critical Additional Critical Designated For Communities* Existing Problems** Problems in Future*** Detailed Study St. Mary's County Colton Piney Point X St. Clement Shores St. George Island Somerset County Crisfield X Smith Island X X X Talbot County Easton Oxford St. Michaels X X X Tilghman Island X X Wicomico County Bivalve Nanticoke Salisbury X X Worcester County Pocomoke City X X X Snow Hill X X Virginia Independent Cities Chesapeake X X X Fredericksburg X Hampton X X X Newport News Norfolk X X X Poquoson X X X Portsmouth X X Virginia Beach X X Accomack County Onancock Saxis Tangier Island X X King George County Dahlgren X King William County West Point X X Northampton County Cape Charles X X Westmoreland County Colonial Beach X Washington, D.C. X *Communities having at least 50 acres of existing development within the Standard ProjectTidal Flood Plain. "Communities havingatleast25 acresof existing development within the 100-year tidal floodplain. ***Communities havingatleast25 acresof additional proposed development within the 100-year tidal flood plain. 42 tural and non-structural measures. formation. Therefore, the tidal by the Corps of Engineers and other These preliminary evaluations in- flooding analysis was conducted us- federal agencies to evaluate the rela- dicated that both structural and non- ing existing stage-frequency relation- tive seriousness of flood problems. structural measures which would ships rather than the refined data ex- They are also used to compare the provide flood protection for the most pected from the combined hydraulic cost of flood reduction measures floodprone sections of these two and numerical modeling effort. against the reduced damages (bene- 0 areas would have benefit-cost ratios fits) that would be expected from a on the order of only 0. 1. The stage-damage information and project. the stage-frequency data were com- The fourth column of Table I I pro- bined to produce a damage-fre- vides a list of the floodprone com- quency relationship for each flood- Plan Formulation munities which were retained for de- prone community. From this rela- and Evaluation tailed examination. Figure 16 shows tionship, average annual damages, the locations of these communities. shown in Table 12, were developed Once the severity and frequency of (It should be noted that the indepen- for each community. These numbers the tidal flooding problem in each dent cities of Hampton, Norfolk, represent the average damages which community had been defined, altern- Chesapeake, and Portsmouth were could be expected in any year under ative plans for reducing the damages considered as a single area during the existing conditions (i.e., no improve- were formulated. Potential struc- detailed examination.) ments) when considering the entire tural and non-structural measures hydrologic record. Average annual were first examined in general terms. Detailed Problem damages are an economic tool used Later, these measures were combined Definition Having identified those communities which are subject to serious tidal flooding, the next step in the investi- gation was to examine each com- B@LTWAW munity in detail to determine the magnitude and frequency of the flood damages. Detailed flood dam- OC age analyses were conducted in 1979 to establish the relationship between flood stages (heights) and corre- W TON P.C. sponding damages in the floodprone It. chael communities. Field surveys were un- dertaken to determine the number of 40 rm@ structures subject to tidal flooding. Ighman We These structures were then classified according to residential, commer- Cambric! cial, industrial, or public uses. Dam- age estimates were assigned to each structure according to its use, its con- tents, its condition, and its location. V Generally, greater damages were found to be associated with the higher I I tidal flood stages. 0 k 'City At the same time that the flood dam- age surveys were being conducted, the Corps was proceeding with the planning necessary to develop Bay- Tangier Is wide stage-frequency relationships. A numerical tidal surge model was to be used to develop the stage-frequency information. The hydraulic model West ?pint was then to be used to calibrate and verify the numerical model by simu- Cape ryo lating several storm surges of differ- ent frequencies in conjunction with tidal fluctuations and fluvial inflows. Unfortunately, funding constraints Poqp@oaon and problems with the hydraulic model indefinitely delayed the stage- Nor frequency examination, and it was M p ds. necessary to proceed without such in- Figure 16FIoodprone Communities Designatedfor Detailed Study 43 into specific plans according to the Table 12 conditions in each floodprone com- munity. Average Annual Damages Due To Tidal Flooding Survey of Potential Management Measures Community Average Annual Damages Structural Solutions Structural solutions are defined as Maryland* those man-made structures that are Cambridge $ 18,000 designed to protect an area from tidal Crisfield $142,000 flood damages. Flood walls and levees Pocomoke City $ 24,000 are two examples of these types of Rock Hall $ 74,000 structures. While differing in design, Snow Hill $ 11,000 appearance, and cost, flood walls St. Michaels $ 26,000 and levees serve essentially the same Tilghman Island $ 35,000 purpose. Both are constructed near Virginia" the shoreline to protect landside de- Cape Charles $ 30,000 velopment from inundation by tidal Hampton/Norfolk/Chesapeake/ flood waters. Portsmouth*** $ 79,000 Flood walls are generally concrete Poquoson $398,000 and may have vertical, curved or Tangier Island $382,000 stepped faces. Flood walls may be West Point $ 49,000 used where the close proximity of the development to the shoreline pre- cludes the construction of levees. *Average annual damages are shown at July 1979 price levels. Levees are usually earth embank- **Average annual damages are shown at January 1983 price levels. ments having a top width of approxi- ***Based on results of studies at one selected sample area (Fox Hill). mately 10 feet and side slopes that vary between I on 2 and I on 4. Levees are generally less expensive than flood walls. They are particular- height and direction of storm waves, Recreational and commercial craft ly applicable in areas where construc- the selection of size and type of con- are particularly susceptible to dam- tion materials are nearby and there is struction materials based on expect- age caused by the large waves asso- sufficient area between the shoreline ed wave forces, the availability of ciated with tidal flooding. Harbors and the development for their con- construction materials in the project of refuge provide areas of calm water struction. area, the effect of the breakwater on for the safe mooring of all types of commercial and recreational boat- craft. Harbors of refuge can be Due to the high cost of this type of ing, and the environmental effects. naturally sheltered areas such as protection, the use of levees and coves or inlets, or existing marinas flood walls in the Bay Region is Breakwaters can be either shore-con- and mooring areas protected through generally limited to those floodprone nected or located offshore. They are the use of breakwaters. areas where there is extensive resi- generally classified by either the con- dential, commercial, or industrial struction materials or the method of Other possible structural measures in- development. It should also be noted construction. Breakwaters can be clude bulkheads, revetments, groins, that providing a levee or flood wall of constructed of stone or concrete and beach nourishment. These meas- sufficient height to protect against a blocks (rubble-mound breakwaters), ures, however, are used primarily for major tidal flood could severely re- stone-asphalt mixtures, reinforced the control of shoreline erosion and strict the use of the shoreline for rec- concrete shells filled with stone or have only limited applicability as tidal reational, transportation, or ship- sand, steel sheet piling cells filled flood control solutions. ping purposes. Also, the protection with sand, or timber cribs filled with may be considered unacceptable rubble. They can also be mobile or Non-Structural Solutions from an aesthetic standpoint if the floating breakwaters which may be view of the water body is restricted. moved into place when a tidal flood is Non-structural solutions include predicted. The most common type of regulatory actions by communities or A breakwater is another type of flood breakwater in the Chesapeake Bay individual measures by property protection structure. It is designed to Region is the shore-connected, owners to either prevent tidal flood break the force of storm waves and rubble-mound breakwater. In the damage or to avoid land use patterns thus reduce the damage that would be sheltered waters of the Bay and the which conflict with tidal flooding. experienced by storm waves breaking sub-estuaries, this type of protection Some of the more common types of on shoreline development. The de- is very effective and usually can be non-structural measures include 0 sign of an effective breakwater in- constructed with materials that are flood proofing, relocation, aquisi- cludes consideration of the expected available locally. tion and demolition, flood forecast- 44 ing, evacuation, zoning and land use These measures may be designed to surance industry, the program is controls, and public awareness pro- keep water out of buildings and are operated by the Federal Insurance grams. intended only to protect equipment Administration of the U.S. Depart- and stock. A widely used emergency ment of Housing and Urban Develop- Flood proofing is actually a com- measure is the planned removal of ment (HUD). In return for making bination of minor structural changes contents to higher locations when a low cost insurance available for ex- and adjustments to properties sub- certain flood stage is expected. isting floodprone properties, the pro- ject to flooding. Flood proofing is Again, an effective flood warning gram places certain obligations upon recommended where traditional system is crucial to the effectiveness the community. it is required to types of flood protection are not of this type of measure. adopt and enforce certain land use, feasible and where moderate flood- zoning, and building code regula- ing having low stages, low velocity, Relocation of a structure involves tions which will govern development and short duration is expected. Flood moving the building to a new site in the floodprone areas. The empha- proofing measures can be classified which is not in the tidal flood plain. sis of these regulations is generally on into three broad types. First, there Although classified as a "non-struc- discouraging intensive development are permanent measures which be- tural" measure, relocation includes and encouraging instead land uses come an integral part of the struc- several construction-type activities such as parks, ball fields, and picnic ture. Second, there are standby such as preparing a new site, readying areas which do not suffer significant measures which are used only during the structure for transport, trans- permanent losses from temporary floods, but which are constructed or porting the structure to a new loca- flooding. made ready prior to any flood threat. tion, and razing the former site. Third, there are emergency measures Typically, relocation is an expensive The potential hazards of tidal flood- which are carried out during a flood and somewhat time-consuming oper- ing are not always evident to a pro- according to a predetermined plan. ation. Provided the new site is above spective developer or homeowner. In the tidal flooding zone, though, the other instances, the hazard may be Permanent measures usually involve solution is a permanent one. A apparent, but the preventative action either the elimination of openings similar procedure is for some public taken to avoid the problem is either through which water can enter a agency to acquire the flood prone ill-conceived or constructed. In either building. For example, unnecessary property, relocate the owner/resi- case, the individual would benefit doors and windows can be perma- dent to a different building, and from additional information relative nently sealed with brick; valves can demolish the former structure. to tidal flooding. A public awareness be installed on basement sewer pipes program would serve to advise the to prevent flood water from backing Reliable and accurate forecasts of public as to the location of the flood up into the basement; or boilers, air- floods and flood stages can be cou- plain and expected flood heights. conditioning units, and other im- pled with well-planned evacuation The program could also provide in- mobile machinery can be moved to procedures to save lives and reduce formation as to the structural and high elevations and replaced with property losses. Unlike fluvial flood- non-structural measures that could movable furniture or stock. Adjust- ing along small inland streams, tidal be used to cope with tidal flooding. ments such as these can be most easily flooding along the Bay's shorelines The success of a public awareness undertaken in existing buildings dur- can usually be predicted several program that is directed toward ing periods of remodeling or expan- hours to sometimes several days in ,self-help" is highly dependent on sion. Raising the entire structure advance. These types of forecasts are the publicity which it receives. Distri- above the tidal flooding level is normally prepared and released by bution of information should be sup- another method of permanent flood the National Weather Service. If con- plemented by public meetings to ex- proofing. ditions warrant temporary abandon- plain the purpose and intent of the ment of buildings in low-lying areas, program and where further technical Standby measures are most desirable the local civil defense offices and Red advice can be secured. when it is necessary to maintain ac- Cross chapters can conduct the evac- cess to structures at points below uation according to a predetermined No Action selected flood protection levels. For plan. Some communities have even example, display windows at commer- practiced flood evacuation proce- One other option that must be con- cial structures must not be blocked in dures in simulated exercises. Ad- sidered is the "no action" or "do order to serve their main purpose. vance flood warnings also permit nothing" plan. Certain segments of a These types of openings cannot be home-owners and businesses to move community or, in fact, entire com- permanently flood proofed, but they household goods and equipment to munities may not be well suited for can be fitted with removable flood upper floors or higher ground. the application of flood damage re- shields. Since the placement and in- duction measures. Additionally, stallation of such devices requires Until recently, insurance against some communities may not desire any several hours, a flood warning flood losses was virtually non-exis- kind of planned flood protection, system has to be established before tent. Now, however, flood insurance perhaps fpr aesthetic reasons. Still such flood proofing measures can is available in floodprone communi- other communities may consider the become effective. ties under the Federally-subsidized risk associated with the expected National Flood Insurance Program. level, frequency, and duration of Emergency measures are carried out A cooperative effort of the Federal flooding to be within acceptable lim- during an actual flood experience. Government and the private in- its and thereby choose to do nothing. 45 Development of 9 Archaeological, historical, aes- benefits. In no instance did the ratio Alternative Plans thetic, geological and ecological of benefits to costs exceed the 1.0 resources should be preserved, necessary for economic justification. Having completed the survey of po- maintained or enhanced. Most of the flood damage surveys for tential management measures, a e Community cohesion and desir- the Maryland communities were per- range of alternative plans was devel- able community growth should formed in 1978 and 1979 and reflect oped for each floodprone commun- be preserved, maintained or en- conditions at that time. A reconnais- ity. The plans were comprised of dif- hanced. sance level survey of these same com- ferent combinations of structural munities was undertaken in 1983, and non-structural measures aimed however, to determine if any of them at reducing or eliminating tidal The character of the flood plain com- had experienced major growth in flooding damages. Depending on the munities in Maryland is somewhat areas subject to tidal flooding. The frequency of flooding, the real extent different from those in Virginia. The conclusions reached from this survey of damages, and the estimated ecO- Maryland communities, for the most were that some minor growth had oc- nomic severity, different levels of part were found to be older village curred in nearly all communities, but flood protection were also consid- cent@rs with relatively stable popu- not to the degree necessary to sub- ered within each community. Costs lations. The economics in most of stantially alter any of the earlier find- for each alternative plan were them are tied to the seafood industry ings. Thus, no additional work was developed and then annulized for and other Bay-related trades. Little performed for any of the Maryland comparison to the reduced average growth is projected for coming years. communities when preparing the annual damages. Benefit to cost The Virginia communities, on the report on the Chesapeake Bay Study. ratios were then computed for each other hand, were generally found to plan, and the environment effects be somewhat larger and of a broader Virginia Communities were investigated. economic base. Significant growth is expected in future years in some of Similar to the plan development pro- Several formulation criteria were them. The Virginia communities, of cess for the floodprone Maryland used to guide the development of the course, are also closer to the Atlantic communities, alternative plans were alternative plan. These criteria are Ocean and exposed to potentially formulated for each of the Virginia listed below: greater damages as storms move communities facing critical tidal along the coastline. flooding problems. These plans also � Flood protection should be de- included both structural and non- signed to provide protection structural measures in various com- against the 100-year tidal flood Maryland Communities binations as indicated in Table 14. (It (approximately equal to the flood should be noted that the intense level of record) and up to the 500-year Table 13 contains a list of the Mary- of development in the Hampton/ tidal flood, if practicable. land communities and a summary Of Norfolk/ Chesapeake /Portsmouth the structural and non-structural region precluded a detailed examina- � Flood protection design criteria measures which were considered. tion of the area during this study. In- such as freeboard requirements Some plans contained only structural stead, only the selected sample area and design features of a struc- elements, some plans contained only of Fox Hill was examined to deter- ture's typical cross section nonstructural measures. Alternative mine if tidal flood reduction meas- should be compatible with the plans for a given community some- ures might be feasible.) existing site conditions, availa- times differed only in the level of pro- ble materials, and the type of tection provided. In other communi- Environmental and social effects of structure selected. ties, alternative levee and/or flood- the various flood reduction measures wall alignments were examined to were found to be similar to those in *The plans developed should be furnish protection to different sec- the Maryland communities. In sever- engineeringly feasible tions within the town. al of the Virginia communities, though, the preliminary examina- � Tangible and intangible benefits Adverse environmental effects were tions conducted in 1978 and 1979 re- should exceed costs. found to range from minimal for vealed that some of the alternative most of the non-structural measures plans were economically justified. to significant for the structural com- Consequently, the Norfolk District, � Benefits and costs should be ex- ponents. Adverse social effects Corps of Engineers conducted addi- pressed in comparable quanti- would occur if structures were relo- tional investigations in 1983 to deter- tative economic terms based on cated, or if certain buildings were ac- mine if any of the tidal flood reduc- either a 50 or 100-year project quired and demolished. Economic tion plans still appeared to be feasi- life and the applicable federal in- information was developed for each ble. These investigations included re- terestrate. alternative plan and is shown in the examinations of the average annual last several columns of Table 13. As damages, new computations for the is evident from the data in the table, first costs and annual costs of the al- � Loss of life and property and the economic costs of providing tidal ternative plans and recomputation of hazards to health