Man versus mollusc studies of water quality problems, how they affect shellfish and shellfish harvesting, and how the Commonwealth should address these problems. A report to the Shellfish Enhancement Task Force

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Task 14
ID
[2A.
11
Final Product

MAN VERSUS MOLLUSC:

Studies of Water Quality Problems,
How They Affect Shellfish and Shellfish Harvesting, and
How the Commonwealth Should Address these Problems

A Report to the Shellfish Enhancement Task Force
By
Bruce Neilson, Nancy C. Wilson, and Carl Hershner
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
The College of William & Mary in Virginia
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
December 1991
This study was funded in part by the Virginia Coastal Resources
Management Program with funds from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 as amended. Grant number NA90AA-H-CZ796.
Council on the Environment Commonwealth of Virginia

I
The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program links state programs to manage coastal resources.
The program's coastal boundary includes the 29 counties and 15 cities within Tidewater Virginia. The
program is coordinated and monitored by the Virginia Council on the Environment.

MAN VERSUS MOLLUSC
Studies of Water Quality Problems,
How They Affect Shellfish and Shellfish Harvesting,
and How the Commonwealth Should Address these Problems

A Report to the Shellfish Enhancement Task Force
By
Bruce Neilson, Nancy C. Wilson, and Carl Hershner
This study was funded in part
by the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program
with funds from the National oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under Section 306
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended.
Grant #NA90AA-.H-CZ796 Council on the Environment
Commonwealth of Virginia

Virginia Institute of Marine Science
The College of William & Mary in Virginia
Gloucester Point, VA 23062

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
No. Title Page No.

Table of Contents i
Executive Summary iv
Preface ix

MAN VERSUS MOLLUSC
Case Studies of Water Quality Problems and Now
They Affect Shellfish & Shellfish Harvesting
1.0 Introduction I
1.1 Current Virginia Shellfish Condemnation Areas 2
1.2 Elizabeth River: A Case Study of
Bioaccumulation & Bioconcentration 5
1.3 Bonum Creek: A Case Study of Indicator
Organisms & Nonpoint Source Pollution 10
1.4 Nansemond River: A Case Study of Impacts of
Headwater Pollution Sources 14
1.5 Lynnhaven Bay System: A Case Study of Point
Source Controls and the Consequences of
Subrrban Runoff is
1.6 Summary of Case Study Findings 25

WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS AND TRENDS IN OTHER COASTAL STATES
AND THE CHESAPEAXE SAY SYSTEM
2.0 Introduction 27
2.1 Conditions in Other Coastal States 27
2.2 Population and Development Trends 32
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
No. Title Page No.

RECONNENDATIONS TO PROTECT VIRGINIA'S SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
AND PROMOTE THE SHELLFISH INDUSTRY
3.0 Selection of Management Strategies for Virginia 33
3.1 Establish a Program to Designate "Shellfish
Culture Areas" within the Commonwealth 34
3.2 Promote Alternative Methods of
Shellfish Cleansing 37
3.3 Reduce All Pollutant Sources, Especially Sources
of Fecal Pollution, and Restore Chesapeake Bay 44

4.0 References 50

APPENDICES
1. SENTAF Members 56
2. Closures in Lynnhaven Bay System 57
3. Survey of Shellfish Sanitation Workers 65
in Other States
4. Workshop Attendees 79
5. Agency Responsibilities for Shellfish
and Water Quality 80
6. Estimates of Oyster Resource
in Closed Shellfish Growing Areas 85
7. Estimated Annual Cost for a Long Range
Program to Assist Low Income Families
with Failing Septic Systems 88
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shellfish pump water to obtain food, but in so doing they
also accumulate pollutants. Thus, pristine water quality is
needed for shellfish growing waters in order to protect the
public health. The bacteriological standard for shellfish
growing waters is much more stringent than that for
recreational waters. Specifically, the mean number of fecal
coliform organism per 100 milliliters of water must be less
than 14 for shellfish growing waters, but can be as high as
200 for recreational waters in which people bathe and swim.
A small amount of sewage, such as from a failing septic
system or a few farm animals, is sufficient to cause the
growing area standard to be violated. Runoff from suburban
and urban areas degrades water quality during wet weather
periods and also results in violations of the growing area
standard.
The Year 2020 Commission projects a continued increase in
the population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and an
increase in the amount of land that is developed for each
person. Thus impacts of nonpoint source pollution are
expected to grow.
Special efforts are needed to ensure that there will always
be growing waters of the necessary water quality. Other
efforts are needed to allow shellfish from moderately
polluted areas to be harvested and, after cleansing, sold.
Specifically, it is recommended that the Commonwealth:

Establish a program to designate "Shellfish Culture Areas",
Promote alternative methods of shellfish cleansing, and
Reduce all pollutant sources, especially sources of fecal
pollution, and restore Chesapeake Bay.

The more detailed recommendations, which are needed to
implement these general recommendations, are listed on the
following pages and in the main body of the report.
iv

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION #1. THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD
ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO DESIGNATE "SHELLFISH CULTURE AREAS"

Recommendation #I-a. The Council on the Environment should
recommend to the General Assembly a program to nominate and
designate Shellfish Culture Areas.
Recommendation *1-b. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation
of the State Health Department should develop the water
quality criteria appropriate for designated Shellfish
Culture Areas.
Recommendation *1-c. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation,
in conjunction with the Shellfish Enhancement Task Force,
should conduct a preliminary inventory of state waters which
meet these criteria.
Recommendation #l-d. The Marine Resources Commission should
be the lead agency and be responsible for registering and
monitoring Shellfish Culture Areas.
Recommendation #1-e. The Council on the Environment should
establish the nomination procedures.
Recommendation #*-f. The officialdesignation of Shellfish
Culture Area should be an act of the General Assembly.
Recommendation #l-g. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation
should be charged with overseeing the designated areas and
ensuring that state and local government regulatory actions
are consistent with the program.
Recommendation #1-h. The Council on the Environment should
ensure that the Shellfish Culture Areas program conforms to
Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Plan and use moneys,
when possible, through the VCRMP to assist the other state
agencies agencies in completing their assigned tasks.
V

GENERAL RECONMENDATION U2. THE COMMONWEALTH sHOULD PROMOTE
ALTERNATIVE M4ETHODS OF SHELLFISH CLEANSING
A number of historically productive shellfish areas are
closed and are projected to remain closed indefinitely. Even
though the growing area standard is not met, water quality is
good, usually good enough that shellfish will be cleansed if
placed in clean waters for an established period of time.
Transferring, or "relaying", clams or oysters to clean
waters provides the cleansing necessary to protect public
health, but it is expensive. Relaying clams in trays held
off the bottom has proven to be reliable and economaically
advantageous. At present many clams but few oysters are
being cleansed using "caged relaying".
The cleansing of shellfish in a controlled envirorment is
called depuration. Depuration plants have been used for
decades in many states and in other countries, but none has
been approved for operation in Virginia.

Recommendation *2-a. The Virginia Sea Grant Program should
develop and disseminate a bulletin providing information an
caged relaying operations..
Recommendation *2-b. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation
should notify those individuals currently operating shellfish
processing facilities, and other appropriate industry
officials, of the Division's willingness to work to see that
a depuration facility is established.
Recommendation *2-c. The Commonwealth should hire an
engineering firm to design a "typical' depuration facility
and estimate the costs to construct and equip this facility.
These plans should he available to all interested parties.
Recommendation #2-d. management agencies should assist the
owners of the first depuration facility during the start-up
tests. This assistance could include financial support or
in-kind services.
Recommendation #2-e. The Commonwealth should coordinate its
regulatory activities to facilitate permitting for depuration
facilities.
Recommendation *2-f. The Marine Resources Commission should
investigate how the state can provide financial incentives to
depuration plant operators.
vi

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION %3. ALL VIRGINIA AGENCIES SHOULD WORK
TO IMPLEM NT THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ACTION AGENDA
The Chesapeake Bay Program includes many programs and efforts
directed towards restoration of Chesapeake Bay. The recent
Governors Agreement spells out an action agenda for the
coming years. If this action agenda is followed, the
shellfish and the shellfish industry should benefit. A few
special efforts are needed to augment those already underway.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION #4. THE AMOUNT OF SEWAGE REACHING
STATE WATERS FROM MALFUNCTIONING SEPTIC SYSTEMS SHOULD BE
REDUCED.
The water quality standards for shellfish growing waters are
very stringent. Water quality is especially vulnerable to
the discharge of raw sewage. Special efforts are needed to
reduce sources of fecal pollution.
Recommendation %4-a. The state should re-instate the
Chesapeake Bay Initiative that provided financial assistance
to low income families who resided near shellfish growing
waters and had failing septic systems; the level of support
should be $250,000 per year.
Recommendation #4-b. The Shellfish Enhancement Task Force
should regularly study and make recommendations on areas
where the extension of sewer lines is expected to have a
positive impact on shellfish growing water quality.

GENERAL RECOM4ENDATION #5. THE STATE SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO
REDUCE POLLUTION ARISING FROM BOATING ACTIVITIES.
Recommendation #5-a. State regulatory agencies should work
to establish No Discharge Zones in shallow and congested
areas.
Recommendation #5-b. The Health Department should set a time
table (circa 3 to 5 years) for full compliance with the
requirements for marinas to have pump-out facilities and
should ensure that complete compliance was achieved at the
end of that period.
Recommendation #5-c. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation
should include, as part of the procedures for establishing
condemnation zones around marinas, an explicit factor
relating to the availability and use of pump-out facilities.
Recommendation #5-d. Facilities whose operations result in
buffer zones or condemned areas should be made financially
responsible for the maintenance of the signs indicating these
closures.
vii

Recommendation #5-e. The Health Department should continue
and expand its "Don't Pass the Bucket" educational campaign.
Recommendation #5-f. The Health Department and the Water
Control Board should work with funding agencies and private
sources to conduct a demonstration project that brings
sewerage to "live-on" boats.
viii

-PREFACE
In 19895 the Secretary of Commerce and Natural
Resources requested that a task force be formed to coordinate
the state's water pollution control efforts in shellfish
growing areas. The Shellfish Enhancement Task Force or
SENTAF, was established by the Marine Resources Commissioner
and included representatives from many agencies (See Appendix
I f or SENTAF membership). Members ranked areas with regard
to the resource in the area and the likelihood that water
quality problems could be elimAinated. In the targetted
areas, failing septic systems were repaired through a special
Chesapeake Bay Initiative funded by the legislature. Other
pollution sources were eliminated or reduced, especially
through cost sharing programs for agricultural runoff. These
initial efforts were quite successful and over 6,000 acres of
shellfish bottoms were re-opened as a consequence.
Subsequent efforts were not so successful. Although
pollutant loads were reduced, the resulting water quality
improvements were not sufficient to allow many additional
shellfish areas to be opened. SENTAF members were of the
opinion that the inter-agency cooperation and coordination
were good and that the efforts had averted some new growing
area closures. Members were discouraged that there appeared
to be little chance that more areas would be re-opened,
despite the collective efforts of the agencies. There was
concern that at with "business as usual", most shellfish
bedswould be closed, with the obvious negative impact that
would have on the state and the shellfish industry. New
management approaches seemed necessary to protect and enhance
the industry.

A proposal was prepared and submitted to the Coastal
Zone Management Program to study both the causes of the
problems and possible solutions for the future. The project
was funded and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science was
contracted to do the studies. This report summarizes the
project efforts and findings. First, the case study approach
was used to define and describe the problem. Second, a
survey of shellfish sanitation workers in other coastal
states and a workshop were used to identify possible
management actions, and these led to the study
recommendations described below. The Task Force attempted to
make these recommendations as specific as possible and for
the costs to be moderate, and thus have a good chance of
implementation.

This report fully describes the project. in addition,
the study findings and recommendations will be summarized in
a brief report which will be distributed widely. The Oyster
Blue Ribbon Panel, the shellfish industry, legislators,
management agency staffs and administrations, environmental
advocacy groups,.and other citizens are all target audiences.
ix

MAN VERSUS MOLLUSC
Case Studies of Water Quality Problems and
How They.Affect Shellfish & Shellfish Harvesting

1.0 INTRODUCTION

An old joke features the newspaper headline "Man Bites
Dog. Although we are not dealing with a joking matter, the
headline for our story might read "Man Rugs mollusc," for
shellfish need clean waters and people produce pollution.
Therein lies the source of a continuing problem. Shellfish
harvesting restrictions in Hamupton Roads date back to the turn
of the century and those in many other areas have been in
existence for decades (see Chapter 1.6 and Appendix 2, for
examples).
Water pollution control efforts over the past twenty years
have done much to reduce the impacts of pollution on the
shellfish industry. Projections' for population growth and
development, however, suggest that additional efforts are
needed. If we are not successful, soon there will be only a
few places in Virginia where shellfish can be harvested for
direct marketing.
The purpose of the study is to investigate the problem and
make recommendations regarding the state's management of water
quality and shellfish resources. The first step towards
solving any problem is to define exactly what the problem is.
in this section of the report, we begin by reviewing a number
of situations or case studies that, we hope, will elucidate
the ways that water quality degradation affects shellfish and
the shellfish industry. This exercise is important because it
helps us to understand the problem and devise strategies that
will reduce impacts.
I

1.1 CURRENT VIRGINIA SHELLFISH CONDEMNATION AREAS-
It is the responsibility of the Virginia Department of
Health, through the Division of Shellfish Sanitation, to
ensure that shellfish taken from Virginia waters are safe
for human consumption. Because Virginia shellfish are
transported to other states, federal regulations apply.
The Food & Drug Administration's water quality standards
are established by the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP).
in order for shellfish to be harvested for direct
marketing, the waters must not only be of high quality, but
there also must be limited potential for water quality
pollution. For example, in harbors such as Hampton Roads,
areas adjacent to anchorages are closed because vessels
could anchor there and, while anchored, could discharge
sewage overboard. Although the anchorage may be used
infrequently, there is always the possibility that it will
be used and that water quality will be impacted. While
some may object that these precautions are not needed, it
is typical of public health officials to be very cautious
and to guard against all possible vectors for disease.
Degraded water quality can mean contamination with
fecal matter or pollution of a chemical nature. Both can
be the cause of a shellfish closure, but in practice, most
condemnations and closures are due to fecal contamination.
The mean fecal coliform count of approved growing waters
must be no higher than 14 MPN per 100 milliliters of water;
MPN (most probable number) is a statistical estimate of
number of fecal coliform organisms in the water using the
results of laboratory incubations. When the numbers are
greater than 14, this 'red flag, indicates the possible
presence of disease causing organisms.
Virginia shellfish waters are continually monitored by
the Division of Shellfish Sanitation and are classified
according to their state of 'harvestability, as follows:
1. Approved - direct harvesting to market allowed;
2. Conditionally approved - direct harvesting allowed
under predictable conditions. Closing occurs when
criteria are not met (i.e. following a rainfall);
3. Restricted - direct harvest to market not allowed.
Shellfish must be relayed to approved areas for
depuration or placed in purification tanks for
specified periods of time;
4. Prohibited - no harvesting permitted.
2

Currently condemned areas (as of 30 January 1991) are
shown in Figure 1. One can identify several types of
condemned areao. First, much of Hampton Roads on the Bay
side of Newport News Point is closed due to vessel traffic
and anchorages for commercial freighters. Second, areas
with heavy industrial activitiy and/or industrial
discharges are closed. These include the Elizabeth River
and the portion of the York River near West Point.
Third, parts of the James River, especially along the
Newport News shoreline, are closed due to the discharges
from large wastewater treatment plants, as is a portion of
the lower York River. As with anchorages, the condemned
areas around sewage treatment plant outfalls exist more
because of the potential for problems than due to degraded
water quality. Since 1972, wastewater treatment has
improved markedly. EPA also has required safeguards such
as interconnections between plants and auxiliary power
supplies at each plant. Nonetheless, there remains the
possibility that raw or only partially treated sewage will
be discharged due to malfunctions, acts of God, or other
causes. Consequently, the FDA requires and the Health
Department establishes permanently condemned areas, where
shellfishing is prohibited, around each outfall.
Most of the remaining closures are within smaller
systems. Although some are closed in their entirety, many
others have condemnation zones only in the upper reaches
(e.g. the Nansemond, Poquoson, Back, Piankiatank, and
Great Wicomico rivers). In general this is due to physical
factors. Because a, large portion of the drainage basin
usually lies above the head of tide, the freef lowing river
delivers most of the freshwater entering the estuary along
with all the associated pollutants. When the river flow
reaches the tidal portion of the river, there is a decrease
in water velocity due to the tides and the broad channels.
This combination, sluggish,water movement and large
pollutant loads in river flow, results in degraded water
quality in many systems. Water quality often improves
downriver where tidal currents are stronger and large
volumes of water are available to dilute the pollutants.
An exacerbating factor is the presence of towns and cities
at the head of tide (for example, Fredericksburg, Richmond,
Petersburg, Smithfield, and Suffolk). These population
centers produce wastewaters and urban runoff, both of which
can significantly degrade water quality at this vulnerable
location.
In the case studies which follow, we will attempt to
point out some specific water quality problems and the
effects each has on shellfish.
3

0
Figure 1.
Virginia Shellfish Condemnation Areas, as of
30 January 1991.
4

1.2 The Elizabeth River: A Case Study of Bioaccuraulation
and Bioconcentration
Backaround
The Elizabeth River, a small tidal river on the
southern side of Hampton Roads, drains a portion of the
Great Dismal Swamp and flows through the cities of
Chesapeake, Portsmouth, and Norfolk (see Figure 2). The
drainage basin is small (at least in comparison to the
James River watershed) and freshwater flows to the river
during the summer are almost non-existent. Most freshwater
enters via the several large sewage treatment plants
located on the river. Conditions in Hampton Roads, rather
than runoff, appear to control the circulation in the
Elizabeth (Neilson, 1975). Some suggest that tidal
exchange between Hampton 'Roads and the Elizabeth was
greatly reduced when the Craney Island Disposal Area was
constructed (Seufer, 1977).
Since before the American revolution, people have been
living along the Elizabeth and it has been a site for ship
building and related activities. The large numbers of
people residing in Norfolk and Portsmouth caused water
quality problems, and the Elizabeth River was closed for
shellfish harvesting at the turn of the century, although
most other areas in Hampton Roads still had acceptable
water quality (Cummings, 1916). Many years later, the
Hampton Roads "208 Study" found that water quality
conditions were compromised by the large volume of
wastewaters discharged,, and that wastewaters tended to
remain in the system for long periods of time. Also,
"fecal coliform levels were far above shellfish growing
water standards" (Neilson & Sturm, 1978).
Bioconcentration
Clams, oysters, and other filter-feeding bivalves pump
water through their gills in order to secure food. In so
doing they expose the gills to substances dissolved in the
water and they take in any pollutants associated with the
particulate matter suspended in the water, and in this
manner they accumulate pollutants. This process is called
bio-accumulation or bio-concentration. Unless there is a
counterbalancing process to regulate or excrete the
pollutants, the shellfish meats become highly contaminated.
Filter feeders can accumulate pollutants to concentrations
thousands of times greater than those in the water.
The concentration of pollutants in the shellfish
tissue is a function of many variables, including ambient
concentration and bioavailability of the pollutant, body
5

