[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
oastal Zone Information Fo cL- (Do Center Z C) 110 50 @ AMMMM COSTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER 4 *4W. AML @Y? INTEGRITY OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY F H T 39,2.5 C45 , @T k@M37 1972 HON. MARVIN MANDEL Governor of the State of Maryland 8rq(anJ4jrCHESAPEAKE BAY INTERAGENCY PLAN- NING COMMITTEE Vladimir A. Wahbe, Chairman Secretary, Department of State Planning James. B. Coulter, Vice Chairman Secretary, Department of Natural Re- sources Harry R. Hughes Secretary, Department of Transportation Howard E. Chaney Director, Environmental Health Adminis- tration Department of Health and Men- tal Hygiene Edmond F. Rovner Secretary, Department of Economic and Community Development *Please see page 52 for special acknowledgements PROJECT COORDINATION STAFF ASSISTANCE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE Robert F. Tribukait, P. E.... Roy G. Metzgar Albert R. Millerjr. Specialized support was provided by the fol- Department of State Planning Department of State Planning lowing agencies: )ohn R. Capper, Christopher Slaughter Department of State Planning EX-OFFICIO REPRESENTATIVES Department of Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources Dr. L. Eugene Cronin J. J. O'Donnell, Gary Smith State Highway Administration Natural Resources Institute, University of Henry Douglas, Jerry White Maryland Port Administration Maryland Department of Transportation Department of Economic and Community Dr. Donald W. Pritchard W. McLean Bingley, Frederick Pyne Development Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins Department of Health and Mental Hy- Regional Planning Council University giene Maryland Soil Conservation Service Dr. Robert M. Sparks Johns Hopkins University Department of Economic and Community Development This document was condensed by the Maryland Department of State Planning with CONSULTANT assistance by Urban Research & Development Corporation from the Maryland Chesa- Urban Research & Development Corpora- peake Bay Study prepared by Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd, Inc. tion, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Publication Number 184 INTEGRITY OF THE (i S . DE@ARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA CHESAPEAKE CC)A@@,l AL SERVICES CENTER 2z,34 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CtIARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 BAY Property of CSC Library The preparation of this Report, maps and documents were financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment, as administered by the Maryland Department of State Planning. Comprehensive Planning Assistance Project ZZ, No. Md. P-92 ell This report is printed on reclaimed waste paper. Reclamation of paper is an example of how today's wastes can be re-used, easing the solid waste disposal crisis and preserving the quality of our environment. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING 301 WEST PRESTON STREET VLADIMIR A. WAHBE MARVIN MANDEL BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201 SECRETARY 11 STATE -NNI11 .-E ... R TELEPHONE 301 3-2451 NORMAN HEBDEN 0-TY SECRETARY The Honorable Marvin Mandel Governor of Maryland State House Annapolis, Maryland 21404 Dear Governor Mandel: The Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee (CBIPC) was established at your request in 1969 to reflect the public concern for the immense economic, environmental and social values inherent in the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee was created to improve planning and management procedures between State agencies with Bay-related responsibilities. The Bay's natural resources must be studied comprehensively to minimize land and water-related impacts through the promulgation of policies for balanced use. Only through comprehensive management planning at the State level will Marylanders have continued enjoy- ment and utilization of the Chesapeake Bay's natural resources. In 1970, CBIPC enlisted the services of the planning consultant firm of Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd to study the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay and to prepare a comprehensive inventory of the present and future Bay- related planning problems. Included in the technical document, which is under separate cover, are recommended goals, policies and management institutions which would respond most effectively to the Bay problems. This effort was initiated with the aid of a Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program grant by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. I am pleased to transmit the summary of the technical report entitled, "Integrity of the Chesapeake Bay" to you, to the General Assembly and to the citizens of Maryland for reaction. This report presents the technical documents contained in an abbreviated format which facilitates ease in comprehension and extensive distribution. The consultant's findings stress the necessary elements in defining a comprehensive Bay-wide plan and the mechanism for achieving this end. This report does not necessarily reflect a consensus of the Committee, but will be the Primary input for further deliberations. Based upon CBIPC deliberations and statewide reaction, the Committee will soon be preparing a special report to you recommending the procedures for implementation of a Chesapeake Bay program. This completed endeavor reflects a two-year effort and represents the first comprehensive Maryland Chesapeake Bay inventory of natural resources and economic development problems with suggested mechanisms for management plan- ning. Sincerely yours, Vladimir A. Wahbe DESCRIPTION OF THE BAY 5 PROBLEMS AND GOALS 9 WATER ENVIRONMENT OF THE ESTUARY 10 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT 15 FISH AND WILDLIFE 24 WATER SUPPLY 26 TRANSPORTATION 29 BAY ALTERATIONS 32 SHORELAND DEMANDS 35 SUMMARY OF PRESENT AND EMERGING PROBLEMS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA 45 SUMMARY OF GOAL CONFLICT AND COMPATIBILITY 45 THE NEXT STEP 47 ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 48 INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES 48 PlEtINSYLVANiA, op ELKTON --@@A-\ F 0 C E C I L 0 WESTMINSTE C A R 0 L L 5% BEL AIR A L T 1. lVi @'Vlll t; MAJOR WATERSHED owso BOUNDARY '\-Zz@ BALT 0 1 , I "II K-- IT If E N T H 0 WARD TERTOW O@ BUR m 0 G 0 M E R GIL 'A Q U E ROCKVIL@2-2.; '4 T2@' CENTREYILLE A n ZL, 1) A!p A N N E 'SS ANNAP IK k@ J, N C 9 > i DENCN R MARLBORO T A L/B 0 T I c '0 EASTON,) A R 0 LAI G E 0 R G E 9 I Irv LA PLATA OP CAMBRI66 IlEDCl'l ro C H A R L E S IN, DELAWARE'--,@ D 0 R C H E S T E R w Qft, dp % @SA-LrBU s -I-c'--, c 0 @A ew IT"N LEONARDTOWN W 0 R C E S E R PRINCESS AN.41 E NV S E SNOW HILL -S- ff'M E p, A R-0 All Y7,/7. '.I- P6, Jz. "Al", A DESCRIPTION OF THE BAY DESCRIPTION OF THE BAY The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries comprise one of the largest estuarial systems on earth. The Bay is approximately 200 miles in length and varies in width from four miles near Annapolis to about 30 miles near the mouth of the Potomac River. The tidal shore line comprises 3,400 miles in Maryland and 1,200 miles in Virginia. The surface area of the Bay and its tributaries is approximately 4,400 square miles; the surface of the Bay itself is about 2,200 square miles. The Bay proper has a mean depth of less than 28 feet. The entire system, including tributaries to the head of tide, averages about 21 feet deep. There are, how- ever, deep areas which occur as long, narrow troughs, thought to be remnants of the ancient Sus- quehanna River valley which have not been filled TABLE 1 POPULATION CHANGE, 1960-1970, BY COUNTY by sediments. The deepest trough (about 174 feet) occurs off Kent Island where the Bay is narrowest. Net The Bay receives water from a basin of 64,1170 Population square miles. Over 50 rivers with varying geo- increase i County and 1960 or Decrease 1970 chemical and hydrologic characteristics contribute I Region .... .. .. Population(a) 1960 to 1970 Population(a) fresh water to the Chesapeake Bay. The mean tidal fluctuation in the Chesapeake Bay I Anne Art!ndel.Co,,,, 206,600 +90,000 297,500 is one to two feet. Tidal currents range from 0.5 Baltimore City 939,000, -33,300 905,800 knots to over two knots. Baltimore Co. 492,400 +128,600 1 621,100 Salt content ranges from 35 parts per thousand Carroll Co. 52,800 +16,300 69,100 inside the mouth of the bay to near zero at the north Harford Co. 76,700 +38,700 115,400 Howard Co. 36,200 +25,800 61,900 end. Salinity in the bay decreases during winter and Baltimore Region 1,803,700 +267,000 2,070,700 early spring, while salinity in the smaller tributaries i Montgomery Co. 340,900 +181,900 522,800 is greater than in the bay during this period. Because Prince George's Co. 357,400 +303,200 660,600 of this significant difference in salt content, surTace Washington Metro 698,300 +485,100 1,183,400 water from the bay flows into the tributaries, while Calvert Co. 15,800 +4,900 20,700 bottom water from the tributaries flows into the Ch,fle,'Co. 32,600 +15,100 47,700 bay. As bay salinity increases through summer and St. Mary's Co. 38,900 +8,500 47,400 early fall, bay waters flow into the bottom of the Southern Maryland 87,300 +28,400 115,700 tributaries, while tributary surface waters flow into Caroline Co. 19,500 +320 19,800 the bay. Dorchester Co. 29,700 -260 29,400 During the winter, the bay is high in dissolved Kent Co. 15,500 +670 16' 100 oxygen content. With spring and higher water tem- Queen Anne's Co. 16,600 +1,850 18,400 Somerset Co. 19,600 -700 18,900 peratures, the dissolved oxygen content decreases. Talbot Co. 21,600 +2,100 23,700 Through the summer, lower layers (below 30 feet) Wicomico Co. 49,100 +5,190 54,200 become oxygen deficient. in early fall, the oxygen Worchester Co. 23,700 +710 24,400 content at all depths begins to increase until distri- Eastern Shore 195,200 +9,880 205,000 bution is almost uniform. Cecil Co. 48,400 +4,880 53,300 The physical and chemical dynamics of the estu- Md. Chesapeake Bay Region 2,833,000 +795,200 3,628,200 ary make it a biologically special place where both fresh water and salt water organisms can live. Fresh a) Bureau Of Census water animals and plants remain in the fresh or Maryland Population and Housing Characteristics slightly brackish portions and many marine animals Table 9 "Population and Land Area of Counties: 1960 & 1970" p. 22-15 (figures rounded to nearest 100) return to fresh water to reproduce. Also, currents carry the eggs and larval forms of some species to less salty water to hatch or develop. The Chesapeake Bay, because of its long shore- line and extensive shallows, weed beds, and marshes, provides nourishment for young animal 6 forms and protects them from predators and rough water. The marshes of the Bay generate organic nutrients which are vital links in the animal food chain. The Bay produces large crops of estuarine species. The most important economically are the soft-shelled clam, oysters, blue crabs, menhaden, and rock fish. Fish use the bay for many purposes. Many of the 238 recorded species are permanent residents. Shad and river herring spawn at the head- waters. Striped bass and white perch spawn in the nearly fresh water of the upper Say, then the young spread throughout the Bay. Many ocean spawners use the Bay as a nursery. A wide variety of oceanic species enter the Bay to feed. -------- in recent years, the commercial seafood harvest from the Bay has exceeded one-half billion pounds annually, with an estimated annual value of more than $65 million and employing nearly 20,000 per- TABLE 2 NET POPULATION GROWTH RATES, ACTUAL & EXPECTED. 1960-2000; BY DECADE, BY COUNTY sons. In addition, a significant number of game fish County and 1960 197_9 1970-19 1980-19 1990-2 are landed by sport fishermen. Sport fishing and IT) Expected Expecte Region Actuala) Expectedul Expecte'd boating contribute to the tidewater way of life, Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage cherished by residents and visitors. Waterborne commerce, totaling 10 million tons Anne Arundel Co. 44.0 533 31.2 22.2 18.1 a year, travels through the waterway and contrib- Baltimore City -3.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 Baltimore Co. 26.1 31.0 24.4 15.4 13.4 utes to the economy of an 11 -state area, extending Carroll Co. 30.7 26.0 13,11 25.1 20.1 into the Midwest. The trend in commercial naviga- Harford Co. 50.4 44.1 36.1 28.1 21.9 tion is toward larger ships which require deep chan- Howard Co. 71.3 80.5 72.9 45.3 31.2 nels, in turn posing problems in locating Baltimore Region 14.8 19.2 16.6 133 11.7 dredge-spoil disposal areas. Montgomery Co. 53.3 49.0 24.0 19.0 16.0 The population within the Maryland Chesapeake Prince George's Co. 84.8 73@8 24.0 15.1 13.1 Bay Region was estimated to be 3.6 million in 1970. Washington Metro 69.5 61.7 24.0 16.9 14.4 The region is projected to increase at an average Calvert Co. 30.7 38.3 19.7 38.2 27.6 annual rate of about 1.5 percent through the year Charles Co. 46.4 30.9 36.5 14.7 12.8 2000 as noted on Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 depicts St. Mary's Co. 21.8 30.3 19.6 9.4 8.6 Southern Maryland 32.6 32.0 25.9 16.7 14.0 the employment growth patterns by industry and area in the Chesapeake Bay Region. The Bay area's Caroline Co. 1.6 5.7 0.1 12.1 10.8 population is supported by rich farmlands, vast Dorchester Co. -0.9 3.2 4.9 19.3 16.2 woodlands and intensely developed industrial Kent Co. 4.3 15.9 4.9 24.3 119@6 Queen Anne's Co. 11.2 10.4 6.6 11.5 10.3 areas. Somerset Co. -3.6 3.1 4.9 71 7.1 The rapid increases in population and in water- Talbot Co. 9.8 8.6 13.4 21.5 17.7 oriented pursuits have created conflicts among Wicomico Co. 10.6 14.1 4.5 14.1 12.4 Worchester Co. -3.0 6.8 0.5 19.3 16.2 competing interests. The basin includes developed Eastern Shore 5.0 8.5 4.6 16.2 14.0 a, as which sustain a vigorous economy and other Cecil Co. 10.1 22.2 22.4 14.6 12.7 dFed!., where the economy is depressed as a result Md. Chesapeake Bay Region 28.1 29.4 18.6 14,7 12.8 of technological changes. The development of re- a) Bureau of Census sources is essential to both areas: for the first, to Maryland Population and Housing Characteristics maintain and expand existing economic activity; Table 9 "Population and Land Area of Counties; 1960 & 1970" p. 22 and for the latter, to provide a base upon which (figures rounded to nearest 100) new economic activities can grow. In depressed b) based on: "State of Maryland Population Projections, 1960-2000" (Ref. 13) areas, new industries and improved recreation facilities are expected to be prime factors in eco- nomic development. Elsewhere in the Bay area, several of the major water-using industries are ex- pected to grow and to create large, new demands for water of adequate quality. 