[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
C 0 lone. Inforn atio Center VOL UME I Summary W-2 "Or 31 P" 77 RD 1695 C54 _Tc C54 1977 Ri MAY1 9 1678 MASTAL ZOW M FOR, r; ATIGN CENTER US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library f- 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 Foreword The Corps of Engineers' comprehen- the Study, the findings of the second sive study of Chesapeake Bay is being or future projections phase of the accomplished in three distinct develop- program are provided in this the Ches- mental stages or phases. Each of these apeake Bay Future Conditions Report. phases is responsive to one of the The primary focus of this report is the following stated objectives of the projection of water resources needs to Study Program: the year 2020 and the identification of the problems and conflicts which 1. To assess the existing physical, would result from the unrestrained chemical, biological, econon-dc and growth and use of the Bay's resources. environmental conditions of Chesa- This report, therefore, provides the peake, Bay and its related land basic information necessary to proceed resources. into the next or plan formulation phase of the program. It should be 2. To project the future water emphasized that, by design, this report resources needs of Chesapeake Bay to addresses only needs and problems. No the year 2020. attempt has been made to identify or analyze solutions to specific problems. 3. To formulate and recommend Solutions to priority problems will be solutions to priority problems using evaluated in the third phase of the the Chesapeake.Bay Hydraulic Model. program and the findings will be pub- lished in subsequent reports. In response to the first objective of the r Study, the initial or inventory phase of The Chesapeake Bay Future Condi- the program was completed in 1973. tions Report consists of a summary The findings were published in a document and 16 supporting appen- A seven-volume report titled Chesapeake dices. Appendices I and 2 are general Bay Existing Conditions Report. This background documents containing was the first published report to pre- information describing the history and sent a comprehensive survey of the conduct of the Study and the manner entire B ay.Region and treat the Chesa- in which the Study was coordinated peake -Bay as a single entity. Most with the various Federal and State importantl@, the report contains much agencies, scientific institutions and the of the basic data required to project public. Appendices 3 through 15 con- the future demands on the Bay and to tain information on specific water and N' the ability of the resource to related land resource uses, including an assess meet those demands. inventory of the present status and (3 expected future needs and problems. In res)ponse to the second objective of Appendix 16 focuses on the formula- tion of the initial testing program for problems considered for inclusion in Listed below are the published vol- the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. the initial model testing program, and umes of the Chesapeake Bay Future Included in Appendix 16 is a descrip- a ddscription'of the selected first year Conditions Report. tion of the Hydraulic Model, a list of model studies program. Volume Number Appendix Number and Title 1 Summary Report 2 l*- Study Organization, Coordination and History 2 - Public Participation and Information 3 3 - Economic and Social Profile 4 4 - Water-Related Land Resources 5 5 - Munidipal and Industrial Water Supply 6 - Agricultural Water Supply 6 7 - Water Quality 7 8 - Recreation 8 9 - Navigation 10- Flood Control 11- Shoreline Erosion .9 12- Fish and Wildlife 10 13- Power 14- Noxious Weeds 11 15- Biota 12 16- Hydraulic Model Testing COASTAQ WGZ7@ ATIGN CENTER Syllabus Chesapeake Bay is a vast natural, capita income, and manufacturing out- wetlands. An additional one-third is economic, and social resource. Along put will cause additional demands to in agricultural uses. Only about 7 with its tributaries, the Bay provides a be placed on Chesapeake Bay's water percent of the land is used for resi- transportation network on which and related land resources. The major dential, commercial, or industrial much of the economic development of purpose of the Chesapeake BaY Future purposes. the Region has been based, a wide Conditions Report is to forecast these variety of water-oriented recreational future demands and assess the capacity *The land needed for residential pur- opportunities, a home for numerous of the system to satisfy them. The poses will approximately double be- fish and wildlife, a source of water following is a summary of some of the tween 1970 and 2020. The amount supply for both municipalities and more significant findings of the of land needed for industrial pur- industries, and the site for the disposal Report: poses will increase by about 50 per- of many of our waste products. The cent if industry is to meet the projec- natural resources and processes of the *Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest ted increase in manufacturing output. Bay and man's activities interact to estuaries in the world, having a sur- Conversely, the land in crops and form a complex and interrelated sys- face area of about 4,400 square miscellaneous farniland is expected tem. Unfortunately, problems often miles, a length of nearly 200 miles, to decrease by approximately 22 arise when man's intended use of one and over 7,000 miles of shoreline. percent. Although there is sufficient resource conflicts with either the natu- Like many coastal plain estuaries, the land in the Bay Region available for ral environment or man's use of Bay is a broad, shallow expanse of residential and industrial develop- another resource. It was the need for a water varying from 4 to 30 miles in ment, conflicts between competing plan to provide for the most efficient width, but having an average depth of land use types in preferred areas is use of the Bay's resources that pro- less than 28 feet. Its maximum depth expected to continue to be a problem vided the impetus for the initiation of is 175 feet near Bloody Point, Mary- in the future. the Chesapeake Bay Study. land. In 1970, approximately 7.9 million *The marshes, woodlands, and the Bay *There are currently 49 central water people lived in the Chesapeake Bay itself, provide an extremely produc- supply systems in the Bay Region Region. By the year 2020, population tive natural habitat for over 2,700 which serve 2500 or more people. In is expected to more than double reach- different species. The sheer number 1970 these systems served about 76, ing a level of approximately 16.3 of species alone forecasts the com- percent of the people in the Region million persons. Employment is pro- plexity of Bay biota in terms of as well as many industries, providing jected to grow at approximately the partitioning species to communities a total of 872 million gallons of same rate as population; per capita and determining functional relation- water per day (mgd). By the year income is projected to nearly quad- ships that will aid in understanding 2020, 31 of these 49 systems are ruple; and manufacturing output is the Bay as an ecosystem. expected to have average water de- expected to increase by nearly 600 mands which will exceed presently percent. *More than half (57 percent) of the developed sources of supply. The land in the Chesapeake Bay Region is projected demands for water supplied These increases in population, per covered by woodlands, forests, or through central systems will total approximately 2320 mgd by the year acreages are considered to be suffi- and existing rate of erosion). Over 2020. It is questionable whether or cient to meet demands through 2020 the last 100 years, approximately not new sources of water can be although there are acute existing def- 25,000 and 20,000 acres of shoreline developed without placing undue icits in most of the major urban have been lost to erosion in Maryland stresses on the Bay system. areas. and Virginia, respectively. An addi- tional 44.4 miles of shoreline have *In the major ports of Baltimore and the potential to become critical *Assuming significant increases in erosion problem areas in the future. recycling rates, water intake by all Hampton Roads, the movement of Bay Region industry (i.e., centrally- such bulk commodities as petroleum, supplied and self-supplied) is pro- coal, grain, and in the case of Balti- *In 1973, the total harvest of finfish jected to experience only modest more, iron ore, are expected to con- and shellfish from Chesapeake Bay increases of about 117percent. Water tinue to dominate waterborne com- and its tributaries totaled 565 million consumption, however, is expected merce. Bulk oil traffic is expected to pounds valued at approximately to increase by nearly 800 percent approximately double by the year $47.9 million at the dock. When the over the same period. As a result of 2020 in Baltimore and remain at combined recreational and com- these factors, the volume of indus- about the 1972 level throughout the mercial catches are taken into ac- trial discharge is projected to de- projection period in Hampton Roads. count, maximum sustained yields crease by 24 percent. The increasing size of bulk carriers, (i.e., the greatest harvest which can along with the projected general in- be taken from a population without crease in bulk traffic, will intensify affecting subsequent harvests) are *Total agricultural water demand, the need for deeper channels in the projected to be exceeded for blue which includes uses for livestock and major harbors of the Region. Foreign crabs, spot, striped bass, white perch, poultry, irrigation, and the rural general cargo traffic is projected to shad, weakfish, flounder, and the domestic population, is expected to increase by a factor of approximately American eel by the year 2000. By quadruple by 2020, with over 90 six in both Baltimore and Hampton 2020, catches of oysters, softshell percent of the increase due to a rise Roads between 1972 and 2020. clams, menhaden, and alewife are in the demand for irrigation water. In also expected to exceed their maxi- those areas of the Bay Region with mum sustainable yields. significant projected increases avail- *Bulk oil is projected to continue to able supplies are expected to be dominate waterborne traffic move- sufficient to meet the future demand. ments through the minor ports and *There are numerous areas in the waterways around Chesapeake Bay. Region which are of significant his- The largest increases are expected on torical, archaeological, or ecological *Water quality conditions in the Bay the Western Shore due to larger interest. These include nearly 800 vary widely due to a variety of increases in population and income properties which are included in the factors: proximity to urban areas, predicted for these areas as compared National Register of Historic Places, type and extent of industrial and to the Eastern Shore. The level of or have been nominated for that agricultural activity, stream-flow petroleum traffic is critical because distinction, 20 properties designated characteristics, and the amount and of the potential for environmentally as National Wildlife refuges or re- type of upstream land and water damaging oil spills. search centers, and thousands of usage. Most of the major water recorded archaeological sites. quality problems occur in the estu- aries of the Bay's tributaries and not *Based on the damage that could be in the Bay proper. expected from a 100-year tidal flood, *Waterfowl hunting effort in the Ches- the tidal flooding problem is con- apeake Bay Region is predicted to sidered to be "critical" in 31 com- increase by 70 percent during the *Boating and sailing activity is projec- munities in the Bay Region. An projection period. Big game hunting ted to increase by more than five additional 20,000 acres of land projections indicate a 141 percent times, swimming by nearly four and within the 100-year tidal flood plain increase while small game hunting is one-half times, picnicking by a factor has been proposed for future in- expected to decrease by about 13 of three and one-half, and camping tensive development. percent. Existing hunting land access by almost six times. As a result of problems are expected to be a'ggra- these increases, major deficits in the vated by the increases in waterfowl number of boating ramps, picnic *Approximately 410 miles of Chesa- and big game hunting effort. tables, and camping sites are ex- peake Bay shoreline were identified pected by the year 2020. Total as having "critical" erosion problems Regional swimming pool and beach (based on intensity of development *The demand for non-consumptive iv Wildlife uses including bird watching, projected to account for approxi- form the basis in the food chain for bird and wildlife photography, and mately 44 percent of the Chesapeake the Bay's productive fish and wildlife nature walking, is expected to ap- Bay Region's power pool require- resources. There has been in recent proximately double over the projec- ments. By 2020, the percentage is years an as yet unexplained reduction tion period. As a result of these expected to increase to 72 percent. in the numbers of some of the most increases, an additional one million beneficial aquatic plant species uii Chesapeake Bay. acres of publicly accessible land will be required to maintain the quality mater withdrawal by power plants is level that existed in 1970. expected to decrease significantly from 12,660 mgd in 1972 to 2,250 *Although noxious weeds such as *The total demand for electricity in mgd in the year 2020, due to projec- Eurasian watermilfbil, water chest- the geographical area containing the ted increases in water recycling. nut, and sea lettuce have caused electric utilities serving the Bay is Water consumption is projected to widespread problems in Chesapeake projected to increase by a factor of increase dramatically from about 130 Bay in the past, present populations more than 5 by the year 2000 and a mgd in 1972 to 1,170 mgd in 2020. are well below troublesome levels. factor of approximately 13.5 by The potential remains ., however, for a 2020. More and larger power plants reemergence of high concentrations will be required to meet this demand. *Aquatic plants are vital elements of of these plants in the future. By the year 1985, nuclear power is the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and v ArI will Olt, At 4; Contents FOREWORD LIST OF TABLES 14 Industrial Water Withdrawals Number Title by Source, mgd, Chesapeake SYLLABUS iii Page Bay Region, 1970 .......... 38 15 Projected Water Supply 1 Chesapeake Bay Study Demand on Central Systems, Area Subregions ............. 3 Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 40 Chapter Page 2 Basin Characteristics of Major 16 Projected Industrial Water Chesapeake Bay Tributaries .... 8 Use, Chesapeake Bay I THE STUDY AND THE 3 Important Chesapeake Bay Plant Region ................... 42 REPORT ..................... I and Animal Organisms- 17 Projected Rural Domestic Study Authority ............... 1 Common Names ........... 18 Water Use, Chesapeake Bay Study Purpose ................. 1 4 Population Growth in the Region ................... 43 Study Scope .................. 2 Chesapeake Bay Study Area 18 Projected Livestock and Management Responsibilities ..... 4 During the 1940-1970 Period Poultry Water Use, Study Organization and by Economic Subregion ...... 20 Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 43 Management ... 5 5 Family Income Distribution 19 Projected Dry-Year Public Participation and for the Chesapeake Bay Irrigation Water Use, Information Program ........... 5 Study Area and the United Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 43 Supporting Studies ............. 6 States, 1969 ............... 20 20 Projected Water Service 6 Series C Projections of Area Supply Deficits, 11 THE CHESAPEAKE BAY Population, Per Capita Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 44 REGION ..................... 7 Income, and Total Personal 21 Chesapeake Bay Region Environmental Setting and Income by Chesapeake Bay Freshwater Supply Analysis Natural Resources .............. 7 Subregion ................ 25 and Projected Deficits ....... 45 The People .................. 18 7 Manufacturing Output for 22 Chesapeake Bay Water III WATER RESOURCE Chesapeake Bay Region Quality Study Areas ........ 48 by Industry, 1969 and 23 Future Municipal Wastewater PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ...... 33 Proiected ................. 26 Treatment Needs, Selected Water Supply ................ 33 8 A Comparison of OBERS Areas .................... 51 Water Quality ................ 46 Series C and Series E 24 Major General Cargo Outdoor Recreation ........... 55 Projections ................. 26 Commodities and Type of Navigation ................... 63 9 Projected Cropland and Traffic, Baltimore Harbor, Flood Control ................ 78 Miscellaneous Farmland for 1972 .................... 69 Shoreline Erosion ............. 83 the Chesapeake Bay Region ... 31 25 Major Foreign General Fish and Wildlife .............. 90 10 Projected Acres of Private Cargo Commodities and Type Electric Power ............... 103 Commercial Forest Land for of Traffic, Hampton Noxious Weeds .............. 113 the Chesapeake Bay Study Roads, 1972 ............... 71 Area ..................... 31 26 Federally Authorized Main 11 Municipal Water Use in Channel Depths at Selected EPILOGUE ...................... 117 1970 by Chesapeake Bay Ports and Waterways, Subregion ................ 34 Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 74 12 Industrial Water Use in 27 Tidal Elevations During GLOSSARY ..................... jig the Chesapeake Bay Recent Chesapeake Bay Region, 1970 .............. 37 Storms ................... 79 13 Water Use in Manufacturing, 28 Tidal Flood Damages of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........... 123 by Industrial Sector, Chesa- Recent Chesapeake Bay peake Bay Region, 1970 ... 37 Storms ................... 79 vii 29 Floodprone Communities, 10 Population and Economic 35 Chesapeake Bay Market Sector Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 80 Projections for the Chesapeake and Study Area ........... 104 30 Critical Future Floodprone Bay Region to 2020 ......... 25 36 Total Energy Requirements Areas, Chesapeake Bay 11 Major Land Use Types - of Chesapeake Bay Market Region ................... 81 Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 27 Sectors, 1972 ............. 105 31 Length of Critically Eroding 12 Average Water Use in the 37 Energy A:ccount for Chesapeake Shoreline, State of Chesapeake Bay Region by Bay Market Area, 1972 ..... 106 Maryland ................. 86 Type ................... 34- 38 Chesapeake Bay Power Plant 32 Length of Critically Eroding 13 Trends in Industrial Water Location Map, 1972 ....... 107 Shoreline, Commonwealth Use Technology ............ 41 39 Projected Energy Requirements of Virginia ....... ........ 86 14 Projected Increase in Manu- Including Peak Demand for 33 Future Critically Eroding facturing Water Use, Chesapeake Bay Market Reaches (Maryland) ......... 86 Cliesapeake Bay Region ...... 42 Areas ................... 109 34 Future Critically Eroding 15 Potential Sources of 40 Chesapeake Bay Power Plant Reaches (Virginia) .......... 87 Water Pollution ............ 46 Location Map, 2000 ....... Ill 35 Commercial Fishery Harvest, 16 The Chesapeake Bay Water 41 Projected Power Plant Average 1966-1970, Quality Study Areas ........ 47 Cooling Water Withdrawal Chesapeake Bay and 17 Existing Water Quality and Consumption in the Tributaries ................ 93 Problems in Chesapeake Bay Market Area .......... 111 36 Projected Period of Bay ..................... 49 42 Eurasian Watermilfoil ...... 114 Exceedence of Maximum 18 Industrial Discharge Projections 43 Water Chestnut ........... 115 Sustainable Yield (MSY) for for the Chesapeake Bay Region 44 Sea Lettuce .............. 115 the Major Commercial and with Moderate Technology ... 51 Sports Species ............. 98 19 Pollution Control Costs as a 37 Public Land Required to Function of Control Levels ... 53 Meet Future Non-Consumptive 20 Distribution of Recreation Needs Recreational Demand ...... 100 and Surpluses, Chesapeake Bay 38 Percent Contribution of Fuel Region, 1970 .............. 58 Types to Total Electric 21 Projected Demand and Generation - 1972 ........ 106 Existing Supply for Boating 39 Steam-Electric Plants in the and Sailing, Swimming, Chesapeake Bay Market Picnicking, and Camping, Area, 2000 ............... 110 Chesapeake Bay Region 40 Projected Land Required for (Resident and Non- Steam Electric Plants in Resident) ................. 60 the Chesapeake Bay Study 22 Projected Waterborne Commerce Area .................... 112 - Baltimore Harbor ......... 67 23 Projected Waterborne Commerce - Hampton Roads .......... 69 24 Projected Waterborne Commerce LIST OF FIGURES .- Chesapeake and Delaware Canal .................... 72 Number Title Page 25 Projected Waterborne Commerce James River .............. 72 1 Chesapeake Bay Study 26 Projected Waterborne Bulk Oil Area ...................... 2 Commerce - Potomac River . .72 2 Chesapeake Bay Study 27 Projected Waterborne Bulk Oil Organizational Chart .........5 Commerce - York River ..... 72 3 Chesapeake Bay Region 28 Projected Waterborne Commerce Geological Provinces and for Selected Commodities - Fall Line . .................. 8 Wicomico, Nanticoke, Rappa- 4 Geologic Cross-Section of the hannock, and Choptank and Coastal Plain Province in Tied Avon Rivers ........... 73 Maryland .................. 8 29 Shorelands of Chesapeake 5 Circulation in a Partially Bay ..................... 83 Mixed Estuary ............. 10 30 Shoreline Erosion Caused by 6 Geographical and Seasonal the Seepage of Ground- Variations in Salinities in water .................... 84 Chesapeake Bay ............ 11 31 Average Finfish and Shellfish 7 Fishes: Their Use of the Harvest, 1966-1970, Estuary .................. 15 Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 92 8 Employment by Economic 32 Fisheries Supply and Demand Sectors, Chesapeake Bay Functions ................ 98 Study Area, and United 33 Projected Hunter Effort in the States, 1970 ............... 21 Chesapeake Bay Region ...... 99 9 Manufacturing Employment for 34 Projected Non-Consumptive the Chesapeake Bay Study Wildlife-Related Outdoor Area and the United States, Activity in the Chesapeake 1970 .................... 21 Bay Region .............. 100 viii Chapter I The Study and the Report STUDY AUTHORITY with any research, investigation, STUDY PURPOSE or study being carried on by The authority for the Chesapeake Bay them of any aspect of the Chesa- Historically, measures taken to utilize Study and the construction of the peake Bay Basin. The study and control the water and land re- Hydraulic Model is contained in Sec- authorized by this section shall sources of the Chesapeake Bay Basin tion 312 of the River and Harbor Act be given priority. have generally been oriented toward of 1965, adopted 27 October 1965, solving individual problems. The which reads as follows: (b) There is authorized to be Chesapeake Bay Study was initiated in appropriated not to exceed 1967 to provide a comprehensive (a) The Secretary of the Army, $6,000,000 to carry out this study of the entire Bay Area in order acting through the Chief of Engi- section. that the most beneficial use be made neers, is authorized and directed of the water-related resources. The to make a complete investigation An additional appropriation for the major objectives of the Study are to: and study of water utilization Study was provided in Section 3 of the and control of the Chesapeake River Basin Monetary Authorization a. Assess the existing physical, Bay Basin, including the waters Act of 1970, adopted 19 June 1970, chen-deal, biological, economic, and of the Baltimore Harbor and which reads as follows: environmental conditions of Chesa- including, but not limited to, the peake Bay and its water resources. following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, control of nox- In addition to the previous b. Project the future water re- ious weeds, water pollution, authorization, the completion sources needs of Chesapeake Bay to water quality control, beach ero- of the Chesapeake Bay Basin the year 2020. sion, and recreation. In order to Comprehensive Study, Mary- carry out the purposes of this land, Virginia, and Penn- c. Formulate and recommend solu- section, the Secretary, acting sylvania, authorized by the tions to priority problems using the through the Chief of Engineers, River and Harbor Act of Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. shall construct, operate, and 1965 is hereby authorized at maintain in the State of Mary- an estimated cost of In response to the first objective of the land a hydraulic model of the $9,000,000. Study, the initial or inventory phase of Chesapeake Bay Basin and asso- the program was completed in 1973 ciated technical center. Such and the findings were published in a model and center may be uti. As a result of Tropical Storm Agnes, document titled 0iesapeake Bay lized, subject to such terms and which caused extensive damage in Existing Conditions Report. conditions as the Secretary Chesapeake Bay, Public Law 92-607, deems necessary, by any depart- the Supplemental Appropriation Act Included in this seven-volume report is ment, agency, or instrumentality of 1973, signed by the President on 31 a description of the existing physical, of the Federal Government or of October 1972, included $275,000 for economic, social, biological and the States of Maryland, Virginia, additional studies of the impact of the environmental conditions of Chesa- and Pennsylvania, in connection storm on Chesapeake Bay. peake Bay. This was the first published report that presented a comprehensive STUDY SCOPE In addition, the basic assumptions and survey of the entire Bay Region and methodologies are tested for sensi- treated Chesapeake Bay as a single The expertise required for the conduct tivity in the "Sensitivity Analysis" entity. Most importantly, the report of the Chesapeake Bay Study and the sections. Only general means to satisfy contains much of the basic data re- Future Conditions Report includes the the projected resources needs are pre- quired to project the future demands fields of engineering and, the social, sented, as specific recommendations on the Bay and to assess the ability of physical, and biological sciences. The are beyond the scope of this report. the resource to meet those demands. Study is being coordinated with Fed- eral, State, and local agencies having As shown on Figure 1, the geograph- In response to the second objective of an interest in Chesapeake Bay. Each ical study area encompasses those the Study, the findings of the second resource category or problem area has counties or Standard Metropolitak or future projections phase of the been treated on an individual basis Statistical Areas (SMSA) which adjoin program are provided in this the with demands and potential problem or have a major influence on the Chesapeake Bity Future Conditions areas projected to the year 2020. All Estuary. The area delineated in Figure Report. The primary focus of this conclusions are based on historical I is referred to as the "Study Area" or report is the projection of water re- information supplied by the preparing "Bay Region" throughout this report. sources needs to the year 2020 and the agencies having expertise in that field. Unless otherwise noted, this is the identification of the problems and conflicts which would result from the unrestrained growth and use of the Figure 1 Chesapeake Bay Study Area Bay's resources. This report, therefore, provides the basic information neces- % sary to proceed into the ne xt or plan M.- formulation phase of the program. It should be emphasized that, by design, < N, this report addresses only needs and problems. No attempt has been made to identify or analyze solutions to specific problems. Solutions to prior- A BUR ity problems will be evaluated in the third phase of the program and the PA findings will be published in sub- MD sequent reports. The Chesapeake Bay Future Condi- W1 Op tions Report consists of a summary DOVE document and 16 supporting appen- dices. Appendices I and 2 are general 11@24 C@ background documents containing information describing the history and C. SIAWd conduct of the Study and the manner in which the Study was coordinated with the various Federal and State 21 -N.. 70 agencies, scientific institutions and the Wz M, G hI W, public. Appendices 3 through 15 con- h tain information on specific water and related land resource uses to include an inventory of the present status and 12 0", expected future needs and problems. Appendix 16 focuses on the formula- S tion of the initial testing program for VA the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. C SAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA r_ V I Inqa\ Included in Appendix 16 is a descrip- V0111 SMSA 3 IN STUDY AREA tion of the Hydraulic Model, a list of BOUN RY STU problems considered for inclusion in Y AREA the initial testing program and a de- BEA E....- All- tailed description of the selected first year model studies program. 2 study area used in each of the Appen- TABLE 1 dices. For purposes of projecting the CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA SUBREGIONS future demands on the resources of (NUMBER AND NAME) the Bay, economic and demographic 15-7 Wilmington, Delaware SMSA projections were made for all sub- 17-1 Baltimore, Maryland SMSA regions and SMSA's within the Study 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore Area. The subregions are fisted in 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore Table 1. 174 Delaware, Non-SMSA area (or Delaware Eastern Shore) 18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA 18-2 Southern Maryland As directed in the authorization, the 18-3 Virginia, Non-SMSA area Study also includes the construction, 21-1 Richmond and Petersburg-Colonial Heights, Virginia SMSA's operation and maintenance of a 21-2 Virginia, Non-SMSA area 22-1 Newport News-Hampton, Virginia SMSA Hydraulic Model of Chesapeake Bay. 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia SMSA Actual construction of the 14-acre 22-3 Virginia, Non-SMSA area Model and shelter was begun in June, 1973, and completed in April, 1976. Adjustment and verification of the -- ---- ---- - - ,A 4 0101, 3 Model is due to be completed in 1978. ested parties. these resources form the basis for The Hydraulic Model provides a means much of our National wealth and of reproducing to a manageable scale future well-being. The concern for many natural events and man-made MANAGEMENT water resources, in particular, is shown changes thereby allowing the collec- RESPONSIBILITIES by many legislative enactments by the tion of the data necessary to assess the Congress. A continually developing consequences of these happenings. As Due to the large geographic area com- body of law has established varying an instrument and physical display, prising the Chesapeake Bay Region degrees of National concern as evi- the Hydraulic Model serves to educate and the complex problems which face denced by the existence of numerous the public relative to the complexity the Estuary, a large number of Fed- Federal agencies with authority in of the Bay's problems and conflicts. eral, State, and local agencies and such areas as navigation, flood control, As an operational focal point, the interstate commissions are involved in drainage, irrigation, recreation, fish Model will promote more effective various aspects of water resource man- and wildlife conservation, water liaison among the agencies working on agement in the Region. supply, and water quality. the Bay waters, helping to reduce duplication of effort and aid in dis- The Federal concern with natural re- Water resources management is not the persion of knowle@dge among the inter- sources is founded on the fact that exclusive domain of the Federal gov- Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. Aff '""NOW iw WBIE! V J, Y 77@ K 4 ernment. State and local governments 2 of this Report titled "Public Partici- of the District Engineer of the Balti- also play a vital role. Such govern- pation and Information" be consulted. more District, Corps of Engineers. ments often have their own manage- Appendix I of this Report, titled ment and construction programs, as STUDY ORGANIZATION "Study Organization, Coordination, well as having the responsibility to AND MANAGEMENT and History," contains more informa- review and comment on proposed Fed- tion on Study organization. eral projects. They are also an invalu- The magnitude of the Chesapeake Bay able source of information due to their Study, the large number of partici- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION detailed knowledge of the areas within pants, and the complex spectrum of AND INFORMATION PROGRAM their jurisdiction. The States usually problems to be analyzed requires have one major executive level depart- intensive coordination of activities. The involvement of the public in the ment responsible for natural resources. The initial planning of this Study was planning process is an important facet However, there are often additional coordinated with the then National of the planner's responsibility. Citizen State agencies and commissions in Council of Marine Resources and interest in resource planning is partic- charge of certain aspects of water Engineering Development through its ularly evident in the water resource resources management outside of this Committee on Multiple Use of the field where there is increased public organizational structure. Coastal Zone. This study was con- awareness of ecology and concern for ceived as a coordinated partnership the environmental impact of the In addition to the Federal, State, and between Federal, State, and local actions of man. Corps of Engineers local agencies with water resource agencies and interested scientific insti- policy is to fully inform the public responsibilities, there are two inter- tutions. Each involved agency is about Corps studies and to encourage state organizations which are directly charged with exercising leadership in the public to meaningfully participate involved in water resources manage- those discipfines@ in which it has special in the planning process. ment in the Chesapeake Bay Region: competence and is expected to review the Susquehanna River Basin Com- and comment on work performed by mission and the Interstate 'Commission others. To realize these ends, an Ad- A comprehensive plan for public in- on the Potomac River Basin. visory Group, a Steering Committee, volvement was prepared for the Chesa- and five Task Groups, as shown in peake Bay Study. The purpose of this For more information on the various Figure 2, were established. program is to provide an organized set agencies and commissions with man- of.activities which establishes two-way agement responsibilities pertaining to The overall management of the Chesa- communication between the planner the Bay, it is suggested that Appendix peake Bay Study is the responsibility and the public. Figure 2 Chesapeake Bay Study Organizational Chart BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ADVISORY GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE, LIAISON, & BASIC RESEARCH AGRICUL URE NAVY CORPS OF ENO NEERS PENNSYLVANIA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ATCM@C ENERGY COMMISSION VIRGINIA COMMERCE T ANSPORTATION INTERIOR FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION DELAWARE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION HEALTH. EDUCATION, & WELFARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION HOU&NG 3 URBAN DEVELOPMENT MARYLAND COMMERCE INTERIOR PENNSYLVANIA DELAWARE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION VIRGINIA OLUMBIA DISTRICT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARYLAND ECONOMIC PROJECTION WATER QUALITY & SUPPLY, FLOOD CONTROL, WASTE TREATMENT, NOXIOUS NAVIGATION, EROSION, RECREATION TASK GROUP FISH & WILDLIFE TASK GROUP WEEDS TASK GROUP FISHERIES TASK GROUP COORDINATION GROUP COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CORPS OF ENGINEERS INTERIOR INTERIOR AGRICULTURE AGENCY AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AGROULT URE COMMERCE HEALTH, EDUCATION. & WELFARE COMMERCE INTERIOR ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION NAVY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HEALTH, EDUCATION, & WELFARE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HEALTH, EDUCATION, & WELFARE INTERIOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS DELAWARE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NAVY NAVY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A ENCY TRANSPOR ATION TRANSPORTATION AGENCY MARYLAND CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DELAWARE PENNS LVANIA DELAWARE VIRGINIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELAWARE AGENCY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARYLAND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELAWARE MARYLAND PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND 0 ST ICT OF COLUMBIA PENNSYLVANIA VIRGINIA PENNSYLVANIA M RYLAND VIRGINIA VIRGINIA VIRGINIA 5 To date, a number of the public Another element of the public involve- Department of Commerce. Projections involvement techniques recommended ment program has been the production of industrial water supply were pre- in this comprehensive plan have been of a film, titled "Planning for a Better pared specifically for this study by the employed. An informal liaison has Bay," which describes the Bay's water Bureau of Domestic Commerce, U.S. been established with the Citizens Pro- and related land resources, its prob- Department of Commerce. All agricul- gram for Chesapeake Bay, Inc., an lems, and the Chesapeake Bay Study. tural water demands, including rural organization representing a wide range The film has been viewed by thou- domestic, livestock, and irrigation of groups with interest in Chesapeake sands of people and is currently shown uses, were projected by the Economic Bay. This group has served as the as part of the daily public tours being Research Service, U.S. Department of Chesapeake Bay Study's citizens' ad- conducted at the Chesapeake Bay Agriculture. All projections and inven- visory group. In addition, two sets of Hydraulic Model. The film is also tories relative to recreational uses were public meetings have been held: one at shown at public presentations to var-' made by the Bureau of Outdoor the onset of the Study to inform the ious engineering or technical societies, Recreation, U.S. Department of the public of the initiation of the Study local civic or service groups, environ- Interior. The fish and wildlife portion and to solicit views as to what direc- mental organizations, Bay-related busi- of the Report was prepared jointly by tion the Study should take; and the nesses, and schools. The hundreds of the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. second near the completion of the presentations which have been given to Department of the Interior, and the future projections phase of the Study date have ma6 up an important part National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. to inform the public of progress on the of the Bay Study's public involvement Department of Commerce. The Chesa- overall program and to solicit views program. For more information con- peake Research Consortium prepared regarding the findings of the Study cerning the Chesapeake Bay Study's the "Biota" Appendix, and the projec- and future Study direction. public participation program consult tions of electric power needs were Appendix 2, "Public Participation and prepared by the Federal Power Publications have been used to dis- Information." Comn-dssion. seminate information concerning study objectives and outputs, history, SUPPORTING STUDIES and other data. In addition to the Much of the initial data base and Study's planning reports, a number of Although this report was prepared and resource inventory for all resource other printed materials were prepared coordinated by the Baltimore District, categories addressed in the Study were specifically for informing the public Corps of Engineers, much of the infor- presented in the Chesapeake Bay Ex- about the Study. These include a mation was derived from other isting Conditions Report. Other leaflet on the Hydraulic Model, re- sources. The economic and demo- sources of information too numerous prints of articles, and transcripts from graphic projections were prepared by to mention here, are referenced in the public meetings. the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. bibliography of each appendix. 41 6 Idiom Wn 4 Chapter 11 71 The Chesapeake Bay Region ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING whore wells have been drilled, increase ince, whereas the Coastal Plain is AND NATURAL RESOURCES in thickness towards the Continental composed of sediments. Shelf (see Figure 4). In a few isolated GEOLOGY areas and in locations where water has Climate appears to have a definite cut a deep channel, the basement rock effect on soil development. Although The Chesapeake Bay Region is divided is exposed in ridges. the Bay Area is generally characterized into two geologic provinces-the by a humid climate, local variations in Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Pla- The Piedmont Plateau is not, as its temperature and rainfall produce some teau. These provinces run roughly name implies, a plateau. It is charac- differences in soil type. Soil charac- parallel to the Atlantic Ocean in sim- terized by low hills and ridges which teristics (texture, drainage, structure, ilar fashion to the Bay itself and join tend to rise above the general lay of particle size, physical composition, at the Fall Line (see Figure 3). This the land reaching a maximum height and degree of development) have had a natural line of demarcation generally near the Appalachian Province on the strong role in determining soil useful- marks both the limit of tide as well as west. Many of the stream valleys are ness. Richer, well-drained soils are the head of navigation. quite narrow and steep-sided, having more productive in terms of agricul- been cut into the hard crystalline ture. Few crops can grow on soils The Coastal Plain Province includes rocks which are characteristic of the which are poorly drained or which the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Province. lack plant nutrients. Soils on the Virginia, most of Delaware, and a Coastal Plain are highly variable with portion of the Western Shore. On the The parent material of the Piedmont regard to drainage characteristics and Eastern Shore. and in portions of the Province is both older and more com- most need liming to neutralize their Western Shore adjacent to the Bay, the plicated than that of the Coastal Plain. naturally acidic condition. Piedmont Coastal Plain is largely low, featureless, The structurally complex crystalline soils are medium-grained, easily tilled, and frequently marshy, with many rocks have been severely folded and and of generally higher fertility than islands and shoals sometimes extend- subjected to great heat and pressure those of the Coastal Plain. A few soils ing far offshore. The Province is a thereby creating metamorpWc rocks. are impermeable when wet, retarding gently rolling upland on the Western the movement of water and causing Shore and in the northern portions of waterlogging. As a result, strong sur- the Eastern Shore. The Coastal Plain SOILS face runoff causes serious erosion of reaches its highest elevation in areas slopes. along its western margin. Soils consist of a thin layer of material made from broken and decomposed CLIMATE The composition of the Coastal Plain rock with added products of decaying is primarily unconsolidated, south- organic matter called humus. The The Chesapeake Bay Study Area is easterly-dipping, sedimentary layers Study Area contains soils produced characterized by a generally moderate such as sand, clay, marl, gravel, and from the three major types of rock, climate, due in a large part to the diatomaceous earth resting on a base namely igneous, metamorphic, and area's proximity to the Atlantic of hard crystalline rock. These layers, sedimentary. The first two types are Ocean. Variations occur, however, on which can be readily seen in areas found primarily in the Piedmont Prov- a local, short-term basis due to the . 7 large geographical size of the Bay tion from plants, amounts to approxi- effect due to the nearness of the Area. mately 60 percent of the annual pre- Atlantic Ocean. cipitation or about 26 inches per year. Precipitation within the Bay Region Authorities estimate an annual evapor- SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY was studied at selected stations during ation of 36 to 40 inches from the Bay a 30-year sample record from 1931 to itself. The source of freshwater for the Bay is 1960. The average for the Study Area runoff from a drainage basin covering was 44 inches per year, with geo- The average temperature for the Study about 64,160 square miles. Approxi- graphical variations from about 40 to Area is approximately 57 degrees mately 88 percent of this basin is 46 inches per year. Snowfall, included Fahrenheit (17). The Bay is oriented drained by five major rivers, including in the precipitation totals, averaged 13 in a north-south direction, however, the Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahan- inches per year and occurred generally and covers a wide latitudinal area, nock, York, and James (see Table 2). between November and March. allowing wide temperature variances. As a result, the temperature at the These river basins are subject to pen- head of the Bay averages less than odic large, climatic extremes, resulting Three types of storm activity bring 550F, while at the mouth it averages in large fluctuations in flow, i.e., precipitation to the Region. The first almost 600F, with some peripheral droughts and floods. Of these, type consists of extiatropical storms or "lows" which originate to the west, either in the Rocky Mountains, Pacific Northwest, or the Gulf of Mexico. The TABLE2 second is tropical storm or hurricane BASIN CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR CHESAPEAKE BAY TRIBUTARIES activity which originates in the Middle Atlantic or the Caribbean Sea region. Drainage Area at River Length The third is thunderstorm activity River Basin Mouth (Sq. Mi.) (Mi.) which is almost always on a local scale. Susquehanna 27,S10 453 It is this last activity which brings Potomac 14,670 407 about the greatest amount of local Rappahannock 2,715 194 variation in precipitation in the Bay York 2,660 130 Area. James 10,102 434 Evapotranspiration, which includes water losses due to evaporation from land and water surfaces and transpira- Figure 3: Chesapeake Bay Region Geological Provices and Fall Line Figure 4: Geologic Cross-Section of the Coastal Plain Province in Maryland HARRISBURG EASTON BERLIN OCEAN CIT ANNAPOLIS SEA A CHESAPEAKE BAY FSALISSURY LEVEL Y TERTIARY MIOCENE SERIES :SYSTEM Z. y B.LTI-- I 11,000' EOCENE SERIES I 2,000' ,ill, ANNAP LIS ,,DOVER 4", A LOWER CRETACEOUS PAL ENE S WASHINGT (I !, 1@ D.C SERIES UPPER CRETACEOUS SERIES 3,000' L'LL PALEOZOIC AND PRE-CAMBRIAN MD- CRYSTALLINE COMPLEX CRETACEOUS 41000' 0 0. 6,000' RICHAONWD 7,000' < 8,000' iTRIASSIC Co @SYSTEM droughts are the more geographically Water levels in the aquifers fluctuate Baltimore Counties, Maryland, are the widespread and long-term in nature. according to the balance between pre- principal users. The Piney Point For- The Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappa- cipitation and aquifer recharge, on the mation is important in Southern Mary- hannock, York, and James Rivers to- one hand, and evapotranspiration, run- land, portions of Maryland's Eastern gether produce nearly 90 percent of off, and withdrawals on the other Shore and in areas near the Fall Line the Bay's mean annual inflow of hand. In the Bay Area, of the average in Virginia. Lastly, the Potomac Group approximately 69,800 cubic feet per precipitation of 44 inches per year, an provides water to Anne Arundel, second. estimated 9 to 11 inches actually Charles, and Prince Georges Counties, contributes to the recharge of the Maryland and is the most important GROUNDWATER RESOURCES groundwater reservoirs. source of groundwater in the Coastal Plain of Virginia. Large reservoirs of high quality fresh- Of the more productive aquifers in the water are located in the groundwater Chesapeake Bay Area, the water- THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ESTUARY aquifers of the Chesapeake Bay bearing formations known as the Region. Aquifers are subsurface sand Columbia Group produce very high The Chesapeake Bay Estuary is a mere and gravel-type materials with rela- yields. Extensive areas on the Eastern youngster, geologically speaking. It is tively high ability to conduct water. Shore and portions of Harford and generally believed that the Bay was Susquehanna River Near Its Mouth. Nt _4 4@;a,, tit; 2 s. A Z- ;3? 