and safety flood damage protection far out- the benefit to cost ratios. The results should be eliminated. weighed the potential economic of this recent iteration of economic 46 Table 13 Plansfor Tidal Flood Protection Maryland Communities STRUCTURAL NON-STRUCTURAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION- MEASURES MEASURES Average First Annual Annual Benefit Earth Concrete Flood Utility Room Acquisition & Annual Cost Cost** Benerits TO Community Levee Floodwall Proofing Addition Demolition Relocation Raising Damages Of Plans Of Plans Of Plans Cost Ratios Cambridge x x x x x S 18,400 $556,300 to $55,150to $13,500 to 0.1 to (8 Plans) S9,120,600 $706,700 $103,800 0.5 Crisfield x x x x x x x $142,500 S676,300 to S49,800 to $13,000 to 0.3 to (6 Plans) $7,333,200 $567,200 $172,000 0.7 Pocomoke Cry x x x x x x x $ 23,900 $259,700 to $19, 100 to $10, 100 to 0 to (5 Plans) S4,322,700 $335,300 $18,000 0.5 Rock Hall x x x x x x x S 73,500 $1,093,000 to S80,450 to $22,500 to 0.2 to (10 Plans) $13,513,800 $1,046,300 $194,500 0.3 Snow Hill x x x x x S 11,400 $303,500 to $22,300 to $3,400 to 0 to (7 Plans) $3,741,600 $290,000 $9,100 0.2 St.Michaels x x x x x x S 26,300 $730.0DO to $53,700 to $8,200 to 0 to (4 Plans) $11,970,800 $926,600 $16,000 0.2 Tilghman Is x x x x x x $ 34,700 S120,500to $8,900 to S" to 0 to (7 Plans) $8,896,360 $689,300 $21,000 0.3 *Economic information is based on July 1979 price levels and the fiscalyear 1980 interest rate of 7 1/8percent. **Figures forannual costs include operation and maintenance as well as interest and amortization. Table 14 Plans for Tidal Flood Protection Virginia Communities STRUCTURAL NON-STRUCTURAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION* MEASURES MEASURES Average First Annual Annual Benefit Earth Concrete Dikes Flood Utility Room Acquisition & Annual Cost Cost- Beriefits To Community Levee Floodwall Flapgates Proofing Addition Demolition Relocation Raising Damages Of Plans Of Plans Of Plans Cost Ratios Cape Charles x x x $ 37,300 $103,000 to S9,300 to $200 to 0.02 to (5 Plans) $502'D00 $45,400 $5,200 0.13 Hampton/ x x $100,100 $904,000 to $81,800 to $62,000 to 0.3 to Norfolk/ $3,184,000 $352,000 $108,600 0.8 Chesapeake/ Portsmth*** 0 Plans) Poquoson x x x $501,400 $199,000 to $18, 100 to $15,000 to 0.2 to (8 Plans) $8,754,000 $792,800 $362,000 1.2 Tangier Is. x x S481,700 $180,000 to $16,300 to $23,800 to 0.2 to (4 Plans) S24,891,000 S2,503,300 $534,100 1.5 West Point x $ 62,500 $90,000 to $8,200 to $9,400 to 0.4 to (4 Plans) $1,048,000 $94,900 $40,200 L2 *Economic information based on January 1983 pricelevels and fiscalyear 1983 interestrateof7 7/8 percent. --Figures for annual costs include operation and maintenance as well as interest and amortization. ***Figuresare forthcFox Hill sample area only. 471 analyses are shown in the last several tural solutions usually require direct stages. A storm surge model would columns of Table 14. Confirming the monetary outlays by these same resi- also be useful in developing a better earlier work, certain combinations of dents and businesses. stage-frequency relationship on tidal flood reduction measures ap- which to base the computation of pear to be economically justified for Combinations of structural and non- average annual damages used in the Poquoson, Tangier Island, and West structural measures are perhaps the economic evaluation of flood re- Point. best plans for tidal flood protection. duction plans. Economic information developed Findings and Conclusions during the Tidal Flooding Study, In spite of the finding that few tidal Several significant findings and con- however, indicated that tidal flood flooding protection plans are justi- clusions were derived from the Ches- protection programs were econom- fied, certain steps can be taken to re- apeake Bay Tidal Flooding Study ically, justified in only a few com- duce inconvenience and damage in a t ob- munities. Of those 12 communities community. Perhaps one of the most just described. The first and mos which were investigated, only three promising steps is the development vious finding is that periodic tidal Virginia communities (Poquoson, of an accurate tidal flood forecasting flooding is a problem that affects a Tangier Island, and West Point) and warning system. This system of Chesapeake Bay's shorelines at were found to have plans with could be developed through the co- one time or another. Nearly 60 com- benefit to cost ratios greater than ordinated efforts of the National munities around the Bay were identi- 1.0. The value and intensity of Weather Service and local civil de- fied as having existing or potentially development in most floodprone fense departments. Included in the serious tidal flooding problems. Less areas was not great enough to war- flood forecasting and warning obvious, perhaps, is that significant rant a full-scale tidal flooding pro- system would be items such as the monetary loss from tidal flooding is tection program. A further observa- following: advance weather and tidal incurred by only a small number of tion is that many residents of flood- stage forecasts, communication net- these communities which because of prone communities view tidal flood- works to inform communities and topography and land use patterns, ing as a temporary inconvenience residents of potential flooding, per- are especially susceptible to damage which is a tolerable tradeoff for the manent markets in critical areas to in developed sections. The twelve benefit of living and working close to indicate tidal flood heights, planned communities noted in Table I I and the water of Chesapeake Bay. evacuation routes from low-lying shown on Figure 16 were identified areas, and designation of municipal for detailed examination during the Although flood protection plans for buildings not in floodprone areas for Tidal Flooding Study. the Hampton Roads complex temporary shelter during flood (Hampton, Norfolk, Chesapeake, events. While such actions alone will Both structural and non-structural and Portsmouth) would not be eco- not reduce the incidence or magni- measures are available to reduce or nomically justified based on the tude of tidal flooding, human suffer- prevent the adverse effects of tidal findings of the Fox Hill sample area, ing and inconvenience would at least flooding in these communities. further detailed studies of the entire be reduced. Another step is the en- Structural measures include projects area are warranted. Existing flood couragement of land use patterns in such as earth levees and concrete damage surveys in the Hampton the floodprone areas which are com- flood walls. For some communities, Roads area are over 20 years old, and patible with periodic tidal flooding. these measures are the most effective much new development along with These patterns could be established means of flood protection. These substantial redevelopment has Oc- at the local level through compre- structural solutions, however, usual- curred in this particular area. Detail- hensive planning documents, zoning ly have adverse environmental ef- ed flood damage surveys reflecting ordinances, or land use regulations. fects and are very expensive. In addi- current conditions should also be undertaken for Poquoson, and tion, residents are often opposed to Tangier Island, before any firm com- structural solutions on aesthetic mitments to tidal flood protection grounds and because direct access to plans are made in these com- the Bay's shoreline is hindered munities. While there was economic justification for one of the plans for Non-structural measures include West Point, the limited scope of the programs such as flood proofing, plan (three residential and one in- utility room additions, acquisition dustrial property) and the intent of and demolition of floodprone struc- the property owners to undertake tures, relocation, and raising of their own improvements precludes buildings. Non-structural solutions the need for additional study. are usually less expensive and less en- vironmentally damaging than struc- Any further investigation of tidal tural projects. Voluntary participa- flooding along Chesapeake Bay tion by nearly all residents and busi- shorelines should also include nesses is required, though, to make a development of a storm surge model, non-structural tidal flood protection as discussed earlier in this chapter. program effective on a community- Such a model would permit more ac- wide basis. Furthermore, non-struc- curate forecasts of tidal flooding 48 Chapter V Low Freshwater inflow Study Chesapeake Bay is dependent upon various portions of their life cycle are the inflow of freshwater to maintain generally able to survive in the natural its salinity regime. Decreases in the variations in salinity. But, drastically amount of freshwater entering the reduced freshwater inflows during a Bay have had serious environmental, period of drought or reductions of less social and economic impacts in the magnitudes over a longer period of past and are expected to have even time can impose environmental stress more severe impacts in the future. by threatening the health or even the survival of species sensitive to par- As discussed earlier, the Low Fresh- ticular ranges of salinity. Changes in water Inflow Study was one of two freshwater inflow can also alter ex- priority problems selected for de- isting estuarine flushing characteristics tailed analysis. This selection was and circulation patterns. In short, the based on the severity and Bay-wide character of Chesapeake Bay and the nature of the low freshwater inflow health and well being of the ecosystem related problems. The Low Fresh- are dependent on established physical, water Inflow Study had three chemical, and biological patterns in primary objectives: (1) to provide a the Bay. These are, in turn, intimately better understanding of the relation- related to the volumes and seasonal ship between the salinities in Chesa- variations in freshwater inflows. peake Bay and the magnitude of freshwater inflow from its trib- The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries utaries; (2) to define the socio- are a large source of water supply for economic and environmental im- the communities, industries, and pacts of both short and long term farms located along or near its shores. reductions of freshwater inflow; and People use the water from the Bay and (3) to identify the promising alter- its tributaries for a variety of domestic native solutions to the problems purposes. Industries use it in their caused by reductions in freshwater manufacturing processes while farm- inflow to Chesapeak Bay. ers irrigate crops and water live stock. Most of this water is returned to the This chapter includes: (1) a descriP- Bay or its tributaries after it has been tion of the problem identification used. The part that is not returned is process to include the selection of called the consumptive loss. Con- priority problem species, (2) a sumptive losses occur nearly every discussion of the alternative time water is used. The amount of the measures that could be employed to consumptive loss varies with each use solve the problems and (3) a presen- and may include up to as much as 75 tation of the plan formulation and percent of the water withdrawn. Most evaluation rationale used to select importantly, recent studies show that the most promising alternatives. consumptive losses have increased Details concerning the Low Fresh- over the years and are expected to con- water Inflow study are contained in tinue to increase over the next fifty the report and appendices titled years. Chesapeake Bay Study - Low Freshwater Inflow Report. In the future, every tributary to Chesa- peake Bay will be subjected to the con- Problem Identification sequences of a rapidly increasing con- sumptive use of water. This means that Like all estuaries, Chesapeake Bay is by the year 2020 there will be a marked dependent on the inflow of freshwater reduction in the amount of fresh water to maintain its salinity regime. The flowing into Chesapeake Bay. The many species that live in the Bay year result of this will be an increase in the round and others that utilize it only in Bay's salinity levels. The magnitude of 49 these increased salinities and their socio-economic and environmental consequences was the focus of the problem identification stage of this study. The problem identification pro- cess was conducted in the following four steps: 1. Develop existing and expected future water supply demands. JOO 2. Develop existing and future con- sumptive loss projections. 3. Conduct testing on the Chesa- 111111.916- peake Bay Hydraulic Model to deter- mine changes in salinity caused by re- duced freshwater inflows. 4. Determine the socio-economic and environmental impacts of c hanges 4 in salinity. d@ z @O @O 6,000 P. D.C.* Manmudfacturi Power Irrigation Livestock Minerals Total 5,000 ---------- 2 2,000---- 1,000-.-- 0--__ 1965 120201 19651 2020 r@ YEARS *Public, Domestic, And Commercial UAF;L Figure 17 Water Supply Demands 50 Water Supply Demand and lost because of consumptive losses. of water would effect both drought Consumptive Losses Figure 19 shows a comparison of the and long term average salinities in the Water supply demands were pro- consumptive losses with both long Bay and its tributaries. In order to ac- jected to the year 2020 in six use term average inflows and average complish this, the test was divided in- categories to include public, manu- monthly inflows during the 1960's to two parts; a base test and a futures facturing, power, irrigation, live- drought. The losses are relatively test. In the base test, the freshwater stock and minerals. As shown on small (maximum of I I %) when com- inflows that occurred during the 1963 Figure 17 water use is expected to in- pared with average values, however, to 1966 drought were simulated. The crease substantially in all categories even this small a change can have drought was followed by several except manufacturing and livestock. significant impacts on Bay salinities. repetitions of an average inflow year. When consumptive losses are com- In the futures test, both the average More significant to Chesapeake Bay pared with inflows expected during and drought hydrographs were re- are the projected increases in con- droughts, the losses may equal over duced by the expected increase in sumptive losses of water. As shown 50% of total inflow to the Bay and consumptive losses between the years on Figure 18 a five-fold increase in are very significant. 1965 and 2020. consumptive losses is expected by Problem Identification 2020. As noted on the figure the It was found that consumptive losses largest increases will be in the power Hydraulic Model Test in general cause a saltier Chesapeake and manufacturing categories. By The primary purpose of the Bay. The magnitude and structural 2020 a significant portion of the hydraulic model test was to deter- variations in salinity as a result of freshwater inflow to the Bay will be mine how future consumptive losses these losses are dependent on the P.D. C.* IManufacturinJ Power Irrigation Livestock Minerals Total 3,500- 3,000--- 2,000 1,500 1,000 0196512020 1 YEARS 71 Public, Domestic, And Commercial Figure 18 Consumptive Losses 51 specific hydrodynamic characteris- tics of a given area and its proximity to the riverine system or the ocean. On the average however, it appears that the Chesapeake Bay salinities in- creased a maximum of 2 to 4 parts per thousands due to consumptive losses DROUGHT LONG TERM AVERAGE of water. Also, it appears that drought salinities are as much as 5 3 parts per thousand higher than long term averages. Of particular significance in the test 30 - results, is the penetration of higher 3: 0 level salinities into the estuary. This .E phenomena is illustrated on the ac- companying isohaline maps (Figures :E 25- 20 and 21). These maps compare both base and future seasonal average salinity conditions for two different seasons of the year. Par- 20 - ticular note should be taken of how 2 the lines of equal salinity are located much further upstream in the futures test than they are in the base test. For 15 E more detail on the conduct and re- 4) sults of the hydraulic model test, the "" reader is referred to Appendix D of S .2 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - the Low Freshwater Inflow Study. Problems and Needs The data from the hydraulic model test provided an understanding of 5 how changes in freshwater inflow af- fected the Bay's salinity regime. The next step was to identify the nature and severity of the problems associ- 01 1 A S 0 K D I F M A M 0 N Im M ated with the increasing salt levels. Based on a preliminary examination, ISummer 1965 Thru Spring 1966 urnmer Thru Spring the two areas of concern were changes in the populations of impor- tant Bay biota and adverse impacts on those using the estuary as a water Figure 19 Ratio of Incremental Consumptive Losses to Freshwater Injlows supply source. Of the two areas of concern, the biota representative of the over 2700 of experts (Biota Evaluation Panel) related impacts were considered to be species indigenous to the Bay. to determine how the changes in the most important. The biota im- Through the cooperative efforts of habitat would affect the populations pacts had to be addressed from not WESTECH, the Fish and Wildlife of the study species. The Panel only an eco-system perspective but Service and the scientific community evaluated the changes in habitat be- also as the impacts related to @Om_ the 57 species shown on Table 15 tween the base, future, average and mercial fishing and recreation. Iden- werechosen. drought conditions and prepared an tifying the impacts on the Bay biota The next step of the process was to assessment of the expected popula- was a complex and challenging en- determine how the potential habitat tion changes. The Panel also gave deavor. The assessment method- of these 57 species was affected by consideration, where appropriate, to ology that was developed is con- changes in salinity. The potential such other factors as species inter- sidered to be "state-of-the-art" and habitat for each species was mapped actions, recovery time, recruitment was a cooperative effort among the for each of the four inflow condi- and recolonization. Steering Committee, the Fish and tions simulated in the hydraulic In trying to summarize the findings Wildlife Service, the Corps and the model testing. The criteria used in of the Panel, it should be noted that Corps contractor Western Eco-Sys- mapping included not only salinity, while changes in habitat due to long tern Technology, Inc. (WESTECH). but substrate, depth and the critical term average increases in consump- F 4MA M 1i I A S 0 1 F M WAM F OS.,,6 er Thr, Spd, seasons for the individual organisms. tive losses are small, the impacts can The first step of the assessment be significant. Large losses in pop- methodology was to identify a small Given the habitat mapping, the Fish ulations of oysters, soft clams and a group of organisms which would be and Wildlife Service formed a panel brackish water clam (Macoma 52 balthica) may be expected with the long term decreases in freshwater inflow. Much larger losses are expected dur- ing both Base and Future Drought events. Plants and animals p 0I ol ar ticularly affected include ana- dromous fish, low salinity sub- merged aquatic vegetation (SAV), soft clams, Macoma and oysters. a Certain species will be more affected c by reductions in food supply (ducks) or increases in predation or disease (oysters) than by direct losses in habitat. Also, some organisms will recover much more rapidly from the Is effects of a drought. Small, rapidly growing organisms such as plankton f te would be expected to repopulate af- fected areas rather quickly. On the other hand, it could take as long as a I decade or more for some of the ben- thics and SAVs to recover from the effects of a drought. The anticipated decline in oysters under all three reduced freshwater SUMMER [_FZL inflow conditions is particularly _j disturbing. Although oysters gen- erally thrive in areas where salt levels Figure 20 Intrusion of Salinity-Long Term Average are high, so do diseases such as dermo and MSX. The problem is that oysters move into new areas and recolonize very slowly while its diseases and parasites can spread rapidly; especially where salt levels are greater than 15 ppt. The Panel 01 has estimated that the oyster mor- talities due to the phenomenon would be very large and could ap- a proach 8001o in the Future Drought a Condition. It should be noted that IL these conclusions have been partially substantiated during the past several years. Freshwater inflows to Ches- apeake Bay have been low and sa- linities have been high. Along with this has been a rapid increase in MSX related mortalities and a marked in- trusion of the disease into new upstream areas. The Panel estimated that the acreage _j Is V of many of the low salinity varieties -_I of submerged aquatic vegetation will I. 2a be significantly reduced by decreases in inflow. Losses of these species are significant in that they serve as a valuable food for waterfowl and 30 provide valued habitat for many other species. As reported in the.re- cent Environmental Protection Figure2l Intrusion