7 TABLE 3 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 1960-1980, BY SUBREGION AND RATES OF GROWTH, BY DECADE EMPLOYMENT (000) PERCENT OF TOTAL EMPLOY.a) RATES OF GROWTH 1960 1970 1980 1960 1970 19801 0-197019 '0-1980 BALTIMORE REGION INDUSTRY GROUPS Agriculture (SIC01-09) 17.0 12.7 12.4 2.4 1.6 1.4 25 '2 -2.3 Mining (SIC10-14) 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 33.3 Construction (SIC 15-17) 40.5 46.4 54.7 5.8 5.9 6.1 14.5 17.8 Manufacturing (SIC19-39) 205.0 208.7 213.5 29.2 26.7 23.6 1.8 2.2 Transp. Communic. & Pub. Util. (SIC40-49) 55.2 53.5 56.4 7.9 6.8 6.2 3.0 5.4 Wholesale Trade (SIC50) 35.8 45.8 60.0 5.1 5.9 6.6 27.9 31.0 Retail Trade (SIC52-59) 112.7 128.8 148.2 16.0 16.5 16.4 14.2 15.0 Finance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC60-67) 36.7 43.8 52.1 5.2 5.6 5.8 19.0 18.9 (SIC70-89) 131.0 165.0 215.7 18.6 21.1 23.9 25.9 30.7 =entb) (SIC91-93) 67.3 76..7 89.1 9.6 9.8 9.9 13.9 16.1 Total 702.4 782.7 903.7 100.0 100.0100.0 11.4 15.4 Population (000) Actual 1804 2071 14.8 Expected 1 2151 1 2507 1 19.2 16.6 DC METRO REGION (MD. PART) INDUSTRY GROUPS Agriculture (SIC01-09) 8.0 6.1 6.0 4:6 2.2 1.4 23.7 -1.6 Mining (SICI 0-14) 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 50.0 Construction (S:Cj1 5-17) 16.6 30.3 48.3 9.5 10.7 11.5 82.5 59.4 Manufacturing IS C 9-39) 10.1 14.1 16.2 5.8 5.0 3.9 39.6 14.8 Transp. Communic. & Pub. Util. (SIC40-49) 4.9 7.8 11.2 2.8 2.7 2.7 59.1 43.5 Wholesale Trade (SIC50) 2.9 9.2 15.2 1,7 3.3 3.6 217.2 65.2 Retail Trade (SIC52-59) 34.6 66.5 93.3 19.9 23.4 22.3 92.1 40.3 Finance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC60-67) 8.6 20.8 33.1 4.9 7.3 7.9 141.8 59.1 Services (SIC70-89) 54.8 85.4 133.1 31.5 30.1 31.9 55.8 55.8 G'vernmentb) (SIC91-93) 32.9 42.8 60.2 18.9 15.1 14.4 30.0 40.6 Total 174.1 283.9 418.3 100.0 100.0100.0 63.0 47.3 Population (000) Actual 698 1183 69.5 Expected 1129 1401 61.7 24.0 SOUTHERN MARYLAND INDUSTRY GROUPS Agriculture (SIC01-09) 7.2 5.5 5.6 30.5 19.0 14.9 23.6 1.8 Mining (SIC10-14) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 Construction (SIC15-17) 0.8 1.2 1.9 3.3 4.3 5.2 50.0 33.3 Manufacturing (SIC19-39) 1.4 1.2 1.6 5.9 4.3 4.2 14.2 60.0 Transp. Communic. & Pub. Util. (SIC40-49) 1.1 1.0 1.2 4.5 3.6 3.3 9.0 20.0 Wholesale Trade (SIC50) 0.5 1.1 1.4 2.1 4.0 3.9 120.0 27.2 Retail Trade (SIC52-59) 3.4 5.2 7.7 14.5 18.0 20.5 52.9 48.0 Finance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC60-67) 0.7 0.8 1.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 14.2 25.0 Services (SIC70-89) 4.9 7.2 10.1 20.8 24.9 27.0 46.9 40.2 Governmentb) (SIC91-93) 3.6 5.6 6.9 15.5 19.3 18.5 55.5 23.2 Total 23.5 29.0 37.6 100.0 100.0100.0 23.4 29.6 Population (000) Actual 87 116 32.6 Expected 115 145 32.0 25.9 EASTERN SHORE INDUSTRY GROUPS Agriculture (SIC01-09) 18.3 13.5 13.4 25.1 17.6 16.4 26.2 -0.7 Mining (SIC10-14) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Construction (SIC1 5-17) 2.7 4.0 4.5 3.7 5.2 5.6 48.1 12.5 Manufacturing (SIC19-39) 18.6 19.1 18.1 25.6 24.8 22.2 2.6 -5.2 Traiisp. Communic. & Pub. Util. (SIC40-49) 3.2 4.0 4.4 4.5 5.2 5.4 25.0 10.0 Wholesale Trade (SIC50) 2.8 3.2 3.8 4.2. 4.2 14.2 6.2 Retail Trade (SIC52-59) 8.7 11.5 13.8 11.9 14.9 16.9 32.1 20.0 Finance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC60-67) 1.9 2.6 2.8 2.6 3.4 3.4 36.8 7.6 Services (SIC7089) 13.4 15.5 17.0 18.4 20.2 20.9 15.6 9.6 -E-0-,e,nm,,tb) (SIC91-93) 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 13.3 14.7 Total 72.8 76.9 81.5 100.0 100.0100.0 5.6 5.9 Population (000) Actual 195 205 5.1 Expected 212 222 8.5 4.6 CECIL COUNTY INDUSTRY GROUPS Agriculture (SIC01-09) 2.0 1.5 1 1.4 1 14.1 1 9.51 7.9 1 25.0 1 -6.6 8 PROBLEMS AND GOALS PROBLEMS & GOALS-WATER ENVIRON- MENT OF THE ESTUARY WATER MOVEMENT & SALINITY INTRUSION The Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay are parts of the same hydrologic system. The flows en- tering the mouth of the Bay from the Susquehanna consitute approximately 50 percent of all fresh wa- ter entering the Bay and 80 percent of fresh water entering the Bay above the Potomac River. Figure 1, Chesapeake Bay Water Budget, provides a repre- sentation of the total hydrologic system. Flows from the Susquehanna River form a pool of fresh water in the upper Chesapeake Bay.' This fresh water is gradually "mixed" with saline water from the Atlantic Ocean. During the spring high FIGURE 1 CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER BUDGET flow period, a fresh water pool normally occurs in a zone from Spesutie island to Turkey Point (Figure 145,000 C 76,500 CFS 2). Variations in Susquehanna River flows result in OT L PRECIPITATION EVAPOTRANSPIRATION T4, seasonal changes in the salt content of the upper Bay, as illustrated by Figure 3. Water of three parts per thousand (ppt) salinity has occasionally reached the area of the Sus- quehanna Flats at the mouth of the Susquehanna PI 141,0N CFS River. In 1964, a dry year, saline water nearly reached the Havre cle Grace water supply intake on the Susquehanna River. Salinity values observed near Turkey Point changed from 0.1 ppt to 6 ppt during 1964 (Figure 3). Farther south, other fresh water sources, such as (1,20@CFSI the Potomac, Patuxent, Choptank and Chester Riv- V ers, have significant impacts on Chesapeake Bay salinity levels. Seasonal variations in riverflows pro- 0 10 Z I . X. vide the environment to sustain important brackish 1,W0 CFS DIVERSION LLI THROUGH C&O CANAL water (fresh salt) ecological systems in the upper GROUND WATER 0 Bay. SOIL MOISTURE aL The 17-mile Chesapeake and Delaware Canal SURFACE STORA E U) 00 CFS built in 1829 and enlarged in 1938 and authorized EIALTI 0 METRO. AREA for enlargement in 1954, links the Chesapeake Bay with the Delaware Bay. Figures 4 and 5 show the exchange relationships between fresh and brackish water in the Canal. The significance of fresh water losses through the W C'S C & D Canal is seasonal. Water losses through the WASININOT METRO. AREA UUU first canal enlargement are equal to approximately 300 one percent of average March-April Susquehanna TOTAL STR AM River inflows, but 27 percent of August-October 1-in-20 year low flows of the Susquehanna River. I Water is classitiedas fresh orsaline on the basis of total CHE PEA 62,800 CFS dissolved salt content. Fresh water ranges from 0 to 3.5 FRESH WATER FLOW ACROSS parts per thousand (ppt) and saline from 3.6 ppt up- STATE BOUNDARY TO VIRGINIA ward. PORTION OF BAY 10 FIGURE 2 CHESAPEAKE BAY FRESH WATER FLOW (SPRING CONDITIONS) W@ Susquehanna Rive' L, e,,Dee L 0 When the 1954 enlargement of the canal is com- Harv C pleted, water losses will increase to approximately 31 H A R F 0 R@,D C. & D. Canal three percent of average March-April and 78 per- .1- - @C A L L N@ '--I- Ik Neck cent of August-October 1 -in-20 year low flows of A 1, T I M,A,@_E j S3,&S and the Susquehanna River. P urkey Point % Projected consumptive uses of water in the Sus- quehanna River Basin will decrease the quantity of fresh water flowing into the upper Bay at any time 1. E NT of the year. The combined effect of decreased fresh H 1) 1 AR Po es water inflows and water loss through the C & D 4 Canal will result in a northward shift of salt content E R Y AN NE in the Bay. Salinity of the upper Bay will increase E N FreshWater Zone most during low-flow months (Figure 6). R U N, 15-14 1 N E, ECOLOGY OF THE UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY The impact of water exchange processes on the ecology of Chesapeake Bay must not be over- looked. The physical, chemical and biological pat- terns in the upper Chesapeake Bay depend on fresh water from the Susquehanna basin. The Sus- quehanna River is reported to be the principal V, Q V a, _41 4, "w, 6':" 71 @, 0;0@1 'S A, 1W @W' _, lr@ 4@ source of nutrient to the Bay, despite the contribu- tion from Baltimore, other metropolitan areas, other tributaries and wetlands. The ability of any body of water to assimilate nutrients is limited. Algal blooms have been ob- served in the upper Bay during the last few years. Beyond certain levels, the combined nutrient load from local waste discharges, natural production, and from waste discharges and land runoff in the Susquehanna basin could lower the oxygen level of the upper Bay and threaten the environment FIGURE 3A FIGURE 3B needed to support aquatic life in the Bay. UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY SALINITY UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY SALINITY Plants are vital to all food chains. The predomi- (PPT) 24 APR.-I MAY 1964 (PPT) 9-13 NOV. 1964 nant aquatic plant community in the upper Bay de- pends on fresh water. It is concentrated in an area Z, known as the Susquehanna Flats where salinity val- ues range from 0. 1 parts per thousand (ppt) to 3 ppt, N M, but rarely rise above 2 ppt. Most of the plant spe- R,@sZ cies can tolerate the higher salinities that occur dur- ing low-flow periods. This tolerance, however, is p predicated on gradual increases in salinity and limi- N@ ted duration (3-4 months maximum) of high salini- ties, followed by recovery to fresh-water levels. A, 50 _NT@7am&- Significant alteration of normal salinity fluctuations r"V, @V' WPM would eventually affect the composition and distri- ,!E bution of established fresh-water plant communi- ties. Long-term replacement of fresh water by salt ?01111@ U; water (several successive years of higher salinity- 5 ppt and above) would eliminate the fresh water 4 14 aquatic plant communities established in the upper U, Wo 5 Bay. X, %wel Several species of fresh water plants are valued -7@ 3 for waterfowl feeding. A national wildlife refuge has been established in the Susquehanna Flats to pro- 15 tect resting and feeding areas for migratory water- Wil fowl which provide 25 to 50 million hunter-days per year. V, Certain fishery resources of the Bay are inti- mately related to salinity regimens established in W A"' the upper Bay as a result of Susquehanna River @,.0,0,17, % A, d 2 A: 4 g A 0@ A 3- 'j Z, - - - - - - 'cz-o-, 6- Effect o/ Susquehanna River discharges on surface salinity values in the spring (high flows) and fail (low flows) in 1964. Lines represent equal salinity observations in parts per thousand (p.p.t.). 12 flows. Rockfish or striped bass, for example, appear to spawn very near the interface between fresh wa- ter and slightly saline water. The flow regimen in the upper Bay may be essential to this species. Other fish species such as the shad, herring, and white perch move into the upper Bay and tributary waters to spawn. They utilize the fresh water and low salinity areas of the Bay as nurseries for their FIGURE 4 SALINE WATER MOVEMENT IN THE CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE young. Species such as menhaden, weakfish or sea trout, CANAL AND UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY spot, croaker or hardhead, harvest fish, winter flounder, and drum, spawn near the mouth of the Bay. Their eggs and larvae are carried toward the head of the Bay by the upstream drift of bottom water and reach the large crops of food in the pro- ductive low salinity areas. The upper Bay nursery ground for these species ranges from fresh water to SUSQUEHANNA RIV R CANAL a salinity of about 10 parts per thousand. Salinity in the Bay, under the dominant influence of the Susquehanna, determines the upper limits of oyster bars and clam beds. The average upper limits are set by long-term flow patterns although excep- FRESH WATER tional high flows (floods) have destroyed large and important oyster beds. Lower flows and long-term higher salinity values would improve growth condi- tions and extend northward the habitat for oysters Ae SALINE WEDGE in the Bay. Overall, present knowledge indicates UNDER that existing oyster habitat is maintained by high Lj FRESH WATER spring and lower summer flows of fresh water into the upper Bay. The distribution of the sea nettle is believed to be affected by salinity. Research indicates that they migrate up the Bay to salinities as low as 5 ppt. In general, this nuisance will probably retain its pre- FIGURE 5 LONGITUDINAL CROSS-SECTION OF THE C. & D. CANAL SHOW- sent distribution pattern because of the impact of ING THE EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FRESH & BRACK- low salinities resulting from spring high inflows of ISHWATER THROUGH THE CANAL fresh water from the Susquehanna. However, any species that favor fall (higher) salinity values are apt to shift farther up the Bay if low flows are reduced or if more fresh water is diverted from the Sus- @@@@@FR`ESH W=TER @DCLA@WARE@ quehanna-Chesapeake Bay system. CHESAPEA @KE BA Y BA Y 49(@ BRACKISH WATER 4k%n MIXING ZONE 13 FIGURE 6 C. & D. CANAL WATER LOSS FROM MARYLAND 16-HER t _@2bq@i2TbO f Z@ < 0-0* 0 00 o@ .0.0! CIWER L 0@@Mf- 700-100 "SAMOA- < < co D D < < Z Man has already modified the productive envi- ronment of the upper Chesapeake Bay; and further PRESENT FRESH WATER LOSS (1938 Enlargement) modification is imminent. Uncertainty on the eco- ...... INCREASED FRESH WATER LOSS (1954 Authorized Enlargement) logical effects of modification, however, hinders enlightened management, planning or policy deci- sions concerning Susquehanna River flows, Chesa- FIGURE 7 SIMPLIFIED BAY ECOSYSTEM peake and Delaware Canal diversions and upper Bay fresh-water requirements. Although knowledge SUNLIGHT ENERGY is limited as to the effects of altering the Sus- quehanna River-Chesapeake Bay system, confident statements regarding river flows and Bay ecology OXYGEN_@ MAN include: 1) High, spring, fresh-water flows are essential MARSH PLANTS C02. for flushing the upper Bay and its tributaries, and for establishing the patterns for salinity gradients and circulation. WING DUCKS 2) High, spring, fresh-water flows reduce the extent of environment suitable for some organisms while enlarging areas suitable for others. 3) Low flows in late summer and fall permit YTOPLANKTONI up-Bay penetration of several undesirable species. 4) Species respond in various ways to Sus- quehanna flows. Net effects are complex and can- FQ_E_T R -MT Q _S_ 1 not be predicted in detail. 5) General targets for management of Bay spe- ZOOPLANKTON & BACTERIA cies include maintenance of established flow regi- mens, enhancement of low flows, maintenance of high spring flows, minimizing diversions or con- f-SHRIMP,l sumptive losses, prevention of excessive nutrient CLAMS, enrichment, and minimizing environmental and C. LE2!