7 9 formed about 10,000 years ago, at the these holes is about 174 feet and trated in Figure 5. The tidal currents end of the last Ice Age, when the great occurs off Kent Island. provide some of the energy necessary glaciers melted and poured uncount- for the mixing of the two layers. able billions of gallons of water back into the world's oceans. As a result of Chesapeake Bay is a complex, dynamic this great influx of water, the ocean system. Words like "restless," "un- Tides and wave action (as well as other level rose several hundred feet and stable," and "unpredictable," which types of currents) are biologically sig- inundated large stretches of the coastal generally describe the young of most nificant in several ways. They provide rivers. The ancient Susquehanna, animal species, can also be used to mixing, transportation, and distribu- which had drained directly into the describe the young estuary. The ebb tion of inorganic and organic nutri- Atlantic Ocean near what is now the and flood of the tides and the inces- ents. These water movements also mouth of the Bay, was one of these sant action 'of the waves are the most affect the dispersion of eggs, larva, "drowned" waterways. Because the readily perceptible water movements spores, gametes, and smaller advanced area around the old Susquehanna was in the Bay. Average maximum tidal stages of resident plants and animals; characterized by relatively low relief, currents range from 0.5 knots to over remove waste products and bring food the estuary that was formed by this 2 knots (I knot equals I nautical mile and oxygen to fixed bottom-dwelling mixing of salt and freshwater covered of 6,076 feet per hour). The mean organisms; and circulate chemical a large geographical area but was rela- tidal fluctuation in Chesapeake Bay is 41 clues" which aid predators in locating tively shallow. This newly formed small, generally between one and two their prey. Tides and waves are also body of water was later to be named feet. Except during periods of un- especially important ecologically to "Chesapeake Bay." Chesapeake Bay usually high winds, waves in the Bay the intertidal zone (the shoreline area varies from 4 to 30 n-dles in width and are relatively small, generally less than between high and low tides) of an is about 200 miles long. Although the 3 feet in height. estuary because of their wetting action Chesapeake is the largest estuary in the which is beneficial to many plant and United States, with a surface area of animal species. In sheltered waters, the approximately 4,400 square miles, the Within the Bay proper, and its major mixing of water by tidal and wave average depth of the Bay proper is tributaries, there is superimposed on action is important for the prevention only about 28 feet and about two- the tidal currents a less obvious, non- of excessively high temperatures and thirds of the Bay is eighteen feet deep tidal, two4ayered circulation pattern salinity stratification which could be or less. There are, however, deep holes that provides a net seaward flow of harmful to some biota. The turbulence which generally occur as long narrow lighter, lower salinity water in the caused by wave action also plays a role troughs. These troughs are thought to uPPer layer and a flow up the estuary in aeration of the waters to provide be the remnants of the ancient Susque- of heavier, higher salinity waters in the sufficient oxygen for biotic respira- hanna River valley. The deepest of deeper layer. This phenomenon is illus- tion. Figure 5 : Circulation in a Partially Mixed Estuary LIGHTER FRESH WATER RIVER C@ .,e __J0_ SEA @N 10 The mixing in the estuary of sea water end of the Bay and at the heads of the Shore and to the earth's rotation. and freshwater creates salinity varia- embayments tributary to the Bay. Salinity patterns also vary seasonally -tions within the system. In Chesapeake @--Iigher salinities are generally found on according to the amount of freshwater Bay, salinities range from 33 parts per the Eastern Shore than on a compara- inflow into the Bay system. Figure 6 thousand at the mouth of the Bay near ble area of the Western Shore due to illustrates these phenomena. the ocean to near zero at the north the greater river inflow on the Western Figure 6: Geographical and Seasonal Variations in Salinities in Chesapeake Bay S U M7 S U, S O'IJ EA N V A R CHESAPEAKE BAY CHESAPEAKE BAY SIRIACE SALINITY li SURFACE SALINITY WINTER AVERAGE SUMMER AVERAGE _41 E R 4@ 12 Q^c L @7 + 10 10 0 40 4 PO'O@@4C 14 17 20 20 4 IS v 10, @10 H@11A R. 24' @,2r 23 1IF Due to this seasonal variation in salin- begins to steadily increase until there ton in the open estuary) will reduce ity and the natural density differences is an almost uniform distribution of the benthic (i.e., bottom dwelling) and between fresh and saline waters, sig- oxygen. While species vary in the level zooplankton populations which in nificant non-tidal circulation often of dissolved oxygen they can with- turn will reduce fish productivity. occurs within the Bay's small tributary stand before respiration is affected, embayments. In the spring, during the estuarine species in general can func- period of high freshwater inflow to the tion in waters with dissolved oxygen Nutrients are the minerals essential to Bay, salinity in the embayments may levels as low as 1.0 to 2,.0 mg/liter. the normal functioning of an or- be greater than in the Bay. Because of Dissolved oxygen levels of about 5.0 ganism. In Chesapeake Bay, important this salinity difference, surface water mg/liter are generally considered nutrients include nitrogen, phos- from the Bay flows into the tributaries necessary, however, to maintain a phorus, carbon, iron, manganese, and on the surface, while the heavier, more healthy environment over the long potassium. It is generally believed that saline bottom water from the tribu- term. most of the nutrients required by z, taries flows into the Bay along the estuarine organisms are present in suf- bottom. As Bay- salinity becomes The effects of temperature on the ficient quantity in Chesapeake Bay. greater through summer and early fall, estuarine system are also extremely Excesses of some nutrients are often a Bay waters flow into the bottom of important. Since the waters of Chesa- more important problem than defi- the tributaries, while tributary surface peake Bay are relatively shallow com- waters flow into the Bay. pared to the ocean, they are more affected by atmospheric temperature The natural variations in salinity that conditions. Generally speaking, the occur in the Bay are part of the annual temperature range in Chesa- dynamic nature of the estuary, and the peake Bay is between O'C and 29"C. resident species of plants and animals Because the mouth of the estuary is are ordinarily able to adjust to the close to the sea, it has a relatively changes. Sudden changes in salinity, stable temperature as compared with however, or changes of long duration the upper reaches. Some heat is re- 0 r magnitude, may upset the equilib- quired by all organisms for the func- rium between organisms and their tioning of bodily processes. These environment. Abnormal periods of processes are restricted, however, to a freshwater inflow (i.e., floods and particular temperature range. Temper- droughts) may alter salinities suffi- atures above or below the critical ciently to cause widespread damage to range for a particular species can be the ecosystem. fatal unless the organism is able to move out of the area. Temperature also causes variations in water density Dissolved oxygen is another important which plays a role in stratification and physical parameter. Dissolved oxygen levels vary considerably both season- non-tidal circulation as discussed ally and according to depth. During earlier. the winter the Bay is high in dissolved oxygen content since oxygen is more Light is necessary for the survival of soluble in cold water than in warm. plants because of its role in photo- With spring and higher water tempera- synthesis. Turbidity, more than any JL tures, the dissolved oxygen content other physical factor, determines the decreases. While warmer surface waters depth light will penetrate in an estu- stay near saturation, in deeper waters ary. Turbidity is suspended material, the dissolved oxygen content becomes mineral and/or organic in origin, which significantly less despite the cooler is transported through the estuary by temperatures because of increasing wave action, tides, and currents. While oxygen demands (by bottom dwelling the absence of light may be beneficial organisms and decaying organic mate- to some bottom dwelling organisms rial) and decreased vertical mixing. since they can come out during day- Through the summer, the waters be- light hours and feed in relative safety, low 30 feet become oxygen deficient. this condition limits the distribution By early fall, as the surface waters cool of plant life because of the restriction and sink, vertical mixing takes place of photosynthetic activity. Ms re- and the oxygen content at all depths striction of plant life (especially plank- 12 ciencies. Excesses of nitrogen and chemical variables when studying synergistic) effects of the three stresses phosphorus, for example, may cause Chesapeake Bay, these parameters may be severe to the point of causing an increase in the rate of eutrophi- should not and, in fact, cannot be death. These three parameters, in turn, cation which, in turn, can eliminate addressed separately. The Bay eco- also interact with other physical and desirable species, encourage the system is characterized by the dy- chemical variables such as pH, carbon growth of obnoxious algae, and cause namic interplay between many com- dioxide levels, the availability of nutri- low dissolved oxygen conditions from plex factors. As a simple example, the ents, and numerous others. The subtle the decay of dead organisms and other levels of salinity and temperature will variable of time may also become materials. Relatively little is known both affect the metabolism of an critical in many cases. The important about the quantities of specific nutri- aquatic organism. In addition, both point is that the physical and chemical ents necessary for the healthy func- salinity and temperature can cause a environment provided by Chesapeake tioning of individual species, or more drop in the oxygen concentration in Bay to the indigenous biota is ex- importantly, of biological com- the water and thus an increase in the tremely complex and difficult, if not munities. required respiration rate of the or- impossible, to completely understand. ganism. While it is true the effects of While it is necessary to keep in mind these variables individually may be of the interactions of these physical and a non-critical nature, the combined (or ,NOW* ;77- ........ ... Alk .1 MW,k e04 13 THE BIOTA OF CHESAPEAKE BAY Green plants use sunlight and the and most have defined leaflets which inorganic nutrients in the water to grow either entirely submerged, float- The estuary is biologically a very produce the energy to drive the estua- ing on the surface of the water, or out special place. It is a very demanding rine ecosystem. Thus, these plants, of the water with leaf surfaces in environment because it is constantly ranging from the microscopic algae to direct contact with the atmosphere. changing. The resident plants and the larger rooted aquatics, are the animals must be able to adjust to primary producers-the first link in the changes in physical and chemical aquatic food chain. Aquatic plants parameters. The requirement for exist in the natural environment in a The distribution of Macrophytes adjustment to the almost constant ranges from entirely freshwater to the myriad of shapes, forms, and degree of open ocean. These types of plants are ecological stress limits the number of specialization. They are also found in not only important as food and species of plants and animals that are waters of widely varying physical and habitat for fish and wildlife, but they able to survive and reproduce in the chemical quality. are also important in the recovery of estuary. Despite the fact that relatively nutrients from deep sediments. few species inhabit the Bay, the Chesapeake, like most estuaries, is an extremely productive ecosystem. "Phytoplankton" is a general term for aquatic plants of both fresh and saline The "Biota" section of the Chesapeake There are a number of reasons why waters which are characteristically Bay Existing Conditions Report and estuaries are so productive. First, the free-floating and microscopic. The Appendices 14 and 15 of the Chesa- cirrUation patterns in the area of most important of the phytoplankton peake Bay Future Conditions Report mixing of lighter freshwater with are the green algaes, diatoms, and include a more detailed discussion of heavier sea water in a partially mixed dinoflagellates. The population of aquatic plants - their types and estuary such as Chesapeake Bay tend these organisms is represented by distribution, importance in the eco- to create a "nutrient trap" which relatively few species, but when they system, and the problems associated acts to retain and recirculate nutri- do occur, they are present in tremen- with them. ents (see Figure 5). Second, water dous numbers. Phytoplankton are the movements in the estuary do a great principal photosynthetic producers in deal of "work" removing wastes and the marine, estuarine, and freshwater FISHAND WILDLIFE transporting food and nutrients en- environments, and will grow in the abling many organisms to maintain a water column to any depth that light The energy supplied to the ecosystem productive existence which does not will penetrate. Blue-green algae are by the green plants of the Bay must be require the expenditure of a great deal another type of phytoplankton or- made available in some manner to the of energy for excretion and food ganism which are not generally con- meat-eating predators, including man, gathering. Third, the recycling and sidered to be of importance in aquatic which are higher in the food chain. retention of nutrients by bottom- productivity, but are best known for This vital link is filled by many dwelling organisms, the effects of the nuisance conditions caused when different varieties of organisms such as deeply penetrating plant roots, and the their growth occurs in excess. Huge zooplankton and various species of constant fori-nation of detrital material populations, or blooms, of these worms, shellfish, crabs, and finfish. in the wetlands create a form of organisms located near the surface of Zooplankton include small crustaceans "self-enriching" system. Last, estuaries the water reduce the sunlight available such as copepods, the larva of most of benefit from a diversity of producer to bottom-dwelling organisms. The the estuarine fishes and shellfishes, plant types which together provide blooms can also give off objectionable several shrimp-like species, and other year-round energy to the system. odors, clog industrial and municipal animal forms that generally float with Chesapeake Bay has all three types of water intakes, and generally cause the currents and tides. Phytoplankton producers that power the ecosystems nuisance conditions. and plant detritus (along with ad- of our world: macrophytes (marsh and sorbed bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and sea grasses), benthic microphytes (algae which live on or near the micro-algae) are consumed directly by bottom), and phytoplankton (minute Macrophytes are, as the Greek roots of the zooplankton and other larger floating plants). the word indicate, "large plants." aquatic species. Unlike the freely floating, or only weakly motile, and rriinute phyto- If man through his activity interrupts AQUATICPLANTS plankton, the macrophytic aquatic an established energy flow in the plants are generally either rooted or environment, he may cause energy As implied above, certain aquatic otherwise fastened in some manner to losses to the system as well as other plants are critical to the health and the bottom. All of the forms require detrimental biological effects. Man's productivity of Chesapeake Bay. sunlight to conduct photosynthesis activities, for example, may cause the 14 loss of a detritus producing area (e.g., nursery include striped bass, weakfish, a stand of saltmarsh cordgrass) result- shad, alewife, blueback herring, ing in a decline of the organisms which croaker, menhaden, and kingfish (see primarily feed on detritus. A loss of Figure 7). this nature directly affects the next higher trophic level, thereby starting a Oysters are abundant in many parts of chain reaction throughout the food the Estuary. The numerous small bays, web. Generally, in estuaries, there is a coves, and inlets between the Chester great deal of dependence of larger and Nanticoke Rivers along the East- ern Shore and the lower portions of organisms on a few key smaller the Patuxent, Potomac, York, Rappa- A organisms that utilize detritus and micro-algae for food. hannock, and James Rivers account for approximately 90 percent of the annual harvest of oysters. Like the aquatic plant communities, the aquatic animal communities are Some species of Chesapeake Bay fish not spread homogeneously throughout and shellfish thrive in the saltier waters the Bay. Although the entire Estuary of the Estuary. The mouth of the serves as nursery and primary habitat for finfish, spawning areas are concen- Chesapeake, an area of high salinity, is trated in the areas of low salinity and the major blue crab spawning area in treshwatet in the Upper Bay and the Bay and its tributaries. corresponding portions of the major In addition to Chesapeake Bay's large tributaries. The northern part of resources of finfish and shellfish, the Chesapeake Bay, including the Chesa- marshes and woodlands in the Area peake and Delaware Canal, is probably piuvide many thousands of acres of 0I M% the largest of all spawning areas in the natural habitat for a variety of water- Bay. This area plus the upper portions fowl, other birds, reptiles, amphibians, of the Potomac, York, Rappahannock, and mammals. James, and Patuxent Rivers, represent about 90 percent of the anadromous Chesapeake Bay is the constricted fish (i.e., those which ascend rivers neck in the gigantic funnel pattern from the sea to reproduce) spawning that forms the Atlantic Flyway. Most grounds in the Chesapeake Bay of the waterfowl reared iti the area Region. The Bay serves as a spawning between the western shore of Hudson and nursery ground for fish caught Bay and Greenland spend some time in K,@ from Maine to North Carolina. Some the marshes of the Bay and its of the fish that use the Bay as a tributaries during their migrations. Figure 7: Fishes: Their Use of the Estuary Good wintering areas adjacent to preferred upland feeding grounds attract more than 75 percent of the fz a wintering population of Atlantic Flyway Canada geese. The marshes and grain fields of the Delmarva Peninsula are particularly attractive to Canada geese and grain-feeding swans, mallards, and black ducks. The Sus quehanna Flats, located at the head of the Bay, support huge flocks of American widgeon in the early fall, while several species of diving ducks, including canvasback, redhead, ring- neck, and scaup, winter throughout W, @_d iX a Chesapeake Bay. About half of the 80,000 whistling swans in North ip Amen ca winter on the small estuaries in or around the Bay. While the 0#,,- vef ish lh,@@ ail@ _,IL-aALn@Z&14 Chesapeake is primarily a wintering 15 ground for birds that nest further north, several species of waterfowl, including the black duck, blue-winged teal, and wood duck, find suitable nesting and brood-raising habitat in the Bay Region. In addition to waterfowl, many other species of birds are found in the Bay Area. Some rely primarily on wetlands for their food and other habitat requirements. These include rails, var- ious sparrows, marsh wrens, red- winged blackbirds, snipe, sandpipers, plovers, marsh hawk, shorteared owl, i herons, egrets, gulls, terns, oyster catcher, and curlews. Many of the above species are insectivores, feeding 7 4 t @Sz 4 A4 ww@ 16 on grasshoppers, caterpillars, beetles, energy transfer to organisms higher in communities are important because of flies, and mosquitoes, while others the food chain, a mammal or bird the complex interactions between in- feed on seeds, frogs, snakes, fish, and protected by Federal law, or if it habiting organisms, both plant and shefffish. There are numerous other exerted a deleterious influence on animal, and between one community birds which rely more heavily on the other species important to man. The and another. In the "eelgrass" com- wooded uplands and agricultural lands common names of the 124 species and munity, for example, the organic for providing their basic habitat and genera identified according to these detritus formed by eelgrass, plus the food requirements. Among these criteria are presented in Table 3. microorganisms adsorbed on it, repre- species are many game birds, including sent the main energy source" for wild turkey, mourning dove, bobwhite animals living in the community and quail, woodcock, and pheasant. It PLANTANDANIMAL for animals outside the community to should be emphasized that some of COMMUNITIES which detritus is transported. In addi- these species require both an upland tion, eelgrass performs the following and a wetland habitat. Modest popula- Although the plants and animals of physical and biological functions: tions of ospreys and American bald Chesapeake Bay have been treated eagles also inhabit the Bay Region. separately in the previous discussion, in the real world they are inextricably 1. It provides a habitat for a wide The Chesapeake Bay Region is also bound together in communities. Bay variety of organisms home for most of the common mammals which are native to the coastal Mid-Atlantic Region. The inter- NN, spersion of forest and farn-dand and the proximity of shore and wetland f areas form the basis for a great variety of ecological systems. The abundance of food such as mast and grain crops and the high quality cover vegetation found on the wooded uplands and agricultural lands support good popu- lations of white-tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, red fox, gray fox, gray squirrel, woodchuck, opossum, and skunk. The OWN, R, various vegetation types found in wetland areas provide indispensible natural habitat requirements for IJ beaver, otter, mink, muskrat, marsh rabbit, and nutria. In addition, there A are numerous species of small mam- e . n4k mals, reptiles, and amphibians which inhabit the Study Area and are inte gral Y" Awl' V parts of both the upland and wetland food cycles. IMPORTANTPLANTAND ANIMAL ORGANISMS As part of the work done for inclusion A in Appendix 15 - "Biota," a survey of prominent Bay Area scientists was conducted to determine the most' important plant and animal species based on economic, biological, and social criteria. For example, a species 0 A would qualify as an "important I species" if it were either a commercial species, a species pursued for sport, a prominent species important for 17 2. It is utilized as a nursery ground 4. The plant physically, acts as a 5. It plays a role in reducing by fish stabilizing factor for bottom sedi- turbidity and erosion in coastal bays. ments, which allows greater animal 3. It is a food source for ducks and diversity Appendix 15 presents more detailed brant information on the eelgrass com- munity as well as the "oyster" com- TABLE 3 munity, two of the most important in IMPORTANT CHESAPEAKE BAY PLANT AND ANIMAL ORGANISMS- the Chesapeake Bay System, and the COMMON NAMES physical and chemical parameters which affect them. Algae Molhisca (Shellfish) Pisces (Fish) (Cont.) Blue-green alga (Cont.) "Northern puffer It is evident from the preceding "Diatom (4 genera) "Coot clam Oyster toadfish discussion that Chesapeake Bay is an Dinoflagellate (3 species) "Brackish water clam almost incomprehensibly complex - Sea lettuce Balthic macoma Reptiles physical and biological system. When Green alga Stout razor clam the human element is added, the Red alga Razor clam "Snapping turtle complexities and interrelationships be- Vascular Plants *Soft shell clam "Diamond-backed terrapin come even more involved. Asiatic clam (Marsh and aquatic) Aves (Birds) Arthropoda (Crabs, *Widgeongrass shrimp, and other Horned grebe THE PEOPLE Saltmarsh Cordgrass crustaceans) Cattle egret Eelgrass Great blue heron POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Horned pondweed Barnacle Glossy ibis Wild rice *Copepod (2 genera) "Whistling swan Cattails Opposurn shrimp **Canada goose When Captain John Smith first ex- Pondweeds Cumacean Wood duck plored the Chesapeake in 1608, it was Arrow-arurn Isopod (2 species) "Black duck an estuary which had yet to feel the Wild celery Amphipod (5 genera) Canvasback impact of man to any significant Cnidaria Sand flea Lesser scaup extent. But, even before Captain "Grass shrimp **Bufflehead "Sand shrimp **Osprey Smith's voyage, people had settled on *Stinging nettle **Xanthid crab (2 species) Clapper rail the shores of the Bay drawn by its **Hydroid Blue crab Virginia rail plentiful supplies of fish and game. American coot Ctenophora (comb jellies) Urochordata American woodcock These settlements were inhabited by Common snipe Assateagues, Nanticoke, Susquehan- Combjelly (2 species) Sea squirt Sentipalmated sandpiper nock, and Choptank Indians. It was Laughing gull the Indian that provided the names for Platyhelminthes Pisces (Fish) Herring gull (flatworms) Great black-backed gull many promontories of land and water Cownose ray Forster's tern courses. The relatively few wastes gen- Flatworin Eel Least tern erated by the Indians were easily "Shad, herring assimilated by the natural cleansing Annelida. (Worms) Menhaden Mammalia. (Mammals) action of the Bay and its tributaries. Anchovy "Bloodworin Variegated minnow Beaver Later, more and more people moved Clam worm Catfish, bullheads Muskrat into the Bay Region, attracted first by Polychaete worm (4 genera) Hogchoker Mink a soil and climate favorable to the" Oligochaete worm "Killifish Otter owth of tobacco, and later by the Silverside Raccoon gr Mollusca (Shellfish) "White perch White-tailed deer development of major manufacturing Striped bass and transportation centers as well as Eelgrass snail Black sea bass Endangered Species the founding of the Nation's capital at Oyster drill Weakfish Washington, D.C. By 1974, 366 years Marsh periwinkle **Spot Shortnose sturgeon Hooked mussel Blenny Atlantic sturgeon after Captain Smith's voyage up the Ribbed mussel Goby Maryland darter Bay, there were 8.2 million people Oyster Harvestfish Southern bald eagle living in the Bay Region. Hard shell clam Flounder American peregrine falcon Ipswich sparrow Delmarva fox squirrel During Colonial times, the Chesapeake *Life histories discussed in the "Biota" Chapter of the Bay Region was one of the primary aesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report, growth centers of the New World. "Life histories discussed in the "Biota" Appendix of the However, after the decline of the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report. Region's tobacco industry in the 19th City of Saftimore Inner Harbor. century, population growth began to lag. This period of relative stagnation lasted until World War 11 when large increases in Federal spending (espe- cially on defense) stimulated employ- ment and population growth within all the economic subregions. As shown in Table 4, the areas around Washington, D.C. and Norfolk, Virginia, have experienced especially high rates, of growth since World War II. Over half of the total population growth in the Bay Region between the time of the Jamestown settlement to the present occurred during the 1940-1970 period. Population in the Region has increased since the 1970 Census at an annual rate of approximately one and one- eighth percent to the estimated total in 1974 of 8.2 niillion. While this rate is considerably less than the average annual rate of 2.5 percent experienced during the 1940-1970 period, it was still higher than the National rate of approximately I percent annually dur- 1 ing the 1970-1974 period. The majority of the inhabitants of the Chesapeake Bay Area are concentrated in relatively small areas in and around the major cities. Approximately 90 percent of the population resided in one of the Region's seven Standard IN lien Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) in 197b. The number of urban dwellers increased by almost 1.5 million during Ahe 1960-1970 decade while the rural population remained virtually the same. People have tended to move out of the inner cities and rural counties and into the suburban counties. Thirty-five of the 76 counties and major independent cities in the Area experienced a net out- . . . . . . . . . . . . migration during the 1960-1970 period. On the other hand, most of the suburban counties experienced growth rates in excess of 30 percent and in-migrations of at least 10 percent of their 1960 population. In the Bay Region as a whole, net in-migration accounted for about one-third of the 1.5 million increase in population during the decade of the 1960's. Most of this in-migration was in response to 19 TABLE4 POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA DURING THE 1940-1970 PERIOD BY ECONOMIC SUBREGION Study Area Portions of BEA 1940 1970 Absolute Percentage Economic Regions* Population Population Change Change Baltimore, Maryland 1,481,179 2,481,402 + 1,000,223 + 67.S Washington, D. C. 1,086,262 3,040,371 + 1,954,109 +179.9 Richmond, Virginia 437,103 728,946 + 291,843 + 66.8 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va. 467,229 1,121,856 + 654,627 +140.1 Wilmington, Del. SMSA 248,243 499,493 + 251,250 +101.2 Total Study Area 3,720,016 7,872,068 + 4,152,052 +111.6 Total United States 132,165,129 203,211,926 +71,046,797 + 53.8 Source: U.S. Census Data *See Figure 1 large increases in employment oppor- significantly higher proportion of has a great deal of significance. First, tunities in the Bay Region. families in the over $15,000 income the navigation channels in Chesapeake bracket and fewer families whose Bay are used by many Area manufac- In 1970, there were approximately 3.3 incomes were below the poverty level turers as a means of shipping raw million people employed in the Study in the Bay Area than in the Nation. materials to their factories and Area. About 91 percent of these finished products to market. Second, worked in one of the Region's seven ECONOMIC SECTORS many manufacturing firms use water SMSA's. During the 1960-1970 in their production process, usually for period, total employment increased by H4NUFACTUR.ING cleaning or cooling purposes. This about three-quarters of a million jobs water is often returned to the Bay or approximately 30 percent. The Generally speaking, the Chesapeake system untreated or only partially National gain during the same period Bay Region has a lower proportion of treated. Industrial wastes are sometimes was 19.5 percent. its workers employed in heavy water- toxic as the recent kepone incident in impacting industries than in the the James River demonstrates. Compared to the Nation as a whole, Nation as a whole (see Figure 8). For the Bay Region has a lower proportion example, manufacturing activities in As Figure 9 indicates, in addition to of workers in the blue-collar indus- the Bay Region employed some the fact that there is a relatively low tries, such as manufacturing and min- 524,000 workers in 1970, or about 16 proportion of workers in manufac- ing, and a higher proportion in the percent of the total employment in turing in the Bay Region, the majority white-collar industries, such as public the Study Area. This figure was of the manufacturing industries which administration and services. Since significantly lower than the National are located in the Area are not employment in the white-collar indus- figure of approximately 25 percent. In considered to be major water users tries tends to be less volatile, the addition, manufacturing employment (i.e., chemicals, pulp and paper, Study Area has had consistently lower in the Bay Region grew by 6 percent metals, petroleum refinery, and food unemployment rates over the last during the 1960-1970 period, which and kindred products). The heavy several decades than the Nation as a was well below the National growth water users that do exist are generally whole. Also contributing to these rate of 13 percent. concentrated in the Upper Bay around relatively stable employment levels are Baltimore and in the Wilmington, the large numbers of workers whose Despite the fact that the manufac- Delaware SMSA. Employment in the jobs depended on relatively consistent turing sector was not as important to chemical and metal industries is cen- Federal government spending. the economy of the Study Area as in tered around Baltimore, Wilmington, the Nation as a whole, the sector still and Richmond. Food and kindred Per capita income in the Bay Area was $3,694 in 1969, which was about 9 TABLE 5 percent higher than the National FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY figure. Median family income levels STUDY AREA AND THE UNITED STATES, 1969 ranged from $16,710 in Montgomery Percent Below "Middle" Income Percent Above County, Maryland, (one of the highest Poverty Level Families $15,000 in the Nation), to $4,778 in Study Area 11.2 61.3 27.5 Northampton County, Virginia. As United States 12.2 68.6 19.2 shown in Table 5, there was a 20 products employment is concentrated 1 1.6% Study Area Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries* on the Eastern Shore, in the Washing- % 3.6% United States ton SMSA, and in Norfolk. The only 2 .8% Mining* major pulp and paper mill in the Bay 3 6.1% Contract Construction* Region is located at West Point, 5.8 % Virginia. There is also currently only 15.9% 25.3% Manufacturing* one . major petroleum refinery in the 6.2% Region which is located at Yorktown, 5 6.6% Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities* z Virginia. Other significant concentra- 6 17.2% Wholesale and Retail @rade tions of manufacturing industries are: 119.6% printing and publishing and the two 7 % Finance, Insurance, Real Estate o machinery categories in the Washing- 6 1% Services t5 ton area, transportation equipment 125.6'% around Norfolk-Portsmouth, and 14.4% tobacco processing in the Richmond 9 5.3% Public Administration SMSA. A more detailed discussion of 10 7.6% Armed Forces industrial activity in the Bay Region is 2.5% provided in Appendix 3 - "Economic and Social Profile". * Denotes Heavy Water-impacting Industries Source: U.S. Census Data Figure 8: Employment by Economic Sectors, Chesapeake Bay Study Area and United States, 19 70 Figure 9: Manufacturing Employment for the Chespeake Bay Study Area and United States, 1970 3.1 % Study Area 15.4% United State. Furniture, Lumber and Wood Products Metal Industries 13.9% 5.1 % 10. 1 % Machinery, Except Electrical 9.9% Electrical Machinery, Equipment and Supplies 13.0% Transportation Equipment 9.4% 8% Other Durable Goods (includes stone, clay, glass and concrete !@@-9.11% prod ucts and professional photographic and time keeping equipment) 9.3 % Food and Kindred Products J, @ @, 1 11 @I 19.3% 6.7 % Textiles and Fabricated Textile Products 12.1% 15.7% 10.7% Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries 11.4% 5.5 % Chemicals and Allied Products -712.9% Other Nondurable Goods (includes tobacco, '19.7% paper, petroleum refining, rubber, plastics, and leather products) Source: U.S. Census of Population: 1970, "General Social and Economic Characteristics." 21 PUBLICADMINISTRATION sector ranked only fourth in total istration employment in the Study employment in the Study Area, the Area (almost 66 percent) is located in The public administration sector, sector is far more important to the the Washington, D.C. area. Other which includes civilian workers.in the Region's economy than these employ- concentrations of workers are in the Federal, State, and local governments, ment figures indicate. First, earnings Richmond, Virginia, vicinity, through- is extremely important to the econ- are higher than average in this sector. out much of the Baltimore, Maryland, omy of the Bay Region. In 19 70, this This has helped to stimulate other SMSA, and in the Norfolk-Portsmouth sector employed approximately sectors of the economy, especially the area. 475,000 people or about 14 percent of retail trade and service industries. the total workers. This is significantly Second, the Federal portion of the The public adniinistration sector can higher than the National average of 5 public administration sector can be be considered a "clean" industry from percent. Employment in this sector thought of as a "basic" industry since a water resources viewpoint. There are grew 36 p e rcent during the it exports its "product" (public ser- no special requirements for water for 1960-1970 decade, very close to the vices) to the entire Nation, thereby, either processing or transportation 37 percent rate of growth for the bringing money into the Region and purposes. However, fast-growing indus- Nation. creating jobs. tries, such as the public administration sector, with its tremendous drawing Although the public administration The bulk of the total Public Admin- capacity for workers and their fam- 77 A* CV, .............. 4- 22 ilies, can often cause rates of popula- have a great deal of impact on the a generous amount of regional color tion growth that tax the ability of Area's economy and water and land and tradition to the "way of life" in local government to provide services resources. In 1969 (the latest data the Bay Region. 71hese benefits are such as water supply and sewerage. available at this writing), the value of difficult, if not impossible, to measure. The Washington, D.C. area with its all farm products sold by commercial until recently overloaded waste treat- farms in the Bay Region was approxi- Because agricultural products and sea- ment plants and its increasingly inade- mately $589 million. Approximately food are often perishable, they are quate water supply is a good example 87 percent of the developed land in usually processed in close proximity to of this. the Bay Region is used for agricultural where they are harvested. As a result, purposes. Poor farming tech 'niques, the agricultural and seafood harvesting A GRICUL TURE both in the past and present, have sectors in the Bay Region support resulted in the extensive erosion of locally important food processing Although less than 2 percent of the valuable soils which, in turn, has plants. total 'workers in the Chesapeake Bay caused the siltation of many of the Region are employed in the agricul- Bay's waterways. Run-off from fields ARMED FORCES tural sector (i.e., the actual planting, sprayed with chen-dcal fertilizers add cultivation, and harvesting of raw large quantities of nutrients to the Still another important source of agricultural goods), these activities waterways. This practice has resulted employment for residents of the Bay in an increase in the amounts of undesirable algae and other vegetation Construction Activitites Can Have in some waters, thereby decreasing the Severe Impacts. amounts of available oxygen in the water and, in extreme cases, causing fish kills. In addition, the use of insecticides in agricultural areas h caused significant damage to fish and Z. wildlife populations in the Bay Region with the classic examples being the effects of DDT on the bald eagle and osprey populations. 'A op FISHERIES Just as the Indians and early settlers harvested the Bay's plentiful supplies of finfish, shellfish, and crabs, modern zz_ day watermen harvest and market large quantities of the Chesapeake's living treasures. In 1973, commercial landings of shellfish and finfish totaled 565 million pounds with a value at the dock of approximately $47.9 million. This catch amounted to an average of 200 pounds per surface acre of water. ....... ..... . .... . In addition, sport landings of finfish and shellfish in recent years have been estimated to be as large as the commercial catch for some species. However, even when the value of the sports fishing catch is added to the commercial catch value, the total is a very small percentage of the value of agricultural products, for example, and almost negligible when compared to value added in the manufacturing isheries sector. On the other hand, the f and watermen of Chesapeake Bay add 23 Region is the Armed Forces. In 1970, "These jobs are generally 'supportive' methodology used to prepare the there were approximately 250,000 of the economic sectors discussed pre- OBERS projections and the special members of the Armed Forces sta- viously. With the exception of the disaggregation by BEA is contained in tioned within the Study Area, repre- transportation and public utilities Appendix 3, "An Economic and Social senting almost 8 percent of the total sectors which are discussed in more Profile." Figure 10 illustrates the great employment. This percentage was sig- detail in the "Navigation," "Electric potential for growth that fies in the nificantly higher than the National Power ... .. Water Supply," and "Water Chesapeake Bay Region. figure of 2.5 percent. The cities of Quality" Appendices, they do not Norfolk and Virginia Bea& in the have a significant impact on the water The bulk of the total population and Hampton Roads area and Anne resources of the Region. Many of these employment growth (about 52 percent Arundel, Prince Georges, and Fairfax activities, however, exist in the Region in each category) is expected to take counties in the Baltimore and Wash- because of the proximity of the place in the Study Area portion of the ington, D.C., areas contained the Chesapeake Bay resource. For Washington, D.C. Economic Area. This largest numbers of military personnel. example, the Bay's land and water area is projected to experience popula- resources allow for the development of tion and employment growth rates of CONSTRUCTION certain "regionally-unique" entertain- about 143 percent during the ment and recreation services which 1970-2020 period. The Richmond The construction sector in the Bay help to expand the service sector. subregion and the Wilmington SMSA Region employed approximately These include such activities as private are also expected to grow at a faster 200,000 people in 1970. Construction bathing beaches, pleasure and fishing rate than the Study Area as a whole activities have had a great deal of boat rentals, and the operation of with rates of 113 percent and 123 impact on the water resources of the seafood restaurants serving regional percent, respectively. On the other Bay Region. Much of the disturbed specialities. Some of the other activi- hand, the Baltimore and 'Norfolk- soil on construction sites becomes ties (e.g., finance, insurance, retail Portsmouth subregions are projected sediment in streams and rivers. This trade, real estate, and certain services) to grow at significantly lower rates silt can adversely affect fish and exist in the Bay Region because it is an with figures of 85 percent and 45 wildlife populations, clog navigation area which is characterized by higher percent. channels, increase the costs of treat- than average incomes and population ment for city and industrial water growth rates. The location of the supplies, make water-based recreation Nation's capitol in the Area also Real per capita income in the Study less enjoyable, and generally lower the attracts many workers in these sectors Area is projected to remain slightly aesthetic quality of a waterway. due to the regulatory functions of the above the National average through Unfortunately, the areas in the Region Federal Government and the desir- the projection period. Table 6 presents with the most construction activity are ability of companies in the regulated projections of population and per the same areas in which there are industries to maintain offices in the capita income by subregion. already significant industrial and resi- Washington area. dential strains on the Bay. One of the major driving forces behind OTHER SECTORS ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC the significant increases in population PROJECTIONS and income outlined above will be The remaining Bay Region workers, major increases in manufacturing out- which account for more than one-half OBERS SERIES C put. As shown in Table 7, manufactur- of the total, are employed in one of ing output in the Chesapeake Bay the following sectors: The base projections used in the future Region is expected to increase by 563 needs analysis for most of the Appen- percent. However, the proportion of 1. Wholesale and retail trade dices of the "Future Conditions total output accounted for by the Report" are based on the Series C heavy water-impacting industries as a 2. Transportation, communica- OBERS projections of population, group (i.e., Metals, Petroleum Refin- tions, and public utilities income, earnings, and manufacturing ing, Food and Kindred Products, output prepared by the Department of Chemicals, and Paper and Allied 3. Finance, insurance, and real Commerce and the Department of Products) is expected to decline estate Agriculture. A special set of projec- slightly from 56.8 percent in 1969 to tions coinciding with the Chesapeake 54.3 percent in 2020. In addition, the 4. Services Bay Study Area and the subregions as manufacturing sector is expected to delineated in Figure I was prepared by continue to account for a significantly the Bureau of Economic Analysis lower portion of total employment (BEA) of the U.S. Department of and income in the Bay Region than in Commerce. An explanation of the the United States. 24 OBERS SERIES E by the Water Resource Council. The projections for the Study Area for basic differences between the assump- 1980 and 2000 are also lower than the Since the initiation of the future tions made in preparing the Series C Series C projections for the same years conditions phase of the Chesapeake and,Series E projections are shown in by 4.5 percent and 7.3 percent, Bay Study, pother set of baseline Table 8 and are discussed in more respectively. In addition, the Series E projections derived from more recent detail in Appendix 3 - "Economic population projections for almost all economic and demographic data was and Social Profile." The Series E the subregions are lower than the prepared and released by BEA. These population projection of 14.1 million comparable Series C projections. new projections, called the "Series E" people for the total Study Area in the OBERS projections, must be con- year 2020 is approximately 13.5 Recently released estimates of 1975 sidered by all Federal agencies engaged percent less than the Series C estimate population by county prepared by the in water resource planning as directed for the same year. The Series E U.S. Bureau of the Census allow a Figure 10: Population and Economic Projections for Chesapeake Bay Region comparison of actual population to 2020 trends in the Chesapeake Bay Study Area with those trends that would be Population Employment Per Capita Income expected under the Series C and Series (In Milli.n.) (in Wilions) (in Thouawds) E OBERS projections. The 1975 population estimate for the entire Bay Region is approximately 370,000 less than the Series C and 162,000 less than Series E interpolated estimates. However, seven of the thirteen Study Area subregions had 1975 populations which were greater than either the Series C or Series E estimates. Much of the discrepancy in the total Bay Region estimates can be explained by a significant overestimate by both Series C and Series E of population 'growth in the Washington, D.C. SMSA. When population data for the Washing- ton, D.C. SMSA is subtracted from the 9.0, Bay Region totals, the remainder for 7.9 the Region falls between the Series C 3.3 3.7 and Series E estimates. Based on the preceding analysis, it can 1 1970 2000 20-210 be concluded that the applicability of estimates of future resource demands TABLE 6 SERIES C PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION, PER CAPITA INCOME, AND TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME BY CHESAPEAKE BAY SUBREGION (IN CONSTANT 1967 DOLLARS) 1969 1980 2001) 2020 Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Population Income Population Income Population Income Population Income (% Increaw) I (% Increase) I% Increase) 0' Increase) (% Increase) (V, Increase) Baltimore, Md. 2,463.3 $3,579 2,877.6 $4,912 3,714.0 $8,556 4,596.3 $14,769 (16.8) (37 3) (50.8) (139.0) (86.6) (312.7) Washington, D.C. 2,985.5 3,977 3,695.0 5,653 5,314.3 9,534 7,397.2 15,612 (23.76) (42.0 (78.0) (139.7) (144.4) (292.6) Richmond, Va. 727.5 3,454 871.8 4,828 1,180.1 8,290 1,555.0 14,184 (19.8) (39.8) (62.2) (140.0) (113.7) (310.7) Norfolk-Portsmou th, 1,107.6 3,046 1,216.0 4,331 1,429.6 7,615 1,6S6.4 13,186 Va. (9-8) (42.2) (29.0 (150.0) (49.6) (332.9) Wilmington, Del. 492.1 4,169 612.5 5,804 851.4 9,634 1,115.7 16,142 SMSA (24.7) (39.2) (73.0) (131.0) (126.7) (287.2) STUDY AREA TOTAL 7,776.0 $3,682 9,272.9 $5,182 12,489.4 $8,913 16,320.6 $15,030 (19.3) (40.7) (60.6) (142.1) (109.9) (308.2) 'All Percentage changes are calculated from 1969. 