0 0
~~~~~~~~0 0000

Li
PAGAN RIVER
CHESAPEA
KE
BAY
A
HAMPT
ON
ROAD
S
i
CREE
K
INANSEM
OND
RIVER
VIRGINIA
BEACH
PORTSMOUT
H
SCALE IN
MILES
INTRACOASTAL
0 1 2 3 4
WATERWAY
Nansemond and Elizabeth Rivers, showing current shellfish
condemnation zones.
Figure 2.
6

size, metabolic rate, and how these have varied over the
life of the organism. The uptake of two compounds, zinc
and PCB's, by oysters will be presented to illustrate the
problem. The data are taken from a Virginia State Water '
Control Board report on "Metals & Pesticides in Shellfish
and Fish Tissues in Virginia" (Gilinsky & Roland,, 1983).
Oysters are "notoriously strong accumulators" of zinc
(Rainbow et al, 1990). Concentrations of zinc in oyster
tissue are of roughly comparable magnitudes in the three
major estuaries, although one can see a clear relationship
between human activities and zinc concentrations in oysters
(see Table 1). Mean zinc concentrations in oysters are
believed to be higher in the York than the Rappahannock
because of mining activities in the upper portions of the
York basin during colonial times. Concentrations in the
James are higher still because of urban runoff, wastewater
discharges (much of which comes from industries), and
activities such as shipping and ship building.
Concentrations vary from year to year in response to
changes in river flow and pollutant discharges.
Concentrations also vary within a river due to both the
location of pollutant sources and changes in
bioavailability associated with water chemistry (such as
salinity and humic acids).

Table 1. Mean zinc concentrations in oysters from
Virginia tributaries to Chesapeake Bay.
River Mean Zn Conc.
(mg/kg)
Rappahannock River 403
York River 575
James River 2,174

Zinc tissue concentrations for oysters collected from
the Elizabeth River are very high (see Table 2), roughly
three times those in Hampton Roads and ten times those
observed in Lynnhaven Bay. The maximum zinc concentration
observed in the Elizabeth is a thousand times greater than
that observed in the tidal freshwater and transition
regions of the James. The differences are believed due to
varying water chemistry and the proximity of sources of
zinc.
Tissue concentrations of PCB's also are quite high and
show similar geographic variations, although the magnitude
of the differences is somewhat reduced.
7

Table 2. Concentrations of Zinc and PCB's in the Tissue
of Oysters taken from the James River, Elizabeth
River, and Lynnhaven Bay.
River Segment Zinc Concentrations in Oyster Tissue
(mg/kg)
Mean Mi n Maximum
James - tidal freshwater 14 11 16
James - transition zone 16 12 19
James - e stuary/upper 1j,208 11 6,000
James - estuary/lower 993 72 6,546
Elizabeth River 3,563 484 19,990
Lynnhaven Bay 403 235 600

River segment PCB Tissue Concentration (ppm)
James - estuary/upper 0.38 0.05 1.00
James - estuary/lower 0.47 0.01 1.00
Elizabeth River 0.99 0.08 2.80
Lynnhaveni Bay 0.14 0.10 0.20

Discussion
One must conclude that the activities occurring in and
near the Elizabeth River have resulted in degraded water
quality which in turn produces contaminated shellfish. The
maximum concentrations are high by virtually any yardstick or
standard and preclude the consumption of the oysters by
humans.
Shellfish also can bioconcentrate bacteria and viruses.
Standard water quality mohitoring of shellfish growing waters
emphasizes the bacteriological quality because contaminated
shellfish pose a very real health threat to the humans who
consume them, especially if eaten raw. Virginia water quality
standards for shellfish waters require a mean fecal coliform
count of less than 14 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml
(milliliters) of water. The corresponding water quality
standard for recreational waters is 200 MPN/100 ml. It is
because shellfish concentrate the pathogens (to levels
hundreds or thousands of times higher than in the water) that
the shellfish standard is more strict than the recreational
standard.
a

In the remainder of this report, bacteriological aspects
will be emphasized. The reader should remember, however, that
the shellfish accumulate other pollutants as well. When
metals and toxic organics are accumulated, the effect is long
lasting. The bacteria and viruses, however,, are mostly in the
gut of the shellfish; if the organism is placed in clean
waters, the bacteria and viruses will be eliminated naturally
in a matter of days or weeks. This process is called
depuration. At present there are no facilities for the
controlled cleansing or depuration of shellfish in Virginia,
-although a number of East Coast states do have plants,
especially for clams. When shellfish are transferred to
naturally clean waters, they are said to have been "relayed".
Relaying has been practiced for decades, but the costs
sometimes mean that it is not practical. Not only must the
shellfish be harvested twice (once from the restricted waters
and then from the clean waters), there are the costs of
transport, monitoring the relaying area, and of course
something less than 100% of the original harvest can be
recovered at the second harvest. Relaying that uses trays or
cages appears to have great promise economically.
Metals and pesticides can be incorporated into the soft
tissue and require lengthy periods (on the order of a year or
longer) to be purged. Hence, the shellfish contaminated with
metals or other chemicals cannot be harvested for human
consumption. Monitoring of shellfish meats for chemical
pollutants need not occur frequently, because the accumulation
and depuration periods are long. In Virginia, this monitoring
occurs semi-annually, whereas bacteriological monitoring of
water quality occurs monthly.
An adult oyster may pump as much as 70 gallons of water
during a day. A Maryland scientist has estimated that around
1870,,the oyster populations in Chesapeake Bay pumped a volume
of water equal to tho volume of the bay in about three days.
At present, the reduced populations take more than 300 days to
pump the same volume (Newell, 1988). Shellfish'thus appear to
have the ability to change the environment in which they live,
and the changes appear to be positive. Use of oysters and
clams to cleanse the Bay may at first seem getting the cart
before the horse, but perhaps this unusual way to restore
Chesapeake Bay might be feasibile.
Conclusions
When natural conditions and/or hum&An activities degrade
water quality, shellfish tissue can become highly
contaminated. Because pollution impacts are magnified,
shellfish growing waters must be very, very clean. Shellfish
are Chesapeake Bay's counterpart to the canary in the mine.
9

1.3 Bonum Creek: A Case Study of Indicator Organisms
and Non-point Source Pollution

Backciround
Bonum Creek is a small, tidal creek, located on the
south shore of the Potomac River in Westmoreland County,
Virginia (see Figure 3). Salinities in the creek vary from
0-14 ppt. Bonuma Creek is characterized as having sandy,
well-drained soils with deep water tables at the
headwaters, with bluffs up to 45 ft in height. The area
around the mouth of the creek is flat and marshy, with
poorly drained soils. It is primarily an agricultural
area, and some residents own small numbers of domestic
animals (hobby farming). There is a sparse population of
single dwelling homes, maost having on-site septic systems,
but some with privies. The creek is considered free of
known point sources of pollution.

A large oyster house is the only 'industry, on the
creek. Dredging of the channel by the Army Corps of
Engineers has been requested by local watermen and was
scheduled to take place in October of 1991 (funds pending).
About 22,000 cubic yards of spoil will be dredged and
placed an nearby land. This same-land was the site of the
last spoils deposit when the channel was dredged in 1981.
Previous dredgings occurred in 1971 and 1968.

Shellfish Closures
Notice #159 from the Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation,
effective 27 April 1990, shows the entire Bonum Creek as
being condemned for shellfishing.
A VIMS report on Bonum Creek by Howard Kator and
Martha Rhodes (1988) sought to discover the sources of
fecal coliform bacteria present in the creek and to
identify those bacteria as being of human or animal origin.
They noted the high level of bacteria at the headwaters of
the creek, with concentrations decreasing toward the mouth
(see section 1.1). The narrow mouth seemed to restrict
tidal flushing; tidal height inside the creek was half that
of outside the mouth. They suggested that because there
was little flushing'out of the creek, bacteria were
retained within the system, resulting in elevated levels of
fecal coliforms. The report also observed a "statistically
significant correlation between rainfall, turbidity and
fecal coliform densities." The high coliform counts
occurred mostly at the headwaters and in feeder streams.
10

ok
A
~, 0
'?eRz
. . . .: .

� *o oo z e
�" ~O~�

: : - ... . . . .'..'
*s; 2Qc&:- *:.W

�
o.
o':� ..

vo.
.eo o

�:
..,.. ....
..� ..
�...

�'o o � � � � ~~~~~~~~r�
�'

o.o ~~.r .� o
o�

�~~~~~~~�
� . o- �o

��
�~~~~�
~~~~~~''
."-' .
.'i:
: i%~~~~~~~~~~~:
4
1
I
K
KM
Bonum Creek, showing location of Kator &
Rhodes (1988) sampling stations.
Figure 3.
11

Sources of Pollution
A sanitary shoreline survey, conducted in 1988 by the
Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation, detected a dozen sewage
deficiencies that were contributing pollution to Bonum
Creek, several sites of kitchen or laundry waste, and eight
sites having no facilities.
On-site sanitation inspections by Westmoreland
sanitation officials during the Kator & Rhodes study
revealed malfunctioning septic systems and privies,
compounded by poor soil characteristics, adequate reasons
to explain fecal counts in Bonum Creek. The inspections
also revealed areas of the hobby farming of animals that
corresponded to the higher readings of two "animal"
coliforms found in the feeder streams. These bacterial
indicators were noted as "useful in assessing the
'freshness, of the pollution and their probable sources."
High coliform counts occurred mostly in the headwaters and
feeder streams. Deducing the theoretical population needed
to produce the numbers of fecal bacteria observed in the
creek corresponded well to the actual population living on
Bonum Creek. The report concluded that nonpoint source
runoff was adequate to explain coliform densities in the
creek, and thus, the shellfish condemnations.

Discussion
In the best of all possible worlds, one would test
shellfish waters for every potential water borne pathogen,
but the tests for many organisms are complex and time
consuming. In addition, many organisms (fortunately) occur
in very low densities, meaning that large volumes of water
would need to be filtered or processed to detect them. In
practice these realities translate to very high costs.
Consequently an indicator of fecal pollution is used to
tell public health officials when waters have been
contaminated by fecal matter. For many years the total
coliform test was used, but for about twenty years, fecal
coliforms have been the most commonly used indicator.
Some scientists and others have been critical of
public health officials, use of these bacterial indicators
of fecal pollution. it is likely that most public health
workers would agree that neither fecal coliforms nor any
other indicator is a perfect indicator of pollution
problems and public health risks. The health department,
however, has a mandate to protect the public and must use
the tools available today. The paucity of incidences of
illness related to consumption of shellfish indicates that
current practice does indeed protect public health.
12

New bacteriological procedures and tests are being
developed and these have the potential to greatly improve
the information gained from mAonitoring. indicators of
animal pollution which were used in the Kator & Rhodes
study appear to have the potential to discriminate between
human and animal sources, and even perhaps various classes
of animals. While these developments look promising, the
sophisticated analyses required are likely to limit the
usefulness of the procedures for routine monitoring
purposes. Costs also are likely to limit use of these
techniques.
.It also must be recognized that additional information
will be needed to make these new tools effective. If, for
example, it is possible to identify bacteria that are
associated with cattle and no other animals, then the role
of cattle as a vector for human pathogens must be known as
well. Otherwise the source has been identified but the
associated risks are unspecified. Development of this
information is not likely to not occur quickly.

Conclusions

Fecal coliform counts in Bonum Creek at first glance
appeared to be anomalously high. Closer study of the
watershed revealed that sources did exist and that these
few small sources were sufficient to raise the fecal
coliform counts to the levels observed. For Bonum Creek,
physical features of the setting tend to retain pollutants,
making the impacts larger than would occur in a system that
"flushed" better.

It is the authors' opinion that the fecal coliform
indicator does work, even if imperfectly. New technology
and techniques have great promise; it may be possible to
identify the nature of the source precisely (e.g., animal
or human, old or new) in the future. For the present,
these tools seem most appropriate to research studies and
to intensive studies of a watershed.

If the new tests are to be useful, the public health
risks associated with each class of fecal pollution also
must be known. The need for better indicators and for a
good understanding of what each indicator tells us
represent national needs, not just Virginia needs. We
suggest that Virginia support indicator studies underway
(Kilgen, 1988). in the meantime, current tools and
practices are protecting the public health and should not
be altered or discarded without careful consideration.
13

1.4 Nansemond River: A Case Study of the Impacts of
Headwater Pollution Sources
Backaround
The Nansemond River, a tributary of the James River,
enters southern Hampton Roads approximately 10 miles
upstream from Chesapeake Bay (see Figure 2). The mouth is
broad (4000 meters) but the river width decreases
exponentially upstream to a narrow (100 meters) winding
course, bordered by extensive marshland. Maintenance
dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers keeps the channel
depth at 12 feet and width at 100 feet. The narrowing
geometry of the river results in a reflection of the tidal
wave and an increase in the mean tide range from 2.8 feet
at the mouth to 3.8 feet at the head with a phase lag of
about one hour (Bosco & Neilson, 1983). Current velocities
remain fairly uniform throughout the estuary.
The total drainage area of the Nansemond River is
approximately 200 square miles and lies primarily in the
city of Suffolk. The cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth,
however, operate water supply reservoirs upstream of the
old center of Suffolk. The drainage to these reservoirs
accounts for nearly two-thirds of the entire drainage of
the Nansemond watershed i Thus, little freshwater runoff
directly enters the estuary, and spillover from the
impoundments is regulated. Moderate currents (0.5 m/sec)
can disperse pollutants but this will not occur quickly.
Brackish waters often reach as far as Suffolk and there is
little stratification in the water column.
Several water quality studies of the Nansemond River
have occurred over the years. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration collected samples in 1966 and 1967.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), funded by
the 208 program of the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency
(HRWQA), conducted an intensive survey in August of 1976
(Kilch & Neilson, 1977). In 1981, the Nansemond River was
chosen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
participation in the Rural Clean Water Project. The
purpose of this project was to study the effects of the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs),
guidelines designed to control agricultural nonpoint runoff
from farms located in the Nansemond watershed. A second
VIMS study in 1982 and 1983 was funded by HRWQA to document
water quality conditions prior to implementing the
agricultural BMPs (Bosco & Neilson, 1983).
14

Shellfish Closures
The first closure of shellfish grounds in the
Nansemond River occurred in 1933 and involved half of the
upper estuary. More closures were put in effect in 1953,
1963, 1972 and 1975, proceeding downstream over time and
encompassing about two-thirds of the river and several
small areas near the mouth. As of May, 1990, the most
recent notice of closure, shellfish harvesting was
prohibited from just upstream of the Rt. 17 bridge, or
three-fourths of the entire riverlI

Sources of Pollution
In the report on the 1982/1983 monitoring of the
Nansemond River, VIMS scientists compared the new findings
to those of the 1966 and 1976 studies. Point source
discharges had decreased by an order of a magnitude over
the intervening period as dischargers hooked up to Hampton
Roads Sanitation District sewers. Conditions appeared more
homogenous than the "marked longitudinal gradient" of the
late sixties.
Several improvements in water quality were noted.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements below Lake Meade dam
rose from 4.4 to 5.8 mg/I. Do standards require a daily
average of 5.0 mg/l or greater and no readings below 4.0
mg/l at any time. The report states that "the frequency
and severity of violations of the DO standards [have] been
reduced significantly for the most upstream reach of the
Nansemond estuary." Other improvements observed were a
decrease in chlorophyll-a concentrations, a 50-80%
reduction in total phosphorus concentrations, and a 70%
decrease in orthophosphorus measurements. Remaining
problems included inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen, and
depressed areas of dissolved oxygen. The DO appeared
sensitive to envirornmental factors such as runoff during
warm weather combined with slack before flood.
At the time of the 1976 VIMS survey, only the lower
third of the river was open to shellfishing; in other
words, the fecal coliform count was below 14 MPN. In the
upper half of the river, the fecal coliform counts exceeded
the 200 MPN limit for primary contact, and the upper third
of the river, nearest to Suffolk, had fecal coliform counts
exceeding the 1,000 MPN limit for secondary contact which
then existed. The 1982 study noted that fecal coliform
counts increased during wet weather conditions and that
water quality in general is unsatisfactory in the upper
reaches of the tidal river.
15

Discuss ion
Surveys of the shoreline are made periodically by the
Division of Shellfish Sanitation to see if there are any
sanitation problems on the land which might impact water
quality. Surveys of the Nansemond basin made in 1985,
1988, and 1990 all showed large numbers of malfunctioning
septic systems, along with residences that had no
sanitation facilities or that discharged kitchen and
laundry waste onto the ground. Farm animals, boats, and
industries also were noted; all of these have the potential
to impact water quality.
Water quality conditions in the Nansemond appear to be
controlled by two features: low freshwater inflow and
pollutant sources near the head of tide. A large portion
of the Nansemond watershed is impounded with runoff
entering water supply reservoirs and being pumped to nearby
cities. Consequently, little runoff flows directly into
the tidal river. This means that any pollutants discharged
to the river will tend to stay there. Although the tides
will move the water upriver and downriver, the net movement
downriver is caused by the riverf low, which in this case is
very small.
Although water quality conditions improved markedly
when major dischargers diverted the sewage to the HRSD
treatment plants, it appears that a large number of small
sources are still impacting the river. The fact that water
quality decreases as one moves upriver suggests that many
of these inputs are located near the head of tide. In
other words, we have seen water quality improvements that
resulted from the reduction in wastewater discharges.
Water quality would improve even more if the remaining
sources of pollution, which are believed to arise in
Shingle Creek and other headwaters, also were eliminated.
Large sums of money (more than a million dollars) have
been spent on the Nansemond-Chuckatuck Rural Clean Water
Program. Farmers have improved animal waste management
practices and this has res'ulted in decreased pollutant
loadings. Some of the resulting water quality improvements
will be lost if development trends replace farms and
forests with shopping centers and subdivisions (Fisher,
1990).
16

Conclusion
Water quality in the Nansemond inproved markedly
between the 1966 and 1982 surveys, demonstrating that
removal of point sources does result in improved water
quality.
The most recent data indicate that water quality
continues to be poor in the upper reaches of the tidal
river, apparently in response to a number of small sources,
such as malfunctioning septic systems. This, coupled with
a typical estuary geometry and a low freshwater inflow,
result in degraded water quality in a significant portion
of the river. This situation is not likely to change until
the many small sources are eliminated, say by extending
sewers to the affected areas. Stated somewhat differently,
we will not enjoy all the benefits of water pollution
control until we have addressed all of the major sources of
pollution.