@ ecological changes. BIG STRIPED R @11P@E C) BASS SHJD f7 H'20, 14 FIG@RE 8 G WA-LUK QUA L IT Y S kNERALIZED H A R F 0 R C 1: 1 0 SHELLFISH PROBLEMS & GOALS-ENVIRONMENTAL B A L I' I HARVESTING QUALITY MANAGEMENT The problem is how to reconcile the need for liquid and solid waste disposal with the require- F* PUBLIC WATER RE SUPPLY ments of other Bay uses. Waste treatment and dis- 0 posal might be considered optimal if the Bay's fish A R D) H 0 W A R C11111RIO and wildlife resources are healthy and abundant, if recreational uses of the Bay such as boating and RECREATION WATER ORIENTED LIN ILE E MON IGOMERY swimming are possible, and if the beauty of the Bay N N N is unimpaired. The generalized water quality stan- @A - R I CENTREV E -A N E"' AQUATIC &WILDLIFE clardsof theChesapeake Bayare illustrated in Figure8. PROPAGATION 7 DOMESTIC WASTES P R I N C E About 270 million gallons per day (mgd) of > DENTON treated municipal sewage are discharged from @T A L B 0 T Maryland counties into the Maryland portion of the G E 0 R G E S 0 -0 C A R 0 Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Another 300 Washington, D. C.'s Blue Plains Treatment Plant. Of mgd are discharged into the Potomac estuary from the total of 570 mgd, about 5.4 mgd are discharged directly into the Bay. _NC Where municipal sewers are not available, State C H A R L E DEL-H regulations require septic systems. The discharge of L D R C H E S T EC R 7__ such systems is not included in the 570 mgd total, and it is not large by comparison, but it may cause S T -T M I C 0 S local water pollution. M R Y INDUSTRIAL WASTES L-ALRDTOWN W 0 R C E 5 T E R Industrial wastes vary from non-toxic rinse water ILL S M E R S E T -W or cooling water to extremely harmful chemicals, heavy metals, oil and grease. In some instances, e., 0- r such wastes are discharged into municipal sewer systems; but in many cases they are discharged X directly, with or without treatment into the Bay and its tributaries. C j AGRICULTURAL WASTES ment of waters from farmland is not feasible due to The wastes from agricultural operations include its non-point nature. animal excrement, pesticides, herbicides, and fertil- Figure 9 (wastewater discharge) and Figure 10 izers. Both surface runoff and percolating ground (wastewater discharge diagram) show: waters carry these pollutants into the Bay. 1) The total discharge of treated wastewater by Animal wastes and fertilizers are obnoxious to county; the senses, rob large quantities of oxygen from the 2) The discharge, by county, of treated and raw water, contain disease-causing organisms, and ac- wastewater into major watersheds; and celerate the growth of aquatic plants. Pesticides and 3) The total discharge received and carried by herbicides pose a critical threat to the health of the each major watershed. Bay ecosystem, especially its valuable fish and Figure I I (Major Sewage Treatment Plants) shellfish species. shows the location of sewage treatment plants with Reliable estimates indicate that the magnitude of flows of 0.5 mgd or greater, pollution caused by agricultural wastes is at least as Allocations of liquid waste discharge by county great as that from municipal sewage, while treat- FIGUR E 9 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE V FIGURE 10 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE DIAGRAM 'Jill CECI 3.40 @N, C A R0 1 El. DISCHARGE INTO THE BAY & MAJOR BALTIMORE CO. TRIBUTARIES KENT K E I T 1.14 13ALTIMORE GUEENANNE 0.45 NOTE-DIFFERENT SIZE ARROWS A\ INDICATE THE RELATIVL I'A AMOUNT OF DISCHARGE HOWARD F 77 1;-, T A I T AN 14k 4': 7 CAROLINE 23.23 4.1.4 CALVERT DORCHESTER 63 S43 A 0 ;@di PRINCEGEORGE WICOMIC0 R HE S T E R UZ2 @Jq"@ k 1@ - ill 4.02 I T e,@ -34 I ST MARY'S "It R ;R-P-H, 1-M .1T 44 WNA. CHARLES 0.93 W40Rl] OAS 7 million gallons Perday NOTE:All quantities areshown in vm%pl M, @X,"Mk 16 ,@il-@,@11;@,V _41 g, 4 to major drainage areas (Table 4) are made on the @,d I V @,@y basis of statistics developed by the Maryland Department of Health on the proportion of total wastewater flows of each county into major drain- k7 age areas. Table 5 presents an allocation of present and future liquid waste discharges to major water- kV,` @k 0-,- X sheds feeding the Chesapeake Bay. WATERCRAFT The Chesapeake Bay accommodates many ves- @'TP VV ":A VJ sels, from large ships to small pleasure craft. It is A*P f estimated that raw sewage discharged into the Bay A' by vessels in transit is equivalent to that of a com- munity of 20,000 people. In terms of its overall r impact on the biological and chemical balance of VA FIGURE 11 MAJOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS-FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 M.G.D. ff"* J X "i V LJ @yu X I N I I 5,q P"s 4 V A I X 4, 3 -4 2' t 'm v S T 7V I T V 1, 0 E I I E T J, 7 7,\ 'I-,'*@@471 N, A-A p 17 T @M 4, @,4,t L,, 4 'IL 4 1'@WlIAl the Bay, this load is not too significant. But vessels downgrading of Bay water quality will result. Deg- waste discharges will continue the decline of other congregate at marinas and anchorages; and if these radation would not be confined to the urbanizing areas. areas are near bathing beaches or shellfish harvest- western shore of the Bay, but would affect Eastern A comprehensive application of traditional and ing areas, serious health problems may result from Shore areas as well, curtailing desirable uses of Bay creative approaches to water quality control could the overboard disposal of sewage. An even more water resources and shoreline areas. make possible the achievement of recommended dreaded potential for pollution is the accidental Energetic and comprehensive use of water qual- water quality standards in the Bay and its tributaries. spillage or deliberate discharge of large amounts of ity control and improvement techniques will ease This approach would call for substantial increases in oil or other substances into the Bay. some water pollution problems, namely a reduction funding, monitoring, and organization for water If current practices in the treatment and dis- in total BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand (Table 4). quality control. charge of wastes are allowed to continue, espe- However, increasing concentrations of exotic Goal: Establish and Maintain Bay Water Qual- cially in conjunction with the increased use of water chemical wastes in receiving waters and in synergis- ity at Levels Adequate for Living Re- resources for recreation and industry, a general tic relationships between different types of liquid sources and Human Enjoyment. TABLE 4: FUTURE DIMENSIONS OF IOUID WASTE GENERATION AND DISCHARGE INTO BAY AND TRIBUTAR ES, BY COUNTY Estimated Liquid Waste Discharge Assuming: Estimated 1) increased rate Uincreased Liquid Waste Liquid Waste Liquid Waste Genera- of waste genera- rate of waste Generation Estimated (lbs.GOD) tion Ra ge (lbs.BOD) tion (,20 lbs./ generation (lbs. BOD) @ BOD Removal Discharge Population @-17 lbs. .20 lbs. capita/day) and (.17 lbs./ Population .17 lbs. per by Sewage Into Bay or Projection per capita per capita 2) present capitalday) County 1970 capita per day Treatmenti) Tributaries 2000 per day per day BOD removal 2) present BOD removal Anne Arundel 297,539 50,800 64 13,400 600,000 102,000 120,000 43,200 10,200 Baltimore City 905,759 154,000 83 25,900 960,700 163,300 192,100 32,700 16,300 Baltimore County 621,077 105,900 66 35,600 1,050,000 178,500 210,000 71,400 17,900 Carroll 69,006 11,800 (70) 2,700 113,000 19,200 22,600 6,800 1,900 Harford 115,378 19,600 73 5,200 235,000 40,000 47,000 12,700 4,000 Howard 61,911 10,500 90 1,000 215,000 36,600 43,000 4,300 3,700 Baltimore Metro 2,070,670 352,600 83,800 3,173,700 539,600 634,700 171,100 54,000 Montgomery 522,809 89,100 (70) 26,600 870,000 147,900 174,000 52,200 14,800 Prince George's 660,567 112,200 83 19,000 1,002,600 170,400 200,500 34,100 17,000 D. C. Metro 1,183,376 201,300 45,600 1,872,600 374,500 86,300 31,800 Calvert 20,682 3,500 (70) 1,000 46,200 7,900 9,200 2,770 790 Charles 47,678 8,100 (70) 2,400 75,300 12,800 15,100 4,520 1,280 St. Mary's 47,388 8,000 (70) 2,300 72,000 12,200 14,400 4,320 1,220 South Maryland 115,748 19,600 5,700 193,500 32,900 38,700 11,610 3,290 Cecil 53,291 9,100 92 710 93,600 15,900 18,700 1,500 1,590 Caroline 19,781 3,300 96 130 25,600 4,400 5,120 200 440 Dorchester 29,405 5,000 79 1,020 44,500 7,600 8,900 1,870 7660 Kent 16,146 2,700 94 160 28,000 4,800 5,600 340 480 Queen Anne's 18,422 3,100 (70) 890 24,000 4,100 4,800 1,440 410 Somerset 18,924 3,200 (70) 930 23,000 3,900 4,600 1 1,380 390 Talbot 23,682 4,000 67 1,240 38,000 6,500 7,600 2,510 650 Wicomico 54,236 9,200 79 1,890 75,000 12,800 15,000 3,150 1,280 Worcester 24,442 4,200 (70)_ 1,210 35,000 6,000 7,060 2,120 600 Eastern Shore 258,329 43,800 8,180 387,000 66,000 77,380 14,510 6,600 Md. Bay Region 3,628,123 617,300 143,280 5,626,800 956,800 1,125,280 283,520 95,680 Source: Maryland Department of Health 18 @,x R" Ti, %!-4 z@x z WOM v", Ax@ A-M 4 TABLE 5: FUTURE DIMENSIONS OF LIQUID WASTE DISCHARGES, BY MAJOR DRAINAGE AREA A. Liquid Wastes Dis- B. Liquid Wastes Dis- _04", charged 2000 (lbs.BOD) charged 2000 (lbs.BOD) Liquid Wastes Dis- 1) Increased Rate of 11) Present Rate of Major Drainage charged 1970 Obs. Waste Generation Waste Generation Area BOD per day) 2) Present % of BOD 2) 90% Removal Removal N7 Chesapeake Bay 34,190 59,310 22,890 "N Potomac R. 16,780 32,580 9,530 Patuxent R. 76,190 85,760 33,200 Patapsco R. 35,320 73,400 18,920 Gunpowder R. 6,680 13,880 3,570 V_ Bush R. 2,440 5,970 1,880 Susquehanna R. 230 520 450 Northeast R. 130 270 290 Elk R. 210 450 480 sp Sassafras R. 40 90 110 Chester R. 920 1,530 690 7 Eastern Bay 80 130 40 Choptank R. 2,060 3,960 1,630 !rJ Nanticoke R. 270 490 200 Wicomico R. 1,830 3,060 1,240 Pocomoke R. 1,210 2,120 600 Total: Md. Bay Region 143,280 1 283,520 1 95,680 _J Source: MarylancF'D-epartment of Health SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL not treated adequately by municipal sewage treat- V @4 In the Chesapeake Bay Region, as elsewhere in ment plants while the residue from sewage treat- the U. S., a growing urban population and economy ment plants is generally unsuited for disposal in are producing many kinds of solid wastes at increas- sanitary landfills. ing rates. "Solid wastes" are distinguished from liq- The threat of solid waste disposal problems to the uid, thermal and other types of wastes by the Chesapeake Bay results from the dwindling supply manner and form in which they are collected and of space available for the disposal of solid waste disposed. (Tables 6, 7 and 8). Estimates indicate that by the Each available disposal method has a unique set year 2000, over 500 acres a year may be needed of cost characteristics and side effects. Sanitary for solid waste disposal sites in the Maryland Bay landfills involve the acquisition of land, which is Region (assuming landfills average 30 feet in depth). expensive in urban areas. Efforts to find cheaper Most of the solid waste creating this space need urban land have in the past led to the use of wet- would be generated in metropolitan areas where lands for sanitary landfills-and to disastrous eco- vacant land is scarce and expensive. As land costs logical consequences. Sanitary landfill areas can be in urban areas continue to rise, and as community reclaimed for recreation or amenity reuse, but such opposition to proposed landfill sites becomes more plans for the future seldom mollify nearby residents intense, the Bay may become increasingly attrac- who must live with the landfill operation in the tive as a site for solid waste disposal. In the Mary- meantime. Incineration of solid wastes requires ma- land Bay Region, the Bay has the added attraction jor expenditures for capital facilities, and can con- of being close to metropolitan areas and requiring tribute to air pollution. lower transportation costs than alternative disposal Much solid waste does not lend itself to tradi- sites in the ocean or in non-metropolitan areas. The tional disposal methods. Toxic industrial wastes are increasing amounts of toxic and non-degradable 19 Table 6: ANNUAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF 1960 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Solid Waste Solid Waste V Generation Generation Existing Dimensions 1960 Pop. Per Capital Z' (Tons) Baltimore Region 1,804,000 0.60 tons 1,090,000 Washington Metro Area 698,000 0.60 tons 420,000 @Ax Southern Maryland 111,000 0.60 tons 67,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 244,000 0.60 tons 147,000 A4 Solid Waste Solid Waste Generation Generation Existing Dimensions 1960 Employ.Per Capitaa (Tons) Baltimore Region 702,000 0.75 tons 528,000 Washington Metro Area 174,000 0.75 tons 131,000 Southern Maryland 23,000 0.75 tons 17,000 Eastern Shore 73,000 0.75 tons 55,000 Cecil County 14,000 0.75 tons 11,000 Total Landfill Space Neeclsb Solid Waste @3.5 Cubic Yards/Tonk' Existing Dimensions Generation (cu. ycls.) Baltimore Region 1,618,000 5,650,000 Washington Metro Area 551,000 1,931,000 Southern Maryland 84,000 294,000 7"i Eastern Shore Cecil County 1 213,000 744,000 TOTAL 2,466,000 8,619,000 'k, a Waste Management, Regional Plan Association, 1968, pg. 32; pg. 90-94. (On a per capita basis, the rate of solid waste generation is about 5 lbs. per day.) bAssumes no incineration, recycling. V materials will compound the environmental effects of solid wastes disposed of at Bay sites. Goal: Establish Comprehensive Policies for Solid Waste Disposal Based Upon Eco- nomic, Social and Environmental Con- siderations. THERMAL WASTE DISCHARGES A major concern in the economic growth of the Chesapeake Bay Region is how to meet increasing electrical energy requirements for a growing popu- lation. The Bay is a major potential source of cool- ing water for the discharge of waste heat; but higher water temperatures may harm fish and other aquatic life. Other by-products of the process of generating electricity also have potential for causing negative effects on shoreland uses. 20 mize thermal pollution of the Bay by a variety of Nuclear power plants can be designed to mini- devices. However, all those currently envisioned would raise the cost of generating power. Under present electricity transmission tech- no logy, the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay will be the scene of most future issues on the siting of electric power plants. The sub-estuaries leading into the Bay have limited capacity to supply cooling waters to large modern nuclear power plants. T Between 1960 and 1970, Maryland's population grew by 25 percent, and it is expected to continue to increase-though at declining percentage rates V -in each remaining decade of the 20th Century. tN,@4 The population of Maryland in the year 2000 is expected to be over 1.5 times as large as in 1970. More significant than population growth alone, the per capita and per family rates of electricity -,,`,,5 -1@ V0, consumption are increasing. In 1940, the average Table 7: ANNUAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT: ASSUMES THAT EFFECTIVE 9f POLICY MEASURES ARE EMPLOYED TO MAINTAIN THE RATES OF SOLID WASTE GENERATION CLOSE TO PRESENT LEVELS L@'O '4 Solid Waste Solid Waste Projections Generation Generation a Current Rates 2000 Pop. Per Capita (Tons) Baltimore Region 3,457,000 0.60 tons 2,080,000 Washington Metro Area 1,974,000 0.60 tons 1,190,000 Southern Maryland 220,000 0.60 tons 132,000 rn Shore Easte W Cecil County 408,000 0.60 tons 246,000 7, Solid Waste Solid Waste Projections 1980 Generation Generation Current Rates Employ. Per Capita (Tons) a Baltimore Region 904,000 0.75 tons 678,000 Washington Metro Area 418,000 0.75 tons 314,000 Southern Maryland 38,000 0.75 tons 29,000 Eastern Shore 82,000 0.75 tons 62,000 Cecil County 1 18,000 1 0.75 tons 14,000 b Total Landfill Space Needs a Projections Solid Waste @3.5 Cubic Yards/Ton Current Rates Generation (cu. ycls.) Baltimore Region 2,758,000 9,630,000 Washington Metro Area 1,504,000 5,260,000 Southern Maryland 161,000 562,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 322,000 1,130,000 L 4,745,000 --1-16,582,000 92%) a Waste Management, Regional Plan Association, 1968, pg 32; pg. 90-94 b 4W Assumes no incineration, recycling. 21 Table 8: ANNUAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT: ASSUMES THAT RATES OR SOLID WASTE GENERATION CONTINUE TO INCREASE ACCORDING TO CURRENT TRENDS Solid Waste Solid Waste Generation Generation Projections, Trends 2000 Pop. Per Capitaa (Tons) Baltimore Region 3,457,000 1. 15 tons 3,960,000 Washington Metro Area 1,974,000 1.15 tons 2,270,000 Southern Maryland 220,000 1. 