ofSalinity During Drought Agency reports, the SAV popula- tions are severely reduced. Further 53 declines caused by reduced inflows could resultin the total disappearance of some species. The Canvasback Duck would also be adversely affected by reduced inflows. The canvasback is very dependent on both SAV and Macoma is expected to decline markedly and with that decline, there would be an attendent reduction in the population of canvasback ducks. The Panel also addressed the impacts of salinity changes on specific zones within the estuary. Based on the Venice System developed in 1958, the estuary is divided into zones which generally corresponds to the breakpoints in organism distribution. These zones are as follows: Tidal Freshwater 0.0 to 0.5 ppt Oligohaline 0.5 to 5.0 ppt Mesohaline 5.0 to 18.0 ppt Polyhaline 18.0 to 30.0 ppt Euhaline over 30.0 ppt Salinity is the factor that determines the boundaries of these zones. As freshwatre inflows decrease and salinities increase, these zones move furthr upstream and the size of the lower salinity areaas are generally compressed. For example, under the Future Drought Condition the aeas of the oligohaline and tidal freshwater zones are reduced by approximately 80 and 50 percent, respectively. The large loss in the oligohaline zone is one of the most significant impacts of reduced frehwater inflow. The tendency in teh estuary is for nutrients and detrital material to concentrate at the interface between salt and freshwater. During spring and summer, the low salinity areas become teh site of prodigious growths of plankton which provide food for important species of juvenile fish. As shown on Table 16, there are many other important species that are dependent on the low salinity waters. In summary the role of the oligohaline zone in the life histories of this wide spectrum of organisms, as well as its role in overall ecosystem function, makes imperative its protection and, if possible, enhancement under all conditions of freshwater inflow. Final Study Species List PHYTOPLANKTON ASSOCIATIONS Winter/Spring --------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ Summer/Fall ------------------------ tidal freshwater association ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION ---------------- -------------- ---------------- pondweeds ---------------- ------ grass ---------------- horned pond weed ---------------- ---grass EMERGENT AQUATIC VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS Tidal Freshwater Associations ------------------------------- dominant, bra--ish tidal marsh ------------------------ dominant, bra--ish tidal marsh ZOOPLANKTON -------- ------------- --------------- -------- ------------- sea nettle -------- ------------- ----fer -------- ------------- -------- ------------- -------- ------------- -------- ------------- -------- ------------- -------- ------------- -------- BENTHOS ---------- ------------- ------worm ------------- ------worm ------------- ------worm ------------- ------worm ------------- ------worm ---------- ------------- -------drill ------------- oyster ------------- Baltic --------- ------------- hard clam ------------- ---- clam ------------- soft clam ------------- -------clam ---------- ------------- amphipod ------------- barnacle ------------- blue crab ------------- -------- ------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ------------- grass shrimp FISH --------- American -------- --------- ----ife --------- ---------- --------- bay anchovy --------- spot --------- Atlantic silverside --------- Atlantic croaker --------- striped bass --------- white perch --------- yellow perch WILDLIFE (BIRDS) --------- mallard --------- black duck --------- -------------- 54 Table 16 Consideration was also given to the impacts. The following paragraphs impacts on those municipalities, summarize the findings of the study agricultural interests and industries team. Tables 17, 18 and 19 also pro- Important Species Dependent that use the Bay as a source of vide a summary of environmental, on Tidal Freshwater and potable, irrigation or cooling process economic and social impacts, respec- Oligohaline Zones water. They were surveyed to deter- tively. mine the likely impacts of increased In addition to the environmental im- salinities at their respective intakes. pacts on the biota itself as defined by Sufficient data were collected during the Biota Evaluation Panel, con- Phytoplankton the surveys to assess the damages Tidal Freshwater Assoc. that could be expected in the event of sideration was also given to aesthetic Oligo/low meso. Assoc. droughts or long term reductions in values. Chesapeake Bay is well Ceratophyllum demersum (SAV) inflow. As will be discussed in subse- known for its aesthetic values. Many Tidal freshwater marsh assoc. quent paragraphs the economic im- hours are spent by the thousands of Brachionus calcyiflorous (rotifer) pacts, i.e., damages, were not found people enjoying the reflection of the Eurytemora affinis (copepod) to be sufficient to warrant further sun and moon on its waters, watch- Scottolana canadensis (copepod) consideration during the formula- ing the waterfowl in their mass Bosmina longirostris (cladoceran) tion stage of the study. migrations and in just quiet solitude. Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri The reductions in freshwater inflow (Oligochaete worm) Given the aforementioned findings caused by consumptive losses of Scolecolepides Viridis of the Biota Evaluation Panel water is not expected to markedly (polychaete worm) relative to biological impacts" fur- change these experiences. There are, Cyathura polita (isopod) ther analyses were conducted to however, four factors that could Gammarus daiberi (amphipod) determine the implications to com- contribute to a small to moderate in- A losa sapidissima (Am. shad) mercial fishing, sport fishing water trusion on the aesthetic experience. Alosapseudoharengus (alewife) contact recreation and Zer re- These are, a degrading of water Morone saxatilis (striped bass) sources. These analyses, together quality, a loss in the numbers of Morone Americana (white perch) with the results of the water users waterfowl, an increase in the density Percaflavescens (yellow perch) surveys, were then used by a Corps of sea nettles and a degradation of multi-disciplinary study team to boating docks by wood borers. make an overall assessment of the Most of the economic impacts caused socio-econornic and environmental by reductions in inflow will be im- Table 17 Summary of Environmental Impacts Magnitude of Adverse Impacts Environmental Category Impact Future Base Future Extent of Effects Account Criteria Average Drought Drought Local Regional National AQUATIC RESOURCES *Tidal Fresh Phyto. habitat loss VL VL X *Mesohaline Phyto. habitat loss M L L X *Prorocentrum minimum habitat loss M L X eCeratophyllum demersum & other low salinity SAV habitat loss S L L X X *Tidal Fresh Marsh habitat loss S M L X eBrachionus calcyiflorus habitat loss - L L X 9Eurytemora affinis habitat loss - L L X *Scottolana Canadensis habitat loss - VL VL X *Bosmina longirostris habitat loss - VL VL X @Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri habitat loss - L VL X e0yster (MSX & Dermo.) habitat loss L VL VL X X X *Macoma balthica habitat loss M L L X *Soft Clam habitat loss L VL VL X *Shad habitat loss - M L X X X *Alewife habitat loss - M M X *White perch habitat loss - M M X Striped bass habitat loss - M L X X X 90Yellow perch habitat loss M M M X *Canvasback habitat loss M L L X X X 55 Table 17 (contd) Summary of Environmental Impacts Magnitude of Adverse Impacts Environmental Category Impact Future Base Future Extent of Effects Account Criteria Average Drought Drought Local Regional National ECOSYSTEM Net adverse effect S M M-L X X X AESTHETICS *Water quality Poor flushing in subestuaries M M X *Canvas back Few ducks S S X *Boat-docking Collapsing facilities boat docks S M M X *Sea nettle effect on recreationists S S X RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Habitat loss M M X X X LEGEND - Insignificant S Small M Medium L Large VL Very Large EX Extreme posed on the commercial fishing in- infestations of sea nettles. Lastly, these, only recreation, and traditions dustry, recreation, and those that use sport fishing and waterfowl hunting are felt to have significance in plan- the Bay as a source of water supply. will be degraded because of the ning for low freshwater inflow. Mod- The average commercial fishing har- reduced numbers of preferred erate impacts would be sustained by vest in the Bay during the period of species. Despite these adverse im- swimmers and water skiers in their 1952 to 1980 was worth approx- pacts however, the recreation related increased encounters with sea net- imately $73 million annually. The problems were not considered suffi- tles. Potential health risks could also economic losses associated with both cient to warrant further study. be involved for persons who ex- long term decreases in inflows and perience allergic reactions. Sport drought events are significant. The Similar to the recreation related fishing and hunting will also suffer losses associated with the long term problems, a more detailed analysis significant impacts. The loss of such decrease are estimated at $15.2 found that increased salinities would species as striped bass, shad and million, while the Future Drought not have a major economic impact canvasback ducks would be a loss of Condition could result in losses in ex- on Bay water users. Only two com- not only recreation potential, but a cess of $300 million. Over 90 percent munities (Havre de Grace, Maryland detriment to people's concept of the of these losses would be in the shell- and Hopewell, Virginia) would have Bay. fish harvest, most particularly damages associated with their use of oysters and soft clams. There would Bay waters for municipal purposes. Lastly, the activities of Bay water- also be significant impacts related to Both communities are expected to man convey an image of tonging for such finfish as striped bass and shad. take local actions to eliminate these oysters or manning trotlines for Clearly, further consideration of im- problems. Similarily, the industries crabs. This way of life dates from the portant commercial species was affected are also likely to take the Bay's first settlement with some necessary. necessary action to eliminate any communities changing little since salinity related problems. their founding over 300 years ago. Changes in the habitat of several Loss of traditional harvesting species will affect man's recreation A change in the habitats and abun- grounds, especially for a species such activity and cause some economic dances of Bay organisms can cause as the oyster, would encourage a de- impacts. Increased boat/marina impacts other than economic and en- cline in the waterman and his unique maintenance will result from further vironmental. Among these are health way of life. The importance of fin- intrusion of shipworms and bar- and safety, special traditions, science fish in the waterman's way of life is nacles. Losses in water contact and education, and such ethereal less easily quantified. But, using recreation will accompany increased things as recreation experience. Of oysters as the principal barometer, 56 traditions associated with commer- cial fishing in Chesapeake Bay could be very significantly affected. The previous paragraphs provide a brief overview of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of re- duced freshwater inflows. It is clear that many of the species that live in the Bay will be seriously adversely af- fected and that significant damages will occur. Included as Table 20 is a list of those priority problem species that were selected as the focus of the plan formulation efforts. Of par- ticular importance are oysters and those species that depend on the oligohaline and tidal freshwater zones. Of nearly equally importance are the low salinity SAVs, soft clam and Macoma. @74%- 57 Table 18 Summary of Economic Impacts Magnitude of Adverse Impacts Economic Category Impact Future Base Future Extent of Effects Account Criteria Average Drought Drought Local Regional National COMMERCIAL FISHERIES 90yster Lost harvest values L L VL X X X *Striped Bass Lost harvest values S M L X X *Shad Lost harvest values S M L X X *Soft Clam Lost harvest values L VL VL X X RECREATION *Swimming (Sea Nettle) Reduced expenditures X *Boating (Teredo & Reduced Bankia) expenditures M EX EX X X eWaterfowl Hunting Reduced (Canvasback and expenditures - S S X X other ducks) eSportfishing Reduced expenditures - - - X X BAY WATER USERS *Municipal Increased treatment costs - - - X offidustrial Increased treatment costs - - - X *Power Increased treatment costs - - - X LEGEND - Insignificant S Small M Medium L Large VL Very Large EX Extreme 58 Table 19 Summary of Social Impacts Magnitude of Adverse Impacts Social Category Impact Future Base Future Extent of Effects Account Criteria Average Drought Drought Local Regional National HEALTH & SAFETY *Sea nettle Effect on swimmers S X *Public water Effect of salt systems on public health X RECREATION EXPERIENCE oSport fishing Loss of preferred species S M X X eWaterfowl hunting Population loss of favored waterfowl S M L X X eSwimming and Increased waterskiing densities loss sea nettle M M X *Boating Effect of borers S S X X TRADITIONS 0Ches Bay watermen Loss of oysters M L VL X X X LEGEND - Insignificant S Small M Medium L Large VL Very Large Table 20 Plan Formulation statutes, applicable executive orders, and other federal planning require- Planning Objectives and ments. " Assumptions The primary objective of the Chesa- peake Bay Low Freshwater Inflow Guidelines for the formulation and Study was to formulate those alter- Priority Problem Species evaluation of plans for improvement native freshwater inflow related for all federal water and related land actions which would lead to the pre- resource activities are contained in servation or enhancement of the 1. Oyster (including drills and MSX) the Economic and Environmental socio-economic and environmental 2. Oligohaline/Tidal Freshwater Zone Principles and Guidelines for Water values of Chesapeake Bay and the 3. Low Salinity SAV and Related Land Resources im- estuarine portion of its tributaries. 4. Sea Nettle plementation Studies, March 1983. 5. Soft Clam As stated therein, "The single Within this very broad objective, 6. TeredolBankia federal objective of water and more specific objectives have been 7. Macoma balthica and related land resource planning is to adopted through interactions with Canvasback Duck contribute to national economic the scientific community and the development consistent with protect- public to further define the planning ing the Nation's environment, pur- setting and the subsequent con- suant to national environmental straints on plan formulation. These 59 objectives provide a focus for 1. Pursue a highly conservative fisheries management (catch restric- development of plans to protect policy toward alterations in the tions and nursery/restocking pro- highly valued habitats and reduce the quantity of freshwater inflow, recog- grams), oyster bed restoration and short and long term adverse impacts nizing the high biological value of salinity barriers. of droughts and consumptive losses. Chesapeake Bay and acknowledging These objectives which are specific the limits of predictive capability. Preliminary Screening to individual aquatic resources are as 2. Retain the fundamental sea- follows: sonal freshwater inflow pattern of Given the aforementioned alter- low flows in the fall and high flows in native . measures, a preliminary 1. Protect productive oyster beds the spring. screening was conducted to eliminate from incursions of disease organisms those measures which were not con- and predators, or otherwise alleviate 3. Recognize that upstream shifts sidered to be feasible from a these damages, for purposes of long- of species will frequently move them technical or institutional viewpoint. term commercial fishery productivity into lower valued habitat. Also, some of the Bay related meas- and Bay traditions. ures were selected as most promising 2. Maintain the size of tidal fresh- Major assumptions made in plan alternatives without conducting water and oligohaline salinity zones formulation include: more detailed analyses. Detailed for their value in ecosystem func- studies of these selected alternatives tions and as a spawning and nursery 1. The use of salinity tolerance were not conducted because of either area for numerous commercially and alone, in conjunction with knowl- the limited state of the art or the recreationally important species edge of the habitat variables analysis/implementation of the al- such as striped bass, shad, spot, substrate and depth, is sufficient to ternative was clearly not within the menhaden, and alewife. permit meaningful alternative plan scope of this study. Reservoir stor- 3. Maintain and/or enhance the development and evaluation. age and conservation, however, were productivity of striped bass and shad 2. The selected "study species" subjected to a detailed screening. which are important in commercial provide a sufficiently adequate rep- The following paragraphs provide a harvests, recreation, and Bay tradi- resentation of all Bay biota to permit brief description of the measures tions. the formulation of generalized prob- considered and the results of the 4. Contribute to the propogation lem solutions. preliminary screening. of submerged aquatic vegetation for 3. By the year 2020, the goals of benefit of waterfowl (important the 1976 Amendments to the Water Reservoir Storage-Upstream water components of recreational hunting Pollution Control Act would be met. storage would be provided through and Bay traditions) and ecosystem Therefore, water quality other than the construction of reservoir projects processes. salinity would not be a plan evalua- or reallocation of storage in existing tion variable. projects in the drainage basins 5. Contribute to the productivity tributary to Chesapeake Bay. Water of the clam, Macoma balthica, as an Potential Measures would be stored during periods of essential food for canvasback duck surplus stream flows for release dur- (an important component of recrea- A variety of measures were con- ing low flow periods. Upstream stor- tional hunting and Bay traditions). sidered to reduce or eliminate the ef- age is well proven in its potential for 6. Contribute to the productivity fects of reduced freshwater inflows. supplementing stream flow and of the soft clam, Mya arenaria, for The measures can generally be clas- therefore was retained for further in- its commercial harvest values. sified as either "flow supplementa- vestigation. 7. Reduce the potential for incur- tion " or "Chesapeake Bay related". sion of wood borers Bankia and Flow supplementation measures are Interbasin Importation of Water- Teredo to avoid economic losses at those means which can be employed The importantion of water into the boating harbors. in the Bay's tributary drainage Bay drainage from other basins was 8. Moderate the proliferation of basins to provide increased fresh- considered only briefly. It was sea nettles to contribute to water water inflow. Included in this eliminated from further considera- contact recreation experience and category are both structural and tion in light of high cost, potential aesthetic environmental values. nonstructural measures such as adverse socio-economic and envi- reservoir storage, importation of ronmental impacts in other basins Limitations on the full array of op- water from outside the Bay drainage and potential implementation dif- tions available for successful re- area, development of groundwater, ficulties. sponse to the planning objectives conservation, pricing, drought emer- (i.e., "constraints") are imposed on gency measures, and growth restric- the planning setting by technical, en- tions. Groundwater Development-Large vironmental, and institutional factors scale groundwater development could and definitive public views. Based on The second category of measures be used to supplement the freshwater recommendations of the Biota Eval- considered are those Chesapeake inflows to Chesapeake Bay. This uation Panel, certain guidelines and Bay related alternatives which can be measure was also dropped due to procedures were adopted for use in implemented in the Bay area directly potential high cost and the likely guiding the planning process. These in order to eliminate adverse im- adverse impact of large withdrawals are: pacts. Included in this category are on local groundwater users. 