If water quality in the Nansemond River is to improve
sufficiently for shellfish growing areas to be opened, the
many small sources of pollution must be eliminated. If
these gains in water quality are to continue into the
future, careful planning is needed to ensure that increased
runoff from residential and commercial development does not
undo the gains made with better animal waste management and
control of large wastewater discharges.
17

1.5 Lynnhaven Bay: A Case Study of Point Source Controls
and the Consequences Suburban Runoff
Backaround
Lynnhaven Bay is a small coastal basin, located on the
southern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in the city of
Virginia Beach (see Figure 4). Lynnhaven inlet, a narrow
channel of some 900 feet, opens directly to the Chesapeake
Bay. The system consists of several smaller water bodies -
the Eastern and Western branches, the Bay itself, and Broad
Bay and Linkhorn Bay extending to the east. The drainage
area is small, only 156 square kilometers, exhibits little
freshwater inflow, and lacks the continuous free flowing
tributaries typical of larger estuaries. The system is
shallow, less than 9 meters deep except at the Inlet, and
its circulation is dominated by tidal flushing, resulting
in mild, longitudinal salinity gradients. Soil
characteristics range from well drained in the lower
reaches to poorly drained at the headwaters.

The history of Lynnhaven's water quality reflects the
change and growth of the surrounding area, moving from
agricultural to suburban over the past few decades. The
11,500 acres of farmland in 1937 decreased to less than
5000 acres in 1971. Correspondingly, residential dwellings
grew from about 250 in 1937 to almost 20,000 in 1971. The
1960's was a time of rapid growth. Population in the
Lynnhaven watershed, not including Broad and Linkhorn Bays,
escalated from 27,535 in 1960 to 76,691 in 1970, a 179%
increaselI These general trends continue today, although
the rate of change has slowed down since less and less
farmland is available for conversion to housing and
commercial development.

Dwelling Units and Farm Acreage for Lynnhaven*
Year Dwellings Farm Acreage
1937 263 11,527
1949 461 10,030
1958 2851 8,421
1971 19, 4 65 3,899
* Lynnhaven in this study (Urbanization of Lvnnhaven Bav,
Oswalt,1975) did not include Broad or Linkhorn Bays
is

SHELLFISH
CONDEMNATION
ZONES
for the Lynnhaven
System
October 1930.
LINKHORN
WESTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
EASTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
4
Closed zones
METERS
0 Soo 1000
Cond i i ona I I y open zones
Figure 4. Lynnhaven Bay system showing the first shellfish
condemnation area enacted on October 15, 1930.
19

Population in the Lynnhaven Borough
1930 5,252
1940 7,,070
1950 15,601
1960 22,957
1970 57 , 841
1980 72,459
1990 94,765

Historv of Shellfish Closures
The oyster has long provided a livelihood for watermen
working the Lynnhaven, but it is a story of increasing
closures of shellfish grounds and changing sources of
pollution. it is very likely the year to year variations in
the harvest of oysters is related,, at least in part,, to
whether the shellfish beds are open or whether the oysters
must be relayed before going to market.

The f irst closure of Lynnhaven Bay shellf ish waters
occurred in April of 1930 and involved all of Linkhorn Bay,
a closure which has remained in effect to the present day
(see Figure 4 and Appendix 2). Linkhorn Bay is the most
eastward extension of the Lynnhaven system; in fact, one

VMRC Oyster Landings for Lynnhaven Bay
Year Bushels Pounds
1976 391 2,581
1977 1,846 12,207
1978 2,856 18,886
1979 2,,285 15,097
1980 454 3,008
1981 336 2,226
1982 572 3,779
1986 549 3,423
20

branch of its headwaters is in the old center of the city of
Virginia Beach, referred to in census data as the Virginia
Beach borough. The census results of 1910 through 1970 show
that this smaall borough had the highest population density of
all city boroughs. It is also interesting to note that the
tidal range in Linkhorn Bay is only about half that of
Lynnhaven Inlet, which suggests that water exchange between
Linkhorn and the Chesapeake Bay is not great. The Lynnhaven
borough, in which the rest of the Lynnhaven system is
contained (with the exception of a portion of Eastern Branch)
consistently displayed a higher total population when
compared to other boroughs within the city.
over the next few decades mAore closures followed,
concentrated primarily in the Eastern and Western'Branches.
A 1937 condemnation closed the upper 25% of the Eastern
Branch, succeeded by a 1941 condemnation of the upper 75% of
Eastern Branch. This same 1941 closure shut several small
creeks in the lower portion of Western Branch and its entire
upper third, but was rescinded several weeks later. Half of
Pleasure House Creek off Lynnhaven Bay was also closed. Two
years later, in 1943, the upper 50% of Western branch was
closed, with this closure in effect until 1946. From then
until 1959, Western Branch was open to shellfishing. The
1959 closure closed the waters above Caraway Point, about 2/3
of the Branch.
Long Creek, which connects Lynnhaven Inlet to Broad Bay,
was dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960's to
improve circulation between Chesapeake Bay and Broad and
Linkhorn Bays. Long Creek had been condemned for
shellfishing in 1964. Indeed, Broad Bay did show a stronger
longitudinal salinity gradient than the Eastern and Western
Branches in the 1975 intensive survey conducted by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). But the
increased circulation did not result in any formerly closed
shellfish grounds being reopened.
The pace of closures quickened in the 1970s and spread
from the headwaters of the several branches to downstream
areas. Western Branch was completely closed in June of 1971,
a closure that was rescinded by December. Hurricane Ginger
brought about the first complete closure of the entire
Lynnhaven system in October,, 1971, but this closure was
rescinded the following February. Several small
condemnations ensued over the next two years, involving Brock
Cove on Lynnhaven Bay and Day Cove and Mill Dam Creek on
Broad Bay. in February of 1974, Eastern Branch was fully
closed as well as the upper 2/3 of Western Branch. This
remained in effect until March, 1975 when Lynnhaven was once
again totally closed. From then until June, 1986 was a
period of on again/off again condemnations. Portions of the
21

system would go from complete closure to conditionally opened
and back again.
In the June of 1986 closure,, all of Lynnhaven Bay
proper, and the Eastern and Western Branches were closed and
that closure remains in ef fect to present day. Linkhorn Bay,
of course, has been closed since the first 1930 condemnation.
Only Broad Bay was reopened to shellfishing in May of 1987.
That closure was reinstated on July 19, 1991. Presently, all
of the Lynnhaven Bay system is closed.

Sources of Pollution
The overlayering of several pollution sources combined
with changing land use and continuing buildup of pollutants
over long time periods may seem to limit the fingerpointing
that can be done by regulatory agencies. But, with careful
study, the complex issue can be broken into its components
and a clearer picture can develop of the problem areas. in
fact, what were once major sources of pollution may shift to
minor roles as new issues develop. The key feature to note
regarding Lynnhaven waters is the change of land use over the
decades.
In common nomenclature, pollution sources are typically
classified as point or nonpoint sources. Point sources refer
to specific discharge sites, as from an industrial plant or
sewage treatment facility, and are required by SWCB to have
a discharge permit. Nonpoint sources are of more general,
widespread origins, such as stormwater runoff. In reality,
though, there are the shades of grey. While the few head of
cattle from several hobby farmers might be considered a
nonpoint site, a large animal facility could be considered a
site-specific pollution source.
When one looks over the available data on the Lynnhaven
area, the most obvious change is the rapid increase in the
local population, beginning particularly in the 1950s with
another sharp increase in the 1970s. In the 1990 National
Shellfish Recistrv, Leonard & Slaughter contend that coastal
development manifests itself in the following ways:
1. the largest increase of pollution runoff is
attributed to urban runoff,
2. the second largest contributor is f ailing septics,
which can indicate growth of tourism, vacation
homes, and marinas in poorly drained areas,
3. increased number of STP buffer zones,
4. decreased agricultural runoff,
5. increased boating activity,
6. increased direct discharges.
22

with the beginning of residential development in
Lynnhaven in the 1950s, the trend was toward small sewage
treatment plant (STPs) and away from individual septic
Systems. These small STPs normally served only school or
residential neighborhood. They were generally located in the
upper reaches of Lynnhaven while septics served the
downstream areas. There have been up to 13 of these small
STPO. As of 1975, five STPs were still in operation.
The 1975 305b ReDort an Water Oualitv Inventorv (VA
State Water Conrol Board) states that the two major water
quality problems were sedimentation and high bacteria count.
Listed as the sources of sedimentation were (1) urban
runof f/subdivision construction and (2) wetlands runof f. No
solution was of fered for the wetlands runof f problem, but the
report suggested that legislation was needed for suitable
control methods of urban and residential construction runoff.
The source of the high bacteria count was listed as (1) heavy
boating/marina activity and (2) inadequate or failing septic
systems. Recommendations included the elimination of small
STPs by connection to Hamapton Roads Sanitation District
(HRSD) or to have the remaining small STPs comply with
National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements. The report stated that hookups to the regional
STP should eliminate leachate to groundwater.
Although an intensive survey conducted by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science in September of 1975 found good
water quality in most respects, several foreshadowing
observations were made. At the time of this survey, all
small sewage treatment plants, including the Oceana STP, the
largest point source contributor, had joined HRSD through the
Chesapeake-Elizabeth plant. The only remaining independent
STP was the Birchwood Gardens facility, but it was noted
that though the use of holding ponds, its effluent tended to
be steady and relatively good. The report maintained that
nonpoint sources were the dominant factor in water quality
assessment. Of the nonpoint sources, agricultural and
wetlands runoff played a minor role, while the rapid
development of the area, urbanization, unsuitable conditions
of remaining septic systems and boating activities were the
major influences.
Of the 4,,686 harvest-limited acres in the Lynnhaven
system, only 591 were classified as restricted due to an STP.
The cause of the remaining closures were listed as
urban/rural runoff and boating activities. It seems
significant that the only remaining large open land in
Lynnhaven area, Seashore State Park, borders Broad Bay, the
only approved shellfish grounds.
23

Conclusions
The National Estuarine Inventorv (Leonard, Broutman, &
Harkness, 1989) summarizing Mid-Atlantic trends, stated that
upgrades in classification of shellfish grounds were
primarily due to improvements in sewage treatment.
Downgrades were most often due to coastal development and
increased boating activities. ImAprovement in sewage
treatment did not lead to upgraded water quality in all
cases. Ensuing development contributed its own pollution and
nonpoint sources kept coliform levels high.

The Lynnhaven Bay system is, on the one hand, a success
story. All of the point sources of pollution have been
removed with concommittant improvements in water quality.
The Lynnhaven, on the other hand, suggests a bleak future for
the shellfish industry if many of the once productive small
systems become developed and urbanized. At least for the
Lynnhaven system, the runoff from the streets, parking lots,
well manicured lawns, and driveways is suf ficient to degrade
water quality enough that harvesting is permitted only some
of the time (mostly during droughts).

Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is
on-going and it is too early to tell whether this initiative
will provide the protection to water quality that is needed.
The story that the Lynnhaven tells is that protection is
indeed needed, even when the development consists Iof very
expensive homes.

The pollution in Lynnhaven Bay is moderate, making the
waters suitable for shellfish culture if relaying or
depuration follows harvesting. Both clams and oysters have
been harvested from "the Narrows", Linkhorn Bay, Lynnhaven
Bay near the confluence of the two branches, and the Western
Branch. The shellfish have been relayed to Broad Bay or to
other open areas for cleansing. Relaying of clams in cages
or trays has proven beneficial, in that the second harvest is
easily accomplished and losses of shellf ish are greatly
reduced. Comparably efficient methods for oysters and
controlled depuration warrant consideration. if economAic
methods of cleansing were available, the Lynnhaven and other
systems might again be "worked" by shellfish planters and
harvesters.
24

1.6 1Sunmmary of Case Study Findings
The Mid-Atlantic region led the nation in oyster and
clam landings until the early 1980s. Since then, due to
overharvesting, disease, predation and envirormental
distress, watermen have been forced out of business or have
switched to other seafood. Market demand has been met by
increased imports and increased Gulf Coast production. In
the current study,, we are not addressing all of the problems
facing the shellfish industry - only water quality impacts.

We believe that it is appropriate to seek ways to
minimize the impacts of water quality degradation, although
we recognize the seriousness of the other challenges.
Whether those obstacles are overcome or not, clean waters
will be needed.
What we have seen from the case studies is that
shellfish accumulate pollutants from the waters in which they
live. In most instances, they concentrate the pollutants to
elevated concentrations. Consequently,, shellfish growing
waters must be very clean; current water quality standards
and shellfish harvesting regulations reflect that fact.
Chemical contamination can be a problem, as was seen
with oysters harvested from the -Elizabeth River, a river
system highly impacted by the surrounding cities and by the
industries which use the river. other similar situations
exist, but typically they are limited to small areas. Much
more common are the closures due to fecal contamination.
The recent experience in Lynnhaven Bay system and in the
Nansemond River demonstrate that point source controls can
produce measurable and significant improvements in water
quality. Unfortunately, the numbers of bacteria and viruses
in fecal matter are very, very large, meaning that a small
source can impact a rather large volume of water.-

The physical characteristics of Bonum Creek make 'it
particularly vulnerable to water quality degradation.
Despite the rural, undeveloped nature of the watershed,
stream quality was impacted by a few small sources.
Similarly, the Lynnhaven Bay system is impacted by the runoff
from the driveways, parking lots, streets, and lawns of the
surrounding area. The Nansemond River also is affected,
presumably the result of privies and malfunctioning septic
systems along Shingle Creek and other sources at its
headwaters. Both the Nansemond River and the Lynnhaven Bay
system are large, with good tidal exchange with the James
River and Chesapeake Bay respectively. The fact that these
systems are impacted by nonpoint source runoff and by a
number of small sources indicates the difficulty of the
25

problem. Until we address these issues, the benefits of the
point source control successes will be limited.
One might expect Lynnhaven Bay to be a harbinger of what
future conditions will be. Although the water quality
irapacts of suburban runof f preclude direct harvesting much of
the time, the waters def initely are not grossly polluted.
Shellfish culture remains a viable activity, at least from
the bilogical perspective if not economically. The relaying
of clams in cages has been efficient and cost effective.
Comparable techniques are needed for oysters. Controlled
purification in depuration plants also warrants attention, in
part because consumers appear willing to pay a premium for a
product they know is of high quality.
There definitely are lessons to be learned from the case
studies presented and from many other situations and events.
If there ia to be a brighter day for the shellfish industry,
it behooves us to learn those lessons as best we can.
26

WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS AND TRENDS
IN OT13ER COASTAL STATES AND THE CBESAPEAKE B3AY SYSTEM

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The situations described in the case studies are not
unique to those water bodies or to Virginia. Similar
conditions exist in other states, especially within the
mid-Atlantic region. Since development trends and changes
in land use appeared to be similar, it seemed logical to
see whether any of the other coastal states had developed
management strategies that would work in Virginia. A
survey was prepared and distributed to gather information.
Once responses to our survey were received and compiled, we
convened a workshop to select the most promising
strategies. Each of these steps is described below.
2.1 CONDITIONS IN OTHER COASTAL STATES
Shellfish sanitation workers in other states were
contacted regarding the conditions of the shellfish
industry and management strategies. many reports, journal
articles, and studies were sent to us and reviewed (see
references for examples). Most of these addressed
conditions in a single water body or state. Informnation on
the classification of shellfish growing waters throughout
the U.S. has been summarized in the "1990 National
Shellfish Register" (Leonard, et. a., 1991). The Office of
oceanography and Marine Assessment (OMA) has entered the
data into a geographical information system (GIS) similar
to the one used to generate the maps of closures for
Lynnhaven Bay (Appendix 2). OMA indicates that the data
files will be provided to any state that requests them.
Thus it will be possible for a state to create maps and
note changes easily in the future.
A companion report, "The Quality of Shellfish Growing
Waters on the East Coast of the United States" (Leonard,
Broutman, and Harkness, 1989), provides insights into the
causes of growing areas closures. Suburban and rural land
and water uses are the primary cause of the closures in the
mid-Atlantic region. These include: urban and suburban
runoff, boating activities, marinas, wildlife, agricultural
runoff, and septic systems.
As part of this study, a questionnaire was developed
and sent out. The letter, questionnaire, list of
respondents, and a summary of comments comprise Appendix 3.
27

The letter was sent to 65 attendees at the 1990
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC) and we
received 31 responses. We feel fortunate to have gotten
responses from all East Coast, Gulf Coast, and West Coast
states (with the exception of Oregon), and Alaska and
Hawaii. Several responses came from Canada and one from
New Zealand. The survey results are summarized in the
following paragraphs and figures.
The first portion of the survey concerned the physical
makeup and setting of the state's oyster beds, the amount
of exposure of the beds during low tide, and typical tide
range and cycle. The questionnaire also asked for the
average percent production from natural beds as opposed to
hatchery production. Without exception, East and Gulf
Coast states exceeded 80% production from natural beds,
with most ranging from 95-100% total natural bed
production. Hatchery production was higher for clams than
oysters; often there was no hatchery production of oysters.
West Coast responses showed just the opposite; hatchery
production averaged 75-100%, with several respondents
stating they had no natural production.
Key facts requested were the annual production of
shellfish, excluding crabs, for the years 1980 and 1990.
The East coast areas reporting an-increase were Atlantic
Canada, Connecticut, New York, and Georgia; Alabama and
Louisiana reported increases for the Gulf Coast. All West
Coast states and Pacific Canada reported an increase of the
1990 harvest over the 1980 harvest. No unit of measure was
specified in the questionnaire. Production reports were
given to us in tons, bushels, pounds, pounds of meat and
number of dozens. Without a good way to standardize the
production levels, we looked only at whether an increase or
decrease was reported. Also, the general term 'shellfish,
netted responses for shrimp, oysters, mussels and several
species of clams.
The next section of the survey concerned the impact of
point and non-point sources of pollution on the water
quality of shellfish growing areas. Each participant was
asked to rate the relative importance of pollutant sources.
These ratings were calculated and plotted on a regional
basis, according to categories used in NOAA's _"Quality of
Shellfish Growing Waters." The Northeast (NE) region
includes New York and states northward (we included one
Atlantic Canada response); Mid-Atlantic (MA) includes New
Jersey south through Virgi.nia; Southeast (SE) includes
North Carolina south through the Atlantic side of Florida,
Gulf region includes Gulf side of Florida through Texas;
and West Coast (WC) includes Pacific coastal states (we
included one Pacific Canada response). The responses from
28

New Zealand and Hawaii were not included in the plots but
are noted later.
There are several interesting features to note in
these plots. The Northeast workers rate the importance of
point source pollution higher than nonpoint sources (Figure
5). This is an exception to all other regions of the
country where non-point source pollution is given a higher
rating. The Northeast also rates large sewage treatment
plants (STPs) as important contributors to pollution while
other regions, particularly the Mid-Atlantic and the Gulf
Coast, note the importance of suburban runoff (Figure 6).
Perhaps this reflects the rapid suburban development taking
place in these regions. Gulf Coast responses also indicate
that failing septic systems are an important factor
affecting shellfish growing water quality.
The final section of the questionnaire asked for
comments on 1) the impact of coastal growth and development
occurring in the state, 2) water quality problems in
shellfish areas, and 3) threats to the shellfish industry.
Comments from participants, identified by state and last
name of the respondent, are included in Appendix 3. A list
of management strategies was included and the respondents
were asked to identify whether certain practices were
planned or existing in their states.
29

* 0
0 0
0 0 0
Fie5 Perceived Importance of Point-Nonpoint
Figure 5.~Pollution Sources on Shellfish Cosumre

Very
Impordnt

0 CU
.. ..............................----..- -........................................... ........................... . .... ..... .o...-.-..o...... .... ..................
O ~~~CE
'I.~~~~~~~~~~q
q.~~~~~~~~~1

2-------------------------...................................................................................................................................... ........ ..........