15 tons 252,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 408,000 1.15 tons 468,000 Solid Waste Solid Waste 1980 Generation Generation Projections, Trends Employ. Per Capita (Tons) Baltimore Region 904,000 1 .50 tons 1,360,000 Washington Metro Area 418,000 1.50 tons 625,000 Southern Maryland 38,000 1.50 tons 57,000 Eastern Shore 82,000 1.50 tons 123,000 Cecil County 18,000 1.50 tons 27,000 Total Landfill Space Needsb Solid Waste @3.5 Cubic Yards/Tona Projections, Trends Generation (cu. ycls.) Baltimore Region 5,320,000 10,650,000 Washington Metro Area 2,895,000 10,170,000 Southern Maryland 309,000 1,820,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 618,000 2,160,000 TOTAL 9,142,000 24,800,000 187%) a Waste Management, Regional Plan Association, 1968, pg 3 2; pg 90-94. On a per capita basis the rate of solid waste generation is gbout 81/2 lbs. per day Assumes no incineration, recycling. TABLE 9: RATES OF INCREASE IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC SALES IN MARYLAND: 1965-1969a COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL TOTAL (COMM. & INDUS.) Annual' % Annuala % Annuala % Salesa Increase Increase Salesa Increase Increase Salesa Increase Increase 1969 5,107 7,954 13,061 478 10.3% 727 10.10/0 1,205 10.2% 1968 4,629 7,227 11,856 507 12.3% 525 7.8% 1.032 9.5% 1967 4,122 6,702 10,824 408 11.0% 564 9.2% 972 9.9% 1966 3,714 6,138 9,852 423 12.9% 705 13.0% 1,128 12.9% 1965 3,291 1 5,433 1 1 8,724 1 1 Percentage Increase 1965-1969 11.4% -F 10.00/0 10.4% Average Annual Source: Maryland Statistical Abstract, State of Maryland, Department of Economic Development 1970, pg 176-77 aMillion of kilowatt-hours 22 home consumed about 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity; today the average home consumption of electricity exceeds 5,400 kilowatt-hours. In Mary- land, per capita commercial electricity consump- tion in 1960 was 488 kilowatt-hours; in 1970 the rate was 1,470 kilowatt-hours per capita-three times the 1960 rate. Commercial electric sales in Maryland (not adjusted for population growth) in- creased at an average annual rate of 11.4 percent between 1965 and 1969 (Table 9). Even if the fu- ture rate of increase in electricity consumption is TABLE 10: PROJECTED ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN MARYLAND 1960-2000a one-half the average annual rate in these four years, consumption in the year 2000 will be over 3,600 1960 1970 1980 2000 kilowatt-hours per person-2.5 times the 1970 rate No Per No Per Capita V2 `1965- 1965-69 Capita V2 196 - and 7.5 times the 1960 rate (Table 10). Consump. 69 Rate Rate of Consump. 69 Rate Industrial electricity consumption in Maryland al- Inc. of Inc. Inc. Inc. of Inc. most doubled in the 1960-70 decade. The average Commercial Electricity annual rate of increase in the years 1965-69 was 10 Consumption percent (Table 9). Even if the future annual rate of -Population in Millions increase in industrial electricity consumption is one- (Projected) 3.101 3.875 (4.679) (4.679) (4.679) (6.070) (6.070) half the 1965-69 average, industrial electricity con- Per Capita Electricity b b b Consumption in KWHR 488 1,470 1,470 2,140 3,640 1,470 3,640 sumption in Maryland is likely to double by 1980, Electricity Consumption and double again by the year 2000 (Table 10). (Millions of KWHR) 1,517 5,699a 6,890 10,046 17.079 8,940 31,024 Given current relationships between installed ca- Industrial Electricity pacity for generating electricity, electric power pro- Consumption duction, and electricity consumption, seven power Mgf. Employment (Pro- jected) 264,250 (278,290) (288,450) (288,450) (288,450) plants of the size of the new Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Elec. Consumption per Plant would be necessary to meet additional de- Mgf. Emp. (KWHR) 15,600 28,600 28,600 47,000b 78,500b mands in 1980; and 73 1,600,000 kilowatt plants Elec. Consumption would be needed to meet additional demands in (Millions of KWHR) 4,114 7,954a 8,260 13,600 22,693 36,095 Total Electricity the year 2000. Since population projections indi- Consumption cate that over 80 percent of the State's population Total Electricity will continue to concentrate in the Baltimore and Consumption in Md. Washington metropolitan areas, it is likely that most (Millions of KWHR) 5,631 13,653 15,150 23,646 39,772 67,119 of the thermal waste discharge from additional 1 22,811 c 38,686c 62,872c_j power plants would impinge directly or indirectly 'Projected on basis of 1965-69 average annual rate of increase. upon the Bay. I'Derived from electricity consumption and population projections. Goal: Accommodate Thermal Waste Dis- cProjected on basis of total commercial and industrial electric sales. charge Needs Through Comprehensive Analysis of Alternative Locations and Consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts 23 PROBLEMS & GOALS-FISH AND WILDLIFE The living resources of the Chesapeak e Bay be- nefit the human population of the Bay region. The problem is to maintain and enhance these benefits, which include: a large source of high-quality food with potential for increased productivity; recrea- tional opportunities for fishing, hunting and bird- watching; a source of income to the commercial harvestors and processors of fish and shellfish; eco- nomic gain to those who provide facilities that ser- vice commercial and recreational users; scientific knowledge about the complex ecology of Bay life and about the biology of individual species; a unique educational resource for the citizens of the FIGURE 12 AQUATIC HABITATS region; and a healthful, pleasing environment. Environmental disturbances can destroy fish and shellfish habitats and disrupt life cycles. Natural It hazards include storms, floods, extreme variations HARFOR'D 0 CIL linity, limited nutrient supply, sedimentation, in sa C A R R 0 0a, predators and parasites. Man-made impacts in- 1, L F-1 BASS 13 A L T I M 0 R clude the destruction of habitats by diking and filling wetlands, dredging and dumping of spoil, di- 0 0- OYSTER version of fresh water inflows to the Bay, ac- celerated sedimentation from agriculture and urban development and domestic and industrial pollution H 0 W A R 0) K E N T F-1 CLAM of the Bay, particularly of prime shellfish habitats (Figures 12, 13, 14). M 0 N T C; 0 NJ R R Y In addition to the consumer, the parties most A N N CRAB' affected by the living resources problem are those _5 "N J1 4 A R L; N D L who harvest and process fish and shellfish, includ- A N I,' ing sport-fishermen. Also affected are those who 50,4j supply and service the harvestors, such as boatyard f P R I N C 9 and marina operators, tackle manufacturers and re- DE- tailers, as well as Bay fisheries scientists and manag- ers. T A B 0 T 0 9 0 fl G 9 S N @I 0 L I N9, TABLE I]. PRINCIPAL KINDS OF COMMERCIAL FISH AND J SHELLFISH IN MARYLAND LANDINGS IN 1967, BY WEIGHT AND ESTIMATED VALUE, AND THEIR RANKINGS E Rank Kind of Fish Wt. in Estimated Rank C H A L E 8 by or Shellfish Millions Landed by :71 D 0 R c n h sE R Wt. of lbs. Value in Value Millions of Dollars M I C 0 occ- I Blue Crabs 26.791 2.448 2 M A R y 16.568 11.191 1 E R 3 Clams 5.394 1.770 3 2 Oysters 4 Menhaden 4.134 0.077 8 WORCEST S 0 M E K S ET 5 Striped Bass 4.072 0.665 4 6 Alewives 2.327 0.039 9 7 Swellfish 1.727 0.034 10 D,. - - 8 White Perch 1.199 0.168 5 9 Shad 0.884 0.091 7 10 Flounders 0.619 0.142 6 Subtotals 63.715 16.625 GRAND TOTALI 79.946 1 16.913 1 Source: Ref. 3 24 -T, WON Current trends indicate gradually decreasing TABLE 12, ESTIMATED SPORTFISHING CATCHES IN MARY- yields of fish and shellfish for commercial and rec- LAND BY WEIGHT & VALUE reational purposes (Tables 11 and 12). Contributing Ki Estimated Landed nd of Wt. in to these long-term trends are the depletion of Millions Value in Millions aquatic resources through environmental degrada- Fish or of Lbs. of Dollars (at Com Shellfish tion, and institutional constraints on the capacity of mercial Market Value) commercial and recreational fishing interests to Blue Crabs 26.8 2.45 pursue enlightened techniques for the management Clams 2.7 0.9 of the Bay's living resources: Striped Bass 8.14 1.330 N, Alewives 1.16 0.02 Swellfish 0.86 0.017 F, White Perch 1.2 0.17 Goal: Maintain Large, Diverse and Healthy Shad 0.88 0.09 Flouders 0.62 0.14 Populations of the Bay's Living Re- sources. TOTAL 42.36 5.117 FIGURE13 CLAM &OYSTER HABITATS FIGURE14 STRIPED BASS HABITATS _7@ _@@C A R0 L SUMMER &WINTER A SOFT SHELL, HARDSHFLL CONCENTRATIONS & BRACKISH WATER CLAMS -IF- P. k, SPAWNING & NURSERY AREAS 9 T OYSTER BARS 't@. A@ & SEED AREAS 01 @/ :15 %I N A 1 0 T k.", @TA A I I I I I. V ` ILY@ N A E S C T T T N I T _j j f 5, o a G 9 T tc T\ 4" N_ X 41 P 25 FIGVRE 15 SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERN &,PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY INTAKES MAJOR WATERSHED BOUNDARY PUBLIC WATER I T SUPPLY INTAKE 'l I LE L A I E', 'N* k PROBLEMS & GOALS-WATER SUPPLY v \N@1. E Maryland's water needs are increasing rapidly due to a growing population, the concentration of people in urban areas, and the expansion of water- using industries. To accommodate the demand for potable water supplies, Maryland must examine all I I A 11 11 possible alternatives for their environmental, eco- D 0R CHE T1,R 7 1- nomic and social effects. Wise planning and deci- sion-making which recognizes the Chesapeake Bay Tc. . v 7 1 Ak as a portion of a total resource system can insure WORCES ERf effective, practical solutions. "N' Figure 15 locates major public surface water in- these data for ma- takes, while Table 13 aggregates jor streams and indicates the amount of water IV withdrawn per day and the population served. This information does not, of course, indicate the total 71 @g! water usage in any watershed, jurisdiction or group TABLE 13: MAJOR PUBLIC SURFACE WATER SUPPLY INTAKES (DOES NOT INCLUDE GROUND WATER -& INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLIES) (Source: Red. 1, Plate W, Table W-1) , POTOMAC PATUXENT LITTLE PATUXENT CURTIS CREEK SEVERN RIVER PATAPSCO GUNPOWDER b 'Rockville (186A) aWash. Suburban Maryland House of bCurtis Creek Severn River CBalt. City (48A) CBalt. City (48B) 3.4 mgd San. Comm. (249B) Correction (34A) Coast Guard Naval Command Ashburton Plant Pretty Boy-GNPDR 45,000 pop. 67 mgd 1.0 mgd 0.6 mgd 0.4 mgd Liberty- Patapsco 56 mgd (approx) 325,000 pop. 4,500 pop. 7 pop. 7 pop. 56 mgd (approx) 375,000 pop. (app) aWash. Suburban 375,000 pop. (app) San. Comm. (249A) aWash. Suburban bFt. George Meade cBalt. City (480 150 mgd San. Comm. (2490 (27) Montebello Plant 725,000 pop. 67 mgd 3.0 rngd Lock Raven-GNPDR 325,000 pop. 7 pop. 56 mgd (approx) Washington, D.C. 375,000 pop. (app) (250) Bowie Race Track 200 mgd (190) 1,093,000 pop. (Used during racing season only) 353 mgd 134+ TV 4.0 mgd 0.6 mgd 0.4 mgd 1,863,000 pop. 650,000 POP. 4,500+ POP. 7 pop. 7 pop. 56 mgd 112 mgd 375,000 pop. 750,000 pop. 26 of jurisdictions. Ground water supplies, run-of-the (Table 14). In these circumstances, it appears that river surface water intakes, and water transported urbanizing areas of the Maryland Bay Region will across watershed and jurisdictional boundaries soon begin to be faced with difficult choices among may supplement total public surface water intakes. alternative policy directions. The surface drainage pattern is interjurisclictional. 1) Regulate domestic per capita water demands Of the 12 major watershed areas feeding the Mary- and strongly encourage industry to economize on land portion of the Chesapeake Bay, not one lies water use in production processes. within a single jurisdiction. Ten of the twelve are 2) Undergo the major expense of meeting pro- interstate-six include portions of Delaware, three jected water demands by means of conventional include portions of Pennsylvania, and two include water supply systems. portions of Virginia. Maryland's two interstate wa- 3) Develop more comprehensive approaches tersheds contain six and seven counties each. Most to the management of natural ground and surface of the interstate watersheds also overlap three or water systems and exploit new sources of water more counties. supply. Before the year 2000, many urbanized counties Goal: Provide an Adequate Water Supply for will reach the limits of natural water supply systems All Needs WINTERS RUN BROAD CREEK SUSQUEHANNA MILL CREEK NORTHEAST RIVER BIG ELK CREEK Bel Air (1 59A) Broad Creek (162) CBalt. City (48D) Perryville (99) Northeast (98) Elkton (91) 1.0 mgd (Summer Use only) Susq. Diversion 0.45 mgd 0. IS mgd 1.10 mgd 7,000 pop. 0.4 mgd 56 mgd (approx) 7 pop. 1,700 pop. 5,600 pop. 7 pop. 375,000 pop. (app) 0.45 mgd 0. 15 mgd 1.10 mgd bEdgewood Arsenal 7 pop. 1,700 pop. 5,600 pop. (158A) Conowingo (I 63A) 4.0 mgd 0.02 mgd 7 pop. 7 pop. Havre cle Grace (167) 2.50 mgd 9,000 pop. aWashington Suburban - 287 mgd; 1,420,000 pop, 1,178,000 (1970) pop. @ 80 gal/person/day Bainbridge (86A) bMilitary - 8.0 mgd 1.50 mgd 7 pop. CBaltimore City - 225 mgd; 1,500,000 pop. Perry Point (100) 0.05 mgd 700 pop. 5.0 mgd 0.4 mgd 60.1 mgd 7,000+ POP. 7 pop. 385,000+ POP. 27 TABLE 14: WATER CONSUMPTION AND WITHDRAWAL, DOMESTIC AND 15 INDUSTRIAL, 1970 & 2000, BY REGION URBAN WITHDRAWAL RURAL WITHDRAWAL PROCESSING INDYS WTHDL FABRIC INDUS WTHDL TOTAL popa RATEb TOTAL popa RATEb TOTAL EMPLOYc RATED TOTAL E M PLOya RATEb TOTAL (000) gal/cap/ gal/day (000) gal/cap/ gal/day (000) gal/cap/ gal/day (000) gal/cap/ gaf/day gal/day day (000) day (000) day (000) day (000) (000) BALT.REG. 1970 wthdI 1725 160 276000 305 140 42 600 96.5 5700 550 000 112.2 250 28 000 896 600 cnsp 9% 24 900 20% 8 500 8% 44 400 4% 1120 78 920 2000 wthdl 2857 160 457 000 317 140 44 200 100 5700 570 000 122 250 30 500 1 101 700 cnsp 9% 41 200 20% 8 800 8% 45 600 4% 1220 96820 DC. METRO 1970 wthd 1060 160 170000 1181 140 16 500 5.2 5 100 29 700 8.9 250 2220 218 420 cnsp 9% 15 400 209/b 3 300 8./. 2380 4% 89 21 169 2000 wthdl 1780 160 284000 931 140 13 000 6.8 5700 38 800 11.7 250 2920 338 720 cnsp 9% 25 600 20% 2 600 8% 3120 4% 120 31 440 SO. MD. 1970 wthdI 22 160 3520 112 140 15 700 .9 5700 5130 .3 250 75 24 425 cn'p 9% 320 20% 3 140 8% 410 4% 3 3 873 2000 wthdI 87 160 13 900 107 140 15 000 .9 5700 5130 .9 250 225 34 255 cnsp 9% 1260 20% 3 000 8% 410 4% 9 4 679 E. Shore 1970 wthdl 49 160 7810 149 20 800 11.5 5700 65 500 7.6 250 1900 96010 cnsp 9% 700 4 160 8% 5250 4% 76 10 186 2000 wthdi 117 160 18 700 176 140 24 600 10.6 5700 60 400 5.7 250 1430 105 130 cnsp 9% 1690 120% 4 910 8% 4 830 4% 57 11 487 CECIL CO. 1970 wthdI 6 160 956 47 140 6 550 .3 5700 1710 3.4 250 850 10066 cnsp 9% 86 20% 1 310 8% 140 4% 34 1 570 2000 wthdl 15 160 2400 45 140 6 280 .3 5700 1710 250 970 11 360 cnsp 9% 215 20% 1 260 8% 140 4% 39 1 694 TOTAL 1970 wthdl 458286 102 150 652 040 22 045 1 245 521 cnsp -41 406 20 410 52 580 1322 115 718 2000 wthdl 776000 103 080 67604 36045 1 591 165 0 cnsp 69 965 20 570 54 100 1445 146080 a) 1970 population, by county, from Ref. 8; 2000 population projection, by county, from Ref. 9; Urban Renewal breakdown based on 1950, 1960 Census data (Ref. 10). b) Rates of Withdrawal, consumption (Ref. 11). c) 1970 Employment, by region, from SPID (Ref. 12); 2000 Employment extrapolations (WMRT); 2000 Equipment, different regions (Ref. 13); Processing-Fabricating Breakdown (Ref. 10). 