25 TABLE7 MANUFACTURING OUTPUT FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION (IN MILLIONS OF 1967 DOLLARS) BY INDUSTRY, 1969 AND PROJECTED, BASED ON OBERS SERIES C 1969 2000 2020 Output (1) Output Percent Increase (2) Output Percent Increase (2) Lumber and Wood Products 154.8 433.4 180.0 807.4 421.6 Metals 977.4 2,279.9 133.3 4,095.0 319.0 Machinery, Except Electrical 233.0 .835.8 258.7 1,885.9 709.4 Electrical Machinery 331.3 1,595.5 381.6 4,092.6 1,135.3 Transportation Equipment 815.1 2,534.4 210.9 4,979.7 510.9 Petroleum Refining 57.3 165.4 188.6 301.2 425.6 Food and Kindred Products 747.4 1,795.1 140.2 3,150.4 321.5 Textiles and Textile Products 229.8 657.4 186.0 1,230.3 43S.4 Printing and Publishing 445.2 1,428.3 220.8 2,930.8 558.3 Chemicals 1,8S6.4 6,989.8 276.5 15,298.5 724.1 Paper and Allied Products 215.6 712.5 230.5 1,549.7 618.8 Other Manufacturing 719.3 2,207.7 206.9 4,614.2 541.5 TOTAL 6,782.6 21,635.2 219.0 44,935.7 562.5 (1) Output in the form of "gross product oTiginating" which is defined as that portion of GNP originating in a specific industry. (2) Percent change measured from base year (1969). based on OBERS Series C or Series E baseline projections depends on the subregion of interest. It should be TABLE 8 emphasized, however, that 1970-75 A COMPARISON OF OBERS SERIES C AND SERIES E PROJECTIONS trends may not be indicative of trends Item Serie s C Series E to be expected during the entire Growth of Fertility ra.te of 2,900 Gradual decline of fertility rate 1970-2020 projection period. Population children per 1,000 women from 2,800 to the "replacement fertility rate" of 2,100 children SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS per 1,000 women. Military Projects a decline to 2.07 Projects a decline to 1.57 million The most fundamental assumption Establishment million people by 1975 persons by 1975 and thereafter - I , , and thereafter a constant. a constant (due to smaller military made in preparing the, projections of establishment and the resultant future demands on C esapeake Bay smaller need for equipment and presented in the Chesapeake Bay supplies a significantly slow rate Future Conditions Report is that the of growth in the defense-relate@ Series C OBERS baseline projections manufacturing industries is antici- I pated). of population, income, and manufac- Hours Worked Hours worked per em- Hours worked per employee per turing activity accurate 'ly reflect future Per Year ployee per year are pro- year are projected to decline at trends in the ChesapeAke Bay Region. jected to decline at 0.25 0.35 percent per year. However, in order /Ao evaluate the percent per year. impact on the resource of the Series E Product Per Projected to increase Projected to increase 2.9 percent baseline projections, a "Sensitivity Man-Hour 3.0 percent per year. per year. Analysis" section of'each Appendix Earnings Per Earnings per worker in the individual industries at the national level dealing with a resource use activity Worker are projected to converge toward the combined rate for all industries was prepared. These sections present more slowly in the Series E projections than in the Series C projections. future demands based on Series E Employed Projected to increase Projected to be between 43 anq baseline projections which can be com- Population from 40 to 41 percent 45 percent of the total population of the total population. Ngber percentages with the E pared to the Series C based projections Series reflects expected higher of future demands. In addition, the participation rates by women). sensitivity of future demands to changes in other parameters critical to 26 major tributaries of the Western Shore. Many smaller urban centers are found scattered throughout the Study Area, some serving as small ports, retail and wholesale trade centers, or political AGRICULTURE centers such as State capitals or LANDS 36% county seats. Industrial, institutional, and military reservations (of which the URBAN LANDS 7% Bay Region has many) are also included as urban lands. Industrial -WETLANDS 3% activities include a variety of uses ranging from those involving the -FOREST LAND 54% design, assembly, fmishing, and pack- aging of light products to heavy manufacturing activities such as steel, pulp, or lumber milling, electric power generating, oil refining, and chemical processing. Most frequently, industries '7- are found in or adjacent to urban areas Figure 11: Major Land Use Types - Chesapeake Say Region where good transportation facilities and ample manpower are available. the projection methodology was also and future land use and related prob- evaluated. The findings of these analy- lems, as well as some alternative means b. Agricultural Land: Land used ses are summarized in this volume and of satisfying the identified needs. for the production of farm com- a more detailed discussion is provided modities comprises over one-third of in the appropriate appendices. EXISTING LAND USE the Chesapeake Bay Region's land area. As such, it constitutes the second LAND USE For the purposes of this analysis, largest land use type in the Study Area, existing land use information for the second only to forest lands. The major The development of the land in the Chesapeake Bay area was developed physical factors governing the use of Chesapeake Bay Region began when using remote sensing data obtained land for agricultural purposes include the first group of Indians wandered from high altitude aerial photography rainfall, growing season, soil, drainage, into the Area thousands of years ago taken in 1970. These data were temperature, evaporation, and the and established a village. Since then' supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey amount of sunshine. Other factors virtually all of the vast expanse of (USGS) and are part of the Central such as proximity to markets, tax virgin forest which existed at the time Atlantic Regional Ecological Test Site laws, land tenure arrangements, and and thousands of acres of wetlands (CARETS) project. Plates 4-1, 4-2, and farn-ting practices also influence the have been cut, drained, or filled by 4-3 in Appendix 4, "'WateT-Related intensity and type of agriculture. The more recent settlers. The original pur- Land Resources" show the type and major agricultural areas in the Bay pose of this development was to pro- general distribution of the major land Region are located on the Eastern vide land for the cultivation of to- use activities in the area covered by Shore of Maryland, Virginia and Dela- bacco and wheat. Ifigh tobacco and the CARETS project (about 95 per- ware, in the rural portions of the wheat prices created an almost cent of the "Bay Region"). Based on Baltimore SMSA, in the northwestern insatiable demand for land. As the the CARETS data, estimates of land portion of the Washington SMSA, and productivity of the soil decreased after use 'in the Chesapeake Bay Region around Virginia Beach, Virginia. producing several years of crops, the were developed. These are presented in land was abandoned and new land was Figure 11. cleared. The abandoned land returned c. Forestlands: Forestlands occupy to woodlands. During the Nineteenth a. Urban Land: About 43 percent more area in the Bay Region than any and Twentiest Centuries, factories ' res- of the Bay Region is considered to be other land use type, approximately 54 idences, port facilities, commercial developed (i.e., urban plus agricultural percent. Since it was not possible to establishments, and other physical lands). Of the 43 percent developed, distinguish between public and private manifestations of an increasingly in- 83 percent is in agricultural uses and forestlands on the remote sensing data, dustrialized society -replaced many of only 17 percent is considered urban. both are included in Figure 11. The the agricultural lands and second- Urban land uses are concentrated Virginia portion of the Study Area growth woodlands. The following sec- around the principal urban centers accounts for almost two-thirds of the tions present a discussion of existing located near the head of tide on the total forest land. The Southern Mary- 27 Of L T Tr_ AO_ i pr 44, N "Z Nf@ 31- 40- -tt 'Wn_ alf 14 T* DOI 4f, 28 land area also has a high proportion of of archaeological sites have been of the Nation. Many of the sites relate woodlands. recorded in the Region but due to to the earliest colonial settlements, the monetary and manpower limitations, winning of National independence, the d. Wetlands: The wetlands of the it is believed that only a fraction of founding of the Union, the Civil War Bay Region, although accounting for the archaeological resources have been struggle, and the lives of National only 3 percent of the total land area, discovered. Almost the entire shoreline leaders. Within the Study Area are are of crucial importance to the of the Bay and its tributaries are found such historically important ecosystem of the Bay. Wetlands con- thought to be potential archaeological items as the U.S. Frigate Constellation, sist of seasonally flooded basins and sites. Plates 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 in the nation's oldest warship; the flats, meadows, marshes, and bogs. Appendix 4, "Water-Related Land Annapolis Historic District, an early Resources," show the existing and colonial port and capital of the U.S. Each of the States in the Bay Area has potential archaeological sites in the during a short period in 1783-1784; legally defined its wetlands. Maryland Chesapeake Bay Region. Stratford Hall, home of Robert E. Lee, defines its wetlands as all land under Commander of the Confederate the navigable waters of the State The large number of historic sites in Armies; Mt. Vernon, home of the first below the mean high tide which is the Bay Region provides proof of the President of the United States; numer- affected by the regular rise and fall of Region's historic significance and its ous battlefield sites commemorating the tide. Virginia wetlands are defined fundamental role in the development some of the most important Civil War as all that land lying between mean Lighthouse at St. Michaels, Maryland - Historic. low water and an elevation above mean low water equal to the factor 1.5 k, times the tide range. Delaware defines its wetlands as those lands above the mean low water elevation including any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat or other land subject to tidal action and including those areas connected to tidal waters whose surface is at or below an elevation of two feet above R local mean high tide. AT, All of the counties of the Bay Region have some wetland areas of varying types and sizes, although it should be ------ emphasized that not all wetland types are equally valuable to the ecosystem. The ecological value of a particular wetland area depends on such factors as the type of doniinant plant, flushing action in the area which affects the availability of nutrients to the aquatic Mw, community, and the intensity of use of the wetland as habitat. The major MEFOU the ......... concentration of wetland areas in HIM 111ill.: Chesapeake Bay system is found along the lower Eastern Shore. e. Archaeological, Historic, and and MK__ Natural Areas of Significance: The primary prehistoric archaeological re- sources within the Study Area are associated with Indian artifacts. The numerous Indian tribes which inhab- ited what is now Maryland, Virginia, A nce of and Delaware left much evide their existence in the form of clay pottery and stone artifacts. Thousands 29 and Revolutionary War battles; the Jamestown National ffistoric Site, first permanent English colony in North America; Williamsburg Flistoric Dis- trict, capital of the Virginia Colony during much of the eighteenth century and an important social and cultural center of the English colonies during that period; and numerous historic and commemorative sites in the Washing- ton, D.C. area. Appendix 4, Attach- ment A, lists nearly 800 properties ELI 'Within the Bay Area included on the National Register of Historic Places. V There are certain other areas of the Bay Region which are of special importance for their ecological or natural significance. Many of these Pocomoke River. have been identified, and in many cases are being protected, Included in the areas of significant ecological and wild rivers in a setting of natural these types of areas are: especially importance. solitude." Table 4-28 of Appendix 4 important wetlands or other floral lists the designated scenic and oten- habitats, faunal habitats (especially for P threatened or endangered species), and Maryland and Virginia have initiated tial scenic rivers of the Chesapeake naturally scenic areas. At present, programs to identify and designate Bay Region. certain rivers within their boundaries there are twenty properties within the Study Area designated as National as scenic rivers. The Virginia Commis- FUTURE LAND USE refuges or related properties (such as sion of Outdoor Recreation was direc- the Patuxent National Wildlife Re- ted by the General Assembly to study The expected future distribution of search Center). The primary )urpose the Commonwealth's rivers for the land uses in the Bay Region was of these refuges is to protect I wildlife purpose of designating those which developed from the relevant county, should be protected to provide for the municipal, and regional comprehensive including certain endangered and enjoyment of present and future land and water use plans. Plates 4-4, threatened species. Biological research generations. As a result of this survey, 4-5, and 4-6 in Appendix 4 present is conducted at a number of these the Commission recommended estab- this information based on a consistent facilities while limited hunting is lishment of a state scenic river system land use classification system. Numeri- offered at some. Within the Study in 1970. Local and State land use cal estimates of future acreages for Area, there are also'68 State fish and controls are to be imposed along with urban, agricultural, and forest lands wildlife management areas and related numerous other standards to guarantee are presented in the following sections. properties including game farms, sanc- the protection of those rivers desig- tuaries, and preserves. Plates 4-16, nated as scenic. The Maryland Legisla- a. Urban: The portion of land in 4-17, and 4-18 of Appendix 4 show ture also recognized that certain rivers residential uses in the urban areas can the Federal and State conservation and within the State plus their adjacent be expected to increase at roughly the management areas in the Chesapeake land areas possess outstanding scenic, same rate as population growth if the Bay Region. fish, wildlife, and other recreational assumption is made that population values. The State adopted a policy densities will remain at about the same which protects the water quality of level over the projection period. This The Center for Natural Areas, Ecology those rivers and fulfills vital conserva- means that the demand for residential Program, Smithsonian Institution, has tion purposes by promoting the wise lands will increase by approximately also shown concern for the Bay's use of land resources within the scenic 18 percent by 1980, 59 percent by the significant ecological and natural areas. river system. Use is limited to "horse- year 2000, and about 107 percent by In 1974, this group prepared a report back riding, natural and geological 2020. entitled "Natural Areas of the Chesa- interpretation, scenic appreciation, peake Bay Region: Ecological Priori- and other programs through which the As discussed in Chapter 11, manufac- ties," which surveys the endangered general public can appreciate and turing output in the Chesapeake Bay flora and fauna of the Bay Region and enjoy the value of these areas as scenic Region is projected to increase at a 30 TABLE 9 down the historic rate of wetlands PROJECTED CROPLAND AND MISCELLANEOUS destruction in the Chesapeake Bay FARMLAND* FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION Region. An Executive Order signed by (THOUSANDS OF ACRES) President Carter in 1977 sets more State 1980 2000 2020 stringent guidelines governing Federal activities in wetland areas. Delaware 544 519 493 Maryland 1,614 1,493 1,362 PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS 1,305 1,147 Virginia 1,481 As shown in the previous section, the TOTALCHE .SAPEAKE BAY REGION 3,639 3,317 3,002 expected increases in the demand for residential and industrial land in the Chesapeake Bay Region is approxi- *Miscellaneous farmland includes pasture, range, lands occupied by buildings, roads, mately offset by decreases in agricul- ditches, ponds, and wastelands. tural and forest use (each projected separately). The locations in which these land use changes will occur, rate of approximately 560 percent ous farmland is projected to show a however, has not been clearly defined. between 1969 and 2020. It is not steady decline during the projection The conflict, then, is not one of valid, however, to assume that land period as shown in Table 9. enough land for development, but it is needed for industrial purposes will also where the development should take increase by this percentage since c. Forests: Projections of private place. Often the best agricultural lands output per worker and per unit of land commercial forest lands were also or the most productive forests are also will probably increase during this disaggregated from OBERS projections desirable for urban development. With- period. If the assumption is made that by State. As indicated in Table 10, the out proper planning, other areas of the productivity of land increases at projected acreage of private commer- special ecological, historical, or archae- about the same rate as the produc- cialforest land within the Study Area ological significance will continue to tivity of workers, about 3.0 percent is expected to decline steadily over the be destroyed in the wake of "urban annually, then the land needed for projection period. It should be noted sprawl." industrial purposes can be expected to that public forest lands are not increase by 28 percent over the 1969 included in these figures. SENSI77VITYANALYSIS acreage by 2000, and by 50 percent by 2020. d. Wetlands: Although no projec- Comparison of future land use de- tions were prepared of future wetland mands computed using OBERS Series b. Agricultural: The projections of acreages, it can be stated with a high C projections, with those computed land in crops and miscellaneous farm degree of confidence that the demand using Series E, yields no significant uses (woodland on farms is included in for shoreline lands for such uses as differences except in the demand for the "Forests" category) in the Chesa- marinas, vacation homes, or port residential land. Residential land re- peake Bay Region were derived from facilities will increase in the future. quirements obtained through Series E OBERS projections of these land use However, more stringent Federal and population projections were approxi- categories by State. Appendix 4 de- State restrictions on the development mately 5 percent less than the Series C scribes in greater detail the method- or degradation of wetland areas along based projections for 1980, 7 percent less for 2000, and about 13 percent ology used in determining projections with a growing awareness of the of agricultural land use. The amount ecological and economic importance less in 2020. Due to a lack of data, it of acreage in cropland and miscellane- of wetlands are likely to at least slow was not possible to develop Series E based projections of industrial land demands. TABLE10 PROJECTED ACRES OF PRIVATE COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA MEANS TO SATISFY THE NEEDS 1980 2000 2020 'Ihere are numerous measures available Delaware 365,560 355,940 346,320 to provide for the orderly develop- Maryland 1,983,456 1,935,296 1,860,654 ment and proper use of the water- Virginia 4,533,673 4,222,717 3,900,972 related land resources of the Chesa- peake Bay Region. The following TOTAL: 6,882,689 6,513,953 6,107,946 section presents a general discussion of 31 these measures. A more thorough such circumstances. The wetland laws has been quite controversial and has analysis is available in Appendix 4. of Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware met with great public opposition. If are a good example of this type of this opposition is alleviated, it is a. Local Land Use Controls: Zon- authority. These laws seek to preserve possible that some form of National ing of geographical areas can be used the wetlands and to prevent their land use policy will.be adopted. to guide future land use decisions so as degradation taking ecological, eco- to encourage those which complement nomic, developmental, recreational, each other and preclude those which and aesthetic values into account. conflict. It has been used effectively to segregate residential uses from com- 0. Federal Land Use Controls: One mercial and industrial uses, for exam- of the most important Federal land ple, as well as to preserve recreational resource management programs is the areas, parks, conservation areas, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric natural resources of special signifi- Administration's Coastal Zone Man- cance, and to control the development agement Program (CZMP). Through of flood-prone areas. this program, the Federal Government assists the States in developing a plan Subdivision regulations can be used to for the management of land and water preserve open or agricultural lands by areas in the coastal zone. State restricting land use to low-density, programs seek to achieve wise use of multiple-acre uses. Tax policies have land and water resources of the coastal also proven useful in controlling land zone and must give full consideration use development. Through preferential to ecological, cultural, historic, recrea- tax treatment, or public land acquisi- tional, and esthetic values as well as tion policies, the preservation and needs for economic development. The development of agricultural lands, Federal CZMP provides grants to the open space areas, and conservation coastal states and territories to support zones can be encouraged. two-thirds of the cost of developing a state program, four-fifths of the cost A few local governments within the of administering the program, and Study Area have attempted to curb one-half of the cost of acquiring, development and thereby control land developing, and operating estuarine use within their jurisdiction through sanctuaries for research and educa- 44sewer moratoriums." Such measures tional purposes. prohibit the construction of new sewer systems or the extension of existing There are certain other Federal pro. systems. Some of these same counties grams or items of legislation which and towns have effectively used the either directly or indirectly address the provision of water and sewer services control of land use. Examples include to guide growth to areas that have the National Environmental Policy Act been planned for development. Such of 1970, the Rivers and Harbors Act measures represent a primary means of 1899 (which makes it illegal to for a region to plan growth in accord allow any refuse to be introduced into with its public service and environ- a navigable waterway), and the Water mental capabilities. Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. b. State Land Use Controls: Al- though the final decisions for land use proceedings remain the discretion of Future Federal legislation may very the local authorities, the various States well be aimed at establishing a nation- in the Study Area have recognized, to wide land use planning and policy varying degrees, that local subdivisions process. Since 1970, various- land use often do not have adequate juris- control bills have been introduced in diction or, if the land use issue has Congress but none have, as yet, been more than a local impact, proper passed by both Houses. Although each authority to provide desirable manage- bill has been different from the others, ment of resources. The States have the all would have established some form legislative authority to intervene in of National land use policy. Each bill 32 Chapter III Water Resource Problems and Needs As population, industrial output, in- discussed, each of the following re- MUNICIPAL WA TER S VPPL Y comes, and leisure time in the Chesa- source use discussions has a "Sensi- peake Bay Region increase in the tivity Analysis" section which includes Of the Bay Area's 7.9 million resi- future, the demands on the Area's an analysis of the sensitivity of the dents, approximately 6.5 million, or water and related land resources will, projected demands and supplies to 82 percent, are served by public water most certainly, also increase. The changes in the basic assumptions made supply systems. These systems range in following sections of this chapter in the projection methodology. size from those serving as few as 20 present a discussion of the current persons in small developments to large status and problems, as well as pro- municipal systems serving commercial, jected future demands, supplies, and WATER SUPPLY institutional and industrial establish- needs for the following Chesapeake ments and millions of individuals. For Bay water and related land resource CURRENT STATUS purposes of this analysis, "Water use categories. Service Areas," WSXs, were estab- The vast quantities of surface and lished for each water system serving a 1. Water Supply ground water available in the Chesa- population in excess of 2,500. To- peake Bay watershed are a primary gether, these WSA's account for 96 2. Water Quality source of water supply for numerous percent of the water supplied and 93 communities and industries. As shown percent of the population served by all 3. Outdoor Recreation on Figure 12, more than 2,460 million the public systems. gallons of water per day (mgd) are 4. Navigation used by municipal public water sys- Municipal water uses encompass a tems, industries, people living in rural variety of needs which may be gene- 5. Flood Control areas, and farmers in feeding livestock rally classified as domestic, commer- and poultry and in irrigating. Many cial, industrial, institutional, and 6. Shoreline Erosion millions of gallons more water are used public. Domestic uses include those of in generating electrical power, a sub- the household, e.g., food preparation, 7. Fish and Wildlife ject which will be addressed in another washing, lawn watering, and sanita- section of this Summary. tion. Uses within the commercial 8. Power category include restaurants, hotels, laundries, and car washes; while hos- 9. Noxious Weeds pitals and schools are classified as Of this 2,460 mgd, approximately 900 institutional. Public uses include fire In addition, alternative means of mgd is brackish water used in indus- protection, street cleaning, and water alleviating existing problems and meet- trial processes, 122 mgd is reused use in government buildings and insti- ing projected needs will be discussed. municipal wastewater, and the re- tutions. Manufacturing industries use Unless otherwise noted, the projec- mainder is freshwater from ground and water for processing, boiler feed, tions of future demands in each surface sources. Industrial and munic- cooling, and sanitary purposes. De- section are based on OBERS Series C ipal systems accounted for over 96 pending on the extent and composi- baseline projections. As previously percent of total water use. tion of a city's industrial component 33 the Region's WSA's. More detailed data for each community is presented in Table 5-1 of Appendix 5. Use rates exceeding 150 gpcd occur in umber of cities: Cambridge, Cris- -MUNICIPAL a n 868 mgd 35.2% field, Salisbury, Leonardtown, Sea- ford, Baltimore, Washington, Hope- RURAL DOMESTIC well, and Williamsburg. These high use 63 mgd 2.5% rates can be attributed to several LIVESTOCK & POULTRY factors, not always consistent from @_,__RT 15 Mgd 0.6% IRRIGATION system to system. For example, Hope- 22 m9d 0.9% well's astonishing 689 gped is due to INDUSTRIAL an estimated 22 mgd supplied to FRESH 603 mgd 24.4% several large industries. Significant INDUSTRIAL BRACKISH industrial uses also contribute to the high rates at Cambridge, Salisbury, and 900 mgd 30.4% Baltimore, while institutional, military demands and tourism contribute to Figure 12: Average Water Use in the Chesapeake Bay Region by Type the higher than normal use at Williams- burg, Virginia. The extensive govern- and the tendency for local industry to the 49 WSA's in the Chesapeake Bay ment activity and array of public pay for and use public water, a Area. Water use rates vary widely facilities in Washington, D.C., cause municipal system's industrial water use between the subregions, ranging from use rates in the Washington area to be component may vary radically. There about 100 gallons per/capita per day among the highest in the Bay Area. are public water supply systems in the (gpcd) to nearly 190 gpcd. For the Another component of water use in Bay Area that supply no water to entire Bay Region, water use averaged most systems is leakage. In Crisfield, industry and others that support an 139 gpcd in 1970. The importance of Maryland, for example, losses due to industrial component that may exceed the metropolitan areas is evidenced by leakage constitute an unusually high 50 percent of the total use. the fact that the Baltimore and 25 percent of the overall use. Most of Washington SMSA's account for 74 the public systems have use rates that Table 11 shows the population served percent of the population and 77 would be expected from an average and the average water use in each of percent of the total water used among amount of residential use and mix of other uses (approximately 80 to 150 gpcd). TABLE 11 MUNICIPAL WATER USE IN 1970 BY CHESAPEAKE BAY SUBREGION Average Per capita In addition to the Water Service Areas Subregion Population Served Use, Mgd Use, GPCD (i.e., those systems defined previously 17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA 1,673,820 260.3 156 as serving a population of 2,500 or 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore* 73,270 13.8 188 greater), a large number of smaller 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore NO LARGE SYSTEMS public systems exist in the Bay Area. 17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA** 5,540 0.8 153 Slightly less than one-half million 18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA 2,726,500 382.2 .140 people are served by these small 18-2 Southern Maryland 22,500 1.2 97 systems. In 1970, they provided 18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 19,530 2.6 133 21-,1 Richmond-Petersburg- approximately 37 mgd or about 4 Colonial Heights SMSA's 501,690 74.6 149 percent of the total water use by 21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA 2,600 0.3 100 centrally-supplied systems. A large 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA 263,260 27.3 104 portion of this demand occurred in the 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 633,640 66.2 104 22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 37,210 4.6 123 suburban counties adjacent to areas served by the larger systems. Approxi- BAY REGION TOTAL 5,959,560 831.2 139 mately 58 percent of the persons supplied through small water supply Includes Cecil County, Maryland.- systems resided in the Baltimore, Includes Sussex County, Delaware, only. Washington, and Richmond SMSA's in 1970. 34 lw Ql IN 4w 1w. L 35 47 1@ t INDUSTRIAL WATER USE In addition to the concentration of A measure of the degree to which water use among a relatively small recirculation technology is utilized in Industrial (i.e., manufacturing) water number of plants, there is also a each subregion is shown in the final use in 1970 was inventoried by the concentration of water use within column of Table 12, and for each Bureau of Domestic Commerce (BDC), particular types of industries. In the major type of industry in Table 13. In U.S. Department of Commerce. The Chesapeake Bay Region, 82 percent of the Bay Region the best recycling results of this inventory are presented the gross water use is accounted for by efficiency occurs in the paper industry in Table 12. The term gross use (G) three groups of industries: paper and in which 88.7 percent of the gross includes all water actually used in a allied products, chen-dcals and allied water used is recycled. In other words, particular process, including that quan- products, and primary metals (see nearly nine times as much water would tity recirculated. Intake (1) represents Table 13). be needed from the river, or other the actual withdrawal from the water source, if recirculation was not prac- body plus purchases. The consumption ticed-645 vs. 73 mgd. The petroleum category (C) includes all water lost to industry recycles least, primarily due evaporation and water inc6rporated In many industrial processes, signi- to the once-through use of brackish into final products. Discharge (D) is ficant decreases in water supply with- water for cooling. However, National merely the difference between intake drawals could be realized if the figures for the petroleum industry and consumption (I-C). The final recycling of wastewater was more indicate recirculation rates at least column lists the percent of the gross widely used. The tendency of an 10-fold that in Chesapeake Bay. use that is recycled water [(G-I)/G]. As industry to recirculate water, however, shown in Table 12, industries in the usually depends ultimately on eco- Baltimore SMSA, the Richmond and nomics. Water will be reused in a The importance of brackish water in Petersburg SMSA's and the non-SMSA particular situation if the costs of the Chesapeake Bay Area as a source portion of the Norfolk-Portsmouth recovery and recirculation are less than of industrial water supply is evident Economic Area (Subregion 22-3) ac- costs associated with the development from the information in Table 14. The count for approximately 86 percent of of additional sources. In locations total quantity of brackish water used gross water use and about 82 percent where water of acceptable quality is was 899 mgd or 56 percent of all of the total intake of water in the Bay scarce or where the cost of treating withdrawals by Bay Region manu- Region. In addition, 99 percent of the wastewater is high, recirculation may facturers in 1970. Approximately 37 total water intake of 1,615 mgd was be attractive. Conversely, in areas with percent of industrial withdrawals was used by only 3 percent of the plentiful supplies of high quality water freshwater from ground or surface approximately 5,800 manufacturing or where wastewater treatment costs sources and the remainder was reused establishments in the Bay Region. are low reuse is usually uneconomical. municipal wastewater. 36 TABLE 12 INDUSTRIAL WATER USE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, 1970, mgd Percent Subregion Gross Use (G) Intake (1) Consumption (C) Discharge (D) Recycled* 17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA 1,226.1 990.7 43.7 947.0 19.2 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore 35.5 34.8 0.9 33.9 1.9 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore 2.6 2.3 0.2 2.1 11.5 17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA 82.7 65.6 1.9 63.7 20.7 18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA 5.4 4.7 0.2 4.5 13.0 18-2 Southern Maryland 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.0 18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 32.9 27.4 1.8 25.6 16.7 Z 21-1 Richmond-Petersburg- Colonial Heights SMSA's 400.5 286.8 14.0 272.8 28.4 21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA 52.4 26.5 5.0 21.5 49.4 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA 114.9 100.2 0.7 99.5 12.8 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 32.3 25.3 1.3 24.0 21.7 22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 621.8 50.4 4.8 45.6 91.9 @ TOTAL BAY REGION: 2,607.9 1,615.5 74.6 1,540.9 38.1 *Calculated by G - I G RURAL DOMESTIC the Baltimore and Washington population resided in homes equipped SMSXs, comprising 40 percent of the with running water and these persons Rural domestic water supplies are total rural domestic use in 1970. consumed about 95 percent of the required to serve the needs of persons total rural domestic supply. The rural that live in rural locations and that are domestic water demand comprises less not served by central water supply The total water use for rural domestic than 3 percent of all water use in the systems. Of the almost 1.4 million purposes amounted to approximately Chesapeake Bay Region. who lived in rural areas in 1970, about 63.1 mgd in 1970. This has been rising 7 percent resided on farms. The rapidly since 1950 due to an increasing LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY non-farm component of the popula- percentage of homes being served by tion includes persons that reside in the in-house plumbing and running water. suburbs of the major metropolitan Homes with running water character- Water supply for livestock and poultry areas such as Baltimore, Washington, istically use 5 to 6 times the amount is required for two purposes-one, to D.C., and Richmond. In fact, perhaps used in a home without these same sustain the resident farm animals and surprisingly, the two major areas in conveniences. In 1970, approximately two, to produce livestock and poultry terms of rural domestic water use are 80 percent of the rural domestic products for the market place. The TABLE 13 WATER USE IN MANUFACTURING, BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, mgd, 1970 Percent Sector Gross Use Intake Consumption Discharge Recycled Food & Kindred Products 79.7 74.3 5.6 68.7 6.8 Paper & Allied Products 644.8 72.8 7.6 65.2 88.7 Chemicals 402.5 328.1 14.5 313.6 18.5 Petroleum 81.6 76.3 0.7 75.6 6.5 Primary Metals 1,094.6 882.3 35.1 879.2 19.4 Other Manufacturing 304.7 181.7 11.1 165.0 40.0 TOTAL 2,607.9 1,615.5 74.6 1,535.3 38.1 37 TABLE 14 INDUSTRIAL WATER WITHDRAWALS, BY SOURCE, MGD CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, 1970 Self-Suppled Total Percent Subregion Public Surface "kish Other Total Fresh Fresh 17-1 Baltimore, SMSA 70.0 14.4 2.9 781.2 122.2 990.7 87.3 7.8 .17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore 3.0 30.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 34.8 34.1 97.9 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore o.3 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.3 2.2 95.7 17-4 Non-SMSA, Delaware 2.7 14.9 48.0 0.0 0.0 65.6 65.6 100.0 .18-1 Washington SMSA 3.3 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.7 100.0 18-2 Southern Maryland 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 100.0 18-3 Non-SMSA, Virginia 0.2 0.1 27.1 0.0 0.0 27.4 27.4 100.0 21-1 Richmond-Petersburg- Colonial Heights SMSA 22.3 0.3 264.2 0.0 0.0 286.8 286.8 100.0 21-2 Non-SMSA, Virginia 0.2 16.0 0.1 10.3 0.0 26.6 16.3 61.3 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA 4.6 5.0 0.0 90.6 0.0 100.2 9.6 9.6 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 5.6 3.8 0.0 15.9 0.0 25.3 9.4 37.1 22-3 Non-SMSA, Virginia 0.6 44.9 4.8 0.0 0.0 50.3 50.3 100.0 TOTAL BAY AREA 112.7 132.1 349.5 898.8 122.2 1,615.5 594.5 36.8 ... ...... ...... 'o" AR .ook-11 :41 4, 4 '@T Z' AN 38 livestock category includes animals per animal has more than doubled due Delmarva Peninsula and in portions of such as beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep, to the increased stringency of sanita- the Baltimore and Washington hogs, and horses. Poultry includes tion codes and increased milk produc- SMSXs. Poultry water use predomi- chickens that are raised either for tion per milk cow. nates on the Eastern Shore, while market or egg production, and dairy cow production is a significant turkeys. Water use has increased in other source of water demand around the In the Chesapeake Bay Region, live- categories as well. Broiler chickens, SMSAs. In the southern Virginia stock and poultry water consumption which have increased in numbers since portion of the Study Area, hogs and amounted to 14.7 mgd in 1967, or less 1950 by 160 percent, utilized 28 pigs are an important source of water than I percent of all uses Bay-wide. percent of the poultry and livestock demand in the livestock and poultry Easily the largest component of five- water supply in 1969. Hogs and pigs water use category. stock and poultry water use was cattle accounted for an additional 9 percent. and milk cows, which, despite an Declines since 1950 in absolute IRRIGATION overall decline in the number of numbers as well as water use have animals during the previous 20 years, occurred only for sheep and horses. The amount of water used for irriga- used 55 percent of all water used by tion purposes varies greatly from year poultry and livestock in 1969. During Most of the livestock and poultry to year, depending on climatological this same period water consumption water use is concentrated on the conditions and crop patterns. Because of the generally moderate levels of Potomac River at Great Falls. precipitation (i.e., about 40 inches per year), the demand for irrigated land in the Study Area is not nearly as great as in the Southwestern or Great Plains areas of the United States. In 1969, irrigation water use amounted to 8 billion gallons in the Study Area, an increase of 18 percent over the 1964 figure. Only about 2.0 percent of the M total land in crops in the Chesapeake Bay Region was irrigated in 1969. The use of water for irrigation purposes is concentrated on the Delmarva Penin- sula. This area accounts for about 79 percent of the total irrigated water use NOW... in the Chesapeake Bay Region. The major irrigated crops, in terms of acreages, were field corn (6 percent), 7 other field crops (30 percent), ve&- tables (52 percent), and nursery and 7 other crops (8 percent). According to the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, over p-,4- two million acres of farm land in the Study Area are potentially irrigable 0 although about two-thirds would re- quire additional treatment measures such as land leveling or drainage. EXISTING PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS Provision of water for the people, industries, and farms of the Bay Area is not accomplished without the water supplier encountering certain prob- lems. Growing affluence and economic 39 TABLE 15 PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY DEMAND ON CENTRAL SYSTEMS (MGD) CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION % Increase Over 1970 1980 2000 2020 Study Period 17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA\, 268.4 326.1 424.4 561.0 109 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore 18.6 23.8 35.1 50.2 170 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.2 175 17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA 1.9 2.8 5.1 8.4 342 18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA 390.1 497.5 768.2 1,175.4 201 18-2 Southern Maryland 4.2 6.7 18.2 33.7 702 18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 3.7 5.1 9.1 16.8 354 21-1 Richmond-Petersburg- Colonial Heights SMSA's 79.8 95.2 143.2 222.5 179 21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA 2.8 4.0 6.5 10.4 271 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA 27.8 37.5 51.5 68.5 146 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 66.9 80.7 111.1 147.3 120 22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 6.8 10.7 17.1 26.6 291 TOTAL 871.8 1,091.1 1,591.0 2,323.0 166 development with the accompanying Degradation of sources is another ardized by flow reduction, especially increased demands for water have major problem facing water users in during periods of unusually low flows. required municipal water authorities the Chesapeake Bay Region. Surface States rights to river flows and the to expand treatment and distribution waters, both reservoirs and free- rights of individuals to flows that are facilities and to search for new flowing streams, are especially sus- undiminished in terms of quality and sources. In some urban areas that are ceptible to pollution from municipal quantity (under the Doctrine of located on or near the tidewater and industrial waste discharges, agri- Riparian Rights) are other difficulties portions of the Bay, such as Baltimore, cultural activity, and other upstream that complicate any type of large-scale Newport News, Norfolk, and Ports- sources. Water users that depend on water supply development. mouth, nearby sources of freshwater groundwater as a source of supply are have long since been developed. In- also susceptible to contamination. FUTURE DEMANDS creased competition for new sources at Seepage from septic systems and longer distances from the urban cen- landfills are notable sources of pollu- The following sections present projec- ters is thus occurring and the eco- tion in groundwater supplies, and tions of average daily water use to the norruc, institutional, and engineering saltwater intrusion is another problem year 2020 for central water systems, problems associated with these large- affecting some areas around the Bay. self-supplied industries, rural domestic scale projects are substantial. For populations, livestock and poultry, example, Norfolk obtains a portion of Conflicts also arise in attempts to and irrigation. its present supply from a source develop new water supply sources. located 50 miles from the urban On-stream reservoirs and pumped stor- MUNICIPAL (CENTRALL Y center. age reservoirs are solutions to require- SUPPLIED) ments for surface water development, Seasonal variations in flow, and but increased competition for land and Demands for water supplied through longer-term cyclical trends in climate other economic, social, institutional, central systems has been projected to and hydrology, can cause problems for technical, and environmental problems increase by approximately 170 percent systems dependent for their supply on must also be considered in the plan- Bay-wide by 2020 (see Table 15). surface water. In addition, the periods ning effort. Also, there is concern at Included in the tabulation are all@ of highest demand for water often several levels of society regarding central public systems, whether large coincide with the lowest river flows, proposals for large scale water diver- or small, and the sum of demands for thus complicating the situation fur- sions to serve the major water-short all uses, including domestic, industrial, ther. This is exemplified in Wash- areas. Diversion of water from one commercial, and public. Projections ington, D.C., where supplies are ob- watershed to another causes direct were based on expected future per tained primarily from the Potomac reduction of strearnflow by the capita use rates and estimates of River. The low flow of record, which amount withdrawn, and may generate population served. A complete presen- occurred in 1966, would not be problems in the depleted reaches of tation of all demands on public water sufficient to meet today's maximum the river. The ecological value of a systems is presented in Appendix 5, demands. waterway, for example, may be jeop- along with all assumptions and 40 G - Gross Water Use I - Actual Water Withdrawal or Intake R - G/l - Recycling Ratio 0 CV a) Advanced Technology@ CM K; 4', Z"d 1970 2000 2020 Figure 13: Trends in Industrial Water Use Technology methodology used to make the "best available" technology by 1983 recycling ratios from the two method- projections. (without further defining the quoted ologies, a) and b) above, were felt to terms). In addition, the Act advocates represent what might best be termed As shown in Table 15, the Baltimore that a goal of "zero discharge" of an "envelope" of possible future and Washington SMSA`s are expected pollutants be sought. As industries recirculation values, As a trade-off to continue to account for the largest begin to comply with this directive, between the expected high costs share of the demand for centrally and higher levels of waste treatment are associated with a), and the improb- supplied water comprising 75 percent achieved, the recycling of wastewater ability of the assumptions associated of the total demand in both 2000 and will probably become more econon-dc- with b), the third set of projections, 2020. While the Washington SMSA is ally competitive and consequently case C), was derived to reflect a expected to experience the largest more attractive. moderate future growth in water absolute increase in demand (nearly recirculation by industry. This is felt 800 mgd between 1970 and 2020), the Thus, projections of recycling rates for to be the most realistic projection set water use in the Southern Maryland the major water using industries in the in terms of planning for Chesapeake area is projected to increase about 700 Bay Area constituted a major task in Pay and forms the basis for the percent, the largest percentage increase the projection process. Recycling rates balance of the analysis presented here. in the Bay Area. Demand is projected were derived for three cases which to at least double in all of the reflect various levels of technology Industrial water use projections as subregions by the year 2020. Demands implementation: determined under the assumptions of in the Bay Area as a whole are moderate technology [case (c) above I expected to increase about 166 per- a) advanced technology-attainment are shown in Table 16. Figure 14 cent. of maximum theoretically possible shows the percent changes that occur recycling rates by the year 2000, over the study period in the gross water demand, intake, consumption, b) constant technology- discharge, and recycling rate. Rapidly INDUSTRIAL WATER USE maintenance of the rate of recycling at increasing recycling ratios, which in- 1970 levels for all industries, crease from 1.61 in 1970 to 9.48 (a A major consideration in the projec- 489 percent increase) by 2020, cause tion of industrial water supply de- 0 moderate technology-increase the 13 percent reduction in intake by mands is the impact that Federal water in recycling rates at levels intermediate 2000. By the year 2020, however, due quality goals will have on industrial to either a) or b) above, based on a to the reduced influence of increases water use habits. The 1972 Amend- straight line continuation of projec- in recirculation rates, intakes show a ments to the Federal Water Pollution tions through 1980. net 13 percent increase over the study Control Act (P.L. 92-500), require period. application of "best practicable" treat- Plots of the resulting recycling ratios ment technology by 1978, and of are shown in Figure 13. The derived Also of interest on Table 16 and 41 Gross Water (Percent increase Over 1970) Recycling that total farm population in the Demand Rate Study Area is projected to decline Consumption from a 1970 level of approximately 92,800 to 34,800 in 2020 and that future domestic non-farm water use is expected to be dampened somewhat Intake Discharge by a conversion of many rural non- farm users to central water systems. Non-farm water use is expected to be F- _2T_ by far the largest component of total rural domestic water use in the future .31 accounting for 97 percent of the total by the year 2020. 229 358 282 LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY 69 As shown in Table 18, future water - use for livestock and poultry is ex- 1980 =@000 W020 pected to decline. The Baltimore SMSA is the only subregion which is Figure 14: Projected Increase in Manufacturing Water Use, Chesapeake Bay Region expected to experience a significant increase in livestock and poultry use Figure 14 are expected trends in indus- and the resultant projections of water during the projection period. The in- trial water consumption and industrial requirements by industry is provided creases in the Baltimore area are due discharges. Industrial water consump- in Appendix 5. to significant projected increases in the tion (water lost from the process or number of milk cows and water use incorporated into end products), for RURAL DOMESTIC WATER USE per animal. Broilers are expected to example, is shown to increase approxi- continue to dominate water use in mately 580 mgd, or about 775 percent Total rural domestic water use for the poultry production on the Eastern between 1970 and 2020. This is due to Chesapeake Bay Region is presented in Shore with slight increases projected the increase in recycling and the over- Table 17. A moderate increase of for both numbers of broilers and water all increase in manufacturing produc- about 67 percent (40 mgd) is fore- use. These increases, however, were tion. Increased consumption is also at casted over the 50-year study period. not enough to offset the projected 19 least partially due to the expected The relative insignificance of this fig- percent decrease in livestock and increase in evaporative losses accom- ure is evident in comparison with the poultry water use in the Bay Region panying recirculation of water used for 1,450 mgd increase in the amount by 2020. cooling purposes. Finally, discharges expected to be supplied by central of industrial wastes are shown to systems. IRRIGATION actually decrease by approximately 24 percent over the projection period due Increases in water use are expected in As shown in Table 19, the demand for to the increases in consumption and all subregions except Southern Mary- irrigation water is expected to increase recycling rates. A full and complete land and the Newport News - dramatically in future years, by about presentation of the methodology used Hampton SMSA. This reflects the facts 250 percent between 1980 and 2020. It should be noted that the values TABLE 16 shown for 1980, 2000, and 2020 are PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WATER USE the volumes of water needed during a CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, (mgd) dry year, while the figures for 1969 Gross are the actual application rates during Water Recycling that year. Slightly over one-half of the Year Demand Intake Consumption Discharge Rate irrigation need in 2020 occurs on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. 1970 2,607.9 1,615.5 74.6 1,541.3 1.61 @229@ 1975 3,512.5 1,823.9 112.5 1,711.4 1.93 A major portion of the increase in 1980 4,408.2 1,581.4 157.5 1,423.9 2.79 total irrigation demand in the Study 1990 6,001.6 1,344.1 246 A 1,097.7 4.47 2000 8,591.5 1,397.8 341.3 1,056.5 6.15 Area over the projection period is due 2020 17,290.2 1,822.9 652.4 1,170.5 9.48 to increases in the corn acreage and the proportion of corn acreage irri- 42 TABLE 17 PROJECTED RURAL DOMESTIC WATER USE CHESAPEAKE DAY REGION, mgd Percent Change During Subregion 1970 1980 2000 2020 Protection Period 17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA 15.6 17.8 15.8 18.4 18 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore 8.8 11.9 15.9 20.5 133 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore 1.5 3.0 3.7 4.1 173 17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA 3.6 6.0 7.8 8.8 144 18-1 Washington, D.C. ,SMSA 10.6 10.1 12.5 13.9 31 18-2 Southern Maryland 4.3 5.8 5.1 3.9 -9 18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 2.0 3.4 4.0 2.4 20 21-1 Richmond-Petersburg- Colonial Heights SMSA's 4.9 7.9 9.1 9.9 102 21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA 2.9 4.6 5.8 6.5 124 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.6 -50 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 0.6 3.3 2.9 2.5 317 22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 3.9 7.7 8.8 8.7 123 TOTAL CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION: 59.9 82.6 91.9 100.2 67 TABLE 18 PROJECTED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY WATER USE gated. This is especially true on the CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, (mgd) Eastern Shore of Maryland where Subregion 1969 1980 2000 2020 water used for corn irrigation is ex- pected to account for approximately 17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.8 one-third of the entire Study Area 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore 4.2 2.7 2.6 2.6 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 irrigation water demands in 2020. 17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA 2.6* 1.5 1.3 1.3 Vegetables, soybeans, tobacco, pea- 18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 nuts, silage, vegetables, and nursery 18-2 Southern Maryland 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 crops are also expected to exert in- 18-3 Virginia Non"-SMSA 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 21-1 Richmond-Petersburg- creasing demands for irrigation water Colonial Heights SMSA's 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 in the Bay Region. 21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA negligible 0.1 0.1 0.2 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.3 TOTAL 14.7 11.8 11.5 11.9 FUTURE NEEDS AND PROBLEM AREAS TABLE 19 PROJECTED DRY-YEAR IRRIGATION WATER USE, MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION*, mgd Municipal source and system capacities Subregion 1969** 1980 2000 2020 were compared with projected de- 17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA 2.9 38.2 42.9 47.9 mands to identify both the magnitude 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore 32.5 - 94.0 232.2 722.2 and time frame of emerging shortages 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore 15.9 66.6 49.6 39.1 174 Delaware Non-SMSA 12.2 96.9 111.3 136.8 of water and/or needs for expansion or 18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA 3.1 21.6 72.2 103.1 development of the system. Table 20 18-2 Southern Maryland 3.7 14.4 80.6 112.7 lists the Water Service Areas (large 18-3 Vixginia Non-SMSA negligible 0.8 1.6 2.1 public systems) and the water supply 21-1 Richmond-Petersburg- Colonial Heights SMSA's 1.8 21.6 62.5 70.7 deficits (demand minus supply) ex- 21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA O.S 13.2 41.6 44.1 pected in each of the communities 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA '0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 during a hypothetical 30-day maxi- 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 4.4 9.3 8.4 9.1 mum demand period. Deficit numbers 22-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 2.5 10.5 90.6 68.7 were based on the existing available 79.7 387.4 793.9 1,357.4 supply during the driest 30 days of the driest year in fifty. Assuming a 90-day growing season. Actual observed use. 43 TABLE20 REGION- WIDE FRESH WA TER PROJECTED WATER SERVICE AREA SUPPLY DEFICITS CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION SUPPLYANALYSIS Deficits in the Water Service Area Existing Source of Water The identification of region-wide 1980 2000 2020 water supply shortages is accomplished Maryland through comparison of the total sub- regional resource capability and the Aberdeen 4.1 10.8 20.6 summation of all demands-municipal, Annapolis 1.5 2.6 3.2 industrial, and agricultural within each Baltimore 0.0 0.0 72.0 subregion. Total water demand figures Bel Air 1.1 2.8 4.4 Cambridge 0.9 118 3.2 used to compute deficits were the Centreville 0.0 0.0 0.2 same as numbers presented previously, Chestertown 0.3 0.6 1.0 except the municipal demand, which Crisfield 0.5 0.6 0.8 reflects a hypothetical 7-day peak de- Crofton 0.4 1.2 1.3 mand period. Delmar 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denton 0.0 0.1 0.2 Excluded is an appraisal of cooling Easton 0.3 1.4 Edgewood (Perryman) 1.2 4.1 9.3 water consumption in electric power Elkton 0.0 0.0 0.0 generation facilities-these are treated Havre de Grace 0.0 0.0 0.0 in the Power section of this report. To Joppatowne 0.1 0.2 0.5 King's Heights (Odenton) 1.0 1.7 2.3 the extent that future power develop- Leonardtown 0.0 0.0 0.0 ments may consume portions of the Lexington Park 0.7 3.9 10.0 freshwater supply, the amount con- Maryland City 1.4 2.9 4.8 sumed should be deducted from the Pocomoke City 0.0 0.1 0.5 Princess Anne 0.0 0.1 0.4 available resource figures presented Salisbury 0.0 0.6 2.0 here. Institutional water needs, includ- Severna Park (Severndale) 4.0 5.0 9.3 ing uses in certain independently sup- Snow Hill 0.0 0.2 0.6 plied hospitals, schools, and military Sykesville-Freedom 0.0 0.1 1.0 establishments (not previously men- Westminster 0.1 1.0 1.8 Waldorf 0.6 4.0 10.4 tioned in this report) are also included in the following tabulations. Water Washington Metropolitan Area uses within these institutions are Washington Suburban assumed to remain constant through- Sanitary Commission 0.0 23.0 329.0 out the study period. Washington Aqueduct 0.0 4.7 11.9 Alexandria, Va. Fairfax County Results of the region-wide water sup- Water Authority 25.5 132.0 30.8.0 ply analysis are presented in Table 21. Goose Creek (Fairfax City), Va. 6.8 27.6 63.1 Measures of the available freshwater Manassas, Va. 0.0 2.0 3.4 supply presented in the table are the Manassas Park, Va. 0.2 1.8 4.3 combination of supply from all Delaware sources, including: Seaford 0.0 0.3 1.3 9 groundwater - estimate of ulti- Virginia mate developable yield; Ashland 0.0 0.0 0.0 * surface water - 7-day, 10-year Colonial Heights-Petersburg 0.0 0.0 0.0 drought flows at point of depar- Fredericksburg 0.0 0.0 0.0 ture from subregion; and, Hopewell 8.6 15.3 35.6 Mechanicsville 1.0 4.3 11.0 NewportNews 4.2 0.0 21.0 0 impoundments safe yield of Norfolk 1.0 26.4 57.0 existing reservoir development. Portsmouth (inct. Suffolk) 4.0 15.0 29.2 Richmond 0.0 0.0 0.0 Smithfield 0.0 0.3 0.9 Significant regional shortages are West Point 0.0 0.0 0.0 shown for the Washington, D.C. Williamsburg 3.0 4.7 7.0 Metropolitan Area and the three sub- regions comprising Southeastern, Vir- ginia. 