Not 1 N Mc SoM Gf Wed'C
Imporetn
Region
I + Po't W NP1 I

0
S
0
9
Perceived Importance of Pollutant
Sources on Shellfish Closures by Region
Figure 6.
Vey 2C
19
-
1U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

1. -----------------------------------------------------....................R ...........1
...........
..............................n............!.
. ..............

1 .......... 41 ......----------------------------------- . ......t -----......--
0...........X......................a ...........a4[..........."41 ....................
13 ......-S........ M.....................
1.......................................................x..........
.... .........
12.O.... ---------.........-------.t.-------............................--------m-.------..-------------
....A~~~~~~~~~~
............................................................
.......................................F.... ..............
----------- ..................a -----------
)K"......................................................................................
............................

8-----------
..................................I'...........................................'.........
...........................................................
z- ..................................
............X.............................................................................
.................................

4......oo. ...................
...................................................................................................................................
3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0)
tr-
wJ
H
Not I
kmar
~mP
I Pd&A n&na Lot ' H obb4F rn
Sm BWsTP kj*Y FWd&Pasb
I
ShCoib
rn
Stdx_. ' Feilgopft
Matrm
lb oros NC Midatln U1 Southeat}
j3 Gut X west.oa

2.*2 POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The portion of the U.S. population that resides an or
near the coast has increased steadily, as the overall
population has grown. This trend of relatively rapid
population growth in the coastl zone is predicted to
continue. In a recent study of the Chesapeake Bay region,
a panel of experts projected a significant increase in
population by the year 2020 (Year 2020 Panel, 1988). in
addition they noted that more land is being developed for
each new person. "As a result of its work., the Panel's
major conclusion is that procedures currently being used
throughout the Bay region for managing and providing for
growth and development are inadequate, and must quickly be
changed if current trends are to be reversed".

The panel described a number of "Visions of Success",
along with the actions necessary to achieve these visions.
Two of the visions seem particularly germane to the current
study:

Vision II. Sensitive areas are protected, and

Vision IV. Stewardship of the Bay and the land is a
universal ethic.

An action agenda was included for each of the states
bordering Chesapeake Bay and for the federal government.
The thrust of the action agenda was that the states must
develop and implement new ways to manage growth and the
activities on the water and the land, if we are to restore
Chesapeake Bay.
These conclusions are very similar to those which one
might reach after reading the case studies. The fact that
SENTAF initiated this study indicates that they too agree
with the need to find these new ways to manage growth. The
final section of this report includes recommendations to
address this situation, and also describes how these
recommendations were developed.
32

RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROTECT VIRGINIA'S SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
AND PROMOTE THE SHELLFISH INDUSTRY

3.0 SELECTION OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR VIRGINIA
A workshop was held on 16 July 1991 at Christopher
Newport College in Newport News, VA to consider ways that the
Commonwealth could better manage water quality and the
shellfish resources of the state. The attendees came from
various segments of the shellfish industry, state management
agencies, citizen groups and the Oyster Blue Ribbon Panel
(see Appendix 4 for a list of attendees). Possible courses
of action, which were presented and discussed, ranged from
doing nothing to improving existing programs to trying
something new. Attendees were encouraged to express their
opinions and to rate the effectiveness of suggested actions.

The focus of the discussions was on water quality
problems, but diseases and other problems were mentioned as
well. There was consensus that the state needed to do
something more than it currently was doing. Three broad
management strategies or programs met with general approval:

1. Give "extra" protection to some growing areas,

2. Promote shellfish cleansing, and
3. Continue efforts to restore Chesapeake Bay, and
especially to reduce fecal pollution.
Following the workshop, the investigators developed the
specif ic and detailed recommendations that are needed to
implement each of these strategies. Draft recommendations
then were discussed and modified at meetings of the Shellfish
Enhancement Task Force. The f inal, detailed recommendations
are described in the following sections.
33

3.1. ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO DESIGNATE "SHELLFISH
CULTURE AREAS" WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH

The goal of water pollution control efforts (as stated
in the 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act: PL92-500) is
for the nation's waters to be suitable for fishing and
swimming. In the jargon of the trade, waters should be
" fishable and swimmable. " in Virginia, considerable progress
has been made towards that goal, especially with regard to
the waters that historically exhibited depletion or low
concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Bacteria problems due
primarily to agricultural runoff and municipal point sources,
however, remain and were affecting an estimated 1,905 miles
of streams statewide in 1988 (VSWCB, 305(b) report).
In the case studies, it was noted that shellfish filter
particulates from large volumes of water each day and in so
doing, concentrate pollutants in their bodies. Consequently,
water quality standards for shellfish growing areas are very
restrictive. Another way of saying this is that shellfish
growing waters must be "pristine" - waters with extremely low
concentrations of pollutants and low numbers of bacteria and
viruses. Since the bacteriological water quality standard is
14 MPN/100 ml for shellfish growing waters and 200 MPN/100 ml
for waters used for contact recreation (e.g., swimmingj,
boating, wading), the shellfish standard clearly is much more
restrictive than the recreational standard.
Contaminated shellfish will be cleansed if transferred
to high quality waters. The federal Food and Drug
Administration has set upper limits for the waters from which
shellfish can be taken for cleansing in a controlled
depuration plant . That upper limit is a mean fecal coliform
count of 88 MPN/100 ml. In other words, the maximum
allowable bacterial count fok depuration is less than half
the maximum allowed for waters that humans swim and play in.
We repeat this information is to emphasize that:
(1) shellfish require very, very high quality water if they
are to be harvested and sent directly to market, and
(2) very high quality water is needed if the shellfish are
to be depurated prior to marketing.
Given these stringent water quality standards, the authors
suggest that special efforts are needed to ensure that some
growing areas maintain the pristine conditions necessary for
shellfish culture. We further recommend that a program to
designate shellfish culture areas is appropriate.
34

GENERAL RECONKENDATION ei * THE CONNOMONWALTH SHOULD ESTABLISH
A PROGRAM TO DESIGNATE "SHELLIFISH CULTURE AREAS"
Preserving the capacity to gjrow shellfish in the waters
of the Chesapeake Bay will require effective management of
the quality of those waters. Sediment and nutrient loading
of the water column must be moderated in order to provide an
opportunity for shellfish, particularly oysters,, to grow
quickly to marketable size. In addition, the waters must be
free of toxic compounds and disease organisms if the
shellfish are to be harvested for direct marketing. The
presence of diseases affecting oysters in the Chesapeake Bay
means that the most appropriate waters (in terms of salinity
ranges) are typically found in the middle reaches of the
major river tributaries to the Bay and in the many small
creeks feeding these rivers and the Bay. These are the very
areas most susceptible to pollution from the surrounding land
mass.
While the Commonwealth of Virginia owns almost all of
the subaqueous bottoms, the ability to achieve the necessary
water quality conditions is problematic,. In order to achieve
or maintain the water quality necessary to grow marketable
shellfish, it is necessary to manage both point and non-point
sources of pollution. At present Virginia has a variety of
regulatory programs which address- individual components of
the total pollutant loading to the Bay and its tributaries,
but operating separately and with limited coordination, these
programs have been unable to effectively prevent the
degradation of water quality to levels below those acceptable
for shellfish culture (See Appendix 5 for descriptions of
agency responsibilities).
At present the Virginia Water Control Board has the
authority to regulate the discharge of pollutants into state
waters by so-called point sources, including the authority to
limit the amounts of nutrients and toxics discharged. These
limits could be expanded to include the discharge of disease
causing organisms. It theoretically is possible, therefore,
for the state to prevent the degradation of shellfish growing
waters by point source discharges.
The principal water quality problems for shellfish
growing areas in Virginia and other Mid-Atlantic states,
however, come from non-point sources of pollution, which
derive from the pattern and style of land use which occurs
within the drainage basin. There are a number of state
programs aimed at elements of this type of pollution, but
land use control is basically a local government
responsibility. Most non-point source pollution control
programs (e.g., the sediment and erosion control program)
involve some cooperative effort in which the state and local
35

governments both contribute resources and ef fort to implement
the program. The Chesapekae Bay Preservation Act also
addresses non-point source pollution. In this case the state
established basic criteria and general objectives, and the
final structure of the management programA is determined and
implemented by local governments.
Water quality suf ficient to support culture of shellfish
is f requently higher than the objectives of the existing
management programs. Additionally, attainment of the
specif ic requirements for nutrient, sediment, toxic, and
disease conditions in shellfish growing waters would require
close coordination of the various state and local management
ef farts. This type of unanimity of purpose is not typical in
the implementation of the existing programs, although it is
theoretically achievable. If the Commonwealth of Virginia is
to be successful in retaining a viable shellfish industry, a
means for preserving ot restoring water quality appropriate
to shellf ish culture must be found. The current mix of state
and local programs has the potential but not the history of
such achievement.
The link between land use and water quality establishes
some practical constraints, because managing land use is
essential to protecting the quality of adjacent waters.
Because land use control is a local government prerogative in
Virginia, any effective program will have to include local
governiments. Unilateral action by local governments,
however, would not suffice to guarantee culture activities
would occur. Additionally, the state programs addressing
pollutant control will need to be coordinated, sharing a
common regulatory objective. Any effective program for
management of shellfish culture areas, therefore, will have
to include state government agencies.
The fact that water bodies frequently serve as
boundaries for local jurisdictions within the state means
that a mechanism for coordination between local governments
should be available. Planning district commissions (PDCs)
can provide a vehicle for some of this coordination, but PDCs
have some of the same boundary constraints imposed on local
governments. The occasional regional coordination can be
managed at the state level by a designated agency or by
simply making coordination a requirement for implementing any
management program.
36

Manageiment Model:i The Virginia Scenic Rivers program
provides a workable model for developing a program to manage
shellfish culture waters. The essence of the Scenic Rivers
program is that the Virginia General Assembly will designate
a river reach if: (1) it meets the criteria f or designation;
and (2) the adjacent local governments support the
designation. Once a river segment has been designated a
local or state agency is identified to serve as an overseer,
ensuring that subsequent state or local actions are
consistent with the designation. The program does not
establish any new regulatory authority, it merely serves to
focus attention on the characteristics desired in the area
and provides a basis for evaluating independent regulatory or
management decisions.
Following the Scenic Rivers model, Virginia could
develop a "Shellfish Culture Area" (SCA) designation. Some
other name might be appropriate, and any of the particulars
in the following discussion might be altered, but the
objective would be to establish a program in which local
governments might determine that preservation or enhancement
of the shellfish culture capacity of a water body was
desired, and then in cooperation with the state government
work to achieve the necessary water quality.for the area.
Elements of this program might include:
1. Establishment of water quality criteria for shellfish
culture areas by an appropriate state agency, with guidance
and assistance from other regulatory agencies. The purpose
would be to identify the levels of water quality parameters
which can be monitored or made part of permitting decisions.
2. Conduct a preliminary inventory of state waters which
meet, or have the potential to meet, the SCA water quality
criteria. The purpose would be to advise those localities
which still have such areas of their existence and to
encourage designation and preservation.
3. identify a lead state agency for registration and
monitoring of SCAs. Logically this might be the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission.
4.4 Establish a nomination procedure by which local
governments could identify areas they wish to manage as SCAs.
This should include a step in which local land use planning
tools (comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance) are evaluated
against some general criteria to ensure consistency with
maintenance of local water quality. This step could be an
expansion of the current review undertaken as part of the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act implementation (utilizing the
resources of the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department).
37

5 . Have -official designation of SCAs be an act of the
General As.sembly. This would ensure careful consideration of
the interests of all parties and lend the weight of the
Assembly to the designation. This latter element may be
critical to enhancing coordination of all state programs
which can potentially affect SCAs.
6. Like the Scenic Rivers program, each SCA should have a
specific overseer, either a local or state entity, to provide
the watchdog service of reviewing state and local government
regulatory actions for consistency with the SCA designation.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation *1-a. The Council on the Environment should
recommend to the General Assembly a program to nomtinate and
designate Shellfish Culture Areas.
ReCommendation *1-b. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation of
the State Health Department should develop the water quality
criteria appropriate for designated Shellfish Culture Areas.
Recommendation #I-C. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation,
in conjunction with the Shellfish Enhancement Task Force,
should conduct a prellininary inventory of state waters which
mneet these criteria.
Recommendation *l-d. The Marine Resources Commtission should
be the lead agency and be responsible for registering and
monitoring Shellfish Culture Areas.
Recommendation *l-e. The Council on the Environment should
establish the nomination procedures.
Recommendation *1-f. The official designation of Shellfish
culture Area should be an act of the General Assembly.
Recommendation *l-g. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation
should be chargedi with overseeing the designated areas and
ensuring that state and local government regulatory actions
are consistent with the program.
Recommendation #I-h. The Council on the Envirozment should
ensure that the Shellfish Culture Areas program conforms to
Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Plan and, when
possible, use moneys available through the VCRMP to assist
the other state agencies agencies to complete their assigned
tasks.
38

303 PROMOTE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SHELLFISH CLEANSING
It appears that shellfish growing water standards are so
restrictive that any signif icant amount of development in a
watershed means that the shellf ish standard cannot be met -
even though water quality may be good in general and satisfy
other water quality objectives. Development of the coastal
zone seems very likely,, suggesting a rather bleak future for
Virginia 's shellfisheries.
We also have seen that many small subestuaries and
portions of a number of large estuaries are closed for the
harvesting of shellfish (Figure 1) . Preliminary examination of
the data f rom the Division of Shellf ish Sanitation'Is monitoring
program, however, indicates that the mean fecal calif orm counts
for many of these areas are below 88 MPN per 100 ml of water.
in other words, the waters are only moderately polluted and
shellfish from these areas can be cleansed and then placed on
the market. One means of reducing the impacts of pollution and
the closure of shellfish gr-owing waters is to promote methods
of cleansing that will allow the resource to be harvested and,
after cleansing, marketed.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION #2. TEE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD PROMOTE
METHODS OF CLEANSING SHELLFISH.
Data compiled by the Marine Resources Commission staf f
suggest that more than 500,000 bushels of oysters are available
(fall 1991) from presently closed shellfish waters (see
Appendix 6 for the details) . It should be noted that this
volume is of the same magnitude as the harvest in recent years.
Thus, there appears to be sufficient resource to warrant
efforts by the state to encourage the harvesting and use of
this resource.
RELAYING: Relaying, moving shellfish from closed areas to
bottoms with good water quality and allowing the natural
purification processes to occur, has been practiced for
decades. When water temperatures are above 50 degrees F, the
shellfish can be released after fifteen days in the clean
waters. While satisfactory from a public health point of view,
the process has economic drawbacks. First, the shellfish must
be harvested twice. .During both operations, shells will be
broken and resource lost. The second harvest will never be one
hundred percent successful, and some of the shellfish will be
left behind. In addition, there can be losses during transfer,
mortalities resulting from changes in temperature and salinity
and from other causes.
39

CAGED RELAYING: A variation on the process is "caged
relaying." Shellfish from the closed areas are put in
containers which are then placed in the clean waters but of f
the bottom. There can be sizeable costs to begin such an
operation, for the purchase of trays,, fabricating and placing
the structures to hold the trays, and special equipment needed
for the operation. The efficiency of the operation is greatly
improved, however, because all of the shellstock can be
harvested at the and of the operation. Although there will
always be some mortality, losses due to breakage are minimal.
This method must have some economic advantages (at least for
clams), because caged relaying of clams is now the preferred
method of cleansing.
A few persons are using the cages to relay oysters, but
these operations are few in number and small in size, relative
to the clam operations. In order to promote this alternative
cleansing method for oysters, we recommend that caged relaying
operations be publicized.
Recommendation #2-a. The Virginia Sea grant Program should
develop and disseminate a bulletin providing information on
caged relaying operations.
information on caged relaying'should be assembled and an
information bulletin prepared and distributed. Because the Sea
Grant Marine Advisory Program has prepared many bulletins of
this nature in the past, this program is the logical entity to
prepare a bulletin on caged relaying. The bulletin should
emphasize that caged relaying of oysters is an acceptable
cleansing method, that this method has been approved by the
Virginia State Department of Health, and that the method is
being used today. if data on operational costs are available,
that information should be included. This should be done soon,
preferably well before water temperatures reach 50 degrees F in
the spring of 1992.
Relaying operations require special permits and have other
requirements if they are to be successful. it is likely that
many planters and most watermen do not want to become involved
in these aspects of the process. They could, however, sell
shellfish from closed areas to individuals or companies having
a permitted relaying operation. The state should not promote
any individual or company, but it could make available its list
of approved relaying operations to those who request it. The
availability of this list should be noted in the information
bulletin.
40

DEPURATION: The state also should investigate and promote
depuration, the cleansing of shellfish in a controlled environ-
ment. Depuration facilities have been used by other coastal
states for decades, but most of these facilities have been used
to cleanse clams. Only New Jersey and Florida are believed to
have had approved depuration plants for oysters. Research
conducted in Virginia, however, indicates that oysters will
depurate reliably (Perkins et al, 1978; Neilson et al, 1978)
Although caged relaying appears to offer immediate
benefits with little cost to the state, depuration has
additional benefits. First, one of the many factors that can
be controlled is water temperature. Thus, it would be possible
to depurate shellfish even when ambient water temperatures are
below 50 degrees F. This is relevant because the demand for
oysters peaks at Thanksgiving and Christmas, times when
relaying may not possible due to low water temperatures.
Second, several major corporations have indicated that they do
not serve raw shellfish in their restaurants, and will not
serve raw shellfish unless and until they can offer their
customers added protection (Arnold, 1991). Consequently, some
have suggested that shellfish from approved growing areas be
depurated as well, so that the quality of the shellfish would
be enhanced.
Depuration could be a requirement in the distant future.
Given the projected population growth and continued development
in Virginia's coastal zone, the number of areas approved for
relaying almost certainly will decrease. If there were no
areas available for relaying, then depuration would be the only
approved method for cleansing the shellfish. It is more likely
that there will be fewer open areas, and these could be remote
from the moderately polluted areas, thereby giving a local
depuration facility an economic advantage.
Published information suggests that these facilities will
be costly. A facility able to process one thousand bushels of
oysters per week is likely to cost between one-half and one
million dollars (Roberts, Supan, and Adams, 1991). Virginia
businessmen have no experience with depuration plants, because
none has ever been given a permit to operate in Virginia. Some
are skeptical of the permitting process and are not convinced
that the state will allow a facility to operate. If the
private sector is to make this investment, then assurances from
the state are needed.
Recommendation 12-b. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation
should notify those individuals currently operating shellfish
processing facilities, and other appropriate industry
officials, of the Division's willingness to work to see that a
depuration facility be established.
4
1

One means to demonstrate this would be f or the state to
bear some of the costs associated with the design and initial
or start-up testing for the first depuration plant to be built
in Virginia. All depuration plants must be designed to meet
the standards and criteria established by the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). Although these standards
have been published, this does not tell a potential investor
what a facility will cost to build, equip, and operate, nor
does it guarantee that the facility will achieve the necessary
cleansing.