28 FIGURE 16 MAJOR RAIL &WATERWAYS H A R 0 1"1) El - B A 1, MAJOR RAILROADS MAJOR SHIPPING 11 11 A 11 .1 CHANNELS PROBLEMS & GOALS-TRANSPORTATION Commercial marine transportation is vital to MAJOR PORTS AK L, 'E, Maryland's economy. A recent survey showed that the industrial, commercial and transportation com- .9 plex making up the Port of Baltimore directs $626 million a year into Maryland's economy, while pro- viding jobs for 62,138 Marylanders. This primary impact generates, in turn, a secondary impact of 4,_ A R 0 11 1 N.1 almost equal magnitude, the survey says, and the combined impact for the Port of Baltimore is es- 4 timated at $1.56 billion, which represents 11.7 per- cent of the Maryland gross State product. Though marine transportation requires only a small portion ot the total Bay shoreline, the facilities D R C H ET E related directly to marine transportation have a ma- jor impact on the Bay. These include shipping chan- "i V, I c o RI Zf nels and special facilities (e.g., the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal), harbors, special loading and un- Ll E loading facilities, and port-related storage areas. In S 0ME E T N. addition, significant portions of the cost of other k major facilities (e.g., the Bay Bridge and Norfolk Bridge-Tunnel, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, the A, N., j proposed water main crossing the Baltimore Har bor) can be attributed indirectly to characteristics of height and depth necessary to accommodate the needs of marine transportation (Figure 16). ----------- J, 'd 14 'W, -H 7@11, rN "APMAZA aw'' VI X 51M '4'@ 07, 'Z., ILL 1v 71a FIGURE 17 Vessel Traffic Tonnage and Annual Rates of Change: Baltimore Harbor and Channels Million tons ............... Passenger 50 250 J +11.8 8 45 ............ ...... 200 +1.4 ........ -7 1.- ..;.- +4.2 -0.8 -12.9 : J +3.4 40 +12.6 150 E 21 35 76 100 30 a) C 50 25 0 co 10 10 10 ID 10 10 10 10 T E@ ON 0@ 0@ The problem is to maintain and increase the Bay smaller ports, and that Baltimore will remain the PROBLEMS & GOALS-WETLANDS Region's competitive position in marine transporta- dominant commercial port on the Chesapeake Bay Marshes and other wetlands are among the Bay's tion while minimizing undesirable ecological side- (Figure 17). most productive natural areas. They provide food effects. If the average annual rate of increase in freight and habitat for waterfowl and a variety of marine- Perhaps the most Significant technological traffic in Baltimore Harbor since recent port mod- life. The Bay is one of the most important wintering change in marine transportation is the development ernization began is maintained in the future, freight areas on the Atlantic Flyway. Nearly one million of large, deep-draft bulk carriers. Depths required traffic tonnage will triple by the year 2000. Because ducks and geese winter here each year. for future dry bulk carriers serving the Atlantic Sea- of the number and size of ships that would be using Lack of appreciation for the natural functions board may range from 42-57 feet; and channel Bay shipping channels and harbors, the hazards of which wetlands perform has often led to their de- depths required for future tankers may range from marine accidents would increase. Marine cargoes struction. Even now, when their worth is beginning 62-72 feet. In this context, two policy questions are likely to include increasing volumes of materials to be recognized, the difficulty of assigning a mone- facing Bay management can be posed: How effec- with the potential to cause major ecological dam- tary value to wetlands impedes proper weighting in tive would Chesapeake Bay channel cleependings age should accidents or leakage occur. As shipping relation to economic pressures for development. be in attracting future, deep-draft commercial ship- channels are deepened and transportation activities With ownership of the Bay shoreline generally ping? What effects would losses in the Chesapeake are dispersed to tributaries of the Bay, volumes of private (approximately 88 percent of the Maryland Bay's competitive advantage have on Maryland's dredging spoil and costs of disposing of it are likely Bay shoreline), and with the present zoning struc- economy? to increase. Continuing modernization of port facili- ture, the management of most wetland areas has There are numerous issues regarding the orienta- ties will require expansive port back-up areas for been left to local government. Government is al- tion of future marine transportation activity in the cargo storage and for transfer to land transportation ways faced with the need to increase its tax base in Chesapeake Bay. One is the amount and signifi- modes. Increased demands for use of Bay waters order to continue supplying public services. The cance and future commercial shipping oriented to and shoreland for recreation, leisure and aesthetic destruction of wetlands by diking and filling has Chesapeake Bay ports other than the Port of Bal- purposes will generate conflicts with increasing ma- often seemed the easiest way to make room for timore, Technology supports the notion of a signifi- rine transportation activity. new industry or housing. cant increase in commercial shipping activity at Goal: Provide for Maximum Development of In response to local demand, some municipalities smaller Bay ports. However, counter-trends toward Marine Transportation Based Upon Eco- have ditched and drained marshes and applied pes- fewer and larger ports indicate that commercial nomic, Social, and Environmental Con- ticides to control insects. The problem is that desir- shipping activity at the Port of Baltimore will con- siderations able biota may be destroyed along with tinue to increase, regardless of what happens at 30 F I AM 1, M V mosquitoes. For example, crab larvae and cope- pods (tiny crustaceans that form a vital part of the Bay food-web) are extremely susceptible to pesti- cides. Furthermore, wetlands have been used as dumps. A statewide inventory in 1966 showed that 14 wetland areas were being used as public or municipal solid waste disposal sites. Not only does this destroy the unique value of the wetlands, but leaching from the refuse pollutes groundwater aquifers and Bay waters too. The proliferation of small boats presents yet an- other pressure to fill marshes in order to construct launching ramps and marinas. However, marsh- filled for such a purpose decreases the supply of fish available to sport fishermen. Nearly one-half of V1, marina business is linked to fishing. And fish depend in turn on wetlands for part of their life cycles. While filling, diking, dredging, spoil-dumping, refuse disposal and water pollution are obvious threats, the indirect effects of wetland destruction on Bay water quality are less apparent. Filling of wetlands decreases the area and volume of the Bay, particularly its sub-estuaries, which-especially on the western shore-contain much of its wetland 71 areas; and the surface area and volume of a water body help determine its capacity to assimilate wastes. Public recognition of the problem has helped to slow the destruction of wetlands. Maryland's wet- land laws, enacted in 1970, are intended to prevent dredging and filling of State wetlands without a li- 1% cense from the Board of Public Works, and to regu- -'r, late "dredging, filling, removing or otherwise altering or polluting private wetlands." However, it is unlikely that outright destruction will be halted completely by such legislative measures because pressure for waterfront development will continue "N into the foreseeable future. z 4, TABLE 16: EXTENT OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN MARY- LAND (Data from 1954 Wetland surveys, published by U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, "Wildlife Wetlands and Shellfish Areas of the Atlan- tic Coastal Zone." Freshwater Species Affected by Tides 70,330 acres A Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata) and Cordgrass (Spartina patens) 64,790 acres Needle Rush (Juncus roemerianus) 53,050 acres Saltmarsh Corclgrass (Spartina alterniflora) 15,890 acres 1954 Total 104,060 acres 7, :,n Table 16 shows the extent of wetlands in Mary- X, , M, land by dominant aquatic plant species. it has been A", K Mlr estimated that 23,777 acres were lost to all causes A,@ between 1942-44 and 1967-68. Of these, 20,200 acres are judged to have been destroyed between 1954 and 1968. k", Goal: Preserve Wetlands in a High State of Functional Integrity V-1A J 4 K 31 AW11 A PROBLEMS & GOALS--BAY ALTERATIONS SHORE EROSION TABLE 17: CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORE EROSION IN MARYLAND Shore erosion can destroy recreational beaches, (Tributaries Not Included) seriously limit waterfront use and development, Miles Net Loss Main Shore- Annual Annual and damage valuable wetlands. The 3,950-mile of 1845-1942 line Annual Volume Rate of shoreline of the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Shore- (Acres) Erosion Rate Lost Volume Lost Bay and its tributaries is subjected constantly to line (Acres/Miles) (Cu. Ft.) (Cu. Ft./Mi.) attack by moving water driven by winds, tides, and Northern Bay Area currents. Between 1845 and 1942, about 6,000 Cecil 15.6 195 0.13 acres of land were lost to shore erosion along the Kent 36.9 578 0.16 230-mile shoreline of the Bay proper in Maryland. Harford 24.0 383 0.16 During the same period, the shoreline receded sev- Baltimore 9.3 164 0.19 eral thousand feet in some areas, but remained vir- TOTAL 85.8 11320 0.17 Above Tolchester 4.4 X 106 62,300 tually static in others (see Tables 17 and 18, and Mid-Bay Area Figure 18). This is an average loss of 26 acres per Queen Annes 17.6 592 0.34 mile of shoreline. The rate of erosion varies from Talbot 11.3 286 0.28 place to place and depends on a combination of Dorchester 29.5 1,809 0.64 Anne Arundel 40.3 1.041 0.30 factors: the shoreline configuration; the direction Calvert 31.3 530 0.17 and speed of prevailing and storm winds; the reach St. Marys 22.5 600 0.28 of open water over which the winds blow; the TOTAL 152.5 4,858 0.34 movement of sediments by off-shore currents, and (Table Reproduced from Table 4 in Ref. 1) the composition and structure of the materials that (Data for Col. 1-3 from Ref. 2 and 3, Col. 4 and 5, Ref. 4.) make up the shore. The height of the coast varies markedly from place to place, therefore, the amount of land lost is not a direct measure of the volume of erosion. In TABLE 18: SEDIMENT DISCHARGE OF SELECTED TRIBUTARIES, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION Calvert County, the Calvert Cliffs are nearly 100 feet high; while in Dorchester County much of the River Location Physiographic Drainage Sediment Sediment shoreline is only 6 to 10 feet high. Thus, the volume Province Area Discharge Discharge of land lost may be considerably higher along Cal- (sq. mi.) Tons/year Tons/sq. mi./yr. vert County despite the slower (linear) rate of ero- Susquehanna Havre cle Piedmont 27,503 1.8 X 106 66 sion when compared to the shoreline of Dorchester Grace, Potomac Point of Piedmont 9,651 1.1 X 106 114 County. Accurate estimates of the volume of sedi- Rocks, Md. ment lost are unavailable for most of the Bay. How- Potomac Fort Piedmont & 11,939 2.3 X 106 180 ever, for the region from the mouth of the Washington Coastal Plain Susquehanna River to Tolchester in the northern below D.C. Patuxent Hardesty. Coastal Plain 371 8.7 X 104 235 Bay area, studies indicate that 4.4 million cubic feet & Piedmont. are lost each year, representing a rate per-mile-of- _F@atuxent Unity. Piedmont 34.8 4.5 x 103 130 shore-line of 62,300 cubic feet (Figure 19). Patuxent Mouth. Piedmont & .19 X 106 Increasing values of shoreline land will generate Coastal Plain. efforts to protect the shoreline from being eroded Mattawoman Pomonkey Coastal Plain. 57.7 1.7 X 103 30 Average, New Jersey Coastal Plain. 10-40 away. However, shoreland values vary widely . in several different areas and may not correspond to erosion protection priorities considered on a comprehen- sive basis. If present trends continue, the average annual loss due to erosion will be about eight acres per mile of shoreline. 32 SEDIMENTATION the sediment particles; human activity in the source The rivers flowing into the Bay, particularly those watershed; bottom characteristics; stream dis- on the Western Shore, carry enormous loads of charge and gradient; speed and direction of cur- sediment into the Bay, in addition to sediment from rents in the Bay; location in the Bay; etc. Thus, erosion of the Bay shoreline and bottom. Once in while as much as 15 feet of sediment accumulated the Bay, these sediments are distributed over the in the Patapsco River near Baltimore between 1845 bottom by wave action and tidal currents. and 1924, other areas with strong bottom currents Sedimentation requires extensive continuous have been kept relatively well-scoured. dredging operations, restricts the use of marinas While the river flow into the Bay is seasonal, and negates the use of wetlands by fish and wildlife. sediment inflow from the Potomac and Sus- Large accumulations of sediment or increased tur- quehanna is even more so. In early Spring, precipi- bidity may smother bottom-dwelling marine life. tation and runoff rates of meltwater are high, soils The actual volume and rates of sedimentation are beginning to thaw, rock and soil particles have vary due to a combination of factors: grain size been loosened by frost action, and there is less distribution (i.e., gravel, sand, silt, clay); density of vegetation to hold soil in place. Thus, 80 to 90 FIGURE 18 SHORE EROSION& BAY SEDIMENTATION FIGURE19 SHORE EROSION& SOURCES Ol@ SEDIMENTATION,& TURBIDITY J A . ... ...... A It 1, A It It S E:i ERO ION CRITICAL @1 AI I REA EROSION .-J A PROBLEM SEDIMENTAT10N SEDIMENTATION AREA POLLUTION SOURCE I, y J. A N I Mn@ - V, 11 A N, BOUNDARY I WATERSHED Y., ? RX ,@w@N I A It1 1. V 4 II A111,1 1 f @1 A It 1 1, .1 .1 11 It I' I T 1: It _2i, 1_; C@_A_ 5;1 33 percent of the annual sediment load is carried to the Bay in February and March. Current annual rates of sedimentation have been estimated at 30 tons per square mile from Coastal Plain areas and 150 tons per square mile from Pied- mont Areas. Annual rates of sedimentation from land under forest cover are estimated at 100 tons per square mile. Areas under agricultural cultivation may contribute sediment at annual rates of 400 to 800 tons per square mile. Soil disturbance by con- struction activities increases these rates considera- bly, and the rate of sedimentation from developed areas remains high. Current development trends in- FIGURE 20 $URFACE GEOLOGY dicate that sedimentation will increase and that streams in urbanizing areas will be most affected. Dredging operations to remove sedimentation I L 0 A'RI R from shipping channels incur a major maintenance cost. The annual cost of dredging in the Potomac _C A It It River near Washington is about $150,000. The an- B A 1, T SAND & CLAY AV - nual cost of maintaining the shipping channel ap- GRAVEL proaches to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is also about $150,000. Data are not available on the total cost of channel-dredging operations in the V KE N 1@ Maryland Chesapeake Bay Region. However, the METAMORPHIC outlook is for costs of dredging and spoil-disposal ROCK operations to rise steadily, due primarily to in- N T1; 11 11E AN1 N creases in the total volume of material removed N MARBLE from shipping channels and to the cost of removal F AN N E-S and disposal. & Goal: Stabilize Bay Shores Against Erosion and FALL LINE R I N C Minimize Negative Effects of Sedimen tation 1@ A L B 0 EXTRACTABLE MATERIALS CA R0 L I N The demand for extractable materials such as sand and gravel is highest in areas of urban develop- ment. Transportation makes up a significant portion ere is a of the final cost of these materials, hence th strong economic incentive to develop sources of sand and gravel supply close to the points of de- mand. %k _)K Extraction of sand and gravel from on-Iand sites t r o m I a o can cause a number of serious environmental % effects. The open-pit extraction