44 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS intake if conditions of "advanced tech- MEANS TO SATISFY nology" are attained as illustrated THE NEEDS The foregoing projections of future before in Figure 13. water supply demands are based on There are many potential measures certain assumptions that were required available which could be used in meet- to transform and simplify the many A third area of possible impact on ing the future water supply needs. uncertainties of the future. Four areas water demands includes future climate Some of the more promising are free of critical concern with regard to changes and irrigation efficiencies. Irri- flowing streams, impoundments, water supply were determined to be gatio'n needs have been projected groundwater, desalinization, and cur- population growth, recycling in indus- assuming drought conditions, and tailed use of water. These measures are trial water use, improved irrigation under conditions of more normal rain- more fully discussed in the following efficiencies, and political decisions fall, irrigation demands can be ex- paragraphs. which might require increased agricul- pected to be considerably reduced. tural production. Projections of irrigation needs also assume that only 65 percent' of the One of the major shifts in the demo- water applied is used by the plants, the NA TURA L S TREAM FL 0 W graphic profile of the United States in balance being lost to drainage or evap- recent years has been the declining oration. It is estimated that an increase Rivers such as the Susquehanna, birth rate and the resulting decrease in in irrigation efficiency to 80 percent (a Potomac, Rappahannock, James, and population growth rates. The effect of probable maximum) would result in a Appomattox presently, serve as major reduced population levels would most 19 percent reduction in demand. sources of water supply for the large likely be a reduction in the demand in urban and industrial areas located all major water use categories assuming along their banks. It is expected that all other factors remain constant. the use of these sources will continue, A final consideration with regard to and indeed, that the withdrawals will Future water needs for use in manu- future agricultural water demands is be much expanded. The Susquehanna facturing may be influenced by even the prospect of large scale exports of River, in particular, will experience greater improvements in water reuse American agricultural products. If the increased demands both upstream and and recycling than have been antici- United States becomes committed to for possible diversion to the Baltimore pated in this report. Based on assump- exports of its food products to help area. Other interbasin diversions and tions by the Bureau of Domestic alleviate a world shortage, agricultural the use of the upstream portions of Commerce, U.S. Department of Com- production may increase in the Bay the major subestuaries (e.g., the Poto- merce, reduction of as much as 56 Area, resulting in greater demands.for mac River) are also alternatives to be percent could occur in industrial water water. considered in meeting future demands. TABLE21 IMPOUNDMENTS CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION FRESHWATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS AND PROJECTED DEFICITS, mgd Freshwater Future Deficits A major problem in the use of natural Subregion Supply 1980 2000 2020 stream flows as a source of water supply is the seasonal variation in 17-1 Baltimore, Md. SMSA 1,024* 0 0 0 flow. Peak demands often coincide 17-2 Maryland Eastern Shore 865 0 0 0 17-3 Virginia Eastern Shore 250 0 0 0 with the season of lowest flow in the 17-4 Delaware Non-SMSA 290 0 0 0 streams. Dam construction is a means 18-1 Washington, D.C. SMSA 936** 0 62 1,015 by which reduction of variability can 18-2 Southern Maryland 234 0 0 0 be attained, and the dependable flow 18-3 Virginia Non-SMSA 119 0 0 0 21-1 Richmond-Petersburg- or safe yield of a watershed increased. Colonial Heights SMSA's 678 0 0 110 Water is stored in the reservoir during 21-2 Virginia Non-SMSA 170 0 0 0 periods of excess flow for use during 22-1 Newport News-Hampton SMSA 73*** 0 0 12 seasonal periods of low flow and high 22-2 Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA 106 22 62 114 domestic demands. Over the long 22-3 Virg.inia Non-SMSA 84 16 179 315 term, however, average stream flow must exceed demand by a substantial margin in order to maintain a mini- Assumes allowable withdrawal from Susquehanna River of 500 mgd. mum conservation pool, to allow for Increases to 1,073 mgd beyond 1990 due to Bloomington Project. evaporation, and provide a minimal Increases to 93 mgd beyond 1990 due to Little Creek Project. base-flow below the dam. 45 GR 0 UND WA TER establishments, and industries alike WATER QUAUTY will curtail usage, to varying degrees, Groundwater is another water supply as water supplies increase in cost. CURRENT STATUS source which can be developed to meet Water use restrictions are most effec- needs in deficit areas. Massive' amounts tive when they are applied to uses such INYRODUCTION of water are stored in the pol re spaces as lawn watering, car washing, street of the soils and rock formations of the cleaning, and non-critical commercial Water is one of the three basic re- Bay Area. However, the amount recov- and industrial uses in such a way that sources essential for the support of life erable is governed by economics, and major inconvenience and/or economic and without which a Nation, State, or the geo-hydrologic character of the damage is not suffered by the com- commuWty cannot develop or prosper. area. Water withdrawals fr om wells munity. Advancing technology and a Normally, water contains minerals, will cause a lowering of the w ater table change in public acceptance could also nutrients, and aquatic organisms which in a three dimensional cone of depres- lead to the reuse of wastewater for occur naturally. Due to man's acti- sion around the well often @ affecting municipal purposes in areas depleted vities, however, additional materials the yields, capacities, and water qual- of the more traditional sources. are often discharged into the waters. ity of other wells in the area. Conse- Excesses may cause reductions in the quently, groundwater supplies gener- quality of the water resource and ally serve their most valuable function render it unfit for intended uses. in areas with small-scale, evenly dis- persed demands, such as those for the Figure 15: Potential Sources of Water Pollution rural domestic population, agricultural uses, small towns, and industries with relatively low water requirements. Establishments requiring concentrated VIA\* large-scale water supply developments have invariably located in Western Shore areas where there is a greater potential for development o surface waters. DESALINIZA TION STREET Conversion of brackish water to fresh- DRAIN STREET DRAIN water is a technique which can be used Sanitary in areas which have depleted their Storm (0f, conventional sources of supply. Given S we Sew r" a supply of sea water or other brackish 7 nicipal source, freshwater can be derived by Mu I various methods including distillation, Wastes industrial Sto in Wat membrane, and freezing processes. Be- Di Carges Overflow Regulator Waste cause the cost of desalinization is 04 Was ewater rather high, it is not normall used in Non-Sewere Treatment Plant water-rich areas such as the, Che,a- Runoff peake Bay Region. Corbined Sews INSTITUYYONAL MEASUPES W Overflow Bypassi Institutional arrangements (ch@nges in law, custom, or practice) and policy changes can increase the efficiency of Treated water use, or otherwise effect a damp- ening of demand. Example nclude Effluent p s@ ricing and metering to e ourage thrift, implementation of plumbing codes to encourage water-saving appli- ances, and restrictions on use during droughts. Homeowners, commercial 46 Under such conditions, the water is which may be harmful to equipment. by the fishing industry, the loss of termed "polluted," that is, it contains Agriculture requires still a different valuable recreation areas, the degrada- harmful or objectionable materials re- quality of water that is free of degrad- tion of aesthetic values, the corrosion ducing its utility. ing.materials toxic to plant and animal of structures exposed to water, life. Finally, each form of aquatic life destruction of fish and wildlife habi- Water quality is the term. used to requires water of varying qualities in tats, and the general reduction in the describe the biological, chen-tical, and order to assure its healthy existence. use of receiving waters are all costs of physical condition of the water in a polluted waters. river, bay, ocean, or underground. Water quality problems generally arise What i -s termed as "good" water qual- when the waste loads imposed by man The sources of water pollution may be ity differs depending on the intended exceed the water's capacity to assim- classified as either "point" or "non- use. Man requires water for drinking ilate them adequately. The resulting point" and are illustrated in Figure 15. that is free of color, pathogenic bac- degradation can be very costly, both Point sources are those in which the teria, and objectionable taste and economically and ecologically. In- degrading material is discharged from a odor. Industries which use water pri- creased cost of water treatment for specific point. Non-point sources are marily for cooling and steam produc- municipal and industrial use, the clos- those in which the degrading material tion require water free of materials ing of shellfishing areas and the result- reaches the water course through flows such as chlorides, iron, and manganese ing income loss for persons employed over a large area. Figure 16: The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality, Study Areas - ___ - __ _. S I @ -,< /,-<, The major point sources of water P... y 'D Ph,, pollution are: A!@WI31JRG"-'- Cumber and 1. Municipal sewage outfalls. led X I far I 8a,hritud PA 2. Industrial waste outfalls. Ce mF me. 3. Combined sewer outfalls. Rldlnlk SAL I Mea 0 R'E' Hovard /Ca The major non-point sources of water -s/'l OVER Mat pollution are: AN OLIS C WA WA N D. F'rrW 'I1 1. Agricultural runoff. 191ah. Prnl, C S.@ CIA n 2. Urban runoff. Wd Ing 3. Marine transportation spills. r- Madge pritsykan dd1ravWw,s Ndericlsou A1112114 -tau'sa C.AW, This section of the report presents the I@mlo_n It ... nn SS findings of the Cheaspeake Bay Study Hart C 11 1. asttr A C I 'I'm as they relate to the quality of the i B.cK,r%ha. Natal, waters of Chesapeake Bay and its I" C an 43N D 'we, tributaries. It is essentially a continu- W ation of the 1970 inventory of water @P,71 Ed-d Ad" G-t quality presented in the Existing Con- ditions Report. With the passage of the I WIdd,, R Federal Water Pollution Control Act Emporia -.0 Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) V, I a am tan G- IC eslo,,k. 7@i much of the water quality work origi- _NC araden We, nally envisioned as part of the Chesa M'i Mtuck ta It peake Bay Study has been accom- I- Baltimore N CIA PerI plished at the State and local level. In Il - Potomac Ileme ad A. order to avoid duplication of effort, III - Rappahannock-York the scope of the work for this analysis IV - Low r James was revised to integrate into the Chesa- V - Low r Eastern Shore peake Bay Study Program the ongoing VI - Upper Eastern Shore State and local work concerning water quality in the Bay Area. 47 TABLE22 increasing loads from municipal CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY STUDY AREAS sewage treatment plants and industrial Study Area I - Baltimore Study Area IV - Lower James sources, as well as from agricultural and storm runoff, and marine trans- Lower Susquehanna River James River portation spills are causing stresses and Bush River Appomattox River problems, some very severe, through- Gunpowder Rtm Back River out the Bay Region. In addition, as yet Patapsco-Back River Elizabeth River unidentified pollutants may be present Patuxent River Lynnhaven Bay Magothy River in the Bay and its tributaries causing Severn River environmental damage. For example, South River Study Area V - Lower Eastern Shore preliminary results from a study by Pocomoke River the Smithsonian Institution indicate a Study Area 11 - Potomac Manokin River DOSSible link between two widely used Wicomico River agricultural herbicides and the decline Potomac River Nanticoke River of certain aquatic grasses in Chesa- Occoquan River peake Bay during the last decade. Anacostia River Study Area VI - Upper Eastern Shore Study Area III - Rappahannock-York Choptank River Figure 17 summarizes the major water Wye River quality problems of the larger tribu- Rappahannock River Chester River taries and their suff ounding land areas. York River Eastern Bay In general, municipal and industrial Pamunkey River Northeast River wastes have been found to be. the Mattaponi River Elk River major problems in the populated areas Ingram Bay C & D Canal of Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Fleets Bay Mobjack Bay and Norfolk. Other less populated areas suffer mainly from agricultural and land runoff as well as smaller The geographical area considered for are Biochemical Oxygen Demand amounts of municipal discharges. The the water quality study is based on the (BOD), bacteriological indicators, sus- following sections present a capsulated river basins in the Chesapeake Bay's pended solids, dissolved solids, temper- summary of the existing water quality drainage area. Within the Chesapeake ature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, conditions as they relate to the estab- Bay Region, 18 separate river basin chlorophyll a, pH, and heavy metals. lished water quality standards for each segments as designated by the States By monitoring and studying these of the six major water quality study of Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware water quality parameters, standards areas in the entire Bay Region. More were combined to form six region have been and are being developed to detailed information on water quality study areas. These are shown ri@ Figure control water pollution. These stand- and the standards for these basins is 16, and a complete listing of t @ major ards, required of each state by P.L. presented in Appendix 7, "Water Qual- river basins within each study area is 92-500, reflect the goal of water qual- ity.11 presented in Table 22. ity management for the present and future. A more detailed description of a. Study Area I - Baltimore. Nutri- The major source of information for these and other important parameters ents appear to be the major problem in this analysis was the State Water Qual- is presented in Appendix 7, "Water the Lower Susquehanna River Basin as ity Management Plans required by Quality," and in the Glossary of this algal blooms have been on the increase section 303(e) of P.L. 92-500@ which Summary. over the past several years. Heavy provided projections of wastewater EXISTING WATER QUALITY municipal and industrial loads up- loadings and water quality needs for CONDITIONS stream have been identified as the each river basin. "Problem area@" m'for- major contributors. High nutrient con- mation was taken from the State Characterizing the quality of the Bay's centrations have also been identified in Water Quality Inventories prepared waters in one word is difficult because other major rivers in the Baltimore under Section 305(b) of P.L. 92-500. of the wide variety of conditions Study Area including the Patuxent, encountered in an area of this size; Severn, South, Gunpowder, Bush, and WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS however, a blanket statement would Back Rivers. probably conclude that the water qual- The parameters used to measure water ity of the Bay itself is good, with most In the Patapsco River, and especially quality are of three major types: of the severe problems occurring in the the Baltimore Harbor Area, 32 major i he physical, chemical, and biological. The tributaries especially near areas of high industrial dischargers and 10 major most important of these parameters population concentrations. However, municipal dischargers along with the 48 heavily urbanized development in the discharges from the sewage treatment entire basin and some of the smaller area are creating stressed conditions.in plants in the area. The main problems sewage treatment plants in the area the surrounding waters. Major prob- are high bacterial concentrations, which discharge partially treated lems include low dissolved oxygen occasional dissolved oxygen deple- wastes. The Great Wicomico River and contents, high bacterial concentra- tions, turbid waters, and increasing Indian, Cockrell, and Dymer Creeks tions, and undesirable levels of other nutrient concentrations. also experience high bacterial concen- pollutants such as heavy metals and trations and occasional dissolved oxy- oil. c. Study Area III Rappahan- gen sags for much the same reasons. nock-York. The Rappahannock River Boating activity near the Wirdmill The Patuxent River also suffers from Basin, extensively rural in nature, has Point area is causing some concern as the heavy development along its river relatively n-dnor water quality prob- bacterial concentrations, nutrients, Z@ banks. Eighteen major municipal facil- lems with the exception of the waters and dissolved oxygen depletions have ities, increased construction and urban near the City of Fredericksburg. 11igh been on the increase. runoff, and faulty septic systems have bacterial concentrations and occa- been named as the principal con- sional dissolved oxygen sags in the The York River, near its headwaters, tributors to the occasional low dis- mainstream have been traced to exten- exhibits water of excellent quality. In solved oxygen contents, turbid waters, sive agricultural runoff throughout the the West Point Area, however, degra- and increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus found in the waters. Bac- Figure 17: Existing Water Quality Problems in Chesapeake Bav terial concentrations have also caused problems in the area, especially during SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Nutrients, Sedimentat on, penods of low flow. & Flow Modification b. Study Area 1I - Potomac. Serv- PATAPSCO 8 BACK RIVERS ing as the major water supply for the Municipal & industrial District of Columbia and surrounding Discharge & Spoil Disposal C'D C.1.1 UPPER EASTERN SHORE areas, the Potomac River is stressed by PATUXENT RIVER BALTIMORE Nutrients, Sedimentation, Urbanization, 7-1 low Modification, Boating Actvity, the heavy urban development along its Municipal Discharge &@�Poil Disposal Thermal Discharge river banks in the Washington Area. Offshore Development Agricultural runoff from upstream sources contributes high volumes of POTOMAC RIVER WASHINGTON nutrients and bacterial contamination Municipal & Thermal Discharge, Urbanization, prior to entering the metropolitan & Sedimentation area. 'n Near the District, high volumes of municipal wastewater (led by the 309 Y mgd from the Blue Plains Plant) and IF urban runoff cause some dissolved LOWER AU EASTERN SHORE oxygen depletions while adding to the a., -,I co Agricul List Runoff, nutrient enrichment of the river. Im- Processing Wastes, & Offshore proving as it nears Chesapeake Bay, Development the Lower Potomac River generally YORK & RAPPAHAN `OCK RIVERS ivity, Sedimentation, Boating Activity, meets standards but still suffers from oil Spills, & Industrial Wastes the development upstream and espe- cially the sediment generated from 0 urban and agricultural runoff. In 1973, over 3 million tons of sediment were RICHMOND emptied into the Potomac Estuary and primary production, while not heavily stressed, appears to have suffered. LOWER JAMES RIVER Municipal & Industrial Discharge, i Heavy Metals & Pesticides, iZ7 Tributaries such as the Anacostia Spoil Disposal & Boating Activities River, Piscataway Creek, Rock Creek, Occoquan River, Goose Creek, and SCALE OF %ES OLK S Port Tobacco River also suffer from 10 0 0 20 urban and agricultural runoff as well as 49 dations in the form of low dissolved James Basin following the "kepone" FUTURE WATER QUALITY oxygen, low pH, and high bacterial incident of 1976. Illustrative of the NEEDS concentrations occur, mostly the re- magnitude of the concern was the sult of urban runoff, landfill runoff, closure, for a 7-month period, of the MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER swamp drainage, and discharges fro lower James River to all fishing, by the nearby sewage treatment plant. Virginia Governor Mills Godwin in Increasing levels of population and per Sedimentation is also a growing prob- June of 1976. capita income in the Chesapeake Bay lem throughout the entire basin with Region will mean increased municipal the primary contributor being urban wastewater volumes. Table 23 presents runoff, although only 2 percent of e. Study Area V - Lower Eastern data by river basin on anticipated land area is in urban use. Shore. The Pocomoke River, while municipal wastewater flows and treat- generally of good quality, has shown ment needs. These projections were some degradation near the Pocomoke taken from the 303(e) State River City, Snow Hill and Crisfield Areas. Basin Plans currently being prepared. King, Carter, and Sarah Creeks, all Low dissolved oxygen, high bacterial At the time this report was prepared, tributaries to the York River, have concentrations, and nutrient enrich- data were not available for all the river high bacterial and nutrient c oncentra- ment are the main problems. Improve- basins within the Study Area. In addi- tions which are attributed to local STP ment of water quality conditions, tion, the milestone years for which discharges and marina activities in the however, has been realized in recent projections were provided were incon- surrounding areas. Near the mouth of months due to improved treatment at sistent from river basin to river basin the York River, dissolved@ oxygen sewage treatment plants in the area. due to differences in the preparing depletions have created some problems The main sources of degradation in the agency's methodologies and assump- and are caused by the "tidal prism" basin are now considered to be septic tions. A more detailed discussion of effect which prohibits the rt@iwing of tank leakage and the poor flushing the projections of municipal waste- the layers of water that replenish action of the Estuary particularly dur- water flows together with estimates of oxygen supplies. ing low flow conditions. The Nanti- future BOD loads may be found in coke and Wicomico Rivers, especially Appendix 7. in the Salisbury area, suffer from high d. Study Area IV - Lower Jame& bacterial concentrations. Shellfish As shown in Table 23, projected The Lower James River (from the City closures in the area are necessary wastewater flows exceed the 1975 of Richmond to Chesapeake Bay) because of the high volumes of storm treatment plant capacity in all of the ranks as one of the most heavily runoff, septic tank leakage, and the river basins for which projections were developed and industrialized @basins in low level of treatment provided by the available. In addition to the need for the Bay Region with 35 major sewage existing sewage treatment plants. more capacity, treatment plants pro- treatment plants and 29 large indus- Agricultural runoff is also a problem in viding more advanced treatment of the trial firms in its drainage area. Most of the basins, contributing bacteria and wastewaters will be required in most the water quality problems 'found in nutrients from soils, manure seepage, areas of the Bay Region in order to the basin are direct results of the and feedlot runoff. meet the requirements of PL,92-500. intensive development in the Rich- mond, Hopewell, and Norfolk- INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER Newport News Area. Major problems f. Study Area VI - Upper Eastern in the basin include low dissolved Shore. The Choptank, Chester and Elk Industrial discharges will have a great oxygen, high nutrient concentrations, Rivers are all basically rural in char- bearing on the achievement of water high bacterial concentrations, high acter and suffer from agricultural run- quality management goals in the chlorine toxicities, and excessive off and septic system leakage prob- future, especially in highly industri- amounts of heavy metals. Tributaries lems. High nutrient concentrations alized areas such as Baltimore, such as the Elizabeth and Lynnhaven near the upper Bay have brought Richmond-Hopewell, and Norfolk. Rivers, and Bailey and Ashton Creeks, about increasing algal blooms in the Industrial discharges are a function of are also degraded and have the - same Chester and Elk Rivers. Small sewage industrial water supply and consump- problems and sources as the mainstern treatment plant discharges and scat- tion, the level of industrial develop- of the James. Shipping in the tered seafood packaging wastes have ment, and most importantly, the Hampton Roads complex ha created caused some bacterial problems near amount of water recycled. These some problems, with occasionally high the more populated areas of the parameters are discussed in detail in bacterial concentrations and 0' spills Chester and Choptank Rivers. Finally, Appendix 5, "Municipal and Industrial being the most prevalent. sticide Pleasure boating activities in the sum- Water Supply." concentrations, while not frequently mer and fall seasons are causing some monitored in the past, have @also be- bacterial problems near the mouths of come an area of great concern in the all the major rivers in this area. 50 TABLE23 the demand for electric power, as FUTURE MUNICIPALWASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS, SELECTED AREAS outlined in Appendix 13, Electric Projected Flow Existing Capacity Deficit Power, will create the additional prob- River Basin Year (mgd) (mgd, 1975) (-gd) lem of the disposal of heated cooling waters. In 1972, an average of nearly Lower Susquehanna 1995 3.27 1.87 1.40 7,700 mgd was discharged from power Patapsco 1990 261.60 238.76 22-84 West Chesapeake 2000 32.80 19.40 13-40 plants into Chesapeake Bay waters, Patuxent 2000 96.30 39.40 56.90 almost 8.5 times the average discharge Washington Metro. 2000 543.80 344.64 199-16 of sewage treatment plants in the Northern Virginia 2020 363.30 111.98 251-32 Area. Projected withdrawals for 1980 Rappahannock 2020 19.541 8.38 11-16 are expected to be near 8,500 mgd; of York 2020 39.601 2.98 36.62 James (Lower) 2020 386.00 163.97 222.03 which 3,500 are required for the Surry Accomack-Northampton 2000 1.26 0.74 0.52 and Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plants Pocomoke 2000 S.00 2.65 0.35 alone, A major concern is the effect Nanticoke 1995 13.56 12.80 0.76 such heavy concentrations of heated Elk 1995 4.99 3.40 1.59 waters will have on the aquatic envi- lBased on total population and not population served. ronment. Complicating the problem are the physical characteristics of Chesapeake Bay, an estuary which is The industrial discharge projections industrial discharges that may be ex- relatively shallow and of moderate presented in Figure 18 are median pected in pursuit of National water temperature, thereby limiting its effi- range values which balance projections quality goals. It should be noted that ciency for the dispersion of heated reflecting simple historical data on one the values presented in Figure .18 effluents. hand and maximum attainable include only the five major water-using recycling technology on the other. The industrial groups in the Chesapeake curve presented in Figure 18 acknowl- Bay Region (i.e., chendcals, primary b. Chlorine: Chlorine, used widely edges that, while recycling rates will metals, paper and allied products, food as a fouling preventative in industry indeed continue to improve, it is more and kindred products, and petroleum). and as a disinfectant for municipal likely that a lesser degree of imple- These industries, however, account for wastes, has in combination with ele- mentation of technology in industrial about 82 percent of the total water ments in receiving waters been found water reuse will occur. Although the withdrawals in the Bay Region. to cause up to 90 percent reduction in discharge projections do not specifi- primary productivity near wastewater cally address actual concentrations of OTHER POINT AND NONPOINT treatment plant discharges. Future waste products or projected discharge SOURCE PROBLEM AREAS threats center around an overabun- loadings, they do, however, serve as an dance of total chlorine residuals, due indicator of the marked decrease in a. Thermal Discharges: Increases in to the increased volumes of both Figure 18: Industrial Discharge Projections for the Chesapeake Bay Region with municipal and industrial discharges as Moderate Technology well as the required lowering of coli- form densities in discharges which require increasing amounts of disin- fectant. c. Agricultural and Urban Runoff: 1500- With approximately 40 percent of the Bay's land area in agricultural use, pollutants such as nutrients, pesticides 0 sediment, and animal waste products 21000- can be expected to continue to contri- W bute a significant loading. Although < the percentage of land in agricultural Q use is projected to decrease, intensive 500- farming practices which attempt to grow the same or greater amounts of crops on smaller land areas may contri- bute even greater loadings than before. 0 Urban runoff may be expected to 1970 1980 1990 2000, 2010 2020 increase markedly as population YEAR growth and urban expansion con- 51 tinue. Large amounts of runoff con- taining oils, chemicals, and sediments cause significant problems near the major cities of the Bay Region. d. Oil and Marine Transportation Spills: With the projected increase in both total traffic and the total amount of oil products shipped on Chesapeake MOO, Bay (see Appendix 9, Navigation) the probability of accidental spills may also increase. Other hazardous chenii- cals in transport will also be subject to 4. accidental spills as Bay traffic in- creases. Other sources of oil, especially municipal discharges, have not yet been thoroughly researched. More de- tailed information on these subjects 4" 4, h !777 '7' - _"14 A4 @v -"p 52 can be found in Appendix 15, Biota. be necessary t Io avoid contamination INDEX OF CONTROL COSTS problems in the future. Also, some e. Sedimentation: Sedimentation, a means of treating the collected natural phenomenon the level of leachate will be necessary. which has been increased beyond natural levels due to man's activities, MA NA GEMENT AND 0 THER 50 99 can also be expected to increase in the PROBLEMAREAS Region. A projected doubling of popu- future as population grows in the Bay 40 In pursuing the goals of improved 95 lation in the Chesapeake Bay Region water quality, numerous problems are 30 85 between 1970 and 2020 means that being encountered by the responsible 20 the existing number of residences, management agencies. Some common office buildings, etc., will also roughly management-related problems are have to double, implying a tremendous presented below: amount of construction activity with its potential for causing sedimentation 0 25 50 75 100 problems during the projection period. a. Financial Capabilities: The PERCENT REDUCTION OF POLLUTION adequacy of existing technology to f. Recreational and Commercial meet goals and objectives of P.L. Figure 19: Pollution Control Costs as Boating Activities: The large and in- 92-500 does not appear to be a signi- a Function of Control Levels creasing numbers of both commercial ficant problem. The costs associated water quality and the effects of and recreational vessels currently con- with implementing these improve- changes in critical water quality tribute a significant amount of raw ments, however, appears to be a prob- parameters on the environment, pro- sewage through direct overboard dis- lem of great magnitude. In a 1973 vides a basis for planning, decision charges. The problems caused by these report by the National Water Com- making, and evaluation. An existing discharges are expected to continue mission to the President of the United and projected need is for expanded into the future until adequate pump- States, it was estimated that imple- monitoring of trends in water quality ing facilities can be installed to treat mentation of pollution abatement to improve selection of effective man- the sewage at marina and port facil- policy based on "Best Available" tech- agement measures and for enforce- ities. nology for treatment of both muni- ment purposes. Equally important is cipal and industrial point source the critical need for assurance that all g. Septic Tank Failures: Failing wastes by 1983 would require expend- potential users know what type of septic systems, which cause major itures of about $460 billion through data is available so that they can problems in many of the rural areas of 1983. Implementation of a true "no obtain it when needed. the Chesapeake Bay Region can be discharge" policy had been estimated expected to continue to plague those to cost several times that amount. MEANS TO SATISFY THE NEEDS areas until either the old systems are Figure 19 illustrates how costs increase repaired or sewer service can be pro- as levels of treatment increase. As This section includes a description of vided. In those areas outside expected indicated, a clean-up of the last 1 those measures that can be employed sewerage expansions and where poor percent of pollution involves a doub- to meet present and future water soil conditions exist, new methods of ling of the already large costs involved quality needs. The measures are dis- handling wastes from individual home- in eliminating the first 99 percent. cussed in terms of physical alternatives sites will have to be found before and management or legislative actions. improvement can be expected. b. Manpower: The need for well- trained personnel to operate waste- PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES h. Solid Waste Leachates: Seepage water treatment plants is important, as from the ever increasing number of the ability of a treatment facility to There are two basic approaches to solid waste dumps and sanitary landfill achieve design efficiency is primarily physically controlling or treating the sites may also pose a serious threat to dependent upon the skill and knowl- increasing volume of wastewater flows. water quality in the future, especially edge of the operator. The expected One of them involves the installation in the contamination of groundwater expansion and increased complexity of of water-saving devices and methods supplies. Protection of both private wastewater treatment plants in the that cut down or limit the volume of and public water supplies by sealing future will require an increasing wastewater generated. The other ap- them off from the potentially high number of technically competent and proach concerns the various methods amounts of sodium, potassium, cal- adequately trained personnel. and equipment available for treatment cium, magnesium, and organic pollu- and disposal of waste products after tants characteristic of this leachate will c. Lack of Data Base: Basic data on generation. 53 a. Improving Water Us e Tech- which have shown the ability to treat ,ridge planting, the construction of nology: This means is actually a wastes more effectively as well as more sedimentation ponds and terraces, and method which limits the production or economically. Larger facilities also re- the diversion and treatment of wastes per capita consumption of w@ ater and lieve overloading due to combined from livestock feed yards. Urban run- ultimately wastewater flow. It usually sewers and enable presently unserved off controls consist mainly of devel- involves a "fine-tuning" of plumbing areas to receive wastewater treatment. oping policies to implement separate devices which will use less wa ter to do storm drains and installation of reten- the same job. Among the plumbing d. Cooling of Thermal Wastes: tion basins which store runoff for later provisions are toilets which use less Three methods of cooling the heated treatment or disposal. water, pressure relief valves which waters of power plants are currently limit water pressures, customer educa- available; wet towers, dry towers, and g. Other Physical Methods: Tech- tion programs which encou rage the cooling ponds. In wet towers, the hot niques such as deep well injection of wise use of water, and shower heads effluent is exposed to air circulating wastes, runoff controls, alternative which limit flows. The instit@ution Of through a specially shaped tower. As means of wastewater disinfection, and these measures has been difficult be- water evaporates, heat is lost. Dry methods for improving assimilative cause of the lack of appropriate towers pass the effluent through a capacities of waterways are some other plumbing parts, additional costs for series of pipes over which cool air is methods that have been proposed as at refitting older devices, and follow-up passed and heat is lost.by radiation. least partial solutions to the increas- adjustments. Plumbing code r@evisions Cooling ponds are also a possible ingly complex problems of waste dis- seem to hold the most hope in the solution, but require larger areas than posal in the Chesapeake Bay Region. future for instituting these @easures. the other alternatives. Appendix 13, These alternatives are discussed in m Electric Power," presents more de- detail in Appendix 7. b. Increased Industrial Tr @atment t1lailed information on alternatives and Recirculation: In keeping with the available to reduce the problems asso- MANA GEMENTAND LEGISLATIVE requirements of present legislation, ciated with thermal discharges. A CTIONS improvement in treatment technology (percent pollutant removal) will most e. Land Treatment of Wastewater: a. Management Actions: The major likely result in water of better lquality. In a land treatment operation, sec- management options available to re- This in turn will result in an increased ondarily treated wastes are transported duce, re-distribute, or limit the ability of industrial plants to reuse this to the land treatment site instead of demand for water and thereby the water in the production process and being disposed of in the watercourses. volume of municipal wastewaters, are decrease volumes of flow to the rivers. The effluent is then stored, chlori- pricing policies, sewer moratoriums, @retreat- nated, and applied to the land surface and consumer education. Pricing poli- Two specific alternatives are p by a variety of basic means. The cies seek to reduce consumption of ment and by-product recoveiy. Pre- underlying concept is based upon the water by levying higher rates during treatment of industrial wastes removes use of the soil mantle and its vege- those periods of time when the the unique pollutants of an in dustrial tative cover which acts as a "living demand is high. Sewer moratoriums process prior to discharge in municip filter" to remove pollutants. By this have been used in areas where de- sewers. The potential use or sale of process the oxygen demanding sub- mands for water and sewerage service waste by-products of the industrial stances are destroyed by oxidation, have exceeded the ability to provide process will also create incentives for the nitrogen and phosphorous con- adequate treatment. These mora- industry to re-circulate wast es and sumed by plant growth, and the puri- toriums usually prohibit the extension remove these pollutants as opposed to fied water returned to the ecosystem of old s@stems. This method of re- dumping them in watercoursesi In the by groundwater recharge. Heavy distributing demand has been used pulp and paper industries for example, metals are also immobilized by adsorp- effectively in the Washington Metro- certain wastes can be synthesized to tion on soil particles. politan area where counties in the produce artificial vanilla flavoring and surrounding metropolis have imple- other valuable by-products. mented moratoriums as emergency f. Control of Non-Point Source measures. Consumer education prac- c. Increased Municipal Treatment: Pollutants: Actions which seek to tices stress the voluntary conservation Increasing both the capacity and pol- reduce the amount of non-point of water. The basic elements of a lutant removal capabilities of Bay area source pollutants such as sediment, program of this type n-dght involve the sewage treatment. plants can contri- pesticides, oils, heavy metals, and coli- distribution of information on the bute greatly to the improvement of form organisms are also very impor- water consumption characteristics of the surface waters of Chesapeake Bay. tant in improving water quality in the major appliances of all brands. Other Emphasis can also be placed upon the Bay and its tributaries. Agricultural programs might include door-to-door construction and enlargement of runoff policies which have proven distribution of water saving packages regional sewage treatment @ plants - most effective are contour plowing, containing instructions for correcting 54 leaky and excessive water-using appli- ances as well as dye tablets to help detect leaks within the home. 7 b. Legislative Actions: For the qui present and near future, the re ire- @z "A ments of the Federal Water Pollution d Control Act Amendments of 1972 appear to serve as a schedule to imple- ment the desired water quality goals -P igf for both the Chesapeake Bay Region and the United States. Appendix 7 provides a summary of the major provisions of PL 92-500 and other recent supplemental legislation. OUTDOOR RECREATION CURRENT STATUS EMSTING SUPPL Y AND DEMAND W@l J J@ The Chesapeake Bay Region's approxi- mately 7,300 miles of shoreline and 4,400 square miles of water surface area along with its temperate climate make it a very attractive place for@ water-related recreation activities such as sailing, boating, swimming, picnick- ing, and camping. In order to better imf plan for the use of the resource, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORP's) were pre- pared by all the States in the Study Area under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. These studies included an inven- tory of existing boating, sailing, swim- ming, camping, and picnicking activi ties. The results of these surveys show AW-1 that the Study Area had a public supply at the time of the survey of approximately 440 boat -ramps, 20,200 camping sites, 26,600 picnic tables, and 2,500 acres of beach and swimming pools. J In many cases, the provision of facil- ities for public recreation have not kept pace with the burgeoning de- mand. In the Bay Region, the number of boat ramps and picnic tables are not sufficient to meet existing ublic p demand. It is estimated that an addi- tional 130 boat ramps and 13 ,600 picnic tables are needed. On the other 55 hand, there is presently a surplus of i illustrated by the fact that the 28,000 -amping facilities in the swimming and c trailer boats registered in Maryland in Bay Region. 1971 had access to the Bay through only 125 public boat ramps. Due to the nature of outdoor recrea- tion in the Chesapeake Bay Region, Figure 20 below presents the 1970 boating and sailing activities deserve resident (those living in the Bay special attention. Only abou t one-half Region) outdoor recreation needs and of one percent of the water surface surpluses by recreation subregion. The area of Chesapeake Bay and its tribu- boundaries of these subregions con- taries would be required to meet cur- form to those of the State planning rent boating and sailing demands. The ons as defined in the SCORP's. regi inability to satisfactorily meet current Together these subregions make up the boating and sailing demands,@ however, primary areas of recreation demand ?Z!, =09tw. Y is not due to an absence of water within the Chesapeake Bay Region. It surface area, but as indicated@ above, to should be noted that the Study Area an insufficient supply of public slips used in this recreation analysis differs and launching ramps. This is further' from the general Study Area defined jU S6 LS 31. iL in Figure 1. For more informa@ tion on presented in Figure 20 are resident most inaccessible estuaries in the what cities and counties comprise each demands only. Non-resident demand Nation. Private interests have recreation subregion, it is suggested was not disaggregated by subregion- responded to the deficits in public that the "Recreation" Appendix be of-occurrence due to time and data recreational. facilities by providing consulted. constraints. If non-resident demand is facilities of their own. As a result, an taken into account, however, there is a estimated 47 percent of all land and As shown in Figure 20, the dehciency substantial increase in the need for water recreation areits in the Bay in boating ramps is most acute in the boating and sailing ramps, swimming Region are in private control. Control Baltimore and Washington IMetro- acreage, picnic tables and camping of Chesapeake Bay's shoreline by politan Areas while the surpluses are sites. private interests is even more ex- the greatest in the much more sparsely tensive. For example, according to a populated areas of the Eastern Shore PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS study conducted by the Chesapeake of Maryland and Tidewater Virginia. Bay Interagency Planning Committee, Because of this, boat owners in the From the standpoint of the general only three percent of the Maryland Baltimore and Washington areas must public, Chesapeake Bay is one of the shoreline is publicly-owned, often travel. unusually long distances Figure 20: Distribution of Receational Needs and Surpluses, Chesapeake Say to launch their vessels in relatively Region, 1970 uncrowded environs. SWIMMING PICNIC The large 2,100 acre surplus of swim- 1000 less than 100 ZZx ming pool and beach acreage @ is due primarily to wide expanses of ocean FV G /es" I I , IV YNEEDel) TABLES Aft. - SALTIMO beach on the Maryland, Virginia, and 1/? rORE I 00" LU@A 4-400 L I *SURPLLS 7ABLES' Delaware coasts. It is significant to @IOOVER OVER NA OLIS APOLIS note that the most highly urbanized WASHINGTON D.C ,IV 1i SHINGTON D.. V regions, Baltimore, Washington, and '00 700 P10 'y Vi DE Richmond show the greatest need for le th 100 V1 additional swimming space. 0 a 600 0 1 @30, More subregions have a deficie ncy of VII picnic tables than of any other out- Vill- I Y 11 Vill door recreation facility. Only the RICA RIC 0 Southern Maryland, Virginia Tide- less than i t 700 water, and the Eastern Shore of Vir- X 0 ginia subregions have a surplus of less th picnic tables. Typically, the greatest I J@x 1700 zoo shortages are in the metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington which combined account for approximately CAMPING BOATING 67 percent of the Bay Area's total net %,'.. I 700 20 resident need. The Richmond and Hampton Roads subregions also have IV IVN large picnic table needs. SALTIM0 Y,NEFVEO@ITIS BA,,* 120 Y. ..... ...... 1200 900 -@@l 3 IJ SI-LU. RA"F@l The Baltimore SMSA and Maryland /,@,DOV A OLIS portion of the Washington SMSA sub- WASHJNG1QN D.C a. than 10 300 regions are the only areas which 00 RA presently lack an adequate number of V1 MD '70 camping sites to meet resident needs. I 11300 show 10( Combined, these two subregion The X a need for 2,100 camp sites 32 remainder of the Bay Region has a Vill X11 7 X11 present surplus of 15,500 sites, 'which R V 20 RICAO means the entire Bay Region has a 0 (han10 total surplus of 13,400 sites. X 600 less than 10 0 It is important to note that the out- IX X door recreation needs and surpluses 58 Much of the recreationally desirable Other factors interfere with the maxi- related comb jellies or ctenophores land available is in competition with mum recreational utilization of the which reach peak abundance in the other forms of land development such Bay and its tributaries. Water quality summer months also discourage water as private homes, utility development, has deteriorated in many sections of contact recreation. Other deterrents to or military reservations. For example, the tributaries precluding body- recreation activities include the exist- in urban areas where recreation oppor- contact water recreation. This problem ence of extensive and often valuable tunities are most urgently needed, the is especially severe in the urban areas wetlands and the occasionally objec- shoreline has often been developed as where demands are the greatest. For tionable growth of certain aquatic major port and industrial complexes. example, the number of bathing plants such as the Eurasian Water- A significant percent of the publicly- beaches in Baltimore County approved milfoil and water chestnut which inhi- owned shoreline is held by the Federal for operation by county health offi- bit boating and swimming. government, primarily the military, cials has declined from 21 in 1966 to 6 and is unavailable for use by the in 1976. Recreational use of the Bay and its general public. tributaries has created problems and The stinging sea nettle and the closely conflicts in itself. For example, many VN I'M -L.A t I A@ N -@z 59 boaters are responsible for degrading large urban areas. This has created Washington. These subregions are also water quality by dumping refuse over- dangerous, undesirable conditions for projected to have the most critical board, discharging sewage effluent. both boaters and swimmers. supply deficits in 2020 with 1,150 and spilling gas and oil into the water. ramps needed. A major supply deficit The result is unsightly debris', and in FUTURE DEMAND AND SUPPLY in 2020 is also expected in the Rich- some cases, the closing of certain areas mond subregion. The only subregions to both water-contact recreation and Figure 21 illustrates the relationship predicted by BOR to have a surplus of shellfish harvesting. In addition, recre- between existing supply and projected ramps through the year 2020 are the ational boating frequently conflicts demand for boating and sailing, swim- Eastern Shore of Maryland and Vir- with other aquatic activities @such as ming, picnicking; and camping in the ginia and the Tidewater portion of swimming, fishing, commercial ship- Study Area. As can be seen, the Virginia. Of the total demand for ping, and private shore front property demand for boating ramps is expected boating ramps in 2020, almost 22 use (brought about by erosion of the to exceed the existing supply by percent of the total will be accounted shoreline from boat wakes). Finally, almost six times by the year 2020. for by non-resident demand. recreational boating has led to over- Most of the increase in demand is crowding of certain waterways, par- expected to occur in the three sub- ticularly those most accessible to the regions surrounding Baltimore and The need for swimming beaches and Figure 2 1: Projected Demand and Existing Supply for Boating and Sailing, pools is also expected to increase Swimming, Picnickin '9, and Camping, Chesapeake Bay Region (Resident significantly during the next 50 years. and Non-Resident) Although the entire Study Area has a supply excess over the projection period, supply deficiencies in the Balti- Boating Swimming more, Washington, and Richmond and Sailing Ramps Acres of Beach add Pool metropolitan areas are expected to J)n Thousands) (In Thousands) increase from approximately 200 acres of beach and swimniing pool water -Supply ---Demand @Supply-- Demand surface area in 1980 to almost 400 acres in 2000 and over 550 acres in the year 2020. Large supply surpluses were projected for the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shore, Delaware, and Hampton Roads subregions. These sur- pluses, however, were due to the large 2@5 expanses of ocean beaches in these areas. Access to these beaches may be a problem for many Study Area resi- 1.0 dents due to financial and/or transpor- 0.4 tation constraints. This is especially true for many lowmincome families in Picknicking Camping Sites the urban areas where supply deficits Tables (In Thousands) are most acute. Non-resident demand (in Thousands) is expected to account for 22 percent _Supply@- Dem and of the total swimming demand -Supply Dern.and throughout the projection period. In 1970, there was a total of approxi- mately 26,600 picnic tables in the Chesapeake Bay Study Area which Was A------ g4l:-l 24,800 tables short of the total resi- 20.2 dent and non-resident demand in the same year. By the year 2000, this is expected to increase to over 54,000 26.6 tables and by 2020 approxi- picnic mately 95,000 tables. Typically, the greatest projected shortages are in the Existing 1980 2000 2020 . urban areas of Baltimore, Wash- major 60 ington, Hampton Roads, and Rich- base participation rate) by 15 percent in the Baltimore SMSA, less than 1.5 mond. Moderate surpluses were pro- and a second rate which was taken percent of the shoreline is available for jected for the Southern Maryland and from a survey published by the Bureau public recreational use." Also, the Virginia Eastem Shore subregions. of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) titled Baltimore Regional Planning Council's Non-residents will exert demands on "The 19 70 Survey of Outdoor Recrea- document, "Chesapeake Bay: Shore- picnic facilities which are expected to tion Activities. " Using various com- line Utilization in the Baltimore Re- amount to a fairly constant 25 percent binations of the population projec- gion!" reports that 12 percent of the of total demand over the projection tions and the participation rates, a Baltimore regional shoreline is in mili- period. total of four sets of need figures was tary use. Although it is recognized that generated for this sensitivity analysis. it is not possible to open all of these The entire Study Area has a surplus of military lands to the public for recrea- 11,400 camping sites with only the Generally, varying the population pro- tional use, the fact remains that they Washington and Baltimore areas show- jections and the participation rates represent a very significant untapped ing current supply deficits. By the year produced quite a difference in terms resource. 