Recommendation 12-c. The Commonwealth should hire an
engineering firm to design a "typical" depuration facility and
estimate the costs to construct and equip this facility. These
plans would be available to all interested parties.
The standards and guidelines established by the NISSP are
only the first step in designiA~g a facility. Engineers must
take those specifications and design or select tanks, pumps, a
water distribution system and a building to house these items.
once the design has been determined, the costs can be
estimated. Clearly some elements will be site specific, such
as land costs and the foundations for the building. The
engineers should prepare a list of such items, as well as a
list of permits that would be needed for both the construction
and the operation of the facility. Having the engineering
designs and cost estimates available for a "typical" depuration
facility should aid any entrepreneurs considering such
construction.
The costs for the engineering design are estimated to be
in the $10,000 to $25,000 range. The Oyster Repletion Program
is one possible source of funding for such a study. Because a
depuration facility would allow additional shellfish to be
harvested, the taxes collected would increase. Thus, a
successful depuration program would eventually pay back those
moneys.

Recommendation #2-d. Management agencies should assist the
owners of the first depuration facility during the start-up
tests, including supporting the tests financially or with in-
kind services.
Following construction, the facility must be tested and a
plan of operation developed. This plan, the so-called
Scheduled Controlled Purification Process (SCPP), dictates
where shellfish may and may not be harvested, the conditions
which must be maintained in the plant, the time that the
shellfish must be held, and other aspects of the process. The
objective is to develop standard operating procedures that will
ensure a safe and clean product leaving the plant.
42

if problems are encountered during these initial studies,
the tests must be repeated until successful. The state would
encourage depuration if it agreed to cover some portion of the
costs of these initial tests. This could mean a financial
contribution, but it also 'could mean in-kind services. For
example, bacteriological tests could be run at state
laboratories. Subsequent plans would be developed by the
entrepreneur. For example,, the state could assist in the
development of a plan to cleanse oysters. If the plant
operator also wanted to depurate clams,, or wanted to depurate
oysters for different water temperatures, then other SCPP's
would need to be established. These additional SCPP's should
be developed at the operator's expense.

Recommendation #2-e. The Commonwealth should coordinate its
regulatory activities to facilitate permitting for depuration
facilities.
The Marine Resources Commnission should be the lead agency
in the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU's) among
the agencies responsible for the various permits that would be
needed for a depuration facility. Given that the state has
limited experience with depuration facilities, some
coordination is needed among the agencies to ensure that no
permits are delayed due to misunderstandings. The sequence in
which the permits are to be obtained, for example, should be
determined in advance and made known to any applicant.

Recommendation #2-f. The Marine Resources Commission should
investigate how the state can provide financial incentives to
depuration plant operators.
The substantial costs required for the land, building,, and
equipment mean that few will be able to undertake such an
endeavor. Financial incentives could increase the number of
persons or groups who would be interested in operating a
depuration facility. The Marine Resources Commission should
investigate these options to determine what, if any, incentives
the state can offer. in particular, low interest loans from
the revolving fund or from an economic development agency might
be appropriate.
43

3.3 REDUCE ALL POLLUTANT SOURCES, ESPECIALLY SOURCES OF
FECAL POLLUTION, AND RESTORE CHESAPEAKE BAY
The Chesapeake Bay Program has grown f rom a primarily
research study to a large and relatively comprehensive program
that includes the efforts of federal, state, and local
governments. It would not be feasible or appropriate to
describe all of these efforts in this document, but it seems
relevant to note the major points of the recent Governors'
Agreement (Chesapeake Executive Council, 1991). These are:
1. Accelerate Nutrient Reduction,
2. Adopt Pollution Prevention,
3. Restore and Enhance Living Resources and
Their Habitat, and
4. Broaden Participation in the Bay Restoration Pnxjtm
If these objectives are met, this should enhance the
shellfish industry in Virginia. SENTAF supports these efforts
and encourages all agencies to see that the action items in the
Governors' Agreement are carried out.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION D3. ALL VIRGINIA AGENCIES SHOULD WORJK
TO IMPLEMENT THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ACTION AGENDA
Reduction in sources of fecal pollution is particularly
important for the shellfish industry. In previous sections the
role of point sources of pollution and of runoff and other
nonpoint sources of pollution have been described. The earlier
recommendations address many aspects of this problem. Problems
arising from malfunctioning septic systems and boating
activities remain. SENTAF believes that special efforts are
needed to control these sources of fecal pollution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 04. THE AMOUNT OF SEWAGE REACHING THE
STATE'S WATERS FROM MALFUNCTIONING SEPTIC SYSTEMS SHOULD BE
REDUCED.
Recommendation 14-a. The state should re-instate the
Chesapeake Bay initiative that provided financial assistance to
low income families who resided near shellfish growing waters
and had failing septic systems, and the level of support should
be $250,000 per year.
Shoreline surveys are conducted periodically, generally at
five year intervals, to identify those discharges or operations
that could or do pollute shellfish growing waters. Failing
septic systems, in particular, are of great concern to public
health of ficials. Some families do not have the financial
44

ability to correct the problems, meaning that shellfish
closures must be enacted. For several biennia, there was a
Chesapeake Bay Initiative to give financial assistance to these
low-income families. This program should be reinstated.
The sanitarians in the various districts in the coastal
zone were asked to estimate the amount of money needed for such
a program. The number of problems found by a shoreline survey
was adjusted to an annual basis. The number of eligible
households was estimated using a percent of families in that
area who fit the income guidelines, and the average cost for
remedial work was estimated to be $3,000. The detailed
information is included in Appendix 7. The total amount needed
each year was estimated to be more than one million dollars.
The earlier Chesapeake Bay Initiative provided $150,000 per
year. SENTAF recommends that the funding level be increased to
$250,000 per year, with $50,000 to $100,000 allocated for the
staff to administer the program. This could assist a county
that does not have the staff to administer this program, or for
a state agency to provide the necessary support.

Recommendation #4-b. The Shellfish Enhancement Task Force
should regularly study and make recommendations on areas where
the extension of sewer lines is expected to have a positive
impact an shellfish growing water quality.
Information on growing area closures in GIS format should
be available from the National Shellfish Register (NMFS) in the
near f uture. Information on present and projected sewered
areas is available from the Hampton Roads Sanitation District
and from the localities which operate wastewater treatment
facilities. These sets of information should be assembled,
most likely by the Council on the Environments in GIS format,
and compared.
The Shellfish Enhancement Task Force should review this
information periodically, we recommend once every two years,
and make recommendations to local governments regarding those
areas where the availability of sewerage is expected to have
positive and significant water quality benefits.
45

GENERtAL RtECOMMENDATION *5. THEE STATE SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO
REDUCE POLLUTION ARISING FROM BOATING ACTIVITIES.

The exact magnitude of boating pollution'is unknown, but
estimates in a recent brouchere developed by Virginia'Is Coastal
Resources Management Program put the figure at over one million
gallons each day. Although considered minor an a volume basis,
boating wastewaters are still of serious concern. The dumping
of raw sewage by a single boat may seem insignificant but the
number of newly registered boats (Class 26-40 feet) in Virginia
alone is greater then 5,000 for every year since 1980.
Estimates of boats with installed toilets in all of Chesapeake
Bay approach 50,000 and total number of boats is 300,000.

One aspect of the problem is that boats tend to gather in
or frequent the smaller, quieter areas of Chesapeake Bay.
These areas are often the places with reduced capabilites to
circulate and flush out normal loadings of runoff, let alone
the increases due to boating activity. Indeed, the three
bodies of water chosen as case studies for this report all
evidence problems related to flushing. Also, these more
shallow, protected areas are often the site of oyster beds. In
Figure 1.0-1, all condemned shellfish areas as of I January,
1991 are shown. The preponderance of these areas are the small
creeks and coves of larger tributaries.

Recommendation 15-a. State regulatory agencies should work to
establish No Discharge Zones in shallow and congested areas.

A long sought goal, that gained additional push with the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, is the designation of all of
Chesapeake Bay as a 'No Discharge Zone'. This designation
would require that all raw or treated sewage be held on board
until the boat could reach a marina with pump-out or sewage
connections. Currently, authority over design, installation
and operation of Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) rests with
the United States Coast Guard. In every day life, though, very
few boaters ever are stopped for inspection of MSDs. In fact,
the very design of MSDs makes it simple to switch from the
closed-valve, normal MSD operation to an open-valve, straight-
through and overboard discharge situation. while it is not our
intent to indict innocent boaters, allowing sewage to bypass
the MSD is a convenience hard to resist.

In the 1980's, the State Water Control Board (WCB) and the
Department of Health (VDH) petitioned the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a 'No Discharge Zone
(NDZ)I. To meet NDZ requirements, the state must show, among
other things, the locations, costs, schedules and numbers of
pump-out facilities, that an adequate number of pump-out
facilities is available to meet the needs of boaters, as well
46

as information of how sewage will be treated, vessel usage and
population on the waters, and must be able to certify that the
waters in question need the extra protection of an NDZ. The
EPA did not grant Virginia's earlier request.
Although a Bay-wide no discharge zone may be the ultimate
goal, water quality near shellfish beds would be enhanced by a
no discharge zone, even if restricted to shallow waters and
congested areas. The regulatory agencies should consider this
option and pursue it, if they determine that federal approval
is possible.

Recommendation #5-b. The Health Department should set a time
table (circa 3 to 5 years) for full compliance with the
requirements for marinas to have pump-out facilities and should
ensure that complete compliance was achieved at the end of that
period.
Any discharge of human waste will affect the marine
environment. In the report, "Recreational Boat Pollution and
the Chesapeake Bay," it is noted that intestinal organisms,
increased nutients and biological oxygen demand, and toxic
pollutants from chemical disinfection are introduced into the
environment as by-products of MSD 'use. We do not want to
discourage the use of MSDs aboard ship; their use is a great
improvement over the dumping of raw sewage. Rather, we would
like to encourage the development of effective MSDs, and in
pDarticular to encourage manufacturers and boaters alike to-
install and use existing facilities I Especially, pump out
facilities.
The best solution is the use of holding tanks followed by
pump-out to a land based system at a marina. As of January,
1991, there were 164 pump-out facilities available at marinas
in Virginia that provided 11,087 seasonal slips and 544
transient slips. The 19 vessel sewage connection facilities-
provide for 134 seasonal and 8 transient slips.
The use of pump-out facilities is controversial. Boaters
complain that the facilities are inaccessible, unavailable,
costly, or not adaptable to* their boats, fittings. The pump-
out stations therefore often go unused. Marina owners, who
foot the bill, complain about lack of use and the problem of
dealing with holding tanks of raw sewage, especially those not
connected to any regional sewerage system. These complaints
continue despite the fact that the Department of Health
requires adequate facilities at all marinas and that Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) cannot issue a permit to
build a marina unless prior approval has been obtained from the
Health Department for pump-out facilities that will meet the
needs of the planned marina.
47

VDH has the authority to enforce compliance with pump-out
regulations and conducts .annual inspections of marinas to
ensure compliance. The reasons for lack of compliance should
be determined and a program developed to ensure compliance in
the future. A three to five year time frame seems appropriate
for achieving complete (or near complete) compliance.
In Maryland, a portion of the tax on boat purchases goes to
a fund that assists in the construction of pump-out facilities.
in addition, all state parks and public parks have these
facilities available; there is also a mobile pump-out station.
These options should be considered in VDH's management plan.

Recommendation 15-c. Tho Division of Shellfish Sanitation
should include, as part of the procodures for establishing
condemnation zone around mnarinas, an explicit factor relating
to the availability and uso of pump-out facilities.
Unless and until there are "costs" associated with non-use
of pump out facilities, this issue will be ignored. Noting
that use of pump out facilities logically is related to the
amount of wastewaters discharged from boats to receiving
waters, the DSS should incorporate a factor into the design of
closure zones which penalizes thosBe marinas with no pumpout
facilities and rewards those marinas that not only provide, but
see that boaters use, the pump out facilities. Appropriate
record keeping must be instituted for this process to work.

Recommendation #5-d. Facilitios whose operations rosult in
buffer zones or condemned areas should be imade financially
responsibile for the maintenance of the signs indicating those
closures.
The discharge of wastewaters, whether from boats or a-
treatment plant, will result in the establishment of buffer
zones in the adjacent shellfish beds. Signs must be posted to
let the public know that the harvesting of shellfish from these
areas is prohibited, whether the harvesting is by commercial or
recreational fishermen. Maintenance of these signs is
expensive. Because the closures result from specific
activities or discharges, it appears logical to expect that
each operation to pay for the maintenance of the signs marking
the limits of the condemned area around that facility.
48

Recommendation *5-s. The Bealtb Department should continue and
expand its "Don't Pass the Bucket" educational campaign.
The Departraent of Health,, Division of Wastewater
Engineering, has developed educational brochures for boaters
that explain the three types of Marine Sanitation Devices
currently available and encourage their use as a notable
contribution to the health of the Bay. Also, a logo has been
developed as a quick reminder to all users of Chespeake Bay.
The educational program developed by the Health Department
is a good one. Unfortunately, successful programs require
constant attention. New boaters must hear of the program, and
those who have already heard the message must be reminded. Of
course, the emphasis can and probably should change from year
to year, and materials should be up-dated periodically.

Recommendation *5-f. The Health Department and the water
Control Board should work with funding agencies and private
sources to conduct a demonstration project that brings sewerage
to "live-on" boats.
It is easy to argue that "live-ons" should be a primary
target for educational and regulatory efforts related to
boating wastes, because the simple fact that persons are living
on these boats dictates that "grey waters" (water from sinks
and showers) and "black waters" (sewage) will be produced at
least some of the time.
For most private residences, appropriate sanitary
facilities are required before an occupancy permit is granted.
Boats that are used as residences should be treated in a
similar fashion, it can be argued, but from a practical
perspective, the efforts will not be meaningful until
reasonable and economically practical methods of handling
wastewaters are demonstrated.
A public-private cooperative effort could demonstrate that
sewerage for "live ons" is not only possible but is needed.
Marina operators could be queried to determine which have
significant number of "live-ons". Those facilities would then
be solicited for participation in a demonstration. The
facility could benefit from the positive publicity surrounding
the demonstration facility. The state and the industry would
benefit from the experience gained.
49

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED
Literature Cited in the Report
Arnold, Robert B., 1991. "An Industry Perspective on
Depuration," pp 3-5 in Molluscan Shellfish Depuration,,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Bosco, Cindy and Bruce Neilson, 1983. "Interpretation of
Water Quality Data from the Nansemond and Chuckatuck
Estuaries with Respect to Point and Nonpoint Sources
of Pollution" A Report to HRWQA, VIMS, Gloucester
Point, VA 71 pp.
Chesapeake Executive Council, 1991. "The Chesapeake Bay
Program - An Action Agenda", Chesapeake Bay Progarm
Office,, Annapolis, MD 18 pp.
Cummings, Hugh S., 1916. "Investigation of the Pollution
and Sanitary Conditions of the Potomac Watershed, with
Special Reference to Self Purification and the
Sanitary Condition of Shellfish in the Lower Potomac
River" Treasury Dept., U.S. Public Health Service,
Hygienic Laboratory - Bulletin No. 104. 239 pp.
Fisher, Paul E., 1989. "Cleaning Up Nansemond-Chuckatuck:
A Threatened Success Story", in Critical Water Issues
in Tidewater Virginia, VA Water Resources Research
Center, Blacksburg, VA

Gillinsky, E. and J. V. Roland, 1983. "Summary and
Analysis of Metal and Pesticide Concentrations in
Shellfish and Fish Tissues from VA Estuarine Waters",
SWCB, Richmond, VA 75 pp.
Haven, Dexter S., Frank 0. Perkins, Reinaldo Morales-Alamo,
and Martha W. Rhodes, 1978. "Bacterial Depurati,on by
the American Oyster (Crassostrea Virainica) under
Control]~ed Conditions: Volume I - Biological and
Technical Studies" Special Scientific Report No. 88,
VIMS, Gloucester Point, VA
I(ator, Howard and Martha Rhodes, 1988. "Evaluation of
alternate microbial indicators of fecal pollution in a
non-point sompce impacted shellfish growing area" A
report to the Council on the Environment, VIMS
Gloucester Point, VA 40 pp.
Kilch, Linda R. and Bruce J. Neilson, 1977. "Field and
Modelling Studies of Water Quality in the Nansemond
River" A Report to the Hampton Roads Water Quality
50

Agency, VIMS Special Report No. 133, Gloucester Point,
VA 60 pp.