60 Conse rvation-Conservation meas- retained as a most promising alter- of a subestuary, (2) interrupting the ures are normally instituted in order to native from a conceptual viewpoint. normal migratory movements of reduce the amounts of water needed various species of finfish, and (3) dis- for water supply for communities, Fisheries Management-Given the rupting commercial and recreational farms and industries. In most cases importance of commercial and sport boating. Further, a detailed analysis this will reduce the amount of water fishing to the Chesapeake Bay of barrier plans would probably re- that is used consumptively, although Region, it is not surprising that the quire model testing. Thus, due to the a few conservation measures such as involved states all have comprehen- degree of adverse impact and inability recirculating cooling processes can sive fisheries programs and attend- for additional model testing, salinity actually increase consumptive losses - ant research and resource study pro- barriers were dropped from further While these types of measures can grams. The alternative to be con- consideration. take many forms, conservation for sidered is modifying the existing pro- this study was defined as those per- grams of the states in order to be Formulation of Flow manent measures such as pressure more responsive to the problems/ Supplementation Plans reducing valves, plumbing code needs identified in the Low Fresh- regulations, consumer education water inflow Study. Given the prob- Conservation and other water saving devices that, lem species and areas, the state The potential for accumulation of once implemented, save water year resource agencies will be better able round. It also included adoption of to target catch restrictions, min- large benefits through the institution water saving manufacturing process. imum length requirements, hatchery of conservation measures is small. programs and other measures to aid This may be surprising in view of the Three levels of water savings through those commercially and recrea- large reductions in water demands conservation were considered. The tionally important fin and shell- that often result from conservation. For the most part, however, conser- medium level was the only one ad- fishes that are adversely impacted by vation measures that are presently dressed in detail as it was considered low flows. Although the present rela- used are more oriented to reducing the most reasonable and cost effec- tionship of fishery management water demands than consumptive tive of the three levels. measures to fish populations in the losses. This is reflected on Table 21 estuary are largely unproven or where potential savings in consump- Pricing-Water pricing is a demand unknown, there have been some ap- tive losses through both permanent controlling measure that assumes parent successes attributed to catch conservation measures and emer- that the price of water can be restrictions and finfish restocking. gency drought measures are com- regulated to control demand. A ma- Due to this and the potential for pared with year 2020 consumptive jor study of pricing in the Metro- these measures to help alleviate losses. The many blank spaces on politan Washington Area found that drought and long term average prob- this table indicate that the savings in the demand for water by Potomac lems, fisheries management has been a particular river basin are less than River users could not be further identified as one of the most promis- one mgd. reduced by pricing policies, at least ing alternatives. in the immediate future. This Implementation of conservation measure was therefore eliminated Oyster Bed Restoration-Oyster bed plans would be very difficult and from further consideration. restoration or repletion is the process costly in an area as large and diverse of transferring seed oysters and shell as the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Be- Drought Emergency Measures- to both low production and new cause communities and industries These measures normally consist of oyster bars. The seed oysters are then are for the most part, already actions taken during a water short- allowed to mature before they are esta'blished, large amounts of re- age to temporarily reduce the water harvested about two or three years plumbing, retrofitting and perhaps use. They often include bans on such later. The repletion program has changes in manufacturing processes activities as lawn sprinkling or the largely been credited with helping to may be required. Also, the respon- washing of automobiles. Although sustain the State of Maryland's sibility for instituting these measures the savings in consumptive losses as- oyster production since 1960. The would rest with the hundreds of local sociated with these measures are Commonwealth of Virginia has a political subdivisions. small, they were retained for further similar long-established and reason- consideration. ably successful program. This ap- In view of these factors, there is some parent success was justification for question whether the benefits asso- Growth Restrictions-Broadly de- identifying this program as one of ciated with conservation measures fined, growth restrictions would take the most promising alternatives. are sufficient to justify their costs. the form of population, land use and But, conservation is the only feasible industrial activity controls that Salinity Barriers-Salinity barriers, measure that would decrease long would reduce the rate of growth of in the form of solid structures con- term average consumptive losses. water demands. In theory, consump- structed across a portion of the Bay Also, conservation does have recog- tive losses could be reduced. Due to or one of the subestuaries, could ef- nized benefits beyond those resulting the many levels or combinations of fectively prohibit the intrusion of from reductions in consumptive measures that could be imple- high salinity waters. While effective losses. In view of these factors, it was mented, specific plans for growth in reducing salt water intrusion, decided to retain for further analyses restrictions were not formulated. potential negative effects include: (1) conservation measures in only those However, growth restrictions were reducing the normal flushing action river basins where average annual 61 reductions in consumptive losses are 10 percent or greater. These basins Table 21 arethe: Conservation Potentials Susquehanna River Basin Year 2020 Potential Drought Potomac River Basin Consumptive Medium Emergency York River Basin Losses Conservation Measures Rappahannock River Basin Point Basin (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Patuxent River Basin 15 Susquehanna 992 178 54 Chester River Basin I Nansernond 105 2 7 Choptank River Basin 2 Chickahominy 4 3 Appomattox 25 - - Reasonable Storage 4 James 226 4 15 5 York 98 14 5 6 Rappahannock 50 5 4 The initital step in the storage 11 Patuxent 14 2 1 analysis was to develop an inventory 12 Severn 13 - - of those existing federal and non- 13 & 14 Upper Western Shore 389 27 25 federal projects that have a total 16 Bohemia 14 - - storage in excess of 10,000 acre-feet. 17 Chester 30 6 3 It was at first assumed that up to 50 18 Wye - - - percent of the conservation storage 19 Choptank 72 17 5 that was not already committed for 20 Nanticoke 34 2 2 low flow augmentation storage 21 Pocomoke 18 - - could be allocated for releases for the 7 Lower Potomac 6 - - Bay. It was further assumed that any 8 Occoquan 9 - - flood control storage above three in- 9 Anacostia 2 - - ches could also be reallocated for low 10 Potomac flow augmentation. While realloca- (D.C. and Above) 472 50 35 tion for this purpose would have *-Conservation is less than I mgd. beneficial impacts, there would likely be major adverse recreation and fish and wildlife impacts within the reser- voir areas of most of the projects. Table 22 AD Further, the loss of flood control storage would likely be perceived as a major adverse impact even if the loss of benefits is minor. After considera- Potential Reasonable Upstream Storage tion of the various reallocation Chesapeake Bay Drainage Area assumptions, it was decided that a practicable reallocation level would Storage Based be 20 percent of the present conser- implementable on 5 % of Average vation storage. Further, no flood Storage Annual Flow control storage would be reallocated Basin (A cre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) for low flow purposes. Susquehanna 1,200,100* 1,418,800 Potomac 395,800* 449,000 Consideration was also given to the James 1,115,000 370,000* construction of new storage pro- Rappahannock 713,000 106,000* jects. The potential projects initially York 0* 96,000 identified included those federal and non-federal projects that were under construction, authorized, recom- mended for construction, or found to have merit in recent comprehen- One other factor was considered in the reasonable upper limit of reser- sive basin studies. This initital inven- the development of reservoir storage voir storage considered in plan for--- tory was then screened and those criteria. One of the plan formulation mulation was a function of either the projects which appeared to have the goals is the retention of the natural availability of reservoir sites or the most merit were selected and the seasonal patterns of freshwater in- limits to flow modification. Shown total storage was summed for each of flow to Chesapeake Bay. In order to on Table 22 are potential upstream the major basins. Only reservoir sites assure achievement of this goal, stor- storages for each major basin. The in the Susquehanna, Potomac, James age in each basin was limited to five lower of the values are those con- Is and Rappahannock Rivers were re- percent of the average annual dis- sidered reasonable. These are mark- tained. charge of the river or stream. Thus, ed with an asterisk. 62 Storage Requirements magnitude of inflow, it takes from requirements were those needed to 60 to 150 days for salinities to adjust achieve salinity goals during one The salinity levels of the Chesapeake to a change in freshwater inflow. season of the year. Bay are a function of many factors Therefore, if Base Drought salinities including the time history, magni- are to be met at the beginning of Early in the evaluation process, the tude, and location of freshwater in- summer, the Base Drought hydro- feasibility of accomplishment of is flows, ocean salinities, antecedent graph must be in place 60 to 150 days "long-term average" plans through salinities, and tidal amplitudes. The prior to summer. The amount of the use of storage became doubtful. possible combinations of these fac- storage needed to accomplish this Practical considerations arose re- tors is nearly infinite. Because of was computed by determining the garding the monitoring necessary to this, it is not possible to select one set average difference (expressed in determine release schedules to ac- of minimum freshwater inflows mgd) between Future Drought and complish long-term average goals. which will assure that the plan for- Base Drought freshwater inflows Thus, except for conservation plans, mulation goals are met under all during the antecedent period and which would directly reduce future possible conditions. Rather, target multiplying this difference by the consumptive losses, long-term aver- salinities must be specified at critical number of days in the period. age plans were dropped. Conserva- locations and the required fresh- 2. The second step involved deter- tion was looked at more closely in water inflows computed based on in later iterations of plan formulation. the unique hydrographic and salinity ining the amount of storage re- conditions which exist, or are pro- quired to maintain Base Drought The second set of plans was designed jected to exist, during the period of salinities during the summer (the to eliminate drought related dam- interest. Real time salinity monitor- target season). This was done by ages. Sufficient freshwater inflow ing, historic freshwater inflow multiplying by 90 days the difference was provided to decrease salinities records, and both estaurine and (in mgd) between the Future from Future Drought Levels to a riverine models would be needed to Drought and Base Drought summer series of predetermined goals. These accomplish this. seasonal average freshwater inflow. goals ranged from Base Drought to The Chesapeake Bay Study staff had Phase I Plan Development Base Average levels of protection. intended to develop the sophisti- Inspection of Table 23 indicated that cated methodologies necessary to Phase I of the planning effort ad- very large amounts of water would compute the amount of storage re- dressed only the Susquehanna River be needed to meet the Future and quired to meet plan formulation and the Main Bay. Its purpose was to Base Average goals. It is clear that goals under the unique hydrographic identify the potentials for solving the storages required are far beyond and salinity conditions addressed in through flow supplementation the that considered reasonable. In addi- this study. Three model tests were to full range of identified problems. A tion, seasonal salinities greater than be done in order to gather the data series of plans were formulated for long-term average ones are not nec- necessary to do this. But, it was each problem species or species essarily detrimental. These are part possible to conduct only one of these group. The first set of plans was of the natural cycle and it is only dur- tests meaning that much of the infor- designed to eliminate long term ing extreme drought events that high mation needed was not available. It average damages. Sufficient fresh- salinities have been specifically iden- was decided, however, that it would water inflow was provided to bring tified as a multi-resource problem. be remiss to produce this report Future Average salinities back to Of course, the effects of MSX and without addressing storage require- Base Average salinities. The storage dermo on the oyster is of concern ments at all. Therefore, the rather simplistic two-step methodology Table 23 described in Appendix B, Plan For- mulation, was developed to give at least some insight to the amount of Storages Required to Reduce reservoir storage needed to meet the Drought Salinities in Main Bay various plan formulation goals. A short summary of this methodology is below. For clarity, it is described by illustrating its application in the Storage situation where the goal is to main- 1000 Supplemental tain summer Base Drought salinity (Acre-Feet) Flow conditions during a Future Drought Salinity Goal Low High (Mgd) event. Storages for other conditions Future Drought were computed in a similar manner. (no action) 0 0 0 1. Antecedent conditions must be Base Drought 920 1,200 900 satisfied if salinities are to be at Base Future Average 9,500 12,300 10,100 Drought levels at the beginning of Base Average 10,800 14,000 11,300 summer. It was determined from the hydraulic model test that, depending on the location in the estuary and the 63 under all conditions. Any further Susquehanna, Potomac, James, and 3. Base Drought-Base Drought penetration of them into the estuary Rappahannock Rivers in Phase 11 of Salinities should be prevented if at all possible. plan development. 4. Base Drought Enhancement- But, there is some question whether Emergency drought restrictions were A salinity condition one-half way this should be done if the result is an also eliminated as independent alter- between Base Drought and Future upsetting of the balance of nature. natives because institution of these Average. Thus only a slight enhancement of measures would produce only very Base Drought salinities is deemed small increases in habitat for short The organisms selected for con- feasible. In effect, the major objec- periods of time. Also, they would be sideration in the evaluation were tives of the flow supplementation difficult to implement and enforce in restricted to those ranked as high alternatives became restricted to fur- an area as large as the Chesapeake priority by the Steering Committee. nishing sufficient water to make up Bay Basin. Drought emergency These were oysters, submerged for consumptive losses and to slightly measures do, however, have some aquatic vegetation, soft clams, enhance the Base Drought. potential in reducing the amount of Macoma, and those species depend- Phase 11 Plan Development reservoir storage that may be re- ent upon the oligohaline and tidal quired. freshwater zones. No specific plans In Phase Il of plan development the Four alternative plans were de- were formulated for sea nettles and wood borers (bankia and teredo). focus was expanded to include all veloped for each of the four seasons major tributaries to Chesapeake of the year. There are therefore, a These species, however were includ- Bay. Early in this phase, however, total of 16 plans for each major ed in the evaluations of the effects of permanent conservation in the upper river. Each of these plans were each flow supplementation plan. western shore and in such important oriented to achieving during the Two criteria were established for rivers as the Patuxent, York, Chop- Future Drought the salinities evaluation and screening of the alter- tank, and Chester were eliminated associated with one of the following native plans: from further consideration. It was four flow conditions. obvious that increases in habitat 1. Change in habitat-to be re- resulting from either of these 1. No Action-Future Drought tained, a plan must provide at least a measures would be too small to pro- Salinities 25 percent incremental increase in duce meaningful benefits. Thus, 2. Conservation-The salinities habitat for one of the six major storage and permanent conservation resulting from a "medium" level of species. This applied to both storage were addressed in detail only in the conservation and conservation plans. Table 24 Results of Phase 11 Screening Basin Plan Species Significantly Enhanced Oligohalinel Tidal Low Soft Oysters Freshwater Zones Salinity SAV Clam Macoma Susquehanna Summer Base Drought X X X Fall Base Drought X X Conservation X X Potomac Summer Base Drought X X X X Fall Base Drought X X Spring Base Drought X Conservation X X X James Summer Base Drought X X Fall Base Drought X Spring Base Drought X X Rappahannock Summer Base Drought X Fall Base Drought X X Spring Base Drought X X-Plan Retained The Steering Committee, during its review of the problem identification process,established a set of priorities to be considered in plan formulation. It ranked the problem species or associations as follows: Priority 1. Oysters, Oligohaline Zone, Tidal Freshwater Zone Priority 2. Low Salinity, SAV, Soft Clam, Macoma Priority 3. Bankia, Teredo and Sea Nettle 64 2. Required Storage-the volume provided by these plans for two out servation measures) for each of the of storage required will not exceed of the three priority 2 species with multi-season plans reveals that only that which has been defined as only the Macoma being omitted. the plans for the Rappahannock, reasonable. Clearly the Summer Base Drought James and Susquehanna Rivers are plan provides more benefits than implementable. Therefore, multi- These criteria were applied to each any of the other plans and should be season plans for the Potomac Basin plan to identify the most promising retained as a most promising alter- were dropped from further con- flow supplementation plans. native. Because available storage is sideration. sufficient to provide protection for The reservoir storage and conserva- only one season, individual plans for It is clear that supplementing the tion plans that were retained after spring and fall were effectively freshwater inflows to Chesapeake these criteria were applied are shown eliminated from further considera- Bay through reservoir storage would on Table 24. As can be seen, conser- tion. produce substantial benefits in the vation in the Rappahannock River estuary. But, it should be emphasiz- was deleted. Many of the reservoir The next step in the process was to ed that like the other most promising storage plans were also eliminated. assess the potential for developing alternatives, the reservoirs addressed This included all of the Winter plans, multi-season plans. The advantage in this study are not being recom- the Spring plan for the Susquehanna of these plans is clear if it is recog- mended for construction; rather, River, and all of the Base Drought nized that once the Summer plan is they are measures that need to be Enhancement Plans. This meant that implemented, only the amount of further analyzed before any recom- Base Drought levels of protection are water needed to make up for the con- mendation can be made. In par- the most that can be achieved within sumptive losses during the added ticular, the upstream socio- the established criteria. Although season is required. The antecedent economic and environmental im- storage plans providing less than this flow supplementation conditions are pacts must be identified in detail to level of protection are feasible, they already met. This is illustrated on determine if the total benefits of have not been specifically addressed Table 25 where the storage required reservoir storage outweigh the total in the remainder of this report. for both summer and multi-season costs. An important ingredient in plans are shown under three assumed these analyses are the local, regional, Of the remaining plans, only the levels of conservation. and National perspectives. Summer Base Drought plans provide benefits to all three priority I A comparison of the storage re- Another point that should be em- species. In addition, benefits are quired (both with and without con- phasized is the meaning of the word Table 25 Storage Requirements for Multi-Season Plans (1000's Acre-Feet) No With With Conservation Assumed Conservation Conservation & Drought Emergency Reasonable River Plan low high low high low high Storage Susquehanna SU-3 920 1200 710 930 650 870 1,200 SUFA-3 1360 1630 1050 1270 930 1150 1,200 Potomac SU-3 440 560 390 500 360 470 400 SPSU-3 620 760 560 680 530 650 400 SUFA-3 640 760 570 680 520 630 400 James SU-3 200 240 190 230 170 210 370 SPSU-3 310 350 300 340 280 320 370 SUFA-3 310 350 300 340 250 290 370 Rappahannock SU-3 45 60 40 50 35 45 106 SPSU-3 65 80 60 70 55 65 106 SUFA-3 65 80 60 70 50 60 106 0 65 Table 26 Most Promising Alternatives ALTERNATIVE A RE,4 WHERE IMPLEMENTED 7 Flow Supplementation Measures Conservation Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins Reservoir Storage Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahannock and James River Basins Growth Restrictions Entire Chesapeake Bay Drainage Chesapeake Bay Measures Fisheries Management Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries Oyster Bed Restoration Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries "reasonable" as it relates to quan- vironmentally justified or if some identified the habitat protected by tities of storage. This determination lesser level of storage is more ap- each measure. On the other hand, no was based solely on technical con- propriate. specific plans were developed for siderations and experience in growth restrictions and the Chesa- previous studies. For the most part, Most Promising peake Bay measures. The present it is a function of the amount of state of the art knowledge for these water that can be stored without Alternatives measures was not sufficient to per- materially affecting the natural In summary, the plan formulation mit development of these plans variability of flows in the main stem process found that the measures beyond conceptual levels. of the rivers. The work associated shown in Table 26 are the most with this study appears to in icate promising alternatives for solving The benefits produced by each of the that the storage of a quanti y of the problems associated with reduc- most promising alternatives are sum- water equivalent to the amo t of tions in the freshwater inflow to marized on Table 27. The table in- consumptive losses that wil ac- Chesapeake Bay. dicates the level of protection pro- cumulate in two seasons during a vided by each measure and that por- severe drought in the year 2020 is the tion of the estuarine system receiving outer limit of technically feasible The above alternatives were de- the benefits. The benefits are char- d t un reasonable" storage. Certainly veloped in varying levels of detail. acterized as either environmental or more detailed studies are needed to Conservation and reservoir storage socio-economic as appropriate. ascertain if this level of storage can were evaluated in a rather rigorous be economically, socially, and en- three phase screening process that 66 Table 27 Benefits of Most Promising Alternatives FLOW SUPPLEMENTATIONMEASURLS CHESAPEAKE BAY MEASURES GROWI TER BE. F NFISH C TC I ONSERVATION -r - '."ITION I RESERVOIR STORAGE (Drought Only) C IONS RE'@T RESTOCKING 11TATIONS tE .... )1, RE TREC ".a g'j( LI SUMMER ISPRING-SU,%IMERISU.