2000, however, there is projected to of recreation needs, demonstrating be a supply deficit of approximately that recreation demand is quite sensi- Watersheds and water supply reservoirs 1,100 sites and by 2020 there is tive to both population and participa- also offer significant potential for mul- expected to be a need for over 12,500 tion rate. For example, boating and tiple uses. Many of the water supply sites. Once again, the Baltimore and sailing needs (in terms of ramps) differ reservoirs and their adjacent lands are Washington Metropolitan areas are ex- from the base projections by as much located. on attractive, wooded upland pected to experience the largest defi- as 240 percent; beach acreage needs by sites which offer the potential for cits with resident demand alone in as much as 50 percent; picnic table swimming, boating, picnicking, and 2020 amounting to five and one-half needs by up to 35 percent; and camp- camping. In the past, public health times the existing supply. Existing ing site needs by as much as 774 constraints, administrative policy and camp sites in Hampton Roads, Tide- percent. Tables 8-22 to 8-29 in the public opinion have discouraged or, water Virginia, Petersburg-Hopewell, "Recreation Appendix" present the prevented joint use of water supply, and the Eastern Shores of both Mary- results of the sensitivity analysis in reservoirs. However, existing restric-',1 land and Virginia are expected to be More detail. tions should be reexamined in the light' sufficient to meet resident demands of modern water treatment technology through the projection period. Non- MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS to determine if they are essential. resident demand for camping in the Study Area is estimated to be approxi- If it is assumed that meeting future Land -adija6e-rit -to river _@hiiinels can mately 25 percent of total demand Outdoor recreation needs within the also serve as a substantial additional throughout the projection period. For Study Area is desirable, then,. 'there resource base to meet recreation more information on projections of exists a number of means to help, needs. The use of flood plain lands in facility requirements by subregions, satisfy future boating and sailing, urban areas, for a variety ofi quality see Appendix 8 of this Report. swimming, picnicking, and camping recreational experiences may also pre- needs. The vast amounts of underuti- clude development on those flood SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS lized water-related land resources in plains and thus reduce future flood the Study Area could be used for, losses. Harbor redevelopment and mul- Both the projected population of the much of the future recreation activi- tiple use of waterfront areas in urban Study Area and demand for outdoor ties. Among the underutilized re,- centers is another, valuable source of recreation activities can vary as a result sources are vast stretches of shoreline recreation lands. These multi-use areas, of economic and social changes as well controlled by the Federal Govern- which in many cases have become as newly created or newly popular ment. rundown and underutilized, could substitute activities. In order to deter- prove especially significant as recrea- mine the sensitivity of recreational de- These areas include large tracts of tion areas since they are adjacent to mands, two factors were varied in this military lands such as Aberdeen Prov- large populations. anaiysis-population projections and ing Ground, Edgewood Arsenal, Quan- participation rates. The Series E tico Marine Base, Fort Story, and Another excellent opportunity to OBERS population projections were Camp Peary Military Reservation. The meet outdoor recreation needs in the substituted for the base projections "Baltimore Urban Recreation Analy- Chesapeake Bay Study Area is the (Series Q for use in the sensitivity sis" prepared by BOR contains infor- further development of wild and sce- analysis. Two sets of participation mation and general findings, directly nic and recreational river systems. rates were also developed for this related to the use of Federal and Rivers preserved in their natural free- analysis, one wlidch reduced the North military lands in the Baltimore subre- flowing state offer a wide variety of Atlantic Regional Water Resources gion. The report states that, "despite recreational potential for such activi- Study (NAR) participation rate (the the more than 840 mites of shoreline ties as canoeing, kayaking, rafting, and 61 '!@,; -U R" V boating. In addition, the scenic vistas usually located near these !rivers can provide ample opportunity for out- door recreation pursuits including pic- nicking and camping. The States of Maryland and Virginia have enacted legislation aimed at the protection of some of the wild and scenic rivers within their State boundaries. Mary- land adopted a policy which protects the water quality of certain designated rivers within the State and fulfills vital conservation purposes by wise use of resources within the scenic river sys- tem. Currently, eight rivers have been designated as scenic within the State. The Virginia General Assembly en- acted the Scenic Rivers Act in 1970 to help coordinate efforts between Fed- eral and State agencies to insure com- prehensive water resource planning. To WL date, 10 Virginia rivers have been designated either scenic or potential scenic rivers. The former group will 77, thus be protected for the enjoyment of present and f.uture generations. i6 Public acquisition of new @land for recreational use is frequently neces- sary, particularly in urban are@s, where AF demand is great and existing recrea- tional areas may be in extremely short supply. To accomplish such acquisi- tion, funding at all levels of govern- ment will have to be increased, partic- ularly in view of the escalating price of land. An alternative to the costly purchase of new recreation lands is the expan- sion, intensification of use, and im- provement of existing recreation lands. P In taking such action, howeve r, care is required to avoid creating over- crowded conditions or befouling recre- ational facilities to the point where they can no longer be enjo ed by @y anyone. Many of the existing recrea- tional facilities within or adjacent to the Bay Region's urban are aIs are in particular need. of intensification of use, where physically possible. Three legislative measures ha Ive been found most effective in implementing a program of preservmg, mamtaming, and acquiring recreation lands to sat- 62 isfy future outdoor recreation needs. provide opportunity for recreation NAVIGATION These include zoning, which imposes pursuits ranging from nature walks to land use restrictions; tax incentives to birdwatching. Outdoor games and CURRENTSTATUS preserve open space lands for public sports such as tennis, golf, and horse- use; and eminent domain which con- back riding are other possible alterna- Transportation by water has changed demns private land for public use. By tive means to help satisfy future recre- drastically since Colonial times when use of these three legislative actions, ational demands in Chesapeake Bay. oceangoing 500-ton sailing ships with lands can be obtained or preserved for recreational use before residential or commercial development pressures occur. For example, in areas where 011 @111_ vacation homes are popular, residential development around a community waterfront park area could be encour- aged to facilitate maximum use and benefit from waterfront lands. Prop- as, a erly planned and spaced marin legitimate use of waterfront lands, could be given a higher priority than shopping centers, for example, at the water's edge. Commercial development water access not dependent upon could be located inland. Meeting all future outdoor recreation needs may not be an entirely desirable goal. As discussed in the "Problems and Conflicts Section" above, reCrea- 01WW TRII tion in the Bay Region has created certain problems including water pol- lution, conflicts in use of the aquatic environment, and overcrowding of waterways. As future recreation de- mands increase, - these problems can also be expected to increase. By pro- viding alternative outdoor recreation opportunities, however, the intensity of these problems can be reduced. In addition, the provision of recreation alternatives would serve to help meet "WIN the recreation needs in the Study NEFEA -A Area. 0 One important alternative means for meeting recreation needs is the devel- opment of recreation trails which would substantially add to the re- source base in the Chesapeake Bay W area. Because of the rich archeological, historical, and natural resources of the Bay Region, a trail system rnight in- clude biking or hiking trails which _k would perhaps contribute to the tour- ism industry. The scenic rivers and i their adjacent shoreline areas could I 63 10- to 15-foot drafts plied the Chesa- The major commodities coming into be exported. Hampton Roads leads the peake docking at individual plantation Baltimore are metallic ores and con- Nation in this category. The port's piers. Water-based transportation, centrates, petroleum and petroleum location in relation to the coal-rich however, has remained extremely im- products, gypsum, sugar, iron and steel Central Appalachians gives the port a portant to the Chesapeake Bay Re- products, salt, and motor vehicles and locational advantage over the other gion's economy. A total of @approxi- motor vehicle equipment. The port East Coast ports in the coal exporting mately 160 million short tons@of cargo leads the Nation in the importing of business. Hampton Roads also con- was shipped on Chesapeake Bay during automobiles and ranks second in iron ducts important trade in the exporting 1974, nearly three-quarters @f a ton ore. The majority of these imported of corn, wheat, soybeans, tobacco leaf, for each man, woman, and child in the bulk commodities are processed by and grain mill products, as well as in United States. About 80 percent of firms in the Baltimore area. the importing of petroleum products, this freight passed through the@ ports of gypsum, lumber and wood products, Baltimore or Hampton Roads. Ap- Hampton Roads, on the other hand, is and chen-dcals. proximately 70 percent of the total an export-oriented port. Approxi- freight traffic in these two ports is mately 70 percent of the total freight These two Nationally significant ports foreign in origin or destination. Balti- tonnage passing through Hampton also have important impacts on the more is basically an importing port. Roads in 1974 was coal and lignite to regional economies. For example, Containership Facilities. M � ,V e4 @P@@ w ir 71" E X P 0 A Ifqatoom 0 64 according to the Maryland Port Ad- neers. The State of Maryland has channel depths because of sedimenta- ministration (MPA), 65,000 workers constructed 16 navigation projects in tion and shoaling. are directly employed by port activi- the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries. ties in the Baltimore area and another There are no State projects in Virginia. c. The disposal of dredge material 100,000 in "port-related" industries. from both the maintenance and the A similar study in Virginia for all the Due to the high sediment loads present deepening of channel projects. Virginia ports revealed that more than throughout most of the Chesapeake 53,000 people were directly employed Bay system, many of the ship channels d. Accidental and deliberate dis- by port-related activities and another are in frequent need of dredging to charges of wastes from commercial 142,000 by "harbor-oriented" activi- maintain authorized depths. The fre- and recreational craft. ties including naval installations. quency of maintenance dredging de- pends on the location of the water- e. Shoreline erosion caused by the Although Baltimore and Hampton way. Some waterways, such as the wakes from large ships. Roads are the only major international James River, require maintenance deepwater ports in the Chesapeake almost every year. On the other hand, f. Conflicts between recreational Bay Area, there is also a significant the Rappahannock Shoal Channel boating and commercial ships in or amount of traffic in the harbors of (part of the Baltimore Harbor and near the major ship channels. some of the smaller ports such as Channels Project) has not been main- Richmond, Yorktown, Hopewe .ll@ tained since its deepening to 42 feet in g. Need for additional waterfront Petersburg, and Alexandria, Virginia; 1964. lands to accommodate expanding port Piney Point, Annapolis, Salisbury, and facilities. Cambridge, Maryland; and Washing- Two types of dredge material disposal ton, D.C. The major commodities have generally been used in the past in The first two problems mentioned shipped through these ports are petro- Chesapeake Bay-open water disposal above stem from a basic confrontation leum and petroleum products, con- and disposal in dyked impoundments. between man's water transportation struction materials, fertilizers, and sea- In the Upper Bay, open water disposal requirements and the Bay's geological food. has been used. Uncontaminated dredge nature. For example, because the Due to the increasing size of oceango- material was generally placed near the Chesapeake Bay is a relatively shallow northern shore of Kent Island while body of water, major channel deepen- ing vessels during the past 100 years contaminated material was dispose Id of iIng projects designed to accommodate and the economies involved in the use in the Pooles Island area. In the lower today's larger, more efficient ships of these ships, repeated deepenings Bay, the Craney Island Disposal Area require extensive dredging. In addition and widenings of Chesapeake Bay's has been used for all major dredge to the natural shallowness of the Bay, ship channels have been necessary. In disposal operations for the Hampton Nature's tendency to fill the Estuarine the Port of Baltimore, for example, Roads channels. The Craney Island system with sediments and to convert there have been many improvements site, constructed in 1957, is a Feder- it iback to a riverine system causes made by the Federal government, the ally-authorized project located in the many existing channels to experience most notable being the authorized heart of the Hampton Roads port shoaling problems. Dredging and deepenings to 27 feet in 1881, 35 feet complex. The dyked area, which dredged material disposal operations in 1905, 37 feet in 1930, 39 feet in covers about 2,500 acres and has a ire consequently an important and 1945, and 42 feet in 1958. More capacity of about 125 million cubic necessary part of commercial naviga- recently, Congress has authorized an yards, is expected to be filled to its tion activities on Chesapeake Day and additional deepening of the main chan- nels to 50 feet. In Hampton Roads design height of 17 feet above mean its tributaries. The environmental there have also been numerous im- sea level by about 1980. impact of these operations has become provements of the area's many chan- a very controversial issue. The princi- nels, starting in 1884. The main chan- EXISTING PROBLEMS AND pal environmental effects of the actual nel into Hampton Roads was deepened CONFLICIS dredging operation are: for the first time in 1907 to 30 feet e major problems and conflicts rela- 1. Removal by either dredging or again in 1910 to 35 feet, in 1917 to 46 tive to navigation and waterborne filling of the original interface between feet, and finally in 1965 to 45 feet. commerce in the Bay Region include: the water and the bottom, which can be an area of high biological activity. In the Chesapeake Bay and its tribu- a. The need for deeper channels to In most cases, the effects of removal taries there are a total of 147 author- accommodate the larger ships now in of the existing sediment-water inter- ized navigation projects under the the world fleet. face are usually localized'and of rela- supervision of the Baltimore and Nor- tively short duration. The circulation folk Districts of the Corps of Engi- b. The maintenance of existing patterns of the Bay's waters usually 65 provide opportunities for the reestab- as the improved upstream transport of interfering with the attachment of lishment of available species within young crabs, fish, and other species as young oysters to the beds and creating one or two years. It should be empha- well as detrimental impacts such as soft bottom layers that are uninhabit- sized, however, that exceptions do greater penetration of oyster predators able for many benthic species. On the occur (e.g., oysters because of their and parasites. The net effect will vary other hand, such sediments, frequently need for a hard bottom) and that a with the location and magnitude of occur naturally in estuaries and coastal thorough analysis should be conducted the dredging activity as well as the waters, and many species can tolerate if complications are to be avoided. season. considerable quantities of suspended material. Sediments can also be ben- 2. Changes; in bottom contours, 3. Turbidity caused by dredging eficial to many types of organisms by which may affect current and salinity can create various problems. Sus- providing the type of substrate needed patterns. In general, the creation of pended sediments can clog and damage by some animals and by carrying deepwater areas causes further salt- the gills of many kinds of animals, nutrients into the marine system. water intrusion. Saltwater' intrusion reduce photosynthetic activity, and can cause complex changes in an estu- reduce the buoyancy of eggs of marine ary's ecosystem. These changes may animals. As the sediments settle, a With regard to the problems associated involve both beneficial influences such coating may form on the bottom with the disposal of dredged material, the major channels for Baltimore and Bucket and Scow Dregging Operation. Hampton Roads and the approach channels to the Chesapeake and Dela- ware Canal are by far the major problem areas. If for no other reason, the sheer volume of material that must be removed during either periodic maintenance or an overall deepening of these major projects creates disposal problems. There are also significant environmental problems associated with dredged material disposal. Perhaps the most serious environ- mental problem, and certainly the most emotional, occurs when the dredged material is contaminated by md ustrial or municipal wastes. Heavy metals, such as mercury, zinc, and lead, along with such substances as pesticides and nutrient salts can have harmful and even toxic effects on aquatic life. There is very limited information on how available such materials become to the marine envi- ronment in various chemical forms once they reenter the water. For example, heavy metal contaminants may be tightly bound to the sediment particles physically or chemically, or at the other extreme, simply dissolved in the water mixed with the sediment. .4- The soon to be completed Dredged Material Research Program being con- ducted at the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, is conducting research into these types of problems. 66 Another source of conflict between wave action caused by passing ships is EXISTING AND waterborne commerce activities and a major cause of erosion in some areas PROJECTED DEMANDS environmental quality is the deliberate of the Bay. Second, recreational fish- discharge or accidental spilling by ves- ing and boating can be disrupted by The following sections present the sels of oil, garbage, sewage, and other the wakes from passing ships. In addi- projected waterborne commerce de- wastes into the Bay. Unfortunately, tion, large areas of the Bay and its mands on a commodity group basis for these discharges and spills often occur tidal tributaries are precluded from the individual ports and waterways in congested harbor areas with poor recreational uses because of their use considered in this study. Due,to the flushing action which causes further as anchorages, ship channels, or dredge type of analysis, it was considered to degradation of often already poor disposal areas by commercial naviga- be appropriate that additional exist- water quality. Although the Federal tion interests and/or the military. On ing information also be presented with Water Pollution Control Act Amend- the other hand, large commercial and the projected demands. ments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) prohibit military vessels must be constantly on the discharge of harmful quantities of the alert for the smaller recreational In addition to the Ports of Baltimore oil or hazardous substances in the vessels to avoid collisions or swamp- and Hampton Roads, projections were waters of the United States, there is ings. Lastly, the development of a prepared for those Chesapeake Bay probably no practical way to stop the major port is dependent on the con- waterways with over 200,000 short element of human error. A valve not current development of land-based tons of commence in 1970. Because of completely closed, a lack of attention port-related facilities. However, the the differences in relative importance while filling tanks, or worst of all, development of shoreline land for ter- to the Chesapeake Bay Region and the tanker collisions, could have disastrous minal facilities may in some cases Nation of the various harbors and environmental, as well as economic, conflict with existing wetlands or pro- waterways included in this analysis, consequences. posed recreational use of the same projections were made to varying de- land. Also, port-related facilities, be- grees of detail. Baltimore and Hamp- Waterborne commerce-related activi- cause of their locational requirements, ton Roads were analyzed in depth on a ties can also have significant impacts may be subject to tidal flooding and commodity group and in some cases on other aspects and uses of the shoreline erosion. an individual commodity basis. On the Chesapeake Bay resource. First, the other hand, projections for several of Figure 22: Projected Waterborne Co mmerce - Baltimore Harbor Bulk Petroleum General Cargo Bulk Ore (inbound only) (Millions of Short Tons) (Imports) (Millions of Short Tons) (Millions of Short Tons) 11.6 9.0 6.7 _J Bulk Grain Miscellaneous Bulk Bulk Coal (Exports) (Millions of Short Tons) (Exports) (Millions of Short Tons) (Millions of Short Tons) 3.8 2.9 3.0 1972 1980 2000 @2020 67 the smaller waterways (in terms of production of steel. The ships carrying larger vessels enter the Port to load tonnages) were made for two groups iron ore into Baltimore are the largest grain for export. only-bulk oil and the total of all that call on the Port. The average iron other commodity groups. ore vessel is in the 40-60,000 dwt The miscellaneous bulk category for range with 38 to 42-foot drafts. Ves- Baltimore Harbor contains such com- There are essentially three types of sels of this size use the existing 42-foot modities as gypsum, sugar, salt, molas- waterborne movements addressed in channel to the maximum extent. ses, sulfuric acid, and fertilizer prod- this analysis-foreign, coastwise, and Occasionally vessels of well over ucts. Approximately 72 percent of internal. Foreign imports and exports 100,000 dwt bring iron ore into the the movements of these commodities refer to traffic between the United Port although they are not able to in 1972, were foreign imports with an States and foreign- ports. Coastwise fully load due to channel depth restric- additional 17 percent classified as receipts and shipments apply to tions. Aluminum, manganese, chro- domestic receipts. Practically all of domestic traffic receiving a carnage miurri, and other non-ferrous ores and these inbound movements were raw or over the ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico concentrates comprise the remaining 7 partially processed materials shipped (e.g., New Orleans or Puerto Rico to percent of metallic ore imports. Im- to Baltimore for further processing by Baltimore). Internal receipts and ship- ports of non-ferrous metals are pro- factories in the Port area. These activi- ments are confined to inland water- s are especially important to the ways such as Chesapeake Bay I jected to increase at the same rate as tie iron ore imports. local economy because they generate jobs and income. Except for sugar a. Baltimore Harbor: As shown in imports, which are expected to remain Figure 22, bulk commodities, especi- Because of its proximity to the Appa- constant over the projection period, ally petroleum and ore, are expected lachian coal fields in northern West the other commodities in the miscel- to continue to dominate waterborne Virginia and Pennsylvania, Baltimore is laneous bulk category are projected to traffic in the Port of Baltim ore. Gen- one of the leading coal exporting ports exhibit moderate increases in the level eral cargo movements, however, are in the United States. Approximately of shipments. The vessels carrying mis- expected to increase significantly over 90 percent of the coal shipped out of cellaneous bulk commodities are not the projection period so that@ by 2020 Baltimore is used in the production of as large as those carrying petroleum, the tonnage moved is expected to be coke for foreign steel industries, coal, ore, or grain. The largest vessels higher than any other single com- mainly in Japan and Western Europe. are about 35,000 dwt with up to 37 modity category. The remainder is used in electric foot drafts but the average is much power generation. The average vessel smaller. The industrial commercial, @and resi- exporting coal out of Baltimore is in dential compiex surrounding Balti- the 35-55,000. dwt range with 37 to . Approximately two-thirds of the total consumes 42-foot drafts, although bulk coal car- general cargo commerce through the more , huge amounts of petroleum fuels for heating, process- riers up to 120,000 dwt with 47-foot Port in 1972 was foreign in origin or ing, and transportation purposes. The drafts have called on the Port. Again, destination. All of the increase in most important bulk oil coinmodities due to channel depth restrictions, waterborne movements of these com- are residual fuel, gasoline, and distil- these vessels are not able to load to modities is expected to be foreign late fuel. Approximately 90 p ercent of capacity. traffic. The majority of the projected the bulk oil movements were inbound general cargo commerce is expected to from the Caribbean area, the U.S. Gulf In 1972, Baltimore exported approxi- be containerized. Domestic move- Coast, or the Delaware Ri ver. The mately 2.9 million short tons of grain, ments of general cargo are not ex- remainder were barge shipments, although the average annual export for pected to increase over the projection mostly to points within Chesapeake the last 5 years of record was only 1.5 period due to stiff competition from Bay. The tankers from the Caribbean million short tons. The major types of railroads and trucks in the movement areas are typically in the 25-55,000 grain exported in 1972 were corn (45 of often time-sensitive general cargo deadweight ton (dwt) size wi up to percent) soybeans and soybean meal commodities. The major foreign and 39-foot drafts. Tankers from the Gulf (40 percent), and wheat (13 percent). domestic general cargo commodities Coast range in size up to 75,000 dwt Over two-thirds of the grain exported shipped through Baltimore are listed in with 42-foot drafts. from Baltimore in 1972 was destined Table 24. Most of the container ships for Western Europe. Because of the currently calling on Baltimore are in Baltimore's large primary metals indus- relatively small volumes of grain the 15,000-20,000 dwt range with try is dominated by the Bethlehem exported through Baltimore, the aver- drafts between 28 to 32 feet. Steel Corporation, which employs age size vessel calling on the Port for roughly three-quarters of the workers grain (15-30,000 dwt with 28 to 35- in the industry. As a result, about 93 foot drafts) is significantly smaller b. Hampton Roads: Figure 23 percent of the metallic ore imports in than the standard world fleet grain shows that the export of coal will 1972 consisted of iron ore usela in the carriers. Occasionally, however, much continue to dominate waterborne 68 TABLE 24 commerce during the projection MAJOR GENERAL CARGO COMMODITIES period. As in the case of Baltimore, AND TYPE OF TRAFFIC, BALTIMORE HARBOR, 1972 general cargo movements are expected Tons Percent to show highly significant increases Foreign (Thousands) of Total over the projection period. Waterborne movements of commodities in the Bananas and Plantains (1) 383 8.5 remaining categories are expected to Lumber (1) 380 8.4 decrease slightly or show only mod- erate increases over the projection Metal Products (I & E) 1,272 28.3 period. Standard Newsprint (1) 100 2.2 The most important commodities Miscellaneous Chemicals (I & E) 294 6.5 within the bulk oil group were residual fui gasoline, and distillate fuel, ac- Cars and Other Transportation counting for about 92 percent of the Equipment (I & E) 500 11.1 bulk oil waterborne movements in Machinery (I & E) 285 6.3 1972. Approximately three-quarters of the bulk off passing through the port Other Miscellaneous 1,301 28.7 complex is either foreign or domestic inbound. Most of the remaining move- Total 4,515 100.0 ments consist of petroleum distributed from Hampton Roads by barge to Domestic points within Chesapeake Bay. The major reason for the projected decline Metal Products (S) 1,175 54.2 in the level of inbound bulk oil move- ments to Hampton Roads is the ex- Miscellaneous Chemicals (S) 216 10.0 pected significant planned cutbacks in Agricultural, Food, and Marine residual fuel use by public utilities. Products (R & S) 174 8.0 This type of use accounted for approx- imately one-half of the total petro- Lumber (R) 86 4.0 leum consumption in the area in 1972. Other Miscellaneous 514 23.8 Increases in gasoline and distillate fuel movements are expected to almost Total 2,165 100.0 offset the decreases in residual use. I = Imports E = Exports R Receipts S Shipments Vessels carrying bulk oil commodities Figure 23: Projected Waterborne Commerce - Hampton Roads Bulk Grain Miscellaneous Bulk Bulk Coal (Exports) (Millions of Short Tons) (Exports) (Millions of Short Tons) (Millions of Short Tons) Bulk Oil General Cargo (Inbound Only) (Foreign Only) (Millions of Short Tons) @Millions of Short Tons) 31.6 8.8 L ,is :@@ 1972 @@1980 @@2000 2020 69 Awe $ W @AVI aw- -MAN. NOW AV kl 51a., . ..... .. .. ....- into Hampton Roads are generally although ships in the 100,000 dwt feet. Table 25 lists the major foreign about the same size as those calling on class occasionally call on the port. cargo commodities passing through the Port of Baltimore (i.e., up to Hampton Roads. 75,000 dwt with 42-foot drafts from the Gulf Coast refineries and usually Sand, gravel, and crushed rock ac- c. Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. between 25-55,000 dwt with up to counted for almost one-half of the Commerce through the C&D Canal is 39-foot drafts from the Caribbean). total movements in the miscellaneous dominated by domestic movements of These vessels, however, can normally bulk category. Other important com- bulk oil and foreign movements of enter Hampton Roads loaded to a modities are limestone, building general cargo which together ac- deeper draft due to deeper channel cement, and fertilizers. The com- counted for approximately 70 percent depths, higher tidal range, and higher modities in this category are raw or of the total traffic in 1972. The C&D salinities. partially-processed materials shipped Canal serves as a major passagewa@ for into Hampton Roads from foreign and oceangoing vessels calling at Balti- Hampton Roads is the most strategi- domestic sources for further process- more. In 1972, approximately 58 per- cally located port in the United StaW ing (most by factories in the port area) cent of the vessels engaged in foreign with respect to the rich Appalachian or for distribution without processing. traffic destined for or leaving Balti- cog fields. Hampton Roads annually Movements of sand, gravel, and more traveled through the C&D Canal. accounts for about 90 percent of the crushed rock are by barge while vessels Figure 24 shows the projected levels of total U.S. overseas export. Approxi- 'carrying the other commodities gen- commerce for bulk oil and general mately 90 percent of the coal exports erally average around 15,000 to cargo. Both types of traffic are pro- leaving Hampton Roads consist of 20,000 dwt with drafts of approxi- jected to show moderate increases over bituniinous coal for the production of mately 30 feet. Slightly over 80 per- the projection period. coke for metallurgical purposes with cent of the total general cargo traffic the remainder being used for electric was categorized - as either foreign In addition to bulk oil and general power generation. About one-half of imports or exports. About 60 percent cargo, there are significantly smaller these exports in 1972 were shipped to of the foreign traffic was containerized quantities of bulk coal, bulk ore, bulk Japan with the majority of the remain- in 1970. These container vessels are grain, and miscellaneous bulk com- der going to Western Europe, The generally in the 15,000 to 20,000 dwt modities passing through the C&D average size vessel carrying coal out of range with drafts of between 28 to 32 Canal. These movements were assumed Hampton Roads is in the 50-75,000 dwt range with 38-46-foot drafts. TABLE25 However, vessels of over 100,000 dwt MAJOR FOREIGN GENERAL CARGO COMMODITIES are not uncommon. The largest ship to AND TYPE OF TRAFFIC, HAMPTON ROADS, 1972 ever call on the port was a vessel of 169,430 dwt which loaded coal bound Tons Percent for Japan, Due to depth restrictions, (Thousands) of Total the vessel could not fully load. Lumber, Veneer, Plywood, and Other Wood Products (I & E) 246 10.6 Although far behind export coal, bulk Tobacco Leaf (I & E) 233 10.0 grain is the second largest export commodity passing through Hampton Machinery (I & E) 156 6.7 Roads. Most of the grains exported through the port were grown in the Motor Vehicles (I & E) 103 4.4 Midwestern and South Atlantic states Basic Textile Products (I & E) 131 5.6 and are generally shipped to Western and Eastern European countries. The Metal Products (I & E) 268 11.5 major types of grains handled are corn, Pulp and Paper Products (I & E) 118 5.1 wheat, and soybeans and soybean meal. Due to the relatively small vol- Vegetable Oils, Margarine, umes of export grain handled at Shortening (E) 88 3.8 Hampton Roads, the vessels carrying Miscellaneous Chemicals (I & E) 88 3.8 these commodities are significantly smaller than those handling coal. The Other Miscellaneous 897 38.5 average vessel is in the 25-35,000 dwt range with 32 to 26-foot drafts, TOTAL 2,328 100.0 I = Imports E = Exports 71 to remain constant duringl the pro- jection period at the 1965-1972 aver- Bulk Oil General Cargo age of about 1.1 million short tons (Domestic Only) (Foreign) although the potential exists for sub- (Millions of Short Tons) (Millions of Short Tons) stantial increases if a significant num- ber of Northeastern power plants switch to coal. d. James River. Major flows of traffic on the James River consist of internal barge receipts of bulk oil at Richmond, Hopewell, and the Virginia 5,7 @6@O Electric and Power Company's Ches- 4.1 4,5 4.2 terfield power plant and internal barge 3.6 movements of commodities other than bulk oil (mostly sand and gravel). These two traffic flows accounted for 1972 1980 2000 2020 84 percent of the total waterborne Figure 24: Projected Waterbome Commerce - Chesapeake and Delaware Canal movements on the James in 1972. Figure 25 shows the prqje@tions of Figure 25: Projected Waterbome Commerce - James River bulk oil and internal shipm ents for Bulk Oil Internal Traffic commodities other than bulk oil for (internal Receipts) (Other Than Bulk Oil) the James. These two commodity cate- (Millions of Short Tons) (Millions of Short Tons) gories are expected to con@tinue to dominate James River waterborne commerce in the future accounting for WL over 90 percent of the total raffic in the year 2020. There were also oceangoing move- Nit, ments of chemicals and general cargo 4-9 R -.W 3.7 .4@3 commodities passing through Rich- mond and Hopewell which totaled about 500,000 short tons in 072 but averaged 740,000 tons o Iver the 1970-72 period. Total oceangoing 1972 _L_____7. 1980 2000 2020 commerce is assume to remain con- stant at approximately 740,000 short Figure 26: Projected Waterborne Bulk Figure 2 7: Projected Waterbome Bulk tons over the projection period. Oil Commerce - Potomac River. Oil Commerce - York River. Potomac River York River general cargo The oceangomg vessels Bulk Oil Bulk Oil /Calling at James River ports average (Millions of Short Tons) (Millions of Short Tons) about 5,000 dwt with about 22-foot drafts, although there are some vessels up to 12,000 dwt with loaded drafts of 30 feet. Most of the dry cargo ships and tankers handling c emic s are in the 20,000 dwt class with loaded drafts of over 30 feet. Since the main channel to the Richmond-Hopewell area has an authorized depth of only 25 feet, the larger vessels are not able to load to capacity. 'o :4, 5 5.7 e. Potomac River: Traffic on the Potomac is dominated by the move- ment of bulk oil into the River to help 1972 =980 =000 @020 1972 =980 =2000 =2020 72 satisfy the Washington Metropolitan Chesapeake Bay. Large oceangoing the Washington area, the total pro- Area's tremendous demand for energy. tankers, most in the 25-55,000 dwt jected bulk oil imports and receipts at This type of traffic accounted for size range with between 35 and 38- Piney Point illustrated in Figure 26 approximately 87 percent of the total foot drafts, as well. as barges from indicate a sizable increase in bulk oil commerce on the Potomac in 1972. domestic sources, carry petroleum movements on the Potomac over the Most of the remaining traffic consisted products into the Steuart facility next fifty years. This is due to large of internal barge movements of sand where they are unloaded and redistrib- projected increases in waterborne and gravel to the Washington area uted by pipeline and barge to the imports and receipts of gasoline, distil- from points along the Potomac River Washington, D.C., and Southern Mary- late fuel, and other "clean" petroleum and foreign imports of newsprint into land areas. The Possum Point power products expected as a result of higher Alexandria, Virginia. plant, owned by VEPCO, is the only than average increases in income and major petroleum products user on the population in the Washington area in Waterborne bulk oil commodities des- river which has fuel sent directly to its the future. tined for Washington are handled by plant, bypassing the Piney Point the Steuart Petroleum Company's facility. facility at Piney Point, Maryland, approximately 13 miles upstream from Despite expected significant decreases Traffic other than bulk oil on the the confluence of the Potomac with in residual fuel use by power plants in River is expected to remain at a fairly Figure 28: Projected Waterbome Commerce for Selected Commodities- Wicomico, constant 500,000 short tons during Nanticoke, Rappahannock, and Choptank and Tred Avon Rivers the projection period. Wicomico River Nanticoke River Bulk Oil Bulk Oil f. York River. The largest oil refin-' (Millions of Short Tons) (Millions of Short Tons) ery in the Chesapeake Bay Region is located near the mouth of the York River at Yorktown. Although the 50,000 barrel/day refinery is not large by Delaware River or Gulf Coast standards where plants with capacities of 200,000 barrels/day are not un- common, the facility still accounted 1.0 for almost five million short tons of 0.6 0.7 0.6 waterborne petroleum commerce in 0.5 1972, Total waterborne commerce on @0 -I the York River in 1972 totaled 6.5 million short tons of which bulk oil Rappahannock River Choptank and commodities accounted for approxi- Bulk Oil Tred Avon Rivers mately 89 percent of the total. Other (Millions of Short Tons) Total Commerce major users of bulk oil include a power (Millions of Short Tons) plant at Yorktown, the only major pulp and paper mill in the Chesapeake Ba y Region at West Point, Virginia, and the U.S. Navy at Cheatham. Total bulk oil projections are presented in Figure 27. The capacity of the York- town refinery is projected to increase to approximately 170,000 barrels/day by 2020. ,Jg 1.0 Most of the vessels carrying crude petroleum into the Yorktown refinery 0.4 0.5 are in the 70,000 dwt class with 0.1 FO -.3 - 41-foot drafts. These ships are unable 1972 1980 2000 2020 to -fully load due to depth restrictions in the York River approach channel. 73 g. Other Waterways. The FUTURE SUPPLY branch channels within these port Wicomico, Nanticoke, and Rappahan- complexes vary considerably. With the nock Rivers are expected to continue METHODOLOGY exception of the Chesapeake and Dela- to be dominated by inbound barge ware Canal, which primarily serves the movements of bulk oil. As shown in The future supply analysis is actually Port of Baltimore, and the York River Figure 28, the Rappahannock 'River is an analysis of the capacity of a harbor Entrance Channel, which handles expected to experience by far the or waterway in terms of channel petroleum products, the remaining most significant increases in bulk oil depths. The following section will pre- Federal channels are 25 feet in depth movements of these three waterways sent a general inventory of existing or less and handle barge traffic almost mainly due to "spillover" into the area and authorized channel depths for the exclusively. Table 26 lists the Feder- from the fast-growing Washington Met- major waterways and harbors in the ally authorized main channel depths ropolitan Area. The Wicomico and Chesapeake Bay Region. A more de- for the ports and waterways for which Nanticoke Rivers are expected to tailed listing of channel depths by projections were prepared in this experience only moderate increases in commodity for each port considered study. bulk oil movements over the projec- in this analysis is presented in Table tion period. Of these three rivers, only 9-6 of Appendix 9 - "Navigation." The deepening of the main channel to the Rappahannock has any significant The basic assumption made in this Baltimore to 50 feet was authorized movements of commodities ot4er than assessment of future supply is that by Congress in 1970. Preconstruction bulk oil. About 40 percent of the there will be no further development planning for this project has recently commerce on the river consisted of of the Bay's navigation system beyond been initiated. In addition, the Balti- industrial chemicals, pulpwood and the channel improvement projects more District has recently completed a seafood. Movements of these com- which are currently authorized. These study recommending that the Federal modities on the! Rappahannock are "without project" projections of sup- government assume the responsibility assumed to remain constant at the ply can then be compared to the "with for the maintenance of the 25-foot 1970-1972 level of approximately project" demand projections to iden- municipal channel at Cambridge, 170,000 short tons. tify specific areas or types of uses Maryland and the Tred Avon River where future use may be greater than was recently dredged from the old Virtually all of the traffic @on the the existing capacity of the resource. channel depth of 8 feet to the new Choptank River (including the Tred project depth of 12 feet. Avon, River) Was inbound, with about CHANNEL CAPACITIES 10 percent being foreign oceangoing Although dredging of the C & D Canal imports and the remainder classified as There are a great variety of channel to the new project depth of 35 feet internal barge receipts in 1972. Bulk depths in Chesapeake Bay and its from 27 feet was recently completed oil commodities accounted for a rela- tributaries. Baltimore and Hampton by the Philadelphia District of the tively small 40 percent of the total Roads contain the only major deep- Corps of Engineers, the approach waterborne commerce. Other impor- water ports in the Study Area with channel to the Canal from Baltimore tant commodity flows on the Chop- existing main channel depths of 42 has experienced serious shoaling. The tank include slag (used for construc- and 45 feet, respectively. The dimen- newly deepened C & D Canal cannot tion purposes), fertilizer, and fresh fish sions of both public and private be used efficiently unless the approach shipped from Iceland to Cambridge for processing. The majority of e Pro- jected increase in total traffic on the TABLE 26 Choptank River, illustrated in Figure FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED MAIN CHANNEL DEPTHS AT 28, is accounted for by increases in SELECTED PORTS AND WATERWAYS, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION traffic other than bulk oil or fresh fish. Port or Waterway Authorized Depth (feet) Bulk oil movements are expected to show only moderate increases while Baltimore Harbor and Channels 50* imports of fresh fish are projected to Hampton Roads 45 York River Entrance Channel 37 decline slowly, but steadily, during the York River (to West Point) 22 projection period. The vessels involved James River (to Richmond) 35 in the importation of fresh fish are Wicomico River (to Salisbury) 14 refrigerated fishing craft which range Nanticoke River (to Seaford) '12 in size up to 4,100 dwt with 22-foot Rappahannock River (to Fredericksburg) 12 Choptank River (to Denton) 8 drafts. These vessels are able to take Tred Avon River (to Easton) 12 advantage of the municipal channel in Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 35 Cambridge which has a project depth of 25 feet. *Existing depth in main channel is 42 feet. 74 channel is dredged to the 35 foot to handle present or projected ship The most critical commodity move- project depth. sizes without serious losses in eco- ments in terms of existing or potential nomic efficiency. These losses develop inefficiencies through the Ports of when large vessels must enter or leave Baltimore and Hampton Roads are the Although an authorized depth of 35 a port only partially loaded because of bulk commodities such as iron ore, feet was authorized for the James depth limitations. When these effi- coal, grain, and petroleum products. River in 1962, a follow-up study com- ciency losses are severe enough to Most of the - larger vessels carrying pleted in 1972 found that dredging to outweigh any competitive advantage these commodities into the two ports the 35-foot depth was no longer an area might have for the movement cannot fully load or must lighter economically justified. of a certain commodity, severe eco- before entering the harbor. nomic consequences may result. In the case of imported raw materials pro- In the case of Baltimore Harbor, the FUTURE NEEDS AND cessed in the port area, economic authorized 50-foot project, if con- PROBLEM AREAS losses may be severe enough to cause structed, will elin-dnate most of these cutbacks in production or even plant inefficiencies. Despite the very large There are several types of commodity closings resulting in the loss of jobs, increases expected in containerized movements on Chesapeake Bay in income, and tax revenues to the traffic in Baltimore, channel depths which the existing channels are unable region. are not expected to be a constraint 7@ 7@71_ Yn" 7 sd F 'k MIM Elm 75 due to the relatively small size of to the movement of containerships alternative is a combination of con- containerships when compared to the through Hampton Roads. tinued lightering and deepening of the world fleet of tankers and ore carriers. York River entrance.channel. The dredge material disposal situation has not been nearly as critical in the A potential problem area concerns the Another major navigation-related Hampton Roads area as in Baltimore. significant increase in crude petroleum problem in the Baltimore Harbor area This is due to the existence of the receipts and petroleum product ship- is the disposal of dredged material. Craney Island Disposal Area. The site ments projected for the Yorktown Maintenance dredging by tht Corps of is nearing its capacity, however, with refinery. An increase in this type of Engineers and other public and private complete filling expected around traffic, estimated to rise almost 100 interests has been repeatedly delayed 1980. percent by 2000 and over 200 percent because of the lack of agreement on an by 2020, means the potential for oil economically and enviyo mrientally The seriousness of this approaching spills will probably also increase. The acceptable disposal site for the problem becomes evident when it is area of the York River around York- dredged material. The magnitude of noted that maintenance dredging alone town supports important commercial the disposal problem is immense. If between 1980 and 2020 will produce and sport fisheries which could be the 50-foot project is completed, it is approximately 150 million cubic yards adversely affected by an oil spill. estimated that approximately 150 mil- of material to be disposed of or lion cubic yards of dredge material will utilized in some manner. If, for The ability of the existing channels in have to be disposed of during the next example, a 55-foot channel deepening the remaining so-called "minor" ports 50 years (including maintenance). This alternative is undertaken, the total and waterways on the Western Shore quantity of material is sufficient to dredged material involved increases to of the Chesapeake Bay to meet future cover the entire City of Baltimore to a approximately 280 million cubic yards demands depends in large measure on depth of approximately 2 feet. A by the year 2020 (assuming a 10-year the proportion of the demand for suitable disposal site will be identified development period). petroleum products which will be met during preconstruction planning for by pipeline. A basic assumption used the 50-foot project. With the recent widening and deepen- in the preparation of the projections ing of the Chesapeake and Delaware of waterborne petroleum movements Canal to 35 feet, it is believed that was that all increases in the demand In the Hampton Roads area, ineffi- channel dimensions will not be a con- for petroleum products in the Bay ciencies in the movement of export straint to the general cargo vessels and Region would be met by waterborne, coal, grain, and. some of the miscel- petroleum products carriers which use as opposed to pipeline, receipts. If laneous bulk commodities would be the Canal. However, the need for pipeline capacities increase signifi- greatly alleviated if a deeper channel maintenance dredging in the approach cantly, then it can be expected that were to be authorized and funded. The channels to the Canal is a continuing the existing channels will be able to Norfolk District of the Corps of Engi- problem. efficiently meet future demands. If neers is currently investigating the they do not, then some channel deep- feasibility of deepening the Hampton The most immediate waterborne com- enings may be necessary. Roads channels. A deeper channel merce related problem facing the York might also benefit the movement of River is the lack of sufficient channel Another potential future problem area crude oil through Hampton Roads to depth to allow large tankers to bring involves the possible location of three the refinery at Yorktown on@the York crude petroleum and petroleum prod- large petroleum refineries (Crown River by allowing larger tankers (i.e., ucts directly to the refinery and power Petroleum in Baltimore, Hampton up to 90,000 dwt) to enter Hampton plant without lightering. In 1972, the Roads Energy in Portsmouth, and Roads where they can be lightered for Norfolk District recommended that Stewart Petroleum at Piney Point, the trip to Yorktown. One @disadvan- the York River entrance channel be Maryland). If all three of these facil- tage of this plan would be the possibly improved by providing a two-lane, ities are built and become operational, damaging environmental consequence .s two4evel channel into the River; the approximately 25 million additional of a major oil spill during these li ter- inbound lane to provide a depth of 50 tons of crude petroleum and as much ing operations. feet, and the outbound lane a depth of as 23.5 million tons of petroleum 37 feet. However, these recommenda- products could be shipped on the As in the Baltimore Harbor Icase, the tions are subject to further investiga- Bay's waters. An expansion in petro- container vessels carrying gen, ral cargo tion if the major Hampton Roads leum movements of this magnitude in and out of Hampton Roads are not channels are recommended and would obviously increase the chances expected to increase significantly in authorized for deepening beyond 45 of environmentally damaging oil spills. size in the foreseeable future. There- fore, it is not expected that channel feet. It is possible that if the Hampton Another facility designed to handle depths will be a significant constraint Roads channel is deepened beyond 50 petroleum products, although of a feet, the most economically acceptable 76 different type, is scheduled to begin MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS acceptable for economic, environ- operations at Cove Point, Maryland, in mental, or social reasons. the near future. This facility will dis- This section presents the major exist- tribute liquid natural gas from Algeria ing or potential waterborne commerce (2) A need for an economically to a seven state area. Because of the related needs as identified in previous and environmentally acceptable extremely low temperatures involved, sections and a brief discussion of some method of dredge material disposal. there is virtually no danger of a spill of the alternatives which could be Given that a channel should be main- since the liquid gas would vaporize employed to satisfy these needs. tained or deepened, there are numer- upon contact with the much warmer ous alternative ways to dispose of air. There is some potential damage, (1) A need @o accommodate large dredge material. The cheapest and however, of a fire or explosion in the bulk vessels expected to dominate the easiest method of dredge material dis- event of a collision with another ves- world bulk trade in petroleum, coal, posal is to deposit the material either sel. Because of this, extraordinary iron ore, and grain. The most obvious adjacent to the channel or to barge it safety procedures are taken when solution to the problem of accom- to a nearby deep underwater site. In transporting liquid natural gas. As the modating larger vessels than existing the past, there were two major open total number of vessels on Chesapeake channels can handle is to deepen the water disposal sites used in the Bay- Bay increases in the future, the poten- channels to the required depths. There Pooles Island Deep and Kent Island. tial for collisions is also likely to are, however, rather important eco- At this time, however, mainly for increase. nomic and environmental considera- environmental reasons, the use of open tions which may preclude further water disposal in the Bay in the near deepening. First, there are existing future appears unlikely. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS tunnels under the main channels in both Baltimore and Hampton Roads Open water disposal in the Atlantic When OBERS Series E based projec- which, in effect, limit their depths Ocean is another possibility for the tions of waterborne commerce are since the cost of lowering these tun- disposal of dredge material. The major compared to those used in this report nels would p@robably be prohibitive. advantage to this alternative is the (Series C based), significant decreases Second, as channel depths increase, almost limitless physical capacity of in the projected level of traffic for the volume of dredge material to be the ocean. This alternative has been many commodities are noted. This was disposed of from both deepening and used in the past in the Hampton Roads particularly true in the Baltimore area maintenance operations increases area, but- the Baltimo 'm area-is too far where a slower rate of growth in (usually more than proportionately). from the ocean for this type of dis- defense-related manufacturing was posal to be economically feasible. forecast under Series E. For example, There are several alternatives to the projections of iron ore imports deepening of shipping channels to In addition, the Council on Environ- through Baltimore are expected to accommodate larger vessels. One is to mental Quality has recommended to remain below 10 niillion short tons use "restricted draft" vessels which are the President that ocean disposal of throughout the projection period as characterized by much wider beams to polluted dredge material be phased out compared to projected imports of over allow a larger tonnage of cargo to be as soon as alternatives can be found 22 niillion short tons using OBERS carried by a vessel of a given draft. and implemented. Series C as a base. In Hampton Roads, However, such vessels are not pres- Another alternative method of dredge general decreases in waterborne com- ently widely available and their costs merce are. due in large part to an are generally higher for a given dead- material disposal is a dyked contain- assumed decline in the Nation's mili- weight tonnage. ment structure. Both the Craney tary force under Series E projections. Island site, which has served the Hampton Roads dredge needs for a Another alternative to deepening exist- number of years, and the proposed Most of the smaller ports and water- ing channels is the development of Hart-Miller Islands site in Baltimore ways also showed some reduction in so-called "superports." Under this are this type of structure. These speci- the level of traffic due to the generally alternative, one or more superports fic projects are discussed in more lower levels of population and income would be constructed in deep water detail in Appendix 9. In general, projected under Series E assumptions. off the Eastern Coast. Very large dyked disposal sites are one of the The major exceptions to this gen- vessels, on the order of 300,000 dwt least expensive forms of disposal and erality are the Potomac, Rappahan- with approximately 75 foot drafts 'they can eventually support such uses nock, and York Rivers. Table 9-7 in would unload at the deepwater ter- as ballfields, parks, nature trails, and Appendix 9 presents a detailed com- ininal where the cargo (e.g., crude oil, boat launching ramps. Local accept- parison of waterborne commerce pro- coal, iron ore) would be transported to ance of these usually very large struc- jections based on Series C and Series E the mainland by biirge or pipeline. tures has been very hard to secure in assumptions. However, this alternative is often not the past due to the disruption caused 77 by the construction and fill ing opera- and sailing, fishing, swinuriing, and facilities. The present and future needs fions. nature areas. Lightering sites, espe- for lands to be used for port-related cially for petroleum, should be located facilities requires that the appropriate Other methods of dredged material where possible accidents would have transportation and planning agencies disposal and/or utilization@ such as the least effects on recreation areas. of State and local governments de- underwater sanitary landfills, "on- velop zoning and land use plans that (5) A need to minimize the erosion will insure the orderly development of land" disposal at land-locked sites, damages firom waves caused by com- the necessary improvements. As part beach nourishment, or the I manufac- mercial and military vessels. As men- of the development of the appropriate ture of bricks, have econon-dc and environmental advantages and disad- tioned earlier, erosion caused by the land use plans, consideration will have I wakes from ships is a serious problem to be given to the impact on adjacent vantages depending on the project site, in some areas. The simplest corrective lands, the need for lands for com- quality of the dredged material, and other variables. For the most part, action is to lower permitted vessel peting uses such as recreation, and however, these alternatives are best speeds in areas of high erosion poten- conflicts with natural phenomenon tial, thus decreasing the eroding power suited for smaller projects and are not including hurricane flooding and solutions to long-range or lar1ge dredge of the ship-induced waves. Today's shoreline erosion. material disposal pro le s. merchant ships, however, are ex- tremely expensive to operate so that (3) A need to allev' te potential delays caused by reduced speed limits FLOOD CONTROL congestion proble s in ort@ channel, could increase shipping costs con- and anchorage areas. One @ possible siderably, thereby offsetting any bene- CURRENT STATUS solution to the potential congestion fit to the shoreline areas affected by and traffic management problems was erosion. Another possible solution to THE TIDAL FLOODING recently recommended by the Fifth the erosion problem would be the PROBLEM Coast Guard District to the Comman- provision of non-structural or struc- dant in Washington, D.C. After a two tural shoreline protection measuresin Since man first settled on the shoreline year study of 'the movements of com- the critically eroding areas. of Chesapeake Bay, he has been sub- mercial vessels on esapeake- Bay, ject to periodic tidal flooding which Coast G uard m ' e safety experts (6) A need to minimize accidental has resulted in immeasurable human recommended implementation of a spills and eliminate deliberate dis- suffering and millions of dollars of comprehensive traffic management charges of wastes from commercial property damage. Serious tidal flood- system. The plan, which was oriented and recreation craft. As discussed ing in the Chesapeake Bay Region is towards the Port of Baltimore and earlier, a comprehensive traffic man- caused by either hurricanes or "north- specifically to the movement @ of liquid agement system for the Bay would easters." Hurricanes which reach the natural gas into the Cove Point ter- reduce the potential for a collision or Middle Atlantic States are usually minal south of Baltimore, would re- accident that could result in a massive formed either in the Cape Verde quire the installation of government- spill. Appropriate Federal, State, and Region or the western Caribbean Sea operated communications centers at local controls with substantial pen- and move westerly and northwesterly. both ends of the Bay. With @this net- alties for non-compliance would prob- In most cases these storms change to a work, marine traffic could @be con- ably be effective in reducing the northerly and northeasterly direction trolled in a manner similar to air number of occurrences. Lastly, re- in the vicinity of the East Coast of the traffic at a major international airport. sponse teams can and are being estab- United States. This management responsibility has lished at Federal, State, and local traditionally been delegated to ship levels to minimize damage in the event As a hurricane progresses over the pilots and captains. The Coast Guard of an accidental spill. open water of the ocean, a tidal surge had not yet made a final decision on is built up, not only by the force of the Fifth District's recommendations. In response to Public Law 92-500 the the wind and the forward movement provision of holding tanks or other of the storm wind field, but also by (4) A need to minimize the poten- suitable flow-through devices on all differences in atmospheric pressure tial conflicts between commercial and ships will be very effective in elimi- accompanying the storm. The actual recreational users of the Bay's waters nating this problem. Attendant with height reached by a hurricane tidal and beaches. Minimizing potential con- the inclusion of ship board tanks and surge and the consequent damages flicts between commercial and recrea- devices is the need for shore-based incurred depend on many factors in- tional uses of Chesapeake Bay can best facilities that can treat the effluent cluding shoreline configuration, bot- be minimized by a careful selection of pumped from ships. tom slope, difference in atmospheric dredge material disposal sites,lanchor- pressure and wind speed. Generally the ages, and even channels to avoid, (7) A need to provide additional tidal surge is increased as the storm whenever possible, popular boating lands to accommodate expandingport approaches land because of both the 78 decreasing depth of the ocean and the TABLE27 contours of the coastline. An addi. TIDAL ELEVATIONS DURING RECENT CHESAPEAKE BAY STORMS tional rise usually occurs when the Storm Tidal Elevations (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) tidal surge invades a bay or estuary and hurricane winds drive waters to Norfolk Mid-Bay Washington Baltimore higher levels in the more shallow August 1933 8.0 7.3 9.6 8.2 waters. Tidal Surges are greater, and the tidal flooding more severe in September 1936 7.5 - 3.0 2.3 coastal communities which lie to the right of the storm path due to the October 1954 "Hazel" 3.3 4.8 7.3 6.0 counterclockwise spiraling of the hur- August 1955 "Connie" 4.4 4.6 S.2 6.9 ricane winds and the forward move- ment of the storm. August 19S5 "Diane" 4.4 4.5 5.6 5.0 "Northeaster" is a term given to a high April 19S6 "Northeaster" 6.5 2.8 4.0 3.3 intensity storm which almost invari- March 1962 "Northeaster" 7.4 6.0 - 4.7 ably develops near the Atlantic Coast. These storms form so rapidly that an apparently harmless weather situation floods was seldom accurately docu- continued in a northerly direction may be transformed into a severe mentied and it was not until the early passing just east of Washington, D.C. It storm in as little as 6 hours. Most part of the 20th century that a pro- moved at or near the critical speed for northeasters occur in the winter gram to maintain continuous records producing the maximum surge, and its months when the temperature con- of tidal elevations was initiated. The time of arrival coincided with the trasts between the continental and damages and loss of life suffered dur- astronomical high tide as it proceeded maritime air masses are the greatest. ing these early floods is also not well upstream. The results were tides rang- The East Coast of the United States documented. ing from 8.0 feet above mean sea level has a comparatively high incidence of (msl) at Norfolk to as high as 11.0 feet this type of storm, with the area near Shown in Table 27 are the recorded (msl) at Washington, D.C. In addition Norfolk, Virginia, being one of the tidal elevations at several locations for to flooding damage, the high winds centers of highest frequency. the most severe floods that have oc- associated with this storm generated curred in this Century. It should be very destructive waves which caused In the course of recorded history, the noted that the relative severity of extensive shoreline erosion. Chesapeake Bay Region has been sub- flooding varies around the Bay since it jected to about 100 storms that have is a function of changes in storm paths Shown in Table 28 is an estimate of caused damaging tidal flooding. The and variances in climatological and the damages that were caused by the accounts of most of the storms that astronon-dcal tide conditions. four most damaging storms that have occurred prior to 1900 are very brief passed through the Bay Region. The and are usually found only in early The hurricane of 23 August 1933 was estimates reflect the actual physical newspaper articles and private jour- the most destructive ever recorded. damages that occurred, updated to nals. The earliest known account of a The hurricane center entered the main- reflect 1975 price levels. These figures great storm in this Area appeared in land near Cape Hatteras, passed do not reflect the damages that would Arthur P. Middleton's Tobacco Coast. slightly west of Norfolk, Virginia, and result from a recurrence of these This storm was the great "Hurry- Cane" of August 1667 in which fields TABLE 28 were inundated, crops were torn to TIDAL FLOOD DAMAGES OF RECENT CHESAPEAKE BAY STORMS shreds, houses and barns were carried Location Storms and Damages in Thousands of Dollars away, and even the largest vessels were washed up on the beach. J. Thomas October 1954 August 1955 Scharf, in his History of Baltimore August 1933 "Hazel" "Connie" March 1962 City and County, states that one of Baltimore Metro Area $23,500 $6,900 $11,500 Negligible the most destructive storms of later times occurred in July 1837. The Washington Metro Area 12,000 4,800 300 Negligible water rose twenty feet above its nor- Mal level and many sections of the city Maryland Tidewater Area 11,400 9,100 1,800 Negligible were flooded by more than five feet of Norfolk Metro Area 8,500 Negligible Negligible $ 4,800 water. However, the elevation and the area inundated by these early tidal Virginia Tidewater Area Negligible Negligible Negligible 24,700 79 storms under today's conditions due TABLE29 to differences in intensity of develop- FLOODPRONE COMMUNITIES, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION ment in the flood plain. STATE OF MARYLAND STATE OF MARYLAND (Cont.) Anne Arundel County Somerset County FLOOD PROBLEMAREAS *Arundel on the Bay *Crisfield *Avalon Shores (Shady Side, Curtis *Smith Island Pt. to Horseshoe Pt. and West Existing flood problem areas were Shady Side) Talbot County identified by considering the degree of Broadwater -Ya-ston experi- Columbia Beach Oxford tidal flooding that would bel *Deale *St. Michaels enced by those communities located Eastport *Tilghman Island along the shoreline of the Bay and its Franklin Manor on the Bay tributaries. The analysis was li@ited to and Cape Anne Wicomico County communities or urbanized areas since Galesville Bivalve residential, commercial, and industrial Rose Haven Nanticoke development would suffer the @greatest *Baltimore City Salisbury monetary losses as a result of a tidal Worcester County flood. Baltimore County *Pocornoke City Back River Neck *Snow Hill *Dundalk (Including Sparrows Pt.) The initial step in the analysi was to *Middle River Neck COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA identify all Bay communities having a *Patapsco River Neck population of 1,000 or greater that are Independent Cities located either in total or in part within Calvert County *Fredericksburg the "Standard Project Tidal Flood Cove Point *Hampton North Beach on the Bay *Norfolk Plain." The Standard Project Tidal Solomons Island *Portsmouth Flood (SPTF) is efined as the largest *Virginia Beach tidal flood that is ikely to occ r under Caroline County *Chesapeake the most severe c mbination o If mete- Choptank *Denton Accomack County orological and hydrological conditions Federalsburg Onancock that are considered reasonably @charac- Saxis teristic of the geographic region. The Cecil County *Tangier Island Corps of Engineers in coop eration Elkton with the U.S. Weather Bureau deter- Northeast King George County mined that for the Chesapeake Bay Charles County *Dahlgren Region the SPTF would avel d@gv tip- Cobb Island King William County proximately 13 feet Labove mean sea *West Point level (msl). The above figure is Ia static Dorchester County or standing water surface elevation *Cambridge Northamgton County which would occur in conjunction Harford County *Cape Charles with an astronomical high tide and Havre de Grace Westmoreland Count does not include the effects of waves. *Colonial Beach Superimposing waves characteristic of Kent County a hurricane that would produce a tidal T-RockHall York County surge of 13 feet above msl,@ wave Queen Anne's County W-P-oquoson heights of approximately 5 feei could *WASHINGTON, D.C. be expected. Based on the above com- *Grasonville Stevensville bination of tidal surge and wave action the SFTF would inundate areas up to St. ary's County Colton approximately 18 feet above msi. However, for purposes of ease in' delin- *Piney Point eating the flood area, an elevation of St. Clement Shores 20 feet above msl was assumed for the St. George Island SPTF elevation. *Indicates "critically" floodprone communities. d I 0 The next step in the flooding a n ysis was to identify those communities 80 that should be classified as "flood- TABLE30 prone." In order for a community to CRITICAL FUTURE FLOODPRONE AREAS, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION be designated as floodprone, at least STATE OF MARYLAND STATE OF MARYLAND (Cont.) 50 acres of. land that were developed for intensive use had to be inundated Anne Arundel County Talbot County by the SPTF. Intensive land use was Arundel on the Bay St. Michaels defined as residential (four dwelling Baltimore County Wicomico County units/acre or greater), commercial Dundalk (Including Sparrows Point) Salisbury (including institutional), or industrial development. The 59 Bay Region com- Cecil County Worchester Cou munities identified as floodprone are Elkton Pocomoke City shown on Table 29. Approximately Northeast COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 82,000 acres of land in these com- Kent County munities were found to be located in Rock Hall Independent Cities the SPTF flood plain. Hampton Queen Anne's County Norfolk Grasonville Virginia Beach The last step in the flooding analysis Stevensville Chesapeake was to further examine the com- munities designated as floodprone and Somerset County York County classify each as to whether or not the -sinith Island -Fo-quoson tidal flood problem was considered to be "critical." The flood problem was considered to be critical if the Inter- shown on Table 30. Based on a com- Federally-subsidized National Flood mediate Regional Tidal Flood (IRTF) parison of the existing and future Insurance Program. A cooperative inundated 25 acres or more of inten- acreage it should be noted that an effort of the Federal Government and sively developed land and also caused additional 58,430 acres of land is the private insurance industry, the significant physical damage. The IRTF proposed for intensive development program is operated by the Federal is defined as that tidal flood which has within the Standard Project Tidal Insurance Administration of the U.S. a one percent chance of occurrence in Flood Plain and 19,460 acres of land Department of Housing and Urban any one year, generally referred to as within the 100-year flood plain. Development (HUD). In return for the 100-year flood. Elevations for the making low cost insurance available 100-year tidal flood were approxi- SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS for existing floodprone property, the mated for points around Chesapeake program places certain obligations Bay based on historical records. The The sensitivity of changing the criteria upon the community. The community flood heights used were found to range for the selection of the critical flood- is required to adopt and enforce land between 6.0 and 11.0 feet above msl. prone areas from the 100-year to the use and other control measures that The communities asterisked on Table 50-year flood was investigated. The will guide new development in flood- 29 are classified as "critical floodprone area inundated by the 50-year tide prone areas so that flood damage is areas." Approximately 27,000 acres of would be approximately 10 percent avoided or reduced. Most of the land in these 32 communities were less than the area inundated by the affected counties and local jurisdic- found to be in the 100-year tidal flood 100-year tide. While a 10 percent tions in the Region are enrolled in the plain. reduction in acreage is significant, it Flood Insurance Program. should be noted that all communities FUTURE TIDAL FLOOD listed in Table 30 would still be b. Floo d Proof'lng: Flood proofing PROBLEM AREAS classified as critical floodprone areas if is actually a combination of structural the 50-year tidal flood was adopted as a criteria. changes and adjustments to properties The criteria used for designating an subject to flooding. Although it is area as future floodprone was that 50 more econon-dcally applied to new acres or more of land proposed for MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS construction, it is also applicable to intensive land use fall within the existing facilities. Flood proofing is Standard Project Tidal Flood Plain. NON-STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS recommended where traditional collec- Areas were considered to be "criti- tive types of flood protection are not cally" floodprone if 25 acres or more a. Flood Insurance: Until recently, feasible and where moderate flooding of land proposed for intensive land use insurance against flood-caused losses with low stage, low velocity, and short were within the 100-year flood plain. was virtually non-existent. Now, how- duration is experienced. The communities found to be criti- ever, flood insurance is available in cally floodprone in the future are floodprone communities under the Flood proofing measures can be clas- 81 sified into three broad types. First, locations when a certain flood stage is providing a levee or floodwall of suf- there are permanent measures which reached. Again, an effective flood ficient height to protect against a become an integral part of the struc- warning system is crucial to the effec- major tidal flood could severely re- ture. Second, there are standby meas- tiveness of this type of measure. strict the use of the shoreline for ures which are used only during recreational or transportation and floods, but which are constructed or c. Other Non-Structural Measures: shipping purp oses. Also, the made ready prior to any flood threat. Other non-structural measures used in protection may be considered unac- Third, there are emergency@ measures reducing flood damages are: perma- ceptable from an aesthetic standpoint which are carried out during a flood nent or temporary evacuation of the if the view of the water body is according to a predetermined plan. flood plain, land use controls and restricted. building codes designed to control the Permanent measures essentially involve extent and type of future development A breakwater is another type of flood either the elimination of openings in the flood plain, and public aware- protection structure. It is designed to through which water can enter or the ness programs to make the potential break the force of storm waves and reorganization of space within build- hazards of tidal flooding known to the thus reduce the damage that would be ings. For example, unnecessary doors prospective developer and/or home- experienced by storm waves breaking and windows can be permanently owner. on shoreline development. Break- sealed with brick; a watertight flood waters are also used to create harbors shield at a doorway opening can also of refuge that provide safe mooring for serve as the door; valves can be in- STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS recreational and commercial craft. stalled on basement sewer pipes to Breakwaters may be either shore con- prevent flood water from backing up Structural solutions are defined as nected or located offshore and are into the basement; or boilers, air con- those man-made structures that are generally classified by either the con- ditioning units, and other immobile designed to protect an area from tidal struction materials or the method of machinery can be moved @to higher flood damages. Floodwalls and levees construction. Different types of break- elevations and replaced with movable are two examples of these types of waters may be constructed of stone or furniture or stock. Adjustments such structures. While differing in design, concrete blocks (rubble-mound break- as these can be most easily undertaken appearance, and cost, floodwalls and waters), stone-asphalt mixtures, rein- in existing buildings during periods of levees serve essentially the same pur- forced concrete shells filled wtih stone remodeling or expansion. pose. Both are constructed near the or sand, steel sheet piling cells filled shoreline to protect landside develop- with sand, timber cribs filled with Standby measures are most esirable ment from inundation by tidal flood- rubble, or mobile or floating break- in t@d when it is necessary to ain in access waters. Floodwalls are generally con- waters which may be moved into place into structures at points below se- crete and may have vertical, curved or when a tidal flood is predicted. The lected flood protection levels. For stepped faces. Levees are usually earth most common type of breakwater in example, display windows at com- embankments having a top width of the Chesapeake Bay Region is the mercial structures must not be blocked approximately 10 feet and side slopes shore connected, rubble-mound break- in order to serve their main@ purpose. that vary between I on 2 and I on 4. water. In the sheltered waters of the These types of openings cannot be Levees are generally less expensive Bay and the sub-estuaries this type of permanently flood proofed, @ but they than floodwalls and are particularly protection is very effective and usually can be fitted with removable flood applicable in areas where construction can be constructed with materials that shields. Since the placement and instal- materials are nearby and there is suf- are available locally. lation of such devices requires several ficient area between the shoreline and hours, a flood warning system has to the development for their construc- Recreational and commercial craft are be established before such flo6d proof- tion. Floodwalls may be used where particularly susceptible to damage ing measures can become effective. the close proximity of the develop- caused by the large waves associated ment to the shoreline precludes the with tidal flooding. Harbors of refuge Emergency meWuivao a1v Calried out construction of levees. provide areas of calm water for the during an actual flood experience. safe mooring of all types of craft. These measures may be designed to Because of the high cost of providing Harbors of refuge can be naturally keep water out of buildings, for this type of protection, the appli- sheltered areas such as coves or inlets example, the sandbagging of entrances cability of levees and floodwalls in the or existing marinas, and mooring areas or the use of planking covered over Bay Region would generally be limited protected through the use of break- with polyethylene sheeting. More to those highly developed urbanized waters as discussed above. often they are intended only to pro- areas where there is extensive residen- tect equipment and stock. A widely tial, commercial, or industrial develop- Other structural measures including used emergency measure is the ment that is subject to damaging bulkheads, revetments, groins, and planned removal of contents to higher flooding. It should also be noted that beach nourishment that are used pri- 92 marily for shoreline erosion control also have some applicability as flood control measures. A detailed descrip- tion of these measures is included in Hui, Appendix I I - Shoreline Erosion. U@ija-JFASTfEAJ46111 U I "hi MH 241 J NEARSHORE SHORELINE EROSION CURRENTSTATUS J, THE SHORELINE EROSION PROCESS @J The shorelands of Chesapeake Bay are - - - MLW + 1.5 Tide Range composed of three physiographic MLW elements-fastland, shore, and near- shore (Figure 29)@ The fastland is that area landward of normal water levels. MLW - "MEAN LOW WATER" The shore is the zone of beaches and wetlands which serve as a buffer Figure 29: Shorelands of Chesapeake Bay between the water body and the fast- land. Lastly, the nearshore extends waterward from the mean low water Waves associated with hurricanes or erosion of bank materials. This process level to the 12-foot depth contour. In other la'rge storms can be extremely is accelerated where man has removed the Chesapeake Bay proper, the near- damaging. These storms can generate the natural cover on the land adjacent shore is generally comprised of a shal- very large, steep wind waves which can to the banks thus increasing the low water belt more than 1,000 feet remove considerable material from the amount of rainfall seeping into the wide before the 6-foot mean low water shore zone and carry it offshore. ground. depth contour is encountered. From Strong winds of these storms often the 6-foot contour outward, the depth raise water levels and expose to wave increases at a more rapid rate. attack lands of higher elevation that To a much lesser degree, three other are not ordinarily vulnerable. factors contribute to the shoreline erosion problem in Chesapeake Bay. While the causes of shoreline erosion First, the long term rise of sea level has are complex and not completely resulted in the inundation or loss of understood, the primary processes re- Erosion problems caused by tidal cur- land to the Bay. An average rise of sponsible for erosion are wave action, rents are usually most severe in con- 0.01 feet per year has been recorded in tidal currents, and groundwater activ- stricted areas such as inlets to lagoons the lower Chesapeake Bay. At Fort ity. Waves generated by wind are the and bays or at entrances to harbors. In McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland, the cause of most of the shoreline erosion addition to creating currents which National Ocean Survey tide gage indi- in the Bay Region. The amount of cause erosion, the tides constantly cated a 0.6 foot rise in mean sea level wave energy which reaches the shore- change the level at which waves attack between 1902 and 1962. These seem- line is dependent on the slope of the the beach, thereby aggravating the ingly insignificant rates of increase can nearshore. A shallow nearshore will problem. over the years inundate significant dissipate more wave energy than a land area particularly where shorelands deep nearshore. In addition, less wave have very gentle slopes. Second, rain- energy is received by a shoreline if Another process which contributes to fall runoff can cause or contribute there is a shoal, tidal flat, or aquatic the erosion of the shoreline is the significantly to shoreline erosion, par- vegetaion immediately offshore. Simi- seepage of groundwater through the ticularly in areas where the adjacent larly, a wide beach is better than a fastland and into the exposed shore shoreline is rolling and broken and narrow beach for wave dissipation. zone. As shown on Figure 30, taken soils are made up of easily erodible Conversely, where the shoreline has from the Chester River Study prepared materials. Last, in some areas of the none of the above natural features and by the State of Maryland and the Bay, especially around busy harbors I 11 wave action is strong, undercutting of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and waterways such as the Chesapeake the ground landward of the beach will water percolates downward through and Delaware Canal, the wakes from cause sliding, slumping, and resultant porous soils and flows out through passing ships are a significant erosive loss of fastland. exposed bank faces often causing an force. 83 k EXISTING PROBLEMS AND Topsoil CONFLICTS The natural processes discussed in the preceding paragraphs have claimed thousands of acres of land around Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Over the last 100 years alone, approxi- mately 45,000 acres of land have been Sandy Material lost due to tidal erosion. The configu- ration of the shoreline has changed markedly in some areas; and certain islands, some of which exceeded 400 acres in size, have ceased to exist. The most significant impact of the loss onI, of this amount of land has been on the landowners who have witnessed the 31 "'a loss of both valuable shoreland and Figure 30: Shoreline Erosion Caused by the Seepage of Groundwater improvements that may have been 84 constructed too close to the shoreline. of the dredged material. In addition, for the Maryland and Virginia portions Attempts to try to arrest the rate of sediment also has a considerable of the Bay, respectively. erosion through either poorly designed impact on water quality and the biota or constructed protective measures of the Bay. Sediment can cover pro- In the determination of the shoreline have further frustrated property ductive oyster beds and valuable erosion rates the shoreline was broken owners when their efforts proved aquatic plants. The reduced light pene- down into workable lengths called futile. In many cases, man has acceler- tration into turbid waters can also be "reaches," which range from several ated the rate of erosion by elin-dnating very detrimental to aquatic life. hundred to several thousand feet in natural protective devices such as vege- length. These reaches were established tative cover that inhibit erosion. based on physiographic characteristics In order to define those areas or including the erosion or deposition Sediment, the product of erosion, has reaches of tidal shoreline along the rate. The inventory of the erosion also had significant impacts on both Bay and its tributaries that are suf- rates on a reach by reach basis for each the natural environment and man's use fering "critical" losses of land, an tidal county in Maryland and Virginia of the resource. Sediment from shore- inventory of historical erosion rates is included in Tables A-1 and A-2, line erosion may eventually be de- and the adjacent land use was com- respectively, of Appendix 11-Shore- posited in either natural or man-made piled. The erosion rates used in the line Erosion. navigation channels requiring main- compilation were developed by the tenance dredging and the problems Maryland Geological Survey and the Using these erosion rates along with normally associated with the disposal Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences land use information developed by the Tr I tAll, 14, 'u, 10`7 . . . . .- :1- C, 85 U.S. Geological Survey as pa of the TABLE 31 TABLE33 `1` LENGTH OF CRITICALLY CARETS program, reaches were FUTURE CRITICALLY ERODING ERODING SHORELINE REACHES ,designated as having critical erosion STATE OF MARYLAND (MARYLAND) problems if they met or exce ed the following criteria: Length of Critical LOCALITY County/City Shoreline Miles WATER BODY/ REACH DESIGNATION 1. The erosion rate was e to or Anne Arundel 32.4 greater than 3 feet per year re gar ess Baltimore 5.0 Calvert 9.6 Anne Arundel County of adjacent land use. Cecil 9.3 Charles 8.2 Chesapeake Bay 2. The erosion rate was equal to or Dorchester 61.6 Bodkin Point greater than 2 feet per year and the Harford 5.7 Persimmon Point Kent 9.9 adjacent land use was intensive, i.e., Queen Anne's 24.0 residential, commercial, or industrial. Somerset 23.0 Calvert County St. Mary's 20.6 It should be noted that those Talbot 27.1 Chesapeake Bay reaches where the erosion rate fell Wicomico 23.1 From approximately Y2 mile north of Plum Point to Parker Creek between 1.5 and 2.0 feet per y,ear, the TOTAL 259.5 From approximately 1/2 mile north rate was "rounded" upward to 2.0 feet of Flag Ponds to Cove Point per year. This conservative approach Cape Anne was taken to compensate for the fact shoreline, the entire Bay shoreline was that the average rate for a' reach surveyed to determine if any future probably dampened some severe rates development was proposed in areas Cecil County at specific sites within the reach. subjected to significant shoreline Northeast River erosion. Charlestown to Carpenter Point Using the above criteria and assump- Northeast Heights to Red Point tions, approximately 403 miles of shoreline were identified as existing It was determined that an additional 16 critical erosion reaches." Table 11-1 44.4 miles of Bay shoreline has the Kent CountY of Appendix I I lists each critical reach potential to become a serious problem. Chesapeake Bay by county and state, the land use in (See Tables 33 and 34). This is in 2 miles south of Tolchester Beach to the reach, reach length, erosion rate addition to the over 400 miles of Tavern Creek and an evaluation of existing structural s%refine that is currently classified as shoreline protection measures @ within critical based on existing development. the reach. Plates I I - 1 through 11-3 in Queen Anne's County Appendix I I show the location of these critical reaches. Tables 31 and 32 Chesapeake Bay TABLE 32 Broad Creek to % mile south of in this Summary fist the amount of LENGTH OF CRITICALLY Carney Creek critically eroding shoreline by county ERODING SHORELINE Chesapeake Bay for Maryland and Virginia. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Jackson Creek to Piney Cove Eastern Bay FUTURE SHORELINE Length of Critical Greenwood to Bennett Point EROSION PROBLEMS County/City Shoreline Miles Accomack 24.2 Wicomico County The method employed to delineate Essex 7.6 future problem areas is essentially the Gloucester 7.0 Hampton 14.2 Nanticoke River same as that used to define the exist- Isle of Wight 7.7 Roaring Point ing critical areas. It was assumed that Lancaster 8.4 Bivalve Harbor to 1 mile north the historical erosion rates were reflec- Mathews 9.7 tive of future erosion rates in th e same Middlesex 7.7 reaches. It was further assumed that Northampton 10.4 Northumberland 18.3 future land use adjacent to the @ shore- Richmond 3.5 line would develop as shown in the Surry 3.8 ed q@ al u latest regional, county, or municipal Virginia Beach 6.0 land use planning documents. Given Westmoreland 10.4 York 4.0 the historical erosion rates and pro- jected future land use adjacent Ito the TOTAL 142.9 86 TABLE 34 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS material in the nearshore zone and the FUTURE CRITICALLY ERODING seeding and transplanting of native REACHES The sensitivity of the number of miles plants such as saltmarsh cordgrass (VIRGINIA) of shoreline which are expected to (Spartina Alterniflora). A possible LOCALITY experience critical erosion problems in source of material for the creation of WATER BODY/ the future was tested by varying the marshes is dredged material from chan- REACH DESIGNATION erosion rate. If the critical erosion rate nel maintenance and deepening pro- was assumed to be I foot per year, the jects. The use of this material would additional length of critical shoreline not only serve to provide erosion Gloucester County was found to be approximately 80 control and create additional fish and miles or nearly double the 44.4 miles wildlife habitat, but it could help solve Ware River classified as critical using the 2 feet per the problem of finding acceptable dis- Ware River Point to Old House Creek year criteria. When the criteria was posal sites for dredged material. Mobjack Bay raised to 3 feet per year, it was noted Ware River Point to Turtleneck Point York River that the length of critical shoreline was b. Vegetative Cover. In addition to Sandy Point to east of Perrin River reduced to approximately 20 miles. It improving the. ability of the shoreline is obvious that the length of shoreline and fastland areas to resist erosion, expected to experience future critical vegetation can trap windblown mate- City of Hampton eros 'ion problems is highly sensitive to rial and thus aid in the formation of a Back River changes in the erosion rate. It is felt, protective dune. Vegetation as a sole Harris Creek to North End Point however, that the 2 feet per year protection against erosion has proven erosion rate criteria is the most reason- to be unsuccessful except in well- able assumption. protected areas. Its widest application Lancaster County has been its use in conjunction with MEANS TO SATISFY NEEDS other structural measures such as bulk- Rappahannock River heads and groins. It has also been used Wyatt Creek to Greenvale Creek There are many structural and non- to stabilize backfills of bulkheads and Navy Auxiliary Air Force to structural measures that can be em- in combination with groins in the Mulberry Creek Mulberry Creek to Curletts Point ployed to prevent, arrest or mitigate creation and stabilization of beaches. Corrotoman River the effects of shoreline erosion. These Eastern Shoreline measures must be used with care, however, as the forces of erosion are c. Regulatory Actions and Public unpredictable, varying from place to Awareness Programs. Land use regula- Northumberland County place and with meteorological events. tions can be used to set aside critically Often a combination of both non- eroding reaches for such non-intensive Potomac River structural and structural measures is uses as recreation or open space. This Eastern Shoreline of Wilkens Creek Chesapeake Bay the only way to cope with these action would prohibit development of Taskmers Creek to Warehouse Creek forces. structures that would be threatened by a rapidly receding shoreline. NON-STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS Richmond County Nonstructural solutions consist of de- A second approach is to adopt build- Rappahannock River vices which enhance the effectiveness ing codes which would allow for devel- Morattico Creek to Tarpley Point Tarpley Point to Sharps Road Point of natural protective features and reg- opment in eroding areas but that Sharps Road Point to Rechardson ulatory actions that can be employed would require the construction of the Creek to avoid a land use-erosion conflict. appropriate erosion control measures. Waverly Point to McGuire Creek The following nonstructural. measures The developer would be required to have applicability in shoreline erosion provide continuous protection for the Westmoreland County problems in Chesapeake Bay. length of the reach. Potomac River A public awareness program could be Ragged Point to Jackson Creek a. Marsh Creation. As previously used to advise the public as to the mentioned, marshes tend to buffer the location and severity of shoreline ero- York County shoreline against wave action and its sion and could also provide informa- consequential erosive forces. Under tion as to the structural and nonstruc- York River certain conditions, marshes can be tural measures that could be used to Skimino Creek to 1.8 mile south created by selective placement of control erosion. 87 STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS Structural solutions are defined as V, those man-made structures that are designed to either prevent waves and AP tidal action from reaching erodible material or that retard the longshore transport of littoral drift (i.e., the movement of sediments parallel to the shore in the nearshore zone by waves and currents) and thus aid the build-up of the natural nearshore defenses. Bulkheads and revetments are the x most commonly used structures that prevent erosive forces from reaching OF the fastland while groins and beach nourishment are most frequently employed in the Region to build up the nearshore. The following para- graphs include a general discussion of the above mentioned structural meas ure s and their general design character i ti s CS. 4: V a. Bulkheads. The main purpose of abulkhead is to retain the earth behind it, to deflect the energy of incoming waves, and to prevent flood- Awe 4, Wk ing. Bulkheads which are essentially @.j vertical walls, can be constructed of wood, stone, concrete, or metals, but ommonly made of wood, with a are c framework of pilings and cross-timbers _T- called wales covered with a sheathing of thick boards nailed or bolted to the amework. Areas around Chesapeake r Bay where such protection can be Marsh Creation. Riprap Protection. 1 %-N 4W most effectively used are in sheltered wave energy as the water rolls up the -the surroundings. Properly designed waters such as coves, harbors, and in incline. Riprap is composed of stone, revetments can effectively retard ero- small bays. In open waters, such as on chunks of concrete, rubble or brick sion even in severe cases. In certain the Bay proper, bulkheads may be and it is the most common type of ineffective attempts to halt. erosion, relatively ineffective as the severity of revetment construction employed in unsuitable materials such as junked car the water action causes scouring at the the Bay Area. The irregular surface of bodies, engines, and tires have been bottom of the structure and eventually riprap also serves to break up water used as riprap to absorb wave energy. undermines the bulkhead itself. momentum and provide niches which capture sediment and thus adds stabil- c. Groins. A groin is a barrier-type b. Revetments. A revetment con- ity. Gabions, consisting of riprap en- structure which extends perpendicular sists of armoring the sloping face of closed in wire mesh cages may also be to the shoreline into the nearshore the shore with one or more layers of used. These baskets capture sediment zone of sand movement. The basic riprap or concrete. The sloping charac- and grow protective vegetation which purpose of a groin is to interrupt teristic in this design serves to dissipate eventually blends the structure into alongshore sand movement in order to Bulkhead Protection. Revetment at Oxford, Maryland. Cat 11W .......... '44 F. 0 Nk, 411 accumulate sand on the shore or to door enthusiasts, as are such activities retard sand losses. Some groins or as birdwatching and nature photo- groin fields interrupt the flow@ of sand graphy.* In addition, commercial inter- to downdrift areas thus causing dam- ests rely on fish and wildlife resources age to these shorelines. In order to as a source of income and employ- minimize damage t 'o the shoreline ment. The future requirements for fish downstream from a groin, it has to be and wildlife for commercial and recre- designed with the top profile not ational uses are the subject of this higher than that of a beach of reason- section. The strictly biological value of able dimensions. When full, a groin of fish and wildlife as part of the Bay this type will permit the stream of ecosystem is discussed in Chapter 11. sand to pass over its top and c I ontinue on downstream to nourish the neigh- CURRENTSTATUS boring shores. Groins should @ not be built unless property designed for the COMMERCIAL FISHERIES particular site and the effects of the groins on adjacent beaches halve been A commercial fishery is a business that adequately studied by an el ngineer involves catching, or "harvesting," a experienced in this field. particular finfish or shellfish, deliver- d. Beach No ........ __. Another ance of the product to the wholesale measure which can be used. either market, and subsequently "process- singularly or in connection with the ing" the product for the retail trade. previously mentioned measures is "Harvesting" and "processing" are the beach nourishment. Beach @nourish- terms used to describe the two particu- ment is the addition of sand from lar sectors of the commercial fishing another source to an eroding, natural industry. beach thereby replacing the material lost to erosion and extending the In the harvesting sector, average com- natural protection provided by the mercial landings during the period nearshore. To restore an eroded beach 1966 to 1970 totaled 381 million and stabilize it at the restored posi- pounds worth nearly $30 million. tion, material is, placed directly along About 82 percent of this total harvest the eroded sector and additional mate- of finfish and shellfish was landed in rial is stockpiled at the updrift end of areas located on Chesapeake Bay the problem area. The stockpiled proper, as shown in Table 35, with the material will then maintain the re- balance being landed in tributaries to stored portion of the beach. When the Bay. Finfish consist of both edible icial and industrial species. The latter in- conditions are suitable for artif x. nourishment, long reaches of shore clude mainly menhaden and alewives, which together averaged 243 million , @ 7! 14"R may be protected by this method at a ost per linear foot of pounds worth $3.7 million between relatively low c shoreline. 