Leonard, Dorothy L. Mariene A. Broutman, and Kristen E.
Harkness,, 1989. "National Estuarine Inventory: The
Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters an the East Coast
of the United States" US Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Rockville, MD. 54 pp.

Leonard, Dorothy L, Eric A. Slaughter, at. al., 1990. "The
1990 National Shellfish Register", National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration,, National ocean
Service, Rockville, MD (Draft)
Neilson, Bruce J., 1975. "A Water Quality Study of the
Elizabeth River: The Effects of the Army Bass and
Lambert Point STP Effluents", VIMS Special Report No.
75, Gloucester Point, VA 133 pp.
Neilson, Bruce J.,, 1976. "Water Quality in the Small
Coastal Basins", A Report to the Hampton Roads Water
Quality Agency, VIMS Special Report No. 129,
Gloucester Point, VA. 139 pp.
Neilson, Bruce J., Dexter S. Haven, Frank 0. Perkins,
Reinaldo Morales-Alamo, and Martha W. Rhodes, 1978.
"Bacterial Depuration by the American Oyster
(Crassostrea virainica) under Controlled Conditions;
Volume II - Practical Considerations and Plant Design"
Special Scientific Report No. 88, VIMS, Gloucester
Point,, VA

Neilson, Bruce J. and Susan C. Sturm,,-1978. "Elizabeth
River Water Quality Report". A Report to the Hampton
Roads Water Quality Agency, VIMS Special Report No.
134, Gloucester Point, VA 23062 45 pp.

Newell,, Roger I. E., 1988. "Ecological Changes in
Chesapeake Bay: Are They the Result of Overharvesting
the American Oyster?", in Understanding the Estuary:
Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research. Chesapeake
Research Consortium, Publication No. 129.
Oswalt, Donald W., 1975. "Urbanization and Environmental
Change in the Lynnhaven Estuary" Masters Thesis,
Institute of Oceanography, Old Dominion University,
Norfolk, VA
Rainbow, Phillip S., David J. H. Phillips, and Michael H.
Depledge, 1990. "The Significance of Trace Metal
Concentrations in Maxine Invertebrates", marine
Pollution Bulletin 21:7, 321-324.
51

Roberts, Kenneth J., John E. Supan and Charles Adams, 1991.
"Economic Considerations for Oyster Depuration," pp.
163-177 in Molluscan Shellfish Depuration, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL
Seufer, Adm. Paul E., 1977. Personal Communication.
Smith, Russell S., 1950. "Water Quality Survey of Hampton
Roads Shellfish Areas: 1949-1950," Virginia State
Department of Health. 123 pp.
Virginia State Water Control Board, 1975. "Water Quality
Inventory 305(b) Report, Virginia, 1975 Report to the
EPA Administrator and Congress", Information Bulletin
509, Richmond, VA
Virginia State Water Control Board, 1980. "State Water
Control Board's Role in Virginia's Shellfish
Sanitation Control Program" Tidewater Regional
Office, Information Bulletin 544.
Virginia State Water Control Board, 1982. "Water Quality
Standards", Richmond VA.
Virginia State Water Control Board, 1988. "Virginia Water
Quality Assessment: 305(b) Reprt to EPA and Congress"
Information Bulletin 574. Richmond, VA
Year 2020 Panel, 1988. "Population Growth and Development
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020", the
Report of the Year 2020 Panel to the Chesapeake
Executive Council.
52

References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1951. "Marine
Fisheries Pollution Studies" Mount Vernon, NY 84 pp.
Banoub, Samir, Norman J. Blake, and Gary E. Rodrick, 1984.
"An Approach to a Cost-Analysis of Shellfish
Depuration" Excerpt for Final Report to DOC/NOAA,
award No. NA 83-GA-H-0007, 34 pp.
Barth, Carole Ann, 1989 "Fisheries Management and the
Chesapeake Bay" Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 8
PP.
Center for Disease Control, 1991. "Gastroenteritis
Associated with Consumption of Raw Shellish - Hawaii,
1991" Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 40,
No. 18, pp 303-305.
Cooke, Elsa, 1991. "Unfit Acreage for Shellfish Almost
Doubled in One Year", Gloucester-Mathews Gazette-
Journal, August 1, 1991.
Di Vincenzo, Mark, 1991. "Shellfish Continue to Lose
Ground" Daily Press, Newport News, VA August 18, 1991.
Godfree, A., F. Jones, and D. Kay, 1990. "Recreational
Water Quality: The Management of Environmental Health
Risks Associated with Sewage Discharges" Marine
Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp 414-422.
Goldsborough, William J., 1991. "Oysters", Daily Press,
Newport News, VA. July 21, 1991.
Hampton Roads Sanitation Commission, 1942. "Report on
Sewage Disposal" , 63 pp.
Hauge, Paul, 1988. "Lost Harvest: Sewage, Shellfish, and
Economic Losses in the New Bedford Area" Conservation
Law Foundation of New England, Boston, Massachusetts
02108 27 pp.
Kassner, Jeffrey, 1990. "Suburbanization and the Decline
of the Shellfish Industry in New York", in Long
Island: The Suburban Experience, Heart of the Lakes
Publishing, Interlaken, NY pp 91-102.
Kator, Howard I. and Martha Rhodes, 1989. "Occurrence of
indiators of fecal pollution in water and sediment of
a sub-estuary impacted by nonpoint pollution," A
report to the VA Dept. of Cons. and Historic
Resources, VIMS, Gloucester Point, 32 pp.
53

Kilgen, Marilyn B., 1988. "National Shellfish Pollution
indicator Study," Interstate Seafood Seminar, Cape
May, NJ, October 25-27, 1988.
Land Use Roundtable, 1988. "Land Use initiatives for
Tidewater Virginia: the Next Step in Protecting the
Bay", Senate Document No. 6, Commonwealth of VA.
Leffler, Merrill, 1991. "Maryland's oyster Fishery: A New
Era of Management?" in Marine Notes, Nd Sea Grant
College, College park, MD 20742.
Lowe, Carolyn, 1991. "Land Trusts can protect natural,
cultural reBources", in Tidings, Lower James River
Association, Richmond, VA.
Magoon, Charles and Richard Vining, "Introduction to
Shellfish Aquaculture. in the Puget Sound Region",
State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources,
Olympia, Washington 98504 68 pp.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources & Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, 1989. "Revised Second Draft -
Chesapeake Bay OyBter Management Program"
McCarthy, Gerald P.,, 1991. "Needed: An Alternative Vision
of Development for Va." Virginia Forum, Richmond, VA
23202
New Jersey, 1987. "Coastal Water Quality Management
Project: A Proposed Element of the Statewide Water
Quality Management Plan"''
North Carolina Division of Health Services, Shellfish
Sanitation Program, 1988. "An Overview of Shellfish
Growing Areas since 1980" 35 pp.
Otwell, W. S., G. E. Rodrick, and R. E. Martin, Editors,
1991. Molluscan Shellfish Depuration, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida 384 pp.
Schneiders, Robert. "Shellfishing in Connecticut" (no
citation, provided by Connecticut Dept. of
Agriculture, Aquaculture Division) 5 pp.
Slade, David C. et al., 1990. "Putting the Public Trust
Doctrine to Work: The Application of the Public Trust
Doctrine to the Management of Lands, Waters and Living
Resources of the Coastal States" Connecticut Coastal
Resources Management Division. 361 pp.
South Carolina, 1990. "Statewide Water Quality Assessment:
54

FY 1988-89 (305(b) Report)" Office of Environmental
Quality Control, Columbia, SC
Talley, Ken. "Depuration" in Canadian Aquaculture, pp 45-
49 (no date shown).
Veazey, John E. and Stuart A. Stevens, 1990. "A
Description of Biological and Physical Parameters
Affecting the Sanitary Quality of Glynn and Camden
County, Georgia Shellfish Resources: A Sanitary
Survey" Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Coastal Resources Division. Contribution Series
Number 48. 108 pp.
Virginia Council on the Environment, 1989. "Development
Policies and Guidelines", Richmond VA
Virginia .Dept. of Conservation and Historic Resources,
1988. "Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan",
Division of Soil & Water Conservation, Richmond, VA
Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, 1991.
"Nutrient Management Program" Division of Soil &
Water Conservation, Richmond, VA
Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 1988. "Oyster
Resources in Virginia - Oyster Fishery Management
Plan" 11 pp.
Virginia Sea Grant Colleg'e Program, 1990. "A Plan
Addressing the Restoration of the American Oyster
Industry: the Results of two Wforkshops" Sea Grant
Publication VSG-90-02. 64 pp.
Virginia State Water Control Board, 1990. "The Study of
Small Package Wastewater Treatment Plants", Senate
Document No. 28, Commonwealth of VA 36 pp.
Willaims, D. C.,Jr., David J. Etzold, and Edward Nissan,
1980. "Oyster Depuration Facility: Economic
Assessment" Mississippi-Alabama Sea Gran Program,
MASG-79-011. 28 pp.
55

APPENDIX 1. SHELLFISH ENHANCEMENT TASK FORCE MEMBERS
(SENTAF)

S. M. Rogers, Chairman

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
Scott Crafton
Darryl Glover

Council on the Environment
Ann DeWitt Brooks
Stephen Laughlin

Department of Conservation & Recreation
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
Moira Croghan
Donald Wells

Health Department
Eastern Regional Office
Paul Sandman
Office of Water Programs
Eric Bartsch
Division of Shellfish Sanitation
Robert Croonenberghs
Robert Wittman
Mary Wright
Cloyde W. Wiley*
Dept. of Housing & Community Development
John Baker
Rebecca Millen

Marine Resources Commission
R. C. Insley, Jr.
S. M. Rogers
Gerald Showalter

State Water Control Board
Larry McBride
Ernest R. Simmons

Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Bruce Neilson
Nancy C. Wilson

* Former member, now retired.
56

SHELLFISH
CONDEMNATION
ZONES
for the Lynnhaven
System
October
1930
LINKHORN
WESTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
EASTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
l
Closed zones
IMTERS
0 Soo lo
e
K
>
Conditionally open zones
57

SHELLFISH
CONDEMNATION
ZONES
for the Lynnhaven
System
August 1941
LINKHORN
WESTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
EASTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
4
Closed zones
METERS
00 1Sa 0 ee
NX\
Condi tionally open zones
58

SHELLFISH
CONDEMNATION
ZONES
for the Lynnhaven
System
December
1964
LINKHORN
WESTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
EASTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
4
Closed zones
METERS
e SWe
l eft
Conditionally open zones
59

SHELLFISH
CONDEMNATION
ZONES
for the Lynnhaven
System
October
1971
LINKHORN
WESTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
EASTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
4
Closed zones
METERS

0 o 1880
Conditional ly open zones
60

SHELLFISH
CONDEMNATION
ZONES
f or the Lynnhaven
System
September 1977
CHESAPEAKE BAY
LINKHORN
WESTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
EASTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
4

a soe lowe
Closed zones
Conditionall Iy open zones
6 1

SHELLFISH
CONDEMNATION
ZONES
for the Lynnhaven
System
May 1987
CHESAPEAKE BAY
BAY
WESTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
EASTERN BRANCH
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
i

e soeI oleo
Closed zones
Conditionally open zones
62

6 3

0 0 a
0
SHELLFISH CONDEMNATION ZONES FOR THE LYNNHAVEN SYSTEM

CONDITIONALLY
DATE OPEN CONDITIONAY CLOSED
OPEN

October 1930 81.1% 18.9%
August 1941 65.3% 34.7%
December 1964 51.4% 48.6%
October 1971 100%
September 1977 43.2% 56.8%
May 1987 15.9% 84.1%
July 1991 100%

Appendix 3. Survey of Shellfish Sanitation Workers
in other Coastal States

Letter
Respondents
survey
Summary of Comments Received
65

The College Of
WUILIAM&MARY
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
e
d

1
6
9
3
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
School of Marine Science
P.O. Box 1346
Gloucester Point Vi-ninia 23062
April 4, 1991
804/642-7000, Fax 804/642-7097, Scats 842-7000

Dear

The Virginia Shellfish Enhancement Task Force (SENTAF) was formed several years
ago
to see if Virginia agencies could coordinate and combine efforts in a manner that resulted in water
quality improvement and the opening of condemned shellfish growing waters. Initial efforts were
successful, with several thousand acres of productive shellfish beds re-opened to direct
harvesting.

Subsequently, the task force identified ways to either improve water quality or slow down
water quality degradation, but in neither case was this sufficient to open presently closed areas.
Additionally, signs suggest that present laws, regulations, and procedures are not able to
safeguard the very high water quality required for shellfish against the seemingly inevitable
decline
in water quality which accompanies urbanization and development.

We in Virginia enjoy our shellfish and do not want to lose the clams and oysters that are
associated with Chesapeake Bay. We would appreciate it if you would give us the benefit of your
experience by completing the enclosed questionnaire. Any reports, legislation, or other materials
that would illustrate how your agency or state is addressing shellfish and water quality problems
also Would be appreciated. We would be happy to send you our final report, if you indicate this
on the questionnaire.

This survey is part of a federally funded project which must be completed by September
30th. We plan to compile the responses and then select for further study those approaches which
seem most appropriate for Virginia. In order to meet our project deadline, we need your
responses as soon as possible and preferably by May 1st. We have included many questions.
If you do not know the answer to some of them, simply skip those questions and answer the rest.
We need your input and would rather get a partial response now than a complete response next
year (or never).

On behalf of the task force, we thank you for your assistance in this effort.

Nancy Wilson Bruce Neilson

1940 - 1990

Survey Participants
Walter S. Foster
ME Dept. of Marine Resources
State House, Station #21
Augusta ME 04333
George H. Gilbert
NC Shellfish Sanitation Prg.
PO Box 769
Morehead City NC 28557
William G. Hastback
NYS Dept. Env. Conservation
Bldg. #40, SUNY Campus
Stony Brook NY 11790
Kenneth H. Hansgen
CA Dept. of Health Services
Environmental Mgmt. Branch
714 P Street, Room 600
Sacramento CA 95814
David C. Heill
FL Dept. of Human Resources
3900 Commonwealth Bldv.
Tallahassee FL 32399
Richard B. Howell III
DE Division of Public Health
Office of Sanitation Engineering
PO Box 637
Dover DE 19903
John A. Jennings
SC Wildlife & Marine Resources
PO Box 12559
Charleston SC 29412
Bert Kooi
Environment Canada
West Coast Shellfish Program
18th Floor
Place Vincent Massey
Hull, Quebec KliA 01-3 CANADA
Richard L. Bluefield
TX Parks & Wildlife Dept.
P. 0. Box' 8
Seabrick, TX 77586
Victor G. Burrell Jr.
SC Marine Res. Research Inst.
PO Box 2559
Charleston SC 29412

Phil Busby
Ministry of Agric. & Fisheries
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
A.C. Carpenter
Potomac River Fisheries Comm.
PO Box 9
Colonial Beach VA 22443
John D. Cirino
MS Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks
2620 Beach Boulevard
Biloxi MS 39564
Rejean de Ladurantays
Environment Canada
Shellfish Water Quality Protection
Program
1179 de Bleury Street, 3rd Floor
Montreal QUE H3B 31-9 CANADA

Paul DiStefano
MD Dept. of Environment
Shellfish Certification Section
2500 Browning Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
67

Kenneth Kovach
Div. of Food Protection
RI Dept. of Health
203 Cannon Bldg.
Three Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908
Jack L. Ulja
WA Dept. of Health
Shellfish Program
MS:LD-1 I
Olympia WA 98504
Charles H. Lyles
LA Shrimp Association
4900 E. Belfountain Road
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Amar S. Menon
Environment Canada
45 A!derney Drive, 15th Floor
Dartmouth NS B2Y2N6 CANADA
Joseph Migliore
Sr. Eng. Scientist
Div. of Water Resources
RI DEM
291 Promenade Street
Providence RI 02908-5767
Ken B. Moore
SC DHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia SC 29201
John W. Osborn
NJDEP, Division of Water Resources
Bureau of Marine Water Classification
P.O. Box 405
Stoney Hill Road
Leeds Point, NJ 08220
Michael J. Ostasz
AL Dept of Env. Conservation
3601 C Street, Suite 1324
Anchorage AK 99503
William A. Outten
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tidewater Administration
C-2, Tawes Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
Corky Perret
LA Dept. Wildlife & Fisheries
400 Royal Street
New Orleans LA 70130
Kerry M. St. Pe
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Water Pollution Control Division
P. 0. Box 177
Lockport, LA 70374
John H. Volk
CT Dept. of Agriculture
Aquaculture Division
PO Box 97
Milford CT 06460
Jerald K. Waller
AL Dept of Conservation
Marine Resources Div.
PO Box 189
Dauphin Island AL 36528
Kirk Wiles
Texas Dept. of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin TX 78756
Brad C. Williams
GA Dept. of Natural Resources
I Conservation Way
Brunswick GA 31523
Mary P. Wright
Dept. of Health
Division of Shellfish Sanitation
1500 E. Main Street
Suite 109
Richmond, VA 23219
68

Margaret T. Yung
Hawaii Dept. of Health
Food & Drug Branch
591 Ala Monana Blvd, Ist Floor
Honolulu HI 96813
69

Questionnaire on Shellfish and Water Quality
Virginia's Shellfish Enhancement Task Force

Please answer the following questions.- If you do not know the
information. don't worry. Please answer those questions that you can
and return your response to us. We would prefer to have answers to some
questions now, rather than answers to all of the questions next year (or
never). Thanks.

THE SETT~ING IN YOUR STATE

Mean tide range =feet. Spring tide range =feet.

Tides are: diurnal semi-diurnal

Bottoms are: sandy, ___hard clay, solid rack

shell reefs ___mixture

Beds typically are: --exposed at most low tides

exposed only at extreme low tides

___almost always submerged

The state's production is about __%from natural beds and

% from hatchery seed.