%IMfR-FALL@ ..gh,&A Fe Drought A, A ght & Aln-, Drought & A,-ge AREA BENEFITED Main B.@. Jame, Rtipp.han-1, Main Bay. Linere, Man Be), Polontac All-ed B,y.,,d, Bay-de Bay We Ba,-.,dl Rap"bannock. jarn" Rappah ... ock E E@ EL OF PROT ECHON B... Drought B... Drought B.e Drought 23", of BD (SIB) Unkno-, U.kn- Unkn..a Unkn-n 9-121, of BD (P) EN ' IRONMENTAL BENEFITS Problem Species or Groups* OY'rin, 01g. zone, O"'cr (SU) Oy"I" (SU) O"e' (SU) 0@-" (SU) O@-" Striped, B-. 0"1"', set, el.. SA Softclann OZ... (Sp 8, SLJ) O-Z..,(S &FA) O@Z- (All --,) O-Zone (Alke .a,) Shad Striped Ba,,, Shad I'M Vo i P) SAV (SU) SAV (SU),Uft Cl.un SAV (SP & SO) SAV (SP & SEf IM, f t S.I@ Cl.. (SU) Suit Cla. (SU) (FA-MB, J) Muc- (FA) IM-e (FA) Other Stye- %ill benefit all %tilbenefa.11 Will benefit all Will benefit all WIll benefit all None None None 'Kei" ad ..... 1, sp,i,, d,,,,,I) ad, ""Iy 'fe--d-sely ,11-ed 1, in- 11,eed by I.- Ifj-ed b, in- at feed b@ In- ittfeeled lb@ in- ", e ..d....... e'eaed,itlintie, e"a,ed'.1holie, ,n,...,, n,p,Iug&-wcr I n S:T,,me, & Lill (See Table X 3) (See Table V-3) b,, V-3) (See Table V-3) (See I able V-3) SOCIO-E-CO OMICBENEHIS ConI F,,herv d- O-e iped O-e-,tnped -q,ed OY'ne" Striped ba,,,,b,d 0,,t,r,.,It;pd b,,,, ,I:iped ba,,, had b-, had, @.ft 1hun had,,Oft eta, b,,,. had. @oft eta, b.,,, h.d.,.fl eta., shd. of, @ an, R-canon L , boat lip, "'- L, ne'll" for L- boat dip, ex- Le,, hour @Iip, - None :n,,,oed,p.,r Inp,.,ec,p- fi,h,ng po,ed to 81.k, nang; imp,., ed pn,,d ,, Banku, p,,,d to B,11k,,; p.,ed to Bnkn,; i,hi.g (,1n,nd! (,Iripld b- & yh.d) (M B & P); 1.11, per. fi,hnn, (M By, I... "Itic, I... -'[" ter I- elfle, let b... & had) "nfle, for -- lr,Nd ba,, for -mining; sm. -MmIng; Implolld -eunning; inP-ld d:: nuip-7d PI-1 'p." li-nt, 'p"' fid-, In na d. e in -le (,,r,,d If- & (-,ped b." I,,,rip,l 1- . had); ('t'iped b"' & lend ('A' @ fur 1ad@;nn1ru,,d [i.d):nrI pr-d lb.rlma due 'bud); -1-ed -effo'l R) ban. ., due I. more honing due 10 M111 or, loel IIAV & rI, . :, hunting d,,,. food (SAV & muo lend (SAV .. ...... I'e, More food (SAV) In, to,,ale'l-I for ,tcrf,, I -nelf-I -nerl- I 111 B. P. R) iMEL R, %I e, L,- Slight thenefil in Slight be.,fan, Slight I .. 1, in Slight benefit nll Sln benefit all None None N.r' --n", IMBIp"I p,,,g & "."I Of "inturie, " fall I". L OTHER BENEFITS 'Iighl@l 11dell %;I[ I,hit, nduee Will lighily red... N,. d,,,c,,n,I1ne t_nt,nn.r, N e None I.ne 'uhnn", a a unit "' at ainn, i,, .1 1nn be.nd,11 ith the, b ... dr, nh ,the, beund- ih the, @6=- I ...... @,', h, ','@d um,", u ot 'r I LGEND be N, n, , 11... b,nefii, clur SL -Sun"', [A -fWl RR.p,,,hznn-k 11Z 11.1- It' Ill-' If n1n led, Chapter VI Public Involvement Obtaining the views of the public To inform the public about the and incorporating their preferences progress of the Chesapeake into the planning process are integral Bay Study, especially the con- parts of any study, especially one as duct on the various resource complex as the Chesapeake Bay studies and the hydraulic Study. To encourage participation, a model testing program. structured public involvement pro- gram was established and main- To obtain the public's com- tained throughout the study. A con- ments and suggestions con- certed effort was made to keep the cerning problems, potential lines of communication open so that solutions, and related impacts information could be provided to concerning the Bay's any suggestions received from the resources. public. For the Chesapeake Bay To incorporate the public's Study, the "public" was defined as desires and preferences into the any non-Corps of Engineers entity. final recommendations when- Thus, the public included other ever possible. federal agencies, state agencies, and local governments as well as private Public Involvement Measures organizations, civic groups, and in- dividual citizens. Three basic measures were used to initiate and sustain public participa- The following sections briefly tion throughout the study. They pro- describe the nature of the public in- vided for general information, inter- volvement program and the ac- action-dialogue, and review-reaction. tivities that accompanied it. A de- Each measure was designed to reach tailed discussion is contained in Sup- different levels of the public in the plement B-Public Involvement. study area as shown on Figure 22. Likewise, each measure was geared to evoking a different degree of in- Overview volvement or response from each Purpose level of the public. The overall purpose of the public General Information involvement program was to furnish This measure was used to distribute an organized set of activities which information about study progress to would encourage two-way com- as many people as possible. It usually munication between the Corps of provided for only one-way com- Engineers and the many publics in munication with the public. Mech- the Bay Region. Within this broad purpose, several specific objectives anisms such as newsletters, news- were established for the public in- paper articles, special publications, volvement program. They included public displays, movies, press releases, the following: and announcements through the media were used to reach most levels � To further identify all those of the public. elements of the public that Interaction-Dialogue were affected by any interested in Chesapeake Bay. Interaction-dialogue provided for a � To identify, as a continuing ef- two-way communication between fort, the most effective means the Corps and the public. It required of involving the public in the a certain amount of involvement by Chesapeake Bay Study. the interested public to obtain a 69 better knowledge about the study, as well as a certain amount of involve- ment by the Corps to find out public Memures Pubiles Involvement needs and desires. Interaction- dialogue mechanisms such as work- Population of Study Area LOW shops, planned educational pro- grams, speeches, to organized Affected Public groups, interviews, and tours of the hydraulic model were techniques Interested Public that were employed to reach those who were either interested, involved, Involved Public or decision-makers. Decision- Makers Review-Reaction Review-reaction was used to obtain feedback from those who were directly involved with the study. most Special committees or advisory groups were formed to accomplish Figure 22 Gearing Public Involvement Measures to the Public this purpose. Committee meetings, formal public meetings, progress The Chesapeake Bay Study was con- plinary staff was assembled within reports, interim reports, and draft ducted within this broad planning the Chesapeake Bay Study Branch to and final reports were used to garner framework. The major study phases conduct the necessary investiga- the important opinions and values of included the Initital Study Phase, tions. Hydraulic modeling expertise the involved public and the decision- the Existing and Future Conditions was provided by the Waterways Ex- makers. Phase, and the Detailed Study periment Station. Phase. Within each study phase, numerous opportunities were pro- The nature and magnitude of the Relationship to the vided to the public for review- study, however, demanded extensive Planning Process reaction, interaction-dialogue, and coordination among all of the agen- general information. This con- cies and institutions concerned with Over the course of the Chesapeake tinuous public involvement process water resources planning in the Bay Bay Study which spanned nearly two permitted the participants to become Region. To maximize participation decades, the formal procedures fully aware of the study's basic by these organizations, each was which govern how federal agencies assumptions, the data which were charged with exercising leadership are to conduct water resource in- being generated or gathered, the and providing information in those vestigations have undergone periodic areas of risk and uncertainty, the im- disciplines in which it had special revisions. The most recent set of pro- plications of the proposals being competence. Several interagency cedures was published by the U.S. considered, and the progress of the committees were formed to open the Water Resource Council in March hydraulic model testing program. necessary avenues for participation. 1983 ("Economic and Envi- Such a procedure also allowed cer- These committees included an Ad- ronmental Principles and Guidelines tain decisions to be tempered by the visory Group, a Steering Commit- for Water and Related Land Re- public's input, at key points during tee, and five Task Groups. Figure 23 sources Implementation Studies"). the study. displays a schematic view of the Despite the numerous revisions study's organizational structure. through the years, though, the Description of Public underlying concepts for planning Involvement Program Advisory Group have remained essentially the same. A sequential process of problem Organizational Structure The Advisory Group was established identification, plan formulation, in 1967 as the principal coordinating and evaluation is to be followed. In The Chesapeake Bay Study was con- mechanism for the study. It was addition, the process is to be a ducted under the general direction of composed of representatives from I I repetitive one with as many itera- the District Engineer, Baltimore federal agencies, the Common- tions as necessary to arrive at an ac- District. Because of the important wealths of Pennsylvania and Vir- ceptable plan of action. The iterative nature of the study, the District ginia, the States of Delaware and process can sharpen the planning Engineer had a high degree of in- Maryland, and the District of Col- focus, change the emphasis as new volvement in the study activities. umbia (see Figure 23). The in- data are obtained, or redirect the ef- The routine coordination of study dividuals serving on the Advisory All tc !1n fort as problems become more clearly activities was conducted under the Group were designated by the heads defined. Public review and comment supervision of the Chief, Planning of their respective federal agencies can occur at any time during this Division and the Chief, Chesapeake or the governors of the involved process. Bay Study Branch. A multi-disci- states. 70 S OF ENGINEERS -A11__E DISTRICT C.-P ADVISORY GROUP 7STEIFINO COMMITTEE. LIAI@ON, BASIC RESEARCH -Z C.. P-1-N E ...... ECON041C PROJECTION WATER QUALITY SUPPLY. FLOOD CONTROL, FISH A WILDLIFE TASK GROUP WASTE TREATMENT. NOXIOU NAVIGATION EROSION. RECREATION TASK GROUP COORDINATION GROUP WEEDS TASK GROUP FISHERIES TASK GROUP EN 22f E"- CQT.Z-1@ I.G.-RI A@ I IN--- Co TRA-RAT@101 C ... 1- C.-E E. P. . ........ .111-ON -IRO@ ENT.1 -111CT1. 4_' "D DS-CT 01 C11-A 101U-A A@LINI_ I-11-. D.-Cl 11 C-- III N11 I.- C... Figure 23 Chesapeake Bay Study Organizatoin The Advisory Group advised the were held over the course of the To keep the Task Groups, the District Engineer regarding study study. In addition to these official Advisory Committee, and the policy and provided general direc- meetings, continuous coordination District Engineer informed of tion under which all study partic- among the members was maintained the latest technological ad- ipants operated. More specifically, on an individual basis. vances in the study of the Bay's the duties of the Advisory Group hydrodynamics and environ- were: Steering Committee mental values. To advise the District Eng* To review and comment on the ineer The Steering Committee for Liaison reports which were prepared in the coordination of study and Basic Research was established by the various participants. efforts. in 1968 as a group of eminent scien- To consider the views of all tists having specialized expertise As with the Advisory Group, the participants as reported to the concerning Chesapeake Bay. The Steering Committee met on an as Group and make recom- Steering Committee was viewed as a needed basis throughout the study. mendations to the District En- high level technical committee which Task Groups gineer. could furnish direction to the work- To review reports from all ing Task Groups and provide scien- Five Task Groups were originally participants. ti.fic recommendations to the Ad- established for the Chesapeake Bay To assist the District Engineer visory Group and the District Engi- Study. These groups included the in providing information to the neer. Some of the duties of the Steer- following: Economic Projections public and encourage partic- ing Committee were: Task Group; Water Quality and ipation by the public at hear- Supply, Waste Treatment, and Nox- ings and other meetings. To develop study work plans ious Weeds Task Group; Flood Con- for the scientific investigations trol Navigation, Erosion, and Generally speaking, the Advisory being conducted by the Task Fisheries Task Group; Recreation Group convened whenever it was Groups. Task Group, and Fish and Wildlife n rdinate study ef- o Grou necessary to coo C ordinatio p. forts, to review and comment on To furnish scientific guidance, study results, or to determine future as necessary, to the Task Each task group was concerned with study direction and activities. Groups and the Corps Of related study categories and func- Numerous meetings of the Group Engineers. tioned as a basic work group. The 71 chairman designated for each task were offered and appropriate revi- sibilities. A series of public meetings group was from the federal agency sions were made before sending the were held in late 1967 in Maryland most closely associated with that report to the District Engineer for and Virginia to inform the general particular field of study. The agen- final review. public of study initiation. These cies serving on each of these original public meetings were also used to ob- groups are shown on Figure 23. Numerous opportunities were also tain the general public's views about provided for general public com- water resource problems confront- At a January 1980 meeting of the ment as well. These opportunities in- ing the Bay Region. The first major Advisory Group, a discussion was cluded forums such as public document was the Plan of Study held concerning the five original Task meetings, workshops, and civic published in June 1970. The Plan of Groups and the role that they would group discussions. The Corps was Study outlined the study's scope, have in the final phase of the study. also assisted in its involvement with defined the study area, proposed Although these groups had served the general public through the study objectives, and described how well during the first two phases of the Citizens Program for Chesapeake the study was to be conducted. study, it had become apparent that a Bay, Inc. (CPCB). This committee, reorganization was desirable. It was although not created by the Corps of Existing and Future agreed that the groups, as then Engineers, included representatives Conditions Phase organized, would have little meaning from civic and environmental for the final study phase. The work organizations throughout the Study The Existing and Future Conditions could best be accomplished by Area. Phase began when the Plan of Study groups organized along specific was approved. This phase eventually resource study lines. It was therefore Public Involvement Activities produced the Existing Conditions recommended by the Advisory Report in 1973 and the Future Con- Group, and so adopted by the Corps, The following paragraphs provide ditions Report in 1978. These reports that the five original Task Groups be an overview of the most significant were the result of many meetings by replaced by two new groups-the public involvement activities which the Advisory Group and Steering Tidal Flooding Task Group and the occurred during the study. The dis- Committee, and sometimes lengthy Freshwater Inflow Task Group. cussion addresses the three major investigations by the Task Groups. time periods of the study. The Initial Coordination Process Study Phase is defined as the time In 1973, a specially prepared film period between study initiation was completed which provided an The specific responsibilities of the (1967) and approval of the Plan Of overview of the Chesapeake Bay Advisory Group, the Steering Com- Study in 1970. The Existing and Study and the hydraulic model. This mittee, the Task Groups, and the Future Conditions Phase covers the film furnished the means to reach general public were all part of the period between 1970 and the publica- large numbers of people. The film coordination and review process. tion of the Revised Plan of Study in was shown on television and was This was an iterative process that 1978. The Detailed Study Phase used over the next several years for flowed between the Corps of covers the period from 1978 to com- hundreds of presentations through- Engineers and the various publics. pletion of this final report. Also in- out the Study Area. The District Engineer, who was cluded as part of the following During this phase, the Corps of responsible for management of the discussion is a short description of Engineers adopted the existing study, established broad goals based the public involvement activities Citizens Program for Chesapeake on study authority, budget limita- associated with the construction and Bay, Inc. as an informal citizens ad- operation of the Chesapeake Bay tions, and advice from the Advisory Hydraulic Model. Plate B- I in Sup- visory committee. Members of Group and Steering Committee. The plement B - Public Involvernen CPCB reviewed and commented on Advisory Group and Steering Com- shows chronologically the most both the Existing Conditions Report mittee, in turn, suggested the types significant public involvement and and the Future Conditions Report. of investigations that should be con- study activities. Pertinent cor- In addition, another series of public ducted by the Task Groups in order respondence for all study phases is meetings were conducted in mid- to achieve the goals. The Task included in Supplement B as Attach- 1976. The purposes of these meetings Groups were then charged with con- ment B4. were to inform the public about the ducting the specific work