technique can cre- --------- E@ T E ate erosion problems. The washing of gravel can increase siltation of streams. Extraction and hauling 0 N E T activities can create dust and noise bothersome to )'J -3 nearby residents. Provisions are seldom made for F 4 reuse of the pit after extraction, and it remains an 777 eyesore among valuable urban lands. -A Extraction of sand and gravel from tributary streams, sub-estuaries and shallow Bay waters also can cause extensive environmental damage. Y Changes in the Bay bottom topography can change 34 water currents which affect erosion -accretion pat- PROBLEMS & GOALS-SHORELAND DE- terns. Silt from dredging operations can increase MANDS water turbidity, which affects wetlands, aquatic life WATER-RELATED RECREATION and wildfowl. One major cause of the problem is the rapid pace The Chesapeake Bay and its shoreline lend them- of urban development which generates a substan- selves to many forms of outdoor recreation (Figure tial demand for sand and gravel. Projects ranging 21). The Bay proper and its irregular shoreline pro- from highways to sand beaches increase require- vide opportunities for boating of all kinds, particu- ments for extraction from the Bay. larly because of its many snug harbors. The sandy Another major cause of the problem is that the beaches and areas of good water quality accommo- concern of residents for the environmental conse- date swimming, water skiing, etc. Certain species of quences of extractive activity has placed con- aquatic life offer opportunities for sport fishing, straints on extractive activities in many residential areas around the Bay. One result is increased pres- FIGL)@E 21 PEVELOPED RECREATION P IC OPEN SPACE sure on the Bay as a substitute source of materials. Finally,"the improving technology of dredging will make extraction from the Bay-even in deep wa- H A R F 0 o ters-competitive with land site extraction. PARK OR FOREST The areas of urban development on the western -\,,C A R R 0 1, 1, F--i FEDERAL shore of the Bay are the primary locations of de- STATE mand for sand and gravel. Deposits of sand and MUNICPAL gravel in these areas appear to be sufficient. How- PUBLIC OR ever, there are relatively small deposits of sand off PRIVATE BEACH the western and eastern shores-especially in the A K N T A H 0 W A RD area of the Bay off Dorchester and Somerset Coun- ED CAMPSITE ties. Indications are that extraction from the Bay bot- NI o ly P NATURAL tom is a small portion of current, total extraction 0 J N El ENVIRONMENT activity. Marine freight traffic in sand and gravel in A U N N-tT AREA 1969 was about 50,000 short tons. Half of this was Ej PUBLIC HUNTING Ap" directed to Wicomico River port facilities, 18 per- AREA f r@ cent to Nanticoke River port facilities, four percent 1p, DE1101 A I through Choptank River facilities, and 28 percent i WILDLIFE X, T A L B 0 T RESERVE through Baltimore Harbor facilities. Even if most of 2 C A R 0 L III the marine freight traffic in sand and gravel was in fit HISTORICAL SITE material dredged from the Bay bottom, it would i? account for only 0.5 percent of total sand and gravel extraction in Maryland. ;@,,! Two conclusions may be drawn. One is that the C@-Rl I 11. D@ extraction of non-living resources from the Bay is a C H A E O'k minor problem and is likely to remain so because of all. T E R 4P11 D0 RC H E S the difficulty and expense of such operations. Con- -11-,/ - 7 Milk, sidering the small scale of extraction from the Bay 10f Q 0 S T X bottom, the washing of sand and gravel extracted I e o 1 41) M A RY S from on-land sites poses more serious water-quality C E,S T problems in the Bay than does extraction from the E R U 0 M E S EA 4 Bay bottom. The other conclusion is that, even at from the Bay bottom has significant environmental low current levels, extraction of sand and gravel 6, consequences. mua,@ Rt HF, Goal: Provide for the Use of the Bay's Non Living Extractable Resources With Con- tP1 sideration of the Possible Environmental impacts 35 71:@__ 70 'S . ............. . .... .... k while land areas harbor wildfowl and provide op- The relation between outdoor recreation and en- General outdoor recreation areas-extensive portunities for hunting. Natural scenic areas along vironmental quality is complex. Intensive use of day, weekend, and vacation facilities, acces- the Bay shore promote camping, hiking, picnicking, recreation areas can result in damage to the very sible (15-35 miles) to centers of urban popu- etc. environmental qualities that were the original at- lation. The Bay problem with regard to outdoor recrea- traction. Also, different forms of outdoor recreation tion is to increase the opportunity for a variety of (e.g., active versus passive, boating versus fishing) Natural environment areas-areas which rely outdoor uses of the Bay while reducing potential can conflict. on the natural environment to provide recrea- conflicts with other Bay uses as well as the environ- Planning for outdoor recreation and open space tion activities for day, weekend, and vacation mental damage caused by recreation users them- is complicated by a diversity of types, needs and use. selves. objectives: Outstanding natural areas-unique and irre- Evaluation of recreation in terms of leisure and placeable areas of high scenic or scientific entertainment alone does not give a complete pic- Needs in intensive urban areas-intensively importance which merit special protection ture of its total value to the State. Recreation must developed outdoor recreation facilities within and management to ensure preservation. be judged too on its role as an economic locational urban areas, used primarily by urban resi- force. However, there is a lack of firm figures to dents as day-use recreation facilities. Primitive areas-extensive, remote, wild and indicate the importance of bayside recreation to the undeveloped areas. economy of the Bay area and the State. Needs in intensive transitional areas-less in- Historic and cultural areas-sites that signify Also unknown is the influence which recreation tensively developed outdoor recreation areas the historic, traditional or cultural heritage of may have in the decision of industry to locate on or that are predominantly day or weekend facili- the Nation, State or local area. near the Chesapeake Bay. But a lack of data does ties for users from a two- or three-County not detract from the importance of recreation to the area and adjacent urban and suburban devel- Increases in population, mobility, and leisure will Bay area economy. opments. result in a 150 percent increase in the use of public 36 FIGURE 22 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PROPOSALS-. C E; C,J L 0 J", TRUNK TRAIL L L I L T I',O,RE 10 FEEDER TRAIL ACTIVITY AREA D 0 W A R D @'m Q N ,Q6.@E R A I N SCENIC C4 U E. N RIVER U N L C_ POTENTIAL Ck , @@l @ SCENIC RIVER AL B 0 T V _y, 'y '4k A CR 01, 1 NR G E0 R G E S ........... J C HA "RL E 1) 0R C H E S T E R -X)l wIrrr m I o M A @4t @@ORQE_ TER W o m R R S 7A & A- 7 K recreation facilities in Maryland between 1970 and TABLE 19: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RECREATION DEMAND AND EXPENDITURES: 1960-2000 the year 2000. In the three decades, the State's Per Capita Gross Recreational Economic Impact to population will increase by over 2.5 million people, Maryland AnnualExpend. Recreation Expenditures Impact Rural auto registration (mobility) will increase by 160 per- Population Away from Home Expend.in for Water- of Expend, Income cent, and time free from employment will double. Over 12 Yrs. on Vacations, Md. Bay Based Recre- for Pur- From The demands generated by Maryland residents will Old (Except Outdoor Rec. Region (in ation (in poses of Expend. on be supplemented by the rapidly increasing number W. Md.)a Trips, agd Millions of Millions dof Water- Water- Outings Dollars)' Dollars) Based Based Rec. of out-of-state residents seeking outdoor recreation Rec. (in (in opportunities in Maryland. Millions millions Another view of the outdoor-recreation-demand of $)' of $)f picture interrelates population, income and outdoor 1960 2,090,000 $103.7 $208. $ 83 $125 $ 63 recreation expenditures (Table 19). Per capita in- 1970 2,650,000 $139.0 $368 $147 $221 $110 come in Maryland increased from $2,343 to $31- 1980 3,220,000 $192.0 $618. $248 $372 $186 1990 3,690,000 $260.0 $960 $384 $577 $288 742 from 1960 to 1968. Adjusting for inflation at 2000 4,090,000 $428.0 $1750 $700 1 $1050 1 $525 four percent, this represents a real income gain per a Population over 12 yrs. 74% of Total Population (see Md. Statistical Abstract, p. 13) capita of over $500. b1960 Expend. from ORRRC Report #19; assumes 1960-68 Rate of Increase in Per Capita Income, adjusted for inflation at 4%; For each dollar change in income, expenditures assumes income elasticity of recreation at 1 .5 (See NAR: Effects of Rec. Devel., Nov. 1969, p. 5) applied to real increases in income on recreation change $1.50 to $2.00. Assuming after 1960. that population will increase according to current cIn actual dollars (See Note #2); assumes rec. expend. of Md. Bay Region residents outside region @ rec. expend. of outside residents .n Md. Bay Region. projections and that real per capita income will d140% gross rec. expend.: on basis of major purpose of trip (See NAR, Ibid., p. 10, 11) continue to rise at the 1960-68 rate, gross expendi- 'Multiplier for rec-related expend.: $1.50 (NAR, Ibid., 14, 15) tures for recreation in the Maryland Bay Region fAssumes 50% of Total Inc. increase spent in rural areas (NAR, Ibid., p. 17) 37 FIGURE 23 PROPOSED OPEN SPACE & OUTDOOR RECREATION SYSTEM F0_1 ACTIVITY CENTER CONSERVATION AREA LIMITED USE AREA INFORMATION CENTER F*-] MAJOR REST AREA 4'@ I E f/ may multiply four times by the year 2o0o; and half skiing will double. Expenditures associated with of the total will be water-based recreation-oriented trips for which water-related recreation is the major primarily to the Bay. purpose may increase five times between 1970 and Statewide, swimming will increase by 75 per- 2000 in Maryland. Much of the outdoor recreation cent, picnicking by 65 percent, fishing by 80 per- potential and demand represented by these state cent, and boating, hunting, camping and water figures wil[ focus on the Bay and its tributaries. 38 The Maryland Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan indicates that year 2000 outdoor recre- ation and acreage needs in the Baltimore and Sub- urban Washington regions will be six times the 1970 acreage. Because of intense competition for various water and shoreline uses in these regions, it may be impossible or undesirable to attempt to meet the water-related recreation needs of Mary- land's metropolitan population within metropolitan counties. This would indicate an increased empha- sis on outdoor recreation uses in non-metropolitan regions of the State. If half of the public open space and outdoor recreation acreage needs of the met- ropolitan counties are supplied in non-metropolitan regions of the State, then the required additional TABLE 20 GENERAL RECREATION LAND REQUIREMENTS & DEFICITS FOR STATE & REGIONS (In Acres for 1970 & 1990)* Year 1970 Year 1990 water-related recreation acreage would be 142,- Planning Regions Requirements Supply (1970)* * Deficit & Excess Requirements Supply (1970)** Deficit & Excess 000 acres between 1970 and 2000. This prospect has significant economic potential for non-met- Western Maryland and ropolitan areas of the State. Frederick Region 29,859 135,825 +105,966 61,193 135,825 +74,632 Rapid urbanization on the Western Shore of the Suburban Washington 64,725 22,075 -42,650 125,355 22,075 -103,280 for out- Baltimore 89,494 50,805 -38,689 174,850 50,805 -124,045 Bay will consume much land now suitable Southern Maryland 37,340 7,258 -30,082 76,401 7,258 -69,143 door recreation opportunities and will drive up the Upper Eastern Shore 36,886 9,319 -27,567 83,950 9,319 -74,631 cost of land acquisition for outdoor recreation. Lower Eastern Shore 34,147 10,051 -24,096 69,577 10,051 -59,526 Thus, it will become increasingly difficult to find State of Maryland 292,451 235,333 -57,118 591,326 235,333 -355,993 and acquire the acreage needed. The Maryland *Figures exclude wildlife management areas, hunting requirements and water surface area requirements because they tend to distort Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan indicates the total figures. that by the year 1990, 12 4,000 add itional acres for "Based on Maryland Department of State Planning Recreation Inventory, conducted 1971. public open space and outdoor recreation will be .***Based on assumption that no new acres would be provided between 1970 and 1'990. needed in the Baltimore Region, 103,300 acres in the Suburban Washington Region and 69,100 acres in the Southern Maryland Region (The adjoining tables point up the current Baltimore, Suburban Washington, Southern Maryland and Eastern Shore deficiency of nearly 163,000 acres. TABLE 21 GENERAL RECREATION LAND REQUIREMENTS & DEFICITS FOR STATE & REGIONS INCLUDING WILDLIFE MANAGE- Increasing use of the Bay shoreline for private MENT AREAS (in Acres for 1970 & 1990)* year-round and vacation homes imposes another Year 1970 Year 1990 constraint on water-related recreation land supply. Planning Regions Requirements Supply (1970)** Deficit & Excess Requirements Supply (1970)**Deficit & Excess' Other uses which benefit from a shoreline location Western Maryland -industries, powerplants, etc.-will place addi- Frederick Regions 29,859 155,095 +125,236 61,193 155,095 +93,902 tional demands on the supply of available water- Suburban Washington 64,725 24,013 -40,712 125,355 24,013 -101,342 related recreation land. The increase of Baltimore 89,494 51,414 -38,080 174,850 51,414 -123,436 incompatible water uses, especially the use of the Southern Maryland 37,340 8,129 -29,211 76,401 8,129 -68,272 Upper Eastern Shore 36,886 12,231 -24,655 83,950 12,231 -71,719 Bay for solid and liquid waste disposal is another Lower Eastern Shore 34,147 73,362 +39,215 69,577 73,362 +3,785 threat to the supply of water-related recreation State of Maryland 292,451 324,244 +31,793 591,326 324,244 -267,082 land. I *Figures exclude hunting requirements and water surface area requirements because they tend to distort the total figures. Goal: Maximize Opportunities for Water- "Based on Maryland Department of State Planning Recreation Inventory, conducted 1971. Related Recreation ***Based on assumption that no new acres would be provided between 1970 and 1990. 