The state's production of shellfish (excluding crabs) has

Increa.qed / Decreased over the last decade.

Approx. annual production was: in 1980

_______ in 1990.

How is water quality affecting shellfish growing, areas?

% of shellfish bedg closed in 1980 ,in 1990_

% of PRODUCTIVE beds closed in 1980 ____*in 1990

Comments:
70

Questionnaire on Shellfish and Water Quality
Virginia's Shellfish Enhancement Task Force
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ON SHELLFISH BEDS & INDUSTRY

Point Sources A LOT

Are many shellfish beds closed
due to point source pollution? I 2

The major sources are:

Large municipal STP's 1 2
(Sewage Treatment Plants)
Small (< 0.5 MGD) STP's 1 2

Feed lots & other major sources 1 2
of animal wastes

Industries 1 2

Comments?
NOT AT ALL

3 4 5

3 4 5
Does your state issue permits for plants
treating wastewaters from a few households?

from a single household?
Yes

Yes
No

No
Non-Point Sources

Are nonpoint sources of pollution
affecting many shellfish beds?

Problems arise from:

Hobby farms with a few animals.

Fields and pastures.

Urban areas.

Shopping centers

Suburban areas.

Marinas

Failing seDtics systems
A LOT

1
NOT

2 3 4
AT ALL

5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
71

Questionnaire on Shellfish and Water Quality
Virginia's Shellfish Enhnancement Task Force

What would you say is the major threat to the shellfish industry in
your state?

What water quality problems are of greatest concern to the shellfish
industry in your state?

Is pooulation growqth and development of the coastal areas a problem in
your state? Are there any particular problems ass.ociated with this?

Management Strategies: What management strateqies are you using (or
developing) to protect the shellfish industry and maintain water
quality?
Land use ordinances
Planned
Existing

Existing

Existing,

Existing
Special land use designations

Strict requirements for septic sytemus

Stringent permits for discharges
to shellfish growing waters
Planned

Planned

Planned
"Zoning" the wqater, as well as the land. Planned
Designated Brood Stock areas.
Planned
Planned
Harvest "Sanctuaries".
What agencies are involved with protecting water quality,
quality, and shellfish resources?
shell fish
R'ESPONDMgT
Name:
Agency:

Phone No:
Title:
Are there any limitations on the use of this information? If so.
nlease tell us what restrictions apply.
Would you like a coDy of our final reDort?
Yes
72

What would you say is the major threat to the shellfish Industry In your state?

Canada (Atl) / Menon - Degradation of marine environmental water quality from land
based pollution sources.
Maine / Foster - municipal STPs and the single family working overboard treated system
and/or failing subsurface system.
Connecticut / Volk - There are several limited upland areas available for dockage and
process facilities. Reduction of state and federal monies for water pollution control and
capital construction projects.
Rhode Island I Kovach - Rainfall causing combined sewage and stormwater overflows.
New York / Hastback - Nonpoint source pollution, stormwater drainage discharges.
New Jersey I Osborn - Over-utilization of land and water resources resulting in pollution
and depletion of our natural resources.
Delaware / Howell - Development, conflicting use.
Marvland / DiStefano - Nonpoint source associated with development; diseases specific
to shellfish (MSX, Dermo) which have and continue to decimate oyster populations.
Marvland / Outten - Shellfish disease, MSX and Dermo.
Vircinia / Wriaht - MSX, Perkinsus marinus.
Virainia / CarDenter - MSX / Dermo and overharvesting.
North Carolina 1 Gilbert - Overfishing, oyster disease, development.
South Carolina / Burrell - Labor and markets for product (shellfish quality).
Georcia / Williams - Limited areas available for lease.
Florida I Heil - Bacterial loading resulting from septic systems associated with coastal
development.
Alabama / Bvrd. Waller - Weather-related problems.
MississiDoDi I Cirino - Nonpoint rundff that closes conditionally approved areas at low levels
of rainfall (1"-2").
Louisiana / Perret - Habitat degradation brought about by land loss through subsidence,
salt water intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico, and fecal coliform contamination from local
73

inadequate sewerage treatment facilities.
Louisiana I Lyles - Frequent closures caused by pollution.
Texas I Wiles - Excessive variability of the bacteriological criteria.
California I Ha'nsaen - Increasing population/ urbanization.
Washinciton I Lilia - Increased watershed and waterfront development, nonpoint pollution.
Alaska I Ostasz - Unknown paralytic shellfish poison levels in areas unclassified or
Without any previous data on occurrence, distribution and/or seasonal presence. Also
problems with getting permits with multiple state/federal and public input for utilizing
marine waters.
Canada (Pao) I Kooi - Sewage from all sources - municipal outfalls, boats, single home
discharges, faulty septic tanks.
Hawaii / Yuna - Water quality and disease are the major threats to the natural beds. We
have 3 aquaculture shellfish farms at present. Their biggest problem is the high-risk
investment for business.
New Zealand / Busbv - At the moment, there is no major threat (but bonamia has just
struck an oyster growing area from which oysters have never been permitted to be
exported from).
74

What water quality problems are of greatest concern to the shellfish industry in
your state?

Canada (Atfl I Menon - Bacteriological and chemical contamination, point source and non-
point source of pollution, agricultural runoff.
Maine I Foster - Domestic sewage.

Connecticut I Volk - Continued bacteria pollution in some productive shellfish habitats.
Most problems with toxics or industrial pollution have been controlled or eliminated.
Marine biotoxins PSP may be a concern.
Rhode Island I Kovach - Bacterial.
New York I Hastback - Nonpoint source pollution, stormwater drainage discharges and
declining harvests of clams.
New Jersev I Osborn - Nonpoint source discharge directly and indirectly into shellfish
growing areas.
Delaware IHowell - Bacteria.
Marvland /DiStefano - Nonpoint source pollution; elevated fecal coliform associated with
urban/suburban runoff. Fecal coliform levels associated with plowed agricultural land
runoff. Although this does not generally represent a public health risk it does result in
closure of shellfish waters because of FDA's strict adherence to the shellfish water
standard.
Virainia / Wriaht - Nonpoint runoff.
North Carolina /Gilbert - Stormwater runoff.
South Carolina IBurrell - Runoff.
Georcaia I Williams - N/A
Florida I Heil - Bacterial loading from point sources: WVWTPs and marinas. Vibrio
bacteria.
Alabama I Bvrd. Waller - High fecal coliforms.
MiSSiSSiDDi I Cirino - Nonpoint runoff, STP discharges in close proximity to shellfish beds,
industrial and urban development.
Louisiana / Perret - Fecal coliform contamination and possible effects of oilfield wastes.
75

Louisiana / Lvles - Urbanization, human pollution.
Texas / Wiles - Nonpoint runoff from urban, rural and marshy areas.
California / Hanseen - Nonpoint source pollution, including on-site waste disposal (septic
systems), livestock operations, wildlife (sea birds, seals), urban runoff.
Washinaton / Ulia - Nonpoint sources.
Alaska / Ostasz - Anadromous spawning areas attracting large mammal and bird
populations and concentration of fecal coliforms, plus runoff from uninhabited uplands
corntributing fecals via shallow soils, muskeg soils, via wildlife populations.
Canada (Pac) / Kooi - Fecal coliforms, sewage / dioxins.
Hawaii / Yuna - Pollution.
New Zealand / Busby - Runoff from animal farms.
76

Is population growth and development of the coastal areas a problem In your
state? Are there any particular problems associated with this?
Canada (Ati) I Menon - Yes, increases pollution problems, creates potential conflict
among the multi-use of the coastal waters for recreation, fishing, aquaculture and
navigation.
Maine - Foster - Poor soil, high rainfall in spring and fall.
Connecticut I Volk - Yes. Competition by user groups in and out of the water for both
spatce and resources.
Rhode Island I Kovach - Yes and individual sewage from homes.
New York I Hastback - Yes, nonpoint and stormwater discharges.
New Jersev I Osbom - Yes, see above responses.
Delaware I Howell - Yes.
Marvland I DiStefano - It is certainly a concern because of its input to area water quality
due to increased impervious surface and its associated fecal coliform runoff and because
of the loss of land and aquatic habitat. Waste disposal is a major concern associated
with this growth.
Virainia / Wriaht - Yes, as coastal areas are developed, water quality deteriorates.
North Carolina I Gilbert - Yes, increased runoff, increase in pollution sources, destruction
of nursery areas.
South Carolina I Burrell - Yes, retirement homes are located on water many times.

Geornia I Williams - No.
Florida I Heil - Yes, rapid growth in coa-stal areas.

Alabama I Byrd. Waller - Yes, sewage disposal.
Mississior)i I Cirino - Yes, increased fepal coliform loading in the watershed.
Louisiana I Perret - No, nonpoint source and destruction of habitat.
Louisiana I Lvles - Yes.
Texas I Wiles - Any increase in coasto.1 populations has increased fecal loadings.
77

Califomia I Hansaen - Yes, increases nonpoint source pollution as well as places
increased demands on wastewater treatment plants and needs for plant expansions.
Washinaton / Lilia - Yes, as areas are developed, adverse water quality impacts occur.
Alaska / Ostasz - No, majority if not all shellfish areas are remote from major population
centers. upland ownership by the state, U.S. gov't and native corporations limit
unchecked growth.
Canada (Pac) / Kooi - No.
Hawaii / Yuno - Yes. With the population growth and development, the natural ground-
covering is ever-decreasing. After large rainfalls, we are seeing more and more run-off
and sediments flowing directly into the ocean.
New Zealand / Busbv - It is a potential problem but NZ laws provide sufficient control.
78

Appendix 4.
Attendees at the SENTAF Workshop, "Options for the Future", 16 July
Virainia Marine Resources Commission
David Boyd
Jack Travelstead
Larry McBride
S. M. 'Mac' Rogers

Vircinia Div. of Soil & Water Conservation
Moira Croghan

Christooher Newoort Colleae
George Webb

Hampton Roads Plannina District Commission
John Carlock

Chesaoeake Bav Foundation
Jolene Chinchilli
Virainia Deot. of Health
Eric Bartsch
James White
Robert Whittman
Mary Wright

Council on the Environment
Stephen Laughlin

Virainia Institute of Marine Science
Roger Mann
William Hargis

Virainia Seafood Council
Francis Porter

Seafood Extension Aaent
Richard Daiger
Shellfish Planters/Processors/Dealers
Chad Ballard
George DeMarco
Wade Walker
79

Appendix
5
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE MANAGEMENT
OF SHELLFISH AND WATER QUALITY IN VIRGINIA

PREFACE
A fundamental problem is that the Commonwealth's waters are
used for
many conflicting purposes. Wastewater disposal and shipping, for
example, typically result in the closing of some shellfish beds.
With
better management of the state's marine resources and water
quality, it
might be possible to reduce these use conflicts.
Before we can determine if we can manage our resources
better, we
must first examine how we do things now. The purpose of the
present
document is to describe the ro les of the various state agencies
in
Virginia as they work to maintain clean waters and to protect the
marine
resources of the Commonwealth.

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT i WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

Virginia State Water Control Board
The State Water Control Board is the lead agency in Virginia
for
water quality management and water pollution control. Although it
is an
oversimplification, one could say that the Water Co.ntrol Board
regulates
all "point sources" of pollution and is involved with reducing
"non-
point sources" of pollution as well. The former is achieved
through-
(1) standards set by the SWCB, and
(2) permits to pollutant dischargers, isisued through the
Virginia
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES), a program
delegated to the state by the U.S. Environmental
Protection
Agency (EPA).
Water quality standards are established by the SWCB,
following the
Administrative Proceses Act, thus ensuringcpublic notice of
changes or
additions to existing standards. These include bacteriological
standards for shellfish growing waters and maximum acceptable
concentrations of metals, pesticides, and other pollutants.
Discharge permits are required for all individuals,
corporations, or
governing bodies that discharge wastewaters. Even operations
which do
not have any discharges to state waters during normal operations,
but
have the potential to cause water quality problems, must obtain a
Virginia Pollution Abatement (VPA) permit, formerly called a "No
Discharge" permit.
80

Discharge permits spec ify the quantity and quality of the
flow,
including the total mass of a pollutant that can be discharged
during a
specified period. Permits typically include requirements for the
frequency of monitoring and how that monitoring should be
achieved. The
dischargers have the burden of not only conducting the monitoring
but
reporting the results to the state in a timely fashion.
Violations of
permit limits and state procedures result in the issuance of
"Notices of
Violations", and in extreme cases these result in fines. A number
of
other state and federal agencies are involved in the issuance and
renewal of VPDES permits. The Health Dept (DSS)-, VIMS and VMRC
are
frequent participants.
Municipal facilities to treat wastewaters are subject to a
design
review by the State Water Control Board and the State Health
Department
prior to construction of a new facility or modification to an
existing
facility. The SWCB also inspects the facilities periodically to
ensure
proper procedures are being followed. STP's can gave a
significant
effect on both shellfish and the ability to harvest shellfish.
The
direct impacts an shellfish relate to chlorination, while the
harvest
restrictions arise from the potential for water quality
degradation.
Historically, great public health improvements have resulted
from
the chlorination of domestic sewage.' Given the limited treatment
most
of these wastewaters received up until the mid 1970's, there was
a bias
towards over-chlorination in order to ensure that disinfection
occurred
reliably. One result of the more advanced treatment that is
commnon
today (and of increased environmental awareness) is the
realization that
at times chlorine discharges were sufficient to harm marine
organisms,
especially at critical life stages.
Considerable amounts of money have been allocated by the
General
Assembly to aid localities to either use an alternate
disinfection
technology or to dechlorinate the effluent. The goal of these
efforts
is to provide sufficient disinfection to protect public health
while
also protecting ecological health. Fears that reduced
chlorination
would result in increased levels of indicator organisms in the
water
column have not been found in practice. The amount of chlorine
released
to the marine environment has greatly decreased over the last
decade.
The Water Control Board routinely monitors the quality of the
states
waters, and in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey also
monitors
stream and river flows. Water quality monitoring allows the SWCB
to (1)
identify situations where discharges are having a significant
impact,
possibly due to inapprogriate releases or excess discharges, and
(2) to
assess the success of the pollution control programs.
The SWCB oversees groundwater resources and regulates some
with-
drawals. Withdrawals from streams and rivers also fall under the
SWCB's
purview. Although water withdrawal does not directly affect
shellfish
growing areas, secondary effects are possible. For example,
withdrawals
reduce the amount of freshwater reaching the estuary, ana lower
river
flows could mean higher pollutant concentrations.
The relationships between the water quality programs and
shellfish
are summarized in "State Water Control Board's Role in
Virginia's
Shellfish Sanitation Control Program" (Info. Bulletin 544,
August 1980).
8
1

Division of Sail and Vater
Conservation
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of
Soil and
Water Conservation (DSWC) is the designated lead state agency for
implementation of the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management
Program. An element of this management program is the federally
funded
nonpoint source implementation program that is managed by the
Division.
It supports a base program as well as demonstration, monitoring,
and
educational projects. The Division coordinates the program
implementation activities with the cooperation of individual
agencies
and organizations. The Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee
provides a
forum for information exchange among agencies participating in
the
implementation program. The management program contains a mix of
voluntary and regul1atory programs to address nonpoint source
pollution.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation participates in
the
review process for application to dredge, fill, or otherwise
alter the
state's streams, rivers, and wetlands.
The Division operates an agr,icultural cost-share program to
support
the implemnentation of Best Management Practices on Virginia
farms. A
nutrient management program also has been initiated to work with
farmers
to ensure that the proper use and application of chemical and
animal
source fertilizers. Urban nonpoint source pollution is addressed
through assistance to local erosion and sediment control
programs and
stormwater management programs. The Division's Shoreline Bureau
assists
shoreline landowners in erosion control, along with sponsoring
cooperative research and assessment projects to further
categorize
shoreline erosion.

State Department of Health
On-site sewage disposal, often septic tanks and subsurface
drainfields but sometimes privies, is regulated by the Health
Department, via local sanitarians. When systems fail, the local
health
department also has responsibility to see that corrections are
made or
that use of the facilities is prohibited. In areas adjacent to
shellfish waters, the Division of Shellfish Sanitation makes on-
site
inspections of all properties near the shoreline once every few
years.
The results of these surveys are reported to the local
sanitarians, who
then work to see that problems are corrected.

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board
The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board (CBLAB) oversees
the
implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. This
relatively
new legislation requires localities to consider the ways that
land use
impacts nearby waters. CBLAB has disseminated the general
requirements
for compliance with the Act, and local governments are
developing
approaches to zoning and land use planning to comply.
82

Virginia Institute of Marine Scienc'e
(VII4S)
VIMS conducts some water quality monitoring for the Water
Control
Board, conducts research in water quality processes, and develops
and
applies mathematical models of estuarine circulation and water
quality.
VINS advises the SWCB, VMRC, and other state agencies on matters
relating to the coastal zone, including review of applications
for
wetlands permits.

SHELLFISH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Virginia Department of Health
The Virginia Department of Health has the mandate to protect
the
public health. The Division of Shellfish Sanitation achieves this
by
regulating the harvest of shellfish and by inspection of
shellfish
processing operations. Because shellfish concentrate pollutants
to
levels much higher than those observed in the water, water
quality
standards for shellfish waters are very high. Harvest of
shellfish from
grossly polluted areas is not permitted any time. Similarly,
there is a
permanently condemned area around each outfall from municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Shellfish from
moderately
polluted areas may be harvested if they are then cleansed, either
by
relaying to clean areas or by treatment in a controlled
environment
(this is called a depuration plant). The procedures defining
these
three types of waters (open, closed, and condemned) are
formulated by
the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, a group that
includes
both state and federal regulatory alencies. The procedures then
are
incorporated into the National Shellfish Sanitation Program,
which is
run by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
The facilities in which seafood is processed are inspected
regularly. Interstate transport of seafood is not permitted
unless the
facility has been certified by the State Health Department.