1966 and 1970. Menhaden alone accounted for 90 percent of all finfish FISH AND WILDLIFE landings by weight in 1970. Edible finfish types include striped bass, The fish and wildlife of the Chesa- weakfish, shad, catfish, bluefish, and peake Bay Area contribute in many white perch, among others. w ays to making the Bay what it is terms of commercial Shellfish, which are commonly har- today, both in markets and in terms of recreational vested commercially, include crabs, enjoyment. Increasingly, people are oysters, and soft clams. Based on data turning to the out-of-doors for use of presented in Table 35, shellfish har- their leisure time, and fish and wildlife vests between 1966 and 1970 averaged @ directly - rids (exclud contribute both directly and in 88 million pou es she@ to the value of the outdoor experi- weight of clams and oysters) worth $ 23 ence. Sport hunting and fishing, for million . The fact that shellfish repre- example, are major activities of out- sent the big money crop in Chesapeake 90 Na 0,34 to:. if W't Landings Value (Lbs.) (Millions) (Millions) 293 23.3 88 FINFISH L SHELLFISH Figure 3 I:A verage Fin fish andShellfish Harvest, 1966-1970, Chesapeake Bay Region. n -*4 t@ ""Pot. "All 01. @4 V 92 Bay is illustrated in Figure 31 which Commercial shellfish harvests in 1973 lesser extent crab catches, in both compares finfish with shellfish in were of comparable magnitude to har- States were down considerably from terms of both landings weight and vests of 1966-1970, in terms of both previous years due to a large extent to value. Shellfish comprise only 24 of weight and value. Of interest, however, the effects of Tropical Storm Agnes. the total commercial harvest by is the fact that oysters were harvested weight, but a substantial 78 percent of in Maryland waters in quantities unex- Employment in the harvesting and the total value. ceeded since 1937, despite the impacts processing sectors is also an important of Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972, and component of the commercial fishing The most recent data available on that harvests in Virginia were the industry. The most recent data from commercial harvests of finfish and lowest on record. This apparent dis- 1973 show employment in the com- shellfish in Chesapeake Bay are for crepancy can be explained by the fact mercial harvesting sector to be about 1973. During the year, commercial that oysters in Maryland experienced 17,400 full-time and part-time fisher- landings of bluefish exceeded all pre- good reproductive years in 1969 and men operating nearly 12,000 vessels of vious records at 2.8 million pounds as 1970 which resulted in oysters of various sizes. The number of fishermen did landings of the gray sea trout sufficient size to survive the large in the Chesapeake Bay Region has which were 4.4 million pounds. This is freshwater influx due to Agnes. stayed relatively constant since 1954, a 93 percent increase in poundage for Oysters in the State did not have a fluctuating between a low of 16,800 in the latter species and a 134 percent good reproductive year during the 1962 to a high of 20,200 in 1955. The increase in value over 1972. Landings 1971-1976 period, however, and this is number of vessels has also stayed fairly of croaker were up 188 percent after expected to affect future landings. constant during this period. being very scarce the previous 6 years. Factors affecting the Virginia oysters In contrast, landings of alewives in include a disease which invaded the In addition, in Maryland and Virginia, 1973 were nearly half of the 1970 Commonwealth's oyster beds in the about 7,100 persons were employed in catch and commercial catches of yel- early 1960's; poor reproductive years the processing sector in wholesale and low and white perch were also down prior to 1973; and the effects of processing plants in 1973. Since fresh markedly from 1970 levels. Agnes. The clam landings, and to a seafood is highly perishable, much of TABLE 35 COMMERCIAL FISHERY HARVEST AVERAGE 1966-1970 . ( I ) CHESAPEAKE BAY AND TRIBUTARIES (IN THOUSANDS) Finfish Water Area Acres Edible Industrial Shellfish Total Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Chesapeake Bay( 2) 2,041 24,177 1,443 234,976 3,590 54,244 8,166 313,397 13,199 Chester River 35 436 54 6 Negl. 2,012 889 2,454 943 Choptank River 69 880 118 7 Neo. 4,800 1,730 5,687 1,848 Nanticoke River 18 506 67 24 1 537 236 1,067 304 Patuxent River 30 260 39 5 Negl. 896 Soo 1,161 539 Wicomico River 10 96 11 9 Negl. 143 93 248 104 Potomac River 310 11,006 590 3,974 73 10,543 4,673 25,523 5,336 Rappahannock River 98 4,898 1,993 35 7,498 2,005 14,389 2,259 York River 55 2,513 113 1,577 30 3,856 572 7,946 715 James River 166 4,695 264 1,125 20 3,834 4,398 9,654 4,682 TOTALSTUDY AREA 2,832 49,467 2,918 243,696 3,749 88,363 23,262 381,526 29,929 This table was based on preliminary unpublished data developed in 1972. (2) Bay propet exclusive of tributaries. 93 4': 'Ail i Sport Fishermen Display Theirl Catch. Commercial Crabbing Center on the Eastern Shore. 51 WPM 41 0*4 Sol- id low J, 94 the Chesapeake Bay catch is processed (i.e., the tidewater portion of Virginia economic importance since it provides and wholesaled in close proximity to between the Potomac and Rappahan- approximately 69 percent of the total where the landings are made. Average nock Rivers) and on the middle and income of Bay trappers. The fur har- annual employment in the Chesapeake lower portions of the Maryland and vest for the 1971-72 season in Mary- Bay seafood wholesaling and process- Virginia Eastern Shore. land and Virginia was valued at ing industries has been characterized approximately $1.8 -million, including by modest gains since the early 1950's. COMMERCIAL FURBEARERS the meat value of certain of the species The number of establishments has (especially muskrat). Although specific declined steadily, however, since the A significant economic resource of the data are not available, a major portion late 1950's when the average number Bay Region, but one that is often of the total bi-state fur harvest is felt of establishments in the Region was overlooked, is the furbearing mammals by experts to derive from the Bay 704. This fact reflects the National of the wetland and terrestrial habitats Region. In, addition, it should be noted trend in recent decades toward larger found within the Study Area. Fur- that the value of the harvest represents establishments of higher employment. bearing species commonly trapped in money paid trappers and does not Most of the seafood processing and the Study Area are beaver, gray fox, represent economic activity generated wholesaling establishments in the red fox, mink, muskrat, opossum, in the processing and retailing sectors Chesapeake Bay Region were located otter, raccoon, skunk, weasel, and of the industry. in the Northern Neck area of Virginia bobcat. The muskrat is of primary Chesapeake Bay Crab Feast. SPORTFISHINGAND HUNTING 'a Increases in income, population, and available leisure time have stimulated increases in sport is ing and hunting- in the Chesapeake Bay Area. Recrea- tional fishing accounts for a significant portion of the total landings for several species of fish within the Study Area, including, in order of pounds landed in 1970: spot, striped bass, white perch, weakfish, shad, croaker, flounder, yellow perch, catfish, and bluefish. All of these but striped bass, flounder, and catfish actually ex- ceeded the commercial catch, demon- strating the importance of recreational fishing in the Bay. Shellfish are also taken by a considerable number of people on a recreational basis. It has been estimated that blue crabs are sought by as many people as are game fish, and that the recreational quantity caught may equal the whole com- mercial harvest. Definitive statistics on recreational harvests of shellfish are not available. "'Nei Hunting is also an important form of recreation within the Study Area. Upland forests, farm lands, wetlands and open water are utilized as a source of food or shelter for various species of game animals. The upland forest and farm land provide habitat for deer, 7 rabbit, squirrel, woodchuck, raccoon, and opossum as we H as game birds 95 such as turkey, qu "A dove, woodcock. and others. More closely associated tw; with the Bay are the many species n the wetlands and which depend o open water for their habitat require- ments. The most significant of these 4 4, At are the numirous species of waterfowl which winter in the Bay area and provide many man-days of hunting experience for outdoor enthusiasts, as well as significant economic benefit to the Region. Expenditures for@ licenses, lodging, hunting land leases, food, -mberships, and equip- gasoline, club me W0- ment are estimated to amount to $300 ;W, to $500 annually per waterfowl hunter. The estimated annu4 value of waterfowl hunting in the State of Maryland is 10.5 to 17.5@ minion dollars. A* NON CONS VMPTI VE UTILIZATION OFRESOURCES The wetland and upland habitat as well as the waters of the Bay and its tributaries provide habitats which sup- port an extensive variety of flora and 4 fauna. These organisms provide a t. source of recreation to large numbers of people who enjoy birdwatching, nature walking and nature photog- raphy. Research indicates that the number of people in the U.S.1 in 1970 K that participated in these non- consumptive outdoor activities was -nt higher than the about 9 perce number of people fishing and@hunting. Bird Watching - A Non-Consumptive Outdoor Activity. Aside from the enjoyment which is gained from an association with the natural resources of the area, the Bay, the wetland areas where dredge-and-fiff are as varied as the constituents them- its tributaries, associated wetlands, and operations have been performed to selves. With the many new substances upland areas provide valuable educa- develop industrial and agricultural being developed each year, the task of tional services as classrooms for lands, and to provide for second home assessing the effects on the environ- natural science studies. development, and marinas. ment of the resulting effluents and the possible interrelationships between EXISTING PROBLEMS AND Water quality problems, which have constituent and other variables, such CONFLICTS also become more pronounced with as temperature and salinity, may al- increased economic development and ready be impossible. With growth of the population and population growth, have serious impli- development of the economy in the cations for fish and wildlife. Almost Conflicts and problems also arise Bay Area, conflicts have@ arisen every activity of man in the Chesa- within the internal workings of the between the need for more intensive peake Bay Area produces a waste various elements of the fish and wild- use of the existing land and water product that often is most conven- life management structure. This is be- resources and the need for the' se same iently dumped in a nearby river or cause management of the wildlife, resources to maintain fish and wildlife stream. These tributaries invariably fisheries, and shellfish resources of the populations. This is especially true in flow to the Bay. Problems that result Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is 96 Federal regulations. The hunters of a three years creates a high "turnover" state having a later opening date, of crabs. Second, the crabs caught in '01 therefore, often feel that they will Maryland are transported as larva and i have a decreased chance for success tiny crabs from their spawning since the species sought has been grounds in Virginia into the upper previously hunted in a neighboring Estuary. The condition of the upper state and may be "gun shy." Crabbing Estuary when the young &abs arrive regulations are another example of this and the physical, chemical, and biolog- type of problem. Virginia allows the ical stresses they must endure during dredging of wintering crabs which are their journey are critical to the Mary- buried in the Bay bottom while Mary- land harvest the following years. It is land forbids this activity. Many Mary- interesting to note that in 1968 when landers feel that this dredging depletes the Maryland catch dropped by nearly the supply of crabs which would be two-thirds, the Virginia catch was off available to them the following season. by only about one-fifth. Also, the management and regulation of anadromous fish catches in the The striped bass population in Chesa- Lower Chesapeake Bay obviously peake Bay also follows distinct cycles. affects the fishery in the Upper Bay. There are several factors suspected of "f'? For example, concentrated offshore producing a "dominant-year class" fishing efforts for herring (under the including some little understood bio- jurisdiction of the Federal Govern- logical mechanism which triggers a P ment) have greatly reduced the spawn- larger than normal hatch when the 0'%1 ing runs of this species in the Bay each adult population has declined below a Y i, ,I@ 4@, spring. certain level. This phenomenon has also been observed in other species. A Some researchers believe that the Fluctuations that occur in finfish and number of rockfish (striped bass) in shellfish populations are another prob- lem to be considered. Historically, the the Bay is inversely related to the populations of many species have bluefish population since the more 4L varied cyclically over periods of years, aggressive bluefish compete for the due to same food supply and even prey on complex biological factors such the young striped bass. As the blue as predator-prey relationships; physical crab and striped bass examples indi- and chemical factors such as changes cate, often drastic fluctuations in in salinities due to long term drought - - - - - - -or rainy periods; or man-caused factors species populations are a natural phenomenon. However, since the such as pollution or level of exploita- reasons for this phenomenon are not tion of the resource. These causative completely understood, it is extremely factors are far from being understood, difficult to separate the natural fluctu- much less controlled. Fluctuations in ations from fluctuations caused by the responsibility of several organiza- Maryland blue crab populations, as man-related factors such as excess tions including the Federal Govern- indicated by landings, are a classic nutrients, thermal effluents, sedimen- ment, the States of Maryland, Dela- example of this "boom" or "bust" tation, or other pollutants. ware, and Virginia, and the Potomac phenomenon. For example, in the River Fisheries Commission. The State of Maryland between 1953 and inconsistencies in laws promulgated by 1957 the catch went from 28 million FUTURE FISH AND these organizations create conflicts in bushels down to 16 million and then WILDLIFE NEEDS the management practices and utiliza- back up to slightly less than 32 million tion of the resource. In the case of bushels. The all-time record low FINFISH AND SHELLFISH migratory birds, for example, the basic harvest for Maryland of 10 million regulations regarding bag limits and bushels in 1968 was followed in 1969 Needs for fish and shellfish resources the number of days a species may be by a respectable 25 million bushels were obtained through comparison of hunted during a season are set by (the all-time record high for the State future demand with available supply. Federal regulation. However, the was 37 million bushels). There are at Functions of future demand involved actual dates for the opening of a least two major factors in explaining such parameters as market price, AMS , I season are determined by the States the volatility of'the blue crab popula- projections of commercial and recre- under guidelines set forth by the tion. First, its short life span of two to ational catch, and costs of the harvest- 97 ing effort. Population dynarmics for each species were based, in part, on Supply Supply Deficit estimates of maximum sustainable (Excess Demand) yields (MSY's). MSY's are defined as the greatest harvest which can be !RR5, taken from a population without a G affecting subsequent harvests. Typical supply versus d 202 emand curves are shown in Figure 32 to illustrate the 10 FA,", 'r" 0 D_ t"', "I", relationship between MSY, supply, 5,17P%& a E 20 demand, and commodity price. The 41 wKi'NOV, n Om- erm "supply" refers only to the W t amount corrimercially harvested. Excess demand is shown for the years 2000 and 2020 where the demand curves do not intersect the supply curve. In these cases, sufficient sup- plies cannot be had at any price since QuantityI the MSY has been exceeded. Sustained (Pounds) harvesting beyond the MSY results in Figure 32: Fisheries Supply and t6emand Functions eventual decline in the specie's popula- tion due to overharvesting. As total harvest of a species approaches MSY, TABLE36 it was assumed that recreational PROJECTED PERIOD OF EXCEEDENCE, OF MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD catches will have precedence over (MSY) FOR THE MAJOR COMMERCIAL AND SPORTS SPECIES those in the commercial sec Itor. As a Base Year Catches* Period of MSY Exceedence result, commercial catches of many Percent recreationally important species are Species 1,000 lbs MSY Prior to 1980 1980-2000 2000-2020 actually projected to decline over the projection period. Blue Crab 61,313 94 ------------------- X Oysters 23,740 79 ------------------------------ X Results of the analysis, conducted as Softshell Clams 5,412 90 ------------------------------ X described above for each species, are shown in Table 36. All of the@ commer- Menhaden 449,790 90 ------------------------------ X cially and recreationally important Alewife 21,110 84 ------------------------------ X species, with four exceptions, are projected to experience commercial Spot 14,193 96 --------- X and recreational pressures which will exceed their MSY's at some time Striped Bass 11,159 96 ------------------- X during the projection period. MSY is Mite Perch 7,225 64 ------------------- X expected to be exceeded for half of the species by the year 2000. Of this Shad 7,120 93 ------------------- X latter group, with the exception of the Weakfish (Sea Trout) 5,174 81 ------------------- X blue crab and American eel, projected increases in recreational catches are Flounder 4,575 89 ------------------- X the major reason for the early exceed- ence of MSY. Oysters, soft clams, Catfish 2,440 54 ---------- (will not be exceeded before 2020) menhaden, and alewife are primarily commercial species which explains, at Scup 2,281 35 ---------- (will not be exceeded before 2020) least in part, the later period for MSY Sea Bass 2,084 42 ---------- (will not be exceeded before 2020) exceedene b- Catfish, scup, sea bass, and yellow perch populations are cap- American Eel 1,692 99 ---------- able of withstanding significant in- Yellow Perch 1,511 44 ---------- (will not be exceeded before 2020) creases in fishing intensity, without adverse effect. All four species are underutilized commerci y for a Represents commercial plus recreational catch except for blue crabs, oysters, and soft clams. 98 SmallGame Big Game Waterfowl Recreation Days (Millions) Recreation Days (Millions) Recreation Days (Millions) ;@:,_ @@Xp, 3.7 8, 3,5 3.2 2@9 Y, 11@6 1@3 1970 2000 2020 Figure 33: Projected Hunter Effort in the Chesapeake Bay Region number of social and economic some finfish species were revealed, are generally expected to increase or reasons. most notably yellow perch, catfish, sea remain fairly constant over the projec- It should be noted that as commercial bass, and alewife, these are not con- tion period, the projections of yield and recreational demands increase rela- sidered to be large enough to offset appear, at a minimum, to be capable tive to the capacity of the fisheries, the employment losses in the declining of supporting a processing sector of the market system responds by in- fisheries. current size and degree of utilization. creasing prices. For example, the Of the projections made for the three WILDLIFE prices, after adjustment for inflation, shellfish species, the predicted in- of blue crabs, oysters, and striped bass creases in oyster landings was the only Future needs for wildlife in the Chesa- are expected to increase by 525 per- result considered to be' significant to peake Bay Area were determined in cent, 194 percent, and 967 percent, the harvesting sector. The predicted terms of recreation days of hunter respectively, between 1970 and 2020. landing increases, however, cannot be participation for small game, big game, The upward pressure on prices is espe- interpreted as implying a need for and waterfowl. Hunting demands were cially acute due to the basic assump- expansion of employment in the based on license price, population, and tion used in the analysis that as oyster harvesting industry. Of critical expected hunter participation rates. catches approach MSY, recreational importance is the present capacity of For big game, since hunter effort in utilization of these finfish and she fish the oyster fishery and the degree to this category has historically been' species will take precedence over com- which it is utilized. Currently, in Mary- insensitive,to license price, projections mercial uses. land, for example, each licensed oys- were made a function of population terman is limited to a catch of 25 only. The projected demands for small THE HAR VESTING AND bushels per day. Assuming two persons game and waterfowl hunting were PROCESSING SECTORS per rig, the catch limit would be 50 made based on the assumption that bushels. Experience has indicated that license prices will increase in the fu- Future needs in the harvesting and various rigs are capable of harvesting ture. processing sectors of the commercial two or three times this quantity. In fisheries industry will be affected by light of this, it was concluded that the As shown in Figure 33, waterfowl the projections of future market price present capacity of the harvesting hunting, perhaps economically "the and demand presented in the previous sector of the oyster industry would be most important type of hunting effort section. The decrease in commercial sufficient to meet future demands. in the Bay Region, is projected to landings indicated for a majority of increase by 70 percent during the the finfish species for which projec- The future of the processing sector projection period. Big game huntingis tions were made was interpreted as was found to be a function of the projected to increase at the highest revealing a contraction in the finfish projections for alewife, menhaden, rate of any of the three types of segment of the harpesting sector. While oyster, blue crabs, and clams. Since hunting effort in the Bay Region (141 increases in commercial landings of commercial catches of these species percent) and by 2020 is expected to 99 be the most popular type of hunting in Birdwatching Nature Walking the Region. Small, game hunting de- & Nature Photography, etc. Recreation Days (millions) mand is projected to decline over the Recreation Days (millions) projection period. The amount of land available for the use of hunters as well as the amount of habitat for the game animals were the critical factors in determini g supply. It was not deemed practical to project 0 "I ", the numbers of individuals within a kI given species available for hunting pur- tH MU 7777777 S RX poses. The increase in the amount of land needed to satisfy future hunting needs was assumed to be proportional to the increase in hunting effort. Based 18 10.3 on this, land access requirements win p increase by 7, 35, and 61 percent, by_ 1980, 2000, and 2020, res pectivety-I 7 ,__11970 1980 =2000 2020 over the amount available in 1970. Figure 34: Projected Non-Consumptive Wildlife- Related Outdoor Activity in the Factors affecting the accessibility of Chesapeake Bay Region land to hunters, and the maintenance and health of game populations than the population. Nature walking is lands. An additional 11.5 million acres include: expected to increase at a rate equal to of privately owned agricultural lands, population growth. A total increase of woodlands and wetlands are located in 1) conversion of farm and 34.6 million recreation days is pro- the Bay, an unknown quantity of woodlands to urban and suburban land, jected to occur by the year 2020. which is accessible to the public. uses; Assuming a constant percentage of the 2) reluctance of land owners to resources users will continue to use the open private lands to recreationists; As in the hunting analysis, the factors non-public areas, future projections most affecting the provision of a qual- can be made regarding the acreage of 3) single-purpose leasing @f agricul- ity non-consumptive recreational public lands required to provide non- tural and other lands for hunting; experience are the availability of suit- consumptive resources users with an able habitats for wildlife and the pro- experience of equal quality to the 4) impact of large-scale@ modern vision of public access. At the present present recreational experience. These farming on reduction of habitat; time the amount of land and wildlife projections are shown in Table 37. habitat which is available to the non- 5) single species tree farming prac- consumptive resource user in the tices which decrease wildlife use; Study Area includes about 814,000 The most significant problem facing acres of public, semi-public and park the provision of land for non- 6) use of herbicides for weed con- consumptive wildlife purposes is the trol which eliminates small game habi- inevitable conflicts with other land tat. uses in a developing area such as the Chesapeake Bay Region. For the bird NON CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE TABLE37 watcher, wildlife photographer, and PUBLIC LAND REQUIRED TO nature walker, a quality experience Future needs for wildlife to support MEET FUTURE NON-CONSUMPTIVE relies upon a variety and abundance of such non-cons@umptive uses as bird RECREATIONAL DEMAND wildlife in a natural uncrowded -watching, wildlife photography, and Number Acres of setting. Because of expected increases just plain enjoyment of nature, are Year of Rec Days Public Land in population and development pres- expected to increase with future popu- sures, there is a threat of degradation lation and increases in leisure time. As 1970 18,130,000 814,000 in many areas. For example, the devel- shown in Figure 34, non-consumptive 1980 21,448,000 964,000 opment of lands adjacent to recrea- wildlife utilization in terms lof recre- tional areas may cause overutilization, ation days in the Chesapeake Bay Area 2000 30,871,000 1,387,000 noise, and the disappearance of seclu- (excluding nature walking) is projected sive species, all of which reduce the to increase at a slightly higher rate 2020 41,079,000 1,845,000 ' desirability of the area. 100 MEANS TO SATISFY being processed to produce many vast areas of once productive surf clam THE NEEDS products which can be substituted for beds have been rapidly depleted. menhaden and alewife. Agriculture SHELLFISH cannot, however, be considered as the WILDLIFE ultimate solution to meeting these demands since the production cap- The lack of information concerning Demands for oysters, blue crabs, and abilities of these lands are finite and factors that influence the population softshell clams are projected to exceed they must also be used to meet the of many wildlife species, and possible MSY by the end of the projection demands for other products. future changes in human utilization of period. The supply of oysters can, and these species hinders an accurate deter- presently is, being supplemented by NON-INDUSTRIAL FINFISH mination of future needs. Due to this, the management and cultivation of.the any consideration of the means to species by both State and private Edible species commonly sought by satisfy the needs must, of necessity, be interests. More intensive effort in this sport and commercial fishermen in the in generalized terms. Because the regard would help to satisfy the ex- Bay include white perch, striped bass, projections inlicate greatly increased pected demands over the projection shad, flounder, spot, weakfish, eel, demands for wildlife resources, the period. The cultivation of softshell yellow perch, sea bass, scup, and cat- means to be discussed i@. this section clams, while not presently practiced, is fish. Of these eleven species only the will include methods for increasing a possible means of meeting excess last four are projected to have supplies supply and availability. demands for this species. The possi- that will meet the demands through bility also exists that other species the year 2020 as shown earlier in As implied previously, the problem of may be harvested to fulfill some of the Table 36. When considering the means maintaining an adequate supply of demand for softshell clams. The substi- to satisfy the needs for these species, a wildlife to meet all our projected tution could derive from an increased first alternative might be a manage- needs must be considered on two harvest of hard clams (which unfor- ment program to insure increased levels-the pnmary level being the tunately are already over harvested in production of these species by improv- requirements that must be met in some areas), or more likely from util- ing habitat, or by controlling the order for wildlife to sustain viable ization of a species such as the harvest of individual species based on populations; the secondary level being brackish water clam (Rangia cuneataJ, population surveys. a problem of providing access to the which at present is not sought Wildlife for human use. As is the case commercially. If management practices are to be with public acquisition of key wildlife effectively implemented on a Bay-wide habitat, the solution to these two The cost of culture practices for blue basis, records of the sport fishing problems may coincide. crabs would probably be prohibitive utilization are necessary. One method due to fluctuations in the natural of providing this information and at Other than the actual hunting of the supply and market price. This vari- the same time providing funds for the animals, wildlife populations are im- ability would keep the culture of the initiation of management and research pacted by two major areas of man's species from being profitable on a programs would be through the sale of activities. These are land use and pollu- regular basis. Thus, if the need is to be salt water fishing licenses. Although tion, with land use probably the most satisfied, it will probably be by in- this proposal has been suggested and significant. creasing the blue crab harvest in other rejected previously, it is still a viable areas such as South Carolina or method for gaining the data and If the land use problem is to be Louisiana and importing into the Bay knowledge necessary to insure contin- resolved, a firm commitment on the Region. uance of a quality fishery in the Bay. part of the public and responsible public officials will be required to INDUSTRIAL FINFISH The harvest of under-utilized species conserve existing desirable wildlife has provided an interim solution to the habitat, reclaim certain lands to sup- The demand for both menhaden and fulfillment of the needs for fisheries port desired wildlife types, acquire alewife, the major industrial species in products on previous occasions and additional public lands, and discourage Chesapeake Bay, is projected to ex- could be an aid in the fulfillment of land use practices which are unneces- ceed the MSY by 2020. Since artificial the needs for overall production in the sarily destructive of wildlife habitat. cultivation of most estuarine finfish future. Care should be taken, however, These measures would help insure species is either uneconomical or to provide management practices to stabilization and enhancement of wild- impractical, substitute species or protect the under-utilized species from life populations. Strict zoning will be products will have to be found in depletion once a market is opened. required to regulate land use. Coupled order to fulfill the needs for the Such exploitation has occurred with with zoning, purchasing mechanisms products derived *from these species. the surf clam. Because of a lack of such as bond issues should be devel- For example, soy beans are currently restrictions and an available market, oped to buy those lands considered 101 especially important to wildlife. If effects of trace metal consumption by ularly valuable to wildlife certainly purchase is not desirable, then long- certain species of waterfowl and shore offers a partial solution to meeting term leasing arrangements offer an and wading birds. Oil pollution can these needs. Land purchase, of course, alternative, in conjunction With tax also cause a serious adverse impact on should not be considered a complete incentives to affected land owners. aquatic oriented bird populations. In answer to land access shortages. Com- the Bay Region, thousands of bird bined with purchase of lands especially Pollution, a by-product of ci@ization, deaths have resulted from oil spills. valuable to wildlife, a program of also has a significant effect on wildlife The solution to this type of problem wildlife access leases could also be populations. A prime example of the lies with careful and thorough enforce- instituted. Such leases could be an adverse impact of pollution on wildlife ment of existing pollution control laws adjunct to the wildlife management is the absence of many species of and with the vigorous pursuit of new leases previously proposed. The pur- fish-eating furbearers along l stretches technology to control and abate pollu- pose of the combined wildlife manage- of water that are polluted. Other tion sources. ment and access lease would be to examples include the impact of chlo- provide large areas where wildlife habi- rinated hydrocarbons on the repro- Other than the need for viable wildlife tat can be actively managed and where ductive success of fish-eating carniv- populations themselves, is the need for access by the wildlife viewer and orous birds such as the osprey and increased land access 'to the resource. hunter would be allowed on a man- bald eagle, and the as yet unknown Purchase of additional lands partic- aged basis. A fee for all wildlife users An Ospray on Its Nest. % 40i, V jr 102 could be charged to supply funding for resources are adverse land and water ELECTRIC POWER the program. Success of such a pro- uses and an apathetic attitude on the gram would depend to a large extent part of the public toward preserving CURRENTSTATUS on cooperation between the wildlife' fish and wildlife habitat. If these utilization groups, the involved state factors can be' incorporated into a POWER REQUIREMENTS AND agencies, and the individual land comprehensive conservation, enhance- GENERATING FACILITIES owners. ment, and preservation program directed toward maintaining quality In studying. the electric power habitat, then an effective program can resources of Chesapeake Bay, a geo__ be developed to balance human utiliza- graphic area encompassing the electric There are undoubtedly numerous tion with the productive capability of utilities serving the Bay Region was other approaches to the problems. A the resource. Until such programs are defined. This area, the Chesapeake Bay key realization that must underlie any in effect the resource manager will be Market Area, is delineated in Figure successful solution is that the threat to faced with a continuously dwindling 35. fish and wildlife is not the sole respon- resource base and a concurrent and sibility of the sport and commercial continuous increase in resource needs. The total number of utilities serving fisherman nor the hunter or commer- the Chesapeake Market Area is 74. The cial trapper. The real threats to these utilities are of varied ownerships: A Nuclear Power Plant Under Construction. FOR=- Al 7 .4! -Al 7 103 ating plant and sometimes associated L1910were River transmission lines and sell the entire PENN. Riv WIChU.NGTON output to other utilities under long- MD term contracts. There are two such % V utilities in the Market Area, the Kerr Sp and Philpott Project and Susquehanna - - ----- ----- Electric Company; both operate 4ASHINGTON . ........ hydroelectic plants. NOR A --- ------------ most -- ---- ----- Wholesale purchasers are the tilities in the Chesa- numerous of the u -- --------------- -- - --- -- ----------- -- peake Market. They buy energy at ----- --- --- --- - ------ - - ----------------- -------- ------ bulk rates from bulk power suppliers or wholesale generators and resell it to their own retail customers. In several instances the purchased energy is sup- plemented by a minor amount of N self-generation. They are of municipal, - ------ ----- --- -------- EWS - -- ------ POITSMOu investor, or cooperative ownership. .1NIA BEACH ViR --- ----- --- --- --- -_ VA- -------- --- - - -- -- --- --- C. ------ ------- ---- --- --- ------ - MARKET SECTORS -- --- - -- ---- --- - -- ---- -- --- - LE G E N 0 In recognition of the geographical and MARKET AREA BOUNDARY SECTOR BOUNDARY ..... STUDYAREA BOUNDARY - ---- --- -- Wd technical characteristics of the Market W MAJOR CITIES Area utilities, the Market was divided SECTOR AREAS E22 CHESAPEAKE EAST into three Sectors: Chesapeake West, ---- ---- --- - ---- -- --- ---- CHESA EAKE EST --- - -- ------ CHESAPEAKE SOUTH -0 ------- Chesapeake East, and Chesapeake South. As shown in Figure 35, Chesa- peake West includes the Baltimore- Washington corridor of the Pennsylvania-Now Jersey-Maryland power interconnection (PJM Pool); Chesapeake East takes in the Delmarva Peninsula portion of the PJM Pool; Figure 35: Chesapeake Bay@Market Sector and Study Area. and Chesapeake South covers the Vir- ginia portion of the Virginia-North Carolina-South Carolina power inter- private corporations, municipalities, Project. This project, operated by the connection (VACAR Pool). Figure 36 consumer cooperatives, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pro- shows the relative energy requirements Federal government. Investor-owned duces wholesale energy for many of in each market sector as of 1972. A utilities provide 90 percent of the the cooperatives in Chesapeake South brief description of each sector energy requirements for the Market and other utilities outside the Market follows. and are responsible for 95 percent of Area. the electricity generated. They also a. Chesapeake West. There are operate virtually all of the trans- The utilities within the Chesapeake three utilities which serve the Chesa- mission facilities. The municipally- Market Area operate as bulk power peake West sector: the Potomac Elec- owned utilities are small and derive suppliers, wholesale generators, or tric Power Company, Baltimore Gas most or all of their energy from the wholesale purchasers. The bulk power and Electric Company, and the large investor-owned utilities with only suppliers operate substantially all of Southern Maryland Electric Coopera- minimal generation of their own, The the generating and transmission facil- tive. The energy requirements of cooperatively-owned utilities for the ities in the Chesapeake Market. They, Chesapeake West in 1972 were 28,252 most part purchase all their energy besides furnishing their own franchise gigawatthours while the amount of from other utilities. Where they do requirements, sell large amounts of energy generated was 32,311 gigawatt- have generating capacity, it is in small energy to other utilities, mainly hours. Almost all of this excess energy plants with relatively little output. municipals and cooperatives. was delivered to more northerly There is only one Federal utility in the members of the PJM pool outside the Market Area, the Kerr and Philpott Wholesale generators operate a gener- Chesapeake Bay Market with only 104 Chesapeake niinor amounts flowing into Chea- boundaries. Easton Municipal, the (Gigawatthours) SOUTH peake South. The generating facilities Market Area's only isolated utility, is are all in investor-owned utilities with located in Chesapeake East. Easton's WEST 86 percent of the total generation entire energy requirements of 75 giga- accounted for by fossil steam plants watthours in 1972 were furnished by and the remainder by combustion this combustion plant. plants. Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative purchases its entire needs c. Chesapeake South. Three from the Potomac Electric Power investor-owned utilities, 23 munic- Company. It is the largest cooperative ipals, 20 cooperatives, and one in the Market Area with energy re- Federally-operated project serve quirements in 1972 of 676 gigawatt- Chesapeake South. The energy require- hours. ment of this Sector in 1972 was 29,474 gigawatthours while 26,414 b. Chesapeake East. Chesapeake gigawatthours were generated. There East has 24 utilities: 8 investor-owned, was A modest net import of electricity, 13 municipally-owned, and 3 cooper- almost entirely from outside the 28,252 -owned Chesapeake Bay Market Area. Virginia atives. The largest investor utility, Delmarva Power and Light Electric and Power Company account- Company, supplies more than half of ing for about 90% of both energy and the Sector's energy requirements and generation is the major utility in a counts for about 2/3 of its gener- Chesapeake South. The only other c ation. The energy used in this Sector significant generation in the Sector is in 1972 was 7,370 gigawatthours while at the Kerr and Philpott Project of the 8,876 gigawatthours was generated. Corps of Engineers. This project pro- EAST Approximately 65 percent of the duced 698 gigawatthours from its two energy was generated in fossil steam hydroelectric plants, which was de- plants, 11 percent in combustion facil- livered at wholesale rates to cooper- atives in the Sector and certain utilities ities, and 24 percent in a single hydro- 7,370 electric plant at Conowingo on the beyond the Market boundaries. Fossil Susquehanna River in Maryland. The fuel steam plants accounted for 70 bulk of the excess generation came percent of total generating capacity, trom the hydroelectric plant and was nuclear steam for 13 percent, combus- delivered to the more northernly parts tion plants for 9 percent, and hydr6 Figure 36: Total Energy Requirements of the PJM Pool beyond the Market facilities for 8 percent. of Chesapeake Say Market Sectors, 1972 Fossil Fueled Power Plant. L: 4@ bon 105 Figure 37 shows the "energy account" for the Chesapeake Bay Market Area in 1972. This energy account is a OUTSIDE CHESAPEAKE BAY flowchart showing the source and dis- position of energy for each of the three Sectors. For example, in Chesa- 6804 2426 peake East, 8,876 gigawatth urs of fossil h dro combustion electricity were generated during the fossil combustion 6429 03 204 by hydroelectric plants and 204 by year-6,429 by fossil fuel plants, 2,243 31189 y 1122 2129 563 4231 a 7 combustion plants. Of the total gener- 32311 8876 ation of 8,876 gigawatthours, 2,426 4 1 1 CHESAPEAKE CHESAPEAKE were sold to customers outside the WEST EAST Chesapeake Bay Market Area. On the 28252 7370 other hand, utilities in the Chesapeake East Sector bought 847 gigawatthours of electricity from utilities outside the fossil combustion Market Area. In addition, 73 gigawatt- 23710 nuclear hydro 564 hours of electricity were bought from industrial and commercial concerns in 26414 the Market Area which operate gener- I ating plants for their own internal use. CHESAPEAKE The 7,370 gigawatthours figure repre- 1 -8 SOUTH sents the total energy requirements of 109 _616-- 29474 the Chesapeake East Sector-the net sum of total generation, receipts, and <II deliveries. Similar, more detailed energy accounts are presented for each Sector in Appendix 13-' Electric NONUTILITIES, T3 Power." Figure 37: EneroyAccount for Chesapeake Bay Market Area, 1972 EXISTING POWER FACILITIES In addition to the power plants them- lines, usually supported by wood selves, many miles of major trans- frames although steel poles and towers As shown on Table 38, approximately mission lines are required in order for are occasionally used, are located in 91 percent of the electric power pro- a modem utility to efficiently serve its the Market Area. These transmission duced in the Market Area was gener- customers. The Chesapeake Bay Mar- lines have obvious adverse visual im- ated by fossil steam generation plants ket Area has approximately 2,672 pacts on the environment and when using coal, oil, or gas as fuels. Oil was miles of 230 to 500 kilovolt (KV) the amount of right-of-way required is the most frequently used type f fossil transmission lines. These size lines are considered, they consume a surpris- fuel in 1972. The remainder of the supported by steel towers. In addition, ingly large amount of land. In 1972, electricity was produced b3 hydro- 131 miles of 138 KV transniission the amount of land used by trans- power, nuclear or combustion facil- ities, The only nuclear plant in opera- TABLE38 tion at the time in the Market Area PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF FUEL TYPES (located at Surry, Virginia) operated at TO TOTAL ELECTRIC GENERATION - 1972 less than full capacity during 1972. In Fossil Steam Generation 1973, the first year of full service for Sector Coal Oil Gas Hydropower Nuclear Combustion the plant, approximately 6,900 giga- - - watthours of electricity were Chesapeake East 29 42 2 25 2 produced. Another nuclear plant of similar capacity began operations in Chesapeake West 48 48 - - 4 May, 1975 at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Chesapeake South 26 64 - 7 1 2 Shown in Figure 38 are the power - - - - - - plants which were located in the TOTAL MARKET Chesapeake Bay Market Area in 1972. AREA 36 54 <1 6 <1 3 106 quate supplies of natural water are available, the once-through cooling PENN 0 FD@E*.IOR D. C INGO SU..N system is usually adopted because it is CONW 4 D LION CW I RVE-DE the most economical method of VE. ON II CIE GRACE ;F@ZREEK *BUSH RIVE ALEM THORNTON cooling. 14: WAGNER @m PMIKEE RUN SHO ON Ell LAKE DICKE SHORE Where natural bodies of water of BENNING BE@HLEHEM adequate size are not available-at the ..POSSUM 'INOIAN site, or are excluded from use by water ro, NT CNALF CALVE TR IN LIFa .6 GASTo*N V@EWNA@ DOU LA quality standards, cooling ponds or POIJT ELMS towers may be constructed. The only cooling pond installation contem- NORTH ANNA a plated for the Chesapeake Bay Study Area is at the North Anna plant on the N BREMO North Anna River in Virginia which is Nil. C' CHESA :R: FIELD' presently under construction. Where CLAREMONT OR9TOWN cooling towers are used, the heated water is cooled for reuse by a stream S.ITHgltLD ...PORTSMOUTH of flowing air. The air flow is usually a natural draft rising through the tower C. c. FRE which is contoured to create the neces- FERY CHOWAN RAMIREZ sary circulatory conditions. Such natural draft towers are huge struc- ROA@CKE tures, about 300 feet in diameter at the base and some 450 feet tall. Each tower provides cooling for a generating _L@E 0 E N D plant of about 500 to 1,000 mega- MARKET AREA BOUNDARY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY watts. FO SIL STEAM NUCLEAR STEAM In- the "wet cooling tower" the warm water is sprayed into the stream of Figure 3 8: Chesapeake Bay Power Plant Location Map, 19 72 flowing air. This facilitates the heat dissipation by evaporation as air moves through the tower. The cooled water is mission lines and right-of-ways plant and the rise in cooling water collected in a basin under the tower amounted to approximately 54,000 temperature differ among plants be- from which it can be pumped back to acres. cause of variations in design and oper- the plant for reuse. The water which is ating conditions of the facility. There lost through evaporation is replaced by COOLING WATER REQUIREMENTS is only a slight consumptive use of withdrawals from a local natural water water in the once-through system due body. Currently, there is only one The production of electricity by the to the small evaporative losses caused natural draft wet cooling tower in steam cycle involves the condensation by the increased temperature of the operation in the Chesapeake Bay Mar- of exhaust steam back to water and cooling water discharge. In general, the ket Area. This plant is located at Chalk the consequent release of waste heat. temperature rise of cooling water in Point, Maryland, and has been in Nearly all existing steam-electric plants the plant is usually in the range of operation since 1975. However, many use cooling water in the process of 100F,to 250F (60C to 140C). Maxi- cooling towers of this type are in- removing the waste heat from the mum allowable temperature increases cluded in the plans for facilities sched- power generating system. The heated are established by Federal and State uled to be constructed in the future. cooling water, having accomplished its regulations. Large nuclear steam- task is returned to its source, in this electric plants, however, require EXISTING PR OBL EMS case, usually Chesapeake Bay or one of approximately 50 percent more cool- AND CONFLICTS its tributaries. ing water for a given temperature rise than a fossil plant of equal size. This In addition to the conflicts of use All but three of the steam plants in the has a great deal of significance since, as which may arise in the Study Area as a Chesapeake Market employ "once- shown in the next section, nuclear result of multiple demands for water through" cooling (i.e., as opposed to plants are projected to supply a much or land, the resolution of certain social re-cycled cooling waters). The rate of larger portion of the Region's energy issues currently affecting the utility flow of the cooling water through the requirements in the future. Where ade- industry could also influence use of 107, water and land for the generation of With increasing emphasis on environ- resolution of these conflicts could electric power in the Study Area. mental protection, the utility industry, have varied impacts on the water and in cooperation with the Federal Gov- land requirements. Prevailing controversies conce ing the ernment, some state governments, and generation of electric powel and its some research institutes, have ongoing The goal of national energy inde- impact on the environment include programs which are attempting to find pendence favors the consumption of such issues as esthetics, air pollution, ways to minimize the environmental coal while environmental laws often water quality, impingement @and en- impact of electric power generation preclude the combustion of certain trainment of fish, radiological effects, and still maintain a reasonable cost for types of coal in power plants without and the d Iisposal of nuclear wastes. electric power. adequate environmental equipment. Steam generating plants are expansive The public, government, and the elec- The resultant economic penalty, in installations that can present a rela- tric industry in general are all cur- addition to uncertainties of supply and tively unsightly overall appearance and rently enmeshed in a reassessment and regulatory postures pertaining to coal hydroelectric plants can often intrude reevaluation of the generation of . elec- combustion, tends to discourage the on scenic areas. Both entail compe- tric power by nuclear fission. The use of coal. Coal-fired plants need titive use of water and may preclude public inquiry with regard to safety relatively large land areas for coal other, esthetic developments. Conceal- and long-term justification of a nuclear storage, handling, and ash disposal. ment of transmission towers and trans- program and the economic impact of Fuel storage and handling and ash mission lines is sometimes difficult; double-digit inflation on the cost of disposal in oil-fired plants involve less they cannot always be placed out of nuclear power has introduced some land area but would likely involve view or effectively blended fiinto the question regarding the future of more waterfront land area to accom- surroundings. nuclear power generation. Final resolu- modate waterborne oil transport. The tion of these issues could influence the use of imported oil would be undesir- The types and quantities of'emissions utilization of nuclear capacity able from both energy independence from the combustion of fossil fuels in throughout the country and in the and national security postures. the production of electric power Market Area. The Chesapeake Bay created a demand for air * pollution Market utilities presently plan the FUTURE ELECTRIC POWER control as a major siting criteria in installation of considerable nuclear NEEDS, SUPPLIES, AND planning future plants. The necessity capacity but still anticipate substantial PROBLEMS for large quantities of cooling water additions of fossil generation. Because introduces problems of fish impinge- of the lower thermal efficiencies of PROJECTED DEMANDS ment, entrapment, and entrainment. nuclear units, increasing nuclear Th 'e effects of releasing this water in a capacity increases water use about 50 In general, the projections of demand heated condition and its impact on percent for each nuclear unit which in this analysis were developed by aquatic life ate other issues of contro- replaces a comparably -sized fossil unit. extrapolating various historical trends versy. Environmental regulations cur- Land use for plant siting is reduced and subjectively modifying those rently prescribe the use of a closed because large fuel storage and handling trends to reflect judgements regarding cycle cooling system for generating areas, needed for coal or oil, are not factors currently in force and which units to be installed in 1985 and required for nuclear fuel, but trans- could plausibly continue into the thereafter, The resulting reduction of mission rights-of-way could require future. The projections chosen reflect heat input to the cooling water source more land because of the need to site a belief that growth in the use of is offset by an approximately twofold nuclear facilities further from the pop- electric power will continue but at a increase in evaporative water consump- ulation centers. Opportunities for joint somewhat reduced rate. This approach tion. The varied impacts of the ther- use of the land would also tend to be is believed to be moderately conserv- mal and consumption effects may less because of the remote locations, ative with regard to the potential for exchange an apparent current problem but such settings might be attractive energy conservation but recognizes the for a potential future problem@ for recreational development. significant role electric power will con- tinue to play in the National economy. During their operation nuclear power Should future events constrain the plants are permitted to release, under installation of additional nuclear Even with "conservative" growth well controlled and carefully moni- capacity base load requirements would rates, the total use of electricity in the tored conditions, low levels of radio- have to be met with generation by coal Chesapeake Bay Market Area is ex- activity. Current technologies for the or oil. In this regard, conflicts between pected to increase by a factor of over treatment and storage of radioactive the national energy and environmental 5 times by the year 2000 and approxi- wastes are characterized as currently interests and between these interests mately 13.5 times by the end of the adequate. The adequacy of these tech- and the economic vitality of the elec- projection period..As shown in Figure nologies however, are controversial. tric utilities are currently evident and 39, the Chesapeake South Sector 108 Chesapeake East Chesapeake West Chesapeake South (Gigawattshours) (Gigawatthours) (Gigawatthours) 0, V Z". 