39 WATERFRONT INDUSTRY The Baltimore Region is faced with the prospect environmental impacts of waterfront industrial de- and unloading facilities in order to reduce "turn- of a doubled population by the year 2000. To sup- velopment and operations by means of pollution around time" for harbor visits; and the need for port this population the Region must look into its abatement plans. large storage areas adjacent to the waterfront to unique economic assets; the greatest of these is its One current, major cause of problems relating to handle increased volumes of cargo. Related Port. Shorefront sites with deep-draft water accessi- waterfront industrial land is the technological changes are those in basic industry production pro- bility are needed by an increasing number and vari- change in marine transportation, to which local in- cesses which require larger industrial sites and more ety of industries. Further, it is evident that the space dustries must respond in order to remain competi- extensive supportive services (e.g., water supply, needs of new waterfront industries will be greater tive with other ports on the Atlantic Seaboard. Such and rail or highway linkages). than those of shorefront industries built in the past. changes include the need to accommodate large, These determinants do not, of course, affect all Only three percent or eight miles of the 266-mile deep-draft tankers which require deep shipping industries in the same way (Figure 24). Industries Baltimore Region shorefront is vacant, unrestricted channels; the need to utilize specialized loading which can use shallow draft coastwise shipping by ownership, and suitable for deep-draft transport. Reservation of most of these eight miles for future waterfront industry is in the national interest. Some constraints on the supply of waterfront land suitable for industrial development are: access to deep-water channels; competition with alterna- tive land uses; and resistance from affected, existing uses. Moreover, changing technology of industrial production generates changing demands for inclus- K trial land. The result is a shortage of suitably 7@, located, suitably serviced land for waterfront indus- try-a potential limitation on the growth of the re- K- gional economy. Land allocated to waterfront industry often limits Z pu blic access to the water where the need for pub- R'' lic access is greatest. The Baltimore Harbor is the most important example in the Maryland Chesa- 1W peake Bay area. There the development of deep water channels, modern loading and unloading g "'N facilities, and supporting highways and railroads 7 AR 41 make land adjacent to the waterfront suitable for industrial use. At the same time, however, the ur- 711 ..... ... ban population surrounding the Harbor is cut off P X1 from the waterfront by the spread of industry. Development of waterfront industry on the few available shorefront sites with potential deep draft water transportation can have environmental consequences so complex that it is inaccurate to ,fN r* portray the issue as a simple confrontation of devel- opment and conservation objectives. Two studies-one completed in 1963, the other VAC, in progress-provide an interesting perspective on planning for waterfront industry in the Baltimore J @A Harbor area. Both studies communicate a strong sense of urgency in stressing the scarcity of shore- front sites with potential deep-draft transportation in the Baltimore Region and the need to control 44" 4 could utilize land adjacent to shallow channels; migration of the Baltimore Harbor waterfront indus- cess. and, since shipments are generally smaller, they can try southward along the banks of the Patapsco The Baltimore Regional Port Area has only two use smaller storage areas. Industries which need River, while the abandonment of obsolete industrial large, potential deep-draft sites not zoned for indus- large volumes of water (e.g., electrical power gen- sites has left a deteriorated, difficult-to-renew try. On Back River, in Baltimore County, a site of eration) can sometimes dispense with a harbor lo- physical environment which requires heavy invest- 1,500 to 1,700 vacant acres with over one mile of cation altogether-provided adequate highway or ment to transform it to other useful purposes. This vacant shoreline in a few large ownerships, is one rail transportation is available. has worsened problems of metropolitan population of the few remaining large waterfront sites in met- The cumulative, net effect of these factors has access to waterfront land, has consumed recreation ropolitan regions on the eastern seaboard. Hog often been to make formerly adequate waterfront land, and has reduced the value of nearby recrea- Neck, in Anne Arundel County, has approximately industrial sites obsolete. The search for waterfront tion areas. Converting the abandoned waterfront 1, 100 acres vacant, held in multiple ownership. An land suitable for modern industry has resulted in the land to alternative uses is a slow and difficult pro- additional, adjacent 800 acres, also in multiple FIGURE 24MANUFACTURiNG EMPLOYMENT CENTERS: r,7 m, PORT DEPENDENCE BY PLANNING REGION '6-6 F 3013 t Yo 0 1 0 n kw, o n PLANNING REGION 0 0 0 it, 0 H , r"", EMPLOYMENT DATA 1_011? 0 A 0 TOTAL I A R 0 1, 1,/ EMPLOYED 0 PERSONS K E N '1' SERVICED 0 % PORT jq ',V 0 F38F%sL _!TTV 0 AR JEJ1_1 C ? 0 14' A RD 0 0 % PARTIALLY p, V M 0 G M E R y M F, R y 46-1 wylf'el@(y W,q PORT DEPENDENT 0 Q u @EN 0 0 )), , - ,, ,'@ 4 - f, - 7W ...... 11 0 DEPENDENT % PORT 0 31- 8 62 t. is. o @,IbA I'A 3 p.'g 2 A R 11) 1. 1 N Fl@ EMPLOYMENT 4 0, 0 31hd.o CENTER 0 0 0 T1, L C H AR 1, E S 1) 0 H C il 1383 A E 1; r F,R 3 P. ly 0 1# A '4 1* Aw t y @@L M I C 0 "'J R 0 J 0 y W 1) R CE S 11 E 11 O.T S M E R Z5 E I 0 /z" 0 0 V,,,4 C)3 F= 5- 00 -0 w n CD- -0 0-m CZ * (D (D tJ 5;- 3 w - 0 C, -a- :::@ = M 0 -0 00 =-* =- @ - m r) FD'0 =3m W CD (D =- = i @: 0- a 277 :@ , _< MW --q - r) 01 (D n m nU- = zi n m - ;:@* C @p (D @- 0(D M m c ---10 @'- F 'D W on W D - - = 0 m m C '10 0 M(D CL < (D C m m w 0 71' C D M- o- 'A n=- M C r < (D a- c c:n 3 (D 0 < cr), v) 3-'o M 0- (D .- =5- w= --< c- D - @n c o- -CL (D - m =!. =- w (D (D a- rD a, m =3 (D o- LA 0 w :D CL (D W eb W =3 a, rD (D r) m < - V) o w w I mW eD c 0-m =-n3 (-D 3M=t@ - - _ * (D pu 20 --0 EE (D W (D :3 CL (y =r N :D C) C) (D M < M CL 0 eb (D w m n aq (D (D (D M F) 3 (D (D C) - m q =- cu (D mM- 0 3 0 (D tn 3 0 o M W 7W < w 0 3 C, V, m (D -a 'o -(D .0 M @nm --3 0- mw SL C) M, c: c t=n -0 W cu cu- =. CD W C) M 0 (D (D r) (D w 0 c r) m m <CD W r) CZ 3 -6m cr < 'a =3 -00 =-. - =r- (D M w - W 0 @u (D I - n -= '< 3 CL - Z ID (DM --a cr W w =0 n S CF- (D m CD -21 - -- CD :3 ID w w w m (D - n m " -.0 FF 0- w ;:; cr = :D m c :2. CL-0 (D 0 m m M. 5 (D q -0 (D 0- m mM C) (D (D .0 a c cu -V 0 -a (D w= 0 (D Ul V) 0 5i, m -. z c C) Co U) V, 0 tj pu (D (D m o-a m m 0 w (D (D - (D Z(D oj 6@ (D m cy, 0 < n I - M n C) 0 3 < W (D 0- 0 0 0 ul _0 m m LQ o 3 =. ID (D @A m M -0 (D 3 c: n- =r 10 79- -03 00 -.-o M 0 = = CU 0 M m 3 rD 3 (D r) C) 0 9 Cro -0 < :@ - - - =3 - 2 m w 0M 10 0 LA 0 -0 a, od r Ln M Ln 0 (D LA oj -0 0 -0 3 C) A f7 @L C@- -T w c: Z ;:w 0 =1 o- z Z Lr n - > r) rD 0 ol W C) @3 a K a@ m rD 0 3 CL - r) r) rD eD 0 3 FF 2 00 (D in r@n r@m @m In r!m -tm r!@ r@m In r@n 3 c 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 =i' 3 3 =;' 9 :;' 3 3 :;' 3 3 3 3 3 f 3 3 3 3-a 3 -a 3 '2- 3-5 3 -a 3-5 3 -5 3-6 3-5 3-a 3 -a 3-6 3 -5 3-5 3 -o 3-5 3-a E -6 Z (D 3 ul CANNED & CURED ul '4 a, FISH & SEAFOOD FRESH OR FROZEN 'a w 4 ul ol 14 14 PKGD. FISH & SEAFOOD m 0 C m a, = c K @ 1 m FF 4 CANE SUGAR REFINING Z z 0 ;@ -< INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC r) co 4, P@ Ln f@ 0 rj "o W 0 w co & ORGANIC CHEMICALS C z 0--a (D !@ 01 W 01 s, 7@ AGRICULTURAL @! -3 N 'm -cl ul @j 0, CHEMICALS 14 PETROLEUM REFINING 00 3 CONCRETE GYPSUM & ul co 14 l.n t, ol - co r,,JD 4 00 14 z 14 PLASTER PRODUCTS ol co 14 -P@ 14 14 o 3 w w co co PRIMARY METAL (D 14 @n < ul w ol r@ w C 'w E. INDUSTRIES m @n @11 0 ol c@ ul SHIP & BOAT BUILDING 1@ '4 00 t@ ID Ln w w co w 00 t@ 00 @o & REPAIRING 1@ U, W 3 m 0 :,4 @4 1- > a 4.1 co Lq cr, 10 "q ow Pli 10 - 1@ w w t@ o 8 '@j @: w 0', 14 41 00 -4 ol 4 @4 .1, '4 rJ 00 14 @O 01 W K@ t@ CO W 14 %0 @0 Ul O@ 14 -4 Nj WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL Residential development of the shoreline and 4 peninsular areas, particularly along the western U, shore of the Bay, is a major potential. These areas combine the amenities of the Bay with proximity to suburban metropolitan jobs. The eastern shore also has major potential for vacation and retirement resi- dential development but it is farther from met- ropolitan centers. As more persons seek to combine recreational opportunities with basic shelter needs, residential development of the Bay shoreline will 4 increase. However, present low density shoreline development has preempted long stretches of waterfront with a few houses and has, in the pro- cess, denied waterfront access to adjacent inland areas. In this way, the residential development Po_ tential of the shoreline as a whole has been greatly reduced. Low-density, relatively uncontrolled develop- ment along the shoreline has preempted the land, while the manner of development has had some severe effects on the environment. Heavy water runoff into the Bay and small streams has increased erosion and sedimentation, clogging natural stream channels and wetlands. Much of the soil next to sub-estuaries is highly permeable, and liquid waste effluent leaches from septic tanks into the water. Water is drawn from aquifers near the Bay and salt W"Arl. water from the Bay infiltrates the aquifers. Maryland's population is projected to continue to increase-by two million persons between 1970 and the year 2000-and many of the new people can be expected to locate on or near the Bay shore- line. in the Baltimore Region, preliminary calcula- tions indicate that the population of peninsula areas r ON IPA will increase by 23,000 persons per year. If so, peninsula areas would absorb 65 percent of the projected population increase of the metropolitan ment in peninsular areas will proceed at a rate of velopment. Rather, the issue is residential develop- area. By the year 2020, 1,140,000 persons may live 9,000 year-round dwelling units and 2,000 vaca- ment under certain environmental conditions, in peninsula areas in the Baltimore Region. tion dwelling units per year. Most of the year-round particular densities, and in combination with other It is likely that a similar proportion of the popula- dwelling units will be built on the fringes of urbaniz- uses. Trends indicate that development will tion increase in other counties bordering the Bay ing areas of the western shore. It is reasonable to preempt large stretches of shoreline for a fraction of will locate in peninsula areas. If so, the population assume that 165,000 acres of Bay shoreline will be potential demand, and that environmental values of peninsula areas in the Maryland Bay Region will developed for residential use between 1970 and will suffer in the process. increase by 27,000 persons per year, or by 810,- the year 2000. 000 persons between 1970 and the year 2000. But the issue is not characterized adequately in Goal: Maximize Opportunity for Bay Water- Calculations indicate that residential develop- terms of the volume and acreage of residential de- front Residential Development 43 RNAW X@ M N, R, @E 3N v, V X, gg- M '2 379 4AW Os A, -&44W4 k--k 1-rW94a Om PUBLIC ACCESS The general public has little access to the Chesa- peake Bay shoreline. This situation stems in part 4 g from the geography of the Bay. Major roads have been built inland where expensive crossings of sub- U estuaries feeding the Bay were not necessary. Also, "'4 the lack of public access is due to extensive private use of shoreline areas (only three percent is publicly -P owned). Some of the privately owned land is in gow industrial and institutional use, but the major por- tion is low density residential. 7: The problem of public shoreline access is most severe on the Bay's western shore where most of 'XIII,4 the public lives which would benefit from access. FkM It is also on the western shore that the most dra- matic possibilities and proposals exist for providing public access to the Bay, e.g., reuse of part of the Aberdeen Proving Ground/Edgewood Arsenal for public shoreline access; the major park proposals for the Susquehanna River and Patuxent River; de- Jt@ J velopment of public vista points in the Baltimore M Harbor; public parkland acquisition programs such as that now underway by Baltimore County. It becomes more difficult and expensive each eclairn obsolete waterfront development year to r 4 are as for public recreational access. Local govern- v ment is hard-pressed to provide basic services and to acquire shoreline land. wgn Problems of public shoreline access and shore- line appearance will probably increase. And as de- W1 mands focus increasingly on a few limited areas, the appearance and quality of these areas will decline. Active pursuit of a variety of approaches to provid- ing public shoreline access could reverse the trend; -,!SK I W, however, difficulties of maintaining the appearance V of the shoreline are likely to increase. X Goal: Maximize Public Access to the Bay, and Enhance the Appearance and- the Aes- thetic Character of the Shoreline Summary of the Chesapeake Bay's Present and Emerging Problems by Geographic Area E E CL 2 2 > E C C 0 W V = -C cn < Ln Remarks WESTERN al IN NI E a' NO, (on, N *1 0 ]NEI IN SHORE EASTERN Emerging Water SHORE 0'16 *1 Offil N 0' 0 0' 0 El N 01 0 *1 Supply Problem CBIPC Emerging Thermal STUDY *I**, Elm El a *1 0 IN, 0 AREA Discharge Problem J 4 MAJOR SIGNIFICANT 0 INSIGNIFICANT C Z C) 0 LU The "Summary of the Chesapeake Bay's Present and Emerging Problems" matrix, X which summarizes the essence of Chapter Four, calls attention to problem areas in S the Chesapeake Bay. The magnitude and severity of change are based upon assump- Summary of Chesapeake Bay Goal tions predicated in previous sections of the Chapter. Conflict and Compatibility V) >_ _j Ce Ln Z < Z) LU Z C) 0 Z Z) 0 L) Cr Z , Z >- U_ w < P Z z Ln Z < - 0 < > 0 Z 3: _ 0 F- I--- W Z V) _-, , - 0 W Z Z GOAL a- < = < CL < 0 0 (D Lu Z Ce ce ") Z 2 @: < :D < U - LD Z W 0 < 0 @_ ft Z _j W W W _j < U < 0 < < < P Z , GOAL < < < 0 < 7: Z) @2 5 . V) CL WATER ENVIRONMENT _l*f*lMI* E 0 Sol 1*1 416 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY I I WATER QUALITY 0 MINI 0A 0 N E 0 SOLID WASTE 0 Iml -0-8 THERMAL WASTE lal 0 * 0 * FISH AND WILDLIFE *1*1 0-PAg 9 WATER SUPPLY 101 0111111111111111110 TRANSP ATION 101 Iffil ** 0 WETLANUS Elm 0 0 0 The Summary of Chesapeake Bay Goal Conflict and Compatibility Matrix, which BAY ALTERATIONS - provides a compilation and ready-reference of Chapter Four, calls attention to the EROSION-SEDIMENT interrelationship of goals for the Chesapeake Bay. The relative degree of conflict or EXTRACTABLE RESOURCES compatibility is based upon assumptions predicated in previous sections of this Chap- SHORELAND DEMANDS WATER RECREATION Biel ter. WATERFRONT INDUSTRY 101 WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL GOAL Z < T @\NMEN IDS 90 PUBLIC ESS 1*1 MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE Fo@ MINOR CONFLICT OCOMPATIBLE OR NEUTRAL FEDILIKELY CONFLICT 45 lk" "IM-44 Iwo ir "OUR ENVIRONMENT IS AS MUCH A PART OF OUR HERITAGE AS OUR CULTURE. WE MUST NURTURE IT, AND PROTECT IT, SO THAT IT CAN BE PASSED ON TO COMING GENERA TIONS" GOVERNOR MARVIN MANDEL wl,,@@, k, @,Yk Al I THE NEXT STEP THE NEXT STEP ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Previous sections of this report indicate the com- plexities of Baywide planning and management. Even though the challenges are formidable, com- prehensive evaluations are required to provide effective guidance to all levels of government. Prior to the preparation of a "Comprehensive Plan", however, the steps in the process must be identified Chart I to insure that duplications and gaps are avoided. ELEMENTS OF A CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SYSTEM This process is illustrated in two charts: "Elements of a Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Planning Sys- tem" and "Scheduling of Elements for a Chesa- peake Bay Plan." The "Comprehensive Plan", as distinguished from the second phase, "Management Plan", focuses on meshing the five major elements and 24 sub-elements into a comprehensive framework which culminates in goals, policies and alternatives. The elements and sub-elements will be prepared 0 0 utilizing where possible available data and existing '0 program information. The "Comprehensive Plan" 41V developed with effective citizen input and partici- ..4e, pation seeks to resolve conflicting Bay activities into 0 a compatible resource framework. 