assign- study's progress, to discuss the ments for the investigations within Initial Study Phase preliminary findings of the Future their particular areas of responsibility. Conditions Report, and to again In the Initial Study Phase, the solicit the public's views on Chesa- Following completion of a work organizational structure described peake Bay's problems. A News Cir- assignment by a Task Group earlier was formally established by cular (the first in a series) describing member, other members of the Task the District Engineer and several the study's progress was published in Group reviewed the report. After meetings of the various committees 1978; it was distributed to about any necessary revisions, the report were conducted. These meetings 10,000 individuals within the Study was forwarded to the Advisory were geared primarily to identifying Area. Group and Steering Committee for study tasks, to developing work Last, a Revised Plan of Study was further review. Again, comments plans, and to assigning study respon- published in 1978. During the course 72 of the Existing and Future Condi- papers were presented at each peake Appreciation Days. During tions Phase, it became apparent that seminar on the selection of species, the period when the model was open, the study and hydraulic model test- the habitat classifications, and the it is estimated that approximately ing program which was proposed in biota assessment study method- 200,000 people from every state and the original Plan of Study would not ology. The third seminar was a scien- numerous foreign countries visited adequately address the many prob- tific conference held on October 29, the model and received some ap- lems facing Chesapeake Bay. Thus, 1981 at the Naval Academy. At this preciation and understanding of the the Corps of Engineers, together conference, information was pre- Bay and the Corps' program. It with the Advisory Group and the sented showing the rationale and should be noted that effective Steering Committee, devised an ex- basis for the biota assessment and August 1984 the State of Maryland panded program for the final phase the preliminary findings. has assumed the maintenance on the of study. The expanded program hydraulic model pending the transfer describe7d in the Revised Plan of Last, the draft of the final report was of the model to the State. Study Proposed four years of distributed for review to all commit- hydraulic model testing in concert tee members, local and state govern- Public Views and with five years of resource studies. ments, federal agencies, Citizens Comments Program for Chesapeake Bay, and Detailed Study Phase interested individuals. A synopsis of The last step in the Chesapeake Bay public views and comments concern- Study public participation program Public involvement activities during ing the draft report and the overall involved a review of the draft of the the final phase of the study were study will be provided later in this final report by the agencies, institu- similar to those conducted during the chapter. tions, and organizations that partic- first two phases. Advisory Group ipated in the conduct of it. Their and Steering Committee meetings Hydraulic Model comments are addressed in detail in were held to seek advice on the con- Supplement B - Public Involve- duct and findings of the Tidal Flood- The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic ment. In general, many of the com- ing Study and the Low Freshwater Model at Matapeake, Maryland, ments were editorial or otherwise Inflo%% Study. Three additional provided the focus for perhaps the could be easily incorporated. The News Circulars were published to most beneficial series of public more important of the issues raised keep the general public advised of involvement activities as far as the related to the vintage of the data base study progress and findings. It should general public was concerned. A and the feasibility of reservoir be noted, however, that because the groundbreaking ceremony for the storage. schedule for completing the study hydraulic model was held in 1973 was advanced several years, there and a formal dedication ceremony In this regard, there was concern and was little opportunity for participa- was held in 1976. Both of these were some confusion about the informa- tion by a citizens advisory committee sponsored by the Commissioners of tion shown in the summary of the in the detailed study phase. Queen Armes' County. United States Future Conditions Report. This Congressmen, Senators, and local report was completed in 1978 and In cooperation with EPA, the State officials attended both of these reflected conditions and projections of Maryland, and the Commonwealth events and accompanying media made in the early 1970's. In the final of Virginia, two large portable dis- coverage was extensive. report, these were updated where in- plays were prepared in 1979. These formation was readily available or displays consisted of a discussion About three years prior to the com- when it was not, statements were with appropriate photos and graph- pletion of the hydraulic model visitor added to clarify the vintage of the in- ics of the Bay related programs of the center in 1979, regularly scheduled formation. In addition, it was re- Corps, EPA, and the two states. The tours of the model began. The lobby commended that the Future Condi- displays were circulated throughout of the visitor center had numerous tions Report be updated the Bay Region for exhibit in public displays which explained the Bay and buildings, schools, festivals, and the hydraulic model. The visitor There was also concern about the other appropriate Bay-related events. could then enter an auditorium for a water supply and consumptive loss Also in 1979, the Corps and the 20 minute slide show which further projections used in the Low Fresh- Chesapeake Research Consortium, described the Bay, its problems, and water Inflow Study. These were based Inc., jointly sponsored an educa- the Corps' study. Lastly, the visitor on OBERS Series "E" data, the tional seminar to discuss the Bay and received a 30 minute guided tour of most current projections available at the capabilities and potential uses of the model with an even more detailed the time the work was done in the the hydraulic model. discussion of how the model mid-1970's. In 1983, a new projec- operated and a description of the tion set was published that was some- Western Eco-Systems Technology testing being conducted at that time. what less optimistic. However, since held three conferences during the Generally speaking, the tours were the Series E data were used in the course of its study. The first seminar provided three times a day during the hydraulic model test, it was not was at the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic week for the entire period between possible to use this new data base in Model on November 15, 1979 and June 1976 and August 1983. The the evaluations. Rather, sensitivity the second in Colonial Beach, Vir- model was also open on selected analyses have been prepared com- ginia, on March 20, 1980. Working weekends for such events as Chesa- paring the data sets. 73 The feasibility of the reservoir storage alternative was also ques- tioned. To accommodate this, the final report was revised to emphasize that the reservoir alternatives were evaluated from only the hydrologic and in estuary biologic perspectives and that reservoir construction is not being recommended. Rather, the rec- ommendations call for further studies of both upstream and in estuary socio-economic and envir- onmental impacts. 74 Chapter VU Summary and Findings Summary Historically, measures taken to con- future demands on the Bay and to trol and use the Chesapeake's water assess the ability of the resource to and related land resources were ori- meet those demands. ented toward solving individual problems. A comprehensive exami- The. findings of the second or future nation had not been undertaken of projections phase of the program are the Bay's complex interrelationships. contained in the Chesapeake Bay . . . Future Conditions Report. The The Chesapeake Bay Study was initi- ated in 1967 to fill this gap. Its overall primary focus of that report was the purpose was to conduct a compre- projection of water resources needs hensive investigation of the entire to the year 2020 and the unrestrained Bay Region so that the most bene- growth and use of the Bay's resources. ficial uses could be made of the Bay's This report, therefore, provided the resources. basic information necessary to pro- ceed into the final or detailed study The study was accomplished in three phase of the program. It should be distinct developmental phases. Each emphasized that, by design, the of these phases was responsive to one Future Conditions Report addressed of the following study objectives: only needs and problems. No at- tempt was made to identify or ana- eTo assess the existing physical, lyze solutions to specific problems. chemical, biological, economic, As directed in the authorization, the 0 and environmental conditions of study included the construction and the Chesapeake Bay. operation of a hydraulic model. The *To project the future water purpose in using a physical model resource needs of the Bay Region was to examine complicated hydrau- to the year 2020. lic processes not readily amenable to analysis by other analytical methods. To formulate and recommend The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic solutions to priority problems Model was constructed between 1973 using the Chesapeake Bay Hy- and 1976 near Matapeake, Mary- draulic Model. land. Following adjustment and veri- fication, testing was performed be- tween 1978 and 1982. The hydraulic model provided a means of repro- The initial or inventory phase of the ducing, to a manageable scale, many program responded to the first objec- of the natural events and man-made tive. It was completed in 1973 and the changes affecting the Bay. findings were published in a docu- ment titled Chesapeake Bay Existing Given the hydraulic model and the Conditions Report. array of existing and potential prob- lems identified in the Future Condi- Included in that seven-volume report tions Report, the third and final is a description of the existing phys- phase of the study addressed the ical, economic, social, biological, analysis of two priority problems: and environmental conditions of the tidal flooding and reductions in Chesapeake Bay. This was the first freshwater inflow to the Bay. Both of published report that presented a these problems were the subject of comprehensive survey of the entire detailed analyses to both better Bay Region and treated Chesapeake define the problem and evaluate Bay as a single entity. Most impor- potential solutions. The hydraulic tantly, the report contains much of model was used to develop the the basic data required to project the physical data needed in the detailed 75 analyses. Given the time and funding quadruple; and manufacturing out- supply. The projected demands for constraints imposed on the study put is expected to increase by nearly water supplied through central however, the scope of the Tidal 600 percent. systems will total approximately 2320 Flooding and Low Freshwater In- mgd by the year 2020. It is ques- flow Studies was limited to only a Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest tionable whether or not new sources framework nature. This the final estuaries in the world, having a sur- of water can be developed without report of the Chesapeake Bay Study face area of about 4,400 square placing undue stresses on the Bay is therefore not an authorization miles, a length of nearly 200 miles, system. document, but does provide recom- and over 7,000 miles of shoreline. mendations for specific authoriza- Like many coastal plain estuaries, Assuming significant increases in tion studies as well as actions or the Bay is a broad, shallow expanse recycling rates, water intake by all Bay promising alternatives that should be of water varying from 4 to 30 miles in Region industry (i.e., centrally- considered by others. width, but having an average depth supplied and self-supplied) is projected of less than 28 feet. Its maximum to experience only modest increases of Significant Findings depth is 175 feet near Bloody Point, about 13 percent. Water consumption, Maryland. however, is expected to increase by The following paragraphs provide a The marshes, woodlands, and the nearly 800 percent over the same brief synopsis of the most pertinent Bay itself, provide an extremely pro- period. As a result of these factors, the findings of the many analyses that ductive natural habitat for over 2,700 volume of industrial discharge is pro- were undertaken during the study. different species. The sheer number jected to decrease by 24 percent. The findings are categorized as they of species alone forecasts the com- relate to either the various substudies plexity of Bay biota in terms of parti- Total agricultural water demand, that were conducted as part of the tioning species to communities and which includes uses for livestock and overall study or the overall study and determining functional relationships poultry, irrigation, and the rural model testing program. The findings that will aid in understanding the Bay domestic population, is expected to address the physical, environmental as an ecosystem. quadruple between 1970 and 2020, and socio-economic condition of the with over 90 percent of the increase resources; problem definition; impor- More than half of the land in the due to a rise in the demand for irriga- tant planning issues; and alternatives Chesapeake Bay Region is covered tion water. Available supplies are ex- for future resources planning. by woodlands, forests, or wetlands. pected to be sufficient to meet the An additional one-third is in agri- future demand. Existing and Future cultural uses. Only about 7 percent of Conditions Reports the land is used for residential, com- Water quality conditions in the Bay mercial, or industrial purposes. vary widely due to a variety of fac- Chesapeake Bay is a vast natural, tors: proximity to urban areas, type economic, and social resource. Along The land needed for residential pUr- and extent of industrial and agricul- with its tributaries, the Bay provides poses will nearly double between tural activity, stream-flow character- a transportation network on which 1970 and 2020. The amount of land istics, and the amount and type of up- much of the economic development needed for industrial purposes will stream land and water use. of the Region has been based, a wide increase by about 50 percent if in- variety of water-oriented recrea- dustry is to meet the projected in- Between 1970 and 2020, boating and tional opportunities, a home for nu- crease in manufacturing output. sailing activity is projected to in- merous fish and wildlife, a source of Conversely, the land in crops and crease by more than five times, swim- water supply for both municipalities miscellaneous farmland is expected ming by four and one-half times, pic- and industries, and the site for the to decrease by approximately 22 per- nicking by a factor of three and one- disposal of many waste products. cent. Although there is sufficient half, and camping by almost six The natural resources and processes land in the Bay Region available for times. As a result of these increases, of the Bay and man's activities in- residential and industrial develop- major deficits in the number of boat- teract to form a complex and inter- ment, conflicts between competing ing ramps, picnic tables, and camp- related system. Unfortunately, prob- land use types in preferred areas is ex- ing sites are expected by the year lems often arise when man's intended pected to continue to be a problem in 2020. Total Regional swimming pool use of one resource conflicts with the future. and beach acreages are considered to either the natural environment or be sufficient to meet demands man's use of another resource. In 1970 there were 49 central water through 2020 although there are supply systems in the Bay Region acute existing deficits in most of the In 1970, approximately 7.9 million which served 2500 or more people. major urban areas. people lived in the Chesapeake Bay These systems served about 76 per- Region. By the year 2020, population cent of the people in the Region, as In the major ports of Baltimore and is expected to more than double well as many industries, providing a Hampton Roads, the movement of reaching a level of approximately total of 872 million gallons of water such bulk commodities as petroleum, 16.3 million persons. Employment is per day (mgd). By the year 2020, 31 of coal, grain, and in the case of Balti- projected to grow at approximately these 49 systems are expected to have more, iron ore, are expected to con- the same rate as population; per average water demands which will ex- tinue to dominate waterborne com- capita income is projected to nearly ceed presently developed sources of merce. Bulk oil traffic is expected to 76 approximately double by the year menhaden, and alewife are also ex- form the basis in the food chain for 2020 in Baltimore and remain at pected to exceed their maximum sus- the Bay's productive fish and about the 1972 level throughout the tainable yields. wildlife resources. There has been in projection period in Hampton Roads. recent years a marked reduction in The increasing size of bulk carriers, There are numerous areas in the the numbers of some of the more along with the projected general in- Region which are of significant beneficial aquatic plant species. crease in bulk traffic, will intensify historical, archaeological, or ecolog- the need for deeper channels in the ical interest. These include nearly Although noxious weeds such as major harbors of the Region. For- 800 properties which are included in Eurasian watermilfoil, water chest- eign general cargo traffic is projected the National Register of Historic nut, and sea lettuce have caused to increase by a factor of approx- Places or have been nominated for widespread problems in Chesapeake imately six in both Baltimore and that distinction, 20 properties Bay in the past, present populations Hampton Roads between 1972 and designated as National Wildlife are well below troublesome levels. 