Virginia Narine Resources Caiiission
The Virginia Marine Resources Commnission is the lead agency
for
shellfish resources. It accomplishes its mission through (1)
fisheries
management, (2) habitat protection, and (3) law enforcement.
VMRC in most cases sets the time and size of the harvest for
each
major species and issues licenses. The nature of the harvest
regulations varies from species to species, with elements of the
regulations incorporated into the enabling legislation in some
instances. For example, only certain types of gear are permitted
for
the harvest of oysters and clams.
83

Shellfish may be harvested from "public bottoms", most of
which are
included in the so-calleo Baylor Grounds. VMRC issues the leases
which
allow a citizen or corporation to engage in shellfish culture on
a
specified portion of river bottom. None of these leases may be
granted
within Baylor Grounds. Information on leases, shorelines, bottom
sediments, and other factors is being entered into geographical
information systemns (GIS's), with the Council on the Environ-
ment
coordinating the efforts.
Modifications to state river bottoms require a permit; VMRC
is the
lead agency for the state. The modifications include dredging,
filling
in of wetlands, placement of piles for docks, and "hardening" of
the
shoreline. VMRC oversees the efforts of 32 local wetlands boards.
The
Health Dept (055), SWCB, and VIMS, also particpate in the
process.
VMRC also is the lead agency for replenishment activities,
such as
placing shell to provide cul1tch for oysters. In recent years,
aquatic
biologists have begun to specify water quality criteria that
should
enhance the growth and survival of either the marine organisms or
the
plants they depend on. In particular, water quality needs for the
propagation of submerged aquatic vegetation are receiving
attention.and
will provide goals for the water quality managers.
VMRC Marine Patrol Officers monitor fishing activities to
ensure
compliance withcregulations. In addition, they oversee the
harvest of
shellfish from closed areas. Shell stock from these areas-may be
moved,
or relayed, to clean waters or may be transported to an approved
depuration facility. Relayed shellfish must remain in the clean
waters
for a specifed period, with the duration longer during cool
weather. At
present there are no facilities in Virginia for the controlled
cleansing, or depuration, of shellfish, although several other
states
have plants, especially for clams.

Virginia Sea Grant Program (VINS and VPI&SU)
The federal government has established the Sea Grant program
to
foster the marine segment of our economy. The Virginia sea Grant
program has an active Marine Advisory Program that involves
faculty and
staff from Virginia Tech (VPI&SUJ) and the Virginia Institute of
Marine
Science, a branch of the College of William & Mary. Scientists
from
these institutions and other universities also conduct research
on
shellfish, some funded by Sea Grant but most funded by other
agencies.
VIMS monitors the extent and severity of disease infestation in
oysters,
the success of each year's spatfall, and has had a program in
hatchery
culture of bivalves for many years.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (College of kW & M4ary)
VIMS scientists conduct research in many areas such as:
physiology
of oysters, life cycle of oyster diseases, nutritional needs,
mechanisms
and rates of pollutant accumul4tion. The institute has had a
program in
bivalve culture for many years. A large hatchery at Gloucester
Point
provides oyster "seed" to planters.
84

Appendix 6. ESTIMATED BUSHELS OF OYSTERS IN POLLUTED WATERS

October 8, 1991

POLLUTED ABRA BUSHELS

Assawoman Creek... ... ........4,000

Parker Creek ........ .. ............... ...2,000

Gargathy Creek .......................... 5,000

Folly Creek ... ...... ...................7,000

Partin Creek ........................... 15,000

Oyster Harbor ...... ..... ............4,000

Magothy Bay ... ............. 0 ............ 1,000

Jackson Creek ............................. 200

Bonum Creek ............................... 300

Yeocomico River ............................ 10

Dividing Creek ............................300

Indian Creek ...... . ........................450

Carter Creek . . ............................250

Chuckatuck Creek ....................... .10,000

Nansemond River and Tributaries .......100,000

Pagan River ............................25,000

Ballard Marsh Creek ....................15,000

Lynnhaven ............................... 1,000

Lynnhaven (Clams - 1 Million)

James River - Deep Shoals ............10,000

Warwick River .........................200,000?

Back River, S.W. Branch ................12,000

Back River, N.W. Branch .....,.....300

Harris Creek . .............. .........50

ESTIMATED BUSHELS OF OYSTERS CON'T 2 October 8, 1991

POLLUTED AReA BUSHELS

Mill Creek ................................ 100

Poquoson River ......................... ......50

Chisman Creek .............................150

Cabin Creek ...............................100

Bennett Creek .................... 50

Back Creek ................................150

York River ............ ..................5,000

Ware Creek... .... . ............................600

Skimino Creek .............................400

Queen Creek ...............................500

Jones Creek ............ .................. 50

Poropotank Creek ................ ..........150

Chincoteague Area & Chincoteague Bay Area

Swan Cut Creek ......... .. ....................3,000

Mosquito Creek ............... ...........5,000

Assawoman, Hog, & Little Cat Creek .....10,000

Wishart Point ...............................6,000

Chincoteague Island - Adjacent .........20,000

Cape Charles to Onancock Creek

Plantation Creek ............................. 2,000

Kings Creek ....... ............................ 500

Cherrystone Creek . . ..................... 2,000

Hungars Creek . . .............. ...........5,000

Westerhouse Creek ........................500

Church Creek ... ...........................500

Warehouse Creek ........... . ....... . 200

Nassawadox Creek ....................... 2,000
86

ESTIMATED BUSHELS OF OYSTERS CON'T 3 October 8, 1991

POLLUTED AREA BUSHELS

Mattawoman Creek ............... .........1,000

Jacobus Creek ..........................1,000

Occohannock Creek ......... ..............1,000

Craddock Creek .. .......................500

Pungoteague Creek ..... ............... .. 5,000

Nandua Creek ......................4,000

Onancock Creek .......................... 5,000

The Gulf ........................ .2,000

Pocomoke Sound - Area 33................50,000
(Ftshesu Seafood GCo 35,000)

Messongo Creek - Area 167 ...............1,000

Hunting Creek - Area 138 ..................500

Deep Creek ........................... .... 500

Chesconessex Creek - Area 112 ...............0

Total Bushels ............................548,360

Compiled By G. W. Showalter
87

Appendix 7
EASTERN REGION
VIRGIII1 DEPARIKENT OF HEALTH
OFFICE 0F COIKOIITY HEALTH SERVICES
ESTIKATED ANNUAL COST FOR A LORG RARGE
PROGRAIK TO ASSIST LOW ICOKE FAKILIES
WITH FAILING SEPTIC SYSTENS

SURVEYI LOCATION HEALTH ESTIKATED
AREA DISTRICT ANNUAL COST

1A UPPER KACHODOC CREEK KIIG GEO .00
1 ROSIER CREEK KING GBO 3600.60

DISTRICT TOTAL 3609.00

1 ROSIER CREEK 10. NECK
11340.00
2 IKOROE BAY: KOIROE AID KATTOI CREEKS gO. NECK 76050.00
3 POTOKAC RIVER: KATTOI CREEIK TO CURRIOKAN BAYI NO. RECK 8016.00
4 NOKIII AID CURRIOKAl BAYS NO. NECK 67895.00
5 LOWER KACHODOC CREEK NO. NECK 26352.00
6 GARDNER, JACKSOn AND BOIUK CREEKS DO. IECK 35910.00
7 YEOCOKICO RIVER 10. NECK 49302.00
B COAI RIVER, THE GLEBE AN10D KINGSCOTE CREEK NO. IECK 27918.00
9 POTOKAC RIVER, COAl RIVER TO GINTY BEACH N10. REC 15948.00
19 LITTLE VICOKICO RIVER NO. NECK 20304 00
11 GASKINS AND OWElS PONDS AND TASKKERS CREEK NO. IECK 12276.00
12 COCKRELL CREEK NO. IECK 6084.00
13 GREAT IICOKICO RIVER NO. IECI 38286.00
14 CHESAPEAKE BAY: KILL CREEK TO DIVIDIRG CREEK NO. NECK 2754900
15 DIVIDING CREEK NO. NECK 2529.6
16 INDIAN, DYKiR AlD TABBS CREEKS 10. NIECK 16776.00
17 LITTLE BAY AND ANTIPOISON CREEK NO. NECK 5436.00
18 OYSTER, LITTLE OYSTER, WIIIDILL POINT AID KOSQUITO CREEKS NO. NECK
4158.00
19 RAPPAHANNROCK RIVERt KOSQUITO CREEK TO CARTER CREEK N10. NEC 2241.00
20 CARTER CREEK NO. NECK 10008.00
21 COROTOKAN RIVER RO, lECK 85104.06
22 RAPPAHANNOCK RIVERt FOWLES POINT TO DEEP CREEK NO. NECK 9168.00
23 LANCASTER, DEEP AND KULBERRY CREEKS 10N. NEC 18009.00
24 FARIHAK CREEK NO. NECK 35568.00
25 TOTUSIEY AND RICHARDSON CREEKS NO. RECK 52884.00
25A RAPPAHAINNOCK RIVER: TOTOSKEY CREEK TO
TAPPAHARNOCE BRIDGE 10N. NECK 4878.00
25B RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER: TAPPARlANOCK BRIDGE TO
CARTERS WHARF 10. RECK 2979.00

DISTRICT TOTAL 647307.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26B RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER: KT. LANDING AND
OCCIIPACIA CREEKS KID PEN 63000.00
26A RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, WARES WHARF TO
TAPPAHANNOCK BRIDGE KID PEN 24000.00
26 RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER: WARES WHARF TO MUD CREEIK KID PE 24600.00
27 RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER: XUD AND PARROTTS CREEKS iv KID PEN .00
88

PAGE 2 of 4

SURVEY LOCATION HALkTH ESTIMATED
ARE A DISTRICT AXNUAL COST
28 LAGRANGE AND ROBINSON CREEKS
29 URBAHAI CREEK
30 WHITING AND XEACHIN CRIESI
31 LOCKLIES AID KILL CREEKS
32 BUSH PARK LED SIURGEON CREEKS
33 JACKSON AID BROAD CRIEKS
34 PIANKITANX RIVER, LOWER
35 PlIANKATAN RIVER, UPPIR
36 GWYNI ISLAND
37 STUTTS. QUSEES AND WHITES CREEKS
38 WINTER EARBOR AND GARDEN CREEK
39 DORI HARBOR AND DYER CREEK
40 MODJACK BAY: NEW POINT COHIORT TO EAST RIVER
41 IASI RIVER
42 NORTH RIVER
43 VARE RIVER
Al SEVERN RIVER
45 BROWNS BAY END MONDAY CREEK
16 SARAH CREEK AND PERRIN RIVER
47A YORK RIVER: GLOUCESTER POINT TO CEDARBUSH CREEK
liD YORK RIVERt CARTER CREEK TO ALLKONDSVILLI
43 YORK RIVERt POROPOTANK AND PURITAN BAYS
49 YORK RIVER: VEST POINY VICINITY
MID ?EN 8466.00
KID PEN 666.66
KID PEN .66
KID PER 606.66
KID PEN .60
KID PER .66
KID ?El 1806.fo
KID PEN 22806.06
KID PRO 6666.60
KID ?EN 18666.66
KID PEN 16266.60
KID PEN 44400.60
KID PE 5666.60
KID PEN 24606.66
KID ?EN 18006.06
KID PEN 14606.60
KID PEN 12606.66
KID PEE 19260.00
KID Fix 16000.60
KID FEE 5466.00
KID ?EN 3660.00
KID ?EN 96006.66
KID PEN 5666.06
DISTRICT TOTAL
---�------- --- ------- ---- ----- - --- -
St YORK RIVER1 CAMP PER!R TO TERRAPIN POINT
51 YORK RIVER: CAMP PEARY TO YORKTOWN
52 YORK RIVER: YORKTOWN TO GOODWIN ISLANDS
53 POQUOSON RIVER AND HACK CRIEE
54 BACK RIVER
55 CIESAPEAKE BAY; BACK RIVER TO OLD POINT COMFORT
56 HAKPTON ROADS: OLD POINT COMFORT YO NEWPORT NEWS
POINT
51 JAKES RIVER: 1EWPORT ISIS POINT TO DEEP CRESEK
58 VARVICK RIVER AND DEEP CREEK
59 JAXIS RIVER: MULBERRY POINT TO JAKESTOWN ISLAND
PERINSUL
A
PENINSUL
A
PENINSUL
A
PENINSUL
A
PENIINSL
A
PEINlSUL
A
PENINSUL
A
lENINSUL
A
PENINSUL
A
PENINSU
LA
6666
.66
4066.6
6f
logo.66f
6006.0
6f
4666.6
6
I.
00
.6
6
.6
0
.6
0
.6
0

24(goo.
66e
DISTRICT
TOTAL
54
55
56
BACK RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY: BACK RIVER TO OLD POI.NT COKFORT
HAKPTON ROADS: OLD POINT COKPORT TO NEWPORT ISIS
POINT
HAMP
TON
DAUMTO
RAKP
TON
.6
0
.6
0
.6
6

.6
0
DISTRICT
TOTAL
66l COBBAK BAY AND LAWNES
CREEK
BURR
Y
10606.
06
60 COEHAK BAY AND LAWNES
CREEK
61 PAGAN RIVER
62 CHUCKATUCK CRE-EK
WEST
TIDE
WEST
TIDE
WEST
TIDE
1
266.66
o
54too.
60
3
360.60
0
89

PAG 30of 4
LOCTIfO
N
HEATH ESTIKATED
DISTRICT ANNUAL COST

list TIDE 7896.06
VEST TIDE 510.00
SURVE
Y
ARE&
63 RANSEMORD RIVER
64 HAKPT01 ROADS: NANSEHOID RIVIR TO ELIZABETH
RIVIR
is84
20.60
DISTRICT TOTAL

* 65 ELIZABIET RIVER
PORTSN1
TH
.6
0
NORIOL
K
NORFOL
K
NORIOL
K
NORFOL
K
*
so
.00
.0
0
*
00

*
00
65 ELIZABETH
RIVER
66 HAMPTON
ROADS:
61 HAKPTON ROAD:
68 LITTLE CREEK

DISTRICT TOTAL
TANNER POINT To WILLOUGHBY
SPIT
OCEAN VIlv TO WILLOUGHBY
VA
BRACH
VA
BEACH
VA
BEACH
VA
BEACH
VA
BiesC
VI
BEACH
so LITTLE CREEK
69 CHESAPEAKE BAY: LITTLE CRIEE TO LYINHAVENBA
70 LYgIHAVEN BAY
71 BROAD AID LINIHORN BAS
72 CAPE HENRY
73 VIRGINIA BEACH

DISTRICT TOTAL
-- - - - -�---- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
74 SMITH AID FOX ISLANDS
75 POCOKOKE SOUND
76 KESSONGO AID GUILFORD CREEKS
77 HUNTING AND DES? CREEKS
78 TANGIER, GOOSE. AND WATTS ISLANDS
79 CHESECONESSEI CREEK
86 OMACOCK AND MATCHOTANK CREEKS
81 PUNGOTEAGUE CREEK
~82 NANBUA AND CURRATUCK CREEKS
83 CRADDOCX CREEK
84 OCCOHANNOCK CRIEE
85 NASSAYADOX CREEK
86 HUNGARS AID KATTAYONAN CREEKS
87 Tag GULF
88 CHERRYSTONE INLET
89 CAPE CHARLES
90 OLD PLATATION IND ELLIOTS CREEK
91 CHESAPEAKE DAY: ELLIOTS CREEK TO CAPE CHARLS POINT
92 FISHERKAN ISLAND
93 SEASIDE: CAPE CHARLES ?OIRT TO SEAVISM
94 SEASIDE: SEAVIEW TO EASTVILLE STATION
95 SEASIDE: EASTVILLE STATION TO NASSAVADOX
96 KACHIPONGO RIVER
97 SEASIDE: FINREY AN FOLLY CREEKS
9 8 SENSIDS: KETOKKIN, GARGATHY, AND KEGOTAN BAY
99 T SIDE: BOGUES A No SHELLY BAYS
188 C iNCOTEGiUE BAY
*
00

00
.6
6
.0
6
.5
0
. of
.6
0
I.
SHORE
I.
SHORE
a.
SHORE
E.
SHORE
I.
SHORE
I.
SHfOR
I.
SHORN
EI
SHORE
I.
SHORE
N.'
SHORS
EI
SHORE
I.
SHORE
K.
SHORE
,E.
SHORE
I.
SHORS
I.
SHORE
EI
SHORE
I.
SHORE
I.
SHORE
I.
SHORE
I.
SHORE
K.
SHORE
E.SHOR
E
E.SHOR
E
E.SHOR
E
K.SHOR
E
E.SHOR
E
.66
6000.6
0
500oo.
06
3060.
00
1200.6
0o

1660.0
6o
3
560.6l
e
2506.6
6

3500.6
.00
3506.0
0o
2000.0
0t

1000.6
6o

3000.0
0
90

PAGE 4 OF 4

SURVEY LOCATIOI
AREA

101 CHIRCOTEAGUE AID ASSATEAGUE ISLAID
HEALTH ESTIKATED
DISTRICT AhIUAL COST

K. SHORE 4000.00
DISTRICT TOTAL
76400.00
..- - - --- - -------------------------- --- I-------------
.EAST REGIO1 TOTAL
IIIG GEO & SURRY
------------ ---------------- -----------------
1122127.00
13600.06
----- ----- ----- ----- ---.
STATE
TOTAL
1135127.00
NOT
S:
Since the needs vill not be uniform frot year to year,
it is important
that we be able to carry the funds over frot one year to t4e
next,
Restrictions on use of funds lust be avoided. Kany of our toughest financial
hardship
cases are unable to meet restrictions like requiring indoor plumbing due to
soil limitations. For example, sometimes only a vault privy is possible.
funding should not be limited to owner-occupied property -- some landlords
are
low-income individuals. Limits on cost for an individual correction should
be
avoided -- if soil conditions dictate, an elevated sand mound or other
engineered
system may be required and if the only suitable soil is on non-adjacent
property,
cost may exceed $15,08o.00 for one correction.

Estimated Annual Cost for each shellfish survey area was determined as
follows:
a. The average cost of correcting a septic system in the specific area was
estimated.
This cost is different for different districts and was determined
from actual field experience by the local environmental health staff in
each area.
B. The number of failing or inadequate septic systems in the specific
area vas determined
frot door-to-door shoreline surveys coaducted approximately every five
years by the
Division of Shellfish Sanitation. This number was divided by 5 to get
the annual number.
C. Trends in development and system failures in the specific area were
applied to determine
the projected number of failing or inadequate septic systems for that
specific area.
D. The percentage of failing or inadequate sewage systems owned by low
income families
was determined by local census data and field experience of the local
environmental
health staff in obtaining corrections to the systems.
1. (Average repair cost) I (lumber of failing or inadequate systems per
5-year survey cycle)
I (% Low Income) / (5 Years) = Estiaated Annual Cost

Prepared by;

Paul H. Sandman, R.S.
Deputy Regional Sanitarian
(804)363-3874
10117191
91