100 The second phase, "Management Plan", is an outgrowth of the "Comprehensive Plan". This por- CO/7t'r tion of the overall Chesapeake Bay planning system 41 will serve to identify the logical governmental agen- 0 cies and levels to carry out various aspects of the Nat(iral ernmental "Comprehensive Plan". Major items included in Process Intergov this endeavor would be functional, identification, Relaflons fiscal support and program scheduling. Again, dur- ing this phase of the overall planning system, citizen Recreabon Planning and participation will be of substantial value. and Research Phase three, "Implementation Plan", will be ori- open space ented primarily toward functional operation, regu- lation and control; based upon the "Management 01 Plan". INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES Institutional concepts have been developed by :1-pe N, oe Wallace McHarg Roberts & Todd, Inc. to fulfill gen- 0 e,- < eralized criteria for comprehensive planning and CP 0 management planning and to take full advantage of 'A f, expertise contained in existing state agencies; each 0 T 5 S- alternative is discussed below and summarized in k. r @4 0 Chart 3. Other institutional possibilities by CBIPC evI Ce i@ J, -member agencies may be forthcoming. Ir tv GENERAL CRITERIA AND THE CONCEPTS 0 Thecapabilities of a Baywide planning organiza- tion should include: information, research, plan- ning, citizen participation and feedback. In 48 addition, the Bay planning agency should exhibit three major traits: comprehensiveness, coordina- tion and responsibility. Over-riding all criteria for institutional alternatives to guide Bay planning and management is the necessity to tailor decisions to the needs of citizens and elected officials and to the problems of Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay. ALTERNATIVE ONE Continue the current CB1PC structure. The CBIPC has been effective to a degree but has been hampered by lack of staff and by divergent views of what it should do. As a committee, it serves at the pleasure of the Governor whose attention must be Chart 2 focused to a large degree on day-to-day decisions. SCHEDULING OF ELEMENTS FOR A As a committee, CBIPC does not have the stature CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN or institutional responsibility necessary for the ma- jor task of preparing a Bay plan. It has served as a I Year 2 Year 3 Year forum for different ideas and views, but is not a Water Resources Element decision-making group. If it made decisions, they Hydrologic Systerb would not be binding on constituent departments. Although the CBI PC could be staffed adequately, Water Supply partly from departments and partly with its own Water Pollution personnel, its "informal" status is a compelling rea- Waste Disposal son for rejecting it as the body to prepare a Bay Flood Control plan. Other Natural Resources Element ALTERNATIVE TWO Fisheries Plan Reconstitute the CBlPC as a formal, tempo- Wildlife Plan rary Commission, either by assignment from the Wetlands Plan Governor and concurring resolution by General Resource Extraction Plan Assembly, or by Act of the General Assembly. Shoreline Protection Element The latter is not necessary but is desirable to indi- Natural Process cate legislative intent. in either event, the temporary Commission should be responsible to the Gover- Recreation and Open Space nor. Shore Development A temporary commission would best meet crite- Soil Conservation ria for the planning process. It centralizes responsi- Bay-Related Element bility for preparation of the plan. Assuming adequate funding, this alternative recognizes the Marine Transportation importance of the effort and would provide for a Water-Related Industry task force of staff and consultants to carry it out. Its Water-Related Power work would be separate from day-to-day manage- Waterfront Access ment planning but related to it. Water Recreation A temporary commission would be accessible Coordination and Implementation Element through public hearings. It could be assigned to Intergovernmental Relations Plan coordinate Federal and local agencies within its area of concern. Citizen Participation ALTERNATIVE THREE Legislative Financial Create a "Chesapeake Bay Commission" Information System (CBQ through the Governor's sanction (execu- Planning and Research tive order) and/or legislative mandate. This grou would comprise the Governor (or Lt. Gover- Economic Evaluation nor) of Maryland as permanent commission chair- Plan Formulation (Preliminory Plan Preparation) I man, with the Secretaries of State Planning, Natural Resources, Community and Economic Develop- 49 ment, Transportation, and Health and Mental Hy- ent CBC might direct the alternate from the ous membersof the conservation- i nclustry-scientif ic giene as commission members. The "Commission" Department of State Planning to supply staff ser- sector should be established to serve as an advisory should meet annually within one month prior to the vices to the Commission in addition to his other council. While the specific scope of CBC respon- Susquehanna River Basin Commission's annual responsibility. The Alternates Commission should sibilities are not finite, generally, the "Commission" summit meeting (attended by the Secretary of In- meet at least quarterly. would serve as a forum for discussion of major terior and governors of the three signatory states as To insure that a broad spectrum of the citizenry issues affecting the Bay; would have mandatory the four commissioners). Each CBC member should is involved in Bay decision-making, committees advisory responsibilities on overall programs of designate an alternate to represent the policies, pro- would be created at the discretion of CBC. How- Baywide significance, including legislative review grams and technical abilities of his agency. The par- ever, one permanent committee composed of vari- and initiation; would offer a broad range of working policies, technical expertise and strategies for Bay management; and, would be responsible for devel- Chart 3 ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTS FOR A "CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION" oping a Bay strategy for long-range management similar to the Susquehanna and Potomac Commis- sions. Alternative ALTERNATIVE FOUR Institutions Creation Composition* Characteristics I Continue current Five Department Secretaries- . Generates Ideas, Not Binding Decisions Create a "Chesapeake Bay Commission" CBIPC group . Monitor Planning (CBQ through the Governor's sanction and . No Independent Staff legislative mandate. The "Commission" would be the same as in Alternative Three, with the addition 2 Reconstitute CBIPC Legislative Five Department Secretaries- - Planning and Management Planning of two members appointed by the General Assem- as Temporary Com- Mandate . Independent Staff bly. Alternates and generalized scope of respon- mission * Regulatory Responsibilities (limited) sibilities would be the same as in Alternative Three, . Hold Public Hearings . Report to Governor with the added possibility of knitting the executive, legislative and citizen sectors to implement Bay- 3 Create a Chesapeake Executive Order Governor or Lt. Governor . Discuss Major Issues wide management. Bay Commission and/or Legis- Five Department Secretaries- . Initiate and Review Legislation lative Mandate . Establish Working Policies ALTERNATIVE FIVE . Provide Technical Expertise - utilize Department of State Planning Staff Create a "Chesapeake Bay Commission" . SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE (CBQ through the reassignment of the Chesa- GOVERNOR ON THE "STATE OF peake Bay planning group within the Depart- THE BAY" ment of Natural Resources. The CBC would be 4 Create a Chesapeake Executive Order Governor or Lt. Governor . Discuss Major Issues composed of the members of the existing CBIPC Bay Commission and/or Legis- Five Department Secretaries- . Initiate and Review Legislation with staff services provided by the Department of lative Mandate Two Members of . Establish Working Policies Natural Resources. Generally, the role of this Com- General Assembly . Provide Technical Expertise mission would be policy planning for comprehen- - utilize Department of State Planning Staff . SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE sive Bay management and it would have advisory GOVERNOR & GENERAL ASSEMBLY responsibilities on land and water-related issues. ON THE "STATE OF THE BAY" The informal directive of this group would be a 5 Create a Chesapeake Legislative Five Department Secretaries- . Prepare a Comprehensive Plan comprehensive policy plan to aid the Governor and Bay Commission Mandate . Discuss Major Issues legislators in prudent management of the Bay's re- . Utilize Chesapeake Bay Planning Staff sources. The land use element of the Bay Plan from the Department of should conform with the Department of State Plan- Natural Resources ning's statewide Land Use Plan. . REPORT TO GOVERNOR THE TASK FORCE APPROACH An Advisory Committee including conservation, science and industry is recommended for each alternative. The task force approach differs from the plan Secretaries of State Planning, Natural Resources, Community & Economic Development, Transportation, Health & Mental Hygiene review and coordination approach in that the CBC 50 would have a substantial task force staff of techni- cians hired specifically, and borrowed from rele- vant agen cies. In addition, major "assignments" could be undertaken by Department specialists as well as by consultants. REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR The CBC should, at the conclusion of the plan- ning period, deliver to the Governor and the Gen- eral Assembly the Preliminary Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Bay. The Plan should be sub- jected to legislative debate and public hearings, and, as modified and as appropriate, approved in principle by resolution. Whatever the organizational arrangements, the comprehensive plan for Bay resource management should be suitable for inclusion in the State Land Use Plan prepared by the State Planning Depart- ment to guide the economic and physical develop- ment of the State. The CBC should make recommendations to the Governor regarding additional powers needed to implement the plan; the concurrence or non-cur- rence of agency plans, including operating plans, with the Comprehensive Plan; suggested intergov- ernmental relationships; and the CBC's own perma- nent role and stature. INTERSTATE OPPORTUNITIES V,l The State of Maryland has committed funds and to plan for prudent management of the manpower 7, 7T_ Chesapeake Bay. While knowledge about Mary- land's portion of the Bay is extensive and further x@ studies are underway, the Virginia part of the estu- not be ignored. Strong cooperative effort 0@4_ ary can among states in the development of policies and programs is essential to avoid duplication and gaps. V T At present, Virginia and Maryland are working to- gether to resolve a number of single purpose Bay- related problems. Likewise, Maryland and her sister states have entered into the Susquehanna River Ba- sin Compact with the Federal government. How- ever, no formal attempt has been made to address comprehensive management planning for the Bay. Maryland must continue to work for a formal agreement for the Bay. Activities that rely on the economic, environmental and social resources of the Chesapeake Bay and the local, regional and national significance of the Bay justify this effort. in the absence of a formal agreement, Maryland should continue to coordinate its Bay planning efforts with Virginia and with Federal agencies to insure common purpose. 51 SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Governor Marvin Mandel constituted the Chesa- peake Bay Interagency Committee by executive order in 1969. Special acknowledgment is given to the following former members of the commit- tee and principal staff participants for their valua- ble contribution during the initial stages of this study. Joseph Stanton Maryland Port Administration David Fisher State Highway Administration William Pate Division of Economic Development Joseph Manning Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs Paul McKee Department of Water Resources Spencer Ellis Department of Forests and Parks George Shield Department of Came and Inland Fish Kenneth Weaver Maryland Ceological Survey Robert August Department of State Planning All reference notes to tables in this report are identified in the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study, prepared by Wallace McHarg Roberts and Todd, Inc. 52 The preparation of this Report, maps and documents were financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as administered by the Maryland Department of State Planning. Title: Integrity of the Chesapeake Bay Author: The document was condensed by the Maryland Department of State Planning with assistance by Urban Research and Develop- ment Corporation, from the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study pre- pared by Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, Inc. Subject: Chesapeake Bay Da te: July 7972 Planning Agency: Maryland Department of State Planning Source of Copies: Clearing House for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Washington, D. C. Department of Housing & Urban Development Regional Office Baltimore, Maryland Maryland Department of State Planning State Office Building Baltimore, Maryland HUD Project Number: 92 Series Number: Not Applicable Number of Pages: 52 Abstract: This document represents a summary of the major findings and conclusions contained in the "Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study", a report prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee. The Bay Study represents the first comprehensive PHOTOGRAPHS Maryland Chesapeake Bay inventory of natural resources and eco- nomic development problems with suggested mechanisms for Page 11 Maryland Department of Economic management planning. and Community Development This Summary Report of the Bay Study is divided into three major sections. The first describes the general characteristics of the Pages 17, 40-41, Chesapeake Bay including its physical and natural characteristics, 43, 44, 46 M. E. Warren its commercial value, economic viability, and the population within the Bay Region. Page 19 Peter C. Chambliss Eight majorproblems which have ecological, social, economic and Pages 20-21, 31 Richard E. Keister, Maryland planning and management significance to the Bayandgoals useful Department of State Planning in ameliorating the problems are discussed in the second major section of this report. Pages 25, 29 B. L. Braun The final section outlines the elements needed to prepare an effective management plan for the Chesapeake Bay. Alternative Page 36 Tadder management institutions which would respond most effectively to the Bay problems are also discussed. Page 51 David Harp COASTAL ZONE INFOWATION CENTER 3 6668 00001 9077