2020. refuges or research centers, and The potential remains, however, for Bulk oil is projected to continue to thousands of recorded archaeO- a reemergence of high concentra- dominate waterborne traffic move- logical sites. tions of these plants in the future as ments through the minor ports and evidenced by the recent establish- waterways around Chesapeake Bay. Waterfowl hunting in the Chesa- ment of hydrilla in the Potomac The largest increases are expected on peake Bay Region is predicted to in- estuary. crease by 70 percent during the pro- the Western Shore due to the larger jection period. Big game hunting The above findings, as presented in growth in population and income ill increase 141 percent while small the Existing and Future Conditions predicted for this area. The level of w petroleum traffic is critical because game hunting is expected to decrease Reports, represent the results of the of the potential for environmentally by about 13 percent. Existing hunt- first detailed comprehensive assess- damaging oil spills. ing land access problems are ex- ment of the Bay and its resources pected to be aggravated by the in- and as such provide an excellent set Based on the damage that could be ex- creases in waterfowl and big game of baseline data. Periodic reassess- pected from a I 00-year tidal flood, the hunting. ments should be made to update the tidal flooding problem is considered baseline information and monitor to be "critical" in 31 communities in The demand for non-consumptive any changes in the Bay and its the Bay Region. An additional 20,000 wildlife uses including bird watch- resources. acres of land within the 100-year ti a ing, bird and wildlife photography, and nature walking is expected to ap- flood plain has been proposed for proximately double over the projec future intensive development. tion period. Because of this, an addi - Tropical Storm Agnes Study Approximately 410 miles of Chesa- tional one million acres of publicly In June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes e identified accessible land will be required to moved through the mid-Atlantic peake Bay shoreline wer maintain the quality level that as having "critical" erosion prob- existed in 1970. states causing extensive damage to the lems (based on intensity of develop- resources of Chesapeake Bay. Public ment and existing rate of erosion). The total demand for electricity in Law 92-607, the Supplemental Ap- Over the last 100 years, approximate- the geographical area containing the propriations Act of 1973 included ly 25,000 and 20,000 acres of shore- electric utilities serving the Bay is $275,000 for studies of the storm's ef- line have been lost to erosion in projected to increase by a factor of fect on Chesapeake Bay. This special Maryland and Virginia, respectively. more than 5 by the year 2000 and a study was conducted as part of the An additional 44.4 miles of shoreline factor of approximately 13.5 by 2020. overall Chesapeake Bay Study and have the potential to become critical More and larger power plants will be the findings of it are presented in the erosion problem areas in the future. required to meet this demand. By the following paragraphs. year 1985, nuclear power is pro- In 1973, the total harvest of finfish jected to account for approximately Chesapeake Bay is a dynamic and and shellfish from Chesapeake Bay 44 percent of the Chesapeake Bay highly complex system influenced by and its tributaries totaled 565 million Region's power pool requirements. many factors. When one or more of pounds valued at approximately By 2020, the percentage is expected these factors are altered, the ramifi- $47.9 million at the dock. When the to increase to 72 percent. cations are felt throughout the combined recreational and commer- system. Some are immediate and ob- cial catches are taken into account, Water withdrawal by power plants is vious. Others are felt after the event maximum sustained yields (i.e., the expected to decrease significantly and are subtle, but nonetheless sig- greatest harvest which can be taken from 12,660 mgd in 1972 to 2,250 nificant. from a population without affecting mgd in the year 2020, due to pro- subsequent harvests) are projected to jected increases in water recycling. Massive freshwater inflows from the be exceeded for blue crabs, spot, Water consumption, however, is basin's tributaries can significantly striped bass, white perch, shad, projected to increase dramatically. lower salinity levels in the tributary weakfish, flounder, and the Ameri- estuaries and in the Bay proper. The can eel by the year 2000. By 2020, Aquatic plants are vital elements of freshwater inflows depress the sur- catches of oysters, softshell clams, the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and face salinities first, and then the 77 salinities at the lower depths. After The changes to the bottom geometry Bay were identified as having existing freshwater inflows return to normal, are not sufficiently significant to or potential flooding problems. pre-storm conditions, the Bay will warrant a redesign of the Bay model. also return to its pre-storm condi- Because of their topography and land tions. Historically, hurricanes and tropical use patterns, twelve communities storms are recurring phenomena in were found to be susceptible to The Bay life most affected by the Bay basin. It can be readily significant monetary losses from tidal massive freshwater inflows are those assumed that, in the future, the flooding. These twelve communities species, such as oysters and clams, region will again be subjected to were studied in detail in the Tidal that have no or limited means of devastating storms and flooding. Flooding Study. locomotion and have a low tolerance Chesapeake Bay demonstrated its in- to changes of salinity. Finfish and tricateness and delicacy during Both structural and non-structural shellfish that are able to move to Agnes. But the Bay also demon- measures can be used to reduce or areas where their necessary salinity strated its resiliency by absorbing the prevent the adverse effects of tidal levels are present are less affected. storm's impact and returning, for flooding. Structural measures were When the estuarine system returns to the most part, to pre-storm condi- generally found to be very expen- its pre-storm conditions, the mobile tions shortly after Agnes subsided. sive, have adverse environmental ef- species will return to their original fects, and were less acceptable to habitats. The physical and biological conse- local residents. Non-structural solu- quences of high freshwater inflows tions were usually less expensive and The direct and immediate Bay- to the Bay are not fully understood. less environmentally damaging. related economic impacts are Further studies to include the Combinations of structural and non- damages to boats and the cleaning development of models are needed structural plans were found to be the up of debris that is washed into the to understand events similar to best alternatives for providing tidal Bay with the floodwaters. The fish- Tropical Storm Agnes. flood protection in the Bay area. ery and recreation industries suffer both immediate and long-term eco- Chesapeake Bay Of those communities investigated, nomic impacts. The economic losses Hydraulic Model only Poquoson, Tangier Island, and are due to fish kills, bans on a portion of Hampton Roads harvesting certain species, health The Chesapeake Bay Model proved (Hampton, Norfolk, Chesapeake reasons, and the curtailment . of to be a valuable and effective tool and Portsmouth) were found to have boating activities because of floating for developing the physical data sufficient economic justification to debris. needed for the full range of studies warrant more detailed authorization Floodwaters introduce large amounts conducted for both the Chesapeake studies. of nutrients into the Bay. This Bay Study and others. Given the lack of historical tidal results in massive growth of algae The following tests were performed flood stage and frequency informa- blooms, which in turn depress dis- tion, a coordinated Bay-wide pro- solved oxygen levels in the water. on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic gram should be instituted to collect Model: and record stage related data. When floodwaters in the drainage Baltimore Harbor Channel Any further investigation of tidal basin inundate or overtax sewage Enlargement Test flooding in the Bay Region should in- treatment plants, raw and partially Nanticoke River Toxic clude the development of a storm treated sewage are washed into the Material Dispersion Test surge model to be used to provide Bay. This could present a major James River Oil Dispersion Test stage-frequency related information. health hazard which may require Cuyahoga Victim Recovery Test bans on harvesting of fishes and Patuxent and Chester River In order to reduce the adverse effects water-contact recreation. Prototype Survey Design of tidal flooding, a Bay-wide coor- Lafayette River Wastewater dinated tidal flood forecasting and Dispersion Test warning system should be developed. The major geological implication to Low Freshwater Inflow Problem the Bay of fluvial flooding is the Identification Test deposition of sediment on the Bay Potomac Estuary Water Supply Local jurisdictions that are subject to bottom. Erosion of the Bay's and Wastewater Dispersion Test tidal flooding should be encouraged shoreline areas is slight. Storm Surge Test to adopt flood plain zoning regula- Norfolk Harbor Channel tions, display potential flood height There were changes in the bottom Deepening Test markers and generally make more geometry of the Bay's tributaries in Air-Florida Debris Recovery Test prudent use of flood prone areas. some areas. It could not be deter- mined, however, if the changes were Tidal Flooding Study Low Freshwater directly attributable to Agnes since Inflow Study much of the pre-Agnes base line data Periodic tidal flooding is a problem were based on surveys taken years that affects all of the Bay's shoreline. Chesapeake Bay is a complex before. Nearly 60 communities around the estuarine system that is dependent 78 on the freshwater inflow from its The Low Freshwater Inflow Study going analyses may not be realized in tributaries to maintain the salinity methodology involved selecting rep- the year 2020. It is believed, however, regime that characterizes its eco- resentative species for study, map- that under any circumstances, the system. ping potential habitat under various magnitude of increases in consump- conditions, using expert scientists to tive losses will be sufficient to be of Increasing population and economic interpret the significance of habitat real concern and that the Low Fresh- growth in the Bay drainage area is change, and assessing socio-econom- water Inflow Study provides a frame- predicted to result in increased water ic and environmental impacts of the work for the development of correc- supply demands and attendant in- changes. This methodology proved tive actions. creases in the amount of water used to be a valid technique for both defin- consumptively. Increased consump- ing problems and evaluating alter- In order to reduce or eliminate the tive use is expected to cause a marked natives. It was developed because the adverse effects of decreasing fresh- reduction in freshwater inflow to the state of the art knowledge relative to water inflows, consideration was Bay and result in higher salinities the physical and biological interac- given to both flow supplementation throughout the Bay system. In the tions in the Bay system are not suffi- and Chesapeake Bay measures. Flow long term, salinities would be ex- ciently advanced to use comprehen- supplementation measures are up- pected to increase by as much as 2 to sive ecosystem models. stream measures that provide addi- 4 ppt just from increased consump- tional flow in the tributaries and con- tive losses alone. The changes in habitat caused by re- tribute to the health of all species. ductions in freshwater inflow can Chesapeake Bay measures are reme- The occurrence of long term drought have both beneficial and adverse ef- dial actions that are oriented to events results in large reductions in fects. The adverse effects were found restoring specific species that were freshwater inflow to the Bay. Over to far outweigh the beneficial ones. destroyed or reduced. the course of the drought, salinities may be up to 5 ppt higher than The most serious adverse impacts While no specific plan was developed average. Increasing consumptive would be to the oyster which would to solve the problems caused by losses will further exacerbate future suffer from the intrusion of disease reduced freshwater inflows, several drought events. and predators. The net loss of oysters alternatives were identified as "most could exceed 85 percent of present promising." These include reservoir stocks under drought conditions. storage, conservation, growth re- The relationship between freshwater The economic impact of this magni- striction, oyster bed restoration, and inflow and salinities in the Bay tude of loss would approach $60 fisheries management. system is very complex. At the pres- million annually. ent time, physical modeling is the It should be emphasized that no rec- only means available that can ac- Other organisms suffering signifi- ommendations are being made for curately predict changes in salinity cant adverse impacts include all those the immediate implementation of levels caused by variations in species dependent on the oligohaline any of these alternatives. Rather, freshwater inflows. The testing con- and tidal freshwater zones, soft further analyses are needed that will ducted on the Chesapeake Bay clams, low salinity submerged aqua- lead to the development of specific Model was considered to be on ap- tic vegetation, Baltic clams, and plans for coping with the conse- propriate representation of the several important sport fish and quences of decreases in freshwater changes in salinity distribution waterfowl to include striped bass and inflows to Chesapeake Bay. In the resulted from droughts and de- canvasback ducks. meantime, it would be prudent to creases in inflow caused by increas- consider these consequences in all ing consumptive losses. In addition to significant economic future actions related to the use, losses, the losses to the commercial preservation, and enhancement of The Chesapeake Bay Model low fishery and recreation industries the Bay. freshwater inflow test also demon- could have far reaching social 'in- Bay salinities are a function of many strated that: (1) no perceptible pacts on many of the Bay's tradi- factors to include freshwater inflow, changes in water surface elevations tions. antecedant salinities and tidal ampli- or velocities were caused by fresh- The impacts of decreasing inflows on tude to name a few. Because of this water inflow changes of the magni- the municipalities and industries that complexity, it is not possible to select tude addressed in this study, (2) the use the estuary as a water supply one minimum inflow that will insure Bay returned to "normal" 6 to 9 that target salinities will not be ex- months after a drought, (3) salinities source are small. Likewise, the in- ceeded. In order to implement flow could vary significantly across the crease in the number of beaches af- supplementation alternatives, a Bay and (4) spring tides have a marked fected by the further intrusion of sea predictive system must be developed influence on vertical salinity stratifi- nettles would be small. to insure that the volume and timing cation. of flow releases produce the desired It is realized that demographic and Bay salinities. Although several studies have been economic projections more recent conducted, the effects of the C & D than those used in this study indicate Programs for the preservation and Canal on Chesapeake Bay salinities that the magnitude of consumptive enhancement of Chesapeake Bay are are still not well understood. losses used as the bases for the fore- presently being formulated and im- 79 plemented. The success of these pro- ing of the Bay, continued advances in formation collected. At the present grams could be dependent, in part, our knowledge of the system must be time it is nearly impossible to deter- on full consideration of the conse- pursued. Of particular concern are a mine what studies have been con- quences of reduced freshwater in- better understanding of the in- ducted much less recover the infor- flows to the Bay. teractions among organisms and the mation contained in them. There is Both the physical and biological pro- role of freshwater inflows in biologi_ an important need for a comprehen- cesses of Chesapeake Bay are very cal and physical processes. sive data information and retrieval complex and in many cases, not well system for Chesapeake Bay. understood. While it would not be With the many studies conducted on prudent to defer management deci- the Chesapeake Bay there has been sions until there is a full understand- an enormous amount of data and in- 80 Chapter V111 Recommendations In light of the findings discussed in I also recommend that Congress sup- the foregoing chapters and in the best port other agencies, institutions and interest of the long term productivity individuals in their endeavors to: of Chesapeake Bay and its resources, I recommend that Congress author- 1. Conduct appropriate local flood- ize the Corps of Engineers to: plain planning and develop a tidal flood forecasting and warning 1. Conduct survey scope tidal system, including warning and evac- flooding studies in the Poquoson, uation plans, designation of shelters, Tangier Island and Hampton Roads marking of flood prone areas and areas of Virginia to include the devel- ot er measures. opment and verification of a storm 2. Refine those low freshwater in- surge model capable of forecasting tidal flood stages and developing flow alternatives found to be the stage- frequency relationships. most promising and develop a defini- tive plan for eliminating or reducing 2. Conduct a comprehensive water the adverse effects of both droughts supply and drought management and the increasing consumptive losses study that will identify those mea- of water. sures required to optimize the use of 3. Conduct research to develop existing water supplies in the Bay and refine ecosystem models that drainage basin and minimize reduc- would provide a better understand- tions in freshwater inflow to the ing of the hydrodynamics and bio- Bay. logical resources of Chesapeake Bay with emphasis on the interactions 3. Conduct a comprehensive Bay- among organisms and those pro- wide study to develop plans for cesses that are controlled by or re- dredged material disposal for the lated to freshwater inflow to Chesa- maintenance and improvement of all peake Bay. major harbors and approach chan- nels to include, but not limited to, 4. Conduct further studies to de- Baltimore and Norfolk Harbors and termine the physical and biological the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. consequences of high freshwater in- 4. Conduct further studies to de- flows on Chesapeake Bay - termine the effects of the Chesapeake 5. Establish and maintain a data and Delaware Canal on the salinities information and retrieval system to of the Bay. be used as a central repository for all Chesapeake Bay related studies and 5. Conduct a periodic update of data. the information contained in the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report to insure that the information MARTIN W. WALSH, Jr. will serve as a water resources data Colonel, Corps of Engineers base for Chesapeake Bay. District Engineer 81 GLOSSARY acre-foot: a measure of water volume, equivalent to an acre of water surface one foot deep. aquifer: a saturated underground geologic formation of sand, gravel, or other porous material, capable of trans- mitting water to wells or springs. aesthetics: people's perceptions of beauty or artistic values in the en- vironment. algae: group of plants, variously single celled, colonial, or fila- mentous. anadromous: a type of fish that ascends rivers from the sea to spawn - examples in Chesapeake Bay include shad and alewife; striped bass are considered semi-anadromous. aquatic: of or pertaining to fresh or salt water; growing or living in or upon water. Base Average: long-term average freshwater inflow conditions; also, salinity conditions resulting therefrom, as determined by hydraulic model testing. Base Drought: historical freshwater drought inflow conditions from 1963 to 1966; also, salinity condi- tions resulting therefrom, as determined by hydraulic model testing. Bay Region: the geographical area which includes those counties or SMSA's which are located on Chesapeake Bay, approxi- mately to the head-of-tide; same as "Study Area." benefit-cost ratio: the arithmetic proportion of estimated average annual benefits to average annual costs, insofar as the factors can be expressed in monetary terms. The relation of benefits to costs represents the degree of tangible economic justification of a project. 83 benthic: of or pertaining to the bot- dockside value: in commercial fishing, the tom of a water body. value of a harvest to the benthos: those organisms living on or fishermen before it is resold in the bottom of a water to distributors and whole- body. salers. biomass: the living weight of a plant or drainage basin: the area of the land from animal population, usually which all precipitation, less expressed on a unit area evapotranspiration and other basis. losses, eventually discharges biota: the plant and animal life of a to a river or Bay. region. drought: a prolonged period of dry weather or lack of rain; in bloom: an unusually large number of this study it generally refers organisms per unit of water, to a period similar to the usually algae, made up of one drought of the mid-1960's or a few species. that resulted in some of the brackish water: a mixture of salt water from lowest recorded strearnflows the ocean and freshwater in the Bay area. from land drainage; usually ecosystem: the interacting system of liv- considered to have a salinity ing things and their physical greater than I part per thou- and chemical environment. sand. endangered species: a plant or animal in danger of cfs: cubic feet per second. extinction throughout all or a combustion plant: a type of electrical generating significant portion of its range; currently listed under facility which uses the power the provisions of the En- of combustion instead of dangered Species Act of steam to drive the turbine. 1973. consumptive loss: the portion of the water used epifauna: aquatic species which live at- for public, agricultural, tached, on or above the bot- industrial and electric power tom. cooling usage that is lost from strearnflow because of epiphytic: living on the surface of evaporation, incorporation plants. into products, etc. (equiv- estuary: a partially enclosed body of alent to "withdrawal" minus water, with a connection to "discharge") the ocean, in which fresh- copepods: any of a subclass of small water from overland drainage crustaceans of fresh or saline is mixed with saline water waters; a component of the moving in from the ocean; zooplankton. also that portion of a stream critically flood-prone: for purposes of the Tidal or river influenced by the tide Flooding Study, when 25 of the body of water into acres or more of intensively which it flows. developed land are inundated euhaline: of or pertaining to waters of by the I 00-year flood. greater than 30 ppt salinity. crustacean: any of a class of arthropods, euryhaline: able to exist in a wide range of including shrimp, crabs, and salinities; as opposed to barnacles. "stenohaline." detritus: a non-dissolved product of eutrophic: abundant in nutrients and disintegration or decay; having high rates of produc- organic detritus forms the tivity, frequently resulting in basis of the estuarine food oxygen depletion below the chain. surfacelayer. dissolved oxygen (DO): oxygen gas dissolved in water evapotranspiration: the combined loss of water - necessary for life of fish from a given area during a and other aquatic organisms. specified period of time by dissolved solids: a measure of the amount of evaporation from the soil or organic and inorganic mate- other surface and by tran- rial which has been chemical- spiration from plants. ly dissolved in water. Extratropical Storm: see Northeaster. 