4 IN N e, 61 A NR Wn' 151,500 149,000 2 5jg@ 'a FQ,I 1710 36,390 R6 "m", N, 7,370 1972 2000 2020 Figure 39: Projected Energy Requirements Including Peak Demand for Chesapeake Say Market Areas which includes the major metropolitan hibited, under the present EPA regula- steam electric power plant sites for the areas of Norfolk-Portsmouth, tions, on all plants scheduled for ser- year 2000. Table 39 gives the sizes and Hampton-Newport News, Richmond, vice in 1985 and thereafter. Plants locations of these plants. Considera- and the Virginia suburbs of Wash- scheduled before 1985 employing the tion was given only to steam-electric ington, D.C. is expected to experience once-through system may retain them plants, both nuclear and fossil fuel, the highest rate of increase. While the throughout the remainder of their because of their demands for cooling rate of growth for the other Sectors useful lives. For this Study, it is water and consequent potential im- are lower than those of Chesapeake assumed that all projected capacity on pacts on the aquatic environment and South, the rates still reflect significant line after 198S will employ the wet shoreline areas. These two means of increases in electricity requirements towers cooling method. generation are expected to produce for these sectors by the year 2020. about 96 percent of the electrical PROJECTED S UPPL Y AND energy required in the Chesapeake SUPPLYMETHODOLOGY PLANTLOCATION Market Area in 2000. The locations of future facilities is fairly well known The power supply facilities projected It is projected that by the year 1985, through 1985, but, for installations through 1985 are either in service, approximately 44 percent of the scheduled beyond 1985, there is a under construction or in the advanced Market Area's total energy will be great deal of uncertainty regarding design stage. Accordingly, the pro- generated in nuclear power plants. By specific sites. The location of these jected supply picture through this 2000, the percentage is expected to plants was based on several criteria period reflects the generation already increase to 67 percent and to 72 including the availability of ample planned by utilities in the Market Area percent by 2020. Fossil fuel steam water supply, proximity to load at this writing. plants are expected to remain the centers, and the need to keep trans- major source of electric power to the mission lines short. In addition, sites in For the years after 1985 the supply year 1985 at which time they are Maryland were selected in accordance program utilized current and expected expected to generate 50 percent of with criteria developed by the Mary- trends in the relative proportions of total Market Area energy require- land Power Plant Siting Program al- steam generation to total generation ments. By the year 2000, however, though these sites were not necessarily and of nuclear generation to fossil. fossil fuel's share dips to 29 percent those chosen under the Siting The capacity projected assumes A and to 26 percent by 2020. It is Program. units projected for meeting Market anticipated that the remainder of the Area loads after 1985 are located energy requirements will be met by within the Market Area. hydroelectric and combustion type Because of the degree of uncertainty plants and possibly other generating attending site location in the long- With regard to future water consump- modes presently not available. range future, no attempt was made to tion and withdrawal rates by power predict where plants would be located plants, once-through cooling is pro- Shown on Figure 40 are the projected beyond 2000. 109 COOLING WATER out the period. For 2000 through jected to increase by approximately CONSIDERATIONS 2020, water use rates are assumed to nine times. This apparent discrepancy be the same as those for the year 2000 is due to two factors. First, once- Figure 41 illustrates the expected although technological improvements through cooling systems, which have levels of water use and consumption between 2000 and 2020 may reduce much higher withdrawal rates than by power plants for selected years. the water requirements shown in other types of cooling systems, are The information for the 1980-2000 Figure 41. Water withdrawals are ex- prohibited on all plants scheduled to period in Figure 41 is taken from pected to decrease over the projection begin service on or after 1985. Second, Tables 13-10 and 13-11 of Appendix period so that by 2020 withdrawals it was assumed that cooling towers 13 and accounts for both new units will be 18 percent of the 1972 figure. would be used for all projected added and old units removed through- Water consurription, however, is pro- capacity after 1985. Cooling towers TABLE39 STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY MARKET AREA, 2000 Location Plant Fuel Service-Area City State Capability Chesapeake West MW Douglas Point Nuclear Potomac El Pr. Co. Nanjemoy MD 3400 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Baltimore G&E Co. Lusby MD 3304 Bush River* Nuclear Baltimore G&E Co. Bush River MD 3000 Elms* Nuclear Potomac El Pr. Co. St. Marys City MD 3000 Lake Shore* Nuclear Baltimore G&E Co. Millersville MD 3000 Aquasco* Nuclear Potomac El Pr. Co. Aquasco MD 2700 Chalk Point Fossil Potomac El Pr. Co. Brandywine MD 1890 Morgantown Fossil Potomac El Pr. Co. Newburg MD 1801 Brandon Shores Fossil Baltimore G&E Co. Foremans Corner MD 1900 Wagner Fossil Baltimore G&E Co. Arundel Village MD 774 Berming Fossil Potomac El Pr. Co. Benning DC 580 25249 Chesapeake East Summit Nuclear Delmarva P&L Co. Summit Bridge DE 3040 Conowingo* Nuclear Conowingo Pr. Co. Conowingo MD 3000 Thornton* Nuclear Delmarva P&L Ma. Still Pond MD 3000 Bethlehem* Nuclear Delmarva P&L Ma. Bethlehem MD 2700 Red Lion* Fossil Delmarva P&L Co. Red Lion DE 2000 Havre-de-Grace* Fossil Conowingo Pr. Co. Havre-de-Grace MD 1000 Vienna Fossil Delmarva P&L Ma. Vienna MD 962 Indian River Fossil Delmarva P&L Co. Millsboro DE 677 Edge MOOT Fossil Delmarva P&L Co. Edge Moor DE 564 McKee Run Fossil Dover Municipal Dover DE 110 17053 Chesapeake South Free Ferry* Nuclear Virginia E&P Co. Barco NC 3760 North Anna Nuclear Virginia E&P Co. Minerva VA 3760 Surry Nuclear Virginia E&P Co. Surry VA 3290 Chowan* Nuclear Virginia E&_P Co. Cofield NC 2820 Ramirez* Nuclear Virginia UP Co. Mamie NC 2820 Roanoke* Nuclear Virginia E&_P Co. Palmyra NC 2820 Yorktown Fossil Virginia UP Co. Yorktown VA 2660 Claremont* Fossil Virginia E&P Co. Claremont VA 2535 Possum Point Fossil Virginia UP Co. Dumfries VA 2180 Smithfield* Fossil Virginia E&P Co. Smithfield VA 1690 Chesterfield Fossil Virginia E&P Co. Chester VA 1484 Portsmouth Fossil Virginia UP Co. Chesapeake VA 1050 30870 Total 73172 Plant projected and sited by FPC; all others are existing or scheduled by the utilities. 110 have much higher consumption rates Table 40 shows projected land require- probably have a higher capacity in the than once-through cooling systems. ments for power plants within the future. Chesapeake Bay Study Area, as de- LAND USE BY POWER fined in Figure 1. The magnitude of SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FA CILITIES the quantity of land needed for future power plant sites is obvious when it is The projections of future demands for Estimates of electric utility land use in realized that the land area of Washing- water and land by power plants in the the Chesapeake Bay Study Area was ton, D.C. is about 42,900 acres. Bay Region in the preceding sections restricted to that required for large were based on the assumption of a steam electric plants and the related 41 conservative" growth in the demand high-voltage transniission rights- It is reasonable to assume that the land for electric power. As part of the of-way. No attempt was made to occupied by future transmission lines power analysis, the sensitivity of estimate land use requirements asso- ciated with subtransniission or distri- will also increase significantly, especi- future demands for water and land to bution facilities. ally considering the fact that nuclear changes in the rate of growth was plants will have to be located further evaluated. Assuming a "high" rate of Power plant land requirements vary away from population centers for growth, which is an extension of his- with regard to plant type, size, loca- safety reasons. This is somewhat offset torical trends, both water and land tion and fuel use. by the fact that transmission lines will requirements would be expected to Figure 40: Chesapeake Bay Power Plant Location Map, 2000 Figure 4 1: Projected Cooling Water in the Bay Market Area Withdrawal Rates (MGD) 7;-- PENN. WES ,R OR s m. MD. %GN ST. vo C CO'K., ONCW-NGO ELAWARE ITY dT JRRYMA N CH CLI,@I I CRA'NE 1Z tv, @rl IT RIVERSIDE WA64 KE a ru CKER ON 9@rn pMI,KEE RUN 9.4 BENNING E@S 0 KEN 7.5 POTOMACM U2ZARD FIT TON SEAFORD RIVER P C. jK I-SUM PT @ND@I AN M vs ER 0 CULPEPE9. MD:G @A AAW VIENNA IT HEFLIN FALLING SMING 0 .* ..: CNISFI LD SMITH NORTHER . NECK CHINCOTEAGUE /LOWMOOR BALCONY a oPA KSLEY o BREMO TANGIER CIALLS OF SLEY* Consumption Rates CUSHAW 0 (MGD) REEK P. CEADO 0 TWELFTH STREET A. CHE C AYVI W PIERFIELDO PE CHARLES YORKTOWN REEVES KE R WT-SMOUTHCM AVE UE GASTON.@. N. C. ROANOKE N. C. RAPIDS K TTY HAWK 0.4 LEGEND MARKET AREA BOUNDARY STU Y AREA BOUNDARY UXTON 0.3 o ALL OTHER @4 M F SSIL STEAM 0 HYDROELECTRIC OCKRACOKE NUCLEAR STREAM P11972 '1985 [:]2000 02020 i TABLE40 Steam-electric efficiencies may be PROJECTED LAND REQUIRED FOR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANTS increased through the development of IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA (ACRES) better metals and other suitable mate- Sector 1985 2000 2020 rials in the heat transfer mechanism which could make possible a reduced Chesapeake East 3,300 8,400 21,800 production of reject heat correspond- Chesapeake West 6,700 16,500 41,300 ing to the same amount of electrical energy generated. Chesapeake South 6,100 9,200 26,700 - Hydroelectric and combustion plants TOTAL CHESAPEAKE could, to a limited degree, be substi- BAY REGION 16,100 34,100 89,800 tuted for steam-electric plants with the purpose of saving water; however the increase by approximately 30 percent reasonably expected economic and potential for additional hydro-electric in the year 2000 and about 95 percent technological developments in the generation is limited in the Study in 2020. Under a "low" rate of growth Chesapeake Bay Market Area. That Area. In addition, combustion plants assumption, which is a further damp- portrayal is but one possibility of what use an expensive grade of oil and are ening of the "conservative" growth may develop. By suitable extensions of generally designed for limited opera- trend, water and land requirements utility technologies and applications of tion. Such devices as magnet6hydrody- would decrease by approxii@ately 20 new philosophies of service modifica- namics, windmills, and solar cells use percent in 2000 and about 30 percent tion (including public education pro- no water and may, conceivably, be in 2020. Water and land requirements grams designed to inform the public of brought into more common use early under both the low and conservative the importance of energy conserva- in the riext century. growth assumptions were shown to be tion) the land and water use indicated significantly lower than unde@r the his- might be altered dramatically. The Reject heat is presently put to bene- torical trend growth rate. Table 13-15 sections which follow explore some of ficial uses by providing steam for in Appendix 13 presents more detailed the areas where such modifications industrial and commercial purposes. data on the results of this analysis. could appear. Actually, such opportunities are now rare, but selected future industrial The sensitivity analysis section of development might possibly be coordi- Appendix 13 also investigated the WATER USE nated with the scheduling of gener- impact on water withdrawal and con- ating plants to create an "industrial sumption in the year 2020 of varying Steam-electric plants offer a theoreti- park" centered on the plant. the future fossil/nuclear plant mix and cal maximum thermal efficiency of close d-cycle/once-through cooling some 55%, the remaining 45% of the system mix. The results for water energy being rejected as heat. Actual LAIVD USE withdrawal varied from a low of 1541 efficiencies, including the mechanical mgd with an all fossil fuel, all closed and electrical losses, are about 40% for Virtually all existing electric power cycle system to a high of 4 551 mgd fossil plants and about 25% for nuclear facilities are located above ground on with an all nuclear, all once-through plants. sites dedicated for the single purpose system. Water consumption ranged of the particular facility. In the pre- from 452 mgd for all fossil fuel, The continued dependence on the vious section, future electric power once-through plants to 1,3 13@ mgd for thermal process to produce electricity land use was approximated based on all nuclear, closed cycle plants. It is will most probably result in the in- typical dimensions and samplings. The obvious from this analysis that any creasing use of the water from Chesa- resultant order of demand for land in economic considerations or govern- peake Bay and its estuarine and fresh- the Chesapeake Bay suggests a need ment regulations affecting the type of water tributaries for cooling purposes. for additional consideration of these fuel or cooling system allowed in Either the water is returned to the Bay requirements. The demand for land power plants can have si Ignificant in a heated condition for a once- might be reduced by additional rede- impacts on power plant water require- through system or is lost at an in- velopment of existing sites, more com- ments. creased rate to the atmosphere in a pact design of facilities, multiple use cooling tower system. Reduction of of future sites and rights-of-way, and MEANS TO SATISFY the water volumes so heated or con- underground construction. ELECTRIC POWER NEEDS surned may possibly be accomplished in a number of ways - e.g., increasing LOADMANAGEMENT The previous section presents one steam-electric efficiencies, changing possible pattern of future loa require- the generation mix, increasing waste Historically, the demand for electric ments and power supply based on heat utilization. energy has been an outgrowth of the 112 overall economic and social climate of can also lead to problems. With some ficient numbers to require compre- the utility's territory. All demand was aquatic plants, excessive growths or hensive control measures. supplied in full without qualification heavy concentrations can cause con- other than econoniic return. Virtually flicts and actually restrict the use of CURRENTSTATUS all present day rate structures actually other resources. At this point, these encourage energy use by lowering the plants become a hinderance and are The plants which have caused the most unit price of energy as the consump- termed "noxious weeds". widespread problems in Chesapeake tion increases and by maintaining con- Bay, include Eurasian watermilfoil, stant rates regardless of the time of Noxious weed problems arise when the water chestnut, and sea lettuce. While, day or season of year. In the interest plants occur in such a place or to such as noted above, these species are pres- of minimizing the water and land use an extent that they limit other be .ne- ently not a problem in the Bay necessary for electric power genera- ficial water related uses such as naviga- Region, a brief description of each is tion, demand manipulation and modi- tion, recreation, fish and wildlife, provided due to their potential for fication should also be considered. A water quality, and public health. In reemergence in the future. A more possible means of restructuring rate navigation channels, aquatic plants can detailed discussion oi- the character- schedules is the introduction of time and have grown sufficiently dense to istics and history of each of these dependency. The cost of producing block or impede boat traffic and plants as well as other less prominent electricity, and the ecological effects present a navigation hazard. Recrea- plants can be found in Appendix 14, of such production varies throughout tion opportunities including swim- "Noxious Weeds." the day and year. If rates were made ming, boating and fishing have also dependent on time, the price of the been restricted as the result of exces- electricity could better convey to the sive growths of several species. Fish E URA SIAN WA TERMILFOIL consumer the costs associated with his and wildlife can be adversely affected demand for service and could en- when the plants occlude needed sun- Eurasian watermilfoil is a submerged courage him to adjust his use toward light for food production, exhaust aquatic plant having an appearance as the lower-priced periods of the day or dissolved oxygen supplies, and "crowd shown in Figure 42. Growing over a year. out" plants which may be more desir- wide range of environmental condi- able foods for waterfowl. Water qual- tions, the plant flourishes in water Much of the electrical energy pur- ity problems that can be caused by depths of up to 8 feet and in waters chased by the consumer is never trans- excessive growths include low dis- ranging from fresh to 15 ppt salinity. formed into useful work but is lost in solved oxygen, reduction of the aes- It roots easily in bottoms ranging from the conversion process employed by thetic value of water resources, and hard packed sand to muck, and under the various household and industrial possible release of hydrogen sulfide gas the right conditions grows rapidly to appliances and equipment. Part of the from anaerobica .lly decaying the water surface, sometimes forming loss is due to the design of the "blooms." Finally, public health can a dense interwoven mat of material. appliance and part is due to the be endangered when the aquatic vege- operation of the appliance by the tation provides a favorable condition Known to be a native of Eurasia, the consumer. By encouraging manufac- for the proliferation of mosquitoes manner in which watermilfoil came to turers and consumers to consider over- which can transmit diseases such as inhabit the waters of the United States all lifetime operating costs as well as malaria and encephalitis. is uncertain. It has been proposed, the initial cost of the product, more however, that either the plant came efficient appliances could be marketed On a worldwide basis, noxious weed over in ships' ballasts which discharged with a resultant reduction in demand. problems are of more concern in into American waters, or that it came warmer latitudes than in the Chesa- over initially in supplies of imported N03UOUS WEEDS peake Bay Region. Central and South aquarium fish. America, Africa, Asia, and the As previously mentioned in Chapter 2 Southern United States all have more Watermilfoil problems were first docu- of this Summary, the aquatic plants acute problems with the state of Flor- mented in the Bay Area in the early which inhabit the Chesapeake Bay ida alone spending almost $15 million 1930's and surfaced again in the late Area waters are very important and annually on weed control programs. 1950's to early 1960's. The areas most serve as the primary producers or vital While certain aquatic plants have affected by this weed were the Gun- life line for other Bay species. Without caused problems in the Bay Region in powder and Middle River areas in the the first link in the food chain pro- the past, today only an occasional northern Bay Area and tributaries of vided by these plants, most forms of isolated report of a noxious weed the Potomac and Rappahannock higher life within the Bay would suffer problem can be found. The problem Rivers in the lower Bay Area. From and the tremendous productivity of species are still present in the Bay 1967 to the present time, however, the Bay would decrease. However, as waters, but only as mere fragments of Eurasian Watermilfoil has become with any resource, an overabundance previous volumes, and none in suf- increasingly scarce and its masses have 113 I Figure 42: Eurasian Wate WWI been estimated at only one percent of its 1963 tonnage. In part, the reasons for the remarkable decline are two diseases which affect only the milfoil plants and the drought of the middle 1960's which caused salinities to in- crease above the plant's tolerance level. WATER CHESTNUT Like watermilfbil, the water chestnut is an import of Eurasian origin. The plant grows from seeds and produces as many as 10 to 15 rosettes or clumps of leaves which float on the water surface and can cluster up to 10 feet in diameter. A single rosette of the water chestnut is shown in Figure 43. The manner by which water chestnut dis- Al tributes itself from one area to another is not fully understood, but the plant is known to tolerate no salinity and can grow in waters as deep as 15 feet. In areas of intense growth, the rosettes may become so crowded that the leaves are pushed upright out of the water forming a field of vegetation which makes boating, fishing, and other water related activities difficult if not impossible. In the Chesapeake Bay Area, the water chestnut was first believed to have been planted as an ornament in gold- fish ponds in Washington, D.C., before World War 1. By 1923, the plant had & ead to the Potomac River and ten spr years later almost 10,000 acres were infested near Alexandria, Virginia. More recently, the Gunpowder and Sassafras Rivers have had some water chestnut problems in 1955 and 1964, respectively. Today because of the many years of control efforts and expenditures for their removal, only yearly surveillance and hand pulling of the water chestnut is required. to avoid problems. SEA LETTUCE Sea lettuce, a green alga with a world- wide distribution, grows mainly in estuaries and salt marshes of low cur- rent velocity, and salinity over 12 ppt. The general appearance of the plant is 114 shown in Figure 44. Typically, the A plants grow at scattered 2 or 3 foot intervals to depths of about 20 feet, but are most abundant on shallow sand flats. When washed up on beaches, the lettuce rots and produces various gases, the worst of which is hydrogen sulfide. This noxious gas can discolor lead paint, tarnish silverware, and in sufficient concentrations create a health hazard. Sea lettuce problems have been docu- mented for many years in the Bay Area, Long Island Sound, and at the many places along the back bays of the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey. In Maryland, the sea lettuce problem peaked in 1965 with most of the problems occurring in the Potomac River and its tributaries. Virginia's sea lettuce problems have centered basic- ally around the Norfolk Area where local shoreline residents requested N, relief regularly during the 1960's. For- tunately, most problems arising as a result of sea lettuce growth are only of Figure 43: Water Chestnut a temporary nature. The floating mats of lettuce typically remain for from Figure 44: Sea Lettuce two to six weeks and are usually washed away by currents, alleviating the problem. MEANS TO SATISFY FUTURE NEEDS [[(w. GENEPAL Although present water resource utili- zation is not hindered by the presence of aquatic plant growth in the Chesa- peake Bay Area, the potential exists for problems to develop in the future. All plants require certain combinations IX") of such growth factors as sunlight, salinity, temperature, and nutrients before growth and reproduction will occur. It is not known whether an improper balance of these growth fac- tors or some other reason such as disease has caused the recent decline in many types of aquatic vegetation including noxious varieties in the Bay; but, new growth can be expected with the return of favorable conditions. If a resurgence of noxious plant growth creates conflicts with other uses of the 115 Bay's resources, consideration will as copp@r sulfate, 2,4-D, diquat, amphibious tractors, and a machine have to be given to control@ measures. endothall, and silvex directly to the which floats on its own cushion of air This section provides a brief overview waters. However, the use of these at high speeds.. I of the various categories of control chemicals must be carefully controlled measures that have been employed in because of their adverse side effects. In Biological control of noxious aquatic the past and that have some potential high concentrations, many of these plants is perhaps the most ideal from a for use in the Bay Region. More herbicides are highly deleterious to cost and permanence point of view. In specific discussion of thesel measures aquatic organisms such as finfish and the form of plant pathogens or insect can be found in Appendix 14, "Nox- shellfish, and also may damage or or animal predator species, this type of ious Weeds." eliminate desirable waterfowl food control can become self-perpetuating plants and other valuable vegetation. at virtually no cost other than that CONTROL MEASURES Another potential problem is the pos- needed to initiate the process. Insect sible adverse effect on human beings or animal predators that are being Since the emergence of aquatic plant who ingest water or food that is investigated in aquatic control pro- problems in America at the end of the contaminated with these chemicals. grams include the Agasicles beetle, the nineteenth century, many methods white amur (an herbivorous fish), and have been devised to, control plant Mechanical aquatic weed control in- other animals such as snails, crayfish, growths. Today, more sophisticated volves the use of various types of thrips, moths, grasshoppers, aphids, measures have been devised, re- equipment to cut, uproot, collect, and the manatee. Plant diseases, such searched, and put into practi ce for the mash, and otherwise destroy the as various forms of fungi, bacteria, and eradication of noxious weed 'Problems. plants. In use for some time, the first viruses are also being investigated for These measures fall into three basic mechanical control programs used a the control of the water hyacinth and categories: chemical control, Imechani- crusher which pulverized the plants the watermilfoil. Experimental efforts cal control, and biological control. and left the remains to sink and rot in to utilize these biological methods I the water. Newer types of equipment with a minimum of adverse impacts One of the most direct, time effective, that have and are being investigated have been successful in some areas of and efficient means of controlling for possible field operations include the United States in recent years, nuisance aquatic growths isl through spray equipment, wood chippers, de- although a complete understanding of the use of chemicals. This involves the vices for transporting personnel and the complicated process involved is direct application of substances such equipment over difficult terrain, still somewhat lacking. 116 Epilogue Since Captain John Smith first ex- isting water supply, waste treatment, peake Bay Region. With proper plan- plored Chesapeake Bay in 1608, many and recreational facilities. ning, tomorrow's development will be changes have taken place-changes tempered by a growing awareness of which have resulted . in a thriving, During the next 50 years, population the environmental costs of unregulated diversified economy and one of the is projected to more than double once growth, and also by the knowledge highest standards of living in the again so that by the year 2020 approx- that environmental enhancement and United States for the residents of the imately 16.3 million people will reside preservation have often significant Chesapeake Bay Region. However, this in the Bay Region. As a result of these economic costs which cannot be disre- rise in the standard of living has not projected increases in population, as garded. Informed decisions will have been without sacrifices or trade-offs well as expected increases in per capita to be made concerning future uses of regarding the Bay's resources. Man has income and manufacturing output, sig- the Bay's resources based on a cut vast virgin forests, destroyed many nificant additional demands will be thorough analysis of all the costs and thousands of acres of wetlands, used placed on Chesapeake Bay's water and benefits-econoniic, environmental, the Bay and its tributaries as receiving related land resources. For example, and social. waters for municipal and industrial 31 of the 49 major central water wastes, and added huge quantities of supply systems in the Region are sediments to the Bay's waters. expected to have average water de- Essential inputs to such a planning mands which will exceed presently effort are both study and research developed supplies; water consump- designed to provide a better under- Man's misuse of the Bay's resources tion by both industry and power standing of the incredibly complex was usually not intentionally mali- plants is projected to increase by ecological, economic, and environ- cious. It was simply a matter of people nearly nine times; boating and sailing mental "system" called the Chesa- performing the acts of living, working activity is projected to increase by peake Bay Region. An important part and playing, that have been the genesis more than five times and swimming by of such research should be work which of most of the Bay's problems. Com- nearly four and one-half times; total is oriented toward gaining more know- pounding the situation was a general waterborne commerce on Chesapeake ledge of the role of the Estuary's lack of understanding of the complexi- Bay is expected to approximately natural physical and chemical pro- ties and interrelationships of the Bay's double; and nearly 20,000 acres of cesses in the overall health of the ecosystem and the finite capacity of land within the 100-year tidal flood ecosystem. Research is also needed to the Bay to assin-diate wastes. plain have been proposed for intensive provide a better understanding of the development. biological component of the ecosys- In 1974, 366 years after Captain tem such as predator-prey relation- Smith's voyage up the Bay, there were Although there is much room for ships and the biological reasons for 8.2 million people living in the Bay honest debate over the magnitude of species population fluctuations. Also Region. Population in the Bay Region the projected levels of demands on the of critical importance is a need for has more than doubled since 1940. Bay's resources presented in this re- methodologies to better estimate the These rapid growth rates have com.' port, there is no debate about the value of such non-market items as an pounded the Bay-related problems assertion that there will be continued acre of wetland, a day of birdwatch- by overloading the capacities of ex- development by man in the Chesa- ing, an endangered species habitat, or 117 the aesthetic appeal of a clean river or focal point it will promote more ef- integrity of Chesapeake Bay and the bay. fective liaison among the agencies welfare of the people of the Region working in the Bay Region by helping and Nation. The goal, not only of the There are numerous studies and re- to reduce duplication of research and Corps of Engineers, but also of all search projects underway at all levels by leading to the accelerated disserni- parties interested in the future of of government and at private institu- nation of knowledge among interested Chesapeake Bay, is a well-coordinated tions which are addressing these types parties. The model will also be extreme- water-land management plan which of problems. Unfortunately, @research ly valuable as an educational tool for will guide man in utilizing the re- efforts are sometimes not coordinated the public in the magnitude and com- sources of Chesapeake Bay to provide and therefore much time and money is plexity of the problems and conflicts the greatest benefits to the greatest lost due to duplication of effort facing Chesapeake Bay. Construction number of people. and/or lack of direction. of the Chesapeake Bay Model was completed in May 1976. Verfication, In addition to their involvement in or "fine-tuning" of the model is cur- research efforts, a large number of rently underway and is scheduled for Federal, State, and local agencies, as completion in 1977. well as several interstate commissions, are involved in different aspects of Based on the findings of the Future water resource management @ in the Conditions Report, the capabilities Region. Inconsistenci *es in the laws and limitations of the Hydraulic promulgated by these various levels of Model, and input from the Study's government, many of which have con- blic involvement program, exsting flicting interests., often create prob- Pu lems in what is essentially a regional and potential management problems resource- Chesapeake Bay. will be identified and prioritized. In prioritizing these problems, emphasis The Corps of Engineers Chesapeake will be placed on (1) selecting prob- Bay Existing Conditions Report was lems for study that are considered to the first major study effort which be high priority and that have Bay- addressed Chesapeake Bay from a wide significance; (2) maximizing the regional perspective. Just as im plortant, use of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic the report contained much of the basic Model; and (3) avoiding any duplica- data required to project thel future tion of work being conducted under demands on the Bay. The primary other existing or proposed programs. focus of this study, the Chesapeake Major problem areas under consid era- Bay Future Conditions Report, is to tion for further study during the next present the projection of water re- phase of the Study include the effects - year 2020 with the on the Bay and its people of extreme source needs to the purpose of identifying the problems freshwater inflow conditions, naviga- and conflicts which would result from tion channel modifications, increases the unrestrained growth in use' of the in power plant thermal effluents, tidal Bay's resources. This report p rovides flooding, and wastewater dispersion. the basic information necessary to proceed into the next phase of the The findings of the Future Conditions program which is the formulation and Report and the Chesapeake Bay recommendation of solutions @to pri- Hydraulic Model will add tremen- ority problems. dously to the growing body of know- ledge of the Chesapeake Bay system. The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model The system is immensely complex, at Matapeake, Maryland, will@ be a however, and future increases in many major planning tool during t he.next types of demands will be great in phase of the study. The nine acre magnitude and rapid in occurrence. We model will provide a means of repro- cannot hope to completely understand ducing, to a manageable scale, some of the workings of. the entire system. We the physical phenomena (e.gl " cur- can, however, develop enough know- rents, tides, salinities) that I occur ledge to identify future activites by throughout this large and complex man which would result in significant system. In addition, as an operational adverse or beneficial impacts on the 118 Glossary activity day: the participation by one person in a recreational activity during any portion of one day. aquifer: a saturated underground geologic formation of sand, gravel, or other porous material, capable of transmitting water to wells or springs. bacteriological indicators: total coliforin bacteria include bacteria found in the soil, on plants, and in the excreta of man and animals, Fecal coliform bacteria, although harmless to man, are found along with pathogenic bacteria in domestic waste products. Since pathogenic bacteria have been proven to carry disease and methods for reliable detection of these organisms have not yet been developed, concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria have been used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria presence. base load generating plants: plants which operate on a continuous, or nearly continuous, basis at or near capability. Bay Region: the geographical area which includes those counties or SMSA's which are located on Chesapeake Bay or one of its tidal tributaries (See Figure 1); same as "Study Area." biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): a measure of the oxygen depleting power of the organics in a waste water discharge. bloom: the sudden development of conspicuous masses of organisms, such as algae, in bodies of water. brackish water: a mixture of salt water from the ocean and freshwater from land drainage usually considered to have a salinity greater than I part per thousand. clilorophyll: serves as a very important link in the photosynthetic process, which involves the transformation of light energy into chemical energy necessary for the growth of plants. High chlorophyll a (i.e., a form of chlorophyll found in water) values are generally indicative of high algal concentrations. coastwise traffic: domestic traffic receiving a carriage over the ocean or the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., New Orleans to Baltimore or Puerto Rico to Hampton Roads). combustion plant: a type of electrical generating facility which uses the power of combustion instead of steam to drive the turbine. consumption: the amount of water lost between point of intake and discharge, by incorporation into products, evaporation, etc. deadweight tonnage: the weight in tons of cargo, supplies, fuel, passengers and crew when loaded to the maximum. detritus or detrital material: a non-dissolved product of disintegration or decay. Organic detritus forms the basis of the estuarine food chain. dissolved oxygen (DO): the amount of oxygen dissolved in water. DO is dependent mostly on atmospheric pressure and temperature. Adequate DO is necessary for the survival of fish and other aquatic organisms. 119 dissolved solids: measure the total amount of organic and inorganic material which has been chemically dissolved in water. Sulfates, carbonates, phosphates, nitrates, and chlorides are among the most common dissolved solids in surface waters. distribution areas: the geographical area to which a product is shipped after being received in a port or processed in the port area. draft: the distance from water level to the lowest point of the vessel underwater. ecosystem: the interacting system of living things to one another and their environment. electrical generation: the quantity of electrical energy produced by a generating plant or group of plants. electrical requirements: the quantity of electrical energy consumed by the customers, by miscellaneous internal uses, and by the losses of a utility or group of utilities. It is equal to the generation, plus the net receipts from other utilities. endangered species: those animal and plant species which are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. estuary: a partially enclosed coastal body of water which has a connection with the ocean and within which freshwater from land drainage and salt water from the ocean are mixed. eutrophication: any change in an aquatic environment that is correlated with an increase in available nutrients. Fall Line: the geological boundary line where softer sedimentary formations of the Coastal Plain thin out as they come into contact with the harder crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Plateau. gigawatthours: the unit of energy equal to one billion watthours, the watthour being an extremely small unit. gross water use: the amount of water actually used within the plant taking into account the number of times the water is recycled (e.g., if 1,000 gallons of water are withdrawn from a water body and the recycling rate is two, then gross water use is equal to 2,000 gallons). groundwater: water found underground in porous rock or soil strata. heavy metals: heavy metals such as mercury, lead, zinc, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic are of importance because of their toxicity in relatively low concentrations to plants and animals and their relatively long lives. The most significant problem is that many fish and shellfish concentrate these materials in their tissues, affecting the natural food chain and presenting a consumption hazard for man. hydroelectric power plant: a type of electrical generating facility which converts failing water into electrical energy. imports and exports: traffic between the United States and foreign ports. intake: the amount of water actually withdrawn from a supply source. Intermediate Regional Tidal Flood (IRTF): the tidal flood which has a one percent chance of occurrence in any one year (generally referred to as the 100-year flood). Internal traffic: traffic between ports or landings wherein the entire movement takes place on inland waterways. Movements on Chesapeake Bay are considered internal. maximum sustainable yield: the greatest harvest which can be taken from a population without affecting subsequent harvests. non-point sources: those in which material reaches a water course through flows over a large area (e.g., runoff from an agricultural field into a waterway). nutrients: elements or compounds (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) essential as raw materials for organism growth and development. Excessive concentrations can over-fertilize plant life. OBERS baseline projections: projections of population and economic activity prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture with the assistance of the Forest Service. 120 peak load generating plants: plants which operate only during periods of peak demand pH: a measure of hydrogen ion concentration. "pH" reflects either acidic or alkaline conditions. Neutrality is represented by a pH of 7. Basic conditions (pH above 8.5) can decrease reproductive capabilities in many aquatic species and acidic water (pH less than 6) can exert stress or kill all forms of aquatic life. point sources: those in which material is discharged through a specific point (e.g., effluent from a wastewater treatment plant). pollutant: any gas, liquid, or solid whose nature, location or quantity contaminates the water (or other medium) to a level of quality which is less desirable. power pool: two or more interconnected electric systems planned and operated on a coordinated basis. recycling rate: the ratio of water intake to gross water use. salinity: the concentration of dissolved solids in a water body. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA): a designation of the U.S. Bureau of the Census which is defined as containing a city, or "twin" cities, with a population of 50,000 or more, and the socially and economically contiguous counties. Standard Project Tidal Flood (SPTF): the largest tidal flood that is likely to occur under the most severe combinations of meteorological and hydrological conditions that are considered reasonably characteristic of the geographic region. steam power plant: a type of electrical generating facility which uses steam to drive an electrical generator. The steam is generated by heat from burning fossil fuels or from the fissioning of nuclear fuel. Study Area: same as "Bay Region." suspended solids: those which remain suspended in water and Cannot pass through the holes in a standardized filter (typically one-millionth of an inch in diameter). tidal flooding: the inundation of land by tides higher than those usually caused by hurricanes or "northeasters." Water Service Areas (WSA's): a central water system serving more than 2,500 people. waterborne receipts: commerce moving into a port. waterborne shipments: commerce moving out of a port. wetlands: an area characterized by high soil moisture and often high biological productivity, where the water table is at or near the surface for most of the year. 121 Acknow- ledgements This report was prepared by the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, under the general direction of the following District Engineers: General Robert S. McGarry 1973 - 1976 Colonel G. K. Withers 1976- 1977 The following individuals served on the Advisory Group and the Steering Committee during preparation of this Report. ADVISORY GROUP DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Graham T. Munkittrick 1973-76 J. David Breslin 1973-75 Gerald R. Calhoun 1976-77 Roger S. Babb 1975-77 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Henry L. DeGraff 1973-77 Capt. G. H. Patrick BUTsley 1973-74 Capt. Keith B. Schumacher 1974-77 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ENERGY RESEARCH AND DE-fELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Thomas M. Croke 1973-76 Lawrence Levine 1976-77 Dr. W. Roland Taylor 1975 Dr. Jackson 0. Blanton 1975-76 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Dr. D. Heyward Hamilton 1976-77 Dr. Francis S. L. Williamson 1973-75 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan 1975-77 Larry S. Miller 1973-74 U.S. NAVY Green Jones 1974-76 Leonard Mangiaracina 1976-77 Edward W. Johnson 1973-77 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION1 John H. Spellman 1973-74 Dr. Ford A. Cross 1973-75 Angelo Monaco 1974-76 James D. Hebson 1976-77 DELAWARE PENNSYLVANIA John C. Bryson 1973-77 Clifford H. McConnell 1973-77 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VIRGINIA Paul V. Freese 1973 Robert R. Perry 1973-75 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr. 1973-77 William C. McKinney 1975-76 Herbert L. Tucker 1976-77 lThe Atomic Energy Commission was reorganized into the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ERDA is currently represented on the Advisory Group. 123 MARYLAND NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION James B. Coulter 1973-77 Dr. Richard C. Kolf 1973-74 Dr. Edward H. Bryan 1974-77 STEERING COMMITTEE U,S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Alfred E. Robinson, Jr. (Chai@nan) 1973-77 Paul V. Freese 1973 Robert R. Perry 1973-75 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE William C. McKinney 1975-76 Herbert L. Tucker 1976-77 Russell T. Norris 1973-76 William G. Gordon 1976-77 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Frederich W. Sieling 1973-75 Dr. L. Eugene Cronin 1973-77 Dr. Oliver B. Cope 1973-74 Dr. Donald W. Pritchard 1973-77 Dr. Daniel L. Leedy 1974-76 Albert E. Sanderson 1973-77 Dr. W. Sherman Gillarn 1976-7 7 L. E. Zeni 1975-77 ENERGY RESEARCH M, - -E VELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION1 Dr. W. Roland Taylor 1975 Dr. Ford A. Cross 1973-75 Dr. Jackson 0. Blanton 1975-76 Dr. D. Heyward Hamilton 1976-77 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DELAWARE Dr. Richard C. Kolf 1973-74 Dr. Edward H. Bryan 1974-77 John C. Bryson 1973-77 PENNSYLVANIA SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION William N. Frazier 1973-77 Dr. Francis S. L. Williamson 1973-75 Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan 1975-77 VIRGINIA Drz Wifliam L Harmis. Jr. 19713-77 In addition to the members of the above groups, the following individuals made substantial contributions to this Report: Department of Agriculture John W. Green; Mark A. Helman; James E. Horsefield; John E. Hostetler Department of Commerce Marvin F. Boussu, Robert Brewer@-' Eleanor Curry; Ronald D. Gatton; Timothy E. Goodger; K.L. Kollar; Robert L. Lippson; Roger A. Matson; Patrick H. McAuley; Ronald J. Morris; William N. Shaw; Robert Taylor; Robert R. Wilson Environmental Protection Agency Thomas H. Pheiffer; Orterio Villa Federal Power Commission Martin Inwald; John Pazmino; Carlos Ramirez; Martin J. Thorpe Department of Interior Robert H. Alexander; Ralph Andrews; Philip B. Aus; Ellen P. Baldacchino; Frank M. Basile; Gerard Bentryn; B. Black; Ken Chitwood; L. Cohen; James Comiskey; James J. Donoghue; Katherine Fitzpatrick; William Forrest; K. Hall; David B. Harris; M. Honeycutt; Frank Jones; Ralph Keel; J. Lowman; Kenneth @ McGinty; Robert Munroe; Earl C. Nichols; James P. Oland; Willard Parker; Ralph Pisapia; E.R. Roach; Larry R. Shanks; Jane Sundberg; Nelson Swink; Paul Weiser; W. Finch White Smithsonian Institution Dale Jenkins; Steve Keely; David W. Kunhardt Delavtvre Harry E. Derrickson; Charles Hatfiild; David R. Keifer; James L. Pase; John Sherman; Ronald A. Thomas The Atomic Energy Commission was reorganized into the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ERDA is currently represented on the Steering Committee. 124 District of Columbia Jean B. Levesque Maryland John Antenucci; Tyler Bastian; Marvin J. Bennof; Charles R. Bostater, Jr.; Earl Bradley; Carlo Brunori; Mark Bundy; Nick Carter; Thomas Chaney; Eugene F. Deems, Jr.; James Goldsberry; Bernard F. Halla; Frank Hamons; Lester A. Levine; Raymond W. Ludlow; Richard Marasco; Paul Massicott; Ruth M. Mathes; Kenneth E. McElroy, Jr.; Bob Miller; Fred P. Miller; Steve Miller; Robert S. Nortorr, Jr.; Chris Ostrom; Donald Outen; Kenneth E. Perkins; Duane Pursley; Josh Sandt; Arnold Schiffman; David A. Schultz; Scribner Sheafor; Turbit Slaughter; Harley Speir; Verrion D. Stotts; Edwin Thomas; Jeri T. Yang Pennsylvania V. M. Beard Virginia Fred C. Biggs; Donald W. Budlong; Robert Byrne; John Capito; James E. Douglas, Jr., Alexander M. Griffin; Dixie Griffin; J. Gwynn; Carl Hobbs; Dale F. Jones; Ken Lion; Howard MacCord; Norman Phillips, Jr.; John B. Pleasants; Donald B. Richwine; Glen Rehberger; Fairfax Settle; John Stockton; Robert Swisher; Burton Tuxford; Cloyde W. Wiley Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Donald F. Boesch; D.G. Cargo; Jerry D. Hardy, Jr.; Herbert Harris; Linda L. Hudson; Rogers Huff; Catherine Kerby; Robert E. Miller; Leo L. Minasian; Forrest E. Payne; Hayes T. Pfitzenmeyer; Daniel E. Terlizzi; Marvin L. Wass CYtizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Edward W. Aiton; Charles W. Coale, Jr.; Barbara Fine; Germaine Gallagher; Betty Jane Gerber; E. Polk Kellam; John Harris Lane, IV; Thomas B. Lewis; William C. Lunsford; J. Douglas McAlister; W. Cranston Morgan; John J. Ney; William Park; William R. Prier; Gordon Riley; Arthur Sherwood; Ed Vinnicombe; J. Paul Williams The preparation of this Report was under the staff supervision of: William E. Trieschman, Jr., Chief, Planning Division The preparation and coordination of the Report was accomplished by the Chesapeake Bay Study Branch of the Planning Division under the immediate supervision of: Alfred E. Robinson, Jr., Chief, Chesapeake Bay Study Branch Noel E. Beegle, Chief, Study Coordination and Evaluation Section James H. McKay, Jr., Chief, Technical Studies and Data Development Section Major professional contributors from the Branch included: Thomas L. Anderson; John C. Diering, Jr.; Kenneth L. Garner; George W. Harman, Jr.; C. John Klein, 111; Edward S. Musial; James P. Rausch; Steven R. Stegner The preparation of the art work and graphics for this report was under the supervision of: Henry G. Dunn, Chief, Reports and Communications Branch Art and Graphics for this Report were prepared by: Lynlee Brock Don Floriza Martin Holt G. Wayne Parker Typing was accomplished by: Patricia D. Kuta Patricia Olczak Maureen D. Quinn Credit is also due to many others who contributed to this Report. 125 I VKII g it A -wv, ma, -gr F, Yj, e 061, 00 3 illip. WN,