84 fall line: the geological boundary line neckton: the actively swimming aquatic where sedimentary forma- animals (e.g., fish). tions of the Coastal Plain thin non-tidal current: any current that is caused by out as they come into contact other than tide producing with the harder crystalline forces; includes currents rocks of the Piedmont Plateau; generated by wind and water generally coincides with the density differences. head-of-tide on western shore Northeaster: a cyclonic type storm which tributaries. develops near the Atlantic finfish: that portion of the aquatic Coast and is most common community made up of the during the winter months and true fishes as opposed to in- early spring. Wind speeds are vertebrate shellfish. not as great and central pres- flood: an overflow of lands not nor- sures are not as low as or- mally covered by water and dinary hurricanes, but winds that are used or are usable by cover a considerably greater man. Floods have two essen- area. tial characteristics: the inun- nutrients: organic and inorganic dation of land is temporary; chemicals necessary for the and the land is adjacent to and growth and reproduction of inundated by overflow from a organisms. river or stream or an ocean, oligohaline: of or pertaining to low salinity bay, or other body of standing concentrations; in this study, water. relates to the salinity range of flood plain: the relatively flat area or low 0.5 to5.Oppt. lands adjoining the channel of organism: any individual plant or a river, stream or watercourse animal. or ocean, bay, or other body of standing water, which has photosynthesis: the process in plants of pro- been or may be covered by duction of carbohydrates flood water. from carbon dioxide and flood-prone: for purposes of the Tidal water, using sunlight as Flooding Study, having at energy, and chlorophyll as a least 50 acres of land devel- mediator. oped for intensive use inun- phytoplankton: small, freely floating forms of dated by the SPTF. aquatic life (e.g., algae, juvenile: a fully developed but im- diatoms, etc.). mature life stage. piscivorous: feeding on fishes. larva: an early developmental stage plankton: the passively drifting or weakly of an animal which changes swimminging organisms in structurally to become an marine or fresh waters. adult (e.g., caterpillars, tad- polyhaline: of or pertaining to salinities poles). which range between 18 and life cycle: the series of life stages in the 30ppt. form and mode of life of an power pool: two or more interconnected organism, i.e., between suc- electric systems planned and cessive recurrences of a cer- operated on a coordinated tain primary stage such as the basis. spore, fertilized eggs, seed, or resting cell. ppt: parts per thousand. marsh: low, wet, soft land; in the Bay, predator: an organism living by captur- often synonymous with wet- ing and feeding upon other lands. animals. mesohaline: of or pertaining to salinities primary consumer: an organism which consumes which range between 5 and 18 green plants. ppt. productivity: the rate of production of mgd: millions of gallons per day. organic matter produced by motile: capable of spontaneous move- biological activity in an area ment. (measured in units of weight neap tide: tide of decreased range which or energy per unit volume or occurs about every two weeks. area and time). 85 recycling rate: the ratio of water intake to steam power plant: a type of electrical generating gross water use. facility which uses steam to riparian doctrine: unwritten law historically drive an electrical generator. recognized in the Eastern The steam is generated by States, guaranteeing stream heat from burning fossil fuels flows be undiminished in or from the fissioning of quantity or quality due to un- nuclear fuel. reasonable upstream uses. stenolialine: of/organisms which can en- risk: the chance of injury, damage dure only a narrow range of or loss; often quantifyable as salinities. a probability of occurrence, substrate: bottom sediments - mud, such as the risk of a drought. sand, clay, silt, etc. salinity: a measure of the dissolved suspended solids: undissolved material in water, solids content of water. The includes both organic and in- amount of chlorinity or elec- organic substances. trical conductivity in a sea synergistic: interactions of two or more water sample is used to substances or organisms pro- establish salinity; seawater is ducing a result that any was about 35 parts per thousand incapable of independently. salinity (by weight); drinking water standards allow a max- tidal flooding: the inundation of land by imum of 0.25 ppt salinity. tides higher than those usually caused by hurricanes or secondary consumer: an organism which consumes 44 northeasters. " the primary consumer. trophic level: all organisms in a complex shellfish: aquatic animals having a shell community that derive their or exoskeleton, usually food a common step away mollusks (clams and 'oysters). from the primary producers spawn: to produce or deposit eggs, (green plants). sperm, or young. Tropical Storm: a cyclonic wind storm of tropical origin with winds species: a distinct kind; a population from39to74mph. of plant or animal all having a uncertainty: lack of certainty; doubt; high degree of similarity and relates in this study to that can generally only breed estimates of such variables as among themselves. future population growth, spring tide: tide of increased range which fishery productivity, etc. occurs about every two weeks vertebrate: those animals possessing a when the moon is new or full. backbone or spinal column, i.e., fishes, birds, reptiles, stage: in hydrology, the height of the amphibians, and mammals. water surface above or below an arbitrary datum; a gage waterfowl: birds frequenting water, in- Standard Metropolitan height. cluding game birds such as Statistical Area ducks and geese. (SMSA): a designation of the U.S. wetlands: areas characterized by high Bureau of the Census which is soil moisture and high bio- defined as containing a city, logical productivity, where or "twin" cities, with a the water table is at or near the population of 50,000 or more, surface for most of the year. and the socially and econom- withdrawal: water taken from a surface or ically contiguous counties. groundwater source for an Standard Project offstrearn use (equivalent to Tidal Flood "intake"). (SPTF): the largest tidal flood that is likely to occur under the most zooplankton: the animal forms of plankton, severe combinations of mete- including certain types of pro- orological and hydrological tozoans, crustaceans, jelly- conditions that are considered fishes, etc., and the eggs and reasonably charactertistic of larvae of many benthic and the geographic region. necktonic animals. 86 Acknowledgments and Credits The Chesapeake Bay Study was per- report and the conduct of the Low formed by the Baltimore District, Freshwater Inflow and/or the Tidal Corps of Engineers, under the gen- Flooding Studies include: eral direction of the following Dis- Baltimore District: Brooke Alex- trict Engineers: ander, John M. Brzezenski, John C. Diering, Jr., Robert C. Gordon, J. COL Frank W. Rhea 1967-1968 William Haines, George W. Har- COL William J. Love 1968-1971 man, Clifford J. Kidd, Edward S. COL Louis W. Prentiss, Jr. 1971-1973 Musial, Peter A. Pellissier, Steven BG Robert S. McGarry 1973-1976 R. Stegner, Stanley Synowczynski, COL G.K. Withers 1976-1979 Charles E. Yoe. Norfolk District: COL James W. Peck 1979-1982 Edward Andrews, Hyman J. Fine, COL Gerald C. Brown 1982-1984 Owen Reece, Frank T. Wootton, Jr. COL Martin W - Walsh, Jr. 1984 Other staff persons who contributed This study was performed under the to the Chesapeake Bay Study in- staff supervision of: clude: John T. Starr, Chief, Basin Planning Branch 1968-1970 Thomas L. Anderson, Kenneth L. William E. Trieschman, Jr., Chief, Beal, James E. Crews, Paul S. Danis, Planning Division 1970-1984 Linda K. Davidson, Kenneth L. Garner, James J. Guerrini, Kenneth The study was performed under the E. Hartzell, Martha R. Hayes, Henry immediate supervision of the follow- A. Hespenheide, Harry E. Kitch, C. ing: John Klein, III, William L. Klesch, Michael A. Kolessar, Chief, David S. Ladd, Robert W. Lindner, Chesapeake Bay Herbert H. Linthicum, Carl D. Mat- Study Group 1967-1968 thias, Andrew Matuskey, David C. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr., Chief, Mitchell, Harold L. Nelson, John P. Chesapeake Bay O'Hagan, James E. O'Hara, James Study Branch 1971-1984 P. Rausch, Raymond C. Solomon, Noel E. Beegle, Chief, Study Claggett M. Wheeler, Jr., Thomas P. Coordination and Whelley, Jr., Leonard A. Zapalowski. Evaluation Section 1971-1981 Chief, Urban Studies Branch 1981-1984 Dr. James H. McKay, Chief, Advisory Group Technical Studies and Data Development Section 1971-1984 Department of Agriculture The U.S. Army Waterways Experi- Edward R. Keil, 1967-70 ment Station was responsible for the C. Douglas Hole, 1970-72 design, construction, operation and Graham T. Munkittrick, 1972-76 maintenance of the Chesapeake Bay Gerald R. Calhoun, 1977-84 Hydraulic Model under the staff supervision of the following: Department of Commerce Henry B. Simmons, Chief, Phillip K. Reiss, 1967-68 Hydraulic Laboratory Howard J. Marsden, 1968-70 Richard A. Sager, Chief, Estuaries Henry L. DeGraff, 1970-83 Division Department of Health, Staff persons who made significant Education, and Welfare contributions to the writing of this Gerald W. Ferguson, 1967-70 87 Department of Housing National Science Foundation and Urban Development Dr. William A. Niering, 1968 Steering Committee for Mark Keane, 1967 Dr. Edward Chin, 1968-70 Liaison and Basic Research Jerome E. Parker, 1967-68 Dr. Richard C. Kolf, 1970-74 Thomas M. Croke, 1968-76 Dr. Edward H. Bryan, 1974-84 Lawrence Levine, 1976-84 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Smithsonian Institution Michael A. Kolessar Department of the Interior Dr. 1. Eugene Wallen, 1968-71 (Chairman 1968-70) Eugene T. Jensen, 1967-68 Dr. Francis S. L. Williamson, William E. Trieschman, Jr. Lloyd W. Gebhard, 1968 1971-75 (Chairman 1970-72) Mark Abelson, 1968-73 Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan, 1975-83 Alfred E. Robinson, Jr. Ellen Jensen, 1973 Dr. David L. Correll, 1983-84 (Chairman 1972-84) J. David Breslin, 1973-75 Department of Commerce Roger S. Babb, 1975-78 U. S. Navy Russell T. Norris, 1968-76 William Patterson, 1978-83 Anita Miller, 1983-84 CDR J. A. D'Emidio, 1967-70 William Gordon, 1976-78 LCDR P. J. Parisius, 1970-71 Dr. Robert L. Lippson, 1978-84 Department of Transportation Edward W. Johnson, 1971-84 Department of the Interior Philip E. Franklin, 1967-70 ADM E. C. Allen, Jr., 1971 Albert H. Swartz, 1968-71 Capt. Winford W. Barrow, 1971-72 Delaware John T. Gharrett, 1968-70 Capt. G. H. Patrick Bursley, BG Norman M. Lack, 1967-68 Dr. Oliver B. Cope, 1971-74 1972-74 Austin N. Heller, 1970-73 Dr. Daniel L. Leedy, 1974-76 Capt. Keith B. Schumacher, John C. Bryson, 1973-78 Dr. W. Sherman Gillam, 1976-78 1974-78 John E. Wilson, 111, 1978-84 Dr. Glenn Kinser, 1978-84 Capt. J. W. Kime, 1978-81 Capt. J. C. Carlton, 1981-84 Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Energy Commission District of Columbia Dr. Jeff Swinebroad, 1971-73 LTC Tom H. Reynolds, 1967 Dr. Ford A. Cross, 1973-75 Dr. Jeff Swinebroad, 1968-73 LTC Louis W. Prentiss, Jr., Dr. Ford A, Cross, 1973-75 1967-68 Department of Energy Department of Energy Roy L. Orndorff, 1968 Dr. W. Roland Taylor, 1975 Norman E. Jackson, 1968-72 Dr. Jackson 0. Blanton, 1975-76 Dr. W. Roland Taylor, 1975 Paul V. Freese, 1972-73 Dr. D. Heyward Hamilton, 1976-84 Dr. Jackson 0. Blanton, 1975-76 Robert R. Perry, 1973-75 Dr. D. Heyward Hamilton, 1976-84 William C. McKinney, 1975-76 Environmental Protection Agency Herbert L. Tucker, 1976-80 Environmental Protection Agency Lloyd W. Gebhard, 1971 William B. Johnson, 1980-84 Dr. Tudor T. Davies, 1979-80 William M. Blankenship, 1971-73 Dr. David A. Flemer, 1980-84 Larry S. Miller, 1973-74 Maryland Green Jones, 1974-76 Joseph H. Manning, 1967-71 National Science Foundation Leonard Mangiaracina, 1976-79 John R, Capper, 1971-73 Dr. William A. Niering, 1968 Dr. Tudor T. Davies, 1979-83 James B. Coulter, 1973-82 Dr. Edward Chin, 1968-70 Thomas P. Eichler, 1983-84 Dr. Torrey C. Brown, 1982-84 Dr. Richard C. Kolf, 1970-74 Dr. Edward H. Bryan, 1974-84 Federal Energy Regulatory Pennsylvania Commission Clifford H. McConnell, 1967-83 Smithsonian Institution (Federal Power Commission) Nicholas DeBenedictis, 1983-84 Dr. 1. Eugene Wallen, 1968-71 Paul H. Shore, 1967-72 Dr. Francis S. L. Williamson, John H. Spellman, 1972-74 Virginia 1971-75 Angelo Monaco, 1974-76 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., 1967-83 Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan, 1975-83 James D. Hebson, 1976-84 Betty J. Diener, 1983-84 Dr. David L. Correll, 1983-84 88 Delaware Environmental Protection Agency U. S. Navy BG Norman M. Lack, 1968 Daniel K. Donnelly, Robert D. C. L. Hamilton, Edward T. Kinney,, Norman G. Wilder, 1971-73 Kaiser, Frederick D. Knapp, Jr., G. Liberatore, Harold Singerman, John C. Bryson, 1973-78 Thomas H. Pheiffer, Dorothy A. Jack Wilson, Carl Zillig. John E. Wilson, 111, 1978-84 Possehl, Orterio Villa, Gail Mac Kiernan. Smithsonian Institution District of Columbia William 1. Aron, Dale Jenkins, Steve Norman E. Jackson, 1968-72 Federal Emergency Keely, David W. Kunhardt. Paul V. Freese, 1972-73 Management Agency Robert R. Perry, 1973-75 Walter P. Pierson Department of Transportation William C. McKinney, 1975-76 CPT Winfred W. Barrow, CPT G. H. Herbert L. Tucker, 1976-81 Patrick Bursley, LT Mark Grossetti, James H. McDermott, 1981-84 Federal Energy Regulatory CPT Lester A. Levine, CPT William Commission (previously Federal A. Montgomery, CPT Harold B. Maryland Power Commission) Summey. Frederick W. Sieling, 1968-75 Martin Inwald, John Pazmino, Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, 1968-84 Charles Ramirez, Martin J. Thorpe. Dr. Donald W. Pritchard, 1968-84 State Agencies Albert E. Sanderson, 1968-79 Department of Health, Howard Wilson, 1979-80 Education and Welfare L. E. Zeni, 1975-84 Edwin C. Lippy Delaware Dr. Walter R. Taylor, 1979-84 Dr. Sarah J. Taylor, 1980-84 Harry E. Derrickson, Charles Hat- Department of Housing and field, William J. Hopkins, David R. Pennsylvania Urban Development Keifer, Edward Lane, Charles A. Marshall S. Goulding, Jr., 1968-70 Maureen Gottshalk, Richard Lesser, Frank Moorehead, James L. William N. Frazier, 1970-80 Lippold. Pase, John Sherman, Ronald A. Steve Runkel, 1980-84 Thomas. Virginia Department of Interior District of Columbia Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., 1968-84 Robert H. Alexander, Milton Ander- John V. Brink, Robert H. Cousins, son, Ralph Andrews, Philip B. Aus, William B. Garlow, Jican B. Leves- In addition to the members of the Ellen P. Baldacchino, Frank M. que, George J. Moorehead, Kent above groups, the following indi- Basile, John W. Baumeister, Mountford, Paul W. Reed, Arnold viduals made substantial contribu- Frederick W. Bell, Gerard Bentryn, B. Speiser, Richard B. Westbrook. tions to this study: Black, Edward B. Bradley, C. Ed- ward Carlson, Ken Chitwood, L. Maryland Cohen, William M. Colony, James Anthony Abar, Jack Anderson, John Federal Agencies Comiskey, Kenneth Compton, Antenucci, Edwin M. Barry, Tyler George W. Davis, Robert K. Dodd, Bastian, Marvin J. Bennof, Dr. James J. Donoghue, Gary Estronick, Robert B. Biggs, Ralph A. Bitely, Stanley A. Feitler, Katherine Fitz- Charles R. Bostater, Jr.,. Earl Department of Agricutlure patrick, William Forrest, John R. Bradley, Carlo Brunori, Mark Bun- George, John T. Gharrett, Richard E. dy, Nick Carter, Thomas Chaney, David K. Bowden, P. Thomas Cox, Griffith, K. Hall, Kenneth Hanks, Marshall M. Cook, Robert B. Dan- David P. Doss, Charles B. England, Thomas R. Harman, David B. Harris, necker, Eugene F. Deems, Jr., Anthony M. Grano, John W. Green, Mickey Hayden, M. Honeycutt, Her- Spencer P. Ellis, Harold J. Elser, Mark A. Helman, James E. Horse- bert A. Hunter, Frank D. Jones, Rob- Samuel W. Fowler, James Golds- field, John E. Hostetler, Harold E. ert D. Kaiser, Ralph Keel, Rob Kelsey, berry, Bernard F. Halla, Frank Scholl, W. M. Tinsley, Jr., William David A. Kimball, Howard Larson, Hamons, Sidney Hatkin, Edgar H. Weldon. Gordon Leaf, William F. Lichtler, J. Hollis, Jeffrey Hutchins, Randall T. Lowman, Kenneth McGinty, Robert Kerhin, Dr. Ted S. Y. Koo, Dr. Department of Commerce Munroe, Phillip J. Murphy, Paul H. George E. Krantz, Lester A. Levine, Donald D. Allen, Frederick W. Bell, Mutschler, Gary L. Nelson, Earl C. John R. Longwell, Raymond W. Marvin F. Boussu, Robert Brewer, Nichols, James P. Oland, Warren T. Ludlow, Richard Marasco, Paul Eleanor Curry, Ronald D. Gatton, Olds, Jr., Edmond G. Otton, Willard Massicott, Ruth M. Mathes, Kenneth Timothy E. Goodger, Dr. Robert Parker, Ralph Pisapia, Stephen H. E. McElroy, Jr., Roy G. Metzgar, Hanks, Steacy D. Hicks, Dr. Chester Porter, Ronald M. Pyle, E. R. Roach, Caldwell D. Meyers, Bob Miller, Fred P. Jelesnianski, Dr. Robert Kifer, K. Larry R. Shanks, Katherine Shaw, P. Miller, Steve Miller, Robert S. L. Kollar, Roger A. Matson, Patrick Marianne J. Smith, William Stolting, Norton, Jr., Chris Ostrom, Donald H. McAuley, James E. McShane, Jane Sundberg, Nelson Swink, David Outen, Kenneth E. Perkins, Duane Ronald J. Morris, Robert L. Schueler, Taliaferro, Robert L. Wait, Paul Pursley, Charles K. Rawls, Robert J. William N. Shaw, Robert C. Smith, Weiser, W. Finch White, James R. Rubelman, Josh Sandt, Alexander V. Robert Taylor, Robert R. Wilson. Whitehouse. Sandusky, Arnold Schiffman, David 89 A. Schultz, Scribner Sheafor, enmeyer, James L. Reveal, Carol R. Thomas W. Shives, Neil M. Shpritz, Shearer, J. Albert Sherk, Jr., Eugene Turbit H. Slaughter, William M. B. Small, Robert E. Stewart, Richard Sloan, Harley Speir, Vernon D. Swartz, Daniel E. Terlizzi, Shirley Stotts, Edwin Thomas, Noel C. Van Valkenburg, Marvin L. Wass, Valenza, Dr. John B. Williams, Martin L. Wiley, Austin B. Howard Wilson, Jen T. Yang. Williams. Pennsylvania Citizens Program for the V. M. Beard, Richard A Boardman, Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Arthur D. Bradford, Wayne DeMoss, Edward W. Aiton, Charles W. Fritz Fichtner, George E. Fogg, Coale, Jr., Barbara Fine, Frances William C. Forrey, Ellis W. Harned, Flanigan, Germaine Gallagher, Betty John E. McSparran. Jane Gerber, John Gottshalk, E. Polk Kellam, John Harris Lane, IV, Virginia Thomas B. Lewis, William C. Michael A. Bellanca, Dr. Michael E. Lunsford, J. Douglas McAlister, W. Bender, Fred C. Biggs, Robert R. Cranston Morgan, John J. Ney, Blackmore, Dr. John Boon, Dr. Mor- William Park, William R. Prier, ris, L. Brehmer, Donald W. Budlong, Gordon Riley, Arthur Sherwood, Robert Byrne, John Capito, Charles Ed Vinnicombe, J. Paul Williams. A. Christopherson, Arthur L. Col- lins, Elbert Cox, Dr. W. Jackson Biota Evaluation Panel Davis, James E. Douglas, Jr., Alex- ander M. Griffin, Dixie Griffin, Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, Dr. Herbert Robert J. Griffis, J. Gwynn, A. W. M_ Austin, Dr. Walter R. Boynton, Hadder, Milton T. Hickman, Carl Steve Early, Dr. David A. Flemer, Hobbs, Dale F. Jones, Robert H. Kir- Ron Gatton, Dr. William J. Hargis, by, John L. Knapp, Ken Lion, Jr., Dexter S. Haven, Dr. Anson H. Howard MacCord, James F. Mc- Hines, Dr. Glenn Kinser, Dr. Robert Inteer, Jr., Larry Minock, A. H. Lippson, Hayes T. Pfitzenmeyer, Paessler, Chester F. Phelps, Norman Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan. Phillips, Jr., John B. Pleasants, George V. Podelco, Donald B. Susquehanna River Basin Richwine, Glen Rehberger, Fairfax Settle, Jeff Sinclair, John Stockton, Commission Robert Swisher, T. Edward Temple, Robert J. Bielo Burton Tuxford, Cloyde W. Wiley. The preparation of the artwork and Others graphics for this report was under the supervision of: Henry G. Dunn, Chief, Reports and Chesapeake Research Consortium Communications Branch. Richard Anderson, John W. Bishop, Donald F. Boesch, Russell G. Art and graphics for this report were Brown, Martin A. Buzas, Dale R. prepared by: Calder, D. G. Cargo, Sonya Cohen, Lynlee 1. Brock Rita R. Colwell, M. Kenneth Cor- G. Wayne Parker bett, Carol Feister, John M. Frazier, Jerry D. Hardy, Jr., Herbert Harris, Typing was accomplished by: Donald R. Heinle, Robert P. Hig- Lynn Airey, Joann Downs, Ruby gins, Daniel Higman, Linda L. Hud- Jones, Patricia D. Kuta, Christine son, Rogers Huff, Robert J. Hug- Ralph, Mary Rhode, Paula Schultz, gett, Catherine Kerby, Larry Marla Smith. Kohlenstein, Robert W. Krauss, Richard J. Marasco, Andy McEr- lean, Robert E. Miller, Leo L. Mina- sian, Richard A. Mulford, Thomas Credit is also due to many others who A. Munson, John Musick, Patricia contributed to the Chesapeake Bay Orris, Franklyn D. Ott, Robin M. Study and to this report. Overstreet, Anna Belle Owens, For- res E. Payne, Hayes T. Pfitz- 90 I j j L Ifl C[[ ll@jljj 11 @,@ 1@ ll@@] @ @11@j R 1